Texas lawyer, Netflix lose defamation appeal concerning multimillionaire's court-appointed guardianship

by Juliette Fairley

Netflix and the Bexar County attorney who were sued for defamation over an episodic called Dirty Money featuring the court-appointed guardianship of an elderly Texas multimillionaire have lost their first appeal.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio issued their opinion on Aug. 31 in favor of Tonya Barina who sued attorney Phil Ross, his paralegal Jo Anne Rivera and Netflix alleging they participated in a conspiracy that destroyed her name and reputation pertaining to Bexar County probate court proceedings of 83-year-old Charles Thrash.

“Media outlets that accurately report allegations made by a third party about matters of public concern can assert the truth as a defense,” wrote Appellate Judge Patricia Alvarez in the opinion. “However, media outlets must be careful not to accuse, malign or take the extra step of implying an accusation that forfeits the substantial truth defense.”

The Guardians Inc. episode about Thrash aired on March 11, 2020, but has since been removed from Netflix menu offerings.

“Because the media appellants [Netflix] have not established that they are entitled to dismissal through any affirmative defense, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying their [Texas Citizens Participation Act] TCPA motion to dismiss accordingly,” Alvarez stated. “We affirm.”

Appellate justices Beth Watkins and Irene Rios concurred.

As previously reported in Southeast Texas Record, Thrash was worth some $3 million after owning an automotive shop on West Avenue in San Antonio for 50 years and had been in the news for marrying his divorcee girlfriend, Laura A Martinez, without his court-appointed guardian’s permission.

"There is no actual evidence of Barina committing wrongdoing,” Alvarez further stated. “Therefore, if the gist of the show unfairly defames her, the immediate appellants cannot avail themselves of the Fair Comment privilege to obtain dismissal of appellee’s defamation suit.”

In the defamation lawsuit against Netflix and Ross filed in Bexar County's 285th Judicial District, Barina also named Martinez and her adult children from a previous marriage: Brittany A. Martinez, Jose H. Martinez, and Michelle C. Martinez as defendants along with director Alex Gibney and Gibney’s Jigsaw Productions.

Gibney is one of America's most successful and prolific documentary filmmakers, according to the New York Times.

“In the episode, Ross, Laura, and Brittany present Thrash’s plight impugning his guardian,” Alvarez wrote. “Ross sits behind his desk and states confidently that Thrash has been exploited through his guardianship. His statement is featured and never challenged throughout the course of the documentary.”

Barina’s original complaint stated that nearly a year before the episode aired in May 2019, Attorney Ross and Laura Martinez were sanctioned by the Bexar County Probate Court in the sum of $222,974 for allegedly conspiring to fleece the Thrash estate.

Ross is reportedly subject to disciplinary proceedings.

“The trial court had found Ross, Laura, and Brittany not to be credible and the media appellants had been made aware of this finding,” Alvarez concluded.

Now that the appellate court has ruled on their appeal, Netflix is free to file a Petition for Review with the Texas Supreme Court.

Full Article & Source:

Texas lawyer, Netflix lose defamation appeal concerning multimillionaire's court-appointed guardianship

Lawyer and Netflix on Hot Seat Over Documentary on Court-Appointed Guardian

By Adolfo Pesquera

Netflix Inc. failed to obtain a lawsuit dismissal on appeal in Texas concerning a defamation suit that arose from a documentary on guardianship abuse of an infirmed millionaire.

The plaintiff also sued renowned documentarian Alex Gibney, his company New York-based Jigsaw Productions, San Antonio probate attorney Philip Ross and others associated with a Dirty Money episode titled “Guardian Inc.”

In 2017, guardianship proceedings began for Charles Thrash, a successful businessman who at 79 was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In 2018, Thrash’s great-niece, Tonya Barina, became guardian of his estate.

Thrash’s girlfriend, Laura Martinez, and her adult daughter contested guardianship with the help of their attorney, Ross.

Gibney and his associates, as part of their “Dirty Money” series for Netflix, prepared a documentary on the Thrash case. After it aired March 11, 2020, Barina became the target of hundreds of threats. She sued for defamation, and a Bexar County court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Justice Patricia O’Connell Alvarez delivered the opinion on the defendants’ appeal. A three-judge panel concluded the episode maligns Barina as a guardian by leading viewers to believe she took advantage of a elderly but capable millionaire, wrongly sold his assets, and used his estate for personal gain.

“The official proceedings for Thrash’s guardianship do not support these conclusions,” Alvarez stated.

Netflix, the production companies and their associated defendants raised three defenses. They claimed statements in “Guardians Inc.” are protected as fair comment; that any comment related to probate court proceedings are protected under official proceedings privilege; and that they cannot be held liable for third party allegations—a reference to statements made by the Martinezes and their attorney.

In her analysis, Alvarez reasoned that the gist of the documentary portrayed Barina as an exploitative guardian. She noted how the thesis was guardianship abuse as a crime and an epidemic, that statements made by Barina’s accusers were portrayed in a more favorable light versus statements by Barina, and evidence supporting her and disadvantageous to her accusers was omitted.

For example, Laura Martinez arranged a sham marriage to Thrash after he was mentally incompetent and then Ross signed papers on Thrash’s behalf to have Martinez’s adult children adopted by Thrash, the opinion states.

Also, the trial court ordered that Ross and his clients reimburse Barina’s attorney fees that were related to sanctions they incurred from lying to the court about the sham marriage, in violation of a court order.

Referring to the fair comment defense, Alvarez said this ignores the crux of Barina’s claim.

“There is no actual evidence of Barina committing wrongdoing. Therefore, if the gist of the show unfairly defames her, the Media Appellants cannot avail themselves of the fair comment privilege,” the opinion states.

As to the official proceedings defense, Alvarez wrote, “An accurate portrayal of Thrash’s case in the probate court would not lead a reasonable viewer to conclude that she should be accused of exploitation.”

On the third party allegations defense, Alvarez emphasized how “Guardians Inc.” places Ross and the Martinezes in charge of Thrash’s story. The third party rule requires a media outlet not take the additional step of adopting or endorsing the allegations.

The episode edits their accounts together with statements that suggest their accusations of exploitation have been confirmed, Alvarez noted.

“‘Guardians, Inc.’ takes that one step further, and this adoption of the allegations disqualifies the Media Appellants from relying on the third party allegation rule as a defense,” Alvarez states.

Carl J. Kolb of Austin and Glenn Deadman of San Antonio represent Barina.

Rachel F. Strom and Katherine M. Bolger of Davis Wright Tremaine in New York and Laura Lee Prather of Haynes and Boone in Austin represent Netflix and the other defendants.

Full Article & Source:

Lawyer and Netflix on Hot Seat Over Documentary on Court-Appointed Guardian

Netflix Must Face Defamation Suit Over ‘Dirty Money’ Episode

by Janet Miranda

• Elderly millionaire’s guardian portrayed as exploitative
• Third-party allegation rule doesn’t save Netflix

Netflix Inc. and others lost their bid to escape a defamation lawsuit over a “Dirty Money” episode, when a Texas appeals court said Wednesday the show misrepresented the facts of a businessman’s guardianship when presenting it as abusive.

“Dirty Money” is an investigative series that bills itself as exposing greed and corruption. Tonya Barina is the great-niece and guardian of Charles Thrash, a millionaire who made his money from an automotive repair business. Barina sued Netflix claiming the gist of the episode “Guardians, Inc.,” which aired in March 2020, defamed her.

The 79-year-old Thrash was presented in the episode as being capable of taking care of himself, with the help of his girlfriend, Laura Martinez. However, court records indicate Thrash suffers from Alzheimer’s disease that leaves him “totally incapacitated” and unable to enter into a contract or marry, the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals said.

During the episode Martinez, who is erroneously referred as his common law wife, and others speak for Thrash, the appeals court said. However, the defendants were aware that these speakers were found not to be credible by the trial court in Thrash’s guardianship case, it added.

The episode uses its score and dramatic animations to indicate that guardianship abuse is an epidemic that must be exposed, the court said. Barina’s interview is presented differently than others by zooming in on her hands and feet to show her fidgeting, and cutting away to highlighted documents or statistics to suggest inconsistency.

An ordinary viewer would reasonably conclude that Barina is meant to be portrayed as an exploitative guardian who sold Thrash’s assets as his family and friends tried to stop her, Justice Patricia O’Connell Alvarez wrote.

Nexflix contended that they can’t be held liable simply for reporting the accusations made by Philip Ross, Martinez’s lawyer. But the third-party allegation rule requires a media outlet not take the additional step of adopting or endorsing the allegations, the court said.

The trial court therefore didn’t err in denying Netflix’s motion to dismiss, the San Antonio appellate court said.

Justices Irene Rios and Beth Watkins joined the opinion.

Haynes & Boone LLP represented Netflix, Jigsaw Productions LLC, Muddy Water Productions LLC, Martinez, Ross, and the other defendants. Glenn Deadman of San Antonio and Carl J. Kolb of Austin represented Barina.

The case is Netflix Inc. v. Barina, Tex. App., 4th Dist., No. 04-21-00327-CV, 8/31/22.

Full Article & Source:
Netflix Must Face Defamation Suit Over ‘Dirty Money’ Episode

Defamation suit over allegations of elder abuse in Aiken has been settled

by Matthew Christian

Aug. 26—Aiken businessman Cody Anderson's lawsuit against another funeral home owner is over.

John Harte, Anderson's attorney, and Jeffrey Kull, attorney for Ed Hatcher and the Hatcher Funeral Home, jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal on Aug. 12.

In the stipulation, Harte and Kull say the suit should be dismissed with prejudice meaning Anderson can't sue Hatcher again over the claims made in the suit.

Harte said Friday afternoon that the suit had been settled. He added he could not speak about the specifics of the settlement but added amends were made.

He said he was well-pleased with the settlement as Anderson's attorney and that it spoke well of both men.

Anderson sued Hatcher on April 5 over Facebook posts Hatcher allegedly made regarding allegations made in another lawsuit that Anderson used undue influence to get an elderly woman, Mary Margaret Wenzel Crandall, who had been diagnosed with dementia in 2018 to sign a will in 2020.

Crandall died in early January and a battle began between Anderson, who was named as executor in the 2020 will, and Thomas Bateman, who stood to inherit under the 2020 will, and Wanda Scott, Crandall's accountant, and Ray Massey, her attorney, over what will should be used to distribute the assets valued at over $8 million in her estate.

Scott and Massey filed paperwork in late January arguing that the court should use a will signed in 2001 to distribute Crandall's assets. In that will, Scott and Massey were named as the people responsible for distributing Crandall's assets.

Anderson filed paperwork on Feb. 17 and March 1 arguing that the court should use a will signed by Crandall in 2020 to distribute Crandall's assets. In that will, Anderson was named the executor, the person who would distribute Crandall's assets.

Eventually, the case moved from the Aiken County Probate Court to the Aiken County Court of Common Pleas. And on March 17, Scott and Massey argued that Anderson had used undue influence to convince Crandall to sign the 2020 will which led to Hatcher's alleged Facebook posts.

Harte issued a statement shortly after the Aiken Standard published a story on the allegations of elder abuse in which he said Anderson would concede that the 2020 will didn't meet the requirements of South Carolina law.

Judge Courtney Clyburn Pope ruled on April 21 that the 2020 will was invalid because it didn't meet the witness requirements in South Carolina Probate Code.

Clyburn Pope then dismissed with prejudice — Anderson can't bring them again — the arguments Anderson made that the 2020 will should be used.

Scott and Massey then agreed to dismiss their claims of action against Anderson. Anderson and the funeral home agreed to dismiss their claims of action against Scott and Massey. Both of these dismissals were made without prejudice and can be brought again.

Clyburn Pope then ordered the case returned to probate court to use the 2001 will to distribute Crandall's assets.

On June 21, Anderson filed suit against Massey and Scott alleging that the allegations of elder abuse and undue influence were made without evidence and with no investigation.

That case remains pending as of 1:17 p.m. Friday.

However, Massey and Scott have filed a motion to dismiss in which they argue that Anderson's allegations don't state facts sufficient to give rise to a cause of action.

Full Article & Source:

Defamation suit over allegations of elder abuse in Aiken has been settled

Netflix Faces Defamation Suit for Documentary on Alleged Guardianship Abuse

The episode reported on the guardianship system in general and on two cases in particular.

Netflix Inc. and a prominent team of documentary filmmakers are appealing a trial court decision in a defamation lawsuit that attacks their portrayal of a guardianship case as an abuse of an elderly man.

The media defendants include documentary film director and producer Alex Gibney and his company, Jigsaw Productions LLC; the affiliate firm Muddy Waters Productions LLC; Peabody award-winning filmmaker Kyoko Miyake; story producer Sarit G Work; associate producer Samantha Knowles; and researcher Kate Gill.

The plaintiff, Tonya Barina, is the appointed guardian of the estate of Charles Thrash, a retired businessman whose estate was once valued at about $3 million. Barina alleges that after an episode of “Dirty Money” on the subject of guardianships was released, she received hundreds of death threats and threats of bodily harm from all over the world.

In August 2010, a trial court in Bexar County denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The 285th Judicial District Judge Cathleen Styker “correctly determined that Barina had established the prima facie case of libel,” counsel for Barina stated in their appellee brief to the Fourth Court of Appeals.

Carl J. Kolb of Austin and Glenn Deadman of San Antonio represent Barina.

Oral argument is scheduled for June 28, according to an order issued Friday.

Rachel F. Strom and Katherine M. Bolger of Davis Wright Tremaine in New York and Laura Lee Prather of Haynes and Boone in Austin represent Netflix and the other defendants.

The media defendants claim in the appellant brief that Barina failed to satisfy her burden under Texas law to establish by “clear and specific evidence” a prima facie case of each essential element of the defamation claim.

The episode reported on the guardianship system in general and on two cases in particular, including In re Guardianship of Thrash.

“Tonya Barina—who is named in the program because she is one of Thrash’s guardians—is displeased with her accurate, albeit unflattering, portrayal,” the media defendants claim. They assert that Barina sidesteps an obligation to identify actionable statements “by simply alleging that the gist of the Program as a whole defames her.”

The episode discusses the Thrash case through the experience of Thrash’s girlfriend, Laura Martinez, her daughter Brittany and their attorney, Philip Ross. Thrash began dating Martinez in 2009 and she moved in with him in 2012. In 2016, Thrash bought a new house and around the same time he signed a new will naming Martinez as the beneficiary.

Thrash’s bank became concerned about the home purchase and numerous transactions involving his business, and alerted the Texas Department of Health and Human Services. The agency filed an application for temporary and permanent guardianship in probate court, and a temporary guardian was appointed in August 2017.

The episode referred to Thrash’s court-appointed attorney ad litem, Ben A. Wallis III, who testified that Thrash was happy living in his home with Martinez and wished only that the guardianship proceedings cease.

At the request of Thrash’s sister, Barina applied to become permanent guardian a few months later and settlement negotiations began between Thrash’s relatives, Thrash and Martinez, according to court documents. Wallis told the court that the principal purpose of the Thrash family’s involvement was to obtain a 50% share of his estate, which he refused.

The parties were at a stalemate throughout 2018, court records show. On Jan. 29, 2019, the court appointed Barina guardian of the Thrash estate and she received a yearly percentage of the estate’s gross income. She closed his business, against his wishes, and moved to sell much of his assets. In addition, the appointed guardian of his person, Mary Werner, removed Thrash from his home to a secret location; he had been by then declared mentally incompetent.

Martinez and her attorney’s efforts to contest the orders have to date been unsuccessful.

Barina alleges the episode was too one-sided and deliberately omitted facts that reflected poorly on Martinez and her attorney. The media defendants’ “sources,” according to court records, showed a “complete disregard for the obligation to be truthful.”

The court found that Ross had carried out a “vexatious litigation campaign” against Thrash and his property; Martinez attempted to claim that she was the wife through a document that was later annulled, and to have the adult children adopted by Thrash.

“To present Thrash’s story, it features Ross, Laura, and Brittany, who all were severely sanctioned in the Thrash proceedings for their ‘guardianship exploitation,’ without ever mentioning the sanctions order,” the Barina brief states. “All of the Ross-Martinez defendants’ pleadings had been stricken by May 19, 2019, a year before the episode ran.”

Full Article & Source:

Netflix Faces Defamation Suit for Documentary on Alleged Guardianship Abuse

Last Unicorn Author Peter S. Beagle Mentally Competent Says Lawyer Hired to Prove Otherwise

The lawyer who was hired to prove The Last Unicorn author mentally unfit has resigned, declaring the suit brought against him by his children to be without merit. This is the latest ripple in a seemingly ongoing saga involving Beagle, his erstwhile manager Connor Cochran, Beagle’s children, his longtime girlfriend Peggy Carlisle, and an increasingly upset and angry fanbase that has been going on for most of the century.

A bit of background is in order: in 2001, Peter S. Beagle was going through a very bad patch: debt, divorce, and a dearth of royalties. Cochran promised to revive interest in Beagle’s works and monetize them. To do so, he started a boutique publishing house specifically for Beagle’s works. Merchandising deals came in the process of time, though exactly where the money went is somewhat in doubt.

Peter S. Beagle

The whole thing came to a head in 2013 when Cochran took Beagle on a tour of cinemas, showing a restored version of Rankin-Bass’s 1982 Last Unicorn animated film. Mr. Beagle, who later described the tour as a “death march”, spent his time doing meet-and-greets, Q&A sessions, and signing merchandise. Lots of merchandise. This reporter was there when the tour came to the Alamo Drafthouse in Kansas City, MO, and remembers multiple tables of merch on display, and a line that snaked around itself both before and long after the movie.

It was during the tour that things really began to get serious. Mr. Beagle said he was more-or-less run non-stop, on a schedule that no one in his 70s should have to contemplate. Cochran, on the other hand, said that he gave Beagle adequate rest. People began to notice a real friction between the two, as well as between Cochran and Carlisle. Disturbing eyewitness accounts cropped up, including this rather infamous account of a volunteer “roustabout” at one of the tour stops. Allegations of financial irregularities, of merchandise paid for bot not received, began to crop up as well.

Things came to a head in November 2015 when Beagle filed a suit against Cochran alleging elder abuse, fraud, defamation, and a variety of other issues. Cochran filed a countersuit, claiming that Beagle’s allegations were invalid due to his supposedly deteriorating mental condition.

Full Article and Source:
Last Unicorn Author Peter S. Beagle Mentally Competent Says Lawyer Hired to Prove Otherwise

See Also:
Fans Against Fraud

The Last Unicorn Author Locks Legal Horns With His Manager

The Sad Strange Legal Battles of Last Unicorn Author Peter S. Beagle

The Truth About Connor Cochran and Working on The Last Unicorn Tour

Support Peter S. Beagle

Judge Calls Jared E. Shafer's Libel Suit "Acrimonious" and "Contemptuous"

Clark County District Court Judge David Barker on August 12, ordered all parties in a two year long libel lawsuit to resolve their differences in Court-Mandated Mediation.

He stayed all other proceedings in the case brought by for-hire guardian Jared E. Shafer, pending Court-Mandated Mediation which will take place in the next 30-45 days.  He also, on the record, explored a resolution of the case which would allow Defendants Rebecca Schultz and Charles Pascal a way out of the suit without admitting liability or paying anything to Plaintiff Shafer, et al.

Judge Barker referred to Shafer's lawsuit as "acrimonious" and "contentious," then asked Shafer's lawyers Alan Freer and  Ross Evans what their client's ultimate goal was in suing Schultz, and Pascal, who is indigent and legally blind?  Freer responded "My client's bottom line is to remove the 108 defamatory RipOff Reports.
    
Attorney D. Brian Boggess, appearing for Schultz, quickly responded that his client did not author the reports.

Judge Barker stated, "I can make that happen," saying that if the parties agree to Court-Mandated Mediation, he will issue a Court Order to RipOff Reports to remove the postings.

Mediation is a process whereby a neutral judge is asked by the trial judge to facilitate resolution between two or more parties. Freer and Evans accepted Judge Barker's Order without protest.

The Judge then asked Pascal, a pro-se Defendant who appeared telephonically, to make a one sentence statement as to whether he objected to the removal of the 108 RipOff Reports.

Pascal replied: "I did not author any of the RipOff Reports that are the subject of this lawsuit, your honor, so of course I don't object to their removal."

Judge Barker then asked attorney Boggess whether his client Rebecca Schultz had any objections to the removal of the 108 postings?

Boggess replied: "My client has never authored a RipOff Report about Mr. Shafer or any of his associates, so she has no objection to the postings being removed." This prolonged lawsuit, which has often been described as a good example of a "SLAPP suit," i.e., strategic lawsuit against public participation was brought against the families of two of Shafer's former "wards" who both claimed he converted hundreds of thousands of dollars from their loved one's trust accounts for his own use without rendering an accounting of how the funds were kept or utilized.

Shafer in 2012 accused Schultz and Pascal of conspiring to post the 108 allegedly defamatory articles about him on the Internet, but has been unsuccessful in proving they conspired, were the authors, or in stopping subsequent postings by anonymous authors.

Coincidently, many of the allegations in the 108 RipOff Reports about Shafer, et. al. are also being alleged in a 15 page Federal Civil Racketeering law suit filed in United States Federal Court on Friday, August 8, 2014, by 95 year old Guadalupe Olvera, a former "ward" of Shafer, and highly decorated WW 2 veteran.  Olvera is the father of Rebecca Schultz, and is also being represented by attorney Brian Boggess.

The Mediation is expected to occur within 45 days and be administered by Judge Jerry A. Wiese.  Pending the Court Order to remove the subject RipOff Reports, no further action is anticipated in this case.

Source:  Update from Steve Miller

READ the RipOff Reports

READ the 15 page lawsuit

Las Vegas "Guardian" Jared E. Shafer Sued for Embezzling $420,000.00 From 95-Year-Old Former "Ward"

Private Guardians Jared E. Shafer and Patience Bristol Sue Blind Man for Libel, Now Ask Taxpayers to Pay the Bill

Disney In-Laws Sue Lawyers for $100 mil

A real estate developer sued a law firm for $100 million, claiming it defamed him on its website to justify "pillaging and plundering" millions of dollars in fees from trusts for his children, heirs to the Walt Disney fortune.

William S. Lund, of Arizona, sued the trust's attorney Peter Gelblum and the law firm Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp in Superior Court.

A self-described "respected and successful entrepreneur," Lund says he has acted as an officer and trustee for 13 trusts, including the Walt Disney Foundation and trusts for his son and daughter, twins Bradford Disney Lund and Michelle Ann Lund.

Lund says he collaborated with Walt Disney in a feasibility study for a Disney World site. In 1968, he married Disney's youngest daughter, Sharon. The couple divorced in 1977 but Sharon named Lund as one of the trustees to manage their children's trust, which disburses roughly $20 million to each child every five years, according to the Arizona Republic.

The Republic reported in 2010 that Lund lived close to his son Brad, but his relationship with Michelle soured as the family feuded over management of the trust.

In that article, cited in Lund's lawsuit, Gelblum accused Lund of making money on trust business transactions involving secret land deals and forging Michelle and Brad's names to push through the transactions.

But in his 9-page lawsuit, Lund claims Gelblum "blatantly lied" to the Republic. He claims the law firm falsely accused him on its website of secretly profiting from the trust's business dealings at the expense of his children.
 
 Lund claims the law firm "viciously" defamed him "so as to justify payment to themselves of millions of dollars of attorneys fees ... pillaging and plundering the estate and legacy of Sharon Disney Lund and her progeny," according to the lawsuit.

He is represented by Joyce Vega.

Full Article and Source:
Disney  In-Law Sues Lawyers for $100 Million

See Also:
The Disney Family Court Battle Continues

Unclean Hands: Suing for Defamation

Rebecca Schultz must have really touched a nerve when she removed her wealthy father from Jared E. Shafer's "guardianship" back in September 2010.

In circumstances when an older wealthy married couple decide to retire to another state far away from their family, and then a spouse dies, a horrifying chain of events can occur.

In the case of Guadalupe Olvera, soon after re-locating to Sun City in Henderson, Nevada from their home in California, Carmela Olvera suddenly died. Based on Mr. Olvera's multiple physical disabilities and his desire to stay in Nevada until his paid-for half million dollar home could be sold and his other financial affairs settled, Nevada law required that he be evaluated to make sure he was mentally and physically capable of handling his own affairs. In the absence of a relative living in Nevada, the clerk for Clark County Family Court Judge Jon Norheim recommended private guardian Jared E. Shafer be hired as temporary guardian over Olvera's person and finances. The guardianship was supposed to be temporary and last only until Olvera's financial arrangements were in order, but in opposition to Olvera's wishes and the court pleadings of his only child Rebecca Schultz, the "guardianship" dragged on and on for over two years while Shafer bled Olvera's trust and bank account of over $300,000.

After careful research, I discovered that the granting of Guadalupe Olvera's wish to forcefully terminate Shafer's "guardianship" and move back with his family was the first time one of Shafer's "wards" has ever defied his unlimited power over their person and estate and escaped from his custody. In all other cases I investigated, Shafer defeated all attempts by family members to terminate him by convincing Clark County Family Court judges like Norheim that the relative was either a financial "exploiter," or "unfit" to be their loved one's legal guardian.

But Jared Shafer was not finished with the Olvera family. Three years after Guadalupe moved back home, Shafer filed a libel law suit against Rebecca claiming she authored anonymous Internet reports that damaged his and his cronies' reputations. He did so without any proof Schultz authored the reports. Many believe Shafer's libel suit was meant to send a message to the families of his other "wards" to not challenge his authority.

I view his baseless lawsuit against Schultz as a perfect example of a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) meant to silence future exposés of his highly questionable business practices.

Full Article and Source:
Unclean Hands:  Suing for Defamation

See Also:
NASGA:  Great Escapes: Jared E. Shafer Loses Guardianship, Looted Senior Citizen Returns to Claim Home and Possessions After Winning Termination in a Bitter Sweet Victory

California Court Rules Against Conservator in Defamation Lawsuit

A California woman serving as a conservator lost her defamation lawsuit against a Sacramento television station as an appeals court concluded that she could not prove that the reports aired the report with knowledge that their information was false, or at least reckless disregard for its falsity. In reaching it conclusion, the court in Young v. CBS decided that, because conservators are very powerful agents acting under the authority of a court order, and could reasonably trigger scrutiny by the public, they are public figures for purposes of defamation lawsuits. The ruling serves as a warning to any a conservator in California, making clear that, by accepting an appointment as a conservator, any person may subject him/herself to public figure status, and a much more difficult path to recovery, if he/she believes he/she is defamed by a news organization.

In November 2006, Sacramento County Adult Protective Services asked Carolyn Young to serve as the conservator for an allegedly incapacitated adult, 86-year-old Mary Jane Mann. Young, a professional conservator and fiduciary for more than a decade and a half, petitioned the court for the appointment. Almost immediately after the court appointed Young as temporary conservator, the senior and one of her daughters, Monika Mann, began contesting the conservatorship. A non-judicial mediation yielded an agreement where Young agreed to petition for dissolution of the conservatorship in exchange for Young becoming a co-trustee of Mann's trust.

Shortly thereafter, the CBS television station in Sacramento, KOVR-TV, investigated the Mann conservatorship. A week later, KOVR aired a news story entitled "A Life Hijacked," which stated that Young "effectively took over Mann's life without Mann's knowledge [including] Mann's bank accounts, investments, and her trust. Young had Mann's mail forwarded to her office and had Mann's driver's license lifted." The report went on to claim, or insinuate, that Young stole from Mann, threatened her, battered her and trespassed onto her property.

Full Article & Source:
California Court Rules Against Conservator in Defamation Lawsuit

See Also:
California Court of Appeal Holds That a Private Conservator is a Public Official; Finds No Actual Malice Shown in Claim Based on CBS Report About Conservatorships