AMERICAN PICKERS STAR FRANK FRITZ'S JUDGE MAKES MAJOR RULING IN DEMAND TO SEAL HEALTH & FINANCIAL RECORDS AFTER STROKE

by Teresa Roca

AMERICAN Pickers star Frank Fritz’s judge has made a major ruling in his request to seal health and financial records in his conservatorship case following his stroke.

Frank, 60, suffered a stroke in July 2022 and has been under conservatorship and guardianship since August of that same year.

The U.S. Sun previously reported a Notice of Delinquency for Conservatorships was filed on December 1, 2023 after guardian Chris Davis and/or Conservator Midwest One Bank failed to file an annual report that was due on November 12, 2023.

The American Pickers alum's conservator and guardian requested for the annual report to be sealed on January 17.

Now, The U.S. Sun can exclusively reveal an Iowa judge approved the request, and the annual report and related documents are to be filed at “security level three.”

In the Joint Motion to File Under Seal previously obtained by The U.S. Sun, Guardian Chris claimed an annual report for Frank's health and welfare has been completed.

Full Article and Source:
American Pickers star Frank Fritz’s judge makes major ruling in demand to seal health & financial records after stroke

Houston Texans Owner is Fighting Son's Claims That She's Incapacitated and Needs Guardian

HOUSTON (AP) — The owner of the Houston Texans is fighting efforts by one of her sons to have her declared incapacitated and have a guardian appointed for her, according to court records.

The news of infighting among the family comes as the Texans, who won the AFC South this season, get ready to host the Cleveland Browns on Saturday in their first playoff appearance since the 2019 season.

Robert Cary McNair Jr. filed his application for appointment of a guardian for Janice McNair, 87, in November with probate court in Harris County, where Houston is located. The application, which details his reasons for why he is seeking to have her declared incapacitated, was temporarily sealed last month by a judge.

In court documents filed last month, attorneys for Janice McNair and her son Cal McNair, who is chairman and CEO of the Texans, said the McNairs were “shocked” by Cary McNair’s “drastic and unwarranted measures of alleging his mother is incapacitated, seeking to terminate her rights, and appoint himself as her guardian to control her personal, financial, and medical decisions. Ms. McNair and Cal are firmly against any allegation or implication that Ms. McNair is incapacitated or needs a guardianship.”

In a two-page affidavit, Janice McNair, who became the principal owner of the Texans after her husband, Robert “Bob” McNair, died in 2018, asked that all court records in the case be sealed to protect her confidential personal, financial and medical information.

“The details of this family dispute becoming public will have a serious impact on the Texans,” she said. “It will create a needless and baseless media stir regarding the ownership and direction of the Texans, thereby negatively affecting our employees, business partners and the team.”

Judge Jerry Simoneaux held a hearing Tuesday on the request to seal the records and on Wednesday issued an order asking for additional information before making a final ruling. The judge kept Cary McNair’s guardianship application temporarily sealed.

Attorneys for Janice McNair, Cal McNair and Cary McNair did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Wednesday. Texans spokesman Omar Majzoub said the team had no comment on the situation.

Source:
Houston Texans Owner is Fighting Son's Claims That She's Incapacitated and Needs Guardian

Journal seeks to open guardian mismanagement lawsuit

Annette Rosenstiel lived to be 101 years old.

But what happened to her and her assets during the nine years before her death in 2012 is mired in court-ordered secrecy that is opposed by her only child.

Annette Rosenstiel, an author who was married to New York financial heavyweight Raymond S. Rosenstiel, had been the ward of a for-profit guardian/conservator, Decades LLC of Albuquerque, since about 2003.

After her death, Annette’s daughter and personal representative, Leonie Rosenstiel, filed a lawsuit against the company and its founder, Nancy Oriola, alleging negligence and mismanagement of her mother’s assets. But her court complaint, the defendants’ response and more than 20 other documents filed by the parties in the civil negligence case are under seal on the order of a state district judge in Albuquerque.

Leonie Rosenstiel has tried to open up her own case, and on Wednesday the Albuquerque Journal filed a motion seeking to unseal the records, arguing that information about “alleged misbehavior of guardians or conservators should be made public because it is plainly a matter of public concern.”

“Affording blanket protection to information related to Defendants’ alleged mismanagement of a conservatorship or guardianship, when mismanagement by court-appointed guardians or conservators is a critical matter of public concern, offends the notion of the First Amendment right of access to the courts,” the newspaper argued in its motion.

A handful of records that aren’t sealed offer a glimpse into the allegations, which in essence contend that Decades mismanaged the Rosenstiel assets and abused its position as court-appointed guardian and conservator.

One document alleges breach of fiduciary duty, negligent handling of assets, negligence in the administration of the guardianship and conservatorship by a commercial entity and violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. An accounting is also requested.

Leonie Rosenstiel has tried to have the files in her own lawsuit opened.

Based on what is known, the Journal argues in its motion, that the only interest being protected is the defendants’ interest in avoiding disclosure of Rosenstiel’s allegations against them.

None of the attorneys in Rosenstiel’s civil lawsuit responded to Journal requests for comment on Wednesday, but the lawyer for Decades said his client would oppose the Journal’s efforts to unseal the case.

State law makes virtually all information in a guardianship/conservatorship case confidential, except for the court docket sheet, the kind of guardianship and the name of the allegedly incapacitated person for whom a guardian was appointed.

But this isn’t the guardianship case of Annette Rosenstiel; rather, it is a claim of negligence against the guardian/conservator that was filed after the ward had died. District Judge Alan Malott, siding with Decades and against Rosentiel, ruled earlier that the case would remain sealed because it was related to a guardianship matter.

Full control

A court-appointed guardian is responsible for the day-to-day life decisions of a ward, while a conservator manages the financial affairs of a ward. In some cases, the guardian and conservator are one and the same.

Most guardians appointed in New Mexico are family members of the incapacitated person, but in some cases, judges decide a nonrelative should be appointed.

Decades, which has operated since 2001, is among the for-profit corporate companies in the state providing such services.

Leonie Rosenstiel originally initiated the guardian/conservator proceeding in 2003, according to court records, but, because of the secrecy, it isn’t known whether she sought to be her mother’s guardian or why the court appointed Decades LLC.

Records in the negligence case indicate there was a court-ordered forensic audit into some of Decades’ actions as Annette Rosenstiel’s guardian and conservator, although the results are secret.

The lawsuit was initially filed under seal. Rosenstiel subsequently asked for the court records to be unsealed, while the defendants contended they should be automatically kept from the public because they related to guardianship/conservatorship matters. Her lawyer also asked to be able to use portions of the guardianship case in the civil lawsuit.

“The former ward has passed away, and accordingly will suffer no embarrassment if the Sealed Records are unsealed,” Rosenstiel’s attorney, David A. Garcia, argued in a motion filed in 2013.

“Courts seal their records to protect the ward, not to protect the interests of private corporate guardians and conservators.

“Parties to litigation in civil cases would often prefer that as many particulars of the litigation as possible be hidden from the public,” he wrote. “But that isn’t the way court records are handled in the vast majority of cases like the one at bar.”

Decades, in arguing to keep the case sealed, said Annette Rosenstiel’s privacy interests didn’t end simply because she died.

The Journal’s motion to unseal the records in the negligence case, filed by attorney Matt Hoyt, said Malott appeared to interpret state law as automatically requiring that almost all information and documentation related to a guardianship and or/conservatorship proceeding be kept confidential – even though the civil negligence case is not itself such a proceeding.

“There was also no “separate consideration of reasons why the records in this (civil negligence) lawsuit should be sealed,” the Journal said.

The Journal also argued in its motion that the judge has a duty to seal only portions of the records rather than entire documents.

Malott, in his earlier denial of Garcia’s request to unseal the documents, said it would be “overly burdensome and expensive for the parties, and markedly inefficient for the Court, to determine confidentiality of each separate document or item of information as this matter is developed for trial.”

So the judge ordered the sealing of “any pleadings” related to the guardianship/conservatorship proceeding. Actual trial testimony and exhibits would be publicly available if and when the case goes to trial. A trial date is set for later this year.

Full Article & Source:
Journal seeks to open guardian mismanagement lawsuit

Sealed guardianship cases

In June 2013, Nassau County Judge Angela Iannacci sealed a legal action brought by Dean Hart, now a candidate for State Assembly, to have a guardian appointed for his 79-year-old mother, whose mental faculties were in decline.

Iannacci’s order failed to provide any substantive justification for sealing the records, as required by the state mental health law. In such cases, concern for the privacy of the vulnerable party typically serves as the basis for sealing.

An examination of partial case records obtained by Newsday, however, raises the question of who actually benefited from the sealing order. It appears to have done little for the welfare of Beatrice Hart, who suffers from dementia, while shielding attorneys, the courts and a current candidate for public office from outside scrutiny.

The disturbing accusations leveled in the case include elder abuse, cronyism in the court system, and Dean Hart fleecing his mother of $4.5 million with help from the firm of attorney Steven Schlesinger, a powerful Democrat whose court-appointed stewardship of a wealthy charity is now under state and federal investigation.

The Hart case is one of 207 guardianship proceedings identified by Newsday that Long Island judges hid from the public during a roughly 10-year period.

These cases involve the appointment of legal caretakers for people who require help managing their personal affairs. They comprise two-thirds of the court actions Newsday found in its investigation of case sealing by Long Island judges.

After obtaining confidential records, Newsday two weeks ago reported state Sen. Tom Croci’s involvement in one of those cases. In 2013, Newsday reported, a court-appointed evaluator found that Croci had “taken advantage” of his elderly aunt, philanthropist Adele Smithers, for his own financial benefit and recommended that a judge reject his request to control her assets as guardian. Croci told Newsday that he always acted in his aunt’s interest and that he could not answer questions about the case because of the sealing order.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Sealed guardianship cases

NY Sen. Tom Croci’s family dispute hidden in sealed files

A court-appointed evaluator in 2013 found that State Sen. Tom Croci, who chairs the Senate Ethics Committee, had “taken advantage” of his elderly aunt for his own financial benefit and recommended that the court reject Croci’s attempt to control her assets.

The evaluator’s findings preceded the settlement of a bitter family dispute that required Croci to resign as his aunt’s financial trustee and to sign over to her the title to a $450,000 Alexandria, Virginia, town house she had purchased for him in 2005. In turn, his aunt agreed to send the Nassau District Attorney’s Office a letter withdrawing “any and all complaints” she’d made against Croci.

Croci’s aunt is Adele Smithers, a Mill Neck heiress and philanthropist known for her contributions to addiction research and treatment. The evaluator made her findings during a court action that Croci brought in Nassau County seeking to have Smithers declared mentally incapacitated and to be named her property guardian, a designation that would have given Croci broader authority over her finances.

Though Croci alleged that his aunt’s mind was failing and that she was being preyed upon by an adult son, the evaluator concluded otherwise. Smithers’ mind was intact, the evaluator found, and it was Croci, not the son, who had exploited her for his own “pecuniary gain.” Smithers, who accused Croci and a second trustee of ignoring her requests for funds — in one instance for a wheelchair — told the evaluator that her nephew’s lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to “control her money.”

In a statement Wednesday, Croci, an attorney and U.S. Navy reservist who has served in Afghanistan and was Islip Town supervisor when he brought the proceeding, told a reporter that he always acted in the best interest of Adele Smithers.

“You have my guardianship petition I filed to protect my aunt,” Croci said. “It was honest and complete the day I signed it, under oath. And it is honest and complete now.”

Voters knew nothing of the case in 2014, when Croci, a Republican, won a seat in the State Senate. That’s because Nassau Supreme Court Judge Arthur Diamond issued an order that sealed the case file from the public. Newsday unearthed partial case records during reporting for a forthcoming series that examines whether Long Island’s state court judges have adhered to sealing rules that were established in part to protect the public’s interest in open courts.

Newsday found that Diamond, who this year was given responsibility for overseeing all guardianship proceedings in Nassau, failed to meet the standard that the state mental health law establishes for sealing guardianship cases.

A 2013 settlement of a family dispute required Tom Croci, then Islip Town supervisor, to return this town house in Alexandria, Virginia, to his aunt Adele Smithers, who purchased the property for him in 2005 for $450,000. Croci also resigned as one of her financial trustees, as part of the agreement after a Nassau court rejected his attempt to be named her property guardian. Photo Credit: Evelyn Hockstein

 

Diamond declined to be interviewed.

Newsday contacted Croci’s office last year and again last month in regard to the case, but got no response until this week. In his statement, Croci said that he was “not permitted to comment” further because of the sealing order. Croci’s attorney, David A. Smith, also said the order barred his client from talking. Croci’s office said he has moved to have the order rescinded so that he could speak more fully.

Not all legal experts believe that a sealing order prohibits litigants from discussing a case. A New York University law professor and legal ethicist, Stephen Gillers, said sealing orders direct clerks of courts not to disclose case records, whereas gag orders, which are rare in civil litigation, limit the freedom of the parties to discuss a case.

“A sealing order is not a gag order; a gag order is not a sealing order,” Gillers said.

Until age and Parkinson’s began to take a toll, Smithers, who is now 83, lived an influential life in the spotlight. She was married to R. Brinkley Smithers, an investment banker’s son who established the country’s largest foundation dedicated to the research and treatment of alcoholism. He died in 1994. 

Adele Smithers helped run the foundation and other organizations with similar goals and led the board of directors of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
NY Sen. Tom Croci’s family dispute hidden in sealed files

Boomers Against Elder Abuse: Letter to Mr. Jim Jackson

 

Dear Mr. Jackson*-- I am a national advocate for vulnerable adults and elders under guardianship. My Facebook Page, Boomers Against Elder Abuse, which researches this subject has 61,000 followers This page was started here in New Mexico. As you know, news is breaking all over the nation about severe financial abuse by guardians and conservators who are not adequately supervised by experts outside the court.

I attended the International Congress on Adult Guardianship in Washington D.C. in May, and would like our New Mexico task force on guardianship to consider reforms in legislation that would improve the situation in our state. Highlights of reform include: Michigan is reinforcing rights of wards, requiring courts to specifically state the exact powers of the guardian/conservator. All other ward rights are retained. "Best interest" can't override these without a court order. In California ward's rights to visitation, mail, and phone calls have been bolstered as well.

The head of Michigan's Arc, Dohn Hoyle, suggests that guardianship/conservatorship works against the safety the ward. He feels that the idea of protecting an elder or vulnerable adult by removing the fundamental rights that serve as their protection is fundamentally flawed. Limited guardianships only are allowed in Germany, and wards do not lose legal capacity to properly defend themselves. In Hong Kong, only $12,000 per month can be removed from a guardianship account in order to protect the ward's assets. Limited guardianships are insisted upon as first priority.

Supportive decision-making with a circle of support is being considered as a future option among many reformers. Treating a ward like a child, with the guardian acting as a parent of a child is no longer acceptable in the 21st century. Persons with Disabilities and Disabled Elders need to be treated as integrated members of society, not separated from the world around them by social discrimination, restriction, and loss of quality of life. This, unfortunately is the case for many wards in our state. I became interested in this topic when a friend of mine was put under guardianship and charged perhaps as much as 1 million a year for "services." Heirs are not allowed an audit of where and how the ward's money was spent, and the records are sequestered.

Illinois is proposing that clear and convincing concrete proof be required to remove previously assigned P.O.A. and Health Directives. My friend had all of his documents in place, and they were quickly tossed out the window. Too often these documents are rescinded by the court without concrete evidence of mis-management or wrong-doing. Often the elder's wishes when expressed while having capacity are completely ignored, as was the case with my friend. This is true throughout the nation. If P.O.A.'s were respected and not allowed simply to be tossed without question, this would reduce the number of guardianships/conservatorships in our state.

When it comes to wards with substantial assets, a small number of wealthy families in New Mexico are claiming that 50 million dollars is missing from their parents' estates after conservatorship. They aren't allowed to hire outside accountants to review the records which are also sequestered by the courts. With no one outside the court carefully examining guardianship accounts, even though there are honorable conservators and guardians, the laws basically, as reformers see it, encourage unmonitored theft by family guardians and professional guardians. With the laws as they are, theft can too easily be covered up, and severe conflicts of interest exist in the courtroom setting.

Some families are forced to sign confidentiality agreements to receive inheritances, and there is no attention to any of these malpractices by law enforcement which claims that guardianship and conservatorship theft is a civil matter. It's not. It's potentially criminal, which can only be ascertained by thorough investigation, which is obviously no possible due to the egregiously insulated, cozy, closed system. The very nature of the conflicts of interest and secretive nature of the guardianship court proceedings in our state looks very suspect to the public. This perception will only grow as publicity of practices increases, which is occurring everywhere. We need to act proactively to protect the reputations of those who are honorable in these professions, and to weed out those who are not. Only stronger enforcements will do that.

In Palm Beach, guardianship fraud is so rampant that the state has given all county clerks throughout the state the independent authority to subpoena records for three levels of audits depending on each case brought to their attention.. A guardianship fraud hotline was established in Palm Beach due to the severity of complaints.

We need a mechanism here for complaints because there is no recourse for investigation into the practices of conservators and the fees charged by guardians and their employees. Heirs have no recourse under our system, and even though an elder's money does not belong to heirs during an elder's lifetime (and some families seem to forget that) those assets should be for use by the elder. However, most of these assets are diverted to often unwanted "services" that are truly suspect.

One million dollars per year for one person's care, for example, with no proper auditing outside the courtroom where these charges are considered fine, is outrageous and obviously not in an elder's best interest. Elders have spent a lifetime accumulating legacies to pass along for generations to come. It is not in any elder's best interest to have everything they have worked for depleted mercilessly by total strangers, who often isolate and medicate the ward beyond recognition. I have seen this behavior personally, and in any other arena, these practices would be considered financial, emotional, and physical elder abuse.

My Facebook page on this topic is gravely concerned with the rights of elders as Boomers approach old age. Too many abuses are occurring under the guise of protection. This needs serious attention in our state. Since stories in the press are breaking out at a steady clip, around the nation, it's only a matter of time before the industry here is put under scrutiny. 12 family members of victims have confided in me, and the abuses they have suffered are immeasurable.

I appeal to you, as having been in the forefront of guardianship/conservatorship reform in our state, to see to it that elders who choose to retire here in our state are safe. I hope that the work of the task force on guardianship will continue to examine these problems. I also strongly believe that efforts towards reform must include elder advocates who have studied reforms in other states and countries. We want to be part of the solution. Right now, as outsiders, all we can do is point out the problems.

Thank you--

Marcia Southwick
Boomers Against Elder Abuse

*Mr. Jim Jackson is Director of Disability Rights and a member of the NM 2013 Legislative Task Force on Guardianship

"Law 101 and Then Some!"

(By a NASGA member)

It's not very often that we hear of victims of guardianship and conservatorship escaping from their sentences, but we've just seen the Chism victory in Michigan - he came out alive. Recently, there was a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on a Connecticut case that a court-appointed attorney and a conservator involved in an elderly man’s improper conservatorship were not entitled to absolute federal quasi-judicial immunity and can be sued. Unfortunately, Daniel Gross died before he could enjoy that victory, but his daughter, Dee King, will pursue it.

On our website we ask "Who's to Blame" - and the list is long. However, as we've been learning more and more over time, the greatest share of blame lies with the judges and their blatant violation of law on several issues:

(1)  The first requirement of due process of law is notice. A judge must first look to his/her jurisdiction. After a petition is filed, and if it has slipped by the court clerk without proof of service on all parties, then the judge is to blame if he/she proceeds with the case, without personal jurisdiction. Due process requires both sides of a case to be noticed and present. "Both sides" means the victim and his/her relatives should have prior notice of a petition having been filed. If there is no due process notice prior to an adjudication of incompetency, such an order should be vacated, as void. But will the "tag team" players raise that issue? Not if they're looking to land another lucrative guardianship! And how can the victims (non-noticed "respondents") hire a lawyer if their assets are suddenly no longer under their control, having already been confiscated by a judge and turned over to a court-appointed guardian or conservator, without due process of law?

(2) The second element of constitutional due process is "opportunity" - opportunity for both sides to participate in a hearing, which must be fair and impartial. With the growth of so-called "emergency" petitions, there is total violation of rights if an adjudication is made based on an ex-parte "hearing." Mere conclusory allegations contained in a petition heard ex-parte do not constitute evidence. The legislators are to blame if they don't fix that growing problem.

(3) The third element, "fair and impartial," means that both sides should be present and participating and the judge should be fair and impartial. Really? Not in the guardianship game!

(4) Next comes the statutory evidentiary requirement for guardianship and conservatorship cases in most states. In making findings, a judge must follow the "clear and convincing" standard and recite such in the order of adjudication. Those critical words are necessary to support findings, if any - and there are occasions when there are no specific findings!

(5) Having once signed an order committing a vulnerable person to a lifetime in "protection" jail, stripped of all rights including the right to complain, is the judge off the hook? Not yet, he/she is responsible for what the appointed fiduciaries are doing. Many judges fail to monitor their cases. Many "conservators," failing to conserve the ward's assets, simply help themselves to them without seeking court authority for payment. And many judges, even if authority is sought, don't bother to examine the billings, merely rubberstamping their approval.

The offices of court administration are also to blame for lack of monitoring of what their judges are doing.

And where is law enforcement in this? Generally not interested, but maybe they're waking up! The FBI has just raided a Georgia probate judge's records and confiscated them all. We anxiously await further news on this exciting issue.

And then there is the public interest. Protective statutes are promulgated in the public interest, and the public must know what's going on in the courts! Operating under color of law and cloak of darkness is an invitation for rape and plunder by professional fiduciaries ("persons of trust"?).

Excessive sealing of court records in these "protection" cases is unnecessary other than to remove critical personal information. The Chicago Tribune recently had an article on judge's sealing of all kinds of cases. That should not be allowed, other than to remove critical personal data.

There must be open records so the public knows what's going on behind the black wall, especially at election time.

See Also:
Retired Chiropractor Returns to Being a Free Man
Elderly Man Can Sue Conservator, Attorney for Nursing Home Stay
NASGA:  Who's Really to Blame?

How clout keeps court cases secret

On the eighth floor of the Daley Center, behind a locked metal door, is a narrow room known as the vault.

Within its walls reside files that Cook County Circuit Court judges have ordered hidden from the public, something they have done hundreds of times since 2000.

Although state law requires that certain types of lawsuits must be sealed, a Tribune investigation has found that judges improperly removed others from public view, including cases involving a famous chef, millionaire businessmen and even other judges.

The Tribune's review of cases found that judges regularly fail to give a reason in their written orders for sealing files; hide entire case files when they needed only to remove sensitive information such as Social Security numbers or home addresses; and that the sealing orders often remain secret despite state case law finding orders are public documents and "should not be kept under seal."

Courts in the United States have a long tradition of openness, and experts say court secrecy fosters mistrust and can put public safety at risk.

"These cases go to the integrity of the courts system," said Arthur Bryant, executive director of Public Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based group that has fought for openness in the courts. "It is hard to have a democratic system, or one that works to make sure the law is just and the courts are fair, if what happens in the courts is secret."

In Illinois, bills aimed at curtailing secrecy in the courts have failed multiple times in the Legislature since 1999, opposed by the health care, insurance and manufacturing industries.

There is no way to know what is contained in Cook County's sealed files since they remain in locked rooms. But a review of dozens of previously sealed court files in the Law Division offers a glimpse, with instances of the well-connected and the well-known having their cases hidden from the public.

One such case involved chef Laurent Gras, who led Chicago's acclaimed L20 restaurant to achieve Michelin's three-star rating, the guide's highest.

Gras, an avid cyclist, was riding his $11,000 S-Works bike on the city's North Side in September 2008 when he and a car collided in an intersection, according to court records. He suffered seven broken ribs, a collapsed lung, two pelvic fractures and cuts and bruises.

In December 2008, he sued the 22-year-old driver in the Law Division, where complex legal battles play out and where large amounts of money are at stake.

Gras filed his complaint under a pseudonym, "John Doe," and asked Judge William Maddux to seal the entire file. Maddux, who presides over the court's Law Division, granted Gras' request.

Maddux gave no reason in his written order for sealing the file.

Instead, his order contained vague language similar to what is found in other judges' orders for sealing files: "Plaintiff's motion is granted and this cause of action shall be filed under a fictitious name and the court file shall be sealed and not unsealed until further order of the court."

Full Article and Source:
How clout keeps court cases secret

Witherspoon case closed: Judge to seal records

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A judge agreed to dismiss the emergency conservatorship request by Reese Witherspoon in her father's interest Monday morning and ordered that the court file remain sealed from the public.

In May, Witherspoon filed an emergency motion to have her father, Dr. John Witherspoon, placed under a conservator after he was accused of marrying another woman while still married. Betty Witherspoon filed a lawsuit protesting his marriage to Tricianne Taylor, saying he was suffering from depression and possibly early onset dementia.

Circuit Judge Randy Kennedy has ordered nearly all proceedings in the conservatorship case be secret, in addition to any court records detailing John Witherspoon's situation. The Tennessean and WSMV-Channel 4 sued to unseal the proceedings and records.

On Monday, attorneys for Reese Witherspoon, Betty Witherspoon and John Witherspoon, in addition to the temporary guardian assigned to the case, agreed to drop the conservatorship. Reese Witherspoon's attorney, Andra Hedrick, said vaguely, "The situation has changed" and that the parties had all "dealt with this in a private way."

In a separate ruling, Kennedy said that the media and public do not have a right to see records filed in the conservatorship, accusing the media of tabloid journalism. Kennedy's ruling means the case will remain sealed from public eyes unless a higher court overrules him.

Full Article and Source:
Witherspoon case closed: Judge to seal records

Judge Speaks Out Against Record Sealing

A Dauphin County trial judge has come down hard against the practice of sealing judicial records, calling it "unconstitutional" and an "invitation to secrecy and, potentially, abuse."

In a strongly worded four-page opinion filed April 19 in Gebhardt v. Woods , Judge Lawrence F. Clark denied plaintiff Stephen Gebhardt's motion to seal all pleadings, motions and replies, saying a litigant's desire to preserve his or her privacy in a case is no excuse for a court to deprive the public access to judicial records.

"In the past, the courts have summarily sealed records," Clark said. "It was unconstitutional then and it is unconstitutional today."

Robert C. Clothier, co-chair of Philadelphia-based Fox Rothschild's media, defamation and privacy law practice, said Clark's opinion is, on the one hand, unremarkable since it's been well-established that a party's desire to keep information private is not enough to warrant the sealing of a judicial record.

What is noteworthy, Clothier said, is "the heartfelt way in which he articulated the policies underlying openness."

"That's what's remarkable and heartening to see: how strongly the judge here conveys the importance of openness in the courts," he said.

Clark said the public has an "extremely broad" right of access to court records.

"Obviously, in modern times there has been a grand impetus toward the accessibility of public information," Clark said. "Furthermore, it is not a sufficient basis to seal a record just because the parties agree amongst themselves that it would be in their best interests to seal part or all of the record."

Clark said doing so would rob Pennsylvania citizens of "their fundamental constitutional right to access such information."

According to Clark, judges have a duty to uphold this right and to maintain transparency, even if it means doing so at the expense of the parties involved in the case.

"Every judicial officer from the newest magisterial district judge to the chief justice of the Supreme Court takes the same oath of office before commencing their duties, which oath binds them to 'support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity,'" he said, citing Article VI, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Full Article and Source:
Dauphin Co. Judge Speaks Out Against Document Sealing