Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity

By Jay Schweikert

For the last several years, Cato has been leading the campaign to abolish qualified immunity — an atextual, ahistorical judicial doctrine that shields state officials from liability, even when they violate people’s constitutional rights. The most immediate practical goal of this campaign has been to convince the Supreme Court to hear one of the many cases calling for qualified immunity to be either narrowed or reconsidered outright. And over the last seven months, I’ve written several times about how the Court has indicated that it’s preparing to consider several qualified immunity cases, given the manner in which it has repeatedly rescheduled several cert petitions that have been fully briefed and ready for resolution since October of last year. My hypothesis at the time was that the Supreme Court was delaying resolution of these petitions so that it could consider them along with several other high‐​profile cases that also raised the same underlying question of whether qualified immunity should be reconsidered.

Now it would seem that prediction has been vindicated. Just today, the Supreme Court distributed thirteen* different qualified immunity cert petitions for its conference of May 15, 2020. This is obviously no coincidence, and it means that by the morning of Monday, May 18th, we will finally know whether the Justices are prepared to confront one of the most pernicious and legally baseless doctrines in the history of the Court.

Here’s the complete list of the thirteen different petitions that have been distributed for the May 15th conference. In most of these cases, Cato filed an amicus brief in support of the petition, and in many of them, we either helped coordinate or took the lead on a “cross‐​ideological brief,” on behalf of a diverse alliance of organizations opposed to qualified immunity.

• Baxter v. Bracey. In this case, Sixth Circuit granted qualified immunity to two officers who deployed a police dog against a suspect who had already surrendered and was sitting on the ground with his hands up. The ACLU filed a cert petition back in April 2019, asking whether “the judge‐​made doctrine of qualified immunity” should “be narrowed or abolished.” Cato filed a brief in support of the petition, and we also helped to coordinate the filing of a cross‐​ideological brief. This case was originally set to be considered all the way back on October 1, 2019, but it has been rescheduled five times since then. Now, it looks like the Court is finally prepared to resolve Mr. Baxter’s petition.

• Brennan v. Dawson. In this case, the Sixth Circuit granted immunity to a police officer who, in an attempt to administer an alcohol breath test to a man on misdemeanor probation, parked his car in front of the man’s home at 8:00pm; turned the lights and sirens on for over an hour; circled the man’s house five to ten times, peering into and knocking on windows; and wrapped the home’s security camera in police tape. The court held that this warrantless invasion of the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment, but nevertheless granted immunity due to a lack of “clearly established law.” The cert petition in this case was filed on January 11, 2019, and asks the Court to “reign in the qualified immunity standard to … reflect the common‐​law roots of qualified immunity.”

• Zadeh v. Robinson. In this case, the Fifth Circuit granted immunity to state investigators that entered a doctor’s office and, without notice and without a warrant, demanded to rifle through the medical records of 16 patients.

• Corbitt v. Vickers. This is the case where the Eleventh Circuit granted immunity to a deputy sheriff who shot a ten‐​year‐​old child lying on the ground, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t posing any threat. The plaintiffs in both Zadeh and Corbitt are now represented by Paul Hughes, who filed cert petitions on November 22, 2019, each of which asks “[w]hether the Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.” Cato submitted briefs in both cases, this time taking the lead on the cross‐​ideological brief, whose signatories also included the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association for Justice, the ACLU, Americans for Prosperity, the Due Process Institute, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, the MacArthur Justice Center, the NAACP, Public Justice, R Street, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

• Kelsay v. Ernst. This is the case where the Eighth Circuit, in an 8–4 en banc decision, granted immunity to a police officer who grabbed a small woman in a bear hug and slammed her to ground, breaking her collarbone and knocking her unconscious, all because she walked away from him after he told her to “get back here.” The MacArthur Justice Center filed a cert petition on November 26, 2019. While the petition doesn’t ask the Court to reconsider qualified immunity outright, it does ask the Court to “take steps within the confines of current law to rein in the most extreme departures from the original meaning of Section 1983.” Cato filed a brief in support of this petition as well.

• West v. Winfield. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who bombarded an innocent woman’s home with tear‐​gas grenades. The homeowner had given the officers permission to enter her home to look for a suspect, but never consented to anything like the practical destruction of her home that resulted. Nevertheless, the court granted immunity on the grounds that no prior case specifically established that this sort of bombardment exceeded the scope of consent that the homeowner had given. On January 16, 2020, the Institute for Justice filed a cert petition asking the Court to clarify and limit the scope of qualified immunity, and Cato filed a brief in support of this petition.

• Jessop v. City of Fresno. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who stole over $225,000 in cash and rare coins in the course of executing a search warrant. The court noted that noted that while “the theft [of] personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law” may be “morally wrong,” the officers could not be sued for the theft because the Ninth Circuit had never issued a decision specifically involving the question of “whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.” Neal Katyal filed a cert petition on behalf of Mr. Jessop on February 14, 2020, and Cato, joined by Americans for Prosperity, filed a brief in support of the petition.

• Mason v. Faul. In this case, the Fifth Circuit granted immunity to a police officer who shot a man seven times in response to a 911 call. This is one of the rare cases in which qualified immunity was actually resolved at trial, rather than at the motion‐​to‐​dismiss or summary‐​judgment stage. At trial, the jury found that while Officer Faul’s shooting of Quamaine Mason was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Faul was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. The cert petition was filed on November 14, 2019, and it asks the Court to address the “confusion and uncertainty” in qualified immunity case law.

• Cooper v. Flaig. In this case, the Fifth Circuit granted immunity to officers who killed an unarmed man in his parents’ home by tasing him nine times while he was having an acute mental‐​health episode. The cert petition was filed on February 5, 2020, and it explicitly asks whether the Court should “eliminate or significantly revise the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity.”

• Anderson v. City of Minneapolis. In this case, the Eighth Circuit granted immunity to 911 first responders who were alleged to have prematurely declared a 19‐​year‐​old dead of hypothermia, in violation of their own emergency protocols, thereby depriving him of what could have been life‐​saving medical assistance. The cert petition was filed on November 18, 2019, and it asks the Court to clarify the standards for determining “clearly established law,” especially in the context of the state‐​created danger doctrine.

• Clarkston v. White. In this case, the Fifth Circuit granted immunity to a state education official who was alleged to have caused the denial of a charter school application in retaliation for remarks made by the school’s CEO about disciplinary practices. The cert petition was filed on March 3, 2020, and it asks the Court to clarify that qualified immunity should not apply when a constitutional right is clearly established and the only uncertainty in the case law is whether a particular individual can be sued for its violation.

• Hunter v. Cole. Of all the qualified immunity cases going to conference on May 15th, this is one of only two in which the lower court denied immunity to the defendants. In this case, the Fifth Circuit denied immunity to an officer who shot a 17‐​year‐​old boy without warning. Although the boy was holding a gun, he had made no threatening gestures toward the officers and was facing away from them and unaware of their presence when he was shot. At the en banc stage, this case generated a lively discussion between several Fifth Circuit judges about whether qualified immunity should be reconsidered, which I discussed here. On December 9, 2019, the officer filed a cert petition, asking the Court to hold that his shooting of the teenage boy did not violate clearly established law.

• Davis v. Ermold. The one other case in which the lower court denied immunity involves Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same‐​sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Those couples sued Davis for violating their right to marry, and the Sixth Circuit denied immunity to Davis, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that she violated their clearly established constitutional rights. Davis’s cert petition was filed on January 22, 2020. 

The fact that the Court sent all thirteen of these cases to conference on the same day — especially after repeatedly rescheduling many of them — is unmistakable evidence that the Justices are looking closely at the fundamental question of whether qualified immunity itself needs to be reconsidered. This is a question that Justice Thomas urged the Court to take up all the way back in 2017, and which Cato has been vigorously pushing since it launched its qualified campaign back in March of 2018. It is far past time for the Supreme Court to reconsider qualified immunity, and in less than three weeks, we’ll finally know whether the Court is prepared to take up that question.

*Correction: A previous version of this post listed only eight qualified immunity cert petitions. It has been updated to reflect all thirteen qualified immunity cases that will be considered at the May 15th conference.

Full Article & Source:
Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity

Walt Disney’s Grandson Faces Harsh Roadblock In Fight for His $200 Million Inheritance

by Sean Sposato

Credit: LAWRENCE SCHILLER/POLARIS COMMUNICATIONS INC

Walt Disney’s Grandson Bradford Lund just hit a harsh new roadblock in his fight for his $200 million inheritance from his family’s fortune: a denial for a request to appeal a Judge’s decision, which denied him his right to go to court for this money due to misconceived notions of his mental status.

As we previously shared, Lund recently received new help in his over 15-year battle for his inheritance from leading probate court watch-dog group Spectrum Institute. The help came in the form of an amicus letter asking the California Supreme Court to support his right to appeal order by Los Angeles Probate Court Judge David J. Cowan — who he says wrongly appointed him a legal guardian to monitor and approve his legal decisions, which ultimately denied him his right of going to court to pursue his inheritance. However, it seems this letter was not enough for the California Supreme Court who issued Lund a one-sentence denial of review.

Credit: John T. BARR/AFP via Getty Images

For those who have not been following along with this story, Judge Cowan, the judge appointed to Lund’s case in probate court, claimed Lund had Down Syndrome from the bench — even after being presented with DNA evidence proving the opposite. The judge also ruled Lund to be “unfit” to receive his $200 million inheritance from Walt Disney and appointed him a temporary guardian to make all of his legal decisions, all without a hearing.

Speaking on the recent development in the case, Lanny J. Davis, legal advisor to Bradford Lund, told Inside The Magic via phone call: “The focus for Brad Lund is to ask the judicial system in California, ‘when will I get my day in court?’ This experience so far has been frustrating because he can’t actually get a trial on the merits of whether he should receive his inheritance. He isn’t even able to complain with a wrong decision on that central issue in his life because he can’t get a trial.”

Credit: Credit: Disney/Whosay

Davis continued: “The only time he’s actually gotten a trial was once in Arizona and once in California — and the verdict after the trial was that he was competent. But in Judge Cowan’s courtroom, he still can’t get at a trial.”

Davis ended the call with a message to Judge Cowan revealing the fact that Lund’s fight for his inheritance is not over, saying: “We’re not settling this case. We’re not giving up our right to a trial. We’re not going away — even though we don’t have a right to appeal — we’re going to be in your court room till we get a trial. The constitution ultimately guarantees us a trial. Brad Lund will keep fighting until he gets his day in court.”

Davis added: “It cannot be in America that you’re deprived of your inheritance without a trial when the law presumes that you are qualified for your inheritance.”

In a separate written statement by Davis, he revealed that Lund and his family will not only continue to fight for justice in his own case and his right to due process but they will also dedicate themselves to helping grassroots organizations across the country to reform the probate system in the United States.

Full Article & Source:
Walt Disney’s Grandson Faces Harsh Roadblock In Fight for His $200 Million Inheritance

See Also:
Walt Disney’s Grandson Continues Fight for $200 Million Inheritance With New Help

Walt Disney’s Grandson Sues Judge Claiming He Has Down Syndrome Without Evidence, Blocking $200 Million Inheritance

Walt Disney’s grandson locked in legal battle for personal freedom, millions in inheritance – Crime News

Disney heirs' £235m legacy fued gets ugly

Entertainment Mogul Walt Disney’s Grandson Denied Access to Family Trust Funds

Walt Disney’s Grandson Continues Fight for $200 Million Inheritance With New Help

Credit: Disney

As Walt Disney’s Grandson Bradford Lund continues in his fight for his $200 million inheritance, he’s received new help in the process: a letter to the California Supreme Court in support of his case from the leading probate court watch-dog group Spectrum Institute.

The non-profit organization, which focuses in part on probate court reform, filed an amicus letter asking the California Supreme Court to support Lund’s right to appeal order by probate Judge David Cowan — who he says violated his due process rights concerning his inheritance and wrongly appointed him a legal guardian to monitor and approve his legal decisions.

Credit: Credit: Disney/Whosay

For those who have not been following along with this story, Judge Cowan, the judge appointed to Lund’s case in probate court, claimed Lund had Down Syndrome from the bench, even after being presented with DNA evidence proving the opposite. The judge also ruled Lund to be “unfit” to receive his $200 million inheritance from Walt Disney and appointed him a temporary guardian to make all of his legal decisions, all without a hearing.

“Replacing a litigant with a GAL (guardian ad litem or legal guardian) infringes on the constitutional right of a litigant to manage his own litigation,” Spectrum wrote in its amicus brief supporting Lund’s petition for review by the California Supreme Court. “The appointment of a guardian ad litem deprives the litigant of the right to control the litigation and subjects him to possible stigmatization.”

Lanny J. Davis, a co-counsel in the federal civil rights and anti-disabilities discrimination case filed against Judge David Cowan three weeks ago in LA federal district court, welcomed the Spectrum Institute’s filing, saying: “All Mr. Lund is asking for is a chance to have his day in court to challenge the probate court’s final decision to appoint a GAL (guardian ad litem), depriving him of his right to his own counsel and due process…It’s hard to see Judge Cowan’s decision to appoint and instruct the GAL as anything other than a final, effective decision and, thus, subject to appeal.”

LOS ANGELES, CA – FEBRUARY 12: Bradford Lund (R), Bob Wilson (C), AFP PHOTO John T. BARR/mn (JOHN T. BARR/AFP via Getty Images)

Via email, Davis told Inside The Magic exclusively: “It is time that the sunshine of transparency and accountability be applied to the probate process. Decisions by a probate judge must be accountable–no one is above the law, no one is above the constitution, and there is no such thing as alternative facts. The truth matters. We ask the California Supreme Court only for Brad Lund, finally, to get his day in court subject to due process standards in Judge Cowan’s courtroom.”

As we previously reported, Lund has been fighting for many years to get his Disney inheritance, including undergoing a 10-day trial in 2016 brought on by “disgruntled relatives” who had claimed Lund needed a limited guardianship.

During the comprehensive trial, Lund was examined by two court-appointed physicians, one court-appointed expert, and by Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig in open court–who rejected the family’s claims that Lund needed guardianship and ruled that Lund was “not incapacitated.”

However, Judge Cowan looked beyond this court ruling and DNA evidence, proving Lund does not have Down Syndrome, and instead stated from the bench: “Do I want to give 200 million dollars, effectively, to someone who may suffer, on some level, from Down syndrome? The answer is no.”

Full Article & Source:
Walt Disney’s Grandson Continues Fight for $200 Million Inheritance With New Help

Walt Disney’s Grandson Sues Judge Claiming He Has Down Syndrome Without Evidence, Blocking $200 Million Inheritance

Credit: Disney/Whosay

by Sean Sposato

In a national telephonic press conference today by attorney Lanny Davis, a legal representative for Walt Disney’s grandson Bradford D. Lund, the announcement was made of another count added to their previously filed U.S. Civil Rights Act complaint against Superior Court Judge David J. Cowan and the entire Los Angeles County Superior Court.

For those who have not been following along with this story, Judge Cowan recently claimed Lund had Down Syndrome from the bench, even after being presented with DNA evidence proving the opposite. The judge also ruled Lund to be “unfit” to receive his $200 million inheritance from Walt Disney and appointed him a temporary guardian to make all of his legal decisions, all without a hearing, and now Davis and his team of lawyers are trying to fight back against the rogue rulings of the legal authority.

LOS ANGELES, CA – FEBRUARY 12: Bradford Lund (R), Bob Wilson (C), AFP PHOTO John T. BARR/mn (JOHN T. BARR/AFP via Getty Images)

In the complaint, attorney Lanny Davis alleges that the probate court’s action is “all too reminiscent of a perspective where facts do not matter but alternative facts do, where the constitution does not matter…”

The alternative facts Davis is referencing come from a 2016 court decision by Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig, from a 10-day trial brought on by “disgruntled relatives” against Lund. The trial came after 7 years of litigation concerning whether Lund needed a limited guardianship–during which, Lund was examined by two court-appointed physicians, one court-appointed expert, and by the judge himself in open court.

From the investigation, Judge Oberbillig rejected the family’s claims that Lund needed guardianship and ruled that Lund was “not incapacitated.” However, Judge Cowan looked beyond this court ruling and DNA evidence, proving Lund does not have Down Syndrome, and instead stated from the bench: “Do I want to give 200 million dollars, effectively, to someone who may suffer, on some level, from Down syndrome? The answer is no.”

Source: NBC News

From this statement, Lund’s legal team announced the new Count 6, which alleges that Judge Cowan and the LA Court violated an anti-discrimination law when Judge Cowan made this “indisputably false” statement and “perception.” They claim this resulted in discrimination against Lund and his loss of freedom regarding the right to counsel and property rights without due process of law.
Additionally, the complaint also alleges Judge Cowan and the Los Angeles Superior Court violated the rights of Brad Lund by violating the US Civil Rights Act, due process rights, and anti-discrimination law.

During today’s press conference call, the legal team would not discuss specifically what damages they are seeking in the case. However, Sandra Slaton, the lead counsel of Lund’s legal team, revealed this is not so much about the damages but the fact that constitutional rights of many citizens, just like Lund’s, are violated quite often in probate court. Ultimately, at this time, their team hopes to challenge the power of not only Cowan but all judges in probate court. All of which, who are given tremendous discretion in the handling of inheritance and will and testament in the court system.

For those wondering, the fight isn’t completely over for Lund’s $200 million inheritance. However, more legal battles are ahead for the grandson of Walt Disney, who should have received his portion of his mother’s trust fund when he was 35, which was 15 years ago. Lund is now 50-years-old.

Full Article & Source:
Walt Disney’s Grandson Sues Judge Claiming He Has Down Syndrome Without Evidence, Blocking $200 Million Inheritance

Walt Disney’s grandson locked in legal battle for personal freedom, millions in inheritance – Crime News

By Rosemarie Block

Leisure visionary Walt Disney couldn’t have imagined the wrestle that grandson Bradford Lund has endured attempting to assert his share of the household fortune.

For 15 years, Lund, 50, has battled estranged relations, trustees and probate court docket officers, attempting to point out he’s mentally match to handle an inheritance value a whole bunch of tens of millions of {dollars}. He’s needed to show again and again that he doesn’t have Down syndrome, that he can deal with such a large infusion of funds.

Now he’s preventing not only for cash, however for his freedom, after a Los Angeles County Superior Courtroom choose appointed a guardian to briefly make all his authorized choices.

“Do I wish to give 200 million {dollars}, successfully, to somebody who could undergo, on some degree, from Down syndrome? The reply is not any,” Decide David Cowan mentioned from the bench, refusing later to retract the assertion even after he was given DNA proof that Lund doesn’t have Down syndrome.

Disney’s grandson has discovered himself trapped in a probate system prone to predatory guardians, trustees, fiduciaries and others who command massive salaries for his or her illustration — all paid by the shopper.

The court docket probate system is, amongst different issues, supposed to guard the aged and disabled from being victimized by relations and others. However it’s a system that incentivizes abuse. The longer the shopper is deemed incapable of managing his or her personal affairs, the longer the guardian, attorneys and others receives a commission. And the shopper will get no say over the place they reside, who they see and the way their cash is spent.

Grandson sues choose

Lund, nevertheless, is preventing again.

In a uncommon transfer, his legal professionals — Sandra Slaton of Scottsdale, Arizona,  former White Home counsel Lanny Davis and Joseph Busch III of Newport Seaside — have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit accusing Cowan of appointing the guardian with out due course of.

Suing a choose is nearly by no means performed. However Davis, a former member of the federal Privateness and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, mentioned his workforce had no selection.

“This criticism alleges that Cowan rendered a judgment from the bench that adversely impacts a person in such a considerable approach, depriving him of life and liberty with no truthful trial,” Davis mentioned.

Within the 31-page lawsuit, Lund’s legal professionals wrote: “The choice by Decide Cowan to nominate a (guardian advert litem) … with no listening to … and totally ignoring constitutional necessities of due strategy of regulation is all too paying homage to a perspective the place details don’t matter however various details do.”

U.S. cartoonist Walt Disney and household out strolling within the June sunshine, his daughter Sharon is at far left, his daughter Diane at left, and his spouse Lillian at proper, England, June. 24, 1949. (AP Photograph)

Household historical past

How Lund obtained here’s a story with extra twists and turns than a Matterhorn bobsled.

Considered one of Lund’s essential opponents is his twin sister, Michelle Lund. Brad and Michelle have been born in 1970 to Disney’s daughter, Sharon Disney Lund. The twins attended special-needs colleges as kids reportedly for studying impairments.

When Lund was 19, his mom created a belief fund — now valued at $400 million — for him, Michelle and their sister, Victoria. Sharon Lund appointed 4 trustees: Diane Disney Miller, her sister; Invoice Lund, father to the three kids; Ron Gother, Sharon’s belief lawyer; and First Interstate Financial institution, the company trustee.

The grandchildren have been to obtain a part of their shares at ages 35, 40 and 45, with the rest stored within the belief and given to them as gradual earnings.

As years handed, Lund’s mom died, as did his sister Victoria. And among the trustees resigned, whereas others with no household connections took their locations.

When Brad Lund turned 35, the trustees voted in opposition to paying him a portion of his inheritance, saying they didn’t imagine he was financially and mentally competent.

4 years later, Michelle Lund suffered a mind aneurysm following an alleged drug overdose, however she obtained her share of the cash as scheduled.

Courtroom order sought

Additionally in 2009, Michelle Lund and her two half-sisters sought an order in Arizona court docket that will place Brad Lund underneath a guardian to make his authorized choices due to “persistent deficits and psychological problems.”

Thus started a seven-year case in Arizona, which led to a 10-day non-jury trial earlier than Decide Robert H. Oberbillig. Oberbillig declared Lund mentally able to dealing with his personal affairs.

As a part of the Arizona case, two docs and a neuropsychologist examined Lund and decided he already was getting sufficient assist to handle his life and assets. After a prolonged examination on the witness stand, Oberbillig dominated in 2016 that Lund proved he isn’t incapacitated and didn’t want a guardian.

His trustees already had denied Lund’s subsequent scheduled inheritance fee at age 40. Their membership had modified once more, with First Republic Belief Co. taking up as the company trustee.

Authorized struggle strikes

Whereas the Arizona case was nonetheless underway, Lund filed for a court docket petition in Los Angeles County to take away his trustees for numerous violations. It’s via that case that Decide Cowan in the end entered the image.

The choose was offered with a settlement settlement between Lund and his trustees, through which he would pay them $14.5 million in alternate for his or her removing and alternative. Cowan authorized the cash alternate however wouldn’t permit Lund to interchange the trustees, Davis mentioned. Cowan then appointed the short-term guardian advert litem.

“When a choose comes to a decision, even a short lived one, all we allege is the elemental proper to due course of,” Davis mentioned.

Cowan’s lawyer, Matthew Inexperienced, declined remark.

Lund’s workforce turned to the federal court docket as a result of state appellate justices wouldn’t rule on a short lived appointment.

Davis is not any stranger to such controversy.

He served as particular counsel to then-President Invoice Clinton within the late 1990s and represented President Donald Trump’s former private lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen pleaded responsible to tax fraud, violating marketing campaign finance legal guidelines and different federal crimes in 2018.

However authorized specialists say Davis is dealing with a excessive mountain in focusing on Cowan and alleging that state regulation permitting the choose’s actions is unconstitutional.

“Judges usually have immunity on choices they make, even when they’re lifeless fallacious,” mentioned Mario Mainero, a professor on the Dale E. Fowler College of Legislation at Chapman College in Orange. “You don’t get to sue judges.”

One exception, Mainero mentioned, is for civil rights violations through which somebody is looking for reduction and never damages in opposition to the choose, as is Lund.

But it surely’s nonetheless no stroll within the household park.

Full Article & Source:
Walt Disney’s grandson locked in legal battle for personal freedom, millions in inheritance – Crime News

See Also:
Walt Disney’s Grandson Sues Judge in Battle Over $200 Million Inheritance

Walt Disney’s Grandson Sues Judge in Battle Over $200 Million Inheritance

Walt Disney’s grandson, Bradford Lund, filed a civil rights lawsuit Thursday against a judge who Lund says violated his constitutional rights as part of a long-running legal battle over a $200 million inheritance.

According to the lawsuit, Lund’s estranged family members “alleged that he was incapacitated and needed a guardianship and conservatorship” as their way of keeping him from receiving his half of the $400 million left to him and his sister. After a seven-year legal battle in Arizona led to a 10-day day trial, Lund says he was victorious “in all respects and was found to have capacity, resulting in a dismissal of that case.”

Lund’s estranged family appealed but an appellate court affirmed the decision. Walt Disney’s grandson and his estranged family appeared to be close to a settlement last year but Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Cowan did not approve the settlement agreement and instead, on Sept. 27, 2019, appointed a guardian over Lund.

This order was not appealable under California law.

“The decision by Judge Cowan to appoint a (guardian) without a hearing,” the new lawsuit states, “and utterly ignoring constitutional requirements of due process of law is all too reminiscent of a perspective where facts do not matter but alternative facts do, where the constitution does not matter and where the rule of law is set aside and replaced by the rule of subjective, fact-free decision-making.”

Lund believes his incompetence needs to be proven, not the other way around, and argues, “Judge Cowan reversed the burden of proof and required Mr. Lund to prove that he was not incompetent.”

The federal lawsuit is seeking a declaratory judgment saying Judge Cowan violated Lund’s constitutional rights.

A clerk for Judge Cowan said “no comment” when contacted by TheWrap.

Full Article & Source:
Walt Disney’s Grandson Sues Judge in Battle Over $200 Million Inheritance

Seniors should not have to leave their constitutional rights at the nursing home door

Editorial: Signing an arbitration agreement when entering a nursing home means forfeiting your right to judicial recourse if you're harmed

Iowans in nursing homes are frequently not able to advocate for themselves. They may be confused. They may be too sick to report abuse. Family may not be nearby to help out.

The rest of us have an obligation to do everything we can to protect them. That includes not only working to prevent abuse, but providing recourse if it happens and sending a message to nursing homes they will be held accountable.  

Sen. Chuck Grassley prides himself on being an advocate of seniors. He held a hearing this year on abuse and neglect in nursing homes. He was the lead author of an abuse prevention bill signed into law by former President Obama. 

Now he should devote his attention to protecting the constitutional rights of people in care facilities. He can do this by advocating for legislation banning homes from requiring residents to resolve disputes through arbitration. 

Bear with us while we explain what’s at stake.

When you enter a nursing home or assisted living center, there is a stack of paperwork to sign. It likely includes an arbitration agreement requiring you to take any grievance with the home to an arbitrator instead of the courts.

If you don’t sign it, you may not be admitted. If you do sign it, you may forfeit legal recourse if you’re abused, neglected, not fed, dropped, stolen from, not given medication or encounter other problems.

Iowans entering nursing homes are fragile and will typically sign anything put in front of them, said West Des Moines attorney Tom Slater, whose firm represents people injured in long-term care facilities.  

“Whether or not the nursing home admission personnel explains the documents, the explanation is colored in favor of the nursing home, and the resident is encouraged to sign the document believing that the home has their best interest at heart,” he said.

Giving up your constitutional right to judicial recourse is not in anyone’s best interest. 

Former President Obama knew this. He knew homes entrusted with the care of seniors, frequently for-profit businesses, should not be sheltered from public accountability before a judge and jury. His administration finalized a federal rule prohibiting homes paid by Medicare or Medicaid from requiring that incoming tenants sign these agreements. 

The nursing home industry sued to stop the rule from going into effect. Donald Trump was elected. The Trump administration is crafting a new rule opposed by senior advocates, including Dean Lerner, the former director of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, which oversees nursing homes. 

Numerous U.S. senators supported Obama's rule. A 2017 letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) signed by 31 of them urged it not to reverse the prohibition on arbitration agreements that “stack the deck against residents and their families who face a wide range of potential harms, including physical abuse and neglect, sexual assault, and even wrongful death at the hands of those working in and managing long-term care facilities.”

But instead of letting the years-long labyrinth process of rule making play out, Congress can address this issue now. The Des Moines Register editorial board asked Grassley his thoughts on legislative action.   

He said it’s worth Congress having more information on how agreements are used, and there are “pros and cons” to arbitration. He also raised questions about the impact of the cost of lawsuits on nursing home care. “And does that increased cost just mean more money in lawyers’ pockets, instead of victims?”

Of course, nursing homes are less likely to be sued if residents are not hurt. The fear of public lawsuits may encourage hiring adequate and trained staff.

Lawyers are not the problem. They help deliver justice for victims when no one else — including the government — stands up for vulnerable Americans.

Grassley can work across the aisle with other lawmakers already crafting legislation related to arbitration in care facilities. This is a bipartisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans find themselves at the mercy of a nursing home.

This reminds us of the ruling in the landmark 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines schools case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” 

No Iowans should have to leave their constitutional rights at a nursing home's door. 

Arbitration agreements strip Iowans of right to sue for wrongdoing

West Des Moines attorney Tom Slater knows firsthand how arbitration agreements can rob people of their rights: His firm represents clients injured by nursing home neglect. 

He told a Register editorial writer about a woman who was left alone, fell and sustained serious injuries that required several months in the hospital. 

“When she sought an attorney to file a case in court, she could not do so because buried in the volumes of admission papers that she was required to sign was a 'pre-dispute arbitration' clause,” he said. The arbitrator awarded “a pittance of the medical expenses she incurred" and little for her anguish. The award could not be appealed. 

“At some point in a person’s life, whether they are in the lowest valley or on the highest mountain, they will likely enter a nursing home and will suffer an injury. This would include our legislators and their loved ones," Slater said. "They should ponder this when considering legislation to prohibit pre-dispute arbitration clauses in nursing home admission agreements.”

This editorial is the opinion of the Des Moines Register’s editorial board: Carol Hunter, executive editor; Kathie Obradovich, opinion editor; Andie Dominick, editorial writer, and Richard Doak and Rox Laird, editorial board members.

Full Article & Source:
Seniors should not have to leave their constitutional rights at the nursing home door