Peter Max, psychedelic pop artist who epitomized flower power, dies aged 88

The US artist, whose swirly, colorful, instantly recognizable designs became hugely commercially successful, died on Monday

Associated Press

Wed 16 Sep 2026 20.21 EDT

Peter Max in his studio in New York, with a series of portraits of Paul McCartney on the musician’s birthday, in 2012. Max has died aged 88. Photograph: Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock

Peter Max, whose colorful, psychedelic pop art expressed the optimism of the “flower power” movement of the 1960s and graced everything from postage stamps to a cruise ship, has died at 88.

Max died on Monday, his son, Adam Max, said in a written statement on Wednesday. No cause was given.

“We will remember his extraordinary creativity, his warmth, his curiosity, and the way he saw beauty and possibility everywhere,” Adam Max wrote in the statement. “His art became part of American culture, but the man behind that art – the father we knew and loved – is the person we will miss most.”

Max began his career in graphic design in the 1960s and his swirly, colorful, instantly recognizable designs epitomized the era’s “flower power” art. But thanks to his prolific output and fun, accessible style, Max’s work remained well known and popular well into the 21st century.

He described his own work as “always on the side of the peaceful nature. I don’t discuss in my paintings negative things, I don’t dwell on it in my mind and don’t dwell on it in my canvasses.”

Max was the official artist for the Olympics, the Super Bowl, the Indianapolis 500, the World Cup, the World Series and many other events. His art appeared on a Boeing 777 airplane and a Norwegian Cruise Line ship. His portrait subjects ranged from US presidents to Taylor Swift.

But in his first flush of success in the late 1960s and early 1970s, his mural-like tableaus of flowers, the cosmos and cartoonish figures – all in vivid colors such as turquoise, orange and neon green – seemed to be everywhere. Dorm room walls were plastered with his posters. Household furnishings such as clocks and bedspreads sported his designs.

He even created covers for the Manhattan Yellow Pages, a business phone directory distributed to millions of people. Max himself was featured on the cover of Life magazine in 1969, his trademark dark, bushy mustache framing a hearty grin.

Peter Max among some of his creations in his New York studio in 1973. Photograph: Dave Pickoff/AP

Max was born Peter Max Finkelstein in 1937 to a Jewish family in Berlin. They fled Nazi Germany for Shanghai when he was a baby and later spent time in Tibet, Israel and Paris before settling in New York City when Max was 16. By then, he said in an interview, he was already “a huge fan of American culture”: comics, movies and “all the jazz music.”

By the 1960s, Max’s bold, unique style was a hit with ad agencies, publications, the corporate world and in pop culture, leading to a booming commercial business. “My work was really, I would say, almost exploited,” he said. “It was on mugs, it was on bedsheets, it was on dresses, it was on silks and scarves and ties – 70 product lines.”

Max shut the business down for a time in the early 1970s to reconnect with his art. One of his biggest projects after returning to public life was a series of portraits of the Statue of Liberty, painted at the White House at the invitation of first lady Nancy Reagan in 1981.

Peter Max in 2012. Photograph: Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock

Max weathered various controversies in his personal and professional life. He pleaded guilty to tax fraud in 1997 after the IRS alleged he concealed more than $1m in income from his art. He was originally sentenced to two months in prison but was allowed to serve the time in a work-release program, pay the back taxes and a $30,000 fine, and perform 800 hours of community service teaching art in Harlem schools.

In 2015, his family life became tabloid fodder in a back-and-forth between his second wife, Mary, and Adam, his son from a previous marriage. The son and a guardian alleged that Mary Max had depleted his finances and browbeat him. She in turn claimed that they had kept him from her against his will and stolen paintings that belonged to her. Mary Max died in 2019.

The art for the Beatles’ Yellow Submarine was sometimes mistakenly attributed to Max, but the design for the album cover and Yellow Submarine movie are officially credited to the late Heinz Edelmann. Max was friends with the Beatles and many other celebrities. He also had a deep interest in Eastern spiritualty, bringing “Swami” Satchidananda Saraswati to the US and helping him popularize yoga in the country.

Max’s first marriage to Elizabeth Nance ended in divorce. He is survived by Adam and his daughter, Libra.

Full Article & Source:
Peter Max, psychedelic pop artist who epitomized flower power, dies aged 88 

See Also:
Peter Max’s Daughter Can’t Revive Guardianship Talks Lawsuit (1)

Federal Judge Dismisses Libra Max’s Latest Lawsuit To End Guardianship of Her Father, Pop Artist Peter Max

Free Peter Max: a daughter’s fight to remove her dad from the clutches of ‘predatory’ guardianship

Peter Max’s daughter is leading smear campaign against guardian, lawsuit claims 

‘Kafka would blush’: artist Peter Max caught in legal guardianship lawsuit

Pop artist Peter Max’s court battles are a clash between children of Holocaust survivors 

Defamation trial begins over Netflix docuseries episode tied to San Antonio millionaire's guardianship case

The lawsuit accuses Netflix and those involved with painting the businessman's family member as a criminal related to her duties as his guardian. 

 

Author: David Lynch (KENS 5)

SAN ANTONIO — A Bexar County jury this week is hearing defamation claims centered on a Netflix documentary episode about an alleged guardianship abuse case involving a wealthy San Antonio businessman.

The case stems from "Guardians Inc.," an episode of the Netflix documentary series "Dirty Money," which examined allegations of financial exploitation in guardianship cases. The episode is no longer available on the streaming service after the lawsuit was filed in 2021.

Tonya Barina sued Netflix and several other defendants, alleging the episode falsely portrayed her role as guardian for her great-uncle, Charlie Thrash. That lawsuit states her reputation was "destroyed" and that she was experiencing "daily and nearly hourly hated, disgrace, contempt and ridicule."

According to court filings, Barina was appointed guardian of Thrash and his estate after the 88-year-old San Antonio businessman, who collected $3 million in assets while operating an auto repair business, developed Alzheimer's disease and other ailments. 

Barina's lawsuit was filed in March 2021 by Austin-based attorney Carl J. Kolb. It alleges the documentary falsely suggested Barina sought to exploit her position for financial gain, juxtaposing soundbites about how "guardianship abuse is the crime of the 21st century" to paint her as a criminal. 

Instead, the lawsuit accuses several defendants of isolating Thrash and contributing to the decline of his business. Co-defendant Laura A. Martinez received power of attorney from Thrash in 2016, but Adult Protective Services believed it was "signed under undue influence," the suit states. 

Jo Ann Rivera is a close family friend of Thrash's and was featured in "Guardians Inc.," along with Martinez and others, and said she was surprised by the lawsuit. 

"I don't believe there is any merit to her claim at all," Rivera told KENS 5. "She put herself in the documentary and then was unhappy with how she was viewed."

Phillip Ross, Thrash's one-time attorney and another co-defendant, said the legal proceedings of the last several years forced him to retire early. 

"I feel like the plaintiffs are giving things their best shot," Ross said. "I still feel confident... everything we said in the context of the (Netflix) interviews was clearly true." 

An amended petition nearly 50 pages long includes what are essentially verbatim excerpts from "Guardians Inc." that  Barina argues left out important context and created a misleading narrative. The suit also claims her attorney corresponded with producers of the episode a year before it aired, but the material "was intentionally disregarded and omitted from the episode because it would prove that plaintiff was guilty of no abuse, exploitation or 'crime.'" 

While her perspective appears in "Guardians Inc.," the suit states it was "in no way a fair, true and impartial account" of the events.

Rivera said it was an emotionally charged case but stands firm that nothing said on the documentary rises to the level of defamation. 

"The fact is we are all public figures and negative comments, and, at times, ugly remarks, are things we have to live with," she said. "Tonya put herself in the boiling pot." 

"I know reputation is a very fragile thing," Ross added. 

Both Ross and Kolb told KENS 5 he expects the trial to continue into the middle of next week at least.  

Full Article & Source:
Defamation trial begins over Netflix docuseries episode tied to San Antonio millionaire's guardianship case 

Web Of Whispers: A Memoir of Unmasking Munchausen by Proxy Kindle Edition

by Alaina LeBlanc

In this powerful and emotionally searing memoir, Alaina LeBlanc shares the harrowing true story of her family's descent into the nightmarish depths of Munchausen by Proxy abuse at the hands of her half-sister, Eve.

What began as a troubling guardianship case over their aging mother, Tara, soon spiraled into much darker territory as Alaina uncovered Eve's pattern of deceit, manipulation, and the insidious fabrication of medical crises. With her mother confined to a surveillance-riddled basement, trapped in a chilling cycle of deprivation and control, Alaina embarked on a desperate quest for truth and justice.

However, her pleas for intervention were met with disbelief and legal stonewalling, forcing Alaina to confront a dizzying labyrinth of systemic injustice. As she delved deeper, whispers from Eve's children—once silenced but now defiant—revealed their own harrowing stories of religious indoctrination, isolation, and psychological subjugation also shedding light on the mysterious death of one of their siblings.

Weaving in insights from renowned experts on Munchausen by Proxy, "The Web of Whispers" is a blazing exploration of this insidious form of abuse. It's an intimate portrait of love's tenacity, a family's unbreakable bonds, and the relentless pursuit of truth against a maze of deceit and malice.

A profoundly moving and eye-opening story of overcoming the darkness, this memoir shines a light on the shadowed corners where this cruelty persists. Both a searing personal odyssey and a call for change, it raises crucial awareness while offering hope and validation for victims and survivors. 

Source:
Web Of Whispers: A Memoir of Unmasking Munchausen by Proxy Kindle Edition

Peter Max’s Daughter Can’t Revive Guardianship Talks Lawsuit (1)

by Holly Barker

• Suit claimed four different judges engaged in ex parte talks
• Alleged injury not tied to deputy chief administrative judge

Artist Peter Max’s daughter lost an appeal to revive her lawsuit against a top New York City judicial official over allegedly routine and one-sided private talks between judges and guardians in adversarial proceedings like those involving her father.

Libra Max lacks standing because her alleged injury isn’t fairly traceable to Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Deborah Kaplan’s alleged oversight failures, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said in a summary order Thursday.

Max has been fighting to remove her father’s court-appointed guardian for several years, alleging the guardian has been abusive and neglectful.

Disputes over Peter Max’s care and the family business revolving around his art have drained much of the artist’s money, as detailed in a Bloomberg Law series on the guardianship system in March 2023. That coverage prompted the guardianship court to impose a gag order barring the parties from discussing the case with the media.

Max sued Kaplan claiming the judge violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to prevent New York guardianship judges from engaging in ex parte communications with court-appointed guardians in contested proceedings.

But even assuming that those kinds of communications amount to an injury in fact, the injury can’t be traced to any act or omission by Kaplan, the court said.

To establish traceability, a plaintiff must show a causal connection between the alleged injury and the conduct complained of, the court said. The injury can’t be the result of independent action by a third party not before the court.

Max alleged that four different judges who have presided over her father’s highly contentious guardianship have engaged with one-sided conversations with his court-appointed representatives “pursuant to established court practice” and “consistent with guidance and instructions,” and that Kaplan has authority over those practices.

But her complaint alleged no facts showing that Kaplan “affirmatively established a court practice, policy, or custom, or promulgated any guidance, instruction or advice, permitting guardianship judges to engage in ex parte communications in adversarial proceedings,” the court said.

Without such allegations, “the complaint utterly fails to provide any basis for concluding that the state guardianship judges’ alleged practices are fairly traceable to anything Kaplan has actually done,” the court said.

Because Max claims that guardianship judges are disobeying constitutional and judicial rules barring ex parte communications, “we can only concluded that Max’s alleged injury is the result of each guardianship judge’s ‘independent action,’” the court said.

Judges Amalya L. Kearse, Gerard E. Lynch, and William J. Nardini decided the case.

Max is represented by Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. Kaplan is represented by the New York State Office of the Attorney General.

The case is Max v. Kaplan, 2d Cir., No. 23-00201, summary order 1/25/24.

Full Article & Source:
Peter Max’s Daughter Can’t Revive Guardianship Talks Lawsuit (1)

See Also:
Federal Judge Dismisses Libra Max’s Latest Lawsuit To End Guardianship of Her Father, Pop Artist Peter Max

Free Peter Max: a daughter’s fight to remove her dad from the clutches of ‘predatory’ guardianship

Peter Max’s daughter is leading smear campaign against guardian, lawsuit claims 

‘Kafka would blush’: artist Peter Max caught in legal guardianship lawsuit

Pop artist Peter Max’s court battles are a clash between children of Holocaust survivors

Peter Max 

Michigan woman makes history in guardianship case, advocates for alternative option

By: Heather Catallo

(WXYZ) — A Wayne County Probate Judge recently made a historic decision. Instead of putting a Dearborn Heights woman under guardianship, he allowed her to retain her independence with something called Supported Decision-Making.

If you’re put under guardianship, that means a court has declared you legally incapacitated. You lose the right to get married, decide what doctor you want to see, or even choose where you want to live. Now one woman with an intellectual disability has shown the state that there is another tool families can use that’s less extreme than guardianship.

Linda VanWormer loves her job. The 56-year-old works at STEP (Services to Enhance Potential) in Dearborn. She also just made history in Michigan.

That’s because Wayne County Chief Probate Judge Freddie Burton Junior just issued an order, denying a petition that would have put Linda under guardianship. Instead, he granted her the freedom to make her own choices using something called Supported Decision-Making, or SDM.

“I do call the shots now,” Linda told 7 Investigator Heather Catallo.

Linda has an intellectual disability. She was adopted at the age of 5 into a big family of 6 other siblings. Her younger sister Amy Peckinpaugh has always been one of Linda’s main sources of help, support and love.

“I'm very proud,” said Amy Peckinpaugh.

Back in 2011, Amy found out Linda’s boyfriend was abusing her. So, Amy petitioned the court for partial guardianship of Linda.  “It allowed me to say that Linda couldn't go back up north and live with her abuser,” said Amy. “I had to make that decision to protect her. And so that is why I did that. But it meant I took that right from her. She couldn't consent to treatment. She couldn't decide where she wanted to move.”

After 10 years of guardianship, Amy decided to restore Linda’s rights. Linda lives in a group home with friends, she works, and they use Supported Decision-Making when Linda needs a little extra help.

“Linda uses her family, her friends, providers that support her when she wants to make a decision, she comes to them, and if she needs some extra input, she'll say, ‘Hey, what do you think of this,’” said Amy.

Amy and Linda even hired an attorney to create estate planning documents so Amy can step in to make medical and legal decisions if needed.

But then, a mix up at Linda’s mental health support agency prompted a social worker to petition the court to put Linda back under guardianship.

“Now we're stuck in the system and we have to actually go to court and fight. And at that point, I was really angry. I work in the disability community-- I lost some faith. How are we doing this to people? It's not okay,” said Amy.

The agency quickly realized their mistake and hired lawyers and experts to help Linda fight the guardianship.

“My favorite question when it comes to guardianship, what else have you tried? Before we decide to take rights away, shouldn't we ask that question? Rights are precious,” said Jonathan Martinis, the Senior Director for Law and Policy at the Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University.

In courts across the country, Martinis has successfully argued adults with disabilities don’t always need the extreme step of guardianship. He says they can use Supported Decision-Making instead.

“For people with disabilities who have for thousands of years been assumed not to be able to do things, what Supported Decision-Making is, is a way to be like you and me to the maximum of their abilities. Because it says that people with disabilities can understand things if it's explained to them,” said Martinis.

Linda and Amy say at first the judge was skeptical because there’s nothing in Michigan’s laws that establish SDM. But after listening to Linda and to experts, Judge Burton issued a detailed opinion, agreeing that Linda and her family can make decisions about her life together without a guardian.

“I was so happy and relieved,” said Linda.

“Hopefully it paves the way for other individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to use Supported Decision-Making and other people to look at, including social workers,” said Amy.

“Judge Burton’s order demonstrates how Supported Decision-Making (SDM) is a less-restrictive alternative to a guardianship order in Michigan. Any judge in the state can use SDM as an alternative to guardianship without any change in Michigan law. Disability Rights Michigan would support legislation to modify guardianship statutes in Michigan, requiring judges to consider SDM as an alternative to guardianship. This simple change, coupled with increased education and awareness of SDM, will lead to less unnecessary guardianships and more independence and freedom for citizens with disabilities in Michigan,” said Kyle Williams, Director of Litigation for Disability Rights Michigan.

23 states have added Supported Decision-Making as an option to their laws. Now Linda and Amy want Michigan to do the same, and Linda is already lobbying lawmakers to get changes made.

“I want people to know my story and so they can make better decisions on their own by themselves,” said Linda.

Full Article & Source:
Michigan woman makes history in guardianship case, advocates for alternative option

AG Nessel Intervenes in Wayne County Guardianship Case, Reminding Attorneys and Professional Guardians of Their Responsibility to Safeguard Vulnerable Adults

November 03, 2022

LANSING – Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a notice to intervene on behalf of the people of the State of Michigan in a Wayne County guardianship case. This action comes three years after the first intervention in a Macomb County guardianship case. 

In October 2021, Patricia Dudek was appointed guardian and conservator for an individual with a $30,000 yearly income who also received an inheritance of about $42,000.

Dudek’s own accounting illustrates that between October 2021 and June 2022 she billed the protected person about $79,000 for less than a year’s work. Within about five weeks of receiving the protected individual’s $42,000 inheritance and before any assets were filed with the probate court, Dudek paid herself more than the protected individual’s entire inheritance, including charging for work she had not yet performed.  

A fiduciary is an individual or organization who has a legal duty to act in the best interest of someone else with a duty to act with the highest degree of honesty and loyalty toward the protected person, including the duties of undivided loyalty, care and prudence in actions. Dudek charged her legal hourly rate of $350 for guardianship and conservator services and billed the protected person with more than 630 pages of text via emails. Dudekisaccused of breaching her duty as follows:

• Charging excessive and duplicative fees.
• Billing for services she represented would be free.
• Failing to guide the protected person to services he could afford.
• Failing to submit a bond as required by the court for her conservator work.
• Paying herself before services were provided. 
• Failing to send the protected person or any other interested person (e.g., the protected person’s wife or his niece) information related to her services, billing practices, or copies of monthly bills. 
• Failing to provide the protected person and the probate court with bills consistent with the court rules that require a “brief description of the services.”

These allegations follow a 2020 suspension for 90 days of Ms. Dudek’s license to practice law for among other things, charging a client an excessive fee.

“While most guardians and conservators work tirelessly for modest pay to ensure those under their supervision are well cared for, this case serves as additional notice that my office will not hesitate to challenge anyone who breaches their duty of loyalty to the most vulnerable among us,” said Nessel. “My continued thanks to Lakeshore Legal Aid who brought this case to our attention and all those working with the Elder Abuse Task Force to improve Michigan’s guardianship and conservatorship system.”

Any individual who believes they or a loved one have been taken advantage of by an attorney serving as a guardian or a conservator may file a grievance with the Attorney Grievance Commission.

If the guardian or conservator is not an attorney and the file is still open with the probate court, the complaint should be directed to the probate court where the guardian or conservator is serving.

The Attorney General’s Notice of Intervention and Objections to Dudek’s Amended Final Account of Fiduciary can be read here.

Source:
AG Nessel Intervenes in Wayne County Guardianship Case, Reminding Attorneys and Professional Guardians of Their Responsibility to Safeguard Vulnerable Adults

Longtime Friends Say They've Been Kept Apart Due to Controversial Guardianship Case

After an older woman on the Upper West Side was hospitalized, her friends claim she is not being properly protected, Sarah Wallace reports.

Source:
Longtime Friends Say They've Been Kept Apart Due to Controversial Guardianship Case

Evaluation ordered in Roscommon guardianship case

by Mardi Link 

 

ug. 14—ROSCOMMON — A probate court judge ordered a new medical evaluation for a woman whose family is seeking to have her status as a ward of the court terminated, after unexplained spending by a previous guardian prompted the sale of the woman's house and forced her to move into a long-term care facility.

"Kay, take care of yourself and keep improving," Roscommon County Probate Court Judge Mark D. Jernigan told Kay McGinnis, 82, at the close of an Aug. 8 petition hearing.

The petition, filed by one of McGinnis' sisters, Loreli Haddad, 83, also of Roscommon, sought to have McGinnis' current guardian and conservator removed and have the judge either terminate guardianship altogether, or appoint McGinnis as her own guardian.

"I do not understand what their criteria is, for someone to remain a ward of the state," Haddad said. "Once you get one of these guardians, even if your health gets better, it's like you never escape."

If all court appointments for McGinnis are terminated, no further contact with the probate court would be required. If McGinnis is allowed to be her own guardian, annual reports on housing, medical services, income and expenses would still be required, but McGinnis would submit these reports herself.

Sheila Englehardt of St. Helen will continue for now as McGinnis' guardian and conservator, pending the outcome of the new medical examination, the judge said.

The judge appointed psychologist Eric R. Harvey, who happened to be in the courtroom preparing to testify on another case, to conduct the new evaluation of McGinnis.

"We'll set a time and I'll come to you," Harvey told McGinnis after the hearing. "And you can have whomever you want be there with you."

The judge's decision, and Harvey's approachable manner, seemed to satisfy the several members of McGinnis' family and her longtime friends, who attended the hearing in support of McGinnis' ability to care for herself and make her own decisions.

"Finally, maybe some good news," said Peggy Olsen, 87, McGinnis oldest sister.

McGinnis has had four court-appointed guardians since suffering a stroke in 2016, court records show.

She and her family say the initial appointment of McGinnis' longtime partner, John Kutz, as guardian was warranted, as McGinnis was temporarily unable to care for herself or manage her affairs.

When Kutz died of liver cancer in 2019, however, a series of new court-appointed guardians and conservators succeeded Kutz, even after McGinnis and her sisters said McGinnis had sufficiently recovered to make her own decisions.

One of those guardians, Mary "Minnie" Lovely, of Grayling, was investigated by the Michigan State Police and later arraigned on an embezzlement charge, after being accused of spending about $9,000 of McGinnis' money on cell phones, lottery tickets and casino gambling.

Mortgage payments on McGinnis' Stuckey Avenue home were not made during this time, court records show, and the house went into foreclosure.

A bench warrant for Lovely was issued after she no-showed a court date earlier this year. Calls to a cell phone number listed in court documents was not returned.

Englehardt was appointed to replace Lovely, although the family says that appointment also has been problematic.

Englehardt received permission from the court to sell McGinnis' Stuckey Avenue home to protect McGinnis' equity, but she has not provided the family with details on proceeds and expenses, they said.

"She helped uncover Minnie's spending," said Haddad, "and I do think she invested the money from the house, but when we asked her for an accounting, she told us she only has to provide that to the court once a year."

Michigan law states court-appointed guardians and conservators are required to submit annual reports to the probate court, with guardians reporting on housing and medical issues of those they are appointed to serve and conservators reporting on income and expenses.

Those listed in the court case as "interested parties" must receive copies of these annual reports, the law states, and can object to anything they find suspicious, incomplete or inaccurate.

Englehardt did not attend the hearing after submitting a letter to McGinnis' court-appointed attorney, Michael Edwards, that she was unavailable.

Calls to Englehardt seeking comment went unanswered and a recording stated her voice mailbox was full and couldn't receive messages.

The letter from Englehardt, and a previous medical evaluation by a Grayling doctor consisting of a single word — "Dementia." — pleased neither Judge Jernigan nor McGinnis' family.

Haddad said it is McGinnis' speech, and not her intellectual ability, that bears the effects of the stroke, and that speech difficulties alone should not preclude someone from having autonomy over their own life.

The judge decided he wanted more information about that issue, before deciding whether to grant Haddad's petition.

"I don't know that you suffer from dementia," Jernigan told McGinnis. "I'm not convinced one way or the other that you still need a guardian or a conservator. Do you feel you are able to make your own decisions?"

"Please, please, yes, your honor," McGinnis said.

A new hearing will be scheduled once McGinnis is evaluated by Harvey, the judge said.

Full Article & Source:

Evaluation ordered in Roscommon guardianship case

Lawyer sues Netflix, area publisher and another lawyer for libel over coverage of his role in a Needham guardianship case

A Cambridge lawyer is suing Netflix, the producers of its "Dirty Money" series, the Boston Broadside and an Essex County attorney for allegedly ruining his life by portraying him as an evil money grubber out to defraud an elderly Needham man who owned five derelict properties in Needham that the town had been trying to get cleaned up for 20 years.

Nicholas Louisa filed his suit in Middlesex Superior Court last month but Lonnie Brennan, publisher of the Peabody-based Boston Broadside, which puts a right-wing spin on news on both a Web site and in a monthly newspaper, this week sought to have the case moved to federal court in Boston because of the First Amendment issues.

At issue are articles the Broadside posted in 2019, and an episode this past spring of "Dirty Money," that focused on the treatment of a lifelong Needham resident and property owner who now lives in a Dedham nursing home.

The articles and show portrayed the man as an elderly, but still lucid, man taken advantage of by a corrupt Massachusetts guardianship system out to suck money out of his holdings, as exemplified by Louisa and various lawyers appointed by Probate Court judge to represent his interests in proceedings during which one and then all of his properties were sold, initially to pay for cleaning up the properties, eventually to pay for his nursing-home expenses.

One of sources for the articles and show was Lisa Belanger, an Essex County attorney who provided them with documents from the man's court files, even though a judge had impounded them, after she tried to intercede in his case. Belanger has been writing about her own fight against the guardianship system for the Boston Broadside since 2017

In his suit, however, Louisa paints a different picture, of a confused elderly man with memory problems who had become a hoarder and who was increasingly unable to take care of his own affairs - at least one of the houses he owned in Needham were in such disrepair the town condemned it and it was torn down. Louisa writes that things came to a head in 2018 when a neighbor reported seeing what appeared to be frostbite on the man's face and authorities conducted a well being check and found the duplex he was living in filled with hundreds of bottles of urine and a dead cat in the freezer, along with the man, suffering from frostbite and hypothermia. There was no furniture in the house, just two couch cushions, and large stacks of unopened mail, including Social Security checks and bills.

Louisa writes the $3.1 million from the sale of the man's remaining properties went into a fiduciary fund for him, overseen by another lawyer, that pays his nursing-home bills and pays him a monthly stipend - out of which he can request additional funds.

In his suit, Louisa says that he's a private citizen, so only has to prove the articles and episode were wrong to successfully claim libel, but then continues that the Broadside and Netflix episode were, in fact, malicious in intent, part of a conspiracy orchestrated by Belanger and have caused "irreparable damage" to his "once sterling reputation" - as well as subjected him to a barrage of threats, harassment and even stalking. He charges he now has to let all incoming calls go to voice mail because he gets so many threatening calls and that somebody has looked up his Facebook contacts and sent them messages charging him with stealing money from the man.

He cites several examples of alleged libelous mistakes, including the allegation that he and another attorney forced the man into the Dedham nursing home to get at his money:

It was the Probate Court - not any attorneys - that looked at [the man]'s medical condition, the squalor in which he had been living, his inability to handle his own finances or take care of his own health, and found that he needed protected status for his own safety and wellbeing.

The episode also claimed that he had been ripped from his childhood home and just wanted to return to it, but Louisa says he had not lived there for at least five years - and had sold it before the rest of his holdings and that, in any case, he could not move back because the town had condemned it as uninhabitable.

All of it has combined to give him anxiety and insomnia, he writes, adding he often finds himself unable to eat, leading to rapid weight loss.

In his request to have the case moved to federal court, Brennan argues that Louisa is, in fact, a public figure, because he willingly spokes to the Needham Times in 2018 about the man's properties, which had been causing neighborhood issues for some two decades. If upheld by a judge, that would require Louisa to meet a higher burden of proof to prove libel - that the statements about him were not just wrong but malicious and printed in disregard of their veracity.

Louisa's complaint (1.7M PDF).
Brennan's petition to move case to federal court (608k PDF).

 

Full Article & Source:

Lawyer sues Netflix, area publisher and another lawyer for libel over coverage of his role in a Needham guardianship case

Supreme Court Judge Rejects Change of Residency in Guardianship Case

by Michael Korsinsky

In a recent guardianship case, the Second Judicial Department reversed the Supreme Court Judge’s decision to terminate, sua sponte, the guardianship of the incapacitated person (IP), as the judge should not have done so without holding a hearing.

Under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, a guardianship may only be terminated by application of the guardian, the IP, or any other individual who is entitled to initiate a proceeding. However, the court terminated the guardian’s request for guardianship without a hearing, as well as the motion for leave to request a change of residency for the IP from New York to an assisted living facility in Greece. The Second Judicial Department determined that the guardian’s motion will be granted for guardianship, for leave, and for the change of residence.

What is the Background of the Case?

In April of 2018, the IP’s guardian was asked to be appointed guardian of the IP in order to manage a property in Greece. Following a hearing, the Supreme Court found the IP to be incapacitated according to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law. As a result, the court approved the request for guardianship.

In September of 2018, the IP developed health issues and was unable to communicate in English. As a result, the IP was admitted to an assisted living facility in Greece.

In November of 2018, the guardian requested that the IP’s residency be changed from New York to the assisted living facility in Greece while continuing to maintain residency in New York. The court denied the motion without a hearing, and terminated the guardianship sua sponte, citing a lack of ongoing connection between the guardianship and New York.

According to the Second Judicial Department, the Supreme Court should not have terminated the guardianship without conducting a hearing. In addition, there was sufficient evidence provided by the guardian to show that the change of residency was in the IP’s best interest. As a result, the Supreme Court should have granted this request as well.

What Do I Need to Know About Guardianship for Incapacitated People?

According to Article 81 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, the courts may appoint a guardian to help manage an individual’s personal and financial affairs if they become incapacitated. Depending on the specific needs of the person who is incapacitated, guardianship orders are tailored to meet those needs. For example, some people who are deemed incapacitated may only require limited assistance, and the court may appoint the guardian power to make decisions that are limited to financial management.

For individuals who are severely incapacitated, the court may grant a guardian full financial management power, as well as the power to decide if and when the IP should be moved to a nursing home or a long-term care facility.

What are the Responsibilities of a Guardian?

The responsibilities of a court-appointed guardian vary widely, depending on the circumstances and the degree to which the person is incapacitated.

The following are examples of some of the important responsibilities a guardian may have and the decisions they will have the authority to make on behalf of the IP:

Assistance with Finances: When physical or mental incapacity prevents someone from being able to pay their bills, a guardian can be appointed to help remedy the situation. This can involve paying all bills on time, collecting assets, making responsible investments, and other financial decisions that the IP would likely make if they were able to do so.

Authority to Ensure that the IP and the Home is Clean: It is not uncommon for IPs to either lose interest in or become incapable of completing basic daily activities, including grooming, bathing, getting dressed, using the toilet, preparing meals, and keeping their home clean.

A guardian has the authority to enter the home, arrange for home health care providers and cleaning services, and ensure that the IP is being properly cared for on a regular basis. In extreme cases, the guardian may need to make the difficult decision to place the IP in a residential care facility if it is no longer safe for the IP to remain in the home.

Authority to Stop Physical Abuse: Unfortunately, there are instances where greedy, unscrupulous friends or family members will physically abuse an IP. This appalling behavior can go unnoticed if the IP is unable to move or communicate.

If abuse is suspected, a guardian has the authority to take the appropriate steps to protect the IP and stop the abuse, including:

Obtaining a court injunction that requires the abuser to immediately stop the abusive behavior.
Implementing a home care plan that protects the IP from abuse.

Placing the IP in a residential home.

Granting an order of protection.

Granting the authority to apply to the family court for an order of protection.

Assistance with Medicaid Planning: Caring for an IP can be extremely costly, particularly if the individual is severely incapacitated. Home health care and placement in residential care facilities can cost thousands of dollars per month. A guardian can help obtain Medicaid eligibility for some of these services if the IP’s assets can be transferred or placed into a trust. A court can provide the authorization necessary for a guardian to obtain Medicaid eligibility on behalf of the IP. Additionally, a lawyer can assist in Medicaid planning.

Assistance with Tax Planning: This generally applies to IPs who have considerable wealth. While the IP is still living, they may wish to offer financial gifts to family members since it can be advantageous for estate tax reasons. A guardian has the authority to assist the IP with this process and help avoid costly tax penalties.

How is a Guardian Appointed?

If an individual wishes to be appointed guardian for an IP, a petition must be filed with the court by a petitioner. Once this is filed, a court evaluator will conduct an investigation and submit a detailed report about the case, including an opinion as to whether it is necessary for the individual to be granted guardianship. The petition is filed in the court, a hearing date is set, and close family members of the IP are notified.

At the hearing, the petitioner will be required to present clear evidence that the IP is no longer able to manage certain aspects of their affairs. The court evaluator also presents the report. In most cases, the court will render a decision after the hearing.

Who Can be a Guardian?

In most cases, the court gives preference to family members, the petitioner, and nominees of the IP when it comes to appointing guardianship roles. If, however, family members cannot agree on who should serve as guardian, the court will step in and appoint an independent guardian from a list that is maintained by the court.

The person who wishes to serve as guardian must obtain a bond in an amount that is decided by the court. This acts as an insurance policy that is paid for out of the IP’s assets. It helps protect the IP from any theft or other malfeasance by the guardian. If the bond cannot be obtained for some reason, the court will likely appoint an independent guardian.

Any individual who wishes to serve as a guardian for a family member or close friend must complete a course where the responsibilities and duties of the guardian are explained in detail. Some examples of specific duties that are expected:

Filing an initial report within 90 days of being appointed guardian. This should include a brief summary of the IP’s status and a complete list of the IP’s financial assets.

Filing an annual report with the court by May 31 of each year. The report must provide detailed information about all income and disbursements from the previous calendar year.

Submitting a final report upon termination that summarizes the length of the guardianship and the activities that were performed during the guardianship.

Visiting the IP at least four times per year.

How Can a Lawyer Help with a Guardianship?

An experienced lawyer can help with the legal process of the guardianship and establish what is expected. It is important to speak to a lawyer before beginning the guardianship process to ensure that it goes smoothly.

Westchester Guardianship Lawyers at Korsinsky & Klein, LLP Assist Families with Every Phase of the Guardianship Process

As family members age and their health begins to decline, it can slowly impact their ability to effectively manage finances and make important decisions about their health. While this is difficult for everyone involved, one of the best things that family members can do is to contact one of our Westchester guardianship lawyers at Korsinsky & Klein, LLP. We are committed to protecting those who can no longer advocate for themselves. For an initial consultation, call us at 212-433-2712 or contact us online. Located in Brooklyn and Manhattan, New York, and Lakewood, New Jersey, we serve clients throughout New York and New Jersey.

Full Article & Source:
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Change of Residency in Guardianship Case

Board Reprimands Former Probate Judge Over Guardianship Case

Posted By Paul Heintz

Matt Morris

Vermont’s Judicial Conduct Board has publicly reprimanded Bernard Lewis, who served as Orange County’s probate judge from 2002 until earlier this year. 

In an order issued late last week, the board wrote that Lewis had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to dispose of cases “promptly, efficiently and fairly.” Lewis formally accepted the reprimand instead of fighting it at a hearing that was scheduled to take place in October.

At issue was the judge’s handling of a nearly decade-long family feud over the guardianship of an elderly Newbury woman, Miriam Thomas, who has since died. As Seven Days reported last year, three of her children had accused a fourth of abusing his power as her court-appointed guardian and depleting her assets by more than $1 million.

In its reprimand, the board wrote that Lewis’ “repeated failure to address and decide issues” that came before him had cost the aggrieved siblings “significant attorney fees” and wasted both parties’ time and resources.

“The chronic failure to hold the guardian accountable for his actions with respect to his obligations while allowing him to pay himself enormous amounts of money over 7 ½ years, despite repeated filings that brought such issues to the Court’s attention, exemplifies a failure to dispose of issues fairly,” the board wrote.

Lewis declined to comment, saying only, “There’s two sides of every story.”

The judge’s decision not to seek reelection last year may have spared him a heavier penalty. “The board does have the authority to take more severe sanctions if it were a sitting judge, but Judge Lewis is no longer presiding,” said Andrew Maass, the Judicial Conduct Board chair.

Lewis is the second probate judge to face sanctions in recent months. In June, the board publicly reprimanded Chittenden County Probate Court Judge Gregory Glennon for asking lawyers who practiced in his court to be on his election campaign committee.

According to Maass, it’s highly unusual for a judge — let alone two — to be disciplined. “It’s not often that these kind of events happen in Vermont,” he said.

Full Article & Source:
Board Reprimands Former Probate Judge Over Guardianship Case

Ethics questions raised about Sterling Heights mayor's role in guardianship case

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. (WXYZ) — It’s a controversial guardianship case that’s caught the attention of the Attorney General and the Michigan Supreme Court.

When the 7 Investigators started investigating this guardianship case, we interviewed the family involved and we asked to interview the owner of the guardianship company so we could tell both sides of the story.

That owner refused to talk to us, but ever since we first aired this story, the lawyer for the guardianship company has taken to Twitter and Facebook to make several public comments about the family in this case.

And because that lawyer is also the mayor of Michigan’s 4th largest city, many of you had questions about his role in this.

“I’m Michael Taylor, I’m an attorney for Caring Hearts and Executive Care,” said Sterling Heights Mayor Michael Taylor as he approached 7 Action News outside a home in Utica where the we had been interviewing members of the Mitchell and Delbridge families about a controversial guardianship case.

Marcie Mitchell had been trying to get guardianship of her dad Bob Mitchell and her step-mom Barb Delbridge, who suffer from dementia and other health problems.

“I just want my parents back,” said Marcie in May.

Even though Marcie had priority under the law to become her dad’s guardian, Macomb County Probate Judge Kathryn George said she had “grave concerns” and instead appointed a company called Caring Hearts Michigan Inc. as guardian. Caring Hearts then hired Executive Care as caregivers for Bob and Barb. Both companies are tied to Robert and Cathy Kirk.

And that’s where Michael Taylor comes in: he works for Robert Kirk’s law firm.

“I’d love to have you come to my office so I can show you everything that’s been going on,” said Taylor. “We can absolutely do that,” said 7 Investigator Heather Catallo.

Taylor later rescinded that offer, telling the 7 Investigators that he had to follow his clients wishes and refused to do an interview with us.

But that did not stop him from making dozens of public Facebook posts and Tweets about the case.

“Hi Facebook, it’s me, Sterling Heights mayor Michael Taylor,” said Taylor during a Facebook Live video.

“It’s unfortunate that the full story is not being reported.”

On social media Taylor said Marcie’s “neglect is the sole reason that she did not get appointed” guardian and made frequent comments about Bob and Barb’s health conditions.

“It’s scary that he’s able to get away with the statements that he’s made without proving the facts that he has none of,” said Taylor.

Several of our viewers on Facebook started questioning Taylor’s role in this case.

Denise writes: “Isn’t being a Mayor of Sterling Heights, and getting involved as a lawyer for some clients a conflict of interest?”

Elizabeth says, “How in the world can the Mayor be messed up in some scheme like this?”

The 7 Investigators also received emails from viewers asking, “How are we to be assured that Mr. Taylor has not used his position as mayor to the advantage of his business associates?”

And this isn’t the first time some of Mayor Taylor’s 130,000 constituents have questioned his use of social media. In 2017, Taylor called someone on Facebook an expletive. Taylor said the guy was a troll who had been harassing him, but some Sterling Heights residents told us at the time they did not approve of the language Taylor used.

Mayor Taylor and Sterling Heights officials would not talk to us on camera about Taylor’s recent actions.

But the city attorney told us in an email that the job of mayor is a part time position that pays $23,122 a year. That means Michael Taylor is allowed to have outside employment.

But what about the city’s Ethics Resolution that Taylor supported when it passed back in 2013?

Under the Fitness for Office section, it says “Public servants should avoid engaging in any conduct, which is likely to bring discredit on themselves and the governmental bodies in which they serve.”

“If you look at some of the Facebook postings, you look at some of the tweets, and you look at some of the language, he could be borderline in violation of his own resolution,” said former Wayne County Auditor General Brendan Dunleavy. Dunleavy says Taylor risks discrediting city hall with his public comments.

“As mayor you set the tone for the city. People look to you for guidance, people look to you for what’s acceptable behavior,” said Dunleavy.

The Sterling Heights City attorney told us that “without knowing the content” of Mayor Taylor’s social media posts, they aren’t in a position to decide whether they violate the ethics ordinance.

When the 7 Investigators asked why they haven’t read the public posts, a city spokeswoman did not respond.

Taylor is no longer the attorney of record for Caring Hearts Michigan. He was replaced on the case shortly after our initial stories aired.

And for the guardianship case, it was reassigned to a different judge and family members now have guardianship of Bob and Barb.

Here are the questions 7 Action News posed to the Sterling Heights City Attorney, Marc D. Kaszubski, of O’Reilly Rancilio P.C.:

How many hours a week does the mayor work for the city?

"The City of Sterling Heights operates under a council-manager form of government wherein the City Council hires a full-time City Manager as the Chief Administrative Officer to perform and coordinate all administrative duties of City. As is the case in many council-manager municipalities across the State, the Mayor of Sterling Heights is a part-time, elected position. The Mayor’s hours vary, depending on the number of events attended, Council meeting schedule and length, conferences attended, office hours, and the like."

What is the mayor’s city salary?

"The Mayor is compensated at a rate set by the City’s Elected Officials Compensation Committee (EOCC), an independent commission established in accordance with State law. For the current fiscal year, being July1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, the EEOC has set the salary for the elected position of Mayor at $23,122."

Do Mr. Taylor’s social media posts violate the city ethics ordinance?

"The Mayor does not forfeit the right to comment because he is an elected official in Sterling Heights, especially on topics unrelated to City business. Without knowing the content of the specific media posts you are referring to, we are not in a position to analyze or comment upon whether there is any violation of the City’s ethics resolution. To the extent these posts relate your prior reporting on his legal representation on behalf of the Kirk & Huth law firm, there is no nexus to his elected official duties."

Does the type of Mr. Taylor’s outside employment violate the ethics ordinance?

"No. Under the council – manager form of government, the Mayor is not a full-time position."

What safeguards are in place to make sure Mr. Taylor is not approving contracts or other city business that involve any of the clients of Kirk and Huth?

"The Mayor does not have unilateral power to approve any contract on behalf of the City. That power rests with the entire City Council. With that said, there are standards set forth in the City Charter, City Code, and Ethics Resolution that safeguard against any potential conflicts of interest."

How many contracts has the city had with Kirk & Huth since Mayor Taylor has been in office?

"There have been no contracts between the City of Sterling Heights and Kirk & Huth.

In the interest of full disclosure, however, the City did engage the class action law firm Edelson PC out of Chicago to pursue litigation against opioid manufactures. Edelson represents multiple municipalities on this issue and Kirk & Huth were hired by Edelson to assist them in representing their other Macomb County clients (Warren, Sterling Heights, and Harrison Township). Edelson’s contracting directly with Kirk & Huth to assist them, was fully disclosed to City Council. Mayor Taylor recused himself from the agenda item, and abstained from voting on Edelson’s contract out of an abundance of caution."

Members of Michael Taylor’s law firm, Kirk, Huth, Lange & Badalementi have donated at least $4,800 to his past campaigns. O’Reilly & Rancilio employees (Kaszubski’s firm) have also donated at least $3,475 to Taylor’s campaign in the past as well.

Full Article & Source:
Ethics questions raised about Sterling Heights mayor's role in guardianship case

Texas Supreme Court to Weigh Ethics of Lawyer's Role in Elderly Woman's Guardianship Case

Texas Supreme Court building. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The Texas Supreme Court will soon decide whether a lawyer should be disqualified from a contested guardianship case involving an 88-year-old woman because he helped his legal assistant get a $350,000 loan from the woman, wrote her will and later helped his employee be appointed as her guardian.

The case, In Re Thetford, concerns Verna Thetford, who resides in a Graham assisted living facility, according to documents. In 2012, Thetford loaned her niece, Jamie Rogers, money to purchase property. Graham attorney Alfred G. “Rusty” Allen III, Rogers’ longtime employer, prepared the loan. Three years later, Allen prepared a will for Thetford that appointed Rogers as power of attorney.

However, when Thetford attempted to revoke the power of attorney in 2017, Rogers pursued guardianship over Thetford and used Allen as her lawyer, documents said.

Thetford later filed a motion to disqualify Allen from the guardianship, alleging his representation of Rogers was adverse to Thetford, and that Allen’s adverse representation in the guardianship matter is substantially related to his prior representation of Thetford.

Allen argued that Thetford was declared legally incapacitated by her doctor, and that it was his affirmative duty under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct to protect Thetford’s wellbeing and to initiate the guardianship proceedings.

A trial court denied Thetford’s motion to disqualify Allen. Thetford later filed a writ of mandamus with Fort Worth Second Court of Appeals challenging the decision, but the court denied her petition.

Thetford later appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Texas disciplinary rule of professional conduct 1.02(g) does not permit Allen’s representation of a third party with adverse interests to his client.

The high court accepted the case for review and is to hear arguments in the case Oct. 10.

“The issue in this case is whether the ethical rules authorize Mr. Allen as Verna’s longtime lawyer to represent Verna’s niece, who is indebted to Verna and to sue Verna in Guardianship,” said Mary Barkley, a partner in Fort Worth’s Cantey Hanger, who represents Thetford. “Rule 1.02 (g) says that when a lawyer believes their client is lacking in mental capacity, they shall take reasonable action in securing a guardian or someone to act on their behalf. The issue here is that Mr. Allen believes that 1.02 mandated him to sue Verna and pursue the guardianship.”

“And what we’re saying is that statute for that rule is contemplating reasonable action. Reasonable action could be any number of things,” Barkley said. “But when [Allen] represented a third party—the niece who was admittedly indebted to Verna at the time he accepted the representation and was also his employee—he ran afoul of the ethical rules.”

In his brief, Allen notes that, at the time the 2012 loan was transacted, Rogers was not an employee of his firm—she worked there from 1985 to 2005, and returned in 2016—and that the loan was eventually paid to Thetford in full. He also argues that the conflict of interest rules do not apply to the case because the guardianship proceeding is not adverse to Thetford as a matter of law, and Allen’s prior representation of Thetford is not substantially related to the guardianship proceeding.

Allen said he plans to argue the case himself at the Supreme Court but will be assisted by Don Herrmann, a partner in Fort Worth’s Kelly Hart & Hallman.

“In view of the fact that we’ve got an argument in front of the Supreme Court in a few weeks, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment about the case except to say I’ve done my best and I feel like I acted appropriately in accordance with the Texas disciplinary rules in all of my representation of Mrs. Thetford and this guardianship,’’ Allen said.

Herrmann also believes that Allen acted ethically.

“I think Mr. Allen acted appropriately within the rules and I’m reluctant to comment about the case in advance of the hearing on Oct. 10,’’ Herrmann said.

Full Article & Source:
Texas Supreme Court to Weigh Ethics of Lawyer's Role in Elderly Woman's Guardianship Case

Gary Ott dies after Alzheimer’s battle; former top aide blames his family

After years spent suffering from a progressive neurodegenerative disease, mostly hidden from public view, former longtime Salt Lake County Recorder Gary Ott died Thursday morning in hospice care in St. George.

He was 66.

Ott’s death followed a four-year struggle with Alzheimer’s disease. The details of his diagnosis were first made public last week in a court battle between Ott’s siblings and his former fiancee and assistant, Karmen Sanone.

A judge has yet to rule on who would become Ott’s guardian and conservator, which includes the power to preside over Ott’s estate. It’s not clear how his death will affect the court case. Third District Judge Bruce Lubeck said he planned to rule within days or weeks.

Martin Ott, Gary Ott’s brother, said his family spent several days at his side after being told Ott’s death was near. They were with him when he died, Martin Ott said.

“Believe me, the man was suffering. Every breath,” Martin Ott said.

Hours before his death, Sanone visited Ott’s facility and attempted to see him. The family and facility called St. George police and reported she was trespassing, according to a report read to The Tribune by Capt. Mike Giles.

“Family that were present as well as the facility had requested that she leave,” Giles said. “Our officers provided a trespass notice that if she returned charges could be filed or an arrest could be made.”

Attorneys in the case said they didn’t know what would happen moving forward with Ott’s estate, including a Salt Lake City home and banking and retirement accounts, along with immediate arrangements, such as services and interment.

Ott had been living with Sanone at her Weber County farm for years while maintaining legal residency in Salt Lake County.

The two acted like husband and wife, describing themselves as such to various doctors in recent years. They had exchanged rings and were once engaged, but never married.

After struggles with his speech, Ott saw a doctor in 2013 who said he believed the symptoms may indicate a form of dementia. Subsequent visits with neurologists confirmed Ott likely had Alzheimer’s. As of last week, Ott had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, attorneys said.

The diagnosis came two years after friends and former employees say they began seeing possible signs of the disease.

His decline would perplex friends, family and employees for years as they knew something was wrong with Ott but were powerless to remove him from office or otherwise intervene in his life.

His employees, meanwhile, attributed various symptoms emerging in public to a severe case of shingles and the medication he took for years to treat it. Two of his staffers, Sanone and former Chief Deputy Recorder Julie Dole, had access to his email account.

They said they never wrote anything purporting to be from Ott without his actually knowing and signing off on the correspondence. Sanone said she was writing his emails because a debilitating hand injury left him unable to write for himself. In one email, Sanone fretted over how to make an email appear as though it was coming from the elected recorder.

In another, sent May 5, 2016, between her public and private email addresses, Sanone sent a document called “Gary Ott Trust Outline,” a record obtained by The Tribune this week shows. The outline sought to give Sanone control over Ott’s trust.

“I want the trust designed such that all assets will remain in my control until such time as I become incapacitated or otherwise unable to make my own decisions,” the outline said. “At this time, the co-trustee will assume control of the trust and my assets.

“Karmen Sanone is to be named as Co-trustee.”

It’s not clear whether the outline, which sought to give Sanone control over all of Ott’s stocks and investments, powers of attorney, farm equipment and other assets, was ever signed.

In January 2015, the same day Ott was sworn into his final years in office, he purportedly signed an advance health care directive, a document nominating Sanone as his medical guardian should he need one in the future. Dole, who filled out much of the document, was also the legal witness.

He then walked into the county clerk’s office and stumbled over the oath of office, including repeating his own name.

After months of news reports that began to shed light on the apparent struggles of the county recorder, Ott’s family, living in southern Utah, asked the 3rd District Court to give them the power to make his medical and financial decisions.

After Sanone found out the siblings were going to court, she visited one of Ott’s financial planners and became the death beneficiary on one of his retirement accounts, according to court testimony.

Dole and Sanone have been accused of knowingly propping Ott up in the office for years while he suffered from his terminal condition, even going back to his 2014 re-election.

During that time, police were contacted about Ott at least three times, including one winter night in Tooele last year, when Ott ran out of gas and was wandering disoriented. Police, who described him as incoherent, took him to the emergency room.

His friends and family described a sense of relief on Thursday as Ott’s suffering came to an end, about 4 a.m. in hospice. Caretakers warned the family days ago that Ott was near death, and they spent several days with him.

“We’re religious people. We think that there’s a hereafter,” Martin Ott said. “Gary was crossing the line and would be joining with loved ones from long ago.”

In a written response, Dole said she was “deeply saddened” by the news. She said she learned of Ott’s condition in court last week and called accusations that she knew of his condition long ago “absurd.” She also blamed Ott’s siblings for his death.

“I believe from all reports that Gary met an untimely death due to his siblings‘ decisions, which I do not believe took any consideration of what Gary wanted, nor his quality of life,” Dole said. “He should have been allowed to spend his last days with his last days with his pets and life partner on the farm, not locked in a confined space.”

Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill’s office has talked about an investigation related to the recorder’s office but has released no details of the matter.

Martin Ott said the family wants justice.

His friends and family described a sense of relief on Thursday as Ott’s suffering came to an end, about 4 a.m. in hospice. Caretakers warned the family days ago that Ott was near death, and they spent several days with him.

“We’re religious people. We think that there’s a hereafter,” Martin Ott said. “Gary was crossing the line and would be joining with loved ones from long ago.”

In a written response, Dole said she was “deeply saddened” by the news. She said she learned of Ott’s condition in court last week and called accusations that she knew of his condition long ago “absurd.” She also blamed Ott’s siblings for his death.

“I believe from all reports that Gary met an untimely death due to his siblings‘ decisions, which I do not believe took any consideration of what Gary wanted, nor his quality of life,” Dole said. “He should have been allowed to spend his last days with his pets and life partner on the farm, not locked in a confined space.”

Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill’s office has talked about an investigation related to the recorder’s office but has released no details of the matter.

Martin Ott said the family wants justice.

“All of us, in the family, are very interested not in revenge here, there’s no [point] there. It’s a place for the cynical,” he said. “What we are interested in is justice. We’re hopeful that the folks that perpetrated what appear to us to be criminal acts are brought to justice.”

Full Article & Source:
Gary Ott dies after Alzheimer’s battle; former top aide blames his family

See Also:
Testimony: Gary Ott had dementia long before 2014 campaign