Ohio judge allows Forlorn husband to litigate racketeering lawsuit

OHIO - Judge Sherrie Miday is allowing a racketeering lawsuit to proceed in a claim involving a retired surgeon’s 85 year old wife who was guardianized and is currently a ward of the state in Ohio.

Dr. Mehdi Saghafi, 88, sued a construction company, 8 lawyers, a CPA and a court appointed guardian in January 2019, alleging that he had been forced to divorce his wife Fourough Bakhtiar Saghafi so that $8 million in marital assets could be transferred and liquidated, according to a press release.

“The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint states facts demonstrating viable claims for relief on all of plaintiff’s claims and that this court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims,” wrote Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Civil Judge Miday in her Aug. 20 decision. “As such, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint is not proper and movants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Defendants, represented by the Tucker Ellis law firm, had moved the court to dismiss on Aug. 2.

“The court finds that it is premature to convert the motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment,” stated Judge Miday in her ruling.

A ward of any state in America is typically a senior citizen experiencing cognitive decline or a younger adult with physical or developmental disabilities. However, once appointed a guardian by a probate Judge, a ward is subject, against their will, to the liquidation of their assets, sedation by physician-prescribed psychotropic drugs, the denial of choice of food, marital status, health insurance, medical care and visits with friends and family members.

“This case involves much more than allegations against the fiduciary of an estate,” stated Judge Miday last week. “Plaintiff’s complaint includes allegations that occurred prior to the guardianship being established and includes allegations that the defendants were involved in a larger scale scheme against the plaintiffs and/or Mrs. Saghafi.”

The ruling comes at a time when adult guardianship programs nationwide are under fire with allegations of neglect, abuse and financial exploitation. As reported in the Southeast Texas Record last week, U.S. Representatives Darren Soto, Charlie Crist and Gus Bilirakis of Florida as well as Debbie Dingell of Michigan re-introduced HR 4174 on Aug. 7 to enact protections from the risks of abuse and neglect under guardianship.

“This legal form of kidnapping is happening in communities across the country, in many cases with little or no recourse available, and recently in Florida directly resulting in a death,” said Congressman Crist in a joint statement posted online.

Problems reported in Dr. Saghafi’s lawsuit include allegations that despite the recommendation of a court-appointed officer, a convicted felon was appointed the guardian of Mrs. Saghafi and that marital assets were used to employ a criminal defense attorney.

“Jaleh Presutto was removed as guardian for criminal activity three times and was reappointed despite pleading guilty to multiple charges of forgery and theft for defrauding the Amhurst school system last year," said Dr. Saghafi's attorney Charles Longo. "By law, Mrs. Saghafi's funds are only supposed to be used for the care and needs of Mrs. Saghafi not legal fees but Mrs. Saghafi's funds were used to finance her personal attorney, Neil Spike, $270,000.00, most of which was paid when Presutto had been removed as guardian."

In addition to Presutto, Defendants named in Dr. Saghafi’s complaint include Custom Contractor C. Francis Builders, Accountant Stephen Sartchev, Guardian of the Estate Zachary Simonoff, Attorney Eric Zagrans, Attorney Rachelle Kuzwick Zidar, Attorney James Reddy, Attorney Lisa Hahn, Attorney Joyce E. Barrett, Attorney Stephen Wolf and Phillip Presutto, Jr.


Full Article & Source:
Ohio judge allows Forlorn husband to litigate racketeering lawsuit

AL Katz Outrage

To imagine that a Holocaust hero of 89 years old, Al Katz, would be forced to live in a deplorable nursing home four minutes from his house with his daughter waiting and wanting to care for him round the clock is unimaginable.  To imagine that the Survivor of seven years of slave labor inflicted by the Nazis and a final death march to Dachau would have nothing left of his sizable estate for his adored great-grandchildren to inherit is likewise unimaginable.  And then to picture that the Holocaust Survivor's daughter would still be settling his estate, worth less than nothing monetarily, with its debts far exceeding its minimal assets, more than seven years after he passed away, with a death threat hanging over her head, is horrifying … and true in the nether world of involuntary professional guardianship.

Over seven years since Al Katz passed on to Heaven, as a Ward of the State of Florida, the repercussions of his disastrous guardianship are unending; and his daughter, Dr. Beverly Newman, who cared for him 24 hours per day during the final months and years of his life, has been habitually mocked in Indianapolis courts for her life-threatening disabilities that restrict virtually all daily activities, especially travel, which risks her life through unrestricted contacts with unseen toxic exposures - pesticides, air fresheners, smoke residues, fumes from vehicles, perfumes, dry cleaning fluids, cleaning agents, and aerosols, to cite a few of the thousands of products to which Beverly, and those like her, are chemically sensitive or allergic.  For Beverly Newman, toxic exposures can kill … easily and quickly … via anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, or pulmonary distress.

Today, millions of persons in all stages and statuses of life, especially our military troops, have asthma, severe allergies, and/or chemical sensitivities that pose lethal outcomes.  These disabilities, known as Environmental Illnesses, from which Dr. Newman has suffered for well over 30 years, have been denied and ridiculed in the courts of Indianapolis, when Attorney Steven A. Johnson of Merrillville, Indiana, declared in open court on March 4, 2016, before dozens of persons, that:

[Dr.] Newman says she's allergic to everything.  That she has chemical sensitivities ….  Well, let’s talk about then her chemical sensitivities …. She said she’s allergic to about everything.  What was she doing in Meijer?  You know what they sell in Meijer?  You know?  We sell everything.  Who’s, who’s – who goes to a Meijer …. Who is it that’s allergic to everything that goes into a Meijer store.  She’s not allergic to everything.

In September 2017, on appeal for Steven Johnson's public ridicule of Dr. Newman, the Indiana Supreme Court found nothing odious or improper about the scathing derision by Steven A. Johnson representing Meijer stores.

In the same month, September 2017, Indiana's Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush issued an order that reinstated Judge James Joven, who had been removed, pursuant to law, from the Al Katz probate case but was still issuing orders in the case for two weeks after his removal.  One of Judge Joven's orders is essentially a death sentence for Dr. Beverly Newman, requiring her to travel 1200 miles from her home in Florida to the probate court in Indianapolis, against expert medical opinions warning the court of lethal or devastating, irreparable medical consequences to Beverly upon such travel:  

Due to Beverly Newman’s medical disabilities, that are known to be life-threatening and incurable, it is my professional medical opinion … that the toxic exposures present in public places where she would be forced to be in order to travel from Florida to Indiana are likely to jeopardize her health and constitute unacceptable risks to her well-being ….

Environmental illness can cause permanent damage to multiple organ systems and/or death.  Therefore, it is my considered professional opinion that Beverly Newman, a disabled person, should not travel from Florida to Indiana or any other long distances and that Beverly Newman should be granted the full protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush's reinstatement order retroactively erased from the court's record that Judge James Joven had been illegally issuing orders in Al Katz's case for weeks when the judge had no legal jurisdiction in the case.

In the probate court, Indianapolis estate Attorney Robert W. York, a long-time colleague of Judge Joven, has successfully convinced the judge that all of Beverly's proofs of disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, should be stricken from the court's record or ignored, including:

1.  expert medical opinion from a federal government physician confirming Beverly Newman's Environmental Illness disabilities

2.   expert medical opinion from a Board Certified physician confirming Dr. Newman's life-threatening disabilities and consequent inability to travel

3.a letter to the court from a nurse and eyewitness to Beverly's disabilities over the course of 20 years

4.a lengthy detailed eyewitness affidavit confirming personal observations of Beverly's disabilities over the course of more than 30 years

5.the official pesticide advance notification registry list of the State of Florida requiring notification to Beverly Newman, pursuant to law, prior to pesticide applications in her area.

Despite all of the objective and expert evidence filed in the probate court, which evidence has all been stricken or ignored upon motions by Robert W. York, York insists that "It remains the Newmans' burden of proof as to any claimed disability of Beverly."

Likewise, Robert W. York, who had previously fired Beverly Newman's husband for refusing to contain reports of serious child abuse known to have occurred, has relentlessly argued that Beverly Newman's health conditions do not require any accommodations under ADA law and that she must travel to Indianapolis on October 25, 2017, for a probate court hearing;  although Robert W. York's motions to the court resulted in the removal of Dr. Newman as a party to her Father's case as of September 11, 2015, and prohibited her from making filings for the past two years.  Once again, the probate court has lost its jurisdiction over Dr. Newman, a Florida resident since 2009, but it continues to issue orders to her and prohibits her from filing responses in the court. 

Disability bigotry … plain and simple … is diffuse in Indiana courts, where the disabled are disbelieved, discredited, and distanced from equal access to the courts, so much so that even deaf persons were denied interpreters at court hearings until a recent federal court ruling against the courts in the State of Indiana made disability accommodations for the deaf mandatory.  Nonetheless, the courts of Indiana are still recalcitrantly ruling against the disabled.

This is my plea for my life ….  Beverly Newman, Ed.D.

This is my plea for the lives of millions of Americans, including our military troops, who suffer from Environmental Illnesses that are progressive, incurable, and life-threatening reactions to unseen toxins. 

This is my plea to you to support us in our battles against disability bigotry in the courts of Indianapolis, Indiana. Stand with us proudly, please. 

End D B

Persons to contact:

loretta.rush@courts.in.gov

richard.payne@courts.in.gov

andrew.mallon@indy.gov

End Disability Bigotry

Source:
AL Katz Outrage

Conservatorship Conundrum: Court Process That Can 'Unperson' You Within Minutes

by  Martha T.S. Laham

You may have heard the term "conservatorship" in the context of entertainment news. Older celebrities like the late Mickey Rooney, the star of such film classics as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Black Stallion, and the late Peter Falk, who played the shrewd police lieutenant on Columbo, were placed under conservatorships.

But conservatorships aren't just reserved for older adults. American pop princess Britney Spears and former child star Amanda Bynes were conserved for running amok and posing a danger to themselves.

Let's look behind the headlines and learn what a conservatorship, also referred to as a guardianship, is.

An Age-Old Solution to an Age-Old Situation

The guardianship concept dates back to Roman times. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.), a Roman philosopher, lawyer, and statesman, codified the guardianship concept into Roman law, with an eye toward managing an incompetent's property.

In England during the early 1300s, guardianships appeared in common law with the passage of De Praerogativa Regis, a statute that allowed kings to take ownership of the property of mentally disturbed individuals. By the early 1600s, an heir's guardian obligations were codified and crossed the Big Pond to the United States.

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the states employed parens patriae (Latin for "parent of the nation"). The law allowed the state to exercise jurisdiction over persons with disabilities or incapacities by appointing officials, usually guardians, to care for these persons if they were unable to care for themselves.

Protectors of the "Unbefriended" 

So what exactly is a guardianship? According to a report entitled "Public Guardianship After 25 Years: In the Best Interest of Incapacitated People?," a guardianship is described as:

"... a relationship created by state law in which a court gives one person or entity (the guardian) the duty and power to make personal and/or professional decisions for another person (the ward or incapacitated person). [...] Guardianship can 'unperson' individuals and make them 'legally dead.' Guardianship can be a double-edged sword, 'half Santa and half ogre.'"

The long and short of it is, if no family member or friend is willing to step up to serve as legal guardian to a ward or an incapacitated person, or resources aren't available to retain a private guardian (such as a professional fiduciary), then a public official or publicly-funded organization will be appointed as legal guardian, the guardian of last resort.

The State Holds All the Cards

Because of a guardianship's far-reaching power to take over people's lives, you'd probably think that guardianships would be legislated, regulated, and controlled at the federal level. Not so -- adult guardianships are a state-based legal function.

The foundation of the public guardianship system is established by general guardianship code, while legal proceedings can vary by state.

Guardianships by the Numbers

You might be wondering how many people's lives are managed under a guardianship. The answer is that no one knows for sure. By one estimate, about 1.5 million Americans are under a guardianship at any given time, which is probably an underestimate.

One Size Doesn't Fit All Situations

Different types of conservatorships exist. Let's use California as an example. In "The Golden State," conservatorships come in four forms: general conservatorships, limited conservatorships, temporary conservatorships, and Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorships (LPSs). The first three forms are considered probate conservatorships based on California Probate Code, while the fourth form is designed to care for individuals suffering with serious mental illness and who need special care. Let's look at the first three forms.

General conservatorships are ordinarily used for adults who are unable to take care of themselves or their finances. Here, the judge would choose a person or an organization, the "conservator," to make some or all life decisions for the protected person, the "conservatee." Things like medical and housing decisions would be made by the "conservator of the person." The conservator of the person might also make property decisions, or someone else might be appointed to do that, the "conservator of the estate."

Adults with developmental disabilities who are unable to fully care for themselves or their finances may be placed under a limited conservatorship. These conservatees don't usually need a high level of care or assistance, as compared to conservatees in general conservatorships. They often suffer from long-term developmental disabilities, such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism, and other impairments, that started before they turned 18.

When a conservatorship is required urgently, the judge may grant a temporary conservatorship by appointing a temporary conservator of person and/or property for a stated period of time. A temporary conservatorship is a "Band-Aid" over a potentially festering situation and is usually granted if the matter is urgent.

A Double-Edged Sword 

As a legal concept, a conservatorship protects and manages the personal care and/or financial affairs of a vulnerable or dependent adult. In its practical application, however, a conservatorship is the most restrictive alternative and most intrusive option to addressing a situation.

In instances where elders are being abused, neglected, or exploited, a conservatorship can create new problems and even perpetuate the abuse when a court-appointed protector seizes "supreme control" over a conserved elder.

The cold hard fact is that a conservatorship can strip a person of his or her basic freedoms--sometimes in just a matter of minutes.

It Could Happen to You

The scary thing is any of us could become a ward of the state. Growing old and forgetful, getting ill, becoming unable to take care of ourselves or our affairs, getting into a crippling accident, or depending on others for our care could happen to any of us. Losing capacity doesn't distinguish between the genius or the average, the rich or the poor, or the healthy or the unhealthy.

In the next blog post in this series, we'll learn "who" does "what" in a conservatorship and describe how a conservatorship is formed.

Follow Martha T.S. Laham on Twitter: www.twitter.com/marthatslaham

Full Article & Source:
Conservatorship Conundrum: Court Process That Can 'Unperson' You Within Minutes