Saturday, July 17, 2010

CT Judicial Council Finds Probable Cause Against Probate Judge

A council investigating a complaint of professional or ethical misconduct by Probate Judge Bryan Meccariello has found probable cause and will hold a public hearing in September.

Samuel Manzo, an apparent heir to property left by Josephine Smoron, brought the action against Mecarriello.

Smoron died one year ago, leaving most of her 80-acre estate to Manzo in a 2004 will. But two months before she died, Meccariello approved a request by her former conservator to establish two trusts to hold all her assets.

The conservator, local attorney John T. Nugent, was named trustee. Nugent funded the trusts with Smoron's real estate and cash assets before Smoron died. According to court documents, the land was to go to three local churches, who would then sell it to local developer Carl Verderame for about $2 million.

Verderame needs the land for an access road to build a $118 million sports arena.

Full Article and Source:
Judicial Council Finds Probable Cause of Misconduct by Meccariello

See Also:
In Smoron Probate Case, Greed at Its Ugly Worse

Woman Pleads Guilty to Stealing from Aunt

In the middle of her trial on theft charges, a former Phoenixville woman pleaded guilty to having hoodwinked her aged aunt into taking out a mortgage on the home she had lived in for 50 years so the woman could finance a high-end life style.

Mary Ellen Ashton is accused of taking the $82,067 that her 81-year-old aunt had coming from a second mortgage on her 5th Avenue home in Phoenixville and spending it on herself, leaving her aunt, who was suffering from dementia at the time, in danger of losing the home her husband had bought for the couple in 1956.

Ashton had told her aunt, Margaret Voytowicz, that she would repay the money, which she needed for personal expenses, authorities said. But she never did. The house was foreclosed on and Voytowicz faced eviction until family members and attorneys stepped in and saved the home from being sold out from under her.

Voytowicz died in November 2008 after suffering a debilitating stroke. She was 84.

On Wednesday, Ashton pleaded guilty to charges of theft by deception, theft by unlawful taking, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds, and receiving stolen property. The plea ended her trial on those charges, which had begun in Judge William P. Mahon’s courtroom Monday.

Full Article and Source:
Phoenixville Woman Accused of Taking $82,067

What Price Can Be Placed on Betrayal of Trust?

Hey, it's just money...right? A story in today's Bonner County Daily Bee caught my attention and got my hackles up. Apparently, Elise Anne Davidson, of Spirit Lake, Idaho, has received no more than a "slap on the wrist" for her financial exploitation of an elderly man. You see, Ms. Davidson used a financial power of attorney to steal more than $4,000.00 from the victim while he was convalescing in a nursing home. She also apparently attempted to have the victim removed from the nursing home and placed in her care. The victim, who is unidentified in the story, was confined to a wheelchair and incapable of writing or speaking. Rightfully, Ms. Davidson was originally charged with a felony -- exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Unfortunately, through a plea agreement, she pled guilty to misdemeanor theft and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. She was also ordered to pay the nursing home $1,000.00 in funds which the facility was owed.

When you look at it, I suppose it is easy to say that stealing $4,000.00 should not equate with a stiffer sentence than Ms. Davidson received. This is not about the money, however. This is about the exploitation of the vulnerable adult who was the victim in this case. What price can be placed on the betrayal of trust?

Full Article and Source;
North Idaho Woman Receives and Unbeliebably Light Sentence in Exploitation Case

Friday, July 16, 2010

Danny Tate Continues Fight Against Probate Court's Assault on His Personal and Property Rights

Things have only seemed quiet with the probate abuse case of Nashville musician Danny Tate in which Tate's lifelong accumulation of assets has largely been wiped out during a 32-month "temporary" conservatorship (guardianship) initiated by his brother David, facilitated by attorney Paul T. Housch and sanctioned by Davidson County Circuit Court Judge Randy Kennedy. But in the vein of things not being as they appear and courts not necessarily being about justice, the involved parties have been busy and a web site Nashville Criminals is documenting all the developments of this case which exemplifies questionable probate actions occurring throughout the U.S.

Nashville Criminals is a presentation of evidence by Ira Robbins, a Milwaukee-based investigative consultant, with nearly 50 years of investigative experience which includes working as a police officer, licensed private investigator and investigative consultant. Robbins provides documents alleging that David Tate used a fraudulent Durable General Power of Attorney to gain initial control of Danny Tate's finances which funded attorney Housch's October 2007 petitioning for the musician to be conserved.

Per the web site,

On October 19, 2007, David Tate filed a fraudulent PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATOR claiming Danny Tate was under the influence of drugs to such a point that immediate incarceration in the Vanderbilt Psychiatric Hospital for at least 30 days was absolutely necessary. Thereafter, Danny was to be conveyed under guard with David, to Boston where he would remain in a drug facility for at least a year or two The claim of such a severe addiction was absolutely false. Although Danny had been using drugs, Vanderbilt Hospital determined that his addiction was not as severe as David had reported and released Danny after just 6 days.

For 32 months, Danny Tate simultaneously fought to regain control over not just substance abuse, but also his civil and property rights that some court observers believe were hijacked by the Tennessee probate court. Only when Tate’s current attorney, Michael Hoskins, filed an extraordinary relief application did the Middle Tennessee Court of Appeals reverse one of Judge Kennedy’s critical case rulings, an act described by Nashville Scene as “meaning the Probate Court had strayed so far from established legal procedure that an extraordinary judicial slap on the wrist was dealt to Kennedy. More remarkable still, Judge Frank Clement, the jurist who issued the Appeals Court decision, used to sit in Kennedy’s seat in Probate Court.”

This court ruling basically acknowledged the questionable process by which Tate was conserved and forced Judge Kennedy to allow a hearing that would make the 32-month "temporary" conservatorship permanent or else the status would be terminated. The ruling finally allowed Danny Tate his "day in court."

Throughout early 2010, the case began receiving increased public attention starting with the Nashville Scene article, continuing with a FreeDannyTate.com web site and a Friends for Danny Tate’s Defense Facebook page as well as an awareness concert which all combined to help generate respectable buzz within a variety of other media outlets.

A May 24 hearing took place in a courtroom that included Tate supporters and a local television camera crew. The hearing quickly evolved into what seemed a scripted media event with Danny Tate's release from the conservatorship put front and center for all (especially the cameras) to see. "They saved him" seemed a recurring theme used to justify the 32-month legal ordeal which now leaves Tate destitute.

The day's victory played well from a public relations standpoint and was likely hoped to appease the supporters on hand, but the day's real outcome became evident nearly three weeks later upon Judge Kennedy signing the hearing final order.

Rather than signing a final order submitted by Danny Tate attorney Michael Hoskins that reflected the May 24 ruling, Judge Kennedy instead opted for a Paul T. Housch-written statement that gave the now-terminated "temporary" conservatorship of David Tate functional control over his brother's assets through a 60-day "wind down" period. This translated practically into further depletion of Danny Tate's estate by the "temporary" conservator despite Tate's "rights" alleged to be restored. Judge Kennedy further demonstrated support of this course at a June 11 hearing.

This background brings us back to the Nashville Criminals site where Ira Robbins has documented irregularities of the process leading to Danny Tate's current situation and also has provided updates on recent activity. This includes his letter to the Tennessee Attorney General and Davidson County District Attorney. Robbins also has posted efforts to reach out to members of the Tate family, David Tate himself and even the attorney for the Signet, the company owned by David Tate's wife, as Elizabeth Tate and company could be parties in future litigation.

The site also gives information on the case of Robert Thurman, another individual under a similarly questionably conservatorship initiated by Housch and approved by Kennedy.

In a post entitled They Finally Got It All, Robbins displays Danny Tate's "Respondent's Motion to Proceed as a Poor Person on Appeal" in which he submits he has been "thoroughly impoverished as a result of this conservatorship action." And the conservatorship - temporary or otherwise - was theoretically to protect both the ward and his estate? That's why the site is called Nashville Criminals.

Just Part of the Cover-Up gives hint to potential concern on the part of the "temporary" conservator David Tate as he has now petitioned the court (and presumably continued inflating his destitute brother's legal bills) to have a series of depositions entered into evidence at the May 24 hearing removed. Here's how Ira Robbins describes it:

On June 29, 2010, Attorney Housch filed a Motion to hide evidence that incriminates him and his co-conspirators for their criminal conduct. The depositions of David Tate and Dr. William Kenner provide ample evidence of their criminal wrongdoing. Now, Attorney Housch has asked Judge Kennedy to strike their testimony from the record. Even though those depositions were not used in a trial, they still contain enough evidence to convict the parties, including Housch, of criminal conduct. No wonder he wants to get rid of them. And just who do you think will get the bill for this motion? You guessed it. Danny will.

A final posting Fair Warning is the most recent posting and says this:

TODAY, PER AN OFFICIAL REQUEST, I DISPATCHED MY UPDATED 26 PAGE SWORN AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH 250 PAGES OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SEEKING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TO THE NASHVILLE OFFICE OF THE FBI, THE US ATTORNEY IN NASHVILLE, TN, THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY OFFICE OF THE US ATTORNEY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DAVIDSON COUNTY TENNESSEE.

The Nashville Criminals site counter lists more than 6,600 visitors in but a few short weeks. It's hard to imagine the extended Tate family or associated lawyers promoting the site. Danny Tate's friends undoubtedly are watching. Hopefully an assortment of law enforcement agencies are also viewing and absorbing the facts associated with this case.

If what has happened to Danny Tate is an example of the legal system operating properly, God help us all! If it is an example of abuse and corruption, many agencies have been served "fair warning" and their reputations are additionally now on the line. So the next logical question: anyone ready for action? The Friends of Danny Tate continue their call for justice.

Full Article and Source:
Nashville Musician Continues Fight on Probate Court's Assult on Personal, Property Rights

Editorial: MI State Legislature Should Support Bills Protecting Elderly

The Michigan Office of Services to the Aging is urging the Michigan Legislature to pass a package of bills geared toward protecting the state's older adults from financial abuse.

Representatives of OSA met last month with individual legislators and testified before the House Senior Health Security and Retirement House Committee in support of the bills.

The bills, HB 4619, 4622, 4623, 4625, 6252, 5187 and 5193, are actually part of an even longer list of legislation pending in both the House and Senate.

It's unfortunate that so many bills are needed to address the problem of elder abuse. But if that's what it takes to attack the problem, then so be it. It doesn't matter, in a sense, what the order is for passing these bills, but they should be approved by both the House and the Senate.

•Require training for financial institution staff on financial exploitation, how to spot suspicious activity and how to report suspicious activity when detected.

•Expand the definition of abuse of vulnerable adults to include financial exploitation.

•Require financial institutions to inform account holders and provide written disclosure of the rights of joint account holders so that those allowing access to their funds understand that joint account holders have the legal right to use the account and funds contained in it as if it is their own money.

•Require courts to consider appointment of a conservator if a person under a guardianship has assets of more than a certain limit ($10,000). This is to prevent potential financial exploitation through a guardianship.

Full Editorial and Source:
State Legislature Should Support Bills Protecting Elderly Residents

Family Tragedy May Lead to New Law on Student Loans

Most people who write their congressman get back a polite form letter.

But when the Bryski family of Marlton, N.J., contacted Rep. John Adler, D-N.J., last year with their story of tragedy, they got legislation drafted and introduced that, if enacted, would change the way millions of student loans are handled.

In 2004, Christopher Bryski was 23 and in college - a seemingly invulnerable varsity athlete - when he suffered a traumatic brain injury in a freak accident; he spent two years in a persistent vegetative state before dying. As brutal as it was for the Bryskis to lose a son and brother in this way, the event triggered a financial nightmare for them.

Because his father, Joseph Bryski Sr., had co-signed Christopher's student loans with several banks, the family was on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars, obligations that had been buried in fine print. So even while medical bills accumulated as Christopher lay in limbo, the student loans came due and the interest rate increased. The Bryskis struggled to keep up.

"The process was horrible," said mother Diane Bryski.

Direct student loans from the federal government are forgiven if the borrower dies or becomes incapacitated, but so-called private loans from banks that millions of students carry usually are not. And because Christopher had not signed a power-of-attorney document, his parents and brothers had no legal standing to negotiate payment terms, nor could they access his bank accounts to help pay off his student debt, rent and credit card bills.

Full Article and Source:
Family's Tragedy May Lead to New Law on Student Loans

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Danny's Diary

As my story surfaces, it is quickly being recognized as one of the most unlawful and abusive conservatorships (guardianships) ever known.

I use the word “known” for a reason. Very few stories ever surface and this is by design. Our corrupt probate system uses this law for all the wrong reasons and have “designed” the racket to cover up their dirty deeds.

My case may not be near as horrific as many, but it’s enough so to get the idea across to the public. If this has happened to me think of the stories that have never been heard; the elderly locked away and medicated while their estates are drained, lining the pockets of these bottom feeders; attorneys who usually couple probate law practice with personal injury. Need I say more?

Full Article and Source:
Free Danny Tate!!!

See Also:
NashvilleCriminals

Facebook: Justice for Danny Tate

Facebook: Friends for Danny Tate's Defense

Family Feud May Test Boundaries of Inheritance Law

Inside a quiet room on an upper floor of a glimmering glass office building in Trenton sits a seemingly ordinary stack of documents.

The papers summarize a bitter court fight.

But this is no routine legal tussle.

At issue is a tradition as basic to families as wedding rings and vacation photographs: Who ultimately has a right to an inheritance?

On one side stands the Cohen family of Hudson News fame, whose once-vibrant patriarch in Englewood is now rendered nearly immobile and virtually speechless by a degenerative neurological disorder.

On the other side is his former son-in-law, Ronald Perelman, a legendary corporate takeover billionaire and Revlon chairman with a take-no-prisoners reputation in his financial dealings. He's trying to convince a court to declare the elderly Cohen incapacitated.

Perelman says his daughter — Cohen's granddaughter — is entitled to half of the family's fortune, which has been estimated to be as much as $800 million by Fortune magazine. To get the money, Perelman wants to go where few court cases have ever ventured: He wants to rewrite the will of a man who isn't dead.

Perelman's lawsuit, which he filed as executor of the estate of his ex-wife, was dismissed a year ago by a Bergen County judge, who just last month sanctioned his lawyers for "overly aggressive" tactics and ruled that one of Perelman's central legal claims was "frivolous."

Perelman is appealing.

Where this case will lead is an open question. Already, this bitter conflict has touched on such issues as a family's right to privacy, its ability to protect its business interests, and broader ethical and legal questions about the rights of the disabled and elderly to make decisions in their wills.

Full Article and Source:
Kelly: Family Feud May Test Boundaries of Inheritance Law

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Nursing Home Chain Loses Class Action Lawsuit Big

I guess there's probably a lot a screaming and yelling going on at the Skilled Healthcare Group (SKH) headquarters in California. Perhaps the anger derives from the miserable looking financial chart for the company showing a whopping 75% decline in price per share in one day!

Another portion of the companies anger is probably being misdirected at the lawyers who defended the company in a class action lawsuit brought against Skilled Healthcare based on systematic under-staffing at 22 nursing homes owned by the corporate giant. Really, the only people to blame are the managers in the company who intentionally chose to limit that staffing at their facilities.

After hearing months of evidence regarding staffing levels at the nursing homes operated by Skilled Healthcare, the jury awarded the maximum amount permissible under the California Health and Safety Code--- a whopping $671 million to the members of the class.

The massive jury award is hardly an arbitrary number. Rather, the compensatory damages were awarded based on a statutory violation of $500 per-patient per-day at the 22 subject facilities for not providing that state minimum staffing of 3.2 hours for each patient living at the nursing homes on a daily basis.

In addition to the compensatory damages, the lawsuit also seeks punitive damages against Skilled Healthcare. Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are intended to punish the wrongdoer for their acts. The punitive aspect of the lawsuit will move forward in the coming weeks.

Full Article and Source:
Nursing Home Chain Hit With Landmark Verdict in Under-Staffing Class Action Lawsuit