Saturday, October 24, 2015
State suspends nursing assistant's license following theft accusation
MARION COUNTY, Fla. — A
nursing assistant is a step closer to losing her license after
accusations that she stole a vehicle from an 81-year-old Alzheimer's
patient.
The Florida Department of Health issued an emergency suspension order, suspending the license of Sheila Krebs.
Sumter County deputies accused Krebs, 59, of stealing a Chevy Equinox from a patient.
State officials refused to comment on the case.
She is due in court
Full Article & Source:
State suspends nursing assistant's license following theft accusation
Twitter And Facebook May Be The Best Way To Get Lawmakers' Attention
 |
| Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) |
To conduct the study, the CMF issued two separate surveys to communications directors, legislative directors and legislative assistants of Senate and House members last summer. The surveying yielded 116 responses, which may not capture all of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill who use social media accounts regularly, but does offer a glimpse into the impact constituents might have by engaging their lawmaker on such platforms.
Eighty percent of staffers said their office will "pay attention" if their lawmaker's social media post garners 30 responses or fewer. But those comments need to come in soon after the lawmaker's initial post to have a greater chance of being noticed.
"The authenticity of a tweet or Facebook post, whether by a citizen or lawmaker, has the inescapable power to change minds," said CMF CEO Bradford Fitch, a co-author of the report.
Seventy-six percent of respondents said social media allowed lawmakers' offices to have "more meaningful interactions" with constituents. Additionally, 70 percent said platforms like Twitter and Facebook made their member or senator "more accountable" to the people they are representing while in Washington.
And 71 percent said the more people affiliated with a specific group or cause respond to a legislator's social media post, the more likely they will have "some" or "a lot" of influence on the lawmaker's decisions.
The Huffington Post reviewed the social media accounts of the 100 senators in the upper chamber, and found that they all have Twitter and Facebook accounts that are used frequently.
"For those not regularly tuned in to what's going on in Washington, social media gives us the ability to share and engage with those people," said one House communications director, according to the report.
One Senate legislative staffer said social media platforms "let people back home see behind the scenes."
President Barack Obama's two presidential campaigns are credited with introducing the new element of social media into the political arena. A 2012 Atlantic piece provided an inside look at the ex-Twitter, Google & Facebook techies the Obama campaign hired to make sure his message was constantly available to voters. (Continue Reading)
Full Article & Source:
Twitter And Facebook May Be The Best Way To Get Lawmakers' Attention
Friday, October 23, 2015
Legal Alternatives to a Guardianship for an Elderly Incapacitated Individual
There are a number of well-known and easily created documents that a competent individual should consider preparing well in advance of incapacity. A current will is fundamental. Other items include a medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney, joint accounts with survivorship, joint ownership generally, and a variety of trust funds. Of course, review how trusted individuals will access safety deposit boxes, storage facilities, and passwords for computers, cellphones, and accounts generally. One should not hide coins, jewelry, and money so that heirs are either completely unaware of their existence or must conduct a "treasure hunt." Utilize a safety deposit box. All of this should be discussed with an experienced professional.
Somewhat like a power of attorney, many statutes allow the creation of a "Supported Decision-Making Agreement" in which an adult with disabilities, but not incapacitated, agrees with a "supporter" to assist her or him in understanding, making, and carrying-out a variety of life decisions.
It is also possible to designate a "Geriatric Care Manager" that may conduct assessments and coordinate services.
Some states allow the deposit of money in a "Court's Registry" with the money then placed in an interest-bearing account. However, there are statutory fees associated with this service. Under a "Mini-Administration," specified individuals are allowed to withdraw funds, under bond, to be expended for the benefit of the incapacitated person. After a final accounting is approved by the court, the bond may be released.
If an incapacitated individual owns a business, a court may be required to appoint a receiver to conduct or liquidate the business. Again, statutory fees may be involved. Receivership is best avoided by a well-prepared succession plan, typically triggered when a business founder or proprietor anticipates retirement. Right of first refusal and buy-sell agreements with business partners are desirable.
The Social Security Administration and Department of Veteran's Affairs allow the appointment of a person to manage benefits without the court appointment of a guardian. There are also a variety of state and federal agency services especially designed for the disabled or elderly. All of these should be researched.
State statutes allow surrogate medical decision making in the absence of documents designating a decision maker. There is a statutory hierarchy of potential decision makers beginning with the individual's spouse and then flowing to adult children, and parents. However, there may be limitations on the types of decisions that may be made by the undocumented statutory surrogate. A well prepared advance medical power of attorney and related directives are best.
Many states allow a concerned physician or other individual to report a potentially dangerous elderly driver (often above age 80 or 85) for possible retesting. There is also a "Family Driving Agreement" under which an individual designates in writing someone to advise her or him when to stop driving.
If there is a dispute among family members concerning the need for a guardianship, mediation and a "Family Settlement Agreement" may be possible. These typically require court approval to be enforceable but may establish less demanding provisions than a traditional guardianship for the disabled or incapacitated person. It may be possible to create safekeeping or "freeze" agreements with financial institutions.
If concerned individuals fear that an individual is being isolated and held against her or his will, or subjected to abuse and undue influence, it may be possible to petition a court to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, demanding that the individual in question be produced in open court and that the total circumstances be opened to inquiry. These situations easily produce family divisions and might in part be prevented by the individual, while clearly competent, preparing a statement of her or his wishes for the future, from living arrangements through funeral planning. Expressions of desired future living arrangements might be coordinated with the individuals named in advance planning documents and joint accounts, etc.
State statutes and judicial decisions frequently have somewhat differing legal standards for determining if an individual has the legal capacity to create a will, to enter into a binding contract, or to require a guardian. To create a will, the traditional standard is to be of "sound mind" that involves understanding the general nature and extent of one's property and being able to formulate a plan for its disposition upon death. To create a contract, one typically must, at the time of contracting, appreciate the effect of what she or he was doing and understand the nature and consequences of her or his acts and the business she or he was transacting. To require a guardian, one must be "substantially unable" to care for herself or himself. These standards are often understood to mean that it is easiest to have the capacity to make a will and hardest to prove the necessity for a guardianship, with contractual capacity somewhat between the two. Proof of these standards requires both factual testimony and frequently professional medical or psychological evaluation. The legal presumption is that an individual has legal capacity with the burden of proof being on one who disputes capacity.
A contract entered into with an incapacitated individual is voidable at the option of that person only but not the other party to the contract. Steps must be taken by the incapacitated person or her or his representative to disaffirm the contract. Otherwise, the contract is valid and enforceable. However, if an individual is declared mentally incompetent by judicial action, subsequent contracts are void and unenforceable without any intermediate steps being taken.
Incapacity short of permanent incompetency, as is well known, may come and go depending upon the day, situation, and overall circumstances. A variety of disorders, conditions, diseases, and sometimes medication interactions may produce temporary or reversible incapacity. Legally, the attempt is to determine capacity at the moment the will or contract was signed. For this reason, many commentators suggest that the will signing (execution) be recorded on video with some conversation before and after the signing.
Undue influence compromises an otherwise capable individual's free will. An individual may be found to be legally susceptible to undue influence due to bad health, dependency, or depression, for example. Common situations involve isolation, excessive-persuasion, or flattery. If undue influence exists, agreements such as contracts or wills may be invalidated. A finding of undue influence is very dependent on the total circumstances. Has the individual acted "out of character" or rejected the "natural objects of her or his bounty?"
Many states have created an "Elder Bill of Rights" relevant to persons who are legal residents of the particular state and are age 60 or 65 and older. It is somewhat a confirmation of personal autonomy and basic freedom of choice. Note that "visitors" or "non-residents" may not be included under this legislation or be legally able to assert its rights. It is essential that the elderly individual clearly establish a state of residency. Sometimes a person with diminished capacity is moved to another state to live with a relative but her or his driver's license, voting registration, bank accounts, and home remain in the original state. Lack of clarity concerning residency may create problems such as eligibility for state programs designed for "residents" and jurisdictional issues if a guardianship is required or contested.
An Elder Bill of Rights may place duties on caretakers and nursing homes and limit transfers and discharges. It may also impose an affirmative duty to report abuse, neglect, or exploitation. These requirements coordinate with state criminal code provisions related to injury to an elderly or disabled person, theft, misappropriation of fiduciary property, securing the execution (signing) of documents by deception, and exploitation of a child, elderly individual or disabled individual.
Be aware of the increasing use of contractual arbitration clauses and related provisions limiting the right to sue or limiting damages. Juries are frequently very sympathetic to an elderly plaintiff. These provisions exclude jury trials. They appear in agreements prepared by nursing homes, physicians, and care facilities. They tend to be upheld by courts. (Continue Reading)
Full Article & Source:
Legal Alternatives to a Guardianship for an Elderly Incapacitated Individual
Son's Fight to Regain Guardianship of his Father Highlights State Issue With Little-Known System
Juan Oria always wanted to take care of his parents when they reached old age and couldn’t care for themselves.
“They were exceptional parents and what they did for me I said I would do for them,” he said about his parents.
But after his widowed 88-year-old
father developed Alzheimer’s and dementia, he and his sister disagreed
over who should care for him.
“We
ended up in court where the guardianship program was assigned to be the
ward for my dad,” said Oria, who works for a local cruise company.
Last October, the Guardianship
Program of Dade County (GPDC), a non-profit agency that acts as the
public guardian for indigent adults in Miami-Dade County, was appointed
guardian of Oria’s father.
His
case is among the thousands of guardianship cases filed in probate
courts throughout the Sunshine State every year. As people age, many
become incapable of managing their personal and financial affairs. (Continue Reading)
Full Article & Source:
Coconut Creek lawyer charged with grand theft
Coconut Creek attorney Nicholas Theodore Steffens turned himself in to a Broward County jail to face charges of grand theft after prosecutors said more than a half-million dollars were misappropriated from foreclosure transactions.
Last month the Supreme Court of Florida suspended Steffens, 36, of Parkland, from practicing law, based on an ongoing investigation by the Florida Bar.
In four mortgage foreclosure cases, funds totaling $654,696.83 were used to pay Steffens' personal expenses and to pay money owed to a mortgage lender or loan servicing company, an arrest affidavit said.
Two transactions happened in Miami-Dade County and two were in Broward County.
The Florida Bar said it opened its investigation into Steffens on Jan. 29 and on Sept. 16 filed its petition for emergency suspension, which the Supreme Court approved two days later.
With ongoing disciplinary proceedings that could eventually mean disbarment, Steffens filed a document on Sept. 28 with the Supreme Court to voluntarily surrender his law license, his lawyer Kevin Tynan said.
The court's response is pending.
Meanwhile, Steffens cannot accept new clients and had to stop representing existing clients 30 days after his suspension, according to the court's order.
He also had to notify clients, opposing lawyers and the courts of his status with the Bar. And he was ordered to stop disbursing or withdrawing any monies from clients' trust accounts related to his law practice without the Supreme Court's approval.
Broward County Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer ordered a $200,000 bond for Steffens, who surrendered on Tuesday. To get out of jail before trial, Steffens must show that the bond money is from legal sources.
Steffens' criminal attorney, Larry Davis, did not return a call seeking comment.
Steffens has been active in county politics and has served as an officer with the Coral Springs/Parkland Democratic Club.
In 2012, he was a candidate for the Broward County school board, District 4, but did not win office. At that time, his civic and political activities included the Broward County Children's Services Board; Parkland Education Advisory Board and Broward County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Full Article, Video & Source:
Coconut Creek lawyer charged with grand theft
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Work continues to overhaul guardianship system
LAS VEGAS, NV (KTNV) - Work continues as a result of another ongoing Contact 13 Investigation.
The State Guardianship Commission held it's fourth meeting Monday as it works toward massive reform.
The Nevada Supreme Court created the commission after Contact 13 exposed systemic problems and allegations of corruption--including double-billing, homes lost with no oversight and families torn apart.
Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice James Hardesty took issue with the form doctors use to declare a person incompetent. He called it a one-size fits all approach that needs an overhaul.
Commissioners also heard from a Texas court official about that state's dramatic reforms to its guardianship system. Texas is the first state to implement "supported decision-making."
That means Texas courts are now required to look at other alternatives before placing a person under guardianship. Texas also has a specialized guardianship "bill of rights."
The Nevada Commission is expected to make final reform recommendations in December.
Full Article & Source:
Work continues to overhaul guardianship system
Pa. Supreme Court panel disbars Thomas Nocella, former Phila. judge
 |
| Former Judge Thomas M. Nocella |
The decision is the latest action against Nocella, 71. In 2013, he was permanently barred from holding a judgeship for a variety of reasons, including failing to disclose to the Philadelphia Bar Association such things as judgments against him and his troubles with the city ethics board.
In revoking his law license, the Supreme Court's disciplinary board said Nocella's "transgressions offend both the public and the bar and bring disrepute to the profession." The board also cited a case in which he collected $1,875 for work in a divorce case that he never performed.
Neither Nocella nor his lawyer, Samuel Stretton, could be reached for comment Tuesday.
The disbarment takes effect Nov. 19, but the phone to Nocella's law office, at 4000 Gypsy Lane in East Falls, has already been disconnected.
A longtime Democratic City Committee insider and associate of U.S. Rep. Robert Brady (D., Pa.), Nocella was appointed in 2008 as an interim Municipal Court judge by then-Gov. Ed Rendell.
In 2011, he ran a successful campaign to become a Common Pleas Court judge.
In that campaign, he had sought the coveted "recommended" rating from the Philadelphia Bar Association. To win the rating, the Court of Judicial Discipline later found, he committed serious violations. It said Nocella failed to disclose that he faced $1.7 million in liens and judgments. He also did not give the bar association details on a city Board of Ethics contempt citation over his representation of a political action fund connected to Carol Ann Campbell, a late city councilwoman, ward leader, and secretary of the Democratic City Committee.
After his election in November 2011, The Inquirer reported that Nocella had been embroiled in a dispute over a 2005 sale of property belonging to Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 6627 in Manayunk. In a deposition taken as part of a lawsuit, Nocella admitted that he received $60,000 in legal fees after falsely claiming he was the secretary of the post when he was not even a member.
Nocella began serving as a Common Pleas Court judge in January 2012.
Documents released Tuesday said Nocella collected $1,875 to handle a woman's divorce case just before his 2011 election to Common Pleas Court. He did not file the necessary paperwork in the divorce case and did not return the fee, despite the woman's attempts to obtain repayment.
In March 2013, the woman filed a disciplinary complaint against Nocella. Three months later, Nocella repaid the money, the disciplinary board found.
Full Article & Source:
Pa. Supreme Court panel disbars Thomas Nocella, former Phila. judge
Ex-Judge Nocella Disbarred by State Supreme Court
Former Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas Nocella has
been disbarred by the state Supreme Court more than two years after his
removal from office.The justices adopted the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, which claimed Nocella failed to disclose in questionnaires from the Philadelphia Bar Association Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention that he had been a defendant or respondent in 24 cases.
Nocella was reviewed by the bar commission in 2001, 2005, 2009 and 2011. In 2011, Nocella was nominated by the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee to fill a judicial vacancy that had arisen between the spring primary and the general election in the fall.
The board said Nocella, when seeking an updated evaluation by the bar commission in 2011, did not disclose that he had filed for bankruptcy; that he had been found in contempt in a Board of Ethics case; that the Internal Revenue Service had filed liens against him for $358,961 and $110,748; that a judgment was entered against Nocella for $923,152 in favor of Czarnecki Profit Sharing; and that a judgment of $306,174 was entered against Nocella in favor of Casimir Czarnecki.
Additionally, the board said Nocella neglected a client's divorce matter when he was elected to the bench in 2011. Nocella had filed a divorce complaint on behalf of Marta Maciuk, but did not inform her that he had become a judge and could no longer work on her case.
"Respondent's neglect of his client Marta Maciuk's divorce matter must not be overlooked. Respondent basically ignored Ms. Maciuk once he was elected as judge in November of 2011," the Disciplinary Board's report said.
Nocella's attorney, Samuel C. Stretton, did not return a call seeking comment.
The board's report said Nocella expressed remorse for his actions, but tried to minimize the misconduct by focusing on the repercussions in his own life.
"In discussing how he had changed, respondent testified that he was 'paying for [his] mistakes' and that he had 'come a long way from being a common pleas court judge to being out of work. So, you're going from someone who was making $200,000 a year to someone who was making $2,000 a month. That's the—honestly, it's that kind of change. Your positions change. Whatever status you had is lost. A lot of my friends have left me,'" the report said.
The report said Nocella was cooperative throughout the proceedings and recognized his wrongdoings.
However, the board noted, "The matters herein are serious and aggravated by the fact that respondent was a judge and held to a heightened standard. Respondent's transgressions offend both the public and the bar and bring disrepute to the profession. Under the circumstances, we unanimously recommend that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law."
In 2013, the Court of Judicial Discipline found Nocella violated the state constitution in the handling of a case in which he was found in contempt of court while working as a lawyer for a political action committee, in addition to failing to disclose the cases in which he was a litigant. The Supreme Court ousted Nocella from the bench based on those findings.
"We believe it to be beyond dispute that a judge—or one who would be a judge—who is willing to lie—and in official documents ... is not one who can be expected to encourage, indeed to insist that truth be spoken in his courtroom," Judge Robert J. Colville said in the opinion for the court in June 2013. "This respondent's relationship with truth and his regard for its importance in his everyday life is gruelingly illustrated" in the instance regarding the political action committee.
Full Article & Source:
Ex-Judge Nocella Disbarred by State Supreme Court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)