Saturday, April 24, 2021

Larry King’s widow Shawn requests to be estate executor after late host’s ‘secret’ will cut her out

By Julius Young

Larry King’s widow, Shawn King, who was estranged from the television host, has requested to be the executor of his estate despite the fact he cut her out of his will before his death.

The 61-year-old performer filed legal documents in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday and in the paperwork obtained by Fox News, Shawn contested a "secret" handwritten will the late broadcasting legend had penned before his death in January at age 87.

The late host filed to divorce Shawn in August 2019 after 22 years of marriage but it was never finalized. (Greg Doherty/FilmMagic)

In the newly-surfaced will, which was dated October 17, 2019 and came to light after King had died, the venerable personality only mentioned his children and not Shawn – whom he had filed for divorce from in August 2019 after 22 years of marriage.

King indicated that he wished for his $2 million estate to be handed to his kids Andy, Chaia, Larry Jr., Chance and Cannon.

The new will was written prior to the untimely deaths of Andy and Chaia, who died last year within weeks of each other.

A court hearing is slated for May 4 and if approved, would grant Shawn an appointment "as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent," which was the case in King’s original will dated July 7, 2015.

She also said in February that King had many "outside influences" and that he may not have even been aware he was signing a new will.

Shawn revealed King died of sepsis and not the coronavirus as many had believed as King was diagnosed with the novel illness in the weeks leading up to his death.

Although the actress and King were in the middle of a divorce at the time of his passing, Shawn said King's mind "wasn't right" and his "body was going," noting it was a difficult thing to witness.

She confirmed the pair's divorce was "never finalized."

"In my heart, I didn't think it was really going to happen and it never did. We were partners in every sense of the way, in business, and in, well, first in our familiy and then in business. But we're a close family. You know, family is the most important thing, and God," she said.

Full Article & Source:

Albany judge was under investigation prior to resignation

Disciplinary commission says William Carter tried to intercede in gun permit application; his lawyer denies it

 
by Mike Goodwin

When he resigned from office last in March, Albany County Judge William Carter was under investigation for allegedly trying to have a friend's application for a pistol permit assigned to him, according to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. (Paul Buckowski/Times Union)

ALBANY — When he resigned from office last month, Albany County Judge William Carter was under investigation for allegedly trying to have a friend's application for a pistol permit assigned to him, according to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The commission, whose top administrator called Carter's behavior a violation of judicial ethics, ended the probe after Carter — who had previously been disciplined multiple times by the panel — agreed to leave the bench.

"Judge Carter denied the allegations in the complaint. Nevertheless, he vacated judicial office effective March 30, 2021, and agreed never to seek or accept judicial office at any time in the future," the commission wrote in an announcement made public on Friday.

The commission said it disclosed the investigation to the judge in March after receiving a complaint that, after a friend of Carter's filed for a pistol permit application, the judge attempted to have the application assigned to him and "initiated a conversation about the matter with the judge to whom the case had been assigned."

The identity of the friend was not released by the commission. Carter did not return a call for comment on Friday.

“A judge is ethically prohibited from exerting the influence of judicial office for the personal benefit of others," Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian said in a prepared statement Friday. "The complaint that Judge Carter did so as to a gun permit application was serious. In view of his having been censured twice and cautioned twice before for misconduct, it is well that he chose to resign and agreed never to return to the bench.”

The investigation had not come to light when the 61-year-old judge announced in March that he planned to leave the bench at the end of that month. At the time he announced his retirement, Carter said he started the retirement process in January. He said he was considering retiring in September, when he turns 62.

"On many days, working through the pandemic, I felt like I was already retired," Carter said. Last spring, coronavirus forced the state to close its courts. Once they reopened, surges in cases twice prompted postponement of jury trials.

Calling the matter "a complete misunderstanding," Carter's attorney Stephen Downs said the investigation was not the primary reason for the judge's decision to retire.

"He was planning to retire already, and I think this pushed it ahead a little bit so he didn't have to spend time on it," said Downs, who insisted Carter did not discuss the gun case with another judge but rather mentioned it in the clerk's office.

Downs also disputed the commission's characterization of Carter's relationship with the permit applicant as a friendship. He said they knew each other in grade school and had "spoken maybe twice in 50 years." He declined to disclose the friend's name.

Tembeckjian offered a brief response to Downs' assertions:

“Had Judge Carter not resigned, the commission’s investigation would have continued, and I believe the facts would have been different than what his spokesman is suggesting," he said.

The disclosure of the investigation came as a shock inside the county courthouse where several people said they found Carter's retirement abrupt but that it came with no hint he faced a new allegation of wrongdoing.

In 2006, the commission censured Carter for leaving the bench to physically confront a defendant in City Court. In 2020, he was censured a second time for improperly engaging in a phone conversation with a sheriff’s deputy who was set to testify before the judge the next day in a pre-trial hearing in a murder case.

The commission said Carter was privately cautioned — a lesser sanction than censure — two times: in 2004 for failing to disqualify himself in arraignments of unrepresented defendants, and in 2012 for appearing as a guest of honor at a fundraising event for a civic group.

Carter, a former state trooper and graduate of Albany Law School on the bar since January 1992, has served as an Albany County assistant district attorney, chief assistant district attorney, assistant attorney general, defense attorney and judge. He has also served as an adjunct Albany Law School professor and was an acting County Court judge handling domestic violence cases.

In January 2002, Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings appointed Carter to the City Court bench, making Carter the first Black judge to serve the city. Carter was re-elected and remained there until 2016, when he was elected to County Court to replace retiring Judge Stephen Herrick, now the county's public defender.

Carter's tenure on the bench has included several disagreements with Albany County District Attorney David Soares' office, including one spat over Soares' decision not to prosecute Occupy Albany protesters that reached the state's highest court.

Full Article & Source: 

Florida woman accused of killing elderly mother who was found wearing garbage bag as diaper

Authorities say feces, urine odor were ‘unbearable’ in home

 
by Brenda Argueta

Kim Zaheer. (Flagler County Sheriff's Office)
FLAGLER COUNTY, Fla. – A Flagler County woman is accused of neglecting her elderly mother to the point that the victim was found “extremely malnourished,” covered in her own feces and wearing a garbage bag as a diaper at the time of her death.

The Flagler County Sheriff’s Office said 64-year-old Kim Zaheer called authorities on Dec. 5, 2018, to report her mother was “not breathing,” according to a news release. When they arrived to the Palm Coast home, deputies said 85-year-old Frances King, Zaheer’s mother, looked as if she had not eaten in a long time and there was an “unbearable” odor of feces.

An autopsy performed by the St. John’s County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled King’s death as a homicide by elderly neglect and abuse, according to an arrest affidavit. The report said she was found dead with feces in her bed and wearing a garbage bag as a diaper. The sheriff’s office said accessing documentation to prove King had a “diminished mental capacity” and that her daughter was legally responsible for her care halted the initial investigation.

Zaheer became the primary caregiver for her mother after she moved to Florida in 2011. According to the affidavit, Zaheer stopped taking her mother to the doctor in 2017 and stated she would take her to another doctor, though she could not remember the name of the new doctor when deputies asked. Four days before King’s death, Zaheer told the sheriff’s office her mother would use one-word phrases to communicate and that “she was talking but there was no conversation.”

Records show King’s other daughter would visit the residence, but Zaheer would bring her mother outside in a wheelchair during these visits.

Funeral home employees notified authorities that her death seemed “criminal in nature” after observing rat droppings underneath her body in the home and that her eyes looked “dehydrated back [into] her head,” the report said. One employee said they have never seen someone in the “same or similar” condition to King.

Deputies charged Zaheer with manslaughter of an elderly disabled adult and arrested her Wednesday. She is being held on a $500,000 bond.

This case marks the first solved by the FCSO’s Cold Case Unit that was established summer 2020 to focus on “unsolved sex crimes, missing persons, homicides and any other unsolved violent crime,” according to the sheriff’s office.

“Cases like these and the small list of other unsolved cases of homicides, missing persons, and sex crimes are what led to the creation of the Cold Case Unit,” Flagler County Sheriff Rick Staly said in a news release. “I am grateful that we were able to arrest the suspect in this case and hopefully this can offer some closure to family and friends of the victim. If you are responsible for a human being’s care you must take care of them. No matter how long it takes we will continue these investigations to hold people accountable for their crimes.”

Full Article & Source:

Friday, April 23, 2021

NY Pharmacy Owner Admits to Defrauding Medicare, Medicaid of Over $6.5 Million

A New York City woman who owned five pharmacies has admitted to defrauding over $6.5 million from Medicare and Medicaid programs, prosecutors said Wednesday.

File Photo: a pharmacy technician grabs a bottle of drugs off a shelve.

The U.S. Department of Justice said Aleah Mohammed of Queens pleaded guilty to using her pharmacies to claim prescription drugs that weren't dispensed, not prescribed or weren't medically necessary. At times, the scheme would occur when the pharmacy was no longer registered with the State of New York.

The claims at Superdrugs Inc., Superdrugs I Inc., Superdrugs II Inc., S&A Superdrugs II Inc. and Village Stardrugs Inc. began in 2018 until 2020, authorities said. One of the claims included prescription drugs for the treatment of HIV.

Mohammed also admitted to using the money she received to buy a Porsche and other luxury items like jewelry.

She could face up to 40 years in prison for charges that include mail fraud, health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

In addition to an expected prison sentence, Mohammed is required to pay $6.5 million in restitution to Medicare and Medicaid and $5.1 million in forfeiture money judgment.

Full Article & Source:

Justices publicly reprimand Greenfield, Indianapolis lawyers

The Indiana Supreme Court has handed down public reprimands against two Indianapolis-area attorneys, including an action against a partner at a major law firm.

The justices on Monday issued the reprimands against Jeffrey D. McClarnon of Greenfield and Dave C. Bromund of Indianapolis.

McClarnon, a solo practitioner, was disciplined for his actions in a guardianship case. In December 2019, he was representing a paternal grandmother seeking guardianship following a father’s death.

McClarnon filed for emergency custody, but the mother’s counsel objected. The trial court denied the petition on Dec. 4.

Meanwhile, McClarnon on Dec. 3 also had filed a petition for emergency ex parte custody in a separate pre-existing paternity case. The petition did not contain a certificate of service or comply with notice requirements, and neither mother nor her counsel appeared at a Dec. 5 hearing.

The paternity court granted the emergency petition on Dec. 6, but mother’s counsel obtained a change of judge and filed a motion to correct error. A successor judge held a hearing in early 2020, when McClarnon’s appearance on the grandmother’s behalf was ordered withdrawn.

McClarnon and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission agreed that he violated three Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 3.5(b), engaging in an improper ex parte communication with a judge.
  • Rule 8.4(d), engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
  • Rule 8.4(f), assisting a judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

McClarnon was assessed $270.85 for the costs of the proceeding — $20.85 payable to the commission and $250 payable to the clerk of the court. Hearing officer expenses will be submitted separately in the case of In the Matter of: Jeffrey D. McClarnon, 20S-DI-698.

Admitted to the Indiana bar in 1992, McClarnon has one prior discipline case, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys.

Bromund, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, was reprimanded in connection with his representation of a doctor and surgery group.

Specifically, Bromund represented “Dr. T,” the leader of a surgical group that in 2007 incorporated an institute to manage a health system’s surgery program. Dr. T was chief medical officer for the institute, making him responsible for matters of compensation.

Also in 2007, the institute, health system and an affiliated medical school executed a collaboration agreement, with each party to the agreement represented by separate counsel. The agreement was subject to the provision of other agreements executed by the parties, including an “MMSA” between the institute and Dr. T. and a “PTSA” between the institute and the surgical group.

After the agreement was executed, Bromund became outside counsel for the institute.

All of the surgeons later became employees of a separate entity known as USI, so the surgical group assigned the PTSA to USI. Then in 2015, Dr. T. announced that he would move his practice out of state and was willing to settle with the institute for $1 million in back pay. Dr. T consulted with Bromund as the institute’s counsel, and Bromund advised that Dr. T. had authority to make the payment and the health system did not have the authority to block the payment.

However, when Dr. T attempted to transfer $1 million from the institute to USI, the health system blocked the transfer. While Bromund could not represent Dr. T individually, he offered to help the institute resolve its dispute with the health system. Dr. T retained separate counsel, but he did not sign a conflict waiver for Bromund.

Bromund then drafted a demand letter for Dr. T to the institute and USI in an attempt to “persuade Health System to bless the $1 million settlement.” Dr. T gave a draft of the letter to his counsel, who finalized and sent it.

“Respondent took no action on behalf of USI after USI received the letter. Dr. T never sought permission from Institute’s Board for Respondent to send the demand letter, and Health System never sought permission from the Board to block payment. After negotiations between Health System and Dr. T were unsuccessful, the dispute was submitted to arbitration. Respondent did not represent Dr. T or Institute in the negotiations or arbitration,” according to the Monday reprimand order.

The parties agreed that Bromund violated two Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7(a) for representing a client when the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest, and Rule 1.9(a) for representing a client in a matter in which the client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client without the former client’s informed consent.

The costs of the proceeding were assessed against Bromund, though the order did not specify those costs.

All justices concurred in In the Matter of David C. Bromund, 20S-DI-708, except Justice Geoffrey Slaughter, formerly a Taft partner, who did not participate.

Bromund was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1988 and has no prior discipline.

Full Article & Source:

Woman placed on probation in exploitation case

A local woman has been ordered to serve three years of supervised probation for exploiting an elderly Meeteetse resident in 2019.

Tristen Brewer, 25, reportedly had been serving as the caretaker of a 69-year-old man who, according to authorities, was unable to care for himself. However, when personnel from the Park County Sheriff’s Office and the Wyoming Department of Family Services visited the man’s home in the summer of 2019, they found him in poor health and the house in disarray. Deputies also gathered evidence indicating that Brewer had used his funds to make purchases without his permission.

As part of a deal with prosecutors, Brewer pleaded guilty to a felony count of exploiting a vulnerable adult, which related to the misuse of the man’s money. She also agreed to pay $656.99 in restitution.

Meanwhile, with the approval of the victim in the case, prosecutors dropped a second count, alleging Brewer had failed to provide adequate care, and stipulated to a sentence of probation.

At a Thursday sentencing hearing, both Brewer’s court-appointed defense attorney and the prosecutor said she has made significant changes in her life over the past year-and-a-half.

“Obviously this is a serious offense but … she has clearly rehabilitated herself,” said Deputy Park County Attorney Jack Hatfield. He said the offense was clearly based on Brewer’s drug use at the time — and now she is sober.

Hatfield went as far as to say that, assuming she successfully completes probation, he hopes Brewer seeks a pardon from the governor to remove the felony conviction from her record.

A probation and parole agent who compiled a pre-sentence report had explicitly concluded that Brewer was an appropriate candidate for probation and was at low-risk for reoffending — something public defender Branden Vilos called a rarity.

In representing her over the past year, Vilos personally attested that the transformation Brewer has made in her life has been “unreal.” 

“‘I know that if the court provides her with this opportunity with this probation, that she will be successful,” Vilos said. “I know she will be.”

Brewer had effectively no prior criminal offenses on her record when authorities visited the Meeteetse residence in the summer of 2019. When Deputy Rob Cooke entered, he noticed the strong smell or urine, along with sticky floors, dog feces all over the basement from Brewer’s dog, a dirty stove, cluttered countertops and trash everywhere, court records say.

The Department of Family Services had visited the home multiple times over a period of several years out of concern the man wasn’t taking care of himself, including earlier in 2019. However, the man had declined any assistance until the visit on July 1. When he requested medical help, it was “a definite [change] from previous encounters,” Cooke wrote.

Authorities say the man had lost a significant amount of weight since the last visit and had little food, while his fingernails had grown so long they were growing into the palm of his hand, according to charging documents.

The man was taken to Cody Regional Health by ambulance, where he was found to be dehydrated, malnourished and suffering from bed sores. The man was subsequently admitted to the hospital, where his health improved.

Brewer reportedly told the sheriff’s office she’d been taking care of the man for roughly a year in exchange for getting a place to live. However, the man — who was unable to get up on his own — told a deputy that “he felt like she [Brewer] put him on the back burner when she got busy with other things,” charging documents say.

Beyond there being little food in the home, authorities found some of the man’s bills had gone unpaid; they also identified some unauthorized charges and learned Brewer was in charge of the man’s checkbook.

However, at a preliminary hearing in October 2019, Brewer’s then-defense attorney questioned the evidence tying her to the purchases and whether she was the one responsible for taking care of the man; at the hearing, Deputy Cooke indicated another person had been helping.

In an interview, Vilos said investigators found evidence indicating that the person — who has not been charged — used the man’s debit card without permission. In court, Vilos called it a “very complicated case,” saying there were “a lot of different factors involved.”

However, rather than go to trial, Brewer “wanted to take responsibility for her involvement in this case,” Vilos said, “and I think that speaks volumes about this.”

District Court Judge Bobbi Overfield accepted the plea deal, suspending two to four years of prison time in favor of the probation. Brewer also received credit for the month-and-a-half she served in jail following her initial arrest, while being ordered to pay $260 in court fines and fees.

While on probation, Brewer will be required to follow a lengthy list of conditions, including some related to avoiding drugs and alcohol.

Full Article & Source:

 

Thursday, April 22, 2021

Michigan woman says she wrongly lost guardianship of mother before her death

By: Heather Catallo

(WXYZ) — When a court appoints a guardian, you can no longer make your own legal or medical decisions.

For years, the 7 Investigators have been exposing guardianship cases where families say their loved ones were wrongly taken from them.

Ernestine Drayton’s family just filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging negligence from the court-appointed guardian who was legally in charge of their mom and the nursing home where she was staying before she died.

“We didn’t even get to make it back. We didn’t get to say anything to her,” said Chandra Drayton about the final moments of Ernestine’s life.

Chandra says the sad story begins in February of 2018 after Ernestine had some trouble breathing so Chandra took her to Detroit Receiving hospital. While the 58-year-old was in the hospital, Chandra says an Adult Protective Services (APS) worker suddenly started calling her.

“I got a phone call from a lady being very hostile, wanting to have medical records, wanting to have financial information. And she told me her name was Tresna Tupper,” said Chandra.

Chandra says Tupper told her she had to send her mother to Ambassador Rehabilitation nursing home in Detroit.

“It was basically put up on me that if I didn’t send my mom right then, I was neglecting her, like keeping her from her care,” said Chandra.

So Chandra sent her mom to the nursing home, and says she visited her regularly, even though she was commuting back and forth from her home in Tennessee. But within weeks, she says, things got weird.

Chandra says she received a call from a lawyer telling her there was a court hearing the next day in Wayne County Probate Court.

“I’m like 'that’s definitely not happening. I’m out of town right now, and I won’t be there, and no one’s taking guardianship over my mom,'” said Chandra.

Chandra says she didn’t realize that Tupper had petitioned the court to have Ernestine declared mentally incapacitated, and that Tupper had nominated a professional guardian to be put in charge of Ernestine’s medical decisions.

Chandra says she sent relatives to the courthouse – but they were told there was no hearing. Yet according to the lawsuit Chandra filed, the court docket later shows that a judge appointed Stacy White-Smith’s WhiteHouse Guardian Service.

“This woman started threatening that I would never see my mother again, if I didn’t cooperate with her,” said Chandra.

If these names sound familiar, it’s because we’ve told you about Tupper and White-Smith before.

Back in 2019, we showed you how Tupper petitioned the court to put Detroit grandmother Bessie Owens, against her will, under guardianship with White-Smith.

In Tupper’s guardianship petition for Chandra’s mother, she told the court an APS case alleging neglect had been opened against Ernestine’s daughters in Tennessee in 2017. Chandra denies that, and documents obtained by the 7 investigators show the Michigan APS investigation into Ernestine is full of inconsistent information – calling the case both “substantiated” and “unsubstantiated.”

Tupper also said under penalty of perjury in the petition that Ernestine had been in a car accident, and that her brother was trying to move her from the hospital due to a pending lawsuit. But Chandra says there was no accident and Ernestine’s brother has been dead since 2011.

Yet the probate court approved the guardianship based on Tupper’s petition.

“They’ve been filing petitions for people and families are not notified. I mean, nobody is aware of it! It’s insane,” said Tina Lindsay, a court watcher and advocate of guardianship reform in Michigan. “We need change here.”

Chandra says she later learned Detroit Police had to be called after another resident at the nursing home tried to smother her mom with a pillow. In her lawsuit, Chandra claims the nursing home did little to help Ernestine when her health declined after that.

Chandra also alleges in the lawsuit that Stacy White-Smith put a Do Not Resuscitate order in place when Ernestine died a few months later.

“So I told that lady [White-Smith], 'I don’t care if they have to crack my mom’s chest open, and somebody sit on her, trying to bring her back – do it!!' She was like 'I’m just telling you that’s a waste of the state’s money,'” said Chandra through tears. “We got to the hospital, we were talking to the doctor – he said 'yeah, this lady says she’s your mom’s guardian, and she told us Do Not Resuscitate.'”

Ernestine Drayton died on May 8, 2018. That’s why Chandra is now suing White-Smith and Ambassador Rehabilitation for $10 million.

“At this juncture we have no choice but to go ourselves and file our own lawsuit,” said Rohl.

Wayne County Probate Court officials say Stacey White-Smith is no longer seeking guardianship appointments.

White-Smith told us she never met with Ernestine Drayton while she was her guardian because she alleges Ernestine’s daughters removed her from the nursing home. White-Smith did not provide documentation to us to confirm that. She also denied putting the DNR in place and said she honored the family’s wishes.

Tupper retired from APS after our first two stories on her. She has not returned our phone calls or attempts to reach her at her home to comment on this. The parent company of Ambassador says they can’t talk about this because these events occurred before they operated the nursing home, and they have not responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit. 
 
Full Article & Source:

Custody or Captivity? Britney Spears and the Problem with California’s Conservatorship Laws

Britney Spears performing at her Piece of Me residency in Las Vegas in 2014. By Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

By Zachary J. Lech

“Britney Spears hospitalized again”, “Britney on 72-Hour Mental Lockdown”, “Diagnosing Britney Spears,” “Sources: Spears suffering from bipolar disorder.” These news headlines from early 2008 covered the public struggle which, on Feb. 1 of that year, led a California court to hand over control of Britney Spears’ life and finances to her father, Jamie.

Conservatorships are a legal concept governed by state law whereby a court appoints a person or organization called a conservator to care for another person, a conservatee, who is deemed incapable of caring for themselves or their financial affairs. The state of California, in particular, differentiates between the so-called Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorships (used for individuals with serious mental illness who need special care) and probate conservatorship, which can be either temporary or permanent and covers the person’s life, estate, or both.

When a judge made Britney Spears’ controversial probate conservatorship permanent after eight months, People magazine ran quotes from sources that stated, “This is by no means something that’s going to last forever” and that “People shouldn’t read too much into the word ‘permanent’.” Now in 2021, with the #FreeBritney movement growing, The New York Times’ “Framing Britney Spears” documentary coming out, and the next hearing in the ongoing legal battle scheduled for Apr. 27, one thing seems clear. What was expected to be a temporary arrangement turned into a 13-year-long conservatorship that has left Britney Spears with no legal control over her finances and limited control over her personal life.

What that means in practice is that Britney Spears needs her father’s approval for the most mundane things, be it a purchase of a hypothetical caramel frappuccino or a slightly less hypothetical iPhone, which the singer with a $60 million dollar net worth was actually denied until 2019. That on its own wouldn’t be a problem, however. If Britney’s conservatorship were a typical case, it would be clear why she shouldn’t be allowed to spend her money. Permanent conservatorships are restricted to incapacitated individuals, unable to manage their lives, usually the elderly or people suffering from untreatable mental illness or extensive dissability. Spears’ case is anything but typical, though. “From the little I saw and have seen of Britney Spears, there's no way she would, in my mind, qualify for conservatorship under normal circumstances,” said Don Slater, a California attorney specializing in conservatorships, in an interview with Vice.

Indeed, it’s hard to understand how Spears’ conservatorship has lasted so long, as she clearly is and has been well enough to continue working. In the past 13 years, Britney Spears has done everything from being a judge on “The X Factor” and releasing three new albums to raising a million dollars for the Nevada Childhood Cancer Foundation and engaging in social activism landed her an award from GLAAD in 2018.

Unfortunately, it’s easier to understand why the arrangement is still in place despite doubts over its ethics. While there are legal avenues for the conservatee to end or change the conservatorship by filing a motion in court, these avenues are useless in practice while the arrangement continues. Conservatorship takes away an individual’s right to enter contracts. This might sound innocent enough, but it means that the conservatee cannot hire an attorney without a court’s express permission. In Britney’s case, that meant an uphill legal battle against her father, who controlled her money, just to be able to get a lawyer to represent her. And that has only been the beginning of a long fight. Samuel Ingham, Spears’ court-appointed attorney, sued seeking to replace Jamie Spears as the conservator on Aug. 17, 2020, and there’s still no resolution on the horizon.

“Wouldn’t it be something if the giants of mental health care reform in California turned out to be three men named Lanterman, Petris and Short — and a pop singer by the name of Britney Spears?” asked Patt Morrison in his LA Times article, wondering if the singer’s case could be the push needed to change California’s flawed conservatorship laws. Nothing has come to pass yet. But perhaps now, 13 years after Morrison's piece was originally published, and with more public attention than ever, Britney Spears’ lawsuit could change more than just her conservator: It might impact a California law that can turn custody into captivity with almost no way of regaining control.

Full Article & Source:

CalPERS Sues Former Employee Over Stolen Pension Money

The alleged victims of the $685,000 theft include a homeless retiree and several who are under legal conservatorship.

The California State Capitol building. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg)

by Will Feuer

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System is suing a former employee who is accused of stealing more than $685,000 from the dormant pension accounts of 10 retirees, court filings show.

The victims include a homeless retiree, CalPERS said in a court filing, as well as several who are under conservatorship, meaning a judge has appointed someone to oversee their financials due to mental or physical disability.  

The $460 billion pension fund filed the suit in the California Superior Court in Sacramento on Friday, the court documents show. It is suing Gloria Najera, a 25-year veteran of CalPERS and former associate governmental program analyst, “to recover the stolen funds,” CalPERS said in the complaint.

CalPERS said Najera stole more than $685,600 from 10 retiree accounts that were dormant, meaning payments have been returned as undeliverable. “CalPERS repeatedly attempts to locate these members and beneficiaries,” the retirement system said in the court filing.

The alleged fraud, which CalPERS said it discovered during an investigation that began in January, occurred between July 2017 and January 2021. CalPERS said Najera is no longer employed there and that the system is performing a “forensic audit.” 

CalPERS said it will “make all breached member accounts whole” and has notified everyone affected by the alleged fraud. CalPERS has since implemented a new policy, which requires three levels of security, CEO Marcie Frost said Monday in an email to members that was obtained by Institutional Investor.

“That this could have happened in the first place is unacceptable, and the employee is no longer employed by CalPERS,” Frost said in the email. “The employee’s actions were an abuse of access, breach of fiduciary responsibility, and betrayal of co-workers and all dedicated public employees. We are extremely disappointed, because we take our commitment to member security so seriously.”

CalPERS alleged in the court filing that Najera used the stolen funds to pay off her own credit card debts as well as the debt of her husband, daughter, and another family member. The alleged victims include one person who CalPERS believes is homeless as well as three who are under conservatorship. Four others are under power of attorney, CalPERS said, including one who lives in a care facility. 

“CalPERS will exhaust every legal opportunity to recover the money stolen from the victims,” Frost told members in the email.

Full Article & Source: