>In Memoriam – "Speck" JP Manire

>

We lost Speck (JP) Sunday morning at 9:16. His breathing got more and more shallow, and his breaths farther and farther apart. He only had morphine 4 times since they admitted him, a week ago last Wed. He passed with no pain, although you could tell that he was have a hard time breathing. I hate that we have only gotten to see him 6 times in the last 4 years, but this last week and a half we got to spend night and day with him.
For this I am thankful.

What Happened to Freedom?

Comfy Care

In Memoriam – "Speck" JP Manire

We lost Speck (JP) Sunday morning at 9:16. His breathing got more and more shallow, and his breaths farther and farther apart. He only had morphine 4 times since they admitted him, a week ago last Wed. He passed with no pain, although you could tell that he was have a hard time breathing. I hate that we have only gotten to see him 6 times in the last 4 years, but this last week and a half we got to spend night and day with him.
For this I am thankful.

What Happened to Freedom?

Comfy Care

In Memoriam – "Speck" JP Manire

We lost Speck (JP) Sunday morning at 9:16. His breathing got more and more shallow, and his breaths farther and farther apart. He only had morphine 4 times since they admitted him, a week ago last Wed. He passed with no pain, although you could tell that he was have a hard time breathing. I hate that we have only gotten to see him 6 times in the last 4 years, but this last week and a half we got to spend night and day with him.
For this I am thankful.

What Happened to Freedom?

Comfy Care

>Federal Suit Dismissed

>

Dr. Robert Sarhan, on behalf of himself and his mother, Yvonne Sarhan, filed suit in Miami’s U.S. District Court against probate judge Arthur Rothenberg, alleging that his mother’s constitutional rights had been violated when Judge Rothenberg adjudicated his mother incapacitated and appointed her a guardian.

Dr. Sarhan’s federal claim sought $100 million in punitive damages.
Sarhan v. Rothenberg

Answer:
No, you can’t re-litigate your guardianship case in federal court.

Under the probate-exception to federal jurisdiction, a U.S. District Court is precluded from adjudicating disputes having to do with property that is in the custody of a state probate court. Marshall v. Marshall

Source:
Federal suit by disgruntled litigant against Miami probate judge Arthur Rothenberg dismissed

See also:
Plea For Justice

Federal Suit Dismissed

Dr. Robert Sarhan, on behalf of himself and his mother, Yvonne Sarhan, filed suit in Miami’s U.S. District Court against probate judge Arthur Rothenberg, alleging that his mother’s constitutional rights had been violated when Judge Rothenberg adjudicated his mother incapacitated and appointed her a guardian.

Dr. Sarhan’s federal claim sought $100 million in punitive damages.
Sarhan v. Rothenberg

Answer:
No, you can’t re-litigate your guardianship case in federal court.

Under the probate-exception to federal jurisdiction, a U.S. District Court is precluded from adjudicating disputes having to do with property that is in the custody of a state probate court. Marshall v. Marshall

Source:
Federal suit by disgruntled litigant against Miami probate judge Arthur Rothenberg dismissed

See also:
Plea For Justice

>Limiting Access to Court Records

>

Proposed rules that would shield some court records from public view are headed for the Ohio Supreme Court. The proposal represents the court’s attempt to write statewide standards as to what is and is not public court record and to map the process judges must follow in deciding when to shield information.

The process began six years ago addressing identify theft concerns stemming from making court records available on the Internet. But the proposal goes beyond preventing online surfers from seeing Social Security and bank account numbers. They would also place other records, such as juvenile and probate cases, off limits both in courthouses and on the Internet.

Under the rules, a party to a case or anyone mentioned in it could request that part or all of the record be hidden. The court must notify all parties in the case, but the rules do not mandate that the judge hold a hearing.

The full seven-justice court could consider the proposed rules as soon as August.

Full Article and Source:
Rules limiting access to court records debated

Limiting Access to Court Records

Proposed rules that would shield some court records from public view are headed for the Ohio Supreme Court. The proposal represents the court’s attempt to write statewide standards as to what is and is not public court record and to map the process judges must follow in deciding when to shield information.

The process began six years ago addressing identify theft concerns stemming from making court records available on the Internet. But the proposal goes beyond preventing online surfers from seeing Social Security and bank account numbers. They would also place other records, such as juvenile and probate cases, off limits both in courthouses and on the Internet.

Under the rules, a party to a case or anyone mentioned in it could request that part or all of the record be hidden. The court must notify all parties in the case, but the rules do not mandate that the judge hold a hearing.

The full seven-justice court could consider the proposed rules as soon as August.

Full Article and Source:
Rules limiting access to court records debated

Limiting Access to Court Records

Proposed rules that would shield some court records from public view are headed for the Ohio Supreme Court. The proposal represents the court’s attempt to write statewide standards as to what is and is not public court record and to map the process judges must follow in deciding when to shield information.

The process began six years ago addressing identify theft concerns stemming from making court records available on the Internet. But the proposal goes beyond preventing online surfers from seeing Social Security and bank account numbers. They would also place other records, such as juvenile and probate cases, off limits both in courthouses and on the Internet.

Under the rules, a party to a case or anyone mentioned in it could request that part or all of the record be hidden. The court must notify all parties in the case, but the rules do not mandate that the judge hold a hearing.

The full seven-justice court could consider the proposed rules as soon as August.

Full Article and Source:
Rules limiting access to court records debated

>Texas Estate Theft

>

Texas estate laws make stealing from the dead an easy crime

Attorney Terry Erwin Stork systematically mismanaged or stole from three estates worth more than $800,000 over two decades, according to prosecutors and court records. Each time, elderly people with no living children had chosen him to divide their belongings among organizations and loved ones who usually had no idea they had an inheritance.

An Austin American-Statesman review has found that state laws make it alarmingly easy for the executor of a will — usually a family member, friend or lawyer — to steal or squander what people often spent a lifetime building, frequently with little chance of getting caught. State probate laws don’t ensure that a deceased person’s assets actually get to heirs — or require executors to tell the heirs they’re named in a will.

Full Article and Source:
Breach of Trust

Attorney faces up to life in prison

An Austin attorney pleaded guilty to stealing from the estates of three elderly women that he was in charge of overseeing after their deaths. Terry Erwin Stork will be sentenced Aug. 13 on three felony theft charges. He faces up to life in prison on two of the charges and up to 20 years behind bars on the third.

The American-Statesman reported on allegations against Stork in a December 2006 story about estate theft and how Texas probate laws often cannot guarantee that people’s belongings reach their family members or friends after they die.

Full Article and Source:
Longtime attorney pleads guilty to estate thefts

See also:
Estate Theft – Civil or Criminal?

Texas Estate Theft

Texas estate laws make stealing from the dead an easy crime

Attorney Terry Erwin Stork systematically mismanaged or stole from three estates worth more than $800,000 over two decades, according to prosecutors and court records. Each time, elderly people with no living children had chosen him to divide their belongings among organizations and loved ones who usually had no idea they had an inheritance.

An Austin American-Statesman review has found that state laws make it alarmingly easy for the executor of a will — usually a family member, friend or lawyer — to steal or squander what people often spent a lifetime building, frequently with little chance of getting caught. State probate laws don’t ensure that a deceased person’s assets actually get to heirs — or require executors to tell the heirs they’re named in a will.

Full Article and Source:
Breach of Trust

Attorney faces up to life in prison

An Austin attorney pleaded guilty to stealing from the estates of three elderly women that he was in charge of overseeing after their deaths. Terry Erwin Stork will be sentenced Aug. 13 on three felony theft charges. He faces up to life in prison on two of the charges and up to 20 years behind bars on the third.

The American-Statesman reported on allegations against Stork in a December 2006 story about estate theft and how Texas probate laws often cannot guarantee that people’s belongings reach their family members or friends after they die.

Full Article and Source:
Longtime attorney pleads guilty to estate thefts

See also:
Estate Theft – Civil or Criminal?