Constitution Applies to Famous People Too

Last week it was reported by the AP that Petersen/Allred’s case which was successful in the OC county superior court appointing a guardian ad litem had been overturned. Reuters and others jumped on the bandwagon to say it was only a temporary stay because her case to be heard on the 20th to dismiss the case altogether had not occurred yet.Well, turns out neither got it totally right.

The appeals court ruled that Suleman’s Constitutional rights had been violated. AND, here’s the most interesting part: On the 27th Petersen admitted he didn’t have the evidence needed to have the court appoint a fiduciary guardian at the time, which is the reason why they changed their request to have a GAL appointed to do the work they THOUGHT needed to be done.

What were their thoughts based on? INTERNET ARTICLES. Yes, you read correctly.

Paul Petersen with Gloria Allred in tow filed a petition to have a guardian appointed over the octuplets solely due to the “evidence” they had garnered off the Internet. They didn’t even take the time to obtain the authenticated contracts or “evidence”. Apparently they went in there (as the appeals judge wrote) thinking they needed to be listened to because they had “evidence” and the court just better listen to them.

Here is an article in layman’s terms:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/8mom081209.htm

Here is the actual appeals court ruling:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G042399.PDF

Hows that for an appeals court ruling concerning a prominent case being handled by “the most famous female attorney in the country”? (per her own bio on her own website)

Yes folks, our Constitution applies even to those who the gossip outlets, the Internet, and even Gloria Allred and Paul Petersen have attempted to lynch.

Glory be to our Constitution.

From a NASGA reader
Is Hammond or Isn’t He?

5 Responses to “Constitution Applies to Famous People Too”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    If this isn't an article pointing out the great farce of "protection", I don't know what is!

  2. Anonymous Says:

    I guess the meaning of the word protection is varied and for the moment will depend on who is giving the answer who is benefitting, when in fact, the wards, minors and adults,(including their respective families who are witness etc) who are in or have been in this system are the only ones who can give inquiring minds the correct answer but is anyone asking?

    Until that time, we are getting the business as usual, controlling parties views and perspective on a system that is a mystery to the majority of people until it's too late and there is no getting out.

    Then, it becomes very clear how quickly the legal fees pile up and the wards lose their basic human rights and civil rights and their assets.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    They got in their big mack truck ready to steam roll all over the octomom and didn't get away with it. Ha!

    Good.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    This is very good news and something that I didn't expect. The petitioners who banded together for guardianship takeover got caught red handed using the guardianship system, like so many others, for their own benefit.

    I hope Octo mom prevails. Those Octo babies are "marked", I hope their good luck to be free of strangers controlling their future financial affairs continues.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    Hurrah for the Superior Court.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: