Operation Greylord
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Operation Greylord was an investigation conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Chicago Police Internal Affairs Division and the Illinois State Police into corruption in the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago region). The FBI named the investigation "Operation Greylord" after a racehorse, although the national media reported it was named after the curly wigs worn by British judges.[1]
[edit] The OperationThe 3 1/2-year undercover operation took place in the 1980s. The first listening device ever placed in a judge's chambers occurred in the undercover phase, when the narcotics court chambers of Judge Wayne Olson were bugged. In order to acquire evidence of corruption, agents obtained U.S. Department of Justice authorization to present false court cases for the undercover agents/lawyers to fix in front of the corrupt judges.[2] The first defendant to be found guilty was Harold Conn, the Deputy Traffic Court Clerk in the Cook County judicial system. Conn was convicted in March 1984 and was one of the many bagmen in the ring of corruption.[2] The last conviction was that of Judge Thomas J. Maloney, who was indicted in 1991 on bribery charges and convicted in April 1993 of fixing three murder cases for more than $100,000 in bribes. [3] Maloney was released from federal prison in 2008, and died the same year. A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and state legislator James DeLeo.[1] Out of the 17 judges indicted in the trials, 15 were convicted.[4] One judge, Richard LeFevour, was convicted on 59 counts of mail fraud, racketeering and income-tax violations, getting 12 years in prison. [5]Ten years after the undercover case concluded, the historical investigations, prosecutions and trials concluded in 1994.
[edit] AftermathThe systemic corruption lead to the formation of the Special Commission on the Administration of Justice in Cook County, a group assembled in August 1984 to examine the problems of the Cook County courts. The group also issued recommendations that were designed to contribute to a period of reform in the courts. The Commission wrote a total of 165 recommendations for the courts of Cook County.[6] Operation Greylord lead to many other similar investigations targeting corruption in Cook County including Operation Silver Shovel, Incubator, Lantern, Operation Gambat, and Safebet.[4] Operation Greylord was also a turning point in the use eavesdropping devices in order to obtain evidence for trial.
[edit] FBI InvestigationThe key undercover FBI agents and lawyers were David Grossman, David Reis and Terrence Hake. Hake was a Cook County prosecutor, who complained about the bribery and corruption in the Murder and Sexual Assault preliminary hearing courtroom in Chicago.[4] The FBI and United States Attorneys Office learned of his complaint and recruited him to pose as a corrupt prosecutor and later as a bribe-paying criminal defense attorney. While playing the role of a corrupt prosecutor, Hake supplied the evidentiary probable cause to bug Judge Olson's chambers. Lamar Jordan, David Benscoter, Marie Dyson, William C. Megary, and Robert Farmer were the principal FBI case agents and supervisors during the investigation. Cook County Judge Thaddeus Kowalski was important in the case due to his cooperation with authorities even though he knew his cooperation might endanger his career. [7]
[edit] ProsecutorsFirst Assistant United States Attorney Daniel Reidy and Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) Charles Sklarsky, Scott Lassar, Scott Mendeloff and Candace J. Fabri led many of the prosecutions. Four United States Attorneys, Thomas P. Sullivan, Dan K. Webb, Anton R. Valukas and Fred Foreman supervised the investigations and prosecutions. Valukus and AUSA James Schweitzer indicted 22 corrupt court personnel in 1985, along with Judge Raymond Sodini, who presided over the corruption in his courtroom at Chicago Police Headquarters.
[edit] See alsoOperation Gambat
Operation Silver Shovel
[edit] References1.^ a b "Investigations of Public Corruption". Federal Bureau of Investigation. 15 March 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march04/greylord031504.htm. Retrieved 21 Oct 2011.
2.^ a b "Chicago Division: A Brief History". Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/about-us/history/history. Retrieved 21 Oct 2011.
3.^ Jensen, Trevor (22 October 2008). "Judge was convicted of rigging cases". Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays-greylord-story,0,4025843.story. Retrieved 24 Oct 2011.
4.^ a b c Possley, Maurice (5 August 1983). "Operation Greylord". Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays-greylord-story,0,4025843.story. Retrieved 24 Oct 2011.
5.^ "'Greylord' Judge Gets 12 Years". Los Angeles Times. 27 August 1985. http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-27/news/mn-25226_1_operation-greylord. Retrieved 21 Nov 2011.
6.^ Lindberg, Richard (1994). "No More Greylords?". IPSN. http://www.ipsn.org/greylord.html. Retrieved 24 Oct 2011.
7.^ Hinkel, Dan (5 July 2011). "Thaddeus Kowalski, 1931-2011". Chicago Tribune. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-05/news/ct-met-obit-thaddeus-kowalski-20110705_1_associate-judge-retired-judge-judicial-career. Retrieved 21 Nov 2011.
[edit] External linksNo More Greylords?
Investigations of Public Corruption: Rooting Crookedness Out of Government
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Greylord&oldid=470206209"
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
I have a relevant college/university degreeIt is part of my professionIt is a deep personal passionThe source of my knowledge is not listed here I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional) We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.Submit ratings
Saved successfullyYour ratings have not been submitted yetYour ratings have expiredPlease reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.Please take a moment to complete a short survey.Start surveyMaybe later
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.Do you want to create an account?An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.Create an accountorLog inMaybe later
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.Did you know that you can edit this page?Edit this pageMaybe later Categories: 1980s in the United States1990s in the United StatesCook County, IllinoisFBI operationsHistory of Chicago, IllinoisLocal government in IllinoisPolitical corruption investigations in the United StatesPolitical scandals in IllinoisPersonal tools
Create accountLog inNamespaces
ArticleTalkVariantsViews
ReadEditView historyActions
Search
Navigation
Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaInteractionHelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact WikipediaToolboxWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkCite this pageRate this page
Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionThis page was last modified on 8 January 2012 at 04:45.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greylord
Editor's note: Your ProbateShark requests a "Greylord" type of investigation into the corrupt and crooked Probate Court of Cook County. Better order plenty extra orange jump suits. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
An Open Door
Saturday, June 30, 2012
An Open Door
Guardians will find any crack in the crevice to get into our lives and our loved one's pocketbook; but oftentimes, we've unwittingly opened the door and invited them in ourselves, following a family feud. This is the phrase the guardians like to use - or "family squabble."
It could start because one family member feels slighted - discovering another will inherit more of the eventual estate. Theft by a family member is often actually involved. Or maybe one sibling is taking care of Mom and the others think that he/she is taking advantage of her or not treating her properly. Maybe the siblings have never gotten along. Worse, maybe one sibling is actually abusing Mom and she's in danger. Sometimes families call an APS-type agency to complain about each other. The problem escalates very quickly and often ends up in court, where the siblings expect the disagreement will be settled -- by a judge who will hear all sides. Each side may believe they're clearly right and the others are wrong.
The day you take the matter to court is the day you lose your loved one! Almost without exception, the judge will appoint a third-party guardian - regardless of whether advance directives (durable power of attorney, health proxy, wills, trusts, etc.) are in place or not.
Source:
StopGuardianAbuse.org
An Open Door
Guardians will find any crack in the crevice to get into our lives and our loved one's pocketbook; but oftentimes, we've unwittingly opened the door and invited them in ourselves, following a family feud. This is the phrase the guardians like to use - or "family squabble."
It could start because one family member feels slighted - discovering another will inherit more of the eventual estate. Theft by a family member is often actually involved. Or maybe one sibling is taking care of Mom and the others think that he/she is taking advantage of her or not treating her properly. Maybe the siblings have never gotten along. Worse, maybe one sibling is actually abusing Mom and she's in danger. Sometimes families call an APS-type agency to complain about each other. The problem escalates very quickly and often ends up in court, where the siblings expect the disagreement will be settled -- by a judge who will hear all sides. Each side may believe they're clearly right and the others are wrong.
The day you take the matter to court is the day you lose your loved one! Almost without exception, the judge will appoint a third-party guardian - regardless of whether advance directives (durable power of attorney, health proxy, wills, trusts, etc.) are in place or not.
Source:
StopGuardianAbuse.org
Friday, June 29, 2012
VA officials say cost too high to fix fiduciary program
VA officials say cost too high to fix fiduciary program
Lise Olse, Houston Chronicle
By Lise Olsen
Published 06:26 p.m., Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Page 1 of 1
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs opposes many of the fixes proposed by Congress members to address flaws in the national fiduciary program, which serves more than 130,000 disabled veterans and oversees $3.3 billion in assets nationwide.
The agency opposes requirements to provide annual progress reports to Congress or to inform vets promptly when their fiduciaries are convicted of crimes, according to testimony on a reform bill at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
Some improvements in the Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act of 2012 would cost too much, said Dave McLenachen, the VA's director of pension and fiduciary services.
But U.S. Rep Bill Johnson, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Veterans Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, countered that improvements would likely cost about $400 million -less than the amount the VA paid last year in bonuses.
Increasing reports of fraud and theft among VA fiduciaries were the focus of a Houston Chronicle/Hearst investigation published Sunday. The investigation of more than 100 prosecutions and decades of audits revealed convicted thieves, problem gamblers, the mentally ill and the bankrupt had been handed control of disabled vets' disability checks - and estates - by the VA.
Johnson and other Congressmen and Senators are calling on the VA to address problems documented in the Houston Chronicle as well as by auditors and veterans advocacy groups.
"This legislation will require a credit and criminal background check every time a fiduciary is appointed, and allow veterans to petition to have their fiduciary removed if problems arise," Johnson said in a news release.
lise.olsen@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/VA-officials-say-cost-too-high-to-fix-fiduciary-3650248.php
Editor's note: This is truly scary! The criminals habititating the Probate Court of Cook County now have fertile territory to plunder. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Lise Olse, Houston Chronicle
By Lise Olsen
Published 06:26 p.m., Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Page 1 of 1
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs opposes many of the fixes proposed by Congress members to address flaws in the national fiduciary program, which serves more than 130,000 disabled veterans and oversees $3.3 billion in assets nationwide.
The agency opposes requirements to provide annual progress reports to Congress or to inform vets promptly when their fiduciaries are convicted of crimes, according to testimony on a reform bill at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
Some improvements in the Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act of 2012 would cost too much, said Dave McLenachen, the VA's director of pension and fiduciary services.
But U.S. Rep Bill Johnson, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Veterans Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, countered that improvements would likely cost about $400 million -less than the amount the VA paid last year in bonuses.
Increasing reports of fraud and theft among VA fiduciaries were the focus of a Houston Chronicle/Hearst investigation published Sunday. The investigation of more than 100 prosecutions and decades of audits revealed convicted thieves, problem gamblers, the mentally ill and the bankrupt had been handed control of disabled vets' disability checks - and estates - by the VA.
Johnson and other Congressmen and Senators are calling on the VA to address problems documented in the Houston Chronicle as well as by auditors and veterans advocacy groups.
"This legislation will require a credit and criminal background check every time a fiduciary is appointed, and allow veterans to petition to have their fiduciary removed if problems arise," Johnson said in a news release.
lise.olsen@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/VA-officials-say-cost-too-high-to-fix-fiduciary-3650248.php
Editor's note: This is truly scary! The criminals habititating the Probate Court of Cook County now have fertile territory to plunder. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Thursday, June 28, 2012
2d DCA: When are guardians and attorneys entitled to fees in contested guardianship proceedings?
2d DCA: When are guardians and attorneys entitled to fees in contested guardianship proceedings?
Posted on June 18, 2012 by Anthony Marek
Thorpe v. Myers, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 2731937 (Fla. 2d DCA Jul 15, 2011)
In this case a 93-year-old ward had nine children who seemingly couldn’t agree that the sky was blue. After lengthy litigation, the trial court appointed a plenary guardian for the ward, who suffered from dementia. In separate appeals, the emergency temporary guardian and attorneys for two of the children appealed the court’s denial of their respective fee requests.
Guardian's Fees:
The 2d DCA held that the trial court’s complete denial of fees to the guardian was based on a misreading of F.S. 744.108(1), which requires that attorneys, but not guardians, demonstrate the “beneficial nature of services rendered” to the ward. Unlike those of attorneys, guardians’ services are presumed to benefit the ward. However, a circuit court may reduce the requested compensation to the extent that the guardian’s services were “unnecessary or unproductive.”
There are some exceptions to the general rule entitling a guardian to payment for services rendered, but these exceptions are limited. We briefly mention three such exceptions. First, a guardian cannot expect to be compensated for services rendered outside the scope of his or her appointment. In re Guardianship of Jansen, 405 So.2d 1074, 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Poling v. City Bank & Trust Co. of St. Petersburg, 189 So.2d 176, 182–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Second, a guardian guilty of theft or other breach of duty may forfeit the right to compensation. See Am. Surety Co. of N.Y. v. Hayden, 112 Fla. 17, 150 So. 114, 121 (1933). Third, on occasion, usually when a family member is appointed, a guardian may agree to serve without compensation. Here, there is no exception to the statutory requirement that guardians be compensated for their services.
In order for an attorney to be awarded fees from the ward's estate under section 744.108(1), the attorney's services must benefit the ward or the ward's estate. See Butler, 898 So.2d at 1141. The clause in section 744.108(1) requiring the demonstration of the beneficial nature of the services rendered applies to attorneys, not guardians. Thus, under the statutory language, a guardian is not required to demonstrate that his or her services conferred a benefit on the ward or the ward's estate as a prerequisite for obtaining a compensation award. The statute appears to presuppose that a guardian's services benefit the ward or the ward's estate. Cf. Essenson v. Lutheran Servs. Fla., Inc. (In re Guardianship of King), 862 So.2d 869, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Florida cases in which fees have been denied to court-appointed representatives appear to be only those in which he or she was found to have exceeded the scope of appointment.” (citing Jansen, 405 So.2d at 1077)).
It follows that the circuit court reached an incorrect legal conclusion in ruling that Ms. Thorpe was required to demonstrate that her services as emergency temporary guardian were beneficial to the Ward or the Ward's estate as a condition of receiving court-awarded compensation. The statutory scheme presumes that the services of guardians provide a benefit. To the extent that the services of a guardian are unnecessary or unproductive, the circuit court may reduce the requested compensation based on the factors listed in section 744.108(2) but may not deny compensation altogether.
Not only was the legal basis for denying the guardian any compensation flawed, but so too was the factual basis, the 2d DCA found. It disagreed with the circuit court’s finding that the guardian’s services “were of minimal, if any[,] benefit to the Ward, and were intended to benefit [two of the Ward’s children] in the Petition for Emergency Temporary Guardianship.” Instead, there was “nothing in the record suggesting that [the guardian] was working for [the two children] in disregard of her obligation to act in the best interests of the Ward. . . . The guardian works in the interest of the ward under the supervision and control of the court, not at the behest of the person or persons who sought the appointment.”
As evidence to support that claim, the 2d DCA pointed out that the “circuit court actually extended [the guardian’s] tenure as emergency temporary guardian for another four months.” It would make little sense, the 2d DCA implied, for a guardian providing “minimal, if any, benefit” to be asked to continue her responsibilities.
Attorneys' Fees:
The 2d DCA also addressed the circuit’s order denial of attorney’s fees and costs requested by the attorneys of the two children of the Ward who submitted the original petition for guardianship. As alluded to above, attorneys are entitled to “reasonable compensation” only to the extent that their services demonstrably benefit the ward. Here's how the 2d DCA summarized the law on this point:
Under section 744.108(1), “an attorney is entitled to receive a reasonable attorney's fee for professional services rendered and reimbursement of costs incurred for the benefit of the ward; payment of reasonable compensation is mandatory.” Price v. Austin, 43 So.3d 789, 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Under the statute, “the probate court is not ‘at liberty to award anything more or less than fair and reasonable compensation for the services rendered or monies expended in each individual case.’” Lutheran Servs., 978 So.2d at 890 (quoting Lewis v. Gramil Corp., 94 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1957)). However, the attorney's entitlement to payment of reasonable fees and costs is subject to the limitation that his or her services must benefit the ward. King v. Fergeson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser, Baron, & Tirabassi, P.A., 862 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Villanti, J., concurring specially); Butler, 898 So.2d at 1141.
The circuit court found that the two children’s attorneys did not provide any services for the ward. By an abuse of discretion standard, the 2d DCA acknowledged that some of the attorneys’ services amounted to “unproductive litigation over who would be appointed as guardian or other goals that did not benefit the Ward or her estate.”
But some work did make the ward better off. Were it not for the guardianship proceedings initiated by the attorneys, there would have been no determination of incapacity, and no appointment of a plenary guardian, each of which seemed to have been in the ward’s best interest. Accordingly, the 2d DCA remanded to the circuit court with instructions to “make an appropriate award of fees and costs.”
Tags: Compensation Disputes, Contested Guardianship Proceedings
http://www.flprobatelitigation.com/2012/06/articles/new-probate-cases/contested-guardianship-proceedings/2d-dca-when-are-guardians-and-attorneys-entitled-to-fees-in-contested-guardianship-proceedings/
Verdict sets off new free-for-all for Novack’s millions
Verdict sets off new free-for-all for Novack’s millions
BY JULIE K. BROWN The Miami Herald
One day after Narcy Novack’s conviction, attention turned to the estate of her slain husband, and who collects those millions.
The jail mugshot of Narcy Novack. Anonymous / Associated PressFullsize Buy Photoprevious
nextImage 1 of 3The Novack family from left: Narcy Novack; Ben Novack Jr. and his stepdaughter May Abad. Fullsize Buy Photoprevious
nextImage 2 of 3
Maxine Fiel, the aunt of slain Florida businessman Ben Novack Jr., talks to media after the funeral at Mount Lebanon Cemetery Sept. 2, 2009 in Glendale, Queens. Tania Savayan / StaffFullsize Buy Photoprevious
nextImage 3 of 3Photos BY JULIE K. BROWN
jbrown@MiamiHerald.com
As Narcy Novack peels potatoes in a federal prison, she could be cooking up another plan to get her hands on her slain husband’s millions.
Novack, who went from lap dancing in strip clubs to jet-setting with high rollers, on Wednesday was convicted, along with her brother, Cristobal Veliz, of engineering the grisly 2009 murders of her husband, Ben Novack, Jr., and his 86-year-old mother, Bernice Novack.
The denouement capped one chapter in the dizzying family saga, but opened another: a feud over who is entitled to the Novack family estate, estimated at about $10 million, not counting cash stashed in oversees bank accounts.
No one is wasting any time. Just hours after the verdict, Ben Novack’s adopted brother, Ronnie Marc Novack, filed suit contesting his will. His attorney, Harvey Morse, said Novack is in hiding because he believes that Narcy Novack may put a contract out on him from prison.
Also lining up their legal guns are Maxine Fiel, Bernice Novack’s sister; Fiel’s two daughters; three Novack cousins; Narcy’s daughter, May Abad; and Abad’s two sons.
And Narcy Novack, who was convicted on all counts except the felony murder of her husband, could also stake a claim, arguing that she is exempt from Florida’s Slayer Statute — which bars people from collecting an inheritance from those they kill — because she was technically acquitted of killing him. She was found guilty of plotting the death but not of carrying it out.
Ironically, it was the murder that no one originally believed was a murder that that the siblings were convicted of: the brutal beating of Ben Novack’s mother, who was married to Ben Novack Sr., builder of the Fontainebleau hotel in Miami Beach. They were also convicted on more than a dozen other counts of racketeering, including aiding and abetting both crimes.
Ronnie Novack, the adopted son of Ben Novack Sr., for years wandered the streets as a homeless man after being cut out of his father’s will. But in 2008, he inherited a $7 million bounty from his late mother, Bella Novack — Ben Sr.’s first wife.
Morse, an international genealogist who is assisting lawyers representing various Novack family members, said now that the verdict is in, the real battle over the Novack millions will begin.
“Everyone waited for the verdict, and now the gates are open,” said Morse. “It’s like this big pot and everyone is trying to get their hands in.’’
Narcy’s criminal lawyer, Howard Tanner, declined to speculate on her chances of getting a share of the money, saying that’s between her and whatever civil attorney she chooses to hire.
Legal experts, however, suggested the widow, 55, will face an uphill battle if she decides to try to claim her husband’s fortune. Under his will, Novack left the bulk of his estate to her, but by law, she cannot collect a dime if it’s proven she had anything to do with his murder.
Frank Hollander, a Miami probate lawyer, said the burden of proof under the slayer statute is much lower than in a criminal case where conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Even if she is guilty of participating in the murder, she would be excluded from the will,” Hollander said. Under the statute, it would be the legal equivalent of having predeceased her husband. In that event, Ben Novack Sr. bequeathed his estate to Patrick and Marchelo Gaffney, Abad’s sons.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/21/2861813/verdict-sets-off-new-free-for.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/21/2861813/verdict-sets-off-new-free-for.html
BY JULIE K. BROWN The Miami Herald
One day after Narcy Novack’s conviction, attention turned to the estate of her slain husband, and who collects those millions.
The jail mugshot of Narcy Novack. Anonymous / Associated PressFullsize Buy Photoprevious
nextImage 1 of 3The Novack family from left: Narcy Novack; Ben Novack Jr. and his stepdaughter May Abad. Fullsize Buy Photoprevious
nextImage 2 of 3
Maxine Fiel, the aunt of slain Florida businessman Ben Novack Jr., talks to media after the funeral at Mount Lebanon Cemetery Sept. 2, 2009 in Glendale, Queens. Tania Savayan / StaffFullsize Buy Photoprevious
nextImage 3 of 3Photos BY JULIE K. BROWN
jbrown@MiamiHerald.com
As Narcy Novack peels potatoes in a federal prison, she could be cooking up another plan to get her hands on her slain husband’s millions.
Novack, who went from lap dancing in strip clubs to jet-setting with high rollers, on Wednesday was convicted, along with her brother, Cristobal Veliz, of engineering the grisly 2009 murders of her husband, Ben Novack, Jr., and his 86-year-old mother, Bernice Novack.
The denouement capped one chapter in the dizzying family saga, but opened another: a feud over who is entitled to the Novack family estate, estimated at about $10 million, not counting cash stashed in oversees bank accounts.
No one is wasting any time. Just hours after the verdict, Ben Novack’s adopted brother, Ronnie Marc Novack, filed suit contesting his will. His attorney, Harvey Morse, said Novack is in hiding because he believes that Narcy Novack may put a contract out on him from prison.
Also lining up their legal guns are Maxine Fiel, Bernice Novack’s sister; Fiel’s two daughters; three Novack cousins; Narcy’s daughter, May Abad; and Abad’s two sons.
And Narcy Novack, who was convicted on all counts except the felony murder of her husband, could also stake a claim, arguing that she is exempt from Florida’s Slayer Statute — which bars people from collecting an inheritance from those they kill — because she was technically acquitted of killing him. She was found guilty of plotting the death but not of carrying it out.
Ironically, it was the murder that no one originally believed was a murder that that the siblings were convicted of: the brutal beating of Ben Novack’s mother, who was married to Ben Novack Sr., builder of the Fontainebleau hotel in Miami Beach. They were also convicted on more than a dozen other counts of racketeering, including aiding and abetting both crimes.
Ronnie Novack, the adopted son of Ben Novack Sr., for years wandered the streets as a homeless man after being cut out of his father’s will. But in 2008, he inherited a $7 million bounty from his late mother, Bella Novack — Ben Sr.’s first wife.
Morse, an international genealogist who is assisting lawyers representing various Novack family members, said now that the verdict is in, the real battle over the Novack millions will begin.
“Everyone waited for the verdict, and now the gates are open,” said Morse. “It’s like this big pot and everyone is trying to get their hands in.’’
Narcy’s criminal lawyer, Howard Tanner, declined to speculate on her chances of getting a share of the money, saying that’s between her and whatever civil attorney she chooses to hire.
Legal experts, however, suggested the widow, 55, will face an uphill battle if she decides to try to claim her husband’s fortune. Under his will, Novack left the bulk of his estate to her, but by law, she cannot collect a dime if it’s proven she had anything to do with his murder.
Frank Hollander, a Miami probate lawyer, said the burden of proof under the slayer statute is much lower than in a criminal case where conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Even if she is guilty of participating in the murder, she would be excluded from the will,” Hollander said. Under the statute, it would be the legal equivalent of having predeceased her husband. In that event, Ben Novack Sr. bequeathed his estate to Patrick and Marchelo Gaffney, Abad’s sons.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/21/2861813/verdict-sets-off-new-free-for.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/21/2861813/verdict-sets-off-new-free-for.html
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Texas Lawsuit Identifies Problems In Medicare Hospice Provisions
Texas Lawsuit Identifies Problems In Medicare Hospice Provisions
PrintShareEmailTopics: Medicare, States
By Jordan Rau
KHN Staff Writer
Nov 16, 2011
A lawsuit filed in Dallas against one of the nation's largest hospice companies identifies how Medicare's payment methods can offer unintended financial incentives to inappropriately move patients from HMOs into hospice programs and then into hospitals.
In a complaint unsealed last week in a federal court, a former general manager of Vitas HealthCare Corp.'s San Antonio office alleged the company defrauded Medicare through a "conspiracy" with two HMO companies. Vitas and the companies have denied the allegations. The Department of Justice and the state of Texas have declined to join with the plaintiffs in the suit "at this time."
Here's how the complaint alleges the arrangement worked: Since Medicare Advantage pays HMOs monthly per-patient fees, the HMOs had a financial incentive to avoid chronically ill patients, who need lots of treatments. So the HMOs referred many of their chronically ill patients for hospice care at Vitas, which accepted them even though their conditions weren't considered terminal.
Although expensive for the HMOs, these patients made money for Vitas, the complaint alleges. That's because Medicare reimburses hospice with a flat fee for each day a patient is enrolled. Long-stay hospice patients tend to be more profitable since the big costs in hospice care come when patients first enter the program and need to be evaluated and at the end, when they are dying and require more care, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a congressional agency that has faulted Medicare's payment formula.
In the situation outlined in the suit, Medicare lost out, both because the patients didn’t qualify for hospice and because the hospice benefit paid Vitas at a higher rate than it paid the HMOs, said Jim Barger, the lawyer for the whistleblower, Michael Rehfeldt.
On top of that, the lawsuit claims that when the health of Vitas patients required expensive hospital services, the company kicked them out of the hospice program "in order to shift the high costs of hospital procedures and prescription medications" away from the hospice and onto Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program. The lawsuit alleges Vitas at times backdated the revocation papers.
Barger said cherry-picking patients "is the oldest scam in health insurance, but it's much more sophisticated and it's being perpetrated on the taxpayers."
In the lawsuit Rehfeldt claims that when he became general manager of Vitas' San Antonio office in 2008, he discovered that 22 percent of the 560 hospice patients had been enrolled for more than 500 days. The Medicare benefit is intended for patients who are projected to have no more than 180 days to live, although government watchdogs have been concerned that for-profit hospice companies are seeking out patients who aren't on death's door.
Rehfeldt claims he discovered that the medical director for Vitas' local office, Justo Cisneros, simultaneously worked as a medical director and doctor for the two HMOs, WellMed Medical Management Group, based in San Antonio, and Care Level Management, run by Inspiris, a Tennessee company. There, Cisneros was in a position to refer the chronically ill HMO patients to Vitas — and to then certify them as meeting Medicare’s hospice rules, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit says Cisneros executed the plan with Keith Becker, a former general manager of Vitas’ San Antonio office who is now an executive at Inspiris.
The lawsuit was filed in 2009 under seal, which was partially lifted this week by Jane Boyle, a judge in the United States District Court's Northern District of Texas, based in Dallas. Under the rules of whistleblower "qui tam" lawsuits, Rehfeldt would be entitled to a portion of any money the lawsuit recovers on the government's behalf. The lawsuit does not state how much money was involved.
The companies denied the allegations but declined to comment on the specifics. In a statement, Vitas CEO Timothy O'Toole said the company would vigorously fight the lawsuit. "Vitas is in compliance with all Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations applicable to hospice providers," he said. Kal Mistry, Vitas' chief administrative officer, said in an interview that nationwide, the average length of stay for a Vitas patient was 80 days, with half receiving hospice care for 15 days or fewer.
"We are pleased because the feds and the state have declined to intervene," said Dan Calderon, a spokesman for WellMed.
David Canniff, Inspiris’ chief financial officer, said in an e-mail that the government's "decision not to intervene in this civil complaint sends a strong message regarding the merits of this suit and INSPIRIS will vigorously defend its position if the litigant chooses to pursue any further action."
Cisneros could not be reached for comment, but denied the allegations in an interview with the Bloomberg news service, saying Vitas was "caught in a paradigm shift" as Medicare first encouraged hospices to enroll patients with neurological problems such as dementia and then tried to limit the resulting longer stays from these illnesses. The hospice industry has broadly maintained that the decline of such patients is far harder to predict than those of cancer patient, leading to patients who remain for several years before dying.
The lawsuit says that Vitas' San Antonio branch became more vigilant about removing from its rolls patients who had been remaining for long periods after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid launched a close review in 2007. But according to the lawsuit, in late 2008, a Vitas executive conducting a review of patient charts told Rehfeldt that many of the patients currently on the rolls "were never eligible and that he [the executive] did not know why they were ever admitted."
jrau@kff.org
We want to hear from you: Contact Kaiser Health NewsUSE OUR MATERIAL
All original KHN material – articles, graphics and videos – can be used for free, if you credit us and link to us. Learn more
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/November/16/texas-hospice-lawsuit.aspx
PrintShareEmailTopics: Medicare, States
By Jordan Rau
KHN Staff Writer
Nov 16, 2011
A lawsuit filed in Dallas against one of the nation's largest hospice companies identifies how Medicare's payment methods can offer unintended financial incentives to inappropriately move patients from HMOs into hospice programs and then into hospitals.
In a complaint unsealed last week in a federal court, a former general manager of Vitas HealthCare Corp.'s San Antonio office alleged the company defrauded Medicare through a "conspiracy" with two HMO companies. Vitas and the companies have denied the allegations. The Department of Justice and the state of Texas have declined to join with the plaintiffs in the suit "at this time."
Here's how the complaint alleges the arrangement worked: Since Medicare Advantage pays HMOs monthly per-patient fees, the HMOs had a financial incentive to avoid chronically ill patients, who need lots of treatments. So the HMOs referred many of their chronically ill patients for hospice care at Vitas, which accepted them even though their conditions weren't considered terminal.
Although expensive for the HMOs, these patients made money for Vitas, the complaint alleges. That's because Medicare reimburses hospice with a flat fee for each day a patient is enrolled. Long-stay hospice patients tend to be more profitable since the big costs in hospice care come when patients first enter the program and need to be evaluated and at the end, when they are dying and require more care, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a congressional agency that has faulted Medicare's payment formula.
In the situation outlined in the suit, Medicare lost out, both because the patients didn’t qualify for hospice and because the hospice benefit paid Vitas at a higher rate than it paid the HMOs, said Jim Barger, the lawyer for the whistleblower, Michael Rehfeldt.
On top of that, the lawsuit claims that when the health of Vitas patients required expensive hospital services, the company kicked them out of the hospice program "in order to shift the high costs of hospital procedures and prescription medications" away from the hospice and onto Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program. The lawsuit alleges Vitas at times backdated the revocation papers.
Barger said cherry-picking patients "is the oldest scam in health insurance, but it's much more sophisticated and it's being perpetrated on the taxpayers."
In the lawsuit Rehfeldt claims that when he became general manager of Vitas' San Antonio office in 2008, he discovered that 22 percent of the 560 hospice patients had been enrolled for more than 500 days. The Medicare benefit is intended for patients who are projected to have no more than 180 days to live, although government watchdogs have been concerned that for-profit hospice companies are seeking out patients who aren't on death's door.
Rehfeldt claims he discovered that the medical director for Vitas' local office, Justo Cisneros, simultaneously worked as a medical director and doctor for the two HMOs, WellMed Medical Management Group, based in San Antonio, and Care Level Management, run by Inspiris, a Tennessee company. There, Cisneros was in a position to refer the chronically ill HMO patients to Vitas — and to then certify them as meeting Medicare’s hospice rules, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit says Cisneros executed the plan with Keith Becker, a former general manager of Vitas’ San Antonio office who is now an executive at Inspiris.
The lawsuit was filed in 2009 under seal, which was partially lifted this week by Jane Boyle, a judge in the United States District Court's Northern District of Texas, based in Dallas. Under the rules of whistleblower "qui tam" lawsuits, Rehfeldt would be entitled to a portion of any money the lawsuit recovers on the government's behalf. The lawsuit does not state how much money was involved.
The companies denied the allegations but declined to comment on the specifics. In a statement, Vitas CEO Timothy O'Toole said the company would vigorously fight the lawsuit. "Vitas is in compliance with all Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations applicable to hospice providers," he said. Kal Mistry, Vitas' chief administrative officer, said in an interview that nationwide, the average length of stay for a Vitas patient was 80 days, with half receiving hospice care for 15 days or fewer.
"We are pleased because the feds and the state have declined to intervene," said Dan Calderon, a spokesman for WellMed.
David Canniff, Inspiris’ chief financial officer, said in an e-mail that the government's "decision not to intervene in this civil complaint sends a strong message regarding the merits of this suit and INSPIRIS will vigorously defend its position if the litigant chooses to pursue any further action."
Cisneros could not be reached for comment, but denied the allegations in an interview with the Bloomberg news service, saying Vitas was "caught in a paradigm shift" as Medicare first encouraged hospices to enroll patients with neurological problems such as dementia and then tried to limit the resulting longer stays from these illnesses. The hospice industry has broadly maintained that the decline of such patients is far harder to predict than those of cancer patient, leading to patients who remain for several years before dying.
The lawsuit says that Vitas' San Antonio branch became more vigilant about removing from its rolls patients who had been remaining for long periods after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid launched a close review in 2007. But according to the lawsuit, in late 2008, a Vitas executive conducting a review of patient charts told Rehfeldt that many of the patients currently on the rolls "were never eligible and that he [the executive] did not know why they were ever admitted."
jrau@kff.org
We want to hear from you: Contact Kaiser Health NewsUSE OUR MATERIAL
All original KHN material – articles, graphics and videos – can be used for free, if you credit us and link to us. Learn more
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/November/16/texas-hospice-lawsuit.aspx
Hospice profits raise questions about Medicare volunteer rule
Updated: 10:51 p.m. Saturday, April 14, 2012
Posted: 10:38 p.m. Saturday, April 14, 2012
Hospice profits raise questions about Medicare volunteer rule
Vote (0)By Charles Elmore
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Quick: Name the only industry in which Medicare requires volunteers to provide free labor - in some cases helping for-profit executives become millionaires.
It is hospice, which cares for terminally ill patients, according to a new congressional advisory report that questions the arrangement.
"I just don't think that's right," said volunteer Carolyn Millard of West Palm Beach. "I think it's terrible."
She said she was a volunteer for Vitas Healthcare until she read a report in The Palm Beach Post in January. She had no idea Vitas was a for-profit company in the first place - let alone one under federal investigation of its billing practices. Company officials have denied wrongdoing.
At least five officers at Vitas' parent company made more than $1 million in total annual compensation, The Post found. Vitas is the larger of two businesses controlled by $1.4 billion Chemed Corp. of Cincinnati. The other is Roto -Rooter plumbing.
For-profit companies have been a driving force behind the quadrupling of annual hospice costs to $13 billion since 2000, making it the fastest-growing part of Medicare, government reports show.
Volunteers sometimes help for-profit hospitals and other businesses, but hospice is unique. It is the only service that requires volunteers to provide at least 5 percent of the hours spent caring for patients in order to qualify for Medicare payments.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report released in March raises renewed concerns about blending for-profit business models with government rules written when most hospice providers were nonprofit. Medicare began paying for hospice care in 1983.
"When the requirement was established, virtually all hospice providers were 'voluntary' or charitable organizations," the report said. "Today, more than half are for-profit providers."
The situation "raises questions about the role the volunteer requirement plays in hospice care," the report said.
There are no plans to drop the volunteer requirement, a spokeswoman for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said. "Eliminating volunteer services would require a change to the law itself," said spokeswoman Carolina Fortin-Garcia. That's up to Congress.
In 2006, Florida made it easier for for-profit hospice providers to operate in the state under a bill sponsored by then-Sen. Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach. Atwater said at the time the bill would put nonprofits "on notice that the best in the business" are coming to Florida. State law also requires 5 percent volunteer hours.
Vitas, founded in Miami and now the nation's largest hospice company, gave more than $185,000 in campaign contributions to Florida officials including Atwater since 2000, records reviewed with the help of followthemoney.org show.
Atwater, now the state's chief financial officer, was traveling and unable to respond to a request for comment, a spokeswoman said.
The volunteer requirement should stand, maintains the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, a group that represents both nonprofit and for-profit providers.
"NHPCO strongly believes that volunteers play an essential role in the provision of care and are valuable members of the hospice interdisciplinary team," said Jon Radulovic, vice president of communications for the organization.
Volunteers "root an organization to the community it serves" and bring "immeasurable" benefits to the bedside of patients, he said.
An estimated 458,000 trained hospice volunteers provided 21 million hours of service in 2010, his group says.
In a statement, Vitas defended the volunteer role.
"Volunteerism has long been recognized as a vital component of hospice care," the company's statement said. "Volunteers provide support, engagement and companionship for hospice patients and their families. Moreover, beyond uniquely benefiting patients, volunteers find their service to be a personally rewarding experience. Many hospice volunteers are family members, friends or acquaintances of hospice patients."
Thirty years ago, hospice was promoted as a way to show compassion to dying people and save money, too. Organizations with community roots, including many with religious ties, led the way.
The idea was to allow a patient diagnosed with six months or less to live to choose to give up expensive last-ditch efforts to cure a terminal disease. Instead, the patient would accept "palliative" care such as pain and anxiety medicine, along with other support, in an atmosphere designed to be as dignified and peaceful as possible. For the vast majority, hospice is not a place to which they go but a service they get where they are - at their homes or in assisted-living facilities.
The cost-saving benefits seemed clear enough with, for example, late-stage cancer, but a growing number of patients on hospice care have such conditions as dementia or Alzheimer's. It can be less clear what "curative" treatment a dementia patient is giving up in exchange for palliative care.
Dementia patients tend to live longer on hospice care than cancer patients, making them more profitable to the hospice provider, government reports show. For-profit hospices do a better job of finding more profitable patients, studies have found.
Patients spent 40 percent longer on average in for-profit hospice care compared with nonprofits among providers serving Palm Beach County, a Post analysis found. Nonprofits Hospice of Palm Beach County and Hospice by the Sea are also licensed to serve the area.
The bottom line has been an increased cost to taxpayers.
Selene Fishkin of Palm Beach Gardens said her late husband was in an assisted-living facility for Alzheimer's.
She said she was astounded to see Vitas billed the government more than $20,000 in a month last year. She remembered the service largely as 15-minute visits from a hospice worker.
"I think they're robbing Medicare," she said.
Rebecca Cohen said she did not know Vitas was a for-profit hospice when her mother was in a Delray Beach health care facility last year.
"Looking at Vitas' website you will not see they are for-profit," Cohen said. She believed her mother's facility was pushing the family to choose Vitas for hospice care, though she selected a nonprofit after doing her own research.
Cohen said she suspected "perks in it for them to shove residents toward the for-profit choice."
Assisted-living providers and hospice firms have denied such perks.
Millard, for one, has seen enough. She stopped volunteering at a for-profit hospice.
"I thought we were being taken," she said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospice volunteers
•Required by federal and state law to provide 5 percent of hospice hours.
•There were an estimated 458,000 hospice volunteers nationally in 2010.
•They provided 21 million hours of service.
Source: National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/lifestyles/health/hospice-profits-raise-questions-about-medicare-vol/nN29k/
Posted: 10:38 p.m. Saturday, April 14, 2012
Hospice profits raise questions about Medicare volunteer rule
Vote (0)By Charles Elmore
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Quick: Name the only industry in which Medicare requires volunteers to provide free labor - in some cases helping for-profit executives become millionaires.
It is hospice, which cares for terminally ill patients, according to a new congressional advisory report that questions the arrangement.
"I just don't think that's right," said volunteer Carolyn Millard of West Palm Beach. "I think it's terrible."
She said she was a volunteer for Vitas Healthcare until she read a report in The Palm Beach Post in January. She had no idea Vitas was a for-profit company in the first place - let alone one under federal investigation of its billing practices. Company officials have denied wrongdoing.
At least five officers at Vitas' parent company made more than $1 million in total annual compensation, The Post found. Vitas is the larger of two businesses controlled by $1.4 billion Chemed Corp. of Cincinnati. The other is Roto -Rooter plumbing.
For-profit companies have been a driving force behind the quadrupling of annual hospice costs to $13 billion since 2000, making it the fastest-growing part of Medicare, government reports show.
Volunteers sometimes help for-profit hospitals and other businesses, but hospice is unique. It is the only service that requires volunteers to provide at least 5 percent of the hours spent caring for patients in order to qualify for Medicare payments.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report released in March raises renewed concerns about blending for-profit business models with government rules written when most hospice providers were nonprofit. Medicare began paying for hospice care in 1983.
"When the requirement was established, virtually all hospice providers were 'voluntary' or charitable organizations," the report said. "Today, more than half are for-profit providers."
The situation "raises questions about the role the volunteer requirement plays in hospice care," the report said.
There are no plans to drop the volunteer requirement, a spokeswoman for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said. "Eliminating volunteer services would require a change to the law itself," said spokeswoman Carolina Fortin-Garcia. That's up to Congress.
In 2006, Florida made it easier for for-profit hospice providers to operate in the state under a bill sponsored by then-Sen. Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach. Atwater said at the time the bill would put nonprofits "on notice that the best in the business" are coming to Florida. State law also requires 5 percent volunteer hours.
Vitas, founded in Miami and now the nation's largest hospice company, gave more than $185,000 in campaign contributions to Florida officials including Atwater since 2000, records reviewed with the help of followthemoney.org show.
Atwater, now the state's chief financial officer, was traveling and unable to respond to a request for comment, a spokeswoman said.
The volunteer requirement should stand, maintains the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, a group that represents both nonprofit and for-profit providers.
"NHPCO strongly believes that volunteers play an essential role in the provision of care and are valuable members of the hospice interdisciplinary team," said Jon Radulovic, vice president of communications for the organization.
Volunteers "root an organization to the community it serves" and bring "immeasurable" benefits to the bedside of patients, he said.
An estimated 458,000 trained hospice volunteers provided 21 million hours of service in 2010, his group says.
In a statement, Vitas defended the volunteer role.
"Volunteerism has long been recognized as a vital component of hospice care," the company's statement said. "Volunteers provide support, engagement and companionship for hospice patients and their families. Moreover, beyond uniquely benefiting patients, volunteers find their service to be a personally rewarding experience. Many hospice volunteers are family members, friends or acquaintances of hospice patients."
Thirty years ago, hospice was promoted as a way to show compassion to dying people and save money, too. Organizations with community roots, including many with religious ties, led the way.
The idea was to allow a patient diagnosed with six months or less to live to choose to give up expensive last-ditch efforts to cure a terminal disease. Instead, the patient would accept "palliative" care such as pain and anxiety medicine, along with other support, in an atmosphere designed to be as dignified and peaceful as possible. For the vast majority, hospice is not a place to which they go but a service they get where they are - at their homes or in assisted-living facilities.
The cost-saving benefits seemed clear enough with, for example, late-stage cancer, but a growing number of patients on hospice care have such conditions as dementia or Alzheimer's. It can be less clear what "curative" treatment a dementia patient is giving up in exchange for palliative care.
Dementia patients tend to live longer on hospice care than cancer patients, making them more profitable to the hospice provider, government reports show. For-profit hospices do a better job of finding more profitable patients, studies have found.
Patients spent 40 percent longer on average in for-profit hospice care compared with nonprofits among providers serving Palm Beach County, a Post analysis found. Nonprofits Hospice of Palm Beach County and Hospice by the Sea are also licensed to serve the area.
The bottom line has been an increased cost to taxpayers.
Selene Fishkin of Palm Beach Gardens said her late husband was in an assisted-living facility for Alzheimer's.
She said she was astounded to see Vitas billed the government more than $20,000 in a month last year. She remembered the service largely as 15-minute visits from a hospice worker.
"I think they're robbing Medicare," she said.
Rebecca Cohen said she did not know Vitas was a for-profit hospice when her mother was in a Delray Beach health care facility last year.
"Looking at Vitas' website you will not see they are for-profit," Cohen said. She believed her mother's facility was pushing the family to choose Vitas for hospice care, though she selected a nonprofit after doing her own research.
Cohen said she suspected "perks in it for them to shove residents toward the for-profit choice."
Assisted-living providers and hospice firms have denied such perks.
Millard, for one, has seen enough. She stopped volunteering at a for-profit hospice.
"I thought we were being taken," she said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospice volunteers
•Required by federal and state law to provide 5 percent of hospice hours.
•There were an estimated 458,000 hospice volunteers nationally in 2010.
•They provided 21 million hours of service.
Source: National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/lifestyles/health/hospice-profits-raise-questions-about-medicare-vol/nN29k/
Vet-targeted website to be turned over to feds
Jun 27, 5:29 PM EDT
Vet-targeted website to be turned over to feds
By BRUCE SCHREINER
Associated Press
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A California-based company accused of preying on veterans for their education benefits agreed Wednesday to pay $2.5 million to 20 states and turn over its website - GIBill.com - to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The consumer protection settlement between the states and QuinStreet Inc. was filed Wednesday in a Frankfort, Ky., court.
"The actions were unconscionable and purposefully drove veterans to for-profit colleges who were perhaps more interested in getting their hands on the federal benefits than in educating our soldiers and their families," said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in announcing the settlement.
The agreement comes against a backdrop in which military veterans are a lucrative market for colleges. The newly expanded Post 9/11 G.I. Bill will pay colleges of all types around $9 billion this year to educate nearly 600,000 veterans. As a result, many colleges boast of being "military friendly and "veterans friendly."
QuinStreet, an Internet marketing and media company, called the agreement a "significant step forward in helping to clarify expectations for school advertising online, and for related website design and content." QuinStreet said it didn't view its websites as misleading and that GIBill.com has never been a "material contributor" to its revenue.
Paul Szoldra, 28, a Marine Corps veteran who studies at the University of Tampa in Florida, welcomed the settlement.
"Definitely a good day for the good guys," he said.
When he was in the military, Szoldra remembers looking for information on GI Bill benefits online and finding GIBill.com. At that time, there was no disclaimer explaining who ran it, he said.
"I definitely thought it was an official site," Szoldra said.
The states alleged that QuinStreet violated consumer protection laws while operating websites that generate leads primarily for the for-profit education industry. The states said that several of the company's sites, including GIBill.com, deceptively gave the appearance that the sites were operated, owned or endorsed by the U.S. government or military.
QuinStreet will relinquish ownership and control of GIBill.com to the veterans affairs department that will use the domain to promote the program and its available benefits.
Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Secretary Scott Gould called the settlement a "positive step toward ensuring our veterans have the education opportunities they've earned." He said that "predatory, aggressive and deceptive marketing directly inhibits our ability to ensure they understand those options."
Students attending for-profit colleges make up about 13 percent of higher education enrollment, but those students also get about 38 percent of all the Post 9/11 GI Bill money, Conway said. Members of Congress also stressed their approval of the settlement during a press conference in Washington.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the attorneys general stepped in where Congress has failed.
"It's reached a point now when you get little or nothing done when you take on the for-profit schools in Congress. Why? They own every lobbyist in town," Durbin said. "... These are not the good guys. What the for-profit schools are doing to students and their families across America is shameful. What they're doing to veterans is disgraceful."
The Association of Private Sector College and Universities, the trade association representing for-profit colleges, issued a press release saying that it values its relationship with the nation's veterans and families, and wanted to make clear it condemned any activity by companies that misleads them.
Also, the Twitter, Facebook and other social media accounts associated with GIBill.com will shut down. QuinStreet will provide expanded disclosures on other military-oriented and education-related websites.
Szoldra has created his own website (http://www.collegeveteran.com ) to help better guide veterans through the minefield of searching for a school and re-entering civilian life.
"It can definitely be confusing," he said. "There's a ton of websites out there, there's a lot of `military friendly' kind of schools or listing where they say these schools are military friendly and here's why. They're not really as comprehensive as they should be."
Sarah Minnis, who worked with veterans for three years at Texas A&M, said for-profit colleges often made promises that didn't come true.
"One of the biggest problems was that the credits the veterans earned wouldn't transfer to other institutions," said Minnis, who now works on education issues with the Wounded Warrior Project.
Other states involved in the settlement are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Conway's office said the settlement concludes the investigation of QuinStreet.
Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami and Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VETERANS_COLLEGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-27-17-29-43
Vet-targeted website to be turned over to feds
By BRUCE SCHREINER
Associated Press
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A California-based company accused of preying on veterans for their education benefits agreed Wednesday to pay $2.5 million to 20 states and turn over its website - GIBill.com - to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The consumer protection settlement between the states and QuinStreet Inc. was filed Wednesday in a Frankfort, Ky., court.
"The actions were unconscionable and purposefully drove veterans to for-profit colleges who were perhaps more interested in getting their hands on the federal benefits than in educating our soldiers and their families," said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in announcing the settlement.
The agreement comes against a backdrop in which military veterans are a lucrative market for colleges. The newly expanded Post 9/11 G.I. Bill will pay colleges of all types around $9 billion this year to educate nearly 600,000 veterans. As a result, many colleges boast of being "military friendly and "veterans friendly."
QuinStreet, an Internet marketing and media company, called the agreement a "significant step forward in helping to clarify expectations for school advertising online, and for related website design and content." QuinStreet said it didn't view its websites as misleading and that GIBill.com has never been a "material contributor" to its revenue.
Paul Szoldra, 28, a Marine Corps veteran who studies at the University of Tampa in Florida, welcomed the settlement.
"Definitely a good day for the good guys," he said.
When he was in the military, Szoldra remembers looking for information on GI Bill benefits online and finding GIBill.com. At that time, there was no disclaimer explaining who ran it, he said.
"I definitely thought it was an official site," Szoldra said.
The states alleged that QuinStreet violated consumer protection laws while operating websites that generate leads primarily for the for-profit education industry. The states said that several of the company's sites, including GIBill.com, deceptively gave the appearance that the sites were operated, owned or endorsed by the U.S. government or military.
QuinStreet will relinquish ownership and control of GIBill.com to the veterans affairs department that will use the domain to promote the program and its available benefits.
Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Secretary Scott Gould called the settlement a "positive step toward ensuring our veterans have the education opportunities they've earned." He said that "predatory, aggressive and deceptive marketing directly inhibits our ability to ensure they understand those options."
Students attending for-profit colleges make up about 13 percent of higher education enrollment, but those students also get about 38 percent of all the Post 9/11 GI Bill money, Conway said. Members of Congress also stressed their approval of the settlement during a press conference in Washington.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the attorneys general stepped in where Congress has failed.
"It's reached a point now when you get little or nothing done when you take on the for-profit schools in Congress. Why? They own every lobbyist in town," Durbin said. "... These are not the good guys. What the for-profit schools are doing to students and their families across America is shameful. What they're doing to veterans is disgraceful."
The Association of Private Sector College and Universities, the trade association representing for-profit colleges, issued a press release saying that it values its relationship with the nation's veterans and families, and wanted to make clear it condemned any activity by companies that misleads them.
Also, the Twitter, Facebook and other social media accounts associated with GIBill.com will shut down. QuinStreet will provide expanded disclosures on other military-oriented and education-related websites.
Szoldra has created his own website (http://www.collegeveteran.com ) to help better guide veterans through the minefield of searching for a school and re-entering civilian life.
"It can definitely be confusing," he said. "There's a ton of websites out there, there's a lot of `military friendly' kind of schools or listing where they say these schools are military friendly and here's why. They're not really as comprehensive as they should be."
Sarah Minnis, who worked with veterans for three years at Texas A&M, said for-profit colleges often made promises that didn't come true.
"One of the biggest problems was that the credits the veterans earned wouldn't transfer to other institutions," said Minnis, who now works on education issues with the Wounded Warrior Project.
Other states involved in the settlement are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Conway's office said the settlement concludes the investigation of QuinStreet.
Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami and Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VETERANS_COLLEGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-27-17-29-43
Report a Complaint - The Joint Commission
Wednesday 3:17 CST, June 27, 2012
Report a Complaint
The Joint Commission uses information from a variety of sources to improve the quality and safety of the more than 19,000 health care organizations it accredits and certifies. One of these sources is complaints from patients, their families, government agencies, and the public, as well as from an organization’s own staff and the media.
If you have a complaint about a health care organization that we accredit or certify, The Joint Commission’s Office of Quality Monitoring is interested in the details of your complaint. Although we cannot serve as complaint mediators, we can use the information you provide to identify possible noncompliance with our accreditation or certification standards. For direct resolution of your complaint, you may want to bring your issue to the attention of the health care organization’s leadership.
When we receive a complaint
As an accreditor, The Joint Commission can only evaluate complaint information in terms of its relevance to compliance with our accreditation or certification standards. The Joint Commission is not the forum for the resolution of individual complaints or disputed matters, nor can we assist to resolve individual injuries or concerns.
Joint Commission standards focus on safety and quality of care. Matters of billing, insurance, payment disputes, personnel issues, or labor relations are not within The Joint Commission’s scope. We also cannot follow up on complaints about organizations that we do not accredit or certify.
How to report a complaint
If you wish, you can remain anonymous. However, providing a name and either a U.S. mail or e-mail address allows us to contact you for additional information or clarifications, if needed. Should you decide to disclose your name and address, we will keep this information confidential, although we may disclose de-identified details to the organization in question in order to make our evaluation. According to Joint Commission policy, all staff at our accredited or certified organizations must be informed that they may make a complaint without fear of retaliatory actions from their organization.
To report the details about your complaint to The Joint Commission, use one of the following options:
Online:
•Submit a new complaint.
•Submit an update to a complaint. (You must have your complaint reference number)
E-mail: complaint@jointcommission.org
Fax: 630-792-5636
Mail: Office of Quality Monitoring
The Joint Commission
One Renaissance Boulevard
Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181
Summarize the issue in two pages or less and include the name and full address of the organization in question. For more information, call The Joint Commission’s toll free number, (800) 994-6610, available weekdays, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Central Time.
How we respond to complaints
When we receive a complaint, we will initially evaluate whether it relates to one or more Joint Commission standards. If so, our evaluation will then focus on assessing the organization’s overall compliance with those standards. Depending on the nature of the complaint, we may take one or more of the following actions:
•If the complaint raises concerns about a continuing threat to patient safety or if it suggests a failure to comply with Joint Commission standards, we may conduct an unannounced or unscheduled on-site evaluation of the organization.
•We may ask the organization to provide a written response to the complaint.
•If the organization is scheduled for its accreditation or certification survey in the near future, we may review the complaint and the organization’s compliance with related standards at that time.
•We may incorporate the complaint details into our database that we use to monitor quality issues and track trends with our accredited or certified health care organizations.
Release of complaint-related information
Many people who report a complaint to us want to know the details of our evaluation and follow up activities. Although specific details are confidential, we can provide you with the following information, as appropriate, upon written request:
•Whether or not your complaint is relevant to the organization’s compliance with any accreditation or certification standard(s) and, if so, the specific standards identified.
•The course of action that The Joint Commission has or will take to evaluate the organization’s compliance with these standards.
•Any standard(s) for which we issued a requirement for improvement following an on-site evaluation.
•Any change we made to the organization’s accreditation or certification decision following our evaluation, which will be reflected in the organization’s Quality Report.
In addition, you may wish to refer to the organization’s Quality Report to obtain general information about the organization’s performance on key quality measures. To view a Quality Report, visit www.qualitycheck.org. To obtain a hard copy of the report, contact our Customer Service Center, 630-792-5800. Or, write to us:
Customer Service Center
The Joint Commission
One Renaissance Boulevard
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Read more information about The Joint Commission’s Public Information Policy.
http://www.jointcommission.org/report_a_complaint.aspx
Report a Complaint
The Joint Commission uses information from a variety of sources to improve the quality and safety of the more than 19,000 health care organizations it accredits and certifies. One of these sources is complaints from patients, their families, government agencies, and the public, as well as from an organization’s own staff and the media.
If you have a complaint about a health care organization that we accredit or certify, The Joint Commission’s Office of Quality Monitoring is interested in the details of your complaint. Although we cannot serve as complaint mediators, we can use the information you provide to identify possible noncompliance with our accreditation or certification standards. For direct resolution of your complaint, you may want to bring your issue to the attention of the health care organization’s leadership.
When we receive a complaint
As an accreditor, The Joint Commission can only evaluate complaint information in terms of its relevance to compliance with our accreditation or certification standards. The Joint Commission is not the forum for the resolution of individual complaints or disputed matters, nor can we assist to resolve individual injuries or concerns.
Joint Commission standards focus on safety and quality of care. Matters of billing, insurance, payment disputes, personnel issues, or labor relations are not within The Joint Commission’s scope. We also cannot follow up on complaints about organizations that we do not accredit or certify.
How to report a complaint
If you wish, you can remain anonymous. However, providing a name and either a U.S. mail or e-mail address allows us to contact you for additional information or clarifications, if needed. Should you decide to disclose your name and address, we will keep this information confidential, although we may disclose de-identified details to the organization in question in order to make our evaluation. According to Joint Commission policy, all staff at our accredited or certified organizations must be informed that they may make a complaint without fear of retaliatory actions from their organization.
To report the details about your complaint to The Joint Commission, use one of the following options:
Online:
•Submit a new complaint.
•Submit an update to a complaint. (You must have your complaint reference number)
E-mail: complaint@jointcommission.org
Fax: 630-792-5636
Mail: Office of Quality Monitoring
The Joint Commission
One Renaissance Boulevard
Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181
Summarize the issue in two pages or less and include the name and full address of the organization in question. For more information, call The Joint Commission’s toll free number, (800) 994-6610, available weekdays, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Central Time.
How we respond to complaints
When we receive a complaint, we will initially evaluate whether it relates to one or more Joint Commission standards. If so, our evaluation will then focus on assessing the organization’s overall compliance with those standards. Depending on the nature of the complaint, we may take one or more of the following actions:
•If the complaint raises concerns about a continuing threat to patient safety or if it suggests a failure to comply with Joint Commission standards, we may conduct an unannounced or unscheduled on-site evaluation of the organization.
•We may ask the organization to provide a written response to the complaint.
•If the organization is scheduled for its accreditation or certification survey in the near future, we may review the complaint and the organization’s compliance with related standards at that time.
•We may incorporate the complaint details into our database that we use to monitor quality issues and track trends with our accredited or certified health care organizations.
Release of complaint-related information
Many people who report a complaint to us want to know the details of our evaluation and follow up activities. Although specific details are confidential, we can provide you with the following information, as appropriate, upon written request:
•Whether or not your complaint is relevant to the organization’s compliance with any accreditation or certification standard(s) and, if so, the specific standards identified.
•The course of action that The Joint Commission has or will take to evaluate the organization’s compliance with these standards.
•Any standard(s) for which we issued a requirement for improvement following an on-site evaluation.
•Any change we made to the organization’s accreditation or certification decision following our evaluation, which will be reflected in the organization’s Quality Report.
In addition, you may wish to refer to the organization’s Quality Report to obtain general information about the organization’s performance on key quality measures. To view a Quality Report, visit www.qualitycheck.org. To obtain a hard copy of the report, contact our Customer Service Center, 630-792-5800. Or, write to us:
Customer Service Center
The Joint Commission
One Renaissance Boulevard
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Read more information about The Joint Commission’s Public Information Policy.
http://www.jointcommission.org/report_a_complaint.aspx
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Ethics board tells Cook County assessor to fire relatives
Ethics board tells Cook County assessor to fire relatives
Associated Press
7:04 AM CDT, June 26, 2012
The Cook County ethics board has ordered the county's assessor to fire two of the three relatives who work in the government tax office.
Joe Berrios was elected in 2010 to run the office. The Chicago Sun-Times reports the ethics board determined Berrios violated his fiduciary duties as well as a prohibition on hiring relatives laid out in the county's ethics ordinance.
The Sun-Times reports it obtained a “confidential” document with the ethics board's finding. The report, signed by ethics board chairwoman Roseann Oliver, concluded the hiring by Berrios of his family members as county employees undermined the public trust.
The ethics board recommends Berrios fire his son, Joseph “Joey” Berrios, from his job as a residential analyst and his sister, Carmen Berrios, as director of taxpayer services.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-ethics-board-tells-cook-county-assessor-to-fire-relatives-20120626,0,7082285.story
Editor's note: Roseanne Oliver, this Shark can give you some names of unethical employees of the Probate Court of Cook County who also "undermine the public trust". Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Associated Press
7:04 AM CDT, June 26, 2012
The Cook County ethics board has ordered the county's assessor to fire two of the three relatives who work in the government tax office.
Joe Berrios was elected in 2010 to run the office. The Chicago Sun-Times reports the ethics board determined Berrios violated his fiduciary duties as well as a prohibition on hiring relatives laid out in the county's ethics ordinance.
The Sun-Times reports it obtained a “confidential” document with the ethics board's finding. The report, signed by ethics board chairwoman Roseann Oliver, concluded the hiring by Berrios of his family members as county employees undermined the public trust.
The ethics board recommends Berrios fire his son, Joseph “Joey” Berrios, from his job as a residential analyst and his sister, Carmen Berrios, as director of taxpayer services.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-ethics-board-tells-cook-county-assessor-to-fire-relatives-20120626,0,7082285.story
Editor's note: Roseanne Oliver, this Shark can give you some names of unethical employees of the Probate Court of Cook County who also "undermine the public trust". Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Los Angeles Adult Protective Services Refuses to Accept Reports of Conservator Abuse
Monday, June 25th, 2012
Posted by Janet Phelan Los Angeles Adult Protective Services Refuses to Accept Reports of Conservator Abuse
1
The elder abuse hotline runs round the clock in Los Angeles County. Twenty four hours a day, a social worker is available to take incoming complaints of abuse and neglect of elderly and dependent adults.
But not, apparently, if the abusing party is a conservator. During a call to APS last Thursday, a complaint was made that a local conservator was neglecting and medically abusing one of her wards in Pomona, California. The worker refused to accept the complaint, stating that APS does not take complaints of conservator abuse. The call was then transferred to the supervisor, Alejandro, who stated that the Welfare and Institutions Code blocks Adult Protective Services from following up on complaints of conservator abuse. Alejandro was unable to provide the relevant WIC and promised to call back after researching it. He did not.
But both Alejandro and his social worker spoke in error. A call to the Administrative Office of Los Angeles County Adult Protective Service today confirmed that there are no legal guidelines that would inhibit APS from taking and investigating a complaint of this nature. So why are the workers declining to take these calls?
Calls to Administration got some action, but not very many answers. A call center manager named Solomon assured me he would have someone take my complaint and offered to transfer me back to the Call Center. I told him I would call over myself, to see what sort of response another social worker provided.
Diana answered the call and informed me that APS does not investigate conservator abuse. She told me to contact the Public Guardian. When pressed, she went off the line and when she returned she told me she had been authorized to take this complaint. To wit:
In Redlands, a homeless man named Charlie Castle had been grabbed off the street by the mental health court officers and placed under a temporary mental health conservatorship. Private Conservator Melodie Scott petitioned to take over as conservator and was so appointed. She then put the individual into a long term nursing home which does not provide mental health treatment and proceeded to ignore him. The conservatorship appears to have been conceived in a grave conflict of interest. The attorney –Ryan Sheehan–representing the conservatee is, in fact, Melodie Scott’s lawyer. Castle has now been locked up for a year.
Apparently, Scott has a personal interest in Charles Castle. Castle recalls that, a couple of months before he was grabbed, Scott approached him on the street. She asked him if he would like her to “take care” of him. “No, ma’am,” he replied emphatically.
I had been contacted by a friend of Charlie Castle, who believed that the conservatorship had become abusive and that the conservator was neglecting Castle. The friend, a local schoolteacher, provided a picture of Charlie as someone who was intelligent, friendly and docile and, while somewhat eccentric, was able to manage his own affairs. Other members of the community, including Ken Stein, a director at the local YMCA and Pastor Craig at the Blessing Center, repeated the same perceptions of Charlie Castle.
“Charlie loves his freedom, “said Stein. “He marches to a different drummer and to lock him up would be a death sentence.”
According to the San Bernardino Court public records, Castle has never had any brushes with the law. According to all contacts, he does not pose a danger to himself or others.
All the way up the bureaucratic food chain, agencies mandated to protect the elderly and disabled are backing off from allegations of conservator abuse (http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/guardian-crimes-get-cover-from.html). Reports to police go uninvestigated, District Attorneys pass on their obligations to prosecute, the state agencies, such as the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau in California (http://www.estateofdenial.com/2010/11/20/californias-professional-fiduciaries-bureau-appears-ineffective-in-its-mission/) seem to be paralyzed and unable to even reply to incoming complaints. The State Attorney General’s offices refuses to investigate, saying they don’t “do probate.”
Numerous complaints have been tendered to the FBI, from Florida to California. The FBI has never launched an investigation. When the GAO submitted a recent report on conservatorship abuse, the recommendations were seen to only eventuate in an increase in the numbers of people under the thumb of the State, rather than to address the inherent abuses that occur when a person loses all his rights and all access to his property (http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/gao-pushes-to-share-incapacity.html).
Solomon has stated that he will institute better training among the social workers at Los Angeles County APS. One can only hope so
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing ServicesShort URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=213134
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice
Posted by Janet Phelan on Jun 25 2012, With 96 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Government, Health, Medical Disability Benefits, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/25/los-angeles-adult-protective-services-refuses-to-accept-reports-of-conservator-abuse/
Posted by Janet Phelan Los Angeles Adult Protective Services Refuses to Accept Reports of Conservator Abuse
1
The elder abuse hotline runs round the clock in Los Angeles County. Twenty four hours a day, a social worker is available to take incoming complaints of abuse and neglect of elderly and dependent adults.
But not, apparently, if the abusing party is a conservator. During a call to APS last Thursday, a complaint was made that a local conservator was neglecting and medically abusing one of her wards in Pomona, California. The worker refused to accept the complaint, stating that APS does not take complaints of conservator abuse. The call was then transferred to the supervisor, Alejandro, who stated that the Welfare and Institutions Code blocks Adult Protective Services from following up on complaints of conservator abuse. Alejandro was unable to provide the relevant WIC and promised to call back after researching it. He did not.
But both Alejandro and his social worker spoke in error. A call to the Administrative Office of Los Angeles County Adult Protective Service today confirmed that there are no legal guidelines that would inhibit APS from taking and investigating a complaint of this nature. So why are the workers declining to take these calls?
Calls to Administration got some action, but not very many answers. A call center manager named Solomon assured me he would have someone take my complaint and offered to transfer me back to the Call Center. I told him I would call over myself, to see what sort of response another social worker provided.
Diana answered the call and informed me that APS does not investigate conservator abuse. She told me to contact the Public Guardian. When pressed, she went off the line and when she returned she told me she had been authorized to take this complaint. To wit:
In Redlands, a homeless man named Charlie Castle had been grabbed off the street by the mental health court officers and placed under a temporary mental health conservatorship. Private Conservator Melodie Scott petitioned to take over as conservator and was so appointed. She then put the individual into a long term nursing home which does not provide mental health treatment and proceeded to ignore him. The conservatorship appears to have been conceived in a grave conflict of interest. The attorney –Ryan Sheehan–representing the conservatee is, in fact, Melodie Scott’s lawyer. Castle has now been locked up for a year.
Apparently, Scott has a personal interest in Charles Castle. Castle recalls that, a couple of months before he was grabbed, Scott approached him on the street. She asked him if he would like her to “take care” of him. “No, ma’am,” he replied emphatically.
I had been contacted by a friend of Charlie Castle, who believed that the conservatorship had become abusive and that the conservator was neglecting Castle. The friend, a local schoolteacher, provided a picture of Charlie as someone who was intelligent, friendly and docile and, while somewhat eccentric, was able to manage his own affairs. Other members of the community, including Ken Stein, a director at the local YMCA and Pastor Craig at the Blessing Center, repeated the same perceptions of Charlie Castle.
“Charlie loves his freedom, “said Stein. “He marches to a different drummer and to lock him up would be a death sentence.”
According to the San Bernardino Court public records, Castle has never had any brushes with the law. According to all contacts, he does not pose a danger to himself or others.
All the way up the bureaucratic food chain, agencies mandated to protect the elderly and disabled are backing off from allegations of conservator abuse (http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/guardian-crimes-get-cover-from.html). Reports to police go uninvestigated, District Attorneys pass on their obligations to prosecute, the state agencies, such as the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau in California (http://www.estateofdenial.com/2010/11/20/californias-professional-fiduciaries-bureau-appears-ineffective-in-its-mission/) seem to be paralyzed and unable to even reply to incoming complaints. The State Attorney General’s offices refuses to investigate, saying they don’t “do probate.”
Numerous complaints have been tendered to the FBI, from Florida to California. The FBI has never launched an investigation. When the GAO submitted a recent report on conservatorship abuse, the recommendations were seen to only eventuate in an increase in the numbers of people under the thumb of the State, rather than to address the inherent abuses that occur when a person loses all his rights and all access to his property (http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/gao-pushes-to-share-incapacity.html).
Solomon has stated that he will institute better training among the social workers at Los Angeles County APS. One can only hope so
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing ServicesShort URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=213134
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice
Posted by Janet Phelan on Jun 25 2012, With 96 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Government, Health, Medical Disability Benefits, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/25/los-angeles-adult-protective-services-refuses-to-accept-reports-of-conservator-abuse/
Monday, June 25, 2012
Abbott Labs wrongly pushed Depakote for dementia care, will pay $1.5 billion
<< Return to Abbott Labs wrongly pushed Depakote for dementia care, will pay $1.5 billion
Abbott Labs wrongly pushed Depakote for dementia care, will pay $1.5 billion
McKnight's StaffMay 07 2012Abbott Laboratories has pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $1.5 billion over allegations that it promoted the anti-seizure drug Depakote for uses that were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The company systematically promoted off-label use of the medication as a dementia treatment for nursing home residents. Abbott also paid kickbacks to physicians and long-term pharmacists to encourage its use, according to court records.
At a news conference Monday, U.S. Attorney Timothy Heaphy said the practice went beyond questionable practices by “some rogue sales representatives.” In fact, top officials at Abbott knew about and encouraged the misleading practice from 1998 to at least 2006.
The case includes a criminal fine and forfeiture of $700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $800 million. The company also agreed to enter a five-year probationary period. Depakote is an anti-seizure and mood-stabilizing drug that is routinely prescribed for bipolar disorder.
.
http://www.mcknights.com/abbott-labs-wrongly-pushed-depakote-for-dementia-care-will-pay-15-billion/article/240012/
Narcy Novack found guilty of orchestrating killing of her hotel heir husband and his mother
Narcy Novack found guilty of orchestrating killing of her hotel heir husband and his mother
Prosecutors said Novack and her brother hired thugs to deliver savage beatings in a grab for family estate
Comments
By The Associated Press / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 3:56 PM
Broward Sheriff's Office/AP
Narcy Novack of Fort Lauderdale, Flor. Novack was found guilty Wednesday, June 20, 2012, of orchestrating the killings of her millionaire husband, Ben Novack Jr., and his mother, Bernice Novack, in a grab for the family estate. Related StoriesWidow accused of killing Miami hotel heir may be linked to scheme to kill witness Slain hotel heir Ben Novack Jr.'s wife to blame, her kid says Fontainebleau Hotel fortune motivated woman to kill husband: NY prosecutors Confessed killers of hotel heir and his mother expected to testify that the millionaire victim’s wife paid them to commit the double murder Wife charged in Westchester slay of hotel scion Video reveals George Zimmerman arriving at police station appearing uninjured after Trayvon Martin shooting WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — A Florida woman and her brother were found guilty Wednesday of orchestrating the killings of the woman's millionaire husband and his mother in a grab for the family estate.
A federal jury convicted Narcy Novack of Fort Lauderdale on counts alleging she caused the savage 2009 beatings of Ben Novack Jr. in a suburban New York hotel room and Bernice Novack at her Fort Lauderdale home.
Novack and her brother, Cristobal Veliz, of New York City, both were convicted of charges including racketeering, domestic violence, stalking, money laundering and witness tampering.
Both were acquitted of the charge of murder in aid of racketeering, which would have carried a mandatory life sentence. They still face sentences of up to life in prison. Sentencing is set for Nov. 1.
Novack chose not to attend the reading of the verdict. Veliz was present and showed no emotion.
Novack's lawyer, Howard Tanner, said afterward, "We put on our defense, and the jury has spoken. They were a conscientious jury."
Prosecutors said Novack and Veliz were motivated by "jealousy, retribution and greed" when they hired the thugs who carried out the killings. They said Novack feared that her husband, who was having an affair, would divorce her, and that a prenuptial agreement would bar her from the multimillion-dollar family estate.
Ben Novack Jr. had a successful travel company. His father built the storied Fontainebleau hotel in Miami Beach, a celebrity hangout in the 1950s and '60s that appeared in the movies "Scarface" and "Goldfinger."
The defense had tried to blame the killings on Narcy Novack's daughter, whose sons will now inherit the estate.
Prosecutors said Novack, 55, paid Veliz, 58, to hire Miami thugs to assault the victims. The killers testified that Veliz recruited them and relayed instructions from Novack on how to carry out the killings.
They testified that those instructions included blinding Ben Novack Jr. — his eyes were slashed with a utility knife — and bashing 86-year-old Bernice Novack in the teeth with a plumber's wrench.
The killers also testified that Narcy Novack identified her husband to them in advance by stroking his hair in a restaurant as they watched.
They said that on the day of Ben Novack's killing, Narcy Novack called Veliz, who said: "Well, she's ready. Let's go." One said that when they got to the Hilton hotel in Rye Brook, N.Y., where Ben Novack's company was running an Amway convention, Narcy Novack motioned them into her room, directed them to her sleeping husband, gave them a pillow to muffle his screams and questioned them afterward to make sure he had been blinded.
"She shows them where her husband is, she ushers them into the room and they inflict a vicious, brutal attack on Ben Novack," said prosecutor Andrew Dember.
One key witness was Rebecca Bliss, a former prostitute and porn actress, who said she was having an affair with Ben Novack when he was killed.
She said Narcy Novack tried to buy her off for $10,000 and told her, "If she couldn't have him, no other woman was going to have him."
Another witness, Alejandro Garcia, said he killed Bernice Novack by slamming her in the head with a wrench in the driveway of her home on April 4, 2009. He and Joel Gonzalez testified that they beat Ben Novack to death with dumbbells three months later.
Grisly crime scene photos were shown to the jury.
Bernice Novack's death was originally ruled an accident, despite her broken jaw and blood smeared on the walls of her house. It was reclassified a homicide after Narcy Novack's arrest in the death of her husband.
Garcia said the plan was to beat up the victims, not kill them. He said Ben Novack was to be injured so severely he would have to retire and Narcy Novack and Veliz would take over his travel company. At first the plan included cutting off Novack's testicles, but that evolved into slashing his eyes, he said.
He said Veliz promised him $15,000 and "a good tip."
Both defendants are natives of Ecuador.
The family intrigue in the case deepened when the defense strategy turned out to be blaming May Abad, who was Narcy Novack's daughter and Ben Novack's stepdaughter.
Defense attorneys said Abad, who wasn't charged, could benefit by ordering the killings and framing her mother because her two sons would inherit the bulk of the family estate — which includes Ben Novack's large collection of Batman memorabilia — if Narcy Novack were convicted.
"She's the one who has a lot to gain," said Veliz's lawyer, Lawrence Sheehan. Veliz testified that he had seen Abad with the killers and claimed she had kidnapped him.
Abad didn't testify, and her lawyer didn't return calls seeking comment. Abad told the Miami Herald in April that trying to blame her stepfather's murder on her was "a joke."
"They are going to say whatever they can," she said.
Narcy Novack didn't testify at the trial, though she spoke to investigators for hours after the killing and said, "Only a monster can do this kind of evil thing."
Veliz held the stand for days, repeatedly denying the prosecution's account but sometimes stumbling to explain away credit card records, cellphone logs and an ATM surveillance video. He denied that he went to a Kmart near Miami and bought the dumbbells, one pink and one blue, that were used to bash Ben Novack.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/florida-woman-narcy-novack-convicted-killing-millionaire-husband-mother-money-grab-article-1.1099333#commentpostform
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Forkless Friday at Obama event
Forkless Friday at Obama event
1.7KComments (92) By JOSH GERSTEIN and REID J. EPSTEIN
6/22/12 5:00 PM EDT
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. --Does a fork or dinner knife pose an unacceptable danger to President Barack Obama?
One wouldn’t think so, given the hundreds of lunches and dinners he’s attended ranging from state dinners to political fundraisers to run-of-the-mill stops on the rubber-chicken circuit.
However, at one such lunch Friday afternoon, guests heard an unusual announcement that they needed to hand over their silverware for security reasons.
“It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama blames GOP for playing politics on immigration)
Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.
“As you know, we’re having another speaker and there is some Secret Service involved. So there’s a reason why there’s no knives at your table and the forks will be collected. ... And I’m not joking,” Regalado told the audience in a ballroom at Disney’s Contemporary Resort at Walt Disney World. “So, like the good Hispanic mother I’m here to tell you to please, eat your lunch.”
A Secret Service spokesman confirmed that the agency made the request, but said such requirements are common at large events where the president speaks at about the same time people are dining.
“The Secret Service coordinates this process with staff and host committee to ensure tables are cleared of material that may be deemed hazardous prior to the arrival of the president,” Special Agent Max Milien told POLITICO. "Any implication that this was unique for this event is completely inaccurate."
In other words, the announcement at the Latino officials’ event may have been unusual, but the removal of the silverware usually takes place without anyone realizing it’s a security measure.
Still, there are a wide variety of breakfasts, lunches and dinners the president attends where diners still have the full complement of silverware as Obama speaks.
Milien declined to comment on the discrepancy. However, it’s known that the Secret Service adjusts security depending on the size of the crowd and how much officials know about who’s in attendance. At some events, guests must pass through magnetometers. At others, they don’t.
The Service usually doesn’t worry too much about impromptu stops where a potential assailant would have no reason to expect the president. Sometimes the president’s attendance at sporting events is kept secret until the last minute to avoid having to perform security checks on every fan.
Indeed, there is plenty of silverware at large events like the White House Correspondents Dinner. However, those on the dais are well known to the White House and Obama does not plunge into the crowd there. After the speech Friday, Obama spent about six minutes shaking hands along a so-called ropeline in front of the crowd.
Abby Phillip contributed reporting to this post.
UPDATE: This post has been updated with further comment from Milien.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/forkless-friday-at-obama-event-127056.html
Editor's note: Has the Secret Service heard of plastic dinner-ware? Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
1.7KComments (92) By JOSH GERSTEIN and REID J. EPSTEIN
6/22/12 5:00 PM EDT
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. --Does a fork or dinner knife pose an unacceptable danger to President Barack Obama?
One wouldn’t think so, given the hundreds of lunches and dinners he’s attended ranging from state dinners to political fundraisers to run-of-the-mill stops on the rubber-chicken circuit.
However, at one such lunch Friday afternoon, guests heard an unusual announcement that they needed to hand over their silverware for security reasons.
“It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama blames GOP for playing politics on immigration)
Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.
“As you know, we’re having another speaker and there is some Secret Service involved. So there’s a reason why there’s no knives at your table and the forks will be collected. ... And I’m not joking,” Regalado told the audience in a ballroom at Disney’s Contemporary Resort at Walt Disney World. “So, like the good Hispanic mother I’m here to tell you to please, eat your lunch.”
A Secret Service spokesman confirmed that the agency made the request, but said such requirements are common at large events where the president speaks at about the same time people are dining.
“The Secret Service coordinates this process with staff and host committee to ensure tables are cleared of material that may be deemed hazardous prior to the arrival of the president,” Special Agent Max Milien told POLITICO. "Any implication that this was unique for this event is completely inaccurate."
In other words, the announcement at the Latino officials’ event may have been unusual, but the removal of the silverware usually takes place without anyone realizing it’s a security measure.
Still, there are a wide variety of breakfasts, lunches and dinners the president attends where diners still have the full complement of silverware as Obama speaks.
Milien declined to comment on the discrepancy. However, it’s known that the Secret Service adjusts security depending on the size of the crowd and how much officials know about who’s in attendance. At some events, guests must pass through magnetometers. At others, they don’t.
The Service usually doesn’t worry too much about impromptu stops where a potential assailant would have no reason to expect the president. Sometimes the president’s attendance at sporting events is kept secret until the last minute to avoid having to perform security checks on every fan.
Indeed, there is plenty of silverware at large events like the White House Correspondents Dinner. However, those on the dais are well known to the White House and Obama does not plunge into the crowd there. After the speech Friday, Obama spent about six minutes shaking hands along a so-called ropeline in front of the crowd.
Abby Phillip contributed reporting to this post.
UPDATE: This post has been updated with further comment from Milien.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/forkless-friday-at-obama-event-127056.html
Editor's note: Has the Secret Service heard of plastic dinner-ware? Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Saturday, June 23, 2012
How Florida's Governor's Race and Well being Insurance policy Prepare Reform Are Intertwined
How Florida's Governor's Race and Well being Insurance policy Prepare Reform Are Intertwined
Tuesday, August 9, 2011DME Medicare Fraud: Combating Sturdy Clinical Equipment Fraud With the Bogus Claims Act
James Desnick, Morris Esformes and Philip Esformes. The DOJ also charged Frank Palacios, a prolonged-time worker of the hospital.
An extra 34 companies owned by the Esformes and Claudia Tempo, an Esformes employee, were also component of the settlement. These organizations operated nine assisted living facilities.
The settlement stems from the civil case of United States v. Jack Jacobo Michel, M.D., et al. The US authorities submitted that suit, alleging violations of the Bogus Statements Act, in 2004. Later on in the calendar year, the state of Florida joined the suit.
The authorities claims that in 1997, Larkin paid physicians kickbacks for affected person admissions. Desnick owned Larkin at that time.
The U.S. federal government maintains that Jack Michel was the principal recipient of the kickbacks, which have been paid out by himself and Dr. George Michel, his brother. Larkin was marketed to Jack Michel in 1998.
Desnick was concerned in a $14 million settlement in 2000 for another kickback scheme from 1992 to 2000. That scheme involved an additional hospital he owned, Medical professionals Hospital in Hyde Park, a Chicago neighborhood.
Added allegations against Jack Michel, George Michel, Morris and Philip Esformes, Frank Palacios and Claudia Tempo included conspiracy to acknowledge clients into Larkin for needless remedy.
The United States also alleged in the Michel suit that from 1998 to 1999, Jack Michel, George Michel, Morris Esformes, Philip Esformes, Frank Palacios and Claudia Pace conspired to admit individuals to Larkin for medically needless remedy.
The authorities asserted that some of these individuals came from assisted living amenities owned and operated by Jack Michel, Morris Esformes and Philip Esformes.
“The Division of Justice is committed to vigorously litigating cases about perform that undermines the integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid plans,” mentioned Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Lawyer Standard for the Department’s Civil Division. “We will not tolerate well being care suppliers who shell out kickbacks or carry out medically pointless treatment options on elderly beneficiaries in purchase to make Medicare and Medicaid payments.”
GlaxoSmithKline pays $a hundred and fifty million to settle allegations of Medicare/Medicaid Fraud
In a September twenty, 2005 press release, the Division of Justice noted that one of the world’s greatest pharmaceutical companies, GlaxoSmithKline, agreed to spend above $150 million to resolve fraudulent drug pricing allegations.
Assistant Lawyer Common Peter D. Keisler of the Justice Department's Civil Division remarked, "This agreement marks one more in a sequence of circumstances in which a pharmaceutical producer has settled statements that its fraudulent drug pricing charge federal healthcare programs and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars”. The release said the company had engaged in a scheme that involved two of its medications, Zofran and Kytril, utilized to handle patients undergoing oncology and radiation treatment. The DOJ alleged the business set and taken care of inflated and fraudulent costs for the two medication. The federal healthcare applications employed those costs furnished by the drug giant to establish its reimbursement charges.
As a result, the drug company’s Medicaid pricing fraud set in movement a chain response whereby healthcare suppliers unwittingly submitted bogus and fraudulent statements, as a outcome of the reimbursement charges furnished to them by federal healthcare applications. The circumstance centered on these untrue and fraudulent statements, induced by SmithKlineGlaxo’s pricing alleged fraud.
florida medicare fraud
Posted by Jody Conrad at 8:56 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: criminal defense attorney, defense attorney, florida medicare fraud, medicare fraud florida, miami criminal defense, report florida medicare fraud, white collar crime
http://reportfloridamedicarefraud60.blogspot.com/2011/08/dme-medicare-fraud-combating-sturdy.html
KawamotoDragon.com
Tuesday, August 9, 2011DME Medicare Fraud: Combating Sturdy Clinical Equipment Fraud With the Bogus Claims Act
James Desnick, Morris Esformes and Philip Esformes. The DOJ also charged Frank Palacios, a prolonged-time worker of the hospital.
An extra 34 companies owned by the Esformes and Claudia Tempo, an Esformes employee, were also component of the settlement. These organizations operated nine assisted living facilities.
The settlement stems from the civil case of United States v. Jack Jacobo Michel, M.D., et al. The US authorities submitted that suit, alleging violations of the Bogus Statements Act, in 2004. Later on in the calendar year, the state of Florida joined the suit.
The authorities claims that in 1997, Larkin paid physicians kickbacks for affected person admissions. Desnick owned Larkin at that time.
The U.S. federal government maintains that Jack Michel was the principal recipient of the kickbacks, which have been paid out by himself and Dr. George Michel, his brother. Larkin was marketed to Jack Michel in 1998.
Desnick was concerned in a $14 million settlement in 2000 for another kickback scheme from 1992 to 2000. That scheme involved an additional hospital he owned, Medical professionals Hospital in Hyde Park, a Chicago neighborhood.
Added allegations against Jack Michel, George Michel, Morris and Philip Esformes, Frank Palacios and Claudia Tempo included conspiracy to acknowledge clients into Larkin for needless remedy.
The United States also alleged in the Michel suit that from 1998 to 1999, Jack Michel, George Michel, Morris Esformes, Philip Esformes, Frank Palacios and Claudia Pace conspired to admit individuals to Larkin for medically needless remedy.
The authorities asserted that some of these individuals came from assisted living amenities owned and operated by Jack Michel, Morris Esformes and Philip Esformes.
“The Division of Justice is committed to vigorously litigating cases about perform that undermines the integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid plans,” mentioned Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Lawyer Standard for the Department’s Civil Division. “We will not tolerate well being care suppliers who shell out kickbacks or carry out medically pointless treatment options on elderly beneficiaries in purchase to make Medicare and Medicaid payments.”
GlaxoSmithKline pays $a hundred and fifty million to settle allegations of Medicare/Medicaid Fraud
In a September twenty, 2005 press release, the Division of Justice noted that one of the world’s greatest pharmaceutical companies, GlaxoSmithKline, agreed to spend above $150 million to resolve fraudulent drug pricing allegations.
Assistant Lawyer Common Peter D. Keisler of the Justice Department's Civil Division remarked, "This agreement marks one more in a sequence of circumstances in which a pharmaceutical producer has settled statements that its fraudulent drug pricing charge federal healthcare programs and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars”. The release said the company had engaged in a scheme that involved two of its medications, Zofran and Kytril, utilized to handle patients undergoing oncology and radiation treatment. The DOJ alleged the business set and taken care of inflated and fraudulent costs for the two medication. The federal healthcare applications employed those costs furnished by the drug giant to establish its reimbursement charges.
As a result, the drug company’s Medicaid pricing fraud set in movement a chain response whereby healthcare suppliers unwittingly submitted bogus and fraudulent statements, as a outcome of the reimbursement charges furnished to them by federal healthcare applications. The circumstance centered on these untrue and fraudulent statements, induced by SmithKlineGlaxo’s pricing alleged fraud.
florida medicare fraud
Posted by Jody Conrad at 8:56 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: criminal defense attorney, defense attorney, florida medicare fraud, medicare fraud florida, miami criminal defense, report florida medicare fraud, white collar crime
http://reportfloridamedicarefraud60.blogspot.com/2011/08/dme-medicare-fraud-combating-sturdy.html
KawamotoDragon.com
Panel rules against Nugent in Southington probate case
Panel rules against Nugent in Southington probate case
Mary Ellen Godin
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:51 am
SOUTHINGTON — A panel that oversees the professional conduct of state lawyers found that local attorney John Nugent violated ethics laws in his handling of the estate of Josephine Smoron, according to a decision released this week.
The Statewide Grievance Committee ruled that Nugent knowingly ignored knowledge that Smoron had a signed will leaving her 80- to 90-acre farm to caretaker Samuel Manzo. It further found that Nugent sought to intentionally deceive and defraud Smoron of her final wishes, and lied during testimony last fall.
The committee ordered that Nugent be reprimanded for the violations, which means a copy of its findings will be published in the state’s law journal.
“We conclude that the respondent knew that Ms. Smoron had a will that left her estate to the complainant,” the report stated. “Rather than actively search for this will and confirm Ms. Smoron’s testamentary wishes, however, the respondent chose to ignore the information presented to him and develop a mechanism that would give him control over Ms. Smoron’s estate after her death and allow him to determine who would inherit her estate.”
Nugent’s attorney, James Sullivan, said the ruling was based on vague rules of administration of justice and he will appeal the decision.
“We disagree with the findings and we are going to request a hearing,” Sullivan said.
Nugent, who served as Southington’s assistant town attorney, faced disbarment, a suspended law license, or the reprimand published in the Connecticut Law Journal.
Nugent was Smoron’s conservator when she died in June 2009. Several months before she died, Nugent created two trusts and funded them with her cash assets and real estate while naming himself trustee. He also made a deal with local developer Carl Verderame to buy the property for $1.5 million for use as an access road to Verderame’s proposed sports complex off Interstate 84. Three local churches were to be named beneficiaries, not Manzo.
Shortly after Smoron’s death, Manzo learned there was only $6,000 in the estate and hired local attorney Barry Pontolillo. The case is now in the hands of three probate courts and Hartford Superior Court.
Manzo, who is still caring for the farm and the animals, said that while he agrees with the committee’s findings, he feels the discipline was too light.
Pontolillo also expressed disappointment that Nugent wouldn’t face stiffer sanctions. But the panel’s findings would bolster his motion to have Nugent removed as trustee of the estate and to install a disinterested third party. A status conference is scheduled for next month.
“Obviously, I thought there should have been more of a suspension,” Pontolillo said. “He intentionally lied in his testimony and intentionally tried to deceive and defraud a client. In this business, your word is your bond. If they publish that you willfully lied, who is going to trust you?”
Pontolillo said he’s not surprised Nugent would appeal the decision because he has denied any wrongdoing from the outset.
Nugent has maintained that he was not aware of any will and he was only protecting his client’s assets when he created the trusts. He could not be reached for comment on Thursday.
The case also involved former Southington Probate Judge Brian Meccariello, who agreed to the formation of the trusts in May 2009 but failed to invite Manzo to a meeting. Meccariello told the Council on Probate Judicial Conduct he approved only the creation of the trusts, not the funding. He was publicly censured by the council in September 2010 for his role in failing to notify potential heirs of the meeting.
The Statewide Grievance Committee heard testimony from Nugent, Manzo, Meccariello and local attorney Valerie DePaolo, among others.
Smoron was a farm woman who spoke Polish and was known to sleep with a sick cow in the fields. She had no children. The farm had fallen into disrepair and bills hadn’t been paid during the long court battles. Manzo said he had to borrow money to pay for property insurance.
“I’m up to my wits’ end now and he’s not turning (the property) over,” Manzo said, referring to Nugent. “He’s just making it hard up to the end.”
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/latestnews/article_62f4d3ce-bba8-11e1-9354-001a4bcf887a.html
Editor's note: Why can't Illinois have a "Statewide Grievance Committee"? Why must Illinois depend on the kangaroo court of the ARDC? Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Mary Ellen Godin
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:51 am
SOUTHINGTON — A panel that oversees the professional conduct of state lawyers found that local attorney John Nugent violated ethics laws in his handling of the estate of Josephine Smoron, according to a decision released this week.
The Statewide Grievance Committee ruled that Nugent knowingly ignored knowledge that Smoron had a signed will leaving her 80- to 90-acre farm to caretaker Samuel Manzo. It further found that Nugent sought to intentionally deceive and defraud Smoron of her final wishes, and lied during testimony last fall.
The committee ordered that Nugent be reprimanded for the violations, which means a copy of its findings will be published in the state’s law journal.
“We conclude that the respondent knew that Ms. Smoron had a will that left her estate to the complainant,” the report stated. “Rather than actively search for this will and confirm Ms. Smoron’s testamentary wishes, however, the respondent chose to ignore the information presented to him and develop a mechanism that would give him control over Ms. Smoron’s estate after her death and allow him to determine who would inherit her estate.”
Nugent’s attorney, James Sullivan, said the ruling was based on vague rules of administration of justice and he will appeal the decision.
“We disagree with the findings and we are going to request a hearing,” Sullivan said.
Nugent, who served as Southington’s assistant town attorney, faced disbarment, a suspended law license, or the reprimand published in the Connecticut Law Journal.
Nugent was Smoron’s conservator when she died in June 2009. Several months before she died, Nugent created two trusts and funded them with her cash assets and real estate while naming himself trustee. He also made a deal with local developer Carl Verderame to buy the property for $1.5 million for use as an access road to Verderame’s proposed sports complex off Interstate 84. Three local churches were to be named beneficiaries, not Manzo.
Shortly after Smoron’s death, Manzo learned there was only $6,000 in the estate and hired local attorney Barry Pontolillo. The case is now in the hands of three probate courts and Hartford Superior Court.
Manzo, who is still caring for the farm and the animals, said that while he agrees with the committee’s findings, he feels the discipline was too light.
Pontolillo also expressed disappointment that Nugent wouldn’t face stiffer sanctions. But the panel’s findings would bolster his motion to have Nugent removed as trustee of the estate and to install a disinterested third party. A status conference is scheduled for next month.
“Obviously, I thought there should have been more of a suspension,” Pontolillo said. “He intentionally lied in his testimony and intentionally tried to deceive and defraud a client. In this business, your word is your bond. If they publish that you willfully lied, who is going to trust you?”
Pontolillo said he’s not surprised Nugent would appeal the decision because he has denied any wrongdoing from the outset.
Nugent has maintained that he was not aware of any will and he was only protecting his client’s assets when he created the trusts. He could not be reached for comment on Thursday.
The case also involved former Southington Probate Judge Brian Meccariello, who agreed to the formation of the trusts in May 2009 but failed to invite Manzo to a meeting. Meccariello told the Council on Probate Judicial Conduct he approved only the creation of the trusts, not the funding. He was publicly censured by the council in September 2010 for his role in failing to notify potential heirs of the meeting.
The Statewide Grievance Committee heard testimony from Nugent, Manzo, Meccariello and local attorney Valerie DePaolo, among others.
Smoron was a farm woman who spoke Polish and was known to sleep with a sick cow in the fields. She had no children. The farm had fallen into disrepair and bills hadn’t been paid during the long court battles. Manzo said he had to borrow money to pay for property insurance.
“I’m up to my wits’ end now and he’s not turning (the property) over,” Manzo said, referring to Nugent. “He’s just making it hard up to the end.”
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/latestnews/article_62f4d3ce-bba8-11e1-9354-001a4bcf887a.html
Editor's note: Why can't Illinois have a "Statewide Grievance Committee"? Why must Illinois depend on the kangaroo court of the ARDC? Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Friday, June 22, 2012
U.N. investigating Judge Rotenberg Center’s Use of Electroshock of Kids as Torture
U.N. investigating Judge Rotenberg Center’s Use of Electroshock of Kids as Torture
MyFoxBoston – June 20, 2012
"The passage of electricity through anybody's body is clearly associated with pain and suffering."
BOSTON -Powerful video of a Judge Rotenberg Center student shocked and restrained for hours continues to reverberate on Beacon Hill and beyond, with opponents of the treatment stepping up efforts to ban the shocks as the United Nations expert on torture says he’s investigating the school.The video has helped fuel a renewed lobbying effort to ban the long-controversial shocks. Several opponents of the shocks, including the mother of the student in that video, visited lawmakers’ offices today to press for the ban.
“We’re going to continue to let our children be tortured? I just hope that they come to their senses are realize this is wrong and it’s been wrong for the last 27 years,” said Cheryl McCollins, mother of former Rotenberg Center student Andre McCollins.
Opponents want the full Legislature to adopt a Senate budget amendment to ban the shocks. The measure is being considered by a joint House-Senate conference committee that is hashing out the state budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1. Word on whether it’s included in the Legislature’s final budget could come any day.
The Judge Rotenberg Center is the only place in the country to use this kind of shock treatment, and now scrutiny is also coming from Juan Mendez, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture.
“It raises a very serious concern,” Mendez told FOX Undercover. “The passage of electricity through anybody’s body is clearly associated with pain and suffering. Now it depends on the level and time and whether there’s any rationale for it.”
Mendez knows well the subject of torture. He was a human rights lawyer during Argentina’s dirty way, and was himself tortured with electricity.
Mendez is investigating after receiving a complaint from Disability Rights International, which examines treatment of the disabled around the world, including a 2010 report highly critical of the Judge Rotenberg Center.
“I imagine this isn’t the typical type of complaint regarding torture that you receive?” FOX Undercover reporter Mike Beaudet asked Mendez.
“No it isn’t,” Mendez replied. “Most cases I receive are about torture in the course of interrogations, for example, or for reasons of punishment. But the definition I have to operate under is very clear: that any pain and suffering inflicted on a person with the participation or complicity of state authorities might give rise to a concern under the (United Nations) convention against torture and therefore to a concern under my mandate.”
Mendez has seen the video of Andre McCollins’ treatment, which first came to light in April during his civil trial. It shows him being shocked for refusing to take off his coat. He’s then restrained, face-down, a helmet on his head, and shocked 31 times over seven hours for tensing his body and yelling.
It was all part of his court-approved treatment plan, but the ordeal left McCollins in a catatonic state and hospitalized for five-and-a-half weeks.
Mendez has asked the US government to report back to him within two months before reporting his own findings to the United Nations.
Meanwhile, the Judge Rotenberg Center has also come to the attention of a US Senate committee which is going to hold a hearing next week on alternatives to aversive therapies like the shocks. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee’s hearing, titled “Beyond Seclusion and Restraint,” is going to focus on positive therapies with the hope of eliminating the perceived need for aversive therapies.
A spokeswoman for the Judge Rotenberg Center released a statement from the school’s parent association which did not address the UN investigation but called the lobbying effort at the State House a “political stunt.”
“We are outraged that these people would use our vulnerable children as pawns. The right to choose the appropriate and safe treatment for our children, when nothing else has worked, must remain an option for the small percentage of children for whom this is a matter of life or death,” the parents’ statement said in part.
Editor's note: Please click on link below to view this unbelievable video. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
http://www.cchrint.org/2012/06/21/electroshocktorturekid/
MyFoxBoston – June 20, 2012
"The passage of electricity through anybody's body is clearly associated with pain and suffering."
BOSTON -Powerful video of a Judge Rotenberg Center student shocked and restrained for hours continues to reverberate on Beacon Hill and beyond, with opponents of the treatment stepping up efforts to ban the shocks as the United Nations expert on torture says he’s investigating the school.The video has helped fuel a renewed lobbying effort to ban the long-controversial shocks. Several opponents of the shocks, including the mother of the student in that video, visited lawmakers’ offices today to press for the ban.
“We’re going to continue to let our children be tortured? I just hope that they come to their senses are realize this is wrong and it’s been wrong for the last 27 years,” said Cheryl McCollins, mother of former Rotenberg Center student Andre McCollins.
Opponents want the full Legislature to adopt a Senate budget amendment to ban the shocks. The measure is being considered by a joint House-Senate conference committee that is hashing out the state budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1. Word on whether it’s included in the Legislature’s final budget could come any day.
The Judge Rotenberg Center is the only place in the country to use this kind of shock treatment, and now scrutiny is also coming from Juan Mendez, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture.
“It raises a very serious concern,” Mendez told FOX Undercover. “The passage of electricity through anybody’s body is clearly associated with pain and suffering. Now it depends on the level and time and whether there’s any rationale for it.”
Mendez knows well the subject of torture. He was a human rights lawyer during Argentina’s dirty way, and was himself tortured with electricity.
Mendez is investigating after receiving a complaint from Disability Rights International, which examines treatment of the disabled around the world, including a 2010 report highly critical of the Judge Rotenberg Center.
“I imagine this isn’t the typical type of complaint regarding torture that you receive?” FOX Undercover reporter Mike Beaudet asked Mendez.
“No it isn’t,” Mendez replied. “Most cases I receive are about torture in the course of interrogations, for example, or for reasons of punishment. But the definition I have to operate under is very clear: that any pain and suffering inflicted on a person with the participation or complicity of state authorities might give rise to a concern under the (United Nations) convention against torture and therefore to a concern under my mandate.”
Mendez has seen the video of Andre McCollins’ treatment, which first came to light in April during his civil trial. It shows him being shocked for refusing to take off his coat. He’s then restrained, face-down, a helmet on his head, and shocked 31 times over seven hours for tensing his body and yelling.
It was all part of his court-approved treatment plan, but the ordeal left McCollins in a catatonic state and hospitalized for five-and-a-half weeks.
Mendez has asked the US government to report back to him within two months before reporting his own findings to the United Nations.
Meanwhile, the Judge Rotenberg Center has also come to the attention of a US Senate committee which is going to hold a hearing next week on alternatives to aversive therapies like the shocks. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee’s hearing, titled “Beyond Seclusion and Restraint,” is going to focus on positive therapies with the hope of eliminating the perceived need for aversive therapies.
A spokeswoman for the Judge Rotenberg Center released a statement from the school’s parent association which did not address the UN investigation but called the lobbying effort at the State House a “political stunt.”
“We are outraged that these people would use our vulnerable children as pawns. The right to choose the appropriate and safe treatment for our children, when nothing else has worked, must remain an option for the small percentage of children for whom this is a matter of life or death,” the parents’ statement said in part.
Editor's note: Please click on link below to view this unbelievable video. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
http://www.cchrint.org/2012/06/21/electroshocktorturekid/
Scintilla-of-Evidence Rule Law & Legal Definition
Scintilla-of-Evidence Rule Law & Legal Definition
Scintilla of evidence rule is a common law principle that a motion for summary judgment or for directed verdict cannot be granted when there exists even the slightest amount of relevant evidence. The matter should then be tried by a jury. Generally, federal courts do not follow this rule. The scintilla of evidence rule has been discarded in nearly all state jurisdictions. However verdicts must be based upon substantial evidence and that evidence must be reasonably believable.
The following is an example of a case law on scintilla of evidence rule :
The "scintilla of evidence rule" means that there must be some evidence arising out of testimony which elucidates the issues of fact and which enables jury to form an intelligent conclusion, but does not authorize admission of speculative, theoretical and hypothetical views. [In re Crawford, 205 S.C. 72 (S.C. 1944)]
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/scintilla-of-evidence-rule/
Scintilla of evidence rule is a common law principle that a motion for summary judgment or for directed verdict cannot be granted when there exists even the slightest amount of relevant evidence. The matter should then be tried by a jury. Generally, federal courts do not follow this rule. The scintilla of evidence rule has been discarded in nearly all state jurisdictions. However verdicts must be based upon substantial evidence and that evidence must be reasonably believable.
The following is an example of a case law on scintilla of evidence rule :
The "scintilla of evidence rule" means that there must be some evidence arising out of testimony which elucidates the issues of fact and which enables jury to form an intelligent conclusion, but does not authorize admission of speculative, theoretical and hypothetical views. [In re Crawford, 205 S.C. 72 (S.C. 1944)]
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/scintilla-of-evidence-rule/
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Generator Man
Generator Man
As Iraq's national power grid struggles to provide electricity, a new form of entrepreneur has started to fill the gap.
Witness Last Modified: 19 Jun 2012 14:47
inShare.59EmailPrintShareFeedback
Filmmakers: Rashed Radwan and Carmen Marques
Nine years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's national grid struggles to provide more than six hours of electricity a day - so a new form of entrepreneur has sprung up, the 'Generator Man'.
For a price, he will fill the gap.
Hadi is a 'Generator Man', who owns two generators but finds that being on call for hundreds of people, all desperate for power, means that his life is no longer his own.
Witness follows him as he wanders the backstreets of Baghdad to talk to some of his customers for whom power - or the lack of it - has become the most important fact in their day-to-day-lives.
Of the many ironies of post-conflict Iraq this is perhaps the starkest: how a country afloat on a sea of oil and in receipt of $5bn of US investment since 2003 cannot yet guarantee power for its people.
They say the war in Iraq is over. But is it really?
George Bush declared it over when he was president and Barack Obama did the same. But ask ordinary Iraqis and they will tell you that a new war is just starting in a country where the most basic of infrastructure has been destroyed.
In the summer of 2010, I spent two months filming in Iraq.
It was during that summer that I first met Bakr, a 12-year-old boy from Sadr City; a child carrying the soul of an adult.
He told me about the death of his brother, a victim of an American apache, as though it was something that could not have been avoided; an almost inevitable part of his destiny as an Iraqi.
And, when asked about his dreams, Bakr revealed that he had just one: to have electricity so that he might have a fan to keep him cool in summer and a heater to keep him warm in winter.
It was an unusual conversation to have with a child. After all, aren't their dreams usually filled with the more remarkable, with the less mundane?
In the comfort of my hotel, power outages were only a problem in the few minutes between the national grid going down and the lights coming back on - triggered by the huge and noisy generator behind the building.
But Bakr had opened my eyes to a problem I had not been aware of. I began to notice the tangled mess of wires hanging from buildings all over the city. And for the first time I understood why I had met so many people wearily climbing the stairs of Baghdad's general hospital with their sick children in their arms, trying to reach a doctor on a higher floor: without electricity, elevators do not work.
When I spoke to doctors, they told me of patients who could not visit the hospital because they were too weak to reach the higher floors. In these tales, I thought I had found the starting point for this story - but I soon came to realise that doctors and patients are too afraid to talk about their daily struggles in these hellish conditions.
For the past nine years, two words have been at the forefront of Iraqi minds: kahraba (electricity) and amn (security).
Security has improved markedly, although only to the levels that many of those who proclaim this war over would consider murderously dangerous in their own countries.
But the single most crucial ingredient in the country's reconstruction - electrical power - continues to lag far behind the country's needs.
On Tuesday, June 22, 2004, forty pallets of cash were loaded onto a truck that delivered the money to Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C. The money was then transferred to a C-130 transport plane. The next day, it arrived in Baghdad. That was the largest shipment of currency in one single day in the history of the NY Fed. But it was not the first shipment of money to Baghdad. For more than a year, $12bn taken from Iraqi oil revenues - in other words, belonging to the Iraqi people - was delivered for use in reconstruction. At least $9bn has gone missing.
Iraq is swimming in oil, which generates revenues of nearly $2bn a week, but Baghdad's 7,216,040 million people are reliant on private generators. And the private generator is a luxury most people cannot afford. Fuel prices are too high for many and the poorest are literally living in the dark.
Those who are fortunate enough to have their own personal generator must either spend hours waiting in line to buy fuel or pay the steepest premiums on the black market.
The generator man - owner and operator of the neighbourhood power plant - is the solution for the vast majority of the Iraqi population. Iraq depends on the generator man to survive. They are the country's umbilical cord, bringing power to hundreds of thousands of homes and shops.
I wish I could tell all of the stories hidden behind the headlines declaring to the world that the war in Iraq is over. I wish each of you could know the suffering and despair that has been left behind and how Iraqis must live huddled in dark houses, sleeping outside during the summer months because the heat inside is unbearable, afraid that they may be hit by a stray bullet from somewhere in their neighbourhood.
I have covered the war in Iraq since 2003, and if there is one thing that I can say for sure, it is that beyond the tragedy lies the triumph of the human spirit as ordinary people fight to preserve their dignity.
I wish I could tell all of their stories - the stories of the children dying from strange diseases never seen before the war or of the army of women awaiting the return of their missing husbands and sons. But Generator Man is a simple story about common people - people who will probably never find a place in the history books. These people are the real witnesses to the reality behind the headlines that the war is over.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/06/2012618132430953572.html
As Iraq's national power grid struggles to provide electricity, a new form of entrepreneur has started to fill the gap.
Witness Last Modified: 19 Jun 2012 14:47
inShare.59EmailPrintShareFeedback
Filmmakers: Rashed Radwan and Carmen Marques
Nine years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's national grid struggles to provide more than six hours of electricity a day - so a new form of entrepreneur has sprung up, the 'Generator Man'.
For a price, he will fill the gap.
Hadi is a 'Generator Man', who owns two generators but finds that being on call for hundreds of people, all desperate for power, means that his life is no longer his own.
Witness follows him as he wanders the backstreets of Baghdad to talk to some of his customers for whom power - or the lack of it - has become the most important fact in their day-to-day-lives.
Of the many ironies of post-conflict Iraq this is perhaps the starkest: how a country afloat on a sea of oil and in receipt of $5bn of US investment since 2003 cannot yet guarantee power for its people.
They say the war in Iraq is over. But is it really?
George Bush declared it over when he was president and Barack Obama did the same. But ask ordinary Iraqis and they will tell you that a new war is just starting in a country where the most basic of infrastructure has been destroyed.
In the summer of 2010, I spent two months filming in Iraq.
It was during that summer that I first met Bakr, a 12-year-old boy from Sadr City; a child carrying the soul of an adult.
He told me about the death of his brother, a victim of an American apache, as though it was something that could not have been avoided; an almost inevitable part of his destiny as an Iraqi.
And, when asked about his dreams, Bakr revealed that he had just one: to have electricity so that he might have a fan to keep him cool in summer and a heater to keep him warm in winter.
It was an unusual conversation to have with a child. After all, aren't their dreams usually filled with the more remarkable, with the less mundane?
In the comfort of my hotel, power outages were only a problem in the few minutes between the national grid going down and the lights coming back on - triggered by the huge and noisy generator behind the building.
But Bakr had opened my eyes to a problem I had not been aware of. I began to notice the tangled mess of wires hanging from buildings all over the city. And for the first time I understood why I had met so many people wearily climbing the stairs of Baghdad's general hospital with their sick children in their arms, trying to reach a doctor on a higher floor: without electricity, elevators do not work.
When I spoke to doctors, they told me of patients who could not visit the hospital because they were too weak to reach the higher floors. In these tales, I thought I had found the starting point for this story - but I soon came to realise that doctors and patients are too afraid to talk about their daily struggles in these hellish conditions.
For the past nine years, two words have been at the forefront of Iraqi minds: kahraba (electricity) and amn (security).
Security has improved markedly, although only to the levels that many of those who proclaim this war over would consider murderously dangerous in their own countries.
But the single most crucial ingredient in the country's reconstruction - electrical power - continues to lag far behind the country's needs.
On Tuesday, June 22, 2004, forty pallets of cash were loaded onto a truck that delivered the money to Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C. The money was then transferred to a C-130 transport plane. The next day, it arrived in Baghdad. That was the largest shipment of currency in one single day in the history of the NY Fed. But it was not the first shipment of money to Baghdad. For more than a year, $12bn taken from Iraqi oil revenues - in other words, belonging to the Iraqi people - was delivered for use in reconstruction. At least $9bn has gone missing.
Iraq is swimming in oil, which generates revenues of nearly $2bn a week, but Baghdad's 7,216,040 million people are reliant on private generators. And the private generator is a luxury most people cannot afford. Fuel prices are too high for many and the poorest are literally living in the dark.
Those who are fortunate enough to have their own personal generator must either spend hours waiting in line to buy fuel or pay the steepest premiums on the black market.
The generator man - owner and operator of the neighbourhood power plant - is the solution for the vast majority of the Iraqi population. Iraq depends on the generator man to survive. They are the country's umbilical cord, bringing power to hundreds of thousands of homes and shops.
I wish I could tell all of the stories hidden behind the headlines declaring to the world that the war in Iraq is over. I wish each of you could know the suffering and despair that has been left behind and how Iraqis must live huddled in dark houses, sleeping outside during the summer months because the heat inside is unbearable, afraid that they may be hit by a stray bullet from somewhere in their neighbourhood.
I have covered the war in Iraq since 2003, and if there is one thing that I can say for sure, it is that beyond the tragedy lies the triumph of the human spirit as ordinary people fight to preserve their dignity.
I wish I could tell all of their stories - the stories of the children dying from strange diseases never seen before the war or of the army of women awaiting the return of their missing husbands and sons. But Generator Man is a simple story about common people - people who will probably never find a place in the history books. These people are the real witnesses to the reality behind the headlines that the war is over.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/06/2012618132430953572.html
Directed verdict
Directed verdict
Last updated 4 months agoFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2012)
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. More details and relevant discussion can be found on the talk page. (January 2012)
In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.
A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.
In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit. A judge may decide to direct a verdict of not guilty if there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove a guilty verdict.
The phrase arose when judges actually directed a jury to leave the courtroom, deliberate, and return with only the verdict predetermined by the judge. At least one jury ignored this instruction and returned a contrary verdict, leading to quite an angry response from an appellate court.[citation needed] For most of modern judicial history, however, judges in the United States have directed a verdict without a need of a jury. This concept has largely been replaced in the American legal system with judgment as a matter of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_verdict
Last updated 4 months agoFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2012)
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. More details and relevant discussion can be found on the talk page. (January 2012)
In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.
A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.
In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit. A judge may decide to direct a verdict of not guilty if there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove a guilty verdict.
The phrase arose when judges actually directed a jury to leave the courtroom, deliberate, and return with only the verdict predetermined by the judge. At least one jury ignored this instruction and returned a contrary verdict, leading to quite an angry response from an appellate court.[citation needed] For most of modern judicial history, however, judges in the United States have directed a verdict without a need of a jury. This concept has largely been replaced in the American legal system with judgment as a matter of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_verdict
3-minute video by ABC News broadcast
3-minute video by ABC News broadcast
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerInid=8486577dex?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/mary-ellens-mansion-elder-abuse/story?id=8976473
Editor's note: This type of will tampering is implemented by the hired legal thugs of the Probate Court of Cook County. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
KawamotoDragon.com
Elder Con? Ailing Woman Signs New Will
Lawyer, beneficiaries of document stand over hospital bed as woman, 88, signs.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerInid=8486577dex?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/mary-ellens-mansion-elder-abuse/story?id=8976473
Editor's note: This type of will tampering is implemented by the hired legal thugs of the Probate Court of Cook County. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
KawamotoDragon.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)