Sunday, May 20, 2018

"Lieu cited the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, which found that bloggers have the same free speech protections as traditional press. ”That was a pretty awesome and amazing opinion,” he said. “And that’s the kind of things we see out of the Ninth Circuit.”

"WASHINGTON (CN) – Capitol Hill’s crosshairs turned Thursday on the Ninth Circuit just a day after a federal judge under the court’s purview became the latest to thwart efforts by the president to block Muslim immigration.

The Ninth Circuit had already earned criticism from the White House in February after it ruled 3-0 against the first iteration of President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

When a federal judge on Hawaii issued an injunction against the revised executive order Wednesday, Trump complained that night at a campaign-style rally in Nashville that his new travel ban had been tailored to the “much-overturned” circuit’s “flawed ruling.”

The Ninth Circuit is the largest federal appeals court in the country, overseeing far-flung federal courts in Hawaii, Alaska, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, as well as those in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state.

Last month’s ruling had Trump to blast the Ninth Circuit as “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.” Republicans have long said the court is too big, too liberal and too slow, and they have tried for decades to break it up.

At a hearing Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee on how to restructure the court, a partisan debate erupted over the GOP’s claims that Ninth Circuit rulings are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more so than often than any other federal appeals court.

Vanderbilt University Law School professor Brian Fitzpatrick said he has been tracking reversal rates for several decades.

“The numbers did not look good for the Ninth Circuit back then, and they still don’t look good today,” Fitzpatrick said in written testimony. “For the last 20 years, the Ninth Circuit has been the most reversed circuit in America — and it isn’t even close.”

Numbers compiled by the fact-checking organization Politifact dispute this. It says the Supreme Court reversed 70 percent of all cases it heard from 2010-15. Though the average for the Ninth Circuit was slightly higher than that at 79 percent, it was not the highest. Two other courts clock in ahead of it.

The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit had an 87 percent reversal rate, followed by the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit with an 85 percent ruling reversal.

Indeed the Ninth Circuit is only narrowly ahead of the 78 percent reversal rate featured by the court in fourth place, the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., put the Ninth Circuit statistics a different way.

“Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court,” he said.

This led him to ask the panel’s five witnesses – including three federal judges from the Ninth Circuit: “Does that stat give weight to the president’s opinion, or should the courts stand up to the executive when necessary?”

“Judicial independence is important,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas, the Ninth Circuit’s chief. “And I know this committee has recognized that.”

Thomas declined to address the second part of the question.

When asked how splitting the court could affect public perception of the courts as a fair and neutral arbiter, Thomas said such a move would diminish public respect for the rule of law.

“No question about that,” he said. “I hope this committee won’t engage in that kind of endeavor,” he added.

John Eastman, director of the Chapman University Fowloer School of Law, meanwhile regaled the congressmen with other problems the Ninth Circuit faces. Because of its caseload, the circuit takes 50 percent longer than the others to move from appeal to ruling, with that process spanning 18 months.

Describing the Ninth Circuit as the “Wild West,” Eastman said that collegiality among judges also suffers in the Ninth Circuit because the constant caseload buries its 29 judges.

On top of that, Eastman said the extraordinarily high combination of three-judge panels – 17,296 to be exact – prevents a coherent body of law from emerging, and undermines the circuit’s ability to get the law right. 

Because of the high number of opinions, practitioners have a hard time keeping up, which gives rise to intracircuit conflicts.

“Collegiality thus serves to check the tendencies of some judges to ‘fly solo,’ ruling according to their personal views rather than the clear commands of the law,” Eastman’s written testimony states.

Thomas, along with U.S. Circuit Judges Carlos Bea and Alex Kozinski, strenuously disputed the notion that their circuit is inefficient, or that case law is inconsistent.

“A decision by our court binds courts and litigants in the whole Western area,” Bea said.

“This minimizes the risk that the law of intellectual property – copyrights and trademarks, for instance – maritime trade, labor relations, employment discrimination, for instance – will be different in Phoenix, San Francisco or Seattle,” he added.

Splitting the court could even affect fishermen, he said.

“What law will rule Lake Tahoe, evenly split between California and Nevada,” he asked. “Will the tackle used by a Nevada fisherman be an illegal lure if his boat drifts into California waters?”

“This predictability and uniformity of law based on diversity of thought and backgrounds of the judges would suffer under any balkanization of the circuit,” he said.

Meanwhile, Kozinski told the committee that the size of the circuit has forced it to take advantage of modern technology – like video and live streams of court hearings – to bring justice closer to the people.

When the circuit heard the appeal of Trump’s first travel ban, Kozinski noted that 137,300 people used the court’s website to hear the audio stream of the oral arguments.

CNN’s live broadcast of the hearing had 1.5 million viewers, and another 138,615 people listened to the recording of the hearing.

“Think about that,” Kozinski said. “Well over 2 million people from all over the country and beyond listened to a 60-minute oral argument.”

All three judges expressed their opposition to splitting the Ninth Circuit up.

Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, both of Arizona, sponsored the legislation to spin off a new circuit for Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Arizona.

That would leave only California, Hawaii, Oregon, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam in the Ninth Circuit.

In explaining reversal rates, Eastman testified that size matters as much as the ideological make-up of the court. The bigger court, the lower the quality of its output, he said, citing a 2000 paper in the Journal of Legal Studies by the Seventh Circuit’s ever-popular Judge Richard Posner.

Chicago-based Posner found that the Ninth Circuit’s reversal rate was six times higher than the other circuits between 1985 and 1997.

There were no state additions to the Ninth Circuit during those years, but five additional judgeships were authorized in 1984. The court did not have another judgeship authorized until 2009.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked the judges if Posner got it wrong.

Thomas said size absolutely does not affect the quality of judicial output.

“I think that our deliberations now are even better than when I joined the court, because of technology,” he responded.

Kozinski said he respects Posner, but that “Dick and I disagree all the time on all sorts of things.”

Saying the model his colleague used is only as good as his inputs, Kozinski accused Posner of focusing too much on size while ignoring context.

President Jimmy Carter had from 1977 to 1981 appointed 11 of the “most liberal judges the world has ever seen,” while the Supreme Court was moving in the opposite direction, Kozinksi said.

Chaffetz defended Trump’s attack on the Ninth Circuit amid rulings against his travel ban from it and lower courts in its clutches.

“The president was duly given, by Congress, the authority to protect our borders,” Chaffetz said. “And for these injunctions to come in place and prevent the president from doing his job is absolutely totally wrong.”

Noting that California is a populous and progressive state, and that appeals courts cannot pick and choose cases like the Supreme Court does, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., underscored the importance of the Ninth Circuit for taking on cases that “push the envelope” and “challenge the status quo.”

“That’s certainly right,” Kozinski said. “And of course that would be exacerbated if California were isolated,” he added, noting that one of the reasons for having regional circuits is so that no single state dominates.  

To drive his point home, Lieu cited the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, which found that bloggers have the same free speech protections as traditional press.

”That was a pretty awesome and amazing opinion,” he said. “And that’s the kind of things we see out of the Ninth Circuit.”


”That was a pretty awesome and amazing opinion,”

"Lieu cited the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, which found that bloggers have the same free speech protections as traditional press.

”That was a pretty awesome and amazing opinion,” he said. “And that’s the kind of things we see out of the Ninth Circuit.”

Monday, May 7, 2018

FORGET who THEY Told you to BE. What DO YOU WANT? 
Be Free by Being Who and What you REALLY Are.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

To: Antoinette Bacon to congratulate the DOJ, FBI and New York Attorney General on these arrests last week.

To: Antoinette Bacon
Cc: John Scott; Andy Mao; John DiGiacomo; Marian Kornicki; Michael Liguori; Sherry Moser; Mae Ann Gilbert DeMartino; Jennifer Spincavage; Cindy and Ken Carson
Subject: $4 million trust raided by Upstate New York judge and a local estate attorney

Dear Ms. Bacon,

I wanted to congratulate the DOJ, FBI and New York Attorney General on these arrests last week.  Not surprising local police didn’t engage and federal authorities had to step in to gain the arrests of a Albany area judge and a prominent estate attorney. 

None of the more than 20 New York victims I have counseled have gained redress or law enforcement’s engagement.  Eight additional active victims are copied.  I have many more.

Who took the complaint for the Bruggeman estate fraud investigation?  

Being the wife of a successful former GE executive and bequeathing $4.2 million to your wife’s living sisters likely provided Pauline Bruggeman with a better route to justice than most citizens. 

If they had only put Pauline in a guardianship before she died they could have converted the entire $20 million estate for their benefit.  Thank goodness for Anne Urban and Julia Rentz’s tenacity.

I have profiled dozens of similar cases in New York where local and state law enforcement refused to take a complaint, including similar estate fraud of the mothers of Ms. Kornicki, Ms. Card, Mr. Scott and Mr. DiGiacomo and Mr. Ligouri.  Mr. Ligouri is a young adult as he was conscripted just before he turned 18 to insure local NYC attorney’s could consume his $1.8 million estate.

I look forward to working with the DOJ on identifying redress options for trust fraud and fraudulent guardianships that work for the general public.

Rick Black

Monday, February 26, 2018

They Say I have " false memories of past events" AND a Whole Lot of them. Like my entire body, the entire sky, where I am in the Universe, my Anatomy, movies, books, authors, singers, sayings, brand names, Pyramids, Buildings, Towns. People and well lot's more that I AM SURE is the "past events" I experienced, well ya, NOT False Memories, but a different Reality, a different Dimension, a different place that is NOT here in this Now Reality. Some Call it the Mandela Effect, I prefer to call it a Timeline Shift, Timelines Collapsing, as we Ascend to Higher Dimensions. It is an Awesome Life Changing Phenomena, Awareness, Awakening, Consciousness Shift. It's a Good Thing.

~Reverend Crystal Cox, Consciousness Counseling, Quantum Healing, Timeline Coaching.

West Palm Florida Lawyer Brian O'Connell, PR Under Oath, Judge Rosemarie Scher Court. Florida Guardianship Case. Florida Probate Case. West Palm Estate Case.

 (Mr. O'Connell resumed the stand.)

· · · · · THE COURT:· You're still under oath.

· · · · · Go ahead.· It's all you.


· · ·Q· · Are you aware of a 2000 insurance trust
that was executed that the policy in question has
been assigned to in the year 2000?

· · · · · MS. CRISPIN:· Asked and answered.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.· You already asked
· · ·him that.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· NO, a 2000 insurance policy.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Oh, overruled.· Thank you.


· · ·Q· · That supersedes a 1995 trust?

· · ·A· · You'd have to show me a document.

· · ·Q· · Okay.· Here.


· · ·Q· · Mr. O'Connell, have you seen that trust before?

· · ·A· · Sitting here today, I don't recall it but
it's possible in the volume of documents in this
case that I could have, but I couldn't tell you

· · ·Q· · Do you notice that it's Bates stamped by Tescher & Spallina, the former attorneys who committed forgery and fraud in this matter that you replaced and those documents were transferred to you by Ben Brown and you actually argued -- can you answer that question?

· · ·A· · I see Bates stamps at the bottom.

· · ·Q· · So these would be part of your record, correct?

· · ·A· · I'm not sure.· I'd have to look on my record to be sure.

· · ·Q· · And you're aware that the state has argued in Illinois Federal Court that this 2000 trust
supercedes the '95 trust, thereby rendering it moot, the '95 trust you're entering into settlement with,
is that correct?

· · ·A· · I'd have to see some more documents.· If you're talking about -- has there been something in writing submitted taking that position?

· · ·Q· · Yeah.· Your summary judgment arguments rely on this 2000 trust superseding -- in that 2000 trust, can you read from Page 1, the trust, the first paragraph and the Number 1?

· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Objection.· The document is not
· · ·in evidence, hearsay.
· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.
· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· Can I submit it as
· · ·evidence?
· · · · · THE COURT:· Objections?
· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Authenticity.
· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· It's Bates stamped.

· · · · · THE COURT:· It doesn't matter.· Sustained.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· It's been submitted into the record.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· We can't enter this?

· · · · · THE COURT:· No.· I sustained the
· · ·objection.· It's an evidentiary objection.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· Okay.· Am I allowed to ask
· · ·him questions about this document?

· · · · · THE COURT:· If you ask a question and
· · ·there's an objection, I'll entertain it. I
· · ·can't tell you how to proceed.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· Okay.


· · ·Q· · Can you read the first paragraph and
Number 1 of that document?

· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Objection, hearsay.· The
· · ·document is not in evidence.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· Okay.


· · ·Q· · You argued in Illinois in the federal action on behalf of the estate that this 2000
document superseded the 1995 trust?

· · · · · MS. CRISPIN:· Asked and answered.· He said
· · ·he needed further documentation to see it in · · ·writing.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.


· · ·Q· · In a recent similar case to this with allegations of fraud in the Bivens case, are you
aware of the Oliver Bivens case?

· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Objection, relevance, materiality.
· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.


· · ·Q· · Have you been charged with breach of fiduciary duties and negligence recently and found guilty by a jury of your peers in a federal court?

· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Objection, relevance.

· · · · · MS. CRISPIN:· Argumentative.

· · · · · THE COURT:· I have to overrule those
· · ·objections because it would go to bias.

· · · · · MS. CRISPIN:· Your Honor, he used the word
· · ·charged.· That was my problem for the
· · ·argumentative.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· With regard to the word
· · ·charged, sustained.


· · ·Q· · Is there a verdict that claims you breached fiduciary duties and negligence in the handling of an estate?

· · ·A· · There was a verdict but the matter has
been settled and the case has been dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement.

· · ·Q· · Who was your attorney in that settlement?

· · ·A· · Wicker, Smith.

· · ·Q· · Was it Alan Rose?

· · ·A· · Alan Rose came in after the verdict to
represent the law firm while Ms. Crispin and I were
represented by the Wicker, Smith firm as we had been
from the inception of the case.

· · ·Q· · So the verdict stood?

· · ·A· · No.


· · ·Q· · So there was a jury verdict that you had
breached and committed negligence with Ashley
Crispin, correct?

· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Objection, relevance and
· · ·repetitive.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.

 MR. BERNSTEIN:· By the way, Your Honor, something strange here has occurred.  Mr. Rose is O'Connell's counsel.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Excuse me.· Do you have a
· · ·question for this witness?· You have one
· · ·question left.


· · ·Q· · If there is a 2000 trust, would it not be a necessary party to any settlement if it deals with
the same insurance policy?

· · ·A· · I'm not aware that that trust exists, the 2000 trust exists.

· · ·Q· · If it exists?· Since I can't enter it into evidence.

· · ·A· · I'd have to review the documents to make sure.

Q    But after you reviewed them, if you found that it existed, would it be a necessary part to any settlement?

· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Objection, calls for a legal
· · ·conclusion and the facts are that trust and no
· · ·trustee has intervened or sought to do anything
· · ·in the Illinois case so it's an irrelevant
· · ·question.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:   Your Honor, that's really
· · ·relevant because the reason this trust is
· · ·suppressed is because my sister, Pam ..
· · ·I'd like to enter another piece of evidence
· · ·where they discussed suppressing this and
· · ·hiding it from the court.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Sustained.· Last question.


· · ·Q· · When you found out that I was a beneficiary of my father's estate and Judge Blakey removed me on summary judgment claiming that I was not a beneficiary based on res judicata from this court, when you found out again and admitted in court at the first hearing that I attended with Judge Scher here in the courtroom that I was a beneficiary, did you notify the federal court that I was a beneficiary with standing in my dad's estate?

· · · · · MR. ROSE:· Objection, relevance,
· · ·argumentative, and I think these issues are the
· · ·ones that were decided by the federal judge in
· · ·Illinois.

· · · · · MS. CRISPIN:· Objection, compound.

· · · · · THE COURT:· I'll let him answer the
· · ·question.· He either did or he didn't.

· · ·A· · I guess to answer your question, I'd have
to go back and review your intervention and review
the order and --


· · ·Q· · The order is there.

· · ·A· · It would take some time to do it to say whether that would be --

· · ·Q· · Well, let me ask you a question.

· · · · · THE COURT:· No, that was it.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· It's the same question.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Then it's been asked and
· · ·answered.

· · · · · MR. BERNSTEIN:· Well, let me help him
· · ·answer what he said, Your Honor.· Would that be
· · ·okay?

· · · · · THE COURT:· That would be okay.


· · ·Q· · The question is, after a review, if you found that I was a beneficiary with standing in the estate and the Illinois court was under the impression that I was not and had dismissed me,
would I need to be reinstated as a party in that action who would be a party to this settlement?

· · ·A· · That would be between you and the Illinois
federal court using that hypothetical.

· · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· That about does it for
that.· Follow up, Ms. Crispin?
· · ·MS. CRISPIN:· None.
· · ·THE COURT:· You may step down,
Mr. O'Connell.

Source of and Full Hearing Transcript

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Alan Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, ROSE, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss knew that that Judge John Philips, at his request and the request of attorney Steve Lessne of Gunster, put a Guardianship on Adults with NO Competency Hearing. This among what I believe to be a whole lot of liability caused to quite a few third parties in the Estate of Simon Bernstein and the Estate of Shirley Bernstein. I would say that ALL Lawyers involved and former Judges have HUGE Liability.

 Julian Bivins v. Curtis Rogers. Bivins v. Rogers Case:

"Will a Guardianship Judge’s orders approving your client’s actions shield you from third-party Malpractice Liability?"

"Bivins v. Rogers, 2017 WL 5526874 (S.D. Fla., June 01, 2017)

The general trend in Florida is that a third-party beneficiary of your legal services can sue you for malpractice — and it doesn’t matter that the third party was never your client, had zero privity of contract with you, and may have even been adverse to your actual client in related litigation.
This risk is especially acute in contested probate and guardianship proceedings.
Past examples include cases in which the beneficiaries of a deceased ward’s estate had standing to sue the guardian’s lawyers for malpractice (see here), estate beneficiaries had standing to sue a decedent’s estate planning attorneys for malpractice (see here), a ward had standing to sue the attorney for his former court-appointed guardian for malpractice (see here), and a successor personal representative had standing to sue his predecessor’s attorney for malpractice (see here).
Risk management:
The way most probate and guardianship attorneys manage this kind of risk is to obtain court orders approving the actions of their fiduciary clients (preferably in advance). Surely you can’t get sued for actions a judge has previously ruled are OK, right? 
That’s the question addressed in this U.S. District Court order entered in the Bivins case (which has already been the subject of some commentary on this blog; see here for my take on the court’s ruling regarding Florida’s attorney-client privilege statute as applied to fiduciaries).
Will a guardianship judge’s orders approving your client’s actions shield you from third-party malpractice liability? NO
This case involves a contested guardianship proceeding involving millions of dollars in assets that bled over into a probate proceeding. 
After the ward died his son (who had been locked in ugly litigation against his father’s court-appointed guardians for years prior to his father’s death) was appointed personal representative of his father’s estate. And guess what he did next? He sued the same lawyers he’d been litigating against for malpractice.
The guardian’s lawyers cried foul, arguing that the claims against them were barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel because the wrongful actions they were being accused of had all previously been approved of by the guardianship judge.
In what will probably come as a shock to most practitioners — the federal judge ruled against the lawyers despite the prior approving orders. Why?

Because the lawyers weren’t actually parties to the underlying guardianship litigation; they were just counsel for one of the parties (the guardian). And because they weren’t parties, they don’t get the defensive benefits of those great orders the guardianship judge had entered saying they and their client had done a great job.

Here’s how the court explained its ruling:
These claims are not barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel for the simple reason that the Defendant attorneys were not parties or in privity with any party before the guardianship court. In Keramati v. Schackow, the court held that res judicata did not bar bringing a legal malpractice case against attorneys who had represented the plaintiffs in an earlier case even though the earlier case was settled and the clients certified that the settlement was “fair and just.” Keramati v. Schackow, 553 So.2d 741 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989). 
The court observed that, in the first case, “the adequacy of the amount settled for was not litigated.” Id. at 744. Here, Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to bring its legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties against the Defendant attorneys before the guardianship court.
In so finding, the Court rejects the Defendant attorneys’ argument that they are “joint tortfeasors” with the guardians and that there is no way to distinguish the alleged harm by the Defendant attorneys from the alleged harm by the guardians. 
To the contrary, the Defendant attorneys owe duty of care to the ward as well as to the guardian. Fla. AGO 96–94, 1996 WL 680981 (Fla. A.G. Nov. 20, 1996); see Saadeh v. Connors, 166 So. 3d 959, 964 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (finding that the ward is an intended third-party beneficiary of the attorney for the guardian and that therefore the attorney owed the ward a duty of care).
Next, in arguing that summary judgment should be granted on the claims against the Defendant attorneys for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, Defendants contend that the guardianship court already determined that all the actions being complained of were made in the best interest of the ward. The Court rejects this argument. 
As discussed supra, the guardianship court never considered whether the Defendant attorneys engaged in malpractice or breached their fiduciary duties. As such, the Court will not grant summary judgment on these claims on the basis of the guardianship court’s rulings.
Jury hits lawyers with $16.4M verdict:
So what do you think happened next?

Here’s where your natural instincts as a practicing attorney used to thinking un-appealed court orders actually mean something, might be your undoing.

If a judge has previously approved every transaction you’re currently being sued over, surely a jury of your peers isn’t going to slam you for that same conduct, right? Wrong!
When the case went to trial things went very, very badly for the defendant attorneys, as reported by the Palm Beach Post in Jury hits lawyers with $16.4M for doing senior wrong in guardianship.

Here’s an excerpt:
Advocates for guardianship reform clamored in vain for years that Florida’s system failed to properly protect incapacitated seniors, that its primary purpose had been perverted to line the pockets of greedy attorneys and professional guardians with the hard-earned life savings of the elderly.
Now they can point to a new federal verdict awarding a whopping $16.4 million in a lawsuit claiming that two West Palm Beach attorneys breached their fiduciary duties while running up “unnecessary and excessive fees” of $1 million
The jury found on July 28 that attorneys Brian M. O’Connell and Ashley N. Crispin of the Ciklin, Lubitz & O’Connell firm not only breached their fiduciary duty but committed professional negligence.
The lawsuit claimed they failed to get appraisals on two high-end New York City properties being divided among family. They were not of equal value and as a result, Julian Bivins ended up with one that was worth millions less than other.
The jury’s decision to award $16.4 million makes up the difference.
So what’s the takeaway?
Shortly after the trial the primary parties settled, which means there likely won’t be any appeals of the trial court’s pre-trial orders. So for now, the last word we’ll have on whether a res judicata or collateral estoppel defense works in this kind of third-party malpractice litigation is the Bivins case, which I predict is going to give a lot of probate and guardianship lawyers heartburn."

Source of Post and Full Article

Also Check Out the Following Articles

"5th DCA: Can estate beneficiaries sue the guardian’s lawyers for estate planning malpractice?"

"4th DCA: Do the beneficiaries of an estate have standing to sue the decedent’s estate planning attorneys for malpractice?"

"1st DCA: In case of first impression Appellate Court rules successor PR has standing to sue prior PR’s attorney for malpractice"

"4th DCA: Can a ward sue the attorney for his former court-appointed guardian for malpractice?"

"Does the common-law “fiduciary exception” to the attorney-client privilege still matter in Florida?"

Julian Bivins Case Filings, Motions and Information

 third-party malpractice litigation, res judicata or collateral estoppel defense, Judge John Philips, Guardian Diana Lewis, Judge Martin Colin, Ted Bernstein Boca Raton, Donald Tescher, Robert Spallina, Mark Manceri, John Pankauski, Alan Rose, Brian O'Connell, Ashley Crispin, Judge Howard Coates, Judge Corey Ciklin, Pam Simon STP, David Simon, West Palm Beach Probate and Estate Courts, Florida Estate Case, Florida Predatory Guardianship, Estate of Simon Bernstein, Mitch Huhem Death, Real Estate Fraud, Larry Pino, Deborah Huhem, Sotheby's, John Poletto, Gregg Geffen. 

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Mirable Dictu! Florida Activists Help Depose Terrible Foreclosure Judge; Judge Diana Lewis who came into the Estate of Simon Bernstein Case, I say, in order to cover up Judicial Corruption, Attorney Corruption, Estate and Probate Fraud and more in the West Palm Predatory Guardianship Racket.

"It’s rare that we get to celebrate a victory here, especially in the mortgage and foreclosure arena, but we saw one this week. 

Down in Florida, where the anti-foreclosure activist movement really took root, one of the worst judges in the state lost her job, and many of the same players had a role in the defeat.

It’s hard to achieve a reputation as the worst foreclosure judge in Florida, the home of the “rocket docket” and other abuses of due process, but Palm Beach County Judge Diana Lewis had a claim on it.

The best way to get a sense of her judicial style is to read this transcript excerpt:
Mr. Stopa: Judge, you acknowledged yourself, on multiple occasions, on the record, that, you know — Initially, you had multiple times where you said you were ruling for the defendant, and then you said if you didn’t, it would be reversed. I’m not arguing with you, but my point is that I think there are legitimate grounds to go to the Appellate Court, and before my client is divested of the property and a third party purchaser tries to buy it and, potentially, take possession, ultimately to potentially be removed, then a stay should be entered so that we can pursue our right on an appeal…
The Court: You’re welcome to do that.
Mr. Stopa: Can I submit you an Order that grants a stay?
The Court: No. Your stay is denied.
Mr. Stopa: On the issue of stay, can I ask for an explanation, or what have you, because, you know –
The Court: My job is to move cases.
Mr. Stopa: I’m sorry?
The Court: My job is to move cases and that’s what I’m doing.
Lewis basically embodied the concept that homeowners with arrears are automatically deadbeats, and that the actual procedures of law establishing property rights, existing for over 300 years in America, meant absolutely nothing. 
There’s not even the semblance of impartiality here; foreclosure cases simply move to final judgment by default. Not to mention that she was boorish, rude, and dismissive of people simply trying to have their day in court. 
Here are a series of testimonials – the words “vile,” “despicable” and “disgrace” frequently crop up.
Lewis comes from a political family; her father was a state senator with a focus, paradoxically, on homelessness. 
There’s a homeless facility in the area with her father’s name on it, and the running joke among the legal community is that his daughter kept it well stocked. Lewis won a judicial election in 2002 and was up again for re-election this year.
 Jessica Ticktin, a 35 year-old foreclosure attorney with experience in Lewis’ courtroom, decided to challenge her.
Ticktin insists there was no single incident or case that made her decide to go after the jurist who took the bench the same year Ticktin graduated from law school.
“It’s not just me or my law firm,” she said. “It is a problem many, many attorneys in Palm Beach County and out of county attorneys have experienced with this judge. They and their clients were treated unfairly and inappropriately. Her demeanor is a big problem.” […]
The flap is mainly over her use of the results of biannual surveys the county Bar Association takes, asking its members to evaluate local judges. In the most recent survey, 147 of the 216 attorneys who responded said Lewis’ judicial demeanor needs improvement. Almost half — 99 — gave her similar marks for impartiality and 74 said she should do more to enforce standards of professionalism. The results were similar in surveys conducted in 2011 and 2009 […]
She said she suspects most of the complaints come from lawyers, like many of those in Ticktin’s office, who appear before her on foreclosure cases. Many are ill-trained, never having had the advantage of being mentored by older lawyers, she said.
This is a typical take from Lewis. The lawyers she harassed and demeaned in her courtroom every day simply had to be unqualified. But when so many lawyers have the same complaint, it’s obviously indicative of the problem.
The legal community across the state backed Ticktin, as did several editorial boards. “At some point in her current six-year term, incumbent Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Diana Lewis’ reputation for rudeness stopped being a forgivable quirk and became an embarrassment for the judiciary,” said the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. 
Activists, lawyers and ordinary Floridians donated money and time to Ticktin’s campaign (here’s an example). I’m told that friends of the blog Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman stayed on their feet in the hot sun on Tuesday for several hours, encouraging voters to choose Ticktin over Lewis.
It paid off. Last Tuesday Ticktin defeated Lewis 54-46. My spies tell me that Judge Lewis was more peevish than usual on the bench the next day. No matter; she won’t be there much longer.
One judicial election certainly does not make up for the outrage and human tragedy that has defined this foreclosure crisis era. But it feels good to see some measure of justice prevail, at least by subtracting one of the worst of the worst in bank-loving judges. 
It does show that the spirit of the movement that gave its best shot at forcing accountability on the most powerful forces in America remains alive. They may have gone local, they may be focused on small and unheralded issues, but they can still pack some force. Just ask ex-Judge Diana Lewis."

For More On former Judge Diana Lewis, check out what she is doing now as Guardian Diana Lewis in a South Florida Predatory Guardianship Case, the Estate of Simon Bernstein and the Estate of Shirley Bernstein. 

Friday, February 16, 2018

Whiny Alan Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, ROSE, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss is still trying to cover up 5 years of BLATANT wrong doing, unethical actions, theft, alleged murder, asset loss, scripted attorney schemes, judicial corruption, lies and flat out fraud. And Alan Rose still thinks he can win any of this or come out on top, just because he has had 5 years of VERY HIGH attorney fees paid to him and the law firm of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, ROSE, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss. Ya I don't think so. One Day the TRUTH will Roll Across all their desks and the Liability and Loss will come with it.

Note in this Transcript below we see whiny Alan Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, ROSE, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss saying “we”, ya know the co-conspirators, they had an agreement in 2016 but waited to get other stuff done.

See they were having “trouble” getting stuff done according to Alan Rose. Ya sure. Blah Blah Blah

I say they were waiting for the Illinois insurance scam to be over or them to believe it over, and waiting for approval on the “settlement” in the insurance fraud case, so “they” (the bad guys "we"), could wrap up over 5 years of fraud, predatory guardianship, real estate fraud insurance fraud, asset theft, mortgage fraud, life insurance fraud, civil rights violations, alleged murders, fraud, forgery and more unethical and criminal activities, I Allege.

“We've been having trouble getting that one set” says Alan Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, ROSE, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss. My guess on that is Alan Rose wanted to keep his super duper secret confidential settlement agreement with Tescher and Spallina, a SECRET. ya know the law firm that forged a dead guys signature on estate documents to actually benefit Alan Rose’s client, Ted Bernstein.  So Alan Rose waits years to get court approval on this super secret settlement.

Meanwhile beneficiary Eliot Bernstein was denied rights and standing during that time and Eliot’s children, 2 of which were adults, well they had a predatory guardianship seizing their rights. So ya know, I don’t believe they had trouble setting that one, they simply did not want to, as it was part of their strategy, to deny rights, to wait for the Illinois Insurance Scam to swing in their favor and then seek court approval, with no objections you see as they had used the courts to silence beneficiary Eliot Bernstein and used a former judge, Diana Lewis to enact a predatory guardianship and seize the rights of Eliot’s children. WaLa, magic.

Let’s take a look at the latest court Transcripts from the Estate of Simon Bernstein and the Estate of Shirley Bernstein in West Palm County Florida Courts.

“MR. ROSE: We have a motion to approve
There was an objection that was
filed yesterday, so I'm not sure if --

THE COURT: I haven't seen it.

MR. ROSE: This is a motion to approve a
settlement of a claim.

THE COURT: Which case? Because I've got
both motions. For the record, I believe that's
for the Shirley Bernstein case.

MR. ROSE: Well, there's a settlement in
both cases with the same law firm, differing
amounts. A confidential settlement, it was
entered into in July of 2016. We've been
waiting to have the approval hearing heard.

We've been having trouble getting that one set
while we did other things first. So, you know,
we moved to have the settlement approved.

There's an objection.

THE COURT: Who filed the objection?

MR. PERRE: We did, Your Honor. We just
came new to the case. We're representing the
trust beneficiary, Joshua Bernstein.

Our client -- basically, what's happened
is that a guardian ad litem was appointed by
the Court.

At the time that that happened, our
client was already 18 years old and had full
capacity to represent himself.

The reason we're objecting to this motion
is that our client had no idea that there was a
settlement, had no idea what was going on, was
not a part of it, was not consulted by the
guardian ad litem

We don't believe his interests are represented here.
The motion itself actually says that the guardian ad litem
has been consulted, that she has --

THE COURT: This is not something we're
going to be able to have today.
All right. So
we'll have to special set. "

Sure wish Mr. Perre could have continued, that was some good stuff. Can’t wait to hear the end of that sentence. How in the world can the Judge, the Attorneys, the PR, and all of them Justify what they have done over the last 5 years?

So Alan Rose let the hearing proceed, wasted time and money of ALL, knowing there were objections still hoping to slide it all under the proverbial Rose Rug? Yeah see there was a whole lot of things that Guardian Diana Lewis had no legal right to be deciding for her ADULT competent wards. And as an experienced former Judge, an expert in Florida Guardianship Law, what excuse could she possibly have? Oh ya you see Judge John Philips ordered it so ya umm I went along with the crime. Oh I mean the predatory guardianship. Knowing full well those whose rights she seized were adults and under Florida Law she had no right to sieze their rights. Judge Martin Colin and Judge Rosemarie Scher went right along with it, and all for years. WOW. South Florida sure is a great place to be a lawyer, a judge and a BAD place to retire, leave assets, or have actual civil rights.

Also keep in mind that former Judge Diana Lewis was not a Guardian prior to this. And Diana Lewis was not picked randomly. She was an old family friend of Brian O'Connell, the PR in this case. I say specifically picked to aid and abet Alan Rose, Ted Bernstein, and Brian O'Connell to cover up years of unethical and fraudulent activities. And to ensure that Judge Martin Colin's unethical and unlawful orders, as well as those of Judge John Philips, were upheld and essentially cover up for the whole gang of predatory guardians, thugs and thieves. (in my Opinion of Course)

Diana Lewis started a new business for her Guardianship simply because she was asked by an attorney in the case, either Alan Rose or Brian O'Connell. Guardian Diana Lewis came into the Bernstein cases for specific reasons and that was NOT the best interest of ALLEGED, yet NOT, minors. 

Check Out the West Palm South Florida Court Transcript,
Judge Rosemarie Scher Court quoted above.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Isn't Cambodia where all the Porn Guys go to hide? Did Marc Randazza aid and abett this guy? Where is Matt Zirzow and Zacharia Larson in all this? Besides protecting the EVILS of Marc Randazza?

"Anglin’s lawyer Marc Randazza claims Anglin can’t face the lawsuit because he does not belong to any U.S. state. Randazza said Anglin fears for his physical safety if his address was revealed, even if it’s in court documents and not in a blog post, like Anglin did to Gersh."

Source and Full Story