North Carolina, USA ..BBC News
A gunman has opened fire at a nursing home in the US state of North Carolina, killing six people at the scene, and two others who died later in hospital.
A police officer and the gunmen were among those injured in the incident in the town of Carthage, police said.
Police units at Pinelake Health and Rehab Center, where the gunman opened fire at 1000 local time (1500 GMT).
A 45-year-old man is under arrest, and will be charged with eight murders, a local district attorney said.
Cannot play media.You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
Police Chief Chris McKenzie describes what happened at the nursing home in Carthage
"At this time the suspect, Robert Stewart, is in custody facing these eight counts of murder, felony assault on a law enforcement officer, and other charges are pending at this time," said Maureen Krueger, Moore County district attorney.
The man is not believed to be related to any of the residents at the home.
Seven residents and one nurse were among the fatalities.
The facility, about 60 miles (100 km) south-west of Raleigh, has 90 beds and specialises in caring for people with Alzheimer's disease.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
North Carolina, USA ..BBC News
Friday, March 6, 2009
Editor's Note: Would you want your final wishes to be overruled and your heirs to be stripped of what should rightfully be theirs? This type of "estate looting" is occurring across the country. The US~Observer sincerely hopes Judge Burt Carnes takes it to heart that his ruling in this case just might have impact beyond his "little" corner of Texas.
By Edward SnookInvestigative Reporter
GEORGETOWN, Texas – Upon his death Vernon Kunshick intended that his daughters acquire his assets, so he placed them into a living trust for that purpose. Now, his wishes are being challenged by his second wife Teddie Jo Kunshick and the attorney who Vernon Kunshick used to prepare that same trust.
Teddie Jo Kunshick, is apparently seeking court approval to retain the trust assets of her late husband under the guise of alleged estate administration purposes. She is also trying to disqualify Kunshick’s daughters, his primary heirs, as trust beneficiaries. If successful this will essentially place another dagger into the wishes of Vernon Kunshick. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for March 16, 2009 in a Williamson County, Texas District Court and is to be heard by Judge Burt Carnes.
Should clearly stated final wishes of an individual be respected? Should courts and/or legal manipulations and procedures reconfigure a decedent’s property distribution intentions at the behest of estate administrators? This case listed as “Teddie Jo Kunshick, as Trustee of the Vernon Kunshick Living Trust, v. Patricia Gayle Gregory and Lou Ann Anderson”, just might answer these questions. Ultimately, Judge Carnes’ ruling could affect all Texans’ individual rights to determine their final distribution of assets, as well as affecting all beneficiaries’ rights of inheritance. As the nation’s second most popular retirement locale, this case could set standards for those who live and die in Texas, particularly in Williamson County – home to Sun City Texas and the state’s largest concentration of senior citizens.
Property being passed down through generations of family was once a time-honored American tradition, but today, legal system abuses and selective treatment of probate documents threaten intended property transfers. Legal commentator Horace Cooper refers to this rise in estate litigation as a new inheritance tax designed to divert assets from intended beneficiaries. Cooper cites Marshall v. Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith’s action against her deceased husband’s family) as an example of such activities, but warns that estates of far less value are becoming similarly vulnerable.
Prior to his 1998 marriage to Teddie Jo Line, Vernon Kunshick created a trust to ensure assets accumulated during 46 years of marriage to his first wife were maintained as separate property. Vernon Kunshick was his trust’s trustee until a 2001 health downturn mandated other involvement. Vernon’s daughter, Lou Ann Anderson, became trustee and served in that capacity (or as co-trustee with Kunshick) until 2004 when she resigned due to “escalating hostility” on the part of Teddie Jo Kunshick. With limited options, Vernon Kunshick made Teddie Jo Kunshick his co-trustee.
Major Conflict of Interest
Vernon Kunshick died in May 2006. In November 2007, Teddie Jo Kunshick filed a lawsuit against Anderson and Patricia Gayle Gregory, Kunshick’s other daughter. She was represented by Ron Greening, the attorney Vernon Kunshick used for his estate plan preparation. I don’t know about Texas, however in Oregon and many other places one would call it a “major conflict of interest” for Greening to create a trust for a person and then attempt to exclude that trusts intended beneficiaries after the person is deceased.
In her lawsuit, Teddie Jo sought court approval to withhold trust funds for a spend-down plan intended to “ensure that adequate funds are available to administer the Trust” over the course of her life. The beneficiaries viewed this action as contrary to their father’s intentions. Vernon Kunshick had earmarked $40,000 for the trustee’s use in paying taxes, insurance and for other maintenance items associated with a life interest allowing her continued use of his residence. Beneficiaries maintain Kunshick’s intentions are clearly shown through a hand-written distribution model in which he detailed a nominal withholding for trust administration and the bulk of assets being distributed to his daughters and only grandchild upon fulfillment of specific bequests to Trustee Kunshick in her beneficiary capacity.
Trustee Teddie Jo Kunshick received her specified bequests upon Kunshick’s death. The grandchild’s distribution was delayed when her mother, Lou Ann Anderson, declined signing a release that violated trust terms and Kunshick’s intentions by attempting to remove the child as a successor beneficiary upon receipt of the bequest. The delay continued additional months as Ron Greening, despite numerous requests, would not provide more than a partial copy of the trust’s most recent (fourth) amendment. Kunshick’s daughters only received a distribution offer with the lawsuit filing.
Court documents indicate months of hearings including a mediation session deemed “premature” due to the plaintiff’s failure to receive discovery requests. At that time, Ron Greening did not accept mail at his court filing address. In March 2008, Judge Burt Carnes dismissed the case. Despite an open court admission that the pleadings did not constitute a “justiciable controversy” and sought only an “advisory opinion,” Ron Greening re-filed the next day asking for a rehearing and motion for new trial.
The defendants scheduled a Motion for Sanctions to be heard at a May 2008 hearing along with Greening’s new trial motion. This motion contended the plaintiff’s initial pleading was filed in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment. It stated the lawsuit sought to intimidate defendants into relinquishing their rights, to indemnify Trustee Kunshick and Greening from any and all claims of any character in the administration of the Trust and to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
In an accompanying affidavit, Defendant Lou Ann Anderson stated her father’s intention was for the trust “to minimize legal involvement and legal expense,” that Trustee Kunshick stopped communication with beneficiaries and instead delegated all contact to be through Ron Greening, that “although all distributions to the Trustee were made shortly after our father’s death, the distribution to us has been stonewalled,” and that upon filing the suit, Greening’s letter demanding a full release in exchange for $51,000 to each daughter was “in contrast to our father’s specific instructions.” The affidavit continued that “Mr. Greening’s law firm has already billed in excess of $35,000.00 as of March 2007 and we are no closer to getting a resolution of our rights under the Trust than when our father died.” The document concluded with “My sister and I are not attempting to contest the Will or Trust in any way, but are merely trying to secure the rights that belong to us under the Trust documents prepared by Mr. Greening.” While Judge Carnes ultimately granted the plaintiffs’ rehearing/new trial motion, the defendants’ sanctions motion was never heard.
Defendants Gregory and Anderson filed a counterclaim in August 2008 stating “After Vernon Kunshick’s death, Teddie Jo Kunshick and Ron Greening have conspired to prevent the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs from receiving their benefits under the trust and filed this suit to get this Court’s approval of that conspiracy.” The “conspiracy” was described as an attempt to set aside funds “to finance trust administration over the expected life of the trust, primarily to benefit the Trustee and Mr. Greening.”
Mike Cosby of Pakis, Giotes, Page & Burleson deposed Teddie Jo Kunshick and Ron Greening in November 2008. Characterizing herself as a “full-time trustee,” Trustee Kunshick expressed uncertainty on the overall trust value. She acknowledged the amount sought to be withheld has ranged from $194,000 to $216,000, but offered no explanation for the amounts’ basis. Transcripts indicate similar responses from Ron Greening. Both also argued they had not filed a lawsuit against beneficiaries. Defense-filed documents described the plaintiffs’ deposition testimony as “Thus, Mrs. Kunshick filed a lawsuit, purportedly to ask the Court to bless the amount she wants to withhold from dissemination, expressly acknowledging under oath that she knew the ‘girls’ (Defendants) would not accept that projection, disclaiming that she knows the source of the projection that she claims should be accepted , deferring to her attorney who likewise denies knowing the source of the projection, and they have refused to identify any witnesses who might know the source of the projection; all the while acknowledging that the projection for which they seek a blessing is completely at odds with the handwritten projection prepared by the Settlor of the Trust (Vernon Kunshick) in his own handwriting.”
After depositions, the defendants amended earlier filings, added an application for trustee removal and scheduled a February hearing. Trustee Kunshick and Ron Greening responded by changing their lawsuit to a non-suit, an attempt to negate their 15-month legal action against the beneficiaries.
In a bait and switch tactic, Greening also asked Judge Carnes to realign the case making trust beneficiaries the plaintiffs and Trustee Kunshick the defendant to support the trustee’s declaration that Gregory and Anderson are no longer beneficiaries. By proclaiming the defendant’s countersuit to the trustee-initiated litigation a trust contest and an effort by beneficiaries to enlarge their interest, Trustee Kunshick now claims they “forfeit any amount to which they may have been entitled under the Trust, and their interest passes as if they predeceased Mr. Kunshick.”
Additional plaintiff motions seek to bring Kunshick’s sole grandchild, daughter of Lou Ann Anderson, into the case as an indispensable party. Anderson refused to sign a 2006 Trustee Kunshick/Ron Greening-generated release that sought to violate the trust and terminate her daughter’s successor beneficiary status. The trustee and Greening now want to also diminish the parental rights of Anderson and her husband, the child’s father, by precluding them from serving as their daughter’s guardian in future actions.
Another Greening filing supports the trustee’s desire to withhold and potentially deplete the trust by quoting the trust’s Fourth Amendment: “the Trustee may make disbursements to herself for purposes of health, education as well as maintenance and support in the Trustee’s accustomed standard of living.” Interestingly, this clause is on the document pages withheld from beneficiaries by Greening for six months. If considered valid, the clause brings into question the necessity and motivation of any trustee-initiated legal action.
Despite being filed outside legal timeframes, Greening asked Judge Carnes to hear his pleadings ahead of the trustee removal motion. The judge opened the February 19 hearing saying he had not read all the motions. After opening statements, Judge Carnes ruled he would hear no motions until a time at which he could hear them all. As Trustee Kunshick has attended none of the hearings related to her litigation, the defense subpoenaed her for court appearance, but learned that Judge Carnes only requires assurance of “availability.” A similar position was articulated when the defense asked the court to grant a motion freezing trust assets. Judge Carnes instead was satisfied with Ron Greening’s word that no funds would be spent before the March 16 hearing.
To date, the US~Observer’s investigation finds legal maneuvering occurring at great expense to Vernon Kunshick’s trust and his beneficiaries yet facts of the case are still to be addressed. Upon that happening, trust assets may be depleted. If Ron Greening’s invocation of the HEMS clause (health, education, maintenance and support) is legitimate, he demonstrates the uncalled for and inappropriate nature of the trustee’s litigation. How can a trustee be considered as acting in good faith or as a proper fiduciary after unnecessarily creating a conflict leading to 15 months of litigation and causing major expense to both the trust and the trust beneficiaries? It therefore is not surprising that Trustee Kunshick and Ron Greening are working to pre-empt the beneficiaries’ trustee removal motion by disentitling Kunshick’s daughters from any intended inheritance.
These proceedings illustrate how the execution of an estate plan can become a legal entanglement, beneficial to few and why these “case trends” pose a dangerous threat to many. The bottom line is, a person’s last wishes should be just as secure today as they were in past decades, but unfortunately they aren’t.
The US~Observer will continue reporting to America on this case, watching closely what Judge Burt Carnes allows to happen with Vernon Kunshick’s estate assets. Anyone with information on this case, including the players involved is urged to contact Edward Snook at 541-474-7885.
Nels Ackerson www.ackersonlaw.com
Do judges favor political cronies in deciding cases?
Yes, sometimes they do. Would a party’s million dollar campaign contribution influence a judge’s decision involving the party? Well, what do you think?
In more than 30 years of practicing law, I have appeared before hundreds of federal and state court judges who have done their best to apply the law impartially. Rarely have judges abused their duty of impartiality by putting personal relationships or political loyalties above the law.
But some have.
Let’s be clear: Judicial lawlessness, even if rare, is unacceptable. Abuse of the awesome power entrusted to judges is corruption of the highest order. No one, not even a judge — especially not a judge — should be above the law.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
by Janet Phelan
San Diego,California U.S.A.
I was first contacted by Daryl Baker last month. He is under conservatorship. His son is the conservator and Attorney J. David Horspool, of "The Probate Murders" infamy, is the attorney for the conservator.
I have spoken several times with Mr. Baker, who is sixty-five years old and has been placed in an Assisted Living Facility in San Diego. He has expressed alarm at having lost all his rights and is concerned that his assets are being stolen.
Following his contacting me, I made contact with Adult Protective Services in San Diego, and spoke with an APS worker in San Diego named Luis Ortiz and with his supervisor, Carlos. I did not find them sympathetic or particularly concerned about Mr. Baker's plight.
This morning, I spoke again with Mr. Baker. He told me that his psychiatrist, who has been previously pivotal in having him conserved, has "downgraded" his situation and is now giving him medication for schizophrenia, which Mr. Baker denies having been on previously.
He has supplied some medical records, attached, which support his claims. He told me that the psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Desilva, threatened him with lock-up and yelled at him repeatedly in the last visit.
Mr. Baker revealed to me that he was visited again last week by Luis, of Adult Protective Services, who told him that he did not take my call seriously because I "just wanted to get Mr. Horspool." In fact, I had only told Luis that if he found any irregularities in Mr. Baker's case that he could contact the San Bernardino Grandy Jury.Previously, Mr. Baker was diagnosed with skin cancer.
As the conservator did not attempt to get him medical help, Mr. Baker dug out the cancer himself.It is my strongest belief that Mr. Baker is being abused.
Letter From Daryl Baker
THE FIRST DOCUMENT IS THE DOCTOR'S REFERRAL FOR MY CANCER ON MY FACE. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE AND THE PSYCHIATRIST LAUGHED WHEN I GAVE IT TO HIM. IT WAS THE FOLLOWING WEEK AND MY SON WOULD NOT TAKE ME. HE SAID IT WAS NOT HIS CONCERN.
THE SECOND IS A LIST OF MEDICATIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN ON FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS AND HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED UNTIL THIS LAST WEDNESDAY. FEB. 25, 2009.
THE PSYCHAITRIST IS THE ONE THAT HAD ME SIGN A GURADIAN AD LITIUM ONLY IN THE WORKER'S COMP. CASE. I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THIS PUT ME INT0 A CONSERVATORSHIP IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I COULD NOT HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO DEFEND MYSELF, WHEN MY WIFE TOOK EVERYTHING I OWNED AND MOVED TO OKLAHOMA. SHE DIED OF BREAST CANCER IN JAN. 3RD 2008
SINCE I HAVE TOLD THE COURT INVESTIGATOR THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY RIGHTS BACK, LAST YEAR. THAT I WOULD BE READY THIS YEAR 2009 BECAUSE THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT WOULD BE COMPLETED AND THE CONSERVATORSHIPS WERE SUPPOSE TO BE TEMPORARY.
AROUND CHRISTMAS TIME, MY SON CONTACTED, MR HORSPOOL AND HE CONTACTED MY PSYCHIATRIST..DR. PAUL DE SILVA 09-885-5608HE STARTED TO DOWNGRADE MY CONDITION AND SAY I WAS GETTING WORSE. THEN ON FEB. 25. 2009 HE SAID THAT I PROBABLY WOULD NEED TO GO TO A LOCK UP. HE CHANGED MY MEDICATION TO A NEW SCHIZOPHRNIC DRUG, WHICH MEAN I HAD EXTREME PARINOID.
THAT IS THE NEW. MEDICATION. THAT IS DOCUTMENT 3.
I WILL WRITE MORE A LITTLE LATTER ON.
Attachment: Documentation from Mr. Baker =>> Baker.pdf