Saturday, May 1, 2010

License Denied, Melodie Scott back to work

By Janet Phelan
Melodie Scott, whose fiduciary license was recently denied by the Department of Consumer Affairs, appears to be back at work. She has changed the name of her business from C.A.R.E., Inc to Reliant Professional Services and moved her office across the street from her former location on State Street in Redlands . And in February of 2010, she filed for guardianship of a minor in San Bernardino Court .

Scott's license was first denied in August 2008 by the newly created Professional Fiduciary Bureau, lodged in the Department of Consumer Affairs, for making false statements on her licensing application. She appealed the decision and went into contested hearings in Oakland Administrative Court, which spanned from May to October of 2009. Along the way, further charges were added to the original complaint, including her continuing to act as a conservator/fiduciary after her application for a license was originally denied. A drunk driving citation was also listed as a cause for denial of license. In addition to the licensing issues, numerous allegations ranging from financial mismanagement of client’s funds to medical negligence, resulting in client’s deaths, have been levied against Scott.

Curiously, the name change of her business does not appear to be recorded by the Secretary of State or by the San Bernardino County Recorder. Reliant Professional Services is not listed at either of the registries as either a corporate entity or as a fictitious business entity. Such registration is mandated by State law.

A confidential questionnaire must be filled out in order for an individual to become a minor’s guardian. The questions include whether or not a restraining order has been filed against the prospective guardian, whether the prospective guardian has been charged with a crime deemed to be a felony or misdemeanor and whether the prospective guardian has abused alcohol. Also included is a question as to whether the prospect has ever been removed from a case as a conservator or fiduciary.

Neither Scott nor her attorney of record, J. David Horspool, responded to queries as to the legal registration of Reliant Services. Scott is represented in the new guardianship case by Lenita Skoretz, who served as court appointed counsel for a number of conservatees in cases in which Scott was the conservator, prior to her removal from cases for failure to achieve licensure.

Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist with over twenty years in the saddle. Her articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Santa Monica Daily Press, the San Bernardino County Sentinel, the American's Bulletin, Oui Magazine and elsewhere. She is best known for her article "Water As A Weapon" and her investigations on the war against the elderly and vulnerable through the conservatorship and guardianship programs in State Superior Courts. Janet was educated at Grinnell College and U.C. Berkeley, and studied journalism at University of Missouri -Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. Her first book, "The Hitler Poems," was published in 2005.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

HONORABLE STEPHEN D. CUNNISON PRESIDING.
CLERK: L. STONE
COURT REPORTER: S. LAYTON
MELODIE Z SCOTT REPRESENTED BY DAVID HORSPOOL.
PUBLIC GUARDIAN REPRESENTED BY TONI L. EGGEBRAATEN AND ELIZABETH AQUARIAN.
NO APPEARANCE BY JANET PHELAN.
AT 01:45 THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HEARD:
THE COURT HAS BECOME AWARE OF A CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE (CCP SECTION 170.1) FILED BY JANET C.
PHELAN, DAUGHTER OF THE CONSERVATEE. THE CHALLENGE WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF CLERK OF
THE COURT BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION ON MAY 5, 2010, AT 10:35 A.M.
THE CHALLENGE IS STRICKEN ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
1. IT HAS NOT BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED ON THE
JUDGE ALLEGED TO BE DISQUALIFIED (JUDGE STEPHEN D. CUNNISON) OR ON HIS CLERK (CCP SECTION 170.3
(C)(1)), AND THE TIME FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE HEARING HAS PASSED.
2. IT WAS NOT PRESENTED AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE
OPPORTUNITY AFTER DISCOVERY OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
(CCP SECTION 170.3 (C)(1)). THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT, AFTER THE AUGUST 1, 2002,
HEARING OF WHICH MS. PHELAN COMPLAINS, SHE AGAIN APPEARED AT A HEARING IN THIS CASE BEFORE JUDGE
CUNNISON ON OCTOBER 24, 2002, BY WHICH TIME SHE MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE OF ALL OF THE FACTS
CONSTITUTING THE GROUNDS FOR HER OBJECTION, AND SHE RAISED NO OBJECTION. THE PRESENT HEARING
WAS NOTICED FOR APRIL 26, 2010. SHE FAILED TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING, BUT ON THE
BASIS OF HER TELEPHONED REQUEST, THE HEARING WAS CONTINUED BY ORDER OF JUDGE CUNNISON TO BE HEARD
IN HIS DEPARTMENT ON MAY 5, 2010.
JANET PHELAN WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF THE CONTINUANCE, MAILED ON APRIL 26, 2010. SHE FILED A DOCUMENT
TITLED "JUDICIAL NOTICE" ON MAY 3, 2010, BUT FAILED TO FILE HER CHALLENGE UNTIL THE DAY OF
THE HEARING.
COURT FINDS AND ORDERS:
PETITION FOR COMPELLING TO REPORT AND SURCHARGE OF TRUSTEE IS DENIED
PRINT MINUTE ORDER

Anonymous said...

Since you have posted these details about my case, you should be made aware that the hearing you referenced was illegal in its entirety. I was not served with proper notice--indeed, I could not be, given that the hearing was rescheduled on AƱril 26th for May 5th which does not provide proper time for service of one living outside of the country. The court was apprised of this but decided to rush this through, illegal as it was. And the fact is that I asked Judge Cunnison to recuse himself in October of 2002--did he not mention that here? No he did not. So, he lied. Is anyone surprised?

Anonymous said...

Janet Phelan is a wanna be heard journalists. She is consistently posting unfounded information and constantly being denied information. Her information and reporting is obsured and she needs to get off the internet. No one cares what she has to say and/or her non-factual reporting. She has run to Cananda to get away from all the threats she makes to officals and runs and hides then posts stories that are unfounded and inappropriate.