San Francisco

San Francisco

Saturday, August 20, 2011

I Wonder....

Why we say "heads up" when we actually duck?

Why Larry Siracusa did not disclose his working relationship with Franchesca Gallejo prior to the mediation in October of 2009?  Ms. Gallejo was the mediator!

Why does the Easter bunny carry eggs?  Rabbits don't lay eggs.

Is there a list the SF Probate Court uses to choose court appointed attorneys?

If so, where is that list located?

Mulberry bush aside, would a monkey really chase a weasel?


POP...GOES THE WEASEL!

SF Probate Court Cases

Monday, August 22, 2011

PCN-89-213888
PES-00-280237
PCN-00-280632
PCN-01-281337
PTR-04-286372

PCN-05-287654
PTR-06-288308
PTR-06-288619
PTR-06-288961
PTR-07-290150

PCN-08-290940
PTR-08-290951
PES-08-291046
PTR-08-291454
PTR-08-291936

PTR-09-292041
PTR-09-292798
PTR-10-293317
PES-10-293617
PES-10-293661

PTR-10-294022
PGN-10-294028
PGN-11-294673
PTR-11-294766

24 Cases for Siracusa, Feder and Friends....


A Very Timely Article Regarding Mediation Benefits in SF....

San Francisco Superior Court
Highlights Benefits of Mediation Programs


SF Probate Court Mediation Sucess is Indicated in RED...

SAN FRANCISCO - “The Court has talented mediators available to assist clients with resolving their disputes,” Assistant Presiding Judge James J. McBride said. “In many cases, these trained mediators are able to help parties settle their differences to avoid the hardship of protracted disputes.”

San Francisco Superior Court offers some of the following mediation services:

The Unified Family Court Services department provides free, confidential mediation. All Unified Family Court Services mediators are Court employees. They are clinically trained and experienced in working with families. The mediators’ main focus is always the best interests of the child. The program offers mediation for all parents who cannot resolve disputes related to custody and/or time-sharing arrangements. Parties must attend mediation and an orientation program before the Court will hear any requests related to custody or time-share issues. Mediations also are provided in Juvenile Dependency (child protection) cases. The judge may order the case to mediation on its own motion, or based on a request from the parties. Immediately following the mediation, the matter is returned to Court for judicial review and the entry of the parties’ agreement as an order of the Court. Juvenile dependency mediation services are available at any stage of the dependency process. Some of the issues that may be mediated are jurisdictional issues, visits, service plans, the appropriate placement of children, reunification transition plans, the termination of services, and the determination of permanent plans.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Program offers general civil litigants three different types of mediation opportunities: the Judicial Mediation Program, Mediation Services through the Bar Association of San Francisco, and the Voluntary Civil Mediation Panel. The Judicial Mediation program utilizes active trial court judges to conduct pro bono mediations in both complex and general civil cases. Mediation Services was created in collaboration with the Bar Association to offer parties three free hours of mediation with a mediator specializing in the subject matter of the parties’ dispute. The Voluntary Civil Mediation Panel is a list of highly qualified, pre-screened, professional mediators available to mediate general civil cases at any time in the life of case. All civil mediation panels are composed of mediators who have up to 30+ years in legal and/or mediation experience. These mediation programs have been assisting thousands of litigants in reaching mutually satisfactory settlements for more than a decade.

Two panels of volunteer attorneys provide Pro Bono Mediation in the Probate Department. The first panel, which is administered by a private probate litigation attorney, provides mediators for disputes involving trusts and decedents’ estates. The second panel, which is administered by the Court, provides mediators for those who are involved in guardianship and conservatorship matters. All the mediators have received mediation training under the sponsorship of the Court. The judge refers the matter to mediation upon the agreement of the parties. Following mediation, the matter is returned to Court for judicial review. Typical issues in trusts and decedents’ estates include contests in wills over assets, title of real property, and validity of the will or trust.


The Self-Represented Litigant (SRL) Mediation Program provides mediation services at every stage of a Small Claims case, from pre-filing to post-judgment. People can schedule mediations through the ACCESS Self Help Center to fit their schedules, including evenings and weekends. Mediators also are available during Small Claims calendars and litigants have an opportunity to meet with them before going to trial. The multilingual SRL Mediator Panel is made up of more than 50 Court-trained volunteers. The program has mediated more than 220 cases since its beginning in November 2007.


Tooting One's Own Horn


http://www.mediationlawfirms.com/regional-content.cfm/state/ca/Article/118511/San-Francisco-Superior-Court-Highlights.html
 


Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Wednesday

Court Cases for August 17, 2011
Brought to You by Siracusa, Feder and Friends



PES-94-262684
PCN-99-272798
PCN-03-285206
PCN-04-285845

  PCN-05-286898 *
PCN-05-287807
PCN-05-287928
PCN-06-288422

PES-07-289535
PTR-07-290150
PTR-07-290580
PTR-08-291303

PTR-08-291821
PCN-09-292472
PCN-09-292981
PTR-09-293073

PCN-10-293589
PTR-10-293796
PES-10-294109
PCN-10-294144

PCN-10-294155
 PCN-11-294271
PES-11-294465
PTR-11-294749

PES-11-294816
PES-11-294825
PES-03-285547
  PCN-09-292822 *

50% of today's probate court business goes to...

DRUMROLL PLEASE!!




SIRACUSA, FEDER AND FRIENDS!



* indicates that there is a conflict of interest where the merry band of thieves is representing both the conservator and the conservatee!



Look What I Found...

a document called:


"Testimony of Commissioner Dorothy L. McMath:
San Francisco Conservatorship Procedures"

Commissioner McMath was the probate commissioner in San Francisco for 10 years from 1998 until 2008...BSK (before sue kaplan).   I could not locate a date on the document, but it is very useful and most informative.

As I read the thirteen page pdf file, I was once again reminded of Bruce Feder's blatant disregard for my grandmother's legal rights.  Enough said.  You be the judge...no pun intended. 

Testimony versus Reality...

Icing on the Cake!
What I plan on demonstrating is the dramatic difference between what the commissioner testifies to with regard to San Francisco's conservatorship procedures versus the cruel reality of the situation which is the fact that Bruce Feder allowed my grandmother's legal rights to be violated over and over again for nearly two years.

Here's the icing on the cake...he wants to be paid over $25,000 for breaching his fiduciary duties!  This is a prime example of why I am a strong believer of pay based on performance.





Testimony - Commissioner McMath
Reality - Bruce Feder

"A contested temporary hearing often alerts the Court to the need for independent counsel for the conservatee.  San Francisco practice is to appoint counsel for the conservatee immediately."

For months there was no record of Feder ever even being appointed to represent my grandmother.  One day the order just miraculously appeared.  Even the court clerks were mystified.  The phony paperwork supposedly made Feder the court appointed attorney before there was ever a hearing.  Normally, the appointment is made at the time of the hearing.

"Appearances at Hearing.  (1) Conservatee.  Except in three situations, the proposed conservatee must be produced at the hearing.  Exceptions are:  Conservatee is out of state when served and is not the petitioner; conservatee is medically unable to appear and a physician or licensed psychologist completes a declaration describing the disability; or the proposed conservatee tells the Court Investigator that he or she does not want to attend the hearing.   Sec 1825.  The court investigator's report quotes the conservatee's statement regarding his or her wish to attend.   Sec 1826.  San Francisco policy requires strict compliance.  An allegation that the conservatee would not understand the proceedings is not sufficient to excuse the conservatee's appearance.  If the conservatee does not specifically state unwillingness to attend, and the doctor's declaration does not support medical inability, the Court will require the conservatee's attendance and will continue the hearing if the conservatee is not present.  The court may make an exception, however, if the conservatee is represented by court-appointed counsel who reports that a conservatee in a recent interview told counsel that he or she did not want to attend the hearing.  The Court may accept counsel's request to waive the conservatee's appearance."

Catherine DeMartini never attended a conservatorship hearing even though her primary care physic an of many years completed the required court paperwork and stated that she COULD attend the hearing.  Bruce Feder knows or should have known that my grandmother had that right yet he ignored her rights.  It was not about my grandmother.  It was and is about Bruce Feder being part of a group of attorneys and other so called professionals who steal from the elderly and disabled in San Francisco.

"if the petition is requesting authorization to administer dementia medication..."

I included this quote to point out that my grandmother was on HALDIPRO which is an anti psychotic medication used to treat Alzheimer's patients.  At no time during the conservatorship did Bruce Feder make the court aware of this.  Instead, he violated my grandmother's rights AGAIN.  Neither conservator....thomas or adler....ever petitioned the court for permission to have anti-psychotic drugs administered to my grandmother which is just one more blatant violation.

"Role of Court appointed Counsel.  Court appointed attorneys are expected to inform the Court of the wishes, desires, concerns and objections, of the (proposed) conservatee.  If asked by the Court, the attorney may give his or her opinion as to the best interests of the (proposed) conservatee.  San Francisco Superior Court Rules Rule 14.93.U.4.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Bruce Feder did NOTHING to protect my grandmother.  Instead, he turned the other way as thomas, orly, adler and siracusa broke every rule.  The day of the mediation on October 19, 2009, Bruce Feder said that the April 2009 documents were "A JOKE."  Shouldn't he have reported that to the court?  He is driven by greed just like the rest of them!

"The San Francisco Probate Department relies heavily on court-appointed counsel to help parties, such as contentious families and conservatees opposed to the appointment of a conservator, find alternatives that will protect the conservatee's interest while maintaining the maximum independence and privacy of the conservatee and will relieve mistrust among family members."

Bruce Feder did nothing to help the situation.  If anything, he made it worse.  He never even met with my uncle!  The first time I met him was at the mediation.  He could care less about our family let alone relieving mistrust among family members!

"The order appointing counsel in a problem conservatorship may authorize counsel to take action, such as filing a petition to remove the conservator if counsel determines such action to be appropriate."

Remove the conservator?  Never.  They are all part of the same probate court scam!  They are on the same team.  None of them care anything about the people they are supposed to protect.  It is all about lining their pockets!

 

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

who's the evilest one of all?

A Very Confused Mirror...Too Many Evil Ones to Choose From!

From Georgia...

Another Probate Court Travesty
Rest in Peace Dr. Israel
 
Dr. H. Boyd Israel with His Grandchildren


http://stopguardianabuse.org/DrHBoydIsrael.htm


http://nasga-stopguardianabuse.blogspot.com/2011/08/struggle-to-protect-his-father-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NationalAssociationToStopGuardianAbuse+%28National+Association+to+Stop+Guardian+Abuse%29

More on Conflicts of Interest

The Notice of Conservatees Rights Form, GC-341, issued by the California Superior Court Judicial Council states that "when a person becomes a conservatee, he or she does not necessarily lose the right to take part in important decisions affecting his or her property and way of life.   Every conservatee has the right to be treated with understanding and respect and to have his or her wishes considered.  Every conservatee has all the basic human rights and the right to be well cared for by his or her conservator."

In addition, the conservatee "keeps the right to ask a judge to replace the conservator" and "ask a judge to end a conservatorship."

In fact, the Court has the right to appoint an attorney to PROTECT the CONSERVATEE'S interests.

NOW...

Doesn't it stand to reason that if the same law firm represents BOTH the conservator and the conservatee there is a....

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Come on, how can one attorney claim to be representing the conservatee's best interests while his or her other client, the conservator, is robbing the conservatee blind?

My Uncle and I had the same attorney until about a week ago.  Our attorney was disqualified for, and I quote...

"The conflict arises due to the previous concurrent representation of Lori DeMartini and Paul DeMartini, clients with conflicting interests, and which calls into question the duty of loyalty to both clients."

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE RECORD...


My uncle and I DO NOT have conflicting interests

BUT...

there are conflicting interests between a conservator and a conservatee especially when it comes to Larry Siracusa, Bruce Feder and friends.

ONCE AGAIN...

How can the same attorney or even the same law firm represent both the conservatee and the conservator?  Wouldn't that be considered a...

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

AND WHY...

does it happen every day in San Francisco's Probate Court?

Here are two examples on today's court calendar:
PCN-01-282660
PCN-07-290306

SO...


Let me make sure I understand...

Our attorney was disqualified from representing both my Uncle and I because of a conflict of interest fabrication regarding our representation...well, actually it was a blatant lie...yet Larry, Bruce and the merry band of thieves continue to do whatever they damn well please!

See my blog post....

"The Duties of the Court Appointed Attorney" dated July 4, 2011 and see all the ways  Bruce Feder, my grandmother's court appointed attorney, violated nearly everyone of my grandmother's rights!  Another post featuring this very same topic will be coming soon!


Monday, August 15, 2011

Best Practice Model...NOT!

While researching a completely different aspect of my grandmother's case, I came across a very interesting article that was written by Mary Quinn who happens to be the Director of Probate Services for the San Francisco Superior Court.  Ms. Quinn's article was published by the NCPEA..National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse and touted as a "BEST PRACTICE MODEL".

        "Probate Court Mediation Project

            by Mary Quinn
In July 1998, San Francisco's Superior Court initiated a mediation program to resolve conflicts related to trusts and estates of decedents. The mediators are experienced probate attorneys who agree to do the mediations. In selected cases, the judge formally orders the 2 parties into mediation. Building upon the success of the program (80% of the cases were mediated successfully), the court started a second mediation panel for guardianships of children and conservatorships of adults. The court selected and met with 20 local probate attorneys who agreed to serve without pay. The attorneys were provided with 4 days of training. Over twenty cases have been mediated with a success rate of 95%. Litigation has been avoided in a number of cases. In one case, conservatorship was avoided completely. The guardianship and conservatorship cases are closely monitored by the Court and an attorney is appointed for every child or elder. Only certain issues are considered appropriate for mediation, including certain cases involving elder abuse and neglect. If abuse and neglect is discovered while mediation is in progress, court appointed attorneys are charged with immediately informing the Court."
I spoke with Ms. Quinn several months ago because I was looking for a copy of a document I signed on October 19, 2009 at the end of the mediation session.  In SF Superior Court, upon the completion of mediation, the parties to the mediation must sign a document that basically recaps the mediaiton experience.  Did the mediation resolve all issues, some issues, none of the issues, etc.?  I did not have a copy so I contacted Ms. Quinn in order to get a copy from her.  After checking on my request for this document, she seemed surprised that the document was not in the file.

The parties to the mediation indicated that the mediation resolved ALL the issues in the case.  So then why are we still here?

Is it a surprise that the document disappeared from the file?  DEFINITELY NOT!

I just checked the Superior Court website and learned that a new and improved document now exists.  A surprise?   NOT!

The lies, the cover-ups, the blatant disregard for my grandmother's wishes, fears and dignity are incomprehensible!

Best Practice Model...NOT!



Back to my research...stay tuned....the next post will be a doozey!

SF Probate



Cases for August 16, 2011

PCN-01-282660
PES-02-283294
PES-03-284521
PES-04-286398

PTR-05-287611
PTR-06-288634
PCN-07-290306
PES-07-290377

PES-09-293046
PCN-10-293112
PES-11-294336 


Sunday, August 14, 2011

Elvira Orly

I received the following email on August 13, 2011...

"Hello...Attorney Orly is in the process of defrauding a friend.  Please do email me back."

The message was left anonymously, and I have no way of contacting the person that sent me the email.

You can reach me at loridemartini@live.com.

Thanks,
Lori

Confusion

I am perplexed.  My Uncle Paul and I hired the same attorney.  There is no conflicts between us.  Yet our attorney was told by the judge he could no longer be my uncle's attorney....only mine.  He was disqualified as my uncle's attorney because of a non-existent conflict of interest.

The reason for my confusion...

I just read about case PCN-11-294681.  Two of my very favorite people are involved.  To my surprise, the same law firm represents both the conservator and conservatee.  Is that not a conflict of interest under the State of California's Probate Laws?

Monday

August 15, 2011

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!

Court Cases
Siracusa, Feder and Friends

PCN-89-232502
PCN-02-283527
PCN-01-282474

PCN-04-285598
PTR-04-286133
PCN-07-290245

PCN-08-290853
PCN-08-291018
PTR-10-293757

PGN-11-294479
PCN-11-294489
PCN-11-294681
PTR-22-294789