Probate Court Quotes

I spent the last Friday of summer vacation spreading hot, sticky tar across the roof of George Washington High. My companions were Dopey, Toothless, and Joe, the brain surgeons in charge of building maintenance. At least they were getting paid. I was working forty feet above the ground, breathing in sulfur fumes from Satan's vomitorium, for free. Character building, my father said. Mandatory community service, the judge said. Court-ordered restitution for the Foul Deed. He nailed me with the bill for the damage I had done, which meant I had to sell my car and bust my hump at a landscaping company all summer. Oh, and he gave me six months of meetings with a probation officer who thought I was a waste of human flesh. Still, it was better than jail. I pushed the mop back and forth, trying to coat the seams evenly. We didn't want any rain getting into the building and destroying the classrooms. Didn't want to hurt the school. No, sir, we sure didn't.

On June 23, 2021, I was finally due to address a Los Angeles probate court on the subject of the conservatorship. And I knew the world was listening. I had been practicing this for days, but now that the moment was here, the stakes felt overwhelming. Not least because I knew, since I’d asked for this hearing to be open to the public, that millions of people would be listening to my voice as soon as I was done speaking.

It’d be impossible to change the American judicial system much, especially the criminal justice system. There’s just too much money involved now, too many special interests. Policy makers are bought by lobbyists, and the next thing you know, more and more people are going to jail, and more and more jails are being built. The parole and probation systems are huge rackets, the court costs and fees are out of control. It’s a mess.

Many of the urban poor have been crippled and broken by a rewriting of laws, especially drug laws, that has permitted courts, probation officers, parole boards, and police to randomly seize poor people of color, especially African American men, without just cause and lock them in cages for years. In many of our most impoverished urban centers— our “internal colonies”, as Malcom X called them— mobilization will be difficult. Many African Americans, especially the urban poor, are in prison, on probation, or living under some kind of legal restraint. Charges can be stacked against them, and they have little hope for redress in the courts, especially as 97 percent of all federal cases and 94 percent of all state cases are resolved by guilty pleas rather than trials. A New York Times editorial recently said that the pressure employed by state and federal prosecutors to make defendants accept guilty pleas, which often include waiving the right to appeal to a higher court, is “closer to coercion” than to bargaining.

Imagine you are Emma Faye Stewart, a thirty-year-old, single African American mother of two who was arrested as part of a drug sweep in Hearne, Texas.1 All but one of the people arrested were African American. You are innocent. After a week in jail, you have no one to care for your two small children and are eager to get home. Your court-appointed attorney urges you to plead guilty to a drug distribution charge, saying the prosecutor has offered probation. You refuse, steadfastly proclaiming your innocence. Finally, after almost a month in jail, you decide to plead guilty so you can return home to your children. Unwilling to risk a trial and years of imprisonment, you are sentenced to ten years probation and ordered to pay $1,000 in fines, as well as court and probation costs. You are also now branded a drug felon. You are no longer eligible for food stamps; you may be discriminated against in employment; you cannot vote for at least twelve years; and you are about to be evicted from public housing. Once homeless, your children will be taken from you and put in foster care. A judge eventually dismisses all cases against the defendants who did not plead guilty. At trial, the judge finds that the entire sweep was based on the testimony of a single informant who lied to the prosecution. You, however, are still a drug felon, homeless, and desperate to regain custody of your children. Now place yourself in the shoes of Clifford Runoalds, another African American victim of the Hearne drug bust.2 You returned home to Bryan, Texas, to attend the funeral of your eighteen-month-old daughter. Before the funeral services begin, the police show up and handcuff you. You beg the officers to let you take one last look at your daughter before she is buried. The police refuse. You are told by prosecutors that you are needed to testify against one of the defendants in a recent drug bust. You deny witnessing any drug transaction; you don’t know what they are talking about. Because of your refusal to cooperate, you are indicted on felony charges. After a month of being held in jail, the charges against you are dropped. You are technically free, but as a result of your arrest and period of incarceration, you lose your job, your apartment, your furniture, and your car. Not to mention the chance to say good-bye to your baby girl. This is the War on Drugs. The brutal stories described above are not isolated incidents, nor are the racial identities of Emma Faye Stewart and Clifford Runoalds random or accidental. In every state across our nation, African Americans—particularly in the poorest neighborhoods—are subjected to tactics and practices that would result in public outrage and scandal if committed in middle-class white neighborhoods.

A task force of the American Bar Association described the bleak reality facing someone convicted of a petty drug offense this way: [The] offender may be sentenced to a term of probation, community service, and court costs. Unbeknownst to this offender, and perhaps any other actor in the sentencing process, as a result of his conviction he may be ineligible for many federally-funded health and welfare benefits, food stamps, public housing, and federal educational assistance. His driver’s license may be automatically suspended, and he may no longer qualify for certain employment and professional licenses. If he is convicted of another crime he may be subject to imprisonment as a repeat offender. He will not be permitted to enlist in the military, or possess a firearm, or obtain a federal security clearance. If a citizen, he may lose the right to vote; if not, he becomes immediately deportable.

Sally Reed, having lost her only child, sought to take charge of her son’s few belongings. She applied to the probate court to be appointed administrator of Richard’s death estate. The boy’s father, Cecil Reed, later applied for the same appointment

It is a given of the criminal justice system, an axiom as certain as the laws of gravity, that defendants rarely tell the truth. Cops and prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges- everybody knows they lie. They lie solemnly; with sweaty palms and shifty eyes; or, more often, with a look of schoolboy innocence and an increased disbelief when their credulty is assailed. They lie to protect themselves; they lie to protect their friends. They lie for the fun of it, or because that is the way they have always been. They lie about big details and small ones, about who started it, who thought of it, who did it and who was sorry. But they lie. It is the defendant's credo. Lie to the cops. Lie to your lawyer. Lie to the jury that tries your case. If convicted, lie to your probation officer. Lie to your bunkmate in the pen. Trumpet your innocence. Let the dirty bastards out there with a grain of doubt. Something can always change.

The Probate Home Sale When an offer to purchase a home being sold through probate in New Jersey has been accepted, a notice will be mailed to heirs of the estate. This notice is the Notice of Proposed Action. The Notice of Proposed Action enables estate heirs to object to the sale of the home. Should an estate heir - or, should estate heirs - object to the sale of the home, a court date will be set. Any offer to purchase a home being sold through probate must be equal to - or greater than - 90% of the appraisal value of the home. The appraisal value of the home is provided to the court by a licensed real estate appraiser who has been designated by the court to conduct such an appraisal. Whats next? The attorney for the estate schedules a confirmation hearing. This hearing takes place within 45 days of the filing date. Throughout the process, the listing agent of the home being sold through probate continues to show the home to prospective buyers. One directive the listing agent has in continuing to show the home to buyers is to determine whether an over-bidder emerges. An over-bidder is a buyer who submits their offer to purchase the home at a sale price which is greater than offers which have been received, to date. Thus, raising the sale price of the home. Increasing proceeds for the estate. In the event that there is an offer submitted by an over-bidder, the over-bidder attends a confirmation hearing. At the confirmation hearing, the over-bidder is required to present a certified check which is equal to or greater than 10% of the proposed sale price.

Baxter-Thompson Law, PLLC, focuses solely on matters related to estate and trust litigation. Our practice generally includes complex trust and estate litigation, heirship issues including common law marriage determinations, guardianship matters, and most issues that arise in the probate courts, including will contests and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits. Baxter-Thompson Law will help you navigate your case and bring you to the best course of action.

The Color of Justice Imagine you are Emma Faye Stewart, a thirty-year-old, single African American mother of two who was arrested as part of a drug sweep in Hearne, Texas.1 All but one of the people arrested were African American. You are innocent. After a week in jail, you have no one to care for your two small children and are eager to get home. Your court-appointed attorney urges you to plead guilty to a drug distribution charge, saying the prosecutor has offered probation. You refuse, steadfastly proclaiming your innocence. Finally, after almost a month in jail, you decide to plead guilty so you can return home to your children. Unwilling to risk a trial and years of imprisonment, you are sentenced to ten years probation and ordered to pay $1,000 in fines, as well as court and probation costs. You are also now branded a drug felon. You are no longer eligible for food stamps; you may be discriminated against in employment; you cannot vote for at least twelve years; and you are about to be evicted from public housing. Once homeless, your children will be taken from you and put in foster care. A judge eventually dismisses all cases against the defendants who did not plead guilty. At trial, the judge finds that the entire sweep was based on the testimony of a single informant who lied to the prosecution. You, however, are still a drug felon, homeless, and desperate to regain custody of your children.

The number of those under some jurisdiction of the “carceral state” today approaches nearly 7.5 million if we consider those “doing time” in an outer prison of regimented life, under supervision of the court system, exposed to unannounced visits from parole and probation officers, mandatory urine tests, home detention, or the invisible tether of electronic bracelets. Again, recall, just since the late 1970s, the prison population has grown seven-fold,[12] constituting what the National Criminal Justice Commission in 1996 was already describing as “the largest and most frenetic correctional build-up of any country in the history of the world.

Domestic violence in Arizona can be considered a violent offense, and its penalties can be severe. You might face jail time, probation, community service, or fines depending on the charges. Additionally, your life will be affected, and you may not be able to rent an apartment or obtain a professional license. You could also lose your gun rights under federal law. In Arizona, a court can grant a restraining order against a person if a judge finds the defendant to be a danger to the public.

I couldn’t find a lawyer in Esmerelda who wanted to touch it. I found a young lawyer in Belasco, over in the next county. He poked around for a month. I can’t remember all he said, but I think I can remember the important parts. My husband had to give an account of his … his stewardship to the probate judge, and file reports with the court, because I was a minor, I guess. He made three reports, five years after daddy died, and ten years after, and fifteen years after. The last was a final report, five years ago, claiming the estate was exhausted. The judge is dead. Four years ago they built the new courthouse. The records are in the dead files and they aren’t even indexed, and there’s no way of telling if the records are there or not.

Imagine you are Emma Faye Stewart, a thirty-year-old, single African American mother of two who was arrested as part of a drug sweep in Hearne, Texas.1 All but one of the people arrested were African American. You are innocent. After a week in jail, you have no one to care for your two small children and are eager to get home. Your court-appointed attorney urges you to plead guilty to a drug distribution charge, saying the prosecutor has offered probation. You refuse, steadfastly proclaiming your innocence. Finally, after almost a month in jail, you decide to plead guilty so you can return home to your children. Unwilling to risk a trial and years of imprisonment, you are sentenced to ten years probation and ordered to pay $1,000 in fines, as well as court and probation costs. You are also now branded a drug felon. You are no longer eligible for food stamps; you may be discriminated against in employment; you cannot vote for at least twelve years; and you are about to be evicted from public housing. Once homeless, your children will be taken from you and put in foster care.

James Dennison Solicitors with Carmel Finnegan of Abbeyfeale, Co. Limerick, Ireland, are trusted solicitors whose legal services include:Personal Injuries, Birth Injuries law,Court work,Divorces,Separations,Wills,Probate,Property & more. James (Jim) Dennison Solicitors was established in 1961, and is a progressive practice that takes full advantage of today's information and communication technologies. They act for clients locally, nationally and internationally.

Two young guys are picked up by the cops for smoking dope. The following Friday they appear before the judge. The judge says, “You seem like nice young men, and I’d like to give you a second chance rather than jail time. I want you to go out this weekend and try to show others the evils of drug use and get them to give up drugs forever. I’ll see you back in court Monday.” Monday, the two guys are in court, and the judge says to the first one, “How did you do over the weekend?” “Well, your honor, I persuaded seventeen people to give up drugs forever.” “Seventeen people? That’s wonderful. What did you tell them?” “I used a diagram, your honor. I drew two circles like this...O o. . . and told them the big circle is your brain before drugs and the small circle is your brain after drugs.” “That’s admirable,” says the judge. “You are free on probation.” Turning to the second boy, he says, “And you, how did you do?” “Well, your honor, I persuaded a hundred and fifty-six people to give up drugs forever.” “A hundred and fifty-six people! That’s amazing! How did you manage to do that?” “Well, I used a similar approach,” he says, also drawing a large and small circle. “I said this is your asshole before prison...

Speaking of which, on a lighter note, a rather odd case distributed in the world press on October 10, 2003 related the story of Roland Thein, age 54, of the Berlin suburb of Lichtenrade, who had trained his black sheepdog, named Adolf, to raise his front paw in a Hitler salute. Thein was stopped and questioned by police after he and his dog had been seen saluting together in the vicinity of a local school. A group of alien residents observed the antics and reported Thein to the police. Moments after police arrived, Thein repeated the little trick for their entertainment, ordering, “Adolf, sitz! Mach den Gruss!” [Adolf, sit, give the salute], and the dog obediently obliged by hoisting his right paw in the air. The police were not amused and took Thein and his dog into custody. German prosecutors charged Thein with “using the characteristic marks of an unconstitutional organization,” - a punishable offense that falls under Paragraph 86a of the Federal Criminal Code, which forbids neo-Nazi activities, and prescribes a penalty of three years’ imprisonment, if convicted. A spokesperson for the Berlin criminal court declared that “Adolf” would not be called as a witness. Thein’s attorney, Nicole Burmann-Zarske, told reporters, “Adolf is a very sweet dog. He loves cookies, just like his owner.” A friend of the accused later informed reporters that the dog had since been struck by a car and suffered a serious injury to its right paw, adding, “It’s all bent, he can’t stick it out anymore.” Thein was fortunate to be let off with probation.

Countrywide mediation offer family, wills, probate, civil, workplace and commercial mediation across the UK. Our mediators truly care about our client and deliver the best services. Mediation is much better than court and resolves disputes quicker and costs less but importantly you control any decisions made in the meetings. If your not sure then contact us today to find out more.

Citing religious freedom as a defense, she pled guilty to lesser charges, and got probation.14 Weaponized religious freedom looks an awful lot like a coat hanger.

During the past few weeks, I’d begun to feel that there might actually be an end to the endless cycle of penalties and fees. I’d spent an entire year trying to earn back my freedoms, but I now found myself stumbling through a set of revolving doors that would lead me back to square one all over again. Fines, counseling, court, AA, DT, probation, community service, licensing fees, impound fees, license suspension, countless hours walking and bumming rides back and forth between all these penalties. The weight of this mistake felt like a millstone tied around my neck, dragging me deeper and deeper into that pit of despair called hopelessness, the one from whence I’d come, the one I’d fought so hard to climb out of.

Mikhailova anticipates they might detain me after I have passed through the turnstile, that is, after formally crossing the border. I would then be taken away quickly. So she will go through first, then I, then Yulia. these are important issues we need to discuss if we are to be prepared for every eventuality, but I do not actually believe I will face any threats on the day of arrival. I have long ago given up trying to analyze and predict the behavior of Putin and the Kremlin. There is just too much irrationality in it. Putin has been in power for more than twenty years, and like that of any other leader in history who has stuck around that long, his head is filled with messianic obsessions, all that "No Putin, No Russia" stuff, openly proclaimed from the rostrum of the State Duma. The real balance of power between the sundry groups in the Kremlin is also unknown, no matter what the political analysts choose to write. So it is futile to try calculating what "they" might do next, and we have to do what we think is right. We have, however, a general understanding of how the media and public opinion function. More or less all we know about Putin's technique for ruling is that he conducts endless opinion polls and takes account of the results in his planning. Arresting me at the airport would not be in his interests. Of all the scenarios for isolating me, this is the one most favorable for me. In the first place, the European Court has already ruled on the Yves Rocher case, recognizing that I am innocent. I make that point during our discussion: "Are you trying to tell me they will arrest me on a charge that has already been ruled against by the European Court of Human Rights? You must be joking." Arresting me for "failing to observe the conditions of a suspended sentence" would be too cynical, even by the standards of the Kremlin. First they try to poison me, and then, when I am in a coma and in intensive care, they announce, "Oh, look, he has failed to register with the police. Let's imprison him on that county." If they try it, they will immediately lose the battle for the first bastion of public opinion, the journalists who follow closely how the situation is developing. My period of probation in a case they brought in 2014 ended, after numerous extensions, on December 30, 2020, eighteen days ago. So it is no longer possible to revoke my suspended sentence. Obviously, no such trifling matter as the law will ever deter a Russian judge, for whom the only thing that matters is the telephone call in which his boss gives him his orders. But why make everything difficult, why attract attention, and, most important, why whip up sympathy for me with blatantly illegal harassment? At his most recent press conference Putin referred to me dismissively with a phrase that had clearly been though through and characterizes his latest tactic: "Who cares about him?" So would it not make the best sense to operate within that framework and ignore my return? Reduce a big deal to a puff of smoke? Instead of providing journalists with the anticipated great shots of me being arrested, let them have a video of me coming out of the airport with my luggage, unsure what to do with myself while waiting for a taxi? Then, after a couple of weeks, when the fuss is over, call me in for questioning on the latest fabricated criminal charge. A couple of months after that, impose house arrest. Three months or so after that, move me to a prison with a short sentence, then renew it. Then just keep me there. Everyone will have gotten used to it by then. Why would anyone protest when I'd been in prison for ages? No, Putin is nuts, but he's not going to be crazy enough to create a major incident by arresting me at the airport.