Friday, November 29, 2013

Elder Law Attorney Sued for Wrongful Death of His Father

This is another article submitted by our foreign correspondent Janet Phelan. 

We have been following the corruption in the California Probate Courts for years now. 

This is another installment to document the crimes that are handed down with impunity!  Ernest L. Moore

Redlands Probate Attorney J. David Horspool has been sued for the wrongful death of his father, Raymond Horspool, who died under questionable circumstances in 2011.

After putting his father under a conservatorship in 2006, Horspool and sister Margaret Updike proceeded to take a number of actions which alarmed some of their siblings. Raymond was married and living with his wife, Winifred, when conservator Updike had him taken from his home while Winifred was out shopping.

In some states that would be called kidnapping. However, as Raymond was at that juncture a ward of his daughter, Margaret, the court overlooked this breach.

When son William Horspool became concerned that his father was subsequently being neglected, he took some photographs which allegedly showed Raymond Horspool lying in excrement soaked bedding. San Bernardino Probate Judge Michael Welch ordered the photographs destroyed and then issued a Restraining Order against William. In a brazen detour from due process, William Horspool was never granted a hearing on the Restraining order.

The wrongful death lawsuit, filed by Raymond Horspool’s daughter, Barbara Howard, names attorney Horspool, sister Margaret Updike, brother Raymond Horspool, Jr. and Integrated Care Community as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that due to the actions of the defendants, Raymond Horspool suffered malnutrition and starvation. The suit also alleges that J. David Horspool, Margaret Updike and Raymond Horspool, Jr refused to coordinate the replacement of the pacemaker for their father, instead letting it run down.

This reporter has obtained correspondence from cardiologist Dr. Malcolm Pond, dated February 25, 2011, in which he states that he checked the pacemaker in January of 2011 and that it was nearing the end of its charge. He then states that “Margaret has decided for Ray that it is inappropriate to proceed with pacemaker generator replacement...” He further states that “I respect Margaret's decision not to proceed with pacemaker generator replacement, and support this decision.”

The letter concludes with Dr. Pond stating that Barbara Howard and William Horspool have no say in this matter.

Raymond Horspool died shortly thereafter, on March 13, 2011.

The Riverside County Coroner's report concerning Raymond Horspool's demise increases concerns as to the nature and cause of the elderly man's death. Although noting that Raymond Horspool had been on Morphine and Ativan at the time of his death, the coroner refused to do a toxicology exam on the body, overriding the request by Barbara Howard. The potentiating affects of the mixture of these two drugs are known to cause respiratory failure. In addition, patients who are being given Morphine often decline to eat.

Howard maintains that her father's body weighed 137 pounds at time of death, a dramatic loss from his usual weight of around 200 pounds. Strangely, the Coroner failed to list the weight of the body in his report, a departure from generally accepted reporting requirements.

When asked why the report failed to contain mandatory body weight information, the Deputy Coroner became combative.

The battle over Raymond Horspool's assets predate his death. In 2003, prior to the initiation of the conservatorship, Raymond had deeded a piece of property to his son, William. J. David Horspool subsequently persuaded Judge Welch to revoke this grant deed. As a result of this revocation of ownership, William, a retired peace officer, his wife Kelly and three young children were evicted and rendered homeless.

In her objection to the First and Final Report of the Executor, Howard alleges that “It also appears from the court records Ms. Margaret Updike, J. David Horspool and Raymond P. Horspool, Jr. have caused serious and irreparable harm to the Estate of Raymond P. Horspool, Sr. “ Her objections state that “Several beneficiaries have tried without success to obtain the records of the ESTATE and the FAMILY TRUST. None of the following beneficiaries have been able to ascertain exactly what was ESTATE or FAMILY TRUST property. It has been impossible to determine what has happen[ed] to this property.”

Strangely, Raymond Horspool's Will was lost by the law offices of Horspool and Horspool, according to the court record.

Attorney J. David Horspool was for many years the attorney of record for conservator Melodie Scott. Scott has been linked to a number of deaths by morphine.

The wrongful death suit will be heard in Riverside Superior Court. Attorney J. David Horspool did not reply to calls from this reporter concerning the allegations contained in the lawsuit.

Janet Phelan
Elder Law Attorney Sued for Wrongful Death of His Father

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Is The U.S. Supreme Court In Contempt Of Black America?

Chief Justice John Roberts

            The U.S. Supreme court ruled on June 25, 2013 by a Writ of Certiorari to “invalidate” section 4 of the Voter Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. This section provides crucial protections for Black Americans against states that have a long history of promulgating racist obstructions to voting or running for office. Chief Justice John Roberts, delivered the Supreme Court’s opinion in the  SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL, case. As stated in the Supreme Court Syllabus for this case:
 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Kat­zenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309. Section 2 of the Act, which bans any “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color,” 42 U. S. C. §1973(a), applies nationwide, is permanent, and is not at issue in this case.

Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, provides that the judicial Power of the united States , shall be vested in one supreme court. The supreme court has jurisdiction to interpret issues of the U.S. Constitution and statutes that Congress has enacted pursuant to its limited powers under the U.S. Constitution.

One can interpret the current actions of the U.S. Supreme Court by some of the current theories of Jurisprudence. I believe that our present U.S. Supreme court justices are operating under Legal Realism. “The proponents of Legal Realism assert that judges decide cases based on factors other than logic and preexisting rules, such as economic and sociological factors.” 

It is my opinion that their ruling is an example of an Evolutionary Approach to constitutional interpretation in which judges seek to determine the underlying, purpose that the drafters had in mind at the time they wrote the law and the modern-day option that best advances that purpose.

Voting fraud is rampant throughout this country. Even the presidential elections are nothing but a staged TV media show to make it look like we are living in a “free” country. Our leaders are not elected by the U.S. Citizenry but are selected by the 1%. These elections are just staged TV shows to make it look like American citizens are electing these unscrupulous politicians into office. It was very obvious that our last President George Walker Bush, was not duly elected as president in his first term or especially the second term. His “selection” into office was just another hostile take over by the Bush Family Regime and “Right Wing” Republicans. He even got the lone African American Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, of the U.S. Supreme Court to authorize his election “selection” results that put Bush into office. His election was highly criticized for corruption and for obvious attempts to suppress Black American voter turnout.

The U.S. Supreme court does not have jurisdiction to decide the outcome of elections from the states for the American people. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas did not mention this fact and still has not even tried to do anything about it! This was obvious bias on partisan lines for Republicans by Clarence Thomas. Subsequently, the Supreme Court did nothing to oppose any of the criminal acts by the Bush Administration and has done nothing to end the voter fraud and voter manipulations that dominate our electoral process in this country.

As reported by the article published on the RT Website, “The regions covered by the part of the Act that was struck down, Section 4, have, in recent years, been twice as likely as those not covered to have proven violations under other sections of the Act,” wrote The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson.

George Walker Bush, just like his father George H. W. Bush, has conducted a campaign to “dismantle” the Civil Rights advancements that were gained for Black Americans by 1965. I feel that the executive branch of our government is using the Supreme Court in the Judicial Branch of our government to continue their degradation of Civil Rights for Black Americans that is guaranteed by our constitution.

The Supreme Court’s justification of their ruling states in essence, there is no problem because more blacks are voting than back in 1965 and there are more blacks in political office now than back in 1965.This seems to be some kind of “Judicial Propaganda” to me and does not reflect true statistics or reality. I do know that voter turn out in California for Black Americans is at an all time low because there are no viable candidates for Blacks to vote for. They say that there are more Blacks in office now than back in 1964. This is true, but these so-called African Americans in political office have no real substance and will not stand up for Black Americans at all! This can be seen by our current President Barack Obama, who will not even say “Black Americans” when he is running for office, has not mentioned any of the atrocities that have been committed against Black Americans by our judicial system and law enforcement agencies. Obama demonstrated during his campaign that he is committed to do more for Mexico and Mexicans than American citizens. That is why African Americans are worse off now than back in 1913!

The Supreme Court’s opinion also states that voter protections for Black Americans should be based on current conditions than what was prevalent back in 1965. It seems to me that this opinion of the constitution is keeping in the Evolutionary Approach of constitutional interpretational jurisprudence, in that they are trying to take current social issues into consideration as a basis for the  requirement that the federal government “preclear” states or local changes in election rules that could potentially prevent minorities from voting. If this were true, then they should be trying to add more protections for Black Americans for voter rights and to assure that viable Black American candidates run for office that will stand up of the rights of Black African Americans than to just take away all protections.