LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY D. MUELLER, LLC

Per The Blog of Legal Times (an ALM Publication):

"The constitutionality of a key part of the nation's Voting Rights Act appeared in serious trouble in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices heard arguments over Congress' 2006 reauthorization of the act.

"In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, the court is asked whether Congress exceeded its authority under the 15th and 14th Amendments when it re-authorized Section 5 under a formula that the challengers contend is outdated and intrusive on state sovereignty. Section 5 currently requires nine states, primarily in the South, and parts of seven others to have any changes in their voting practices pre-cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal district court in Washington, D.C. The formula in Section 4(b) determines which jurisdictions must submit to Section 5.

"While a large crowd rallied in support of the act on the sidewalk in front of the Court, intense questioning ensued inside the courtroom."

...

"Justice Antonin Scalia noted that when Section 5 was adopted in 1965, there was double-digit opposition to it in the Senate and with each reauthorization, the number of opposing votes decreased until there was no Senate opposition in 2006.

"'I think that's attributable to a phenomenon that has been called the perpetuation of racial entitlements,' he told Verrilli. 'Once you enact them, it's very hard to get out. I'm fairly confident this will be re-enacted in perpetuity' unless a court steps in to examine the justification. 'The concern here is this is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.'

"Verrilli said it would be 'extraordinary' to look behind the judgment of Congress in 'a sort of motive analysis.' He added, 'These are predictive judgments about human behavior and voting that Congress knows much about.' And the Constitution, he said, expressly gives Congress the enforcement power in this area."

More after the jump...

Per The National Law Journal:

"In a rare and forceful slap down of a federal prosecutor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, devoted a nearly five-page statement on Monday to the prosecutor's racially charged remark during a drug conspiracy trial in Texas.

"The U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Calhoun v. U.S., but Sotomayor wrote separately 'to dispel any doubt whether the court's denial of certiorari should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal prosecutor's racially charged remark. It should not.'"

"The remark came during cross-examination of Bongani Charles Calhoun, who claimed he did not know that the friend he had accompanied on a road trip, along with the friend's associates, were about to engage in a drug transaction. Calhoun testified that he detached himself from the group when his friend arrived at their hotel room with a bag of money. On cross, Sam Ponder, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Texas, repeatedly pressed Calhoun on why did not want to be in the hotel room. The judge eventually ordered the prosecutor to move on, at which point the prosecutor asked:

"'You've got African-Americans, you've got Hispanics, you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you—a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, 'This is a drug deal?''"

...

"[Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing, with Justice Stephen Breyer joining] called it 'deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century.' And Sotomayor also found 'troubling' the government's actions on appeal in the case.

"'Before the Fifth Circuit, the Government failed to recognize the wrongfulness of the prosecutor's question, instead calling it only ‘impolitic' and arguing that ‘even assuming the question crossed the line,' it did not prejudice the outcome," Sotomayor wrote. "In this Court, the Solicitor General has more appropriately conceded that the ‘prosecutor's racial remark was unquestionably improper.'Yet this belated acknowledgment came only after the Solicitor General waived the Government's response to the petition at first, leaving the Court to direct a response.'

"She ended by writing, 'I hope never to see a case like this again.'"

Full article after the jump...

As a follow-up to https://www.gdm-law.com/index.php?page=blog&display=85, and per the New Jersey Law Journal, the New Jersey Supreme Court " is set to decide whether an unsigned copy of a purportedly executed will can be admitted to probate when the original document cannot be found."

From the article:

"In In re Estate of Richard Ehrlich, A-43-12, a Burlington trusts and estates lawyer left behind a probate battle over his own assets. When he died at age 74 in 2009, a 14-page "Last Will and Testament" was found was in a drawer in his home, which an appeals court described as "full of clutter and a mess," like his office.

"The purported will, dated May 20, 2000, was on traditional legal paper and had Erhlich's name and law office address printed in the margins but was not signed by him or witnessed. No original of the will was found among his possessions. A handwritten note indicated the original had been mailed to his friend, Harry Van Sciver, a local banker named as executor, who unfortunately had died in July 2005.

"Ehrlich had prepared the unsigned will right before life-threatening surgery in 2000, together with a power of attorney and health care proxy that had the same paper and date but were witnessed by the Burlington County surrogate."

...

"Burlington County General Equity Judge Michael Hogan granted Jonathan's request to probate the unsigned will[.]"

"A divided Appellate Division panel affirmed, based on a 2004 law that allows probate for wills that do not meet the formal criteria — a writing signed by the executor and two witnesses — so long as there exists clear and convincing evidence of the testator's intent.

"Judges Anthony Parrillo and Carmen Alvarez found Jonathan met that standard because Ehrlich clearly prepared the document, which expressed "sufficient testamentary intent" and was "a professionally prepared will and complete in every respect except for a date and its execution.""

...

"Judge Stephen Skillman, the dissenter in Ehrlich, was also on the Macool panel, but he repudiated his earlier stance, stating that "upon further reflection," Macool was "too expansive" in that it "seems to indicate" in dictum that an unsigned draft will can be probated if the putative testator gave "final assent" to it. His view in Ehrlich was that the law "only allows the admission to probate of a defectively executed will, not an unexecuted will.""

More after the jump...

Per The New Jersey Law Journal:

"The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Monday recommended passage of a bill that would expand the Rape Shield Law to include civil actions...The bill, A-101, would require that a defendant in a civil case establish specific facts showing good cause for seeking discovery of information concerning the plaintiff's sexual conduct with persons other than the defendant, and also showing that the information sought is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

More after the jump...

Per The New Jersey Law Journal:

"The state Senate on Thursday confirmed 15 of Gov. Chris Christie's recent nominations to the Superior Court bench, the same day they were vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"The nominations went through both the committee and the full Senate without opposition.

"Five of the new judges are from Monmouth County, two each are from Morris and Somerset, and one each are from Bergen, Camden, Hudson, Middlesex, Passaic and Union.

"They will likely be assigned to those counties once they are sworn in, though the state's chief justice has authority to situate judges in any vicinage."

Confirmed Nominees:

• Peter Bogaard, R-Chester (Morris)
• Bradford Bury, D-Watchung (Somerset)
• Maritza Byrne, R-Towaco (Morris)
• J. Randall Corman, R-Sayreville (Middlesex)
• Angela White Dalton, R-Howell (Monmouth)
• Mitzy Galis-Menendez, R-Cliffside Park (Bergen)
• Katie Gummer, R-Rumson (Monmouth)
• Daniel Lindemann, R-Wayne (Passaic)
• Arnold Natali Jr., D-Little Silver (Monmouth)
• Michael O'Neill, Branchburg (Somerset)
• Joseph Oxley, R-Red Bank (Monmouth)
• Nesle Rodriguez, D-Jersey City (Hudson)
• Donald Stein, D-Haddon Heights (Camden)
• James Wilson, D-Roselle (Union)
• Mara Zazzali-Hogan, D-Shrewsbury (Monmouth)

Full article and biopics after the jump...

New Jersey Chief Justice Stuart Rabner today announced a call to volunteers to monitor the well-being of the state’s most vulnerable citizens, the elderly and disabled who rely on legal guardians to manage their financial and health-related decisions. The volunteers will be the foundation of a novel and significant initiative.

“The Guardianship Monitoring Program is a volunteer initiative that grows out of the need to ensure that friends, neighbors and family members who are incapacitated are treated with the dignity and integrity they deserve,” Chief Justice Rabner said.

“Census data and health care experts tell us that the population of elderly and disabled Americans will grow dramatically in coming years. We must take steps now to meet the increased need for protection with an enhanced level of oversight of legal guardians,” he added.

Every legal guardian in New Jersey is appointed by the court and is responsible for making decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person about personal and medical care, meals, transportation, and even where the person lives. Guardians take control of the person’s assets, manage budgets, pay debts, and make all financial and investment decisions.

Legal guardians can be family members, friends, attorneys and others. They not only manage the affairs of people they assist, but also must report annually on the financial status and the general well-being of the individual in their charge. Written reports are filed each year with the county surrogate.

The annual reports are designed to provide the courts with key information on the quality of financial management. Volunteers will work directly in county surrogates’ offices to review guardian files and the annual reports.

In recent months, county surrogates and court administrators have met to discuss the program. “We greatly appreciate the cooperation of the county surrogates in this initiative,” Rabner noted.

“Experience has shown us that although most legal guardians are caring and responsible individuals, that is not always the case. Unfortunately, some guardians have exploited the very people they promised to help. Because government resources are simply not adequate to provide the level of detailed review that each annual report deserves, we are enlisting volunteers to join the Guardianship Monitoring Program and help out,” Rabner said.

The Judiciary has developed a new statewide database to track all guardianships and ensure that reviews will be conducted in a timely and thorough manner. Until now, the review of annual reports has varied from county to county, and some reviews were minimal. As part of the Guardianship Monitoring Program, with the help of volunteers the new computer program will record every court-ordered legal guardianship and track the monitoring of each case.

Recent cases in New Jersey illustrate the risks to incapacitated persons when reports are not carefully examined. In one case, an attorney-guardian stole $2.6 million from 56 clients. In another, a minister-guardian stole more than $200,000 from 19 clients. Another lawyer is under indictment for allegedly stealing $800,000 from 60 clients.

In addition to the computer system, the Judiciary is hiring additional professional level staff members to work on and coordinate the project. These staff members will have overall responsibility for the implementation and administration of the program.

Volunteers will receive detailed training from court staff on how to read and analyze the guardians’ annual reports and how to gather data for the new computer system. With the new database, missing or incomplete reports will be easier to identify. Volunteer monitors will flag inconsistent or incomplete financial information, which will be reported to judges, and possibly prosecutors, for appropriate action.

The program, which is expected to be statewide by November 2013, will begin in three counties – Hunterdon, Passaic and Mercer. Volunteers in other counties will be kept informed about the start of the program in their counties. Information about the program and how to volunteer can be obtained on the Judiciary’s website, njcourts.com, by calling toll-free 855-406-1262, or by emailing njguardianship.mailbox@judiciary.state.nj.us.

Rabner credited Judge Margaret McVeigh, presiding judge for General Equity of the Passaic Vicinage, Kevin Wolfe, assistant director, Civil Practice Division, Kristi Robinson, Civil Practice liaison, Jack McCarthy, director, Information Technology Office, Siva Appavoo, project manager, and Mark Talbot, lead business analyst, for their leadership on this initiative.

“We need a host of volunteers to help ensure that individuals who cannot take care of themselves are not taken advantage of by others. Please step forward to help us achieve that noble aim,” Chief Justice Rabner said.