From Tim Lahrman–Judge disrespects a disabled and gets disciplined for it

One of the rights a disabled person has is the right to ask for a “reasonable accommodation”  and this would include therapy animals, interpreters, and whatever else would help the disabled in court that was not expensive or requires extensive changes.

However see below what this judge did:

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/jqc-files-charge-against-st–joseph-judge-peter-nemeth/PARAMS/article/29470

Not only did he deny a disabled person, but he did it in a rude and insolent way, and amazingly enough, he was disciplined for this violation of the ADA.

 

Thanks for the article Tim.

JoAnne

2 thoughts on “From Tim Lahrman–Judge disrespects a disabled and gets disciplined for it

  1. He is a fake a liar and a fraud. 1 Mr. Lahrman asked the court to appoint a guardian ad litem and counsel to represent
    him in this cause. The court denied the request as duplicative because Mr. Lahrman told the
    court that he was represented by a state-appointed guardian. The court then asked the alleged
    state-appointed guardian whether he intended to appear on Mr. Lahrman’s behalf in this suit.
    See FED. R. CIV. P. 17(c) (A representative, next friend, or guardian ad litem may sue on behalf of
    an incompetent person.). That person informed the court that he had been appointed Mr.
    Lahrman’s guardian ad litem for the sole purpose of representing Mr. Lahrman’s interests in a
    1987 case in Allen Superior Court, and his appointment for that purpose concluded twenty-five
    years ago (although Mr. Lahrman has haunted him ever since). Without a state-appointed
    guardian (and with his motion for a guardian already denied), Mr. Lahrman proceeds pro se.

    • Do you have the transcripts to support your contention that Mr. Lahrman said he was withdrawing his motion for counsel? The federal district courts appoint pro bono counsel all the time.
      It is my understanding that Mr. Larham was adjudicted disabled more than 25 years ago, so his guardian should have helped him with all of this. If the guardian was unwilling or resigned, it is up to the state to appoint another guardian or delare him competent and dismiss his guardianship. In any case, JMHO, he was at one time disabled, the diability has not be lifted, the district court had a duty under the ADA to help him out, perhaps even if he refused help because GAL’s and Guardians are supposed to act “in the best interests of the disabled” which means the state has to provide him with competent, honest help, including appointing pro bono counsel to sort things out for him. If still under a disability, the state cannot stand by and let him become homeless. Once the State of Indiana invoked Parens Patrie, it has a duty to make sure he had housing, medical care and food, at a bare minimum. Moreover, a disabled legally cannot proceed pro se, even if he wanted proceed pro se. Does this help you understand better what is going on? Thanks for the comment. I will probably post this all as a good explanation of what a guardianship is and how once the state undertakes the Parens Patrie obligation to protect a disabled and always “act in the ward’s best interest”, it must do so until formally discharge.
      Also, IMHO, it is fairly shameful that a disabled person with a guardian has been evicted from him home to the street. The guardianship process is specifically designed to help the disabled manage things or manage his affairs for him so he will never be left homeless. I think it’s fairly shameful that no state attorney nor any federal attorney or those courts ensured that a disabled person was not evicted and his home foreclosed. That’s their job.
      Again, I am not aware of any discharge order of guardianship, so please send one along.
      PS–you comment that a disabled person is a fake, a liar and a fraud is interesting, because once a person is adjudicated disabled, that’s how they got into that situation–not having proper mental capacity to act as a normal person does, they have a mental disease or defect or some incapacity that prevents them from property caring for person and/or estate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s