Court action

April 3, 2019: Objection to and Motion to Strike Intervention Pleadings, filed by attorney Bill Leighner for Guardian Tonya Barina, and paid for by Charlie Thrash’s liquidated assets

April 3, 2019: Filed by Bill Leighner for paid for by the liquidation of Charlie Thrash’s approximately $3 Million of assets – all overseen by court-appointed Guardian of Charlie’s Money – estranged grand-niece, Tonya Barina, who’d never met Charlie until the day she filed application to put him under her control via guardianship – Nov 15, 2018 – and was immediately granted that right by then-judge Tom Rickhoff (commonly known amongst Bexar Counties’ long-suffering populace as ‘Tom Rip-off’, for Rickhoff’s years of devoted service to seeing Bexar county seniors and their heirs receive as little of their property upon their death, as possible.)

This document, drafted by the esteemed-by-Hearst-Newspaper’s Bill Leighner, Esq. who lets his clients’ Wills be eaten by his dog, Linus, then makes his clients pay his legal fees to attempt to probate a half-consumed Will that has been chewed into bits of paper by the attorney’s – Bill Leighner’s — dog, so evidently Bill thinks nothing of misstating the law to the court, and letting the erroneous & incorrect statement of the law, stand as if it were valid.

  1. Check out page 3, paragraph 11, of this PDF where Leighner blithely forgets clause 1051.104(a)(5) which gives Laura Martinez-Thrash, as the holder of a Durable Power of Attorney signed by the Ward (Charlie Thrash), gives Laura legal standing & the right, from the start, to “intervene” on Charlie’s behalf, in all matters pertaining to Charlie Thrash.

    This right of Laura Martinez-Thrash, because Laura is the holder of a DPOA signed by the Ward – whether or not she is blood-related to grantor of the DPOA — is what Hearst Newspaper-approved attorney Bill Leighner has conveniently ‘forgotten’ to inform the court when Leighner writes in Paragraph 11, towards the top of page 3, when Leighner writes “…none of the Respondents, Laura, Phil Ross, or Brittany, are entitled to received notice under Section 1051.104 of the Texas Estates Code.

    This is a misstatement by two-thirds (we note, the majority) of the argument, that “none” of the three Respondents named are eligible to receive notice under Section 1051.104 of the Texas Estates Code, is incorrect, because Laura Martinez-Thrash is clearly legally obligated to receive notices, according to Section 1051.104(a)(5) – the clause Leighner doesn’t ever seem to remember, or acknowledge its existence.

  2. But the damage Leighner does in denying Laura Martinez-Thrash her right to be a party to any guardianship of Charlie Thrash, hardly stops there. Still in paragraph 11, page 3, Leighner uses his misinformed and two-thirds stated version of Section 1051.104 to
    1. Mis-label eighteen (18) of Phil Ross’ proper legal pleadings on behalf of his client Laura Martinez-Thrash, as “Improper Pleadings” (sic);
    2. Mis-label and removes legal rights and remedies from all three of the Respondents – Laura, Phil, and Brittany – when Laura has rights and standing to participate and have legal standing in any guardianship issue involving Charlie Thrash, mis-labeling Laura as an “Intervenor” (sic); and
    3. Based on (1) Mis-labeling Phil Ross’ proper legal pleadings on behalf of his clients and (2) Mis-labeling and the removal of legal rights and remedies from Laura Martinez-Thrash, Leighner demands the legal record be stripped of factual documents that disagree with the court-sponsored misstatements that pervade the guardianship trial of Charlie Thrash, especially as conducted by Oscar Kazen.
  3. In paragraph 12, top of page 5 Leighner continues his misstatements — we struggle to find a reason to not use the word ‘prevaricate’ — with Leighner’s omission and misinformation passed to Judge Kazen in this Motion to Strike “Intervention Pleadings,” (sic), when Leighner omits sub-paragraph (d) of Section 1055.003 of the Texas Estates Code. Section 1055.003(d), one sentence that clearly gives Laura Martinez-Thrash the right to be included in any guardianship proceeding simply by Laura holding a POA signed by the proposed Ward, which was exactly the situation Laura – and the court – was in.  Laura is expressly not required by Section 1055.003(d) to file any motion to intervene in order to have full legal rights to participate in any guardianship proceedings.

IF you’re an honest attorney who’s also accurately stated the entirety of 1051.104(a)(5), or a sitting probate judge, expected to know when a clause of the law is not being presented by one of the parties in the case, then you’ll never let this basic miscarriage of justice and judicial railroading occur.

But IF the judge refuses to acknowledge that the prejudiced attorney has poisoned the court against his adversary by misstating the facts of the law, and the judge is himself prejudiced against anyone that might disrupt his political fundraising activities from the court-appointed guardian who’s married to the Mayor – and they live 2+ blocks away from them…. Maybe that’s why we’ve ended up with Charlie Thrash being removed from his own home in the bedroom community of Shavano Park, Texas.

Such a basic point of law of knowing that the holder of a Power of Attorney is entitled to be included in all Guardianship proceedings, is something Bill Leighner, a practicing probate lawyer, should automatically know, but then, reputable and honest probate lawyers don’t let their dog eat their client’s Will, and make their client’s bear the cost of the subsequent litigation to repair the damage done by the lawyer’s dog to the client’s case, do they?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.