The answer is simple: a conservatorship restricts the rights of the conserved person. As such, that person is entitled by statute to have an attorney represent his or her interests to be sure that, among other things, a) the conservatorship is actually necessary; b) that it is the least restrictive means of assisting the person and protecting their assets; and c) that the person petitioning to serve as conservator is fit to do so.

My job is to explain to my client that a petition has been submitted to the court and if granted, how having a conservator will effect their lives. In many cases, my client is unaware that he or she is suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease and can not understand why assistance with their daily living and financial affairs is needed. To assist the court in making a sound determination in the case of an involuntary conservatorship, the law requires that a physician’s evaluation be submitted to the court detailing the client’s physical and mental condition. Such an evaluation must be current within 45 days of the scheduled court hearing.

Under our State law, a person who is age 18 or older and who is of sound mind, has the right to name a conservator for his or her future incapacity. Because there are many reasons that a person might one day need the services of a conservator, it is important to consider executing such a document — while you are still able to do so. A licensed attorney can draft this legal document for you.

As I listened to Scrabble purists express their outrage at the mere thought of anyone having the audacity to score points for a proper noun, I was reminded of the night I was invited by my oldest son and his friends — then age 19 — to play what they called “College” Scrabble. My opponents were intelligent college students with high GPAs who were skilled spellers with serious vocabularies. The rules called for the players to spell words phonetically. For example, ‘COLLEGE’ might be spelled ‘KALIJ’ (or something similar). We were also allowed to use slang words. I participated out of curiosity only, so the purists in my readership need not bombard me with nasty comments. I’ll always be a Scrabble purist at heart. Still, I admit that I found myself laughing more than I ever had during a Scrabble game. It was an experience. Besides, those college kids thought I was cool.

What does all that have to do with the law? Nothing, really.

Although when I think about it, perhaps there are some similarities between changing the rules of Scrabble and the law. Consider our own state statutes. They are the rules that dictate how we, as citizens, live in Connecticut. Everything from how to divorce to how to dispose of hazardous waste. (Which, on occasion, may be one in the same. But I digress). Our statutes encompass several lengthy volumes and serve as the blueprint for judges in every courthouse across the state. But those statutes — or rules — are always changing.

How was that for a nice segue?

I posted the other night on Connecticut’s proposed “Sexting” Bill, which seeks to lessen the penalty for consenting minors who engage in that activity. Currently, our statutes make it a felony to participate in sexting. It’s a lot like playing the word “Scrabble” on a Scrabble board. Bad, bad, bad.

The rules of Scrabble haven’t changed since the game was conceived in 1948. That’s likely because the rules make sense, they work, and everyone is happy playing by them. Laws, on the other hand, don’t always make sense, they don’t always work, and not everyone is happy following them.

Today, it was back to work. Do you have any idea how much mail can pile up in a week? Or how many voice mails can accumulate even when your outgoing message informs people that you won’t be returning calls for 10 days? Then there’s all those e-mails. Whew! Mondays are normally crazy days at the office. I’m considering asking the Judiciary Committee to pass a bill to officially declare all Mondays a legal holiday. I wonder what they’ll think of my idea.

Speaking of the Judiciary Committee, those fine folks were hard at work discussing and voting on a number of bills. Apparently, their agenda listed some 75 bills but they only acted on about half of them. They did pass the “sexting” bill which seeks to lessen the penalty for sexting between two consenting minors.

If approved by the House and Senate and signed into law by the governor, criminal prosecutors will have an alternative to pursuing child-pornography charges against people under the age of 18 who engage in sexting. (”Sexting” is defined as sending sexually explicit messages and/or photographs of yourself or a friend electronically, generally via cell phone).

According to WSAU, at least 15 states have introduced — or are at least considering — similar legislation.

Read today’s Hartford Courant article on courant.com below:

Blogger Hal Turner Free On Bail; Accused Of Threatening Connecticut Legislators

For background on the Turner case, I refer you to two articles published in The Huffington Post :

Hal Turner, Talk Radio Host, Facing Charges For Inciting Violence Against Officials [published online 6/4/09]

Hal Turner, Internet Radio Host, Arrested For Inciting Violence Against Public Officials…Again [published online 6/24/09]

For additional background, here is a link to Wikipedia:

Hal Turner on Wikipedia