Feb 152013
 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, in the public domain. (Photo credit: Harris & Ewing Collection at the Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, circa 1916)

California Third District Court of Appeal’s summary of Carolyn Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al.

In the December 28, 2012, published case Carolyn M. Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al., the California Court of Appeal for the Third District said:

CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (CBS) telecast a report [entitled “A Life Hijacked”] regarding Carolyn Young, a court appointed conservator [and professional fiduciary licensed by the California Department of Consumer Affairs]. In its report [written and produced by KOVR-TV Channel 13 producer Dave Clegern and reported by investigative reporter Kurtis Ming], CBS dramatized allegations against Young of theft and battery while she served as conservator for an elderly woman [Mary Jane Mann]. Young sued CBS for defamation. CBS filed an anti-SLAPP motion, asserting the First Amendment. Young prevailed in part. CBS appeals. We reverse because Young acted as a public official for purposes of defamation law and failed to show CBS’s report was made with actual malice.

California Third District Court of Appeal explains anti-SLAPP motions in California

In Carolyn M. Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al., the California Court of Appeal for the Third District explained what a California anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion is:

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP law) allows a court to strike a [defamation] complaint it determines is an attempt to stifle a defendant’s exercise of free speech rights. A court may strike such a complaint where it concludes (1) the cause of action arises from the defendant’s exercise of free speech regarding a public issue; and (2) there is no probability the plaintiff will prevail on the merits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

California Third District Court of Appeal’s conclusions in Carolyn Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al.

The California Court of Appeal for the Third District concluded in Carolyn M. Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al.:

  • The CBS investigative news report “A Life Hijacked” was privileged under California Civil Code § 47(d)(1) because “Young acted as a public official for purposes of defamation liability in her role as Mann’s court-appointed conservator, and she was unable to establish with sufficient evidence that the report’s allegations were made with actual malice.”
  • Carolyn M. Young “is a public official for purposes of defamation liability while serving in her role as a court-appointed conservator.”
  • “By her court appointment and under oath, [Carolyn] Young became an agent of the state with power to interfere in the personal interests of a private citizen to whom she was not related and without that citizen’s consent.”
  • “More troubling for Young’s complaint is the fact that of all the witnesses Young wanted [KOVR-TV Channel 13 producer Dave] Clegern to contact, only one, Mann’s attorney, Mr. [Laurence] Dashiell, could verify whether Young had in fact not accounted for $60,000 or otherwise mismanaged Mann’s estate.”
  • Carolyn M. Young failed to show “a reasonable probability she can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the statements in the report were made with actual malice.”
  • Carolyn Young failed to sufficiently prove actual malice by CBS and KOVR-TV Channel 13.
  • Carolyn M. Young failed to show that she was “likely to succeed on the merits of her defamation complaint” against CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al.

California Third District Court of Appeal reverses Yolo County Superior Court Judge David W. Reed’s improper judgment

As a result, the California Court of Appeal for the Third District ruled in Carolyn M. Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al.:

The judgment is reversed. We direct the trial court to grant the anti-SLAPP motion [filed by CBS Broadcasting, Inc.] in its entirety and to dismiss the amended [defamation] complaint [filed by Carolyn M. Young]. Costs on appeal are awarded to CBS. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)


What do you think? Please share your thoughts below this article!

If You Comment, We Tell Google Search Engine to Follow Your Outgoing Links

If you take a moment of your valuable time to leave a relevant, non-spam comment below, we will reward you by telling Google and other search engines to crawl and follow your outgoing hyperlink pointing to your website.

Share and like this page on Facebook!

  8 Responses to “Calif. Fiduciary Carolyn M. Young Loses Libel Suit v. CBS in Appeals Court”

  1.  

    Young v. CBS Broadcasting is great, in that the case renders private California court-appointed fiduciaries “public officials,” thereby holding private fiduciaries in California to an even higher standard of fiduciary duty.

    •  

      Yet she is not finished. She has continued her activities and moved on to a child and his small trust awarded to him from a medical malpractice. She refuses to turn over records to parents and drained 7% of the child’s account in fees to herself and her attorney Mr. Yamamoto. She tells the parents they have no right to records. Who does she pay off in the judicial system?

  2.  

    The YouTube video “A Hijacked Life” is on Facebook again being viewed by others as an example as Ms. Young has decided to continue her abuse and corruption. Her financial exploitation has now involved a 12-year-old boy with down syndrome and his special needs trust. She has drained the child’s trust funds of almost $9,000 of his trust in fees without an accounting to the parents in years…all written to her and her attorney, nothing for the child. Disgraceful. Thievery. But allowed, as she is an appointed official, according to the probate system. She and her attorney should be in prison.

  3.  

    Carolyn Young is a career criminal embezzler. She embezzled over $30,000 from me; used my funds to hire high-priced attorneys to defend herself when I sued her. She continues her embezzling practices to this day and needs to be put in prison.

    The only way to put her there is for former and current clients of Carolyn Young to come together, organize to file a massive class-action lawsuit against her, and pursue it until she is put away, or at least stripped of her fiduciary status.

    Any former or current clients of Carolyn Young who has experienced theft of funds, please contact me via e-mail. Scott R. Hadley franciss537@gmail.com.

  4.  

    Carolyn Young is a career criminal embezzler. She embezzled over $30,000 from me; used my funds to hire high-priced attorneys to defend herself when I sued her. She continues her embezzling practices to this day and needs to be put in prison.

    The only way to put her there is for former and current clients of Carolyn Young to come together, organize to file a massive class action lawsuit against her and pursue it till she is put away, or at least stripped of her fiduciary status.

    Any former or current clients of Carolyn Young who has experienced theft of funds, please contact me via e-mail. Scott R. Hadley at franciss537@gmail.com.

  5.  

    Update: The F.B.I. is concluding their investigation of Carolyn Young and her sidekicks Zachary Young and Mike Petris. A forthcoming massive class-action lawsuit is coming to Sacramento Superior Court within the next two months. Young will soon be placed under arrest and charged with over 485 counts of embezzlement, fraud, and abuse.

    On that day, I will throw a party for all of Young’s former clients. Stay tuned. Fox News also interested in this story.

  6.  

    We live in an ever increasingly violent society. I put it in God’s hands that someone will eventually become so angered by this blatantly lawless, embezzling criminal, Sacramento fiduciary named Carolyn Young, that it just seems inevitable that someone will put a bullet into Carolyn Young’s head one day, and it won’t be me. This is my greatest prayer and hope for any justice of this career criminal.

  7.  

    When Carolyn Young was appointed conservator for my father, it was absolutely against his will. The suit was brought by jealous family members who decided the monies paid to me by a government entity were “excessive” even though these funds were not part of my dad’s actual monthly benefits. But they needed to protect Daddy’s money.

    Well, introduce Carolyn M. Young, who managed to charge him $2,500 for 6 week’s “work,” steal $500 in and then began to commingle Dad’s monthly bills with her business accounts. . . WHY?

    When I informed the probate judge of these incidents, he practically browbeat me by claiming I was exercising undue influence over my dad. He then appointed her conservator in spite of these accusations, saying, “Who else is there?”

    This is a probate judge who has only one conservator he can appoint? Someone is getting paid off. No doubt.

 Leave a Reply