Note: The podcast is a short interview with Ruth Hokanson who is the subject of a guardianship action in Pulaski County, Missouri.
Loretta Rouse and her merry band of corrupt helpers may be at it again.
On October 18, 2023, a hearing was held in the courtroom of Judge Michael Headrick.
The hearing was to determine if Ruth Hokanson was incapacitated and in need of guardianship.
The details of that hearing will remain hidden because the court has refused to release the recording.
“The request made on 10-23-23 for a sound recording has been denied by Judge Headrick pursuant to Respondent's request for closed hearing under 475.075-RSMO,” the court told Greg Lee, when he asked for an audio recording.
{Check out my story on Greg’s fight for his mom who is also in guardianship}
The problem with that response is that the Respondent is Hokanson, and I spoke with her- check out the podcast. She denied going to the hearing, let alone asking for it to be closed.
Missouri’s constitution requires courtrooms to be open.
“That the courts of justice shall be open to every person, and certain remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character, and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay,” the Missouri constitution states.
Ruth’s case was handled like a star chamber.
The result of the hearing is that Ruth is now considered incapacitated and in guardianship.
The petitioner, as Judge Headrick’s order states, is Loretta Rouse, the Public Administrator for Pulaski County, Missouri, and the subject of my ongoing investigation.
The Public Administrator in Missouri is an elected position and handles probate matters on behalf of the county where they are elected.
Rouse has a habit of presenting scant evidence before Judge Headrick deems someone incapacitated.
Judge Headrick’s order is long on accusations and short on facts. So too is the initial petition which Rouse filed.
Rouse is not an attorney, so Jeff Thomas represented her for this case.
I reached out to Rouse and Thomas, but I received no response.
Furthermore, Judge Headrick appointed John Farris to act as Ruth’s court appointed attorney. Farris was previously involved in Margarete Webster’s case, which I covered here.
Farris did not respond to a call left at his office.
Farris may have some explaining to do. Ruth told me she met with him once, but it appears that he was at the hearing on October 18, 2023.
It’s likely he was the one who asked that the hearing be closed, on Ruth’s behalf, even though this was not what she wanted.
Ruth acknowledged to me that she has trouble managing her finances, and she has bounced some checks.
She told me that her brother took care of that for her before dying.
Is bouncing checks enough to be put into guardianship?
According to a survey commissioned by Pew, eighteen percent of the US population overdraws their account.
If it’s enough for Ruth, we’re going to need to put a lot of people into guardianship.
Ruth hasn’t attended any of the hearings in this case, and she barely knew anything about what was going on.
That may have something to do with her court appointed attorney spending less time with her than me.
Guardianship is a drastic step. Once someone is deemed incapacitated, their life is not their own: as Brittney Spears’ case showed.
It should not be done as a star chamber, like this one, and guardianship should not be granted merely because someone has bounced checks.
“I don’t really approve of it,” Ruth told me when I asked her if she should be in guardianship.
Postscript
Here are the previous articles in this series: article one and article two. Please check out the fundraiser for this campaign and help me provide maximum exposure and increase that number.
Share this post