Colorado Petition Pursuant Claim: Fill & Download for Free

Hello there OPPlease forgive me but I cannot answer a question that is simply wrong in every respect, except perhaps the mention that the Supreme Court made a decision.I recommend to you the decision: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL[1][1][1][1] To help save time, (not having to read the entire 59 pages) I’ve copied the case Syllabus below.Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public.” Under CADA’s administrative review system, the Colorado Civil Rights Division first found probable cause for a violation and referred the case to the Commission. The Commission then referred the case for a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ruled in the couple’s favor. In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmedHeld:The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 9–18.The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decision making body.” Id., at 540. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. Pp. 16–18.370 P. 3d 272, reversed.You will note that the Supreme Court is not siding with a Colorado Baker against Gay couples and their wedding planning. If anything the court disciplined the State of Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission. For me, I just love a good court issued slapdown of bureaucrats who really blow it. Please note the “free exercise clause.” and the court’s reasoning.Amendment I[2][2][2][2] (note the italics for the Free Exercise Clause)Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.You can relax because the matter you are concerned about, is not and never was at issue.Ciao.Footnotes[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

If a parent dies without a will or spouse, how and in what way does the state give the children the inheritance? How do they contact the children or know where they are when the times comes to pass the inheritance down?The parent will have died intestate, meaning s/he will have died without a will. The laws of intestacy in the state where s/he was last domiciled would apply.These laws would govern appointment of a personal representative or administrator to probate the estate. These laws would especially determine how property and residue would be distributed, to whom and the proportions, but only after payment of taxes, last illness expenses, funeral expenses, unpaid debts and claims against the estate.Someone would have had to be acquainted with the decedent. That person as an “interested person” could petition the probate court where decedent was last domiciled to open an estate. Maybe that “interested person” could also petition the court for appointment as PR. Another “interested person,” meaning a person or entity who has an interest in the estate because s/he/it has a claim against it could petition the court to open the estate and appoint a PR (with estate monies eventually paying of the claim). In this situation, the court might appoint an administrator to probate the estate. In Colorado, the administrator may very well be the public administrator for the county (hereinafter, the “personal representative” or “PR”).The PR will ascertain the decedent’s children, which may take time and effort, other possible heirs and other persons with an interest in the estate, very possibly before the estate is open. The PR will notify these people an estate is being opened and copy them with all pleadings s/he files with the probate court.As with a testate estate (decedent had a valid will admitted to probate), the PR will marshal the estate assets. The statutory claims period will begin running after the estate is opened, so the PR will ensure notice of the claims period is published in the newspaper and notify all known creditors the estate is open and the claims period is running. The PR would consider any claims filed against the estate In short, the PR will handle the same tasks s/he would for a testate estate and a few more. In the meantime, if the PR determines decedent owned property out of state, s/he will have to open an estate(s) in the states in question to probate the property.Only after all priority expenses are paid, claims are settled and any other property passes through probate and distributed can the PR distribute the leftover monies, called “residue,” to the heirs pursuant to the laws of intestacy and in the proportions these laws mandate.Probate is a process, especially considering in many states courts closely supervise probate and personal representatives very often must apply to the probate courts for permission to act every time they need to. If they don’t know how to act, even if a probate attorney helps them, they may have to ask the court how to proceed via filing a petition for instructions.Probating an estate of any kind can take years in many states. Be patient. If the laws of intestacy say you are entitled to an inheritance and there are leftover monies to pay it, you will receive it - eventually.

How does probate work when there is no will?The person will have died intestate, meaning s/he will have died without a will. The laws of intestacy in the state where s/he was last domiciled would apply.Laws of intestacy govern appointment of a personal representative or administrator to probate the estate. These laws would especially determine how property and residue would be distributed, to whom and the proportions, but only after payment of taxes, last illness expenses, funeral expenses, unpaid debts and claims against the estate.It may be possible to use the state’s small estates affidavit process with probate being necessary if the value of the estate is under a certain value set forth in the law.I will assume the estate must go through probate because its value is over the limit set forth by state probate law.Someone would have had to be acquainted with the decedent. That person as an “interested person” could petition the probate court where decedent was last domiciled to open an estate. Maybe that “interested person” could also petition the court for appointment as PR. Another “interested person,” meaning a person or entity who has an interest in the estate because s/he/it has a claim against it could petition the court to open the estate and appoint a PR (with estate monies eventually paying of the claim). In this situation, the court might appoint an administrator to probate the estate. In Colorado, the administrator may very well be the public administrator for the county (hereinafter, the “personal representative” or “PR”).The PR will ascertain the decedent’s children who would be rightful heirs under the laws of intestacy, which may take time and effort, other possible heirs and other persons with an interest in the estate, very possibly before the estate is open. The PR will notify these people an estate is being opened and copy them with all pleadings s/he files with the probate court.As with a testate estate (decedent had a valid will admitted to probate), the PR will marshal the estate assets. The statutory claims period will begin running after the estate is opened, so the PR will ensure notice of the claims period is published in the newspaper and notify all known creditors the estate is open and the claims period is running. The PR would consider any claims filed against the estate In short, the PR will handle the same tasks s/he would for a testate estate and a few more. In the meantime, if the PR determines decedent owned property out of state, s/he will have to open an estate(s) in the states in question to probate the property.Only after all priority expenses are paid, claims are settled and any other property passes through probate and distributed can the PR distribute the leftover monies, called “residue,” to the heirs pursuant to the laws of intestacy and in the proportions these laws mandate.It is notable that under intestacy laws rightful heirs might be relatives who decedent would have neither imagined could inherit from him/her or, more importantly, relatives s/he had nothing to do with and would have never named them as beneficiaries had s/he made a will.Probate is a process, especially considering in many states courts closely supervise probate and personal representatives very often must apply to the probate courts for permission to act every time they need to. If they don’t know how to act, even if a probate attorney helps them, they may have to ask the court how to proceed via filing a petition for instructions.Finally, many states have a small estates affidavit process. If heirs file with the probate court an affidavit in which they swear under oath they are rightful heirs to an estate, they can collect their shares without probate. However - the estate has to be under a certain value pursuant to state law to use the small estates affidavit process. How to File an Affidavit for the Collection of a Small Estate