Crime

Probate Court Seizes Inheritances of African Americans

Published

10 years ago

April 15, 2016

A group of people picketed April 8 at the Berkeley Probate Court, protesting that the court is seizing the property and money of a number of the inheritances and assets of elderly African Americans.

Maxine Ussery, one of the protesters, is being personally affected. She said, “We the elderly, senior citizens and African Americans are being targeted, and our basic inheritance and property are being stolen from us by the probate court.

“And they are not accountable to anyone.”

During the start of World War II by the attack on Pearl Harbor, African-Americans began to move to the San Francisco Bay Area and Oakland, in particular, where they began to establish businesses serving the community.

A number of the small business owners were able to save and build up some ownership of property and other assets.

The protesters said the assets that those from the “Pearl Harbor Generation” acquired should be left to their children or families through a Will or Living Trust Document.

Instead, those who have inherited the estates are finding themselves tied up in the Probate Court facing confiscation.

“They make major decisions about our lives and inheritances, and they have the ability to take it and put their names on it and sell it. And then they disperse the proceeds to whoever they want” said Ussery.

One of the ways the Probate Court is able to insert itself into matters of inheritance is when there is a dispute between heirs or their legal representatives over the Will or Living Trust.

“If two siblings are arguing about who should be in charge and there is no will, the court takes over and claims responsibility,” said Ussery.

The dispute serves as a justification to retain a court appointed attorney from a list of 25 attorneys, which is maintained by the Alameda County Probate Court. Almost all of the lawyers on the list are white.

The protesters are asking that the Probate Court be investigated. “This court has been given total control over people’s lives and property,” said Mrs. Ussery. “They force you to get a lawyer. We don’t get to speak up.”

“Both my friend, my brother and I were all told by the same judge to shut up, or we would be held in contempt of court,” she said.

The court essentially is taking away people’s property and saying they are not competent enough to be in control of them,” she said. “The lawyers and judges are the ones becoming the realtors. They sell our properties and don’t have to report much they made.”

For information contact the Alameda County Probate Court Reform Movement at (831) 238-0096 or email maxineusssery@comcast.net

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Congresswoman Lee Calls for a New War On Poverty

Don't Miss

Oaklanders Hard-Pressed to Find Housing Even with Minimum Wage Jobs

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

2 weeks ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

3 weeks ago

December 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

4 weeks ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.