By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Rafter responds to Suhors charges
Placeholder Image

Dear Editor,

In response to Ms. Suhor’s defamatory and libelous letter to the editor, I believe that there were allegations of Probate Court funds being mishandled going back to the election in 2004.  The Probate Court is a public office and anyone, through the opens record act, should be able to review financial audits (or the lack thereof) and come to the determination that professional accounting practices should be put in place which instills the public’s confidence.  It’s time to hold the Probate Court accountable to ensure that the public’s money is being handled properly.

In response to the petition for accounting, I actually had no knowledge of the action having been filed until Nov. 4, 2008. The petition stems from the decision Warren Ratchford and I made to dissolve the partnership with Mickey Kicklighter under the name Ratchford and Kicklighter, LLP.  The petition is actually about hiring an accountant to finalize the dissolution of the partnership after more than two years since the actual separation took place.  

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to Ms. Suhor’s accusations.

Richard R. Rafter
Attorney at law