Very Scary Article–Netherlands allows family to “euthanize” grandma at 80 because she has Dementia

Or was it the inheritance?  Dutch law has become downright scary with courts being able to order euthanization for dementia and cancer.  Often the person is only suffering from depression or grief–both ailments are easily cured with care and attention.

This woman left no advance directives allowing for her euthanization, and rather than consult her, they said she did not have the capacity to make the decision.

It is not known whether she was present in court or who provided information to the court.

In any case, it seems that no one investigated, no one considered alternatives to make her feel happy and secure rather than wander down the road where a court orders the elder put down–like a cat or dog.

I pray this does not continue and that someone comes to the aide of the elderly to represent their rights and their needs as being blessed in society.


From Atty Candice Schwager–are State Probate acts unconstitutional? She says “hell yes”!

Reposted with permission of author:

As the Senate decides whether to grant wards of the State of Texas due process rights–crumbs off of the master’s table–I sit disgusted that these men and women are our leaders, wondering how we managed to elect such reprobate “non-representing” representatives. I am also beside myself contemplating how grossly incompetent the lawyers must be to draft legislation so clearly illegal, it’s not worth the paper it is written on. Does anyone know the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or even the meaning of the word “inalienable?” Inalienable means non-transferrable, yet Judge Guy Herman, Chief Probate Judge of Texas, will tell you that a disabled person’s “rights” are not removed, merely transferred to the guardian. That is illegal, but Herman has little regard for the Constitution as evidenced by recent rulings disregarding it.

S.B. 1882 is a bill relating to providing due process to wards in guardianship. S.B. 1881 a bill mandating that alternatives to guardianship be considered first, such as supported decision making. Despite the fact that both Bills demonstrate egregious violations of the 14th Amendment with respect to the elderly and disabled–in providing them less protection than other citizens–wards need these protections to convince the reprobate that they actually have some rights.

The entire Code reveals egregious violations of federal law by intentionally depriving citizens of privileges and immunities guaranteed by the United States Constitution, constituting felonies under 18 U.S.C. 241, 18 U.S.C. 242, treason, and official oppression, but Judges are nonetheless treating citizens like chattel–purportedly stripping them of inalienable rights “under Color of State Law.” 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Until the Estates Code is declared unconstitutional via a declaratory judgment action to be filed in Federal Court, advocates have little choice but to take the crumbs lawmakers offer. There are absolutely no protections for even proposed wards under the Estates Code and with each Bill, it’s getting worse. Lawmakers and activist judges who don’t respect the Constitution are finding new ways to exploit the elderly and disabled with limited liability or none.

To the Lawmakers whose consciences have not yet been seared with a hot iron, I implore you to end this insanity by repealing this void Estates Code and amending the Family Code to provide the same protections for the elderly and disabled as would be provided any citizen of the United States. This is treason to the Constitution and absolutely intolerable.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Relying upon the simple idea that all people are created equal with certain inalienable rights, slavery was abolished, women’s rights flourished, and discrimination was made illegal under the Klu Klux Klan Act a/k/a The Civil Rights Act of 1984, the civil statute being 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 grew from this to include the disabled and elderly as a suspect class that cannot be subject to discrimination, yet it is ignored. 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

Intentionally depriving citizens of privileges and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is criminal. 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. This necessarily means that lawmakers are committing crimes against Texas citizens “under Color of State Law” when they draft void statutes that violate their rights. The ludicrous part is that everyone acts as if this is legal when it’s not. Guardianship as instituted in Texas is illegal, rendering most wards of the State “hostages.”

The Legislature is also considering a Bill, requiring judges to appoint attorney and guardian ad litems according to what is “fair” for the lawyers, as opposed to what is in the “best interest” of the proposed ward. The idea that lawmakers would even consider forcing Judges to “spin the wheel” or appoint according to the next name on a list of lawyers, as opposed to competence is offensive. What is this? Wheel of fortune? Or Pin the tail on the donkey?

The entire determination of whom to appoint as guardian ad litem or attorney ad litem for a disabled or elderly person should not be “whose turn it is.” Instead, it should be based upon the person’s needs and which appointee can best meet those needs. This is critical in determining whom to appoint as guardian ad litem because that person has the duty to decide what is in the elderly/disabled person’s “best interests.”

Whoever decided that lawyers had the capacity to determine what is in a disabled or elderly person’s best interest was sorely misguided in the first instance. I have seen the nightmare this arbitrary system of cronyism creates for the elderly and disabled in 100% of my cases because not once has the attorney appointed by the Judge understood the person’s disability. Without this basic understanding, it is ludicrous to give an attorney the responsibility of making Life-changing decisions for a stranger.

I have seen the failure to pick a competent GAL work catastrophically in most every case. The first involved a Board Certified Probate Lawyer who wrote the Guardianship Section of the Code. This woman also writes the exam for attorneys seeking Board Certification, but was incompetent to testify under Rule 702 regarding an autistic boy’s “best interests” because she knew nothing about autism even after 2.5 years of me spoon feeding it to her.

Without question, I am the most qualified special education / autism attorney in Harris County probate Courts after working 5 years, representing special needs children in schools under 25-year Texas Education Agency Hearing Officer, James Holtz. A pre-med major with an emphasis in psychology, my understanding of disabilities common to children and the elderly is extensive. Seeking to effectively communicate with the autistic children I represent, I’ve spent countless hours with families observing my clients–most of whom were non-verbal. Despite this work, it is incredibly challenging to be confident that an autistic child understands and is responding intentionally, as opposed to exhibiting echolalia, which is random phrases autistics repeat. The challenge of simply sustaining eye contact with a person on the spectrum typically leaves uncertainty as to their level of understanding.

I am an expert under Rule 702 with respect to special education and autism, but defer hands down to the parent because he or she simply knows their child, like a mother knows a baby. The same is true of any non-verbal child or adult. Families must learn to read them–as task that requires time and investment in the person’s life–far beyond what an ad litem can give.

The decision of what is in a person’s “best interest” can be life changing in guardianship and must involve consideration of what they want. Regardless of the level of impairment, guardianship is supposed to remove only those rights that are absolutely necessary for the ward’s protection. Guardianship should rarely, if ever, deprive a person of the right to self-determination, for to do so would violate the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The attorneys currently appointed to make these life changing decisions for non-verbal children and adults are incompetent to make the decision, regardless of Board Certification. This is because attorney ad litem and guardian ad litem certification requires a mere 3.5 hour course in which lawyers are taught nothing about disabilities. The end result is disastrous and not once have I witnessed any GAL make the right choice.

The solution is so simple if the REPTL Committee and Judge Herman would focus on the “person” guardianship was intended to protect instead of the money to be generated. The Family Code already has Constitutional protections built into the GAL appointment process, ensuring that qualified individuals are appointed to decide the “best interest” of children–with strict guidelines on qualifications to serve, duties and permissible fees. Under Rule 173, the term “Guardian Ad Litem” includes:

(A) a volunteer advocate appointed under Subchapter C;

(B) a professional, other than an attorney, who holds a relevant professional license and whose training relates to the determination of a child’s best interests;

(C) an adult having the competence, training, and expertise determined by the court to be sufficient to represent the best interests of the child; or

(D) an attorney ad litem appointed to serve in the dual role.

The focus of the appointment is “child-centered”, not lawyer-centered. Rule 173 and Chapter 107 of the Family Code provide multiple layers of protection for children, including but not limited to the appointment of an attorney, amicus attorney, child advocate, and/or other individual deemed appropriate by the Court. The Court seeks individuals who are most qualified to decide “best interests.”

The elderly and disabled are not afforded any degree of protection by the Estates Code in violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Section 1054.054 merely states:

Sec. 1054.054. DUTIES.

(a) A guardian ad litem is an officer of the court.

(b) A guardian ad litem shall protect the incapacitated person whose interests the guardian has been appointed to represent in a manner that will enable the court to determine the action that will be in that person’s best interests.

There is no standard included in this rule and most attorneys forget they are required by the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct to be competent. Per the Estates Code, Guardianship is to be handled just like “dead people’s estates.” The end result is the elderly and disabled are treated like chattel, purportedly stripped of all Constitutional rights because the concept of a “limited guardianship” is a fairy tale. This is illegal and renders lawmakers guilty of crimes against Texas citizens “under Color of State law.” 18 U.S.C. 241, 241.

You can bet if Senators and Representatives were being taken hostage and robbed of their life savings, laws would change. But like most things, the suffering of elderly and disabled victims is out of sight, out of mind. The politically elite profiting from the suffering of our elderly and disabled loved ones are unmoved by the cries of the people they represent. Judge Herman is “sick of hearing it.” At the same time, we are fed a line of bull with the absurd lie that guardianship protects.

A simple reading of the Estates Code reveals the purpose of guardianship–money. People have become property of the State to tax, place bonds on, and take their life savings to fleece the lawyers and politicians. Were this not true, you would not see Judges and lawyers bickering in the Senate, with the ludicrous suggestion that Judges should appoint guardian ad litems according to a random list. Call it the Wheel of Fortune, Texas Lotto, or Pin the tail on the donkey, it’s asinine.

Why aren’t we talking about Bills that require some level of competency for the appointees? The reason is because this is not about protecting anyone. It’s not about the elderly or the disabled aside from additional ways we can find to exploit them. If Texas deemed elderly and disabled citizens “people” rather than “property” or “chattel,” this would not even be an issue. The elderly and disabled deserve better and the solution is simple–the Family Code.

From Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 19, 2015 5:07 PM
To: Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Matt Senator Kirk , Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Chicago Tribune , Janet Phelan , KRISTI HOOD , Bev Cooper , SUNTIMES , FOX News Network LLC , Ginny Johnson , Diane Nash , Fiduciary Watch , Cook County States Attorney , ISBA Main Discussion Group , “Y. ACLU” , Scott Evans , Edward Carter , Glenda Martinez , Barbara Stone , RosANNa Miller , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Illinois ARDC , Cook Sheriff , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Candice Schwager , Jay Goldman , “” , Tom Fields , “” , “” , “”
Subject: Democracy is not a spectator Sport –

Since the day that the first charity opened its doors to donors there have been scam artists who have tried to profit on backs of the elderly and the disabled.    When I was the chairman of “boys and girls committee” the local Kiwanis Club I got a dose of reality.
The function of the Kiwanis Club was to raise money and distribute it to families and children in need – with a strong concentration of needy children.    The club was composed of businessmen in the particular area and it was our policy that not one dime of public money was to be used by the club.   All administrative and other costs came out of our own pockets.    We used the same type of fund raising as everyone else, but, on a particular day every year we got out on the street and sold peanuts to any motorist who might be passing by on a particular corner.
We raised a substantial amount of money but never enough.
At the time I was young man in my middle to late twenties and wet behind the ears ‘big time.’     Come fund raising time I had no shame.   After the deposition of the CEO of a large corporate stationery chain (who I was suing) I asked him what the company did with its shopworn merchandise.   He told me that they gave it away.    Naturally I asked him if he would give it to Kiwanis.     He gave me an affirmative.
Being naive I went to the charities that Kiwanis supported and I asked them to provide me with a wish list.     I got standbagged, but I was totally unaware of it.    They listed the kitchen sink.    I called the CEO and asked him if his company could supply the items on the wish list.    He did!   (Now that I think about it, some of the charities must have had heart attacks as semi-trailer trucks pulled up and delivered merchandise).
I cannot tell you how proud of ME I was.    I had filled the wish list and still had 100% of the money that I delegated to give away.
Luck happens to be my middle name, and I was blessed with having some dealings with a major food store.  (Jewel)     They had a catering service wherein they would provide a full turkey dinner with all the trimmings at your home for x dollars.    As the Attorney for Switchman’s local 1, I had arranged for dinners for the union members for both Thanksgiving and Christmas as a special price.
Thus, on my desk was a solution.    I call the CEO of Jewel and asked if I could add to the order = I wanted to provide the needy families in our area with Christmas and Thanksgiving Dinner.     He was agreeable and he also wanted to join in the effort.    It was not difficult to get a list of the needy families from the local religious organizations and thus on Christmas and Thanksgiving each needy family in the area had a little extra cheer – courtesy of Kiwanis.   (Jewel made our dollars stretch so that everyone on the list got dinners).
Come the annual meeting I anticipated getting a ‘well done’ or some other praise.    Indeed, I got what I deserved.   Every charity had a representative at our meeting to complain about me, my arrogance, and the disrespect that I had shown them.     Jack Pahl (the mayor of Elk Grove Village) fumed at the ungrateful bastards and started to say something but I silenced him.  Instead, I got up and thanked the charities for their praise and promised them that I would endeavor to furnish them the items that appeared on their wish lists for the next year.    At that they all walked out of the meeting.      (Of course, they were back soliciting again the following year!)  (I was reappointed by the club to my position for the next years).
The next year brought a new President to our club.    For reasons unbeknownst to any of us he transferred to our club from another one and expressed a wish to be our leader.    I am not certain what in particular he said but he was elected by acclamation!       The next year was a virtual repeat of the previous year, except our New President admonished me before I got the opportunity to deliver my ‘thank you’ speech.    This time the walkout was by about 3/4 of the membership.    Our new president was the sole surviving member after the meeting.
The Charities could have cared less about the people they serviced – they wanted the money that Kiwanis and other individuals and organizations provided them.     Delivery of tables, typewriters, office supplies etc meant that they actually had to service their client!     Cash could be used to pay salaries, solicit money etc.
The catered dinners were delivered without a fanfare or publicity.     Kiwanis did not want credit – the membership wanted to make some lives a little better – AND Kiwanis DID.
That foregoing events ought to have prepared me for the professional guardianship for profit scam.    It did not.    I did not learn from history and I met the elder cleansers!   The jurists who conspire with the elder cleansers are as venal as any of the miscreants and their and their cohorts ought to go to jail.
I noticed that in today’s Wall Street Journal the following article, to wit:

Four Cancer Charities Accused of Fraud

Civil suit alleges ‘sham charities’ took more than $187 million from donors

Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett announces a federal lawsuit against four cancer charities on Tuesday in Knoxville, Tenn.ENLARGE
Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett announces a federal lawsuit against four cancer charities on Tuesday in Knoxville, Tenn. PHOTO: MICHAEL PATRICK/KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL/ASSOCIATED PRESS


May 19, 2015 3:22 p.m. ET

The Federal Trade Commission, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have filed a civil suit against four connected cancer charities and four people running them, accusing them of bilking more than $187 million from donors from 2008 to 2012.
The Cancer Fund of America Inc., based in Knoxville, Tenn.; Cancer Support Services Inc., based in Washington; Children’s Cancer Fund of America Inc., based in Powell, Tenn.; and the Breast Cancer Society Inc. of Mesa, Ariz., were all described as “sham charities” in the 148-page civil complaint, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix.
The complaint named as defendants James Reynolds Sr., James Reynolds II, and Rose Perkins—who are related—as well as an associate, Kyle Effler. It stated the four “have engaged in a massive, nationwide fraud, telling generous Americans that their contributions will help people suffering from cancer, but instead, spending the overwhelming majority of donated funds supporting the Individual Defendants, their families and friends, and their fundraisers.”


The organizations raised money as charities, but were instead “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation,” according to the complaint.
The complaint states the group leaders spent money to hire family and friends and buy cars, trips, luxury cruises, college tuition and even dating site memberships.

From Theresa Maxwell on the Guardianship of her mother, Mrs. Strege–isolated and abused in Court

From mainstream media–where the courts and judges won’t let stories be published.  This is a typical story that Jerome Larkin of the ARDC wants to stop honest attorneys from publicly speaking out against–myself, Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu

Conway: The Strege case indicated to me that is a guardian can take a mother in this case and make a decision to move her into a different setting and then deny children access to that parent, there’s something wrong with that picture. We need a place where these families can go to challenge these decisions and question the guardian.

From the daughter–immediately after appointment of a “professional” Guardian (of death and family terrorism), all visitation by children, grandchildren and former friends.

TWELVE GRANDCHILDREN she could not longer see.

She was required to take a class on guardianship and it took weeks to see her mother.  When she saw her mother, she was aghast–medicated beyond belief, injuries, trips to and from the hospital.

The Guardian declined a request to be interviewed.

The “certified” guardian’s oversight manager said some are good and some are bad.

It may take 2 to 3 years to decertify a certified guardian.

Please pray for this family and the brave woman who took the story public.


From Atty Candice Schwager — Hoodwinked in Probate Court

What happens when the rule of law increasingly bows to the whims and violations of unaccountable public officials? Lawlessness in every branch and a system of law that caters to the elite, not the people. Our system of law is slowly being eroded by those at the top levels of our government in every branch to such egregious degrees that the law is not law anymore. Form takes precedence over substance. The appearance of legitimacy is all we have in guardianship anymore–unless you’re in a county without a “guardianship program.”

I have personally witnessed the stark contrast in crime and civil rights violations between counties that have “guardianship programs” and those who do not. In the former, it’s utter lawlessness and the Judges are hardly even in control of the bench any longer. In the latter, people are still treated like people and their civil rights are respected.

What’s the difference? Fort Bend County Judge Susan Lowry is a model Judge in guardianship, who follows the law and respects human rights because there’s no “program” in place to exploit people for profit. Harris County might as well be Guantanamo Bay–the elderly and disabled are chattel with no civil rights, if that were possible. In every Texas County with a “guardianship program,” Texas is engaged in human trafficking and it’s ugly. But it all starts in Austin.

We are witnessing the dismantling of our government. Texas was founded based upon principles of limited government and human rights, much like the United States. Our legal system was designed to serve the needs of all, but it’s being gamed by the politically powerful and elite–in violation of their duties to the people. We have become slaves to the governing elite, who enact legislation and suspend rules of law with the stroke of a pen in favor of themselves, lawyers, and corporations. The human toll is unimaginable because people have become the currency.

We are not just oppressed by our government, but owned by the governing elite like slaves, who view us as commodities to serve them, as opposed to officials serving us. No where more poignant is the message than in the Texas Estates Code, a treatise on human trafficking–where people are property and corporations are people. The end result is that corporations have more rights–if that were possible.

Guardianship started as a necessary evil and now it’s simply evil. It’s a system of human trafficking where corporations are appointed as guardians, but given limited liability when it comes to accountability for theft and harm. Where the law imposes no accountability or responsibility, but promises to protect you, beware. This suggests the standard is penal–if there is any standard at all. It also warns you that exploitation is coming and the people will be holding the bag, as usual.

We are supposed to believe Guardianship is about protection of human lives as we debate bonds, attorneys’ fees, ad litem fees, security for costs, safekeeping of an estate before someone is even in guardianship–and little else. We tolerate the REPTL Section of the Bar drafting legislation to line their pockets and Judges backing them up behind closed doors in violation of law and hardly even recognize when they are breaking the law anymore.

We pretend to have transparency where there is none. Where human rights are violated for profit, there can be no transparency. We look the other way when Judges appear hearing after hearing to testify in favor of Bills they had a hand in drafting and pretend to not know. We ignore separation of powers because it seems irrelevant until we realize a Judge is driving the Legislative process in Guardianship and runs a guardianship business alongside his Court. Lawmakers brush off violations of State and Federal Law–including treason, as inconsequential, too jaded to care anymore. It’s frightening to contemplate what is really going on.

Ethics rules are a joke when the law is tossed aside as irrelevant by public officials seeking to profit off of human beings. But common sense is sufficient for even the most naive to understand that “WE ARE BEING HOODWINKED” by public officials with a duty to protect us.


House Bill 1438 is the product of an entire summer of collaboration between Judge Guy Herman, Laura Unchurch and Craig Hopper with Representative Senfronia Thompson, yet they can’t manage to get the “committee substitute” with 8 “controversial” bills stuffed inside to ram through the House of Representatives in the middle of the night until well after 1:00 a.m and witnesses have gone home.

Why wasnt’s the Bill ready for people to actually read, testify, and express outrage beforehand? Rep. Thompson insisted that nothing controversial was added to the Bill–omitting the 8 highly objectionable, unconstitutional Bills rolled into this veritable midnight hoist. The Bill passed in little more than 24 hours with a third reading. Why the rush? All very good questions.

Witnesses waited patiently–over ten hours to testify until after 1:00 a.m. and doubted if this Bill was ever actually going to be called because it was the last one of 40 that day–certainly no coincidence. With the number of witnesses left by the time the its proponents were apparently summoned by private invitation–Judge Guy Herman, Craig Hopper, and Laura Unchurch, between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m., few witnesses remained to oppose it. Michael Easton was one such witnesses who would have demonstrated that H.B. 1438 is anything but “uncontroversial.”

House Bill 1438 is the end result of rogue public officials who refuse to take “NO” for an answer–from the people. It legislates theft from the elderly and disabled–who cannot object to the eminent domain. H.B. 1438 was the product a “bait and switch” that literally occurred in the middle of the night and smacks of impropriety and ethics code violations–undoubtedly the reason it had to be shoved down Texas’ throat. The resulting “Bill” is so grossly illegal, it is surreal that it is being treated as legitimate–on its way to the Senate for consideration.

House Bill 1438 declares War on the Constitution–treason–purporting to nullify inalienable rights at the very heart of our Constitution without due process of law. It purports to legislatively remove civil liberties and taking of property without due process of law, while violating Article I of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits charging for access to the Courts.

The war against the elderly and disabled just got worse, if that were possible, as I contemplate Habeas Corpus to rescue a hostage of Texas’ guardianship laws because I know probate court is a losing venue before I ever file. Our elderly and disabled have less rights than terrorists at Guantanamo Bay because they are apparently no longer considered citizens under this void Code of human trafficking.

Rep. Senfronia Thompson told the committee that the committee substitute was not yet available and only rolled in “a couple” of “non-controversial” bills–knowing this was untrue–to get the Bill passed. What was not revealed were the eight prior bad bills that were “rolled in” this unconstitutional Bill on its way to the Senate. Hookwinked in the Texas House!

The highly controversial, objectionable Bills rolled into 1438 include:

House Bill 2858 (H.B. 3669 83rd Leg.): purporting to run around the Supreme Court’s authority on recusal and place all power in the hands of Judge Guy Herman on who will serve as probate judge in Texas. This did not pass last session with Elliot Naishtat pushing so proponents decided to make it pass by suspending the rules and deceiving the public.

House Bill 1333 (H.B. 2303 83rd Leg.) did not pass the first time and was not presented for public testimony this session because advocates were howling in opposition to this illegal Bill. H.B. 1333 purports to give Court court investigators, with no credentials aside from knowing the Judge, carte blanche over your federally protected banking information in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. It purports to permit spying to see how much money you have–so the Court can decide if you need “protection.”

HB 2733, HB 2829, HB 2858 Senfronia Thompson’s bills- and; HB 1333, HB 1921, HB 3137, HB, 3645, and HB 4058 by Rep. Naishtat. Naishtat has written or sponsored two dozen or so of Guy Herman’s Bills-at which time Herman testifies to support the Bill. Herman is a fixture in the Legislature, as opposed to a resource witness, which should have people up in arms about the conflicts of interest and violations of the Texas Constitution on separation of powers. Herman is a Judge, but looks like a lobbyist.

HB 2829 – Mandatory security for costs, no public hearing.
HB 2733 – Compensation in guardianship proceedings shall come through management trusts. Reimbursement of costs in guardianship against ward. Management trusts are created to fund lawyers while the elderly and disabled are put on Medicaid. Elderly are put in Medicaid nursing homes while the lawyers are guardians appointed by the courts spend the money from their trusts at $400 per hour.

If any of this were legal, it would mean that you can no longer complain or get help without paying a bond for security for costs. Texas has already removed Adult Protective Services and DADS’ jurisdiction to intervene, such that wards are only protected by the probate judge financially benefitting off of their incapacitation. Thank God, Habeas Corpus is free as a remedy to free your loved ones from being unlawfully detailed by the State of Texas.

Aside from the illegality for violating federal law and the Constitution, this Bill bypasses the Finance Committee in an attempt to amend the Finance Code surreptitiously with terms that would never get out of committee if the law were followed. H.B. 1333 (was H.B. 2303 by Eddie Rodriquez of Travis County and died in committee last year and revived at the prompting of Judge Guy Herman). Advocates verified during the 83rd Legislative Session that Judge Guy Herman brought the Bill.

Craig Hopper called H.B. 1438 “innocuous,” stating it promotes the “best interest”, but he did not say whose best interest. This Bill exploits the elderly and disabled, leaving only the lawyers to benefit–as usual. The Bill mandates safekeeping of assets without even so much as probable cause for guardianship or notification-at which time the Court begins paying lawyers and the tab starts, whether you end up “incapacitated” or not.

This Bill is more of the same–more layers of protection for the guardian, attorneys, courts, and guardianship programs. It is not remotely about protecting the ward because YOU CANNOT PROTECT WHEN THE GOAL IS TO EXPLOIT. Hopper then gets to the point–it reduces costs and hassle for lawyers by lowering their bonds. Aha! Now, when the guardian hurts you or steals your estate, the bond will be insufficient to cover their liability. How does removing responsibility and accountability for harm protect anyone?

The Bill is an attempt to legislate theft with no liability– a common theme for the proponents of these Bills, who have financial interests in them being enacted. It is shameful that proponents realize guardianship involves significant liability for harm and then remove all accountability intentionally for the harm caused. Contrary to Rep. Thompson’s statements, the Bills rolled into this bad bill are highly objectionable, controversial and unconstitutional.

Were it not so, the Bills would simply have been presented for public testimony as the law requires–or they would have passed last session instead of failed. Public testimony is not optional, but a legal requirement–even if it is a mere formality because the decision has already been made in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. By Judge Herman’s own statements, there are ethics code violations, but are those “small potatoes” too?

There’s a reason why these “Bills” are being stuffed in a midnight Bill with no public testimony–they know the Bill would never pass if people actually got to read it, testify and vote–as the law requires. Our elected officials apparently believe that they can make the law suit their own needs, suspend the rules, and that the simple stroke of a pen renders it legal because they do not understand the penal code and higher law.

This is treason to the Constitution resulting in crimes against the people by the government “under color of State law.” 18 U.S.C. 241, 242. When public officials step outside of the bounds of the law, they cease to represent the government and are personally liable. Do they know this? At the end of the day, the ends justifies the means,? Is that the message? Then what are the ends? A cursory review of these Bills reveals the answer to that question. The goal is making money off of people the State is charged with protecting and limiting liability for the harm done and it’s illegal.

Public integrity should not have a price tag, but it does. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) won’t investigate organized crime unless the dollar amount is over $400,000. Local officials will turn you away, saying it’s a civil matter. Where is the accountability for breaking the law?

In response to questioning on Judge Guy Herman’s decision to”have his cake and eat it too”, taking a six month sabbatical instead of retiring to get retirement benefits–he said it was “small potatoes.” Whether or not violating federal and state laws to fraudulently obtain a government pension is “small potatoes” is all relative, I suppose? But, for a public official, how is any penal code violation “small”?

Have we become so jaded that we allow our public officials to commit crimes and look the other because it’s “small potatoes?” At what point does it become relevant? What does Judge Herman know that we do not? I do not consider these infractions small potatoes because the end result is lawlessness. We are already there in probate court throughout the State, where secret deals, games, and crimes are occurring daily throughout Texas and it’s business as usual. We are half way down the slippery slope.

Lawyers with an ounce of integrity left need to lead the way so everyone can cut through the legalese and red tape. Lawyers know that federal and State laws are being violated. They need to care. They know how to draft legislation, which is why the current legislation is so frightening because it shows premeditation. They have contacts and resources. It’s only a matter of more of them utilizing these powerful tools.

Being a lawyer is about much more than billable hours and being a leader is about leading. If our public officials are not interested in leading, they should step aside because the job doesn’t call for serving yourself. If you think you can build your empire off the backs of the less fortunate, consider how well this idea turned out for those before you: King Henry XVI, Marie Antoinette, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin?

A lawyer’s duties extend to the vital needs of the public interest and the justice system–whether they accept that responsibility or not. Lawyers are deemed “officers of the court.” They can and should be GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE. I’ve have long understood that I am in law enforcement by virtue of those entrusted with this duty not enforcing the law.

People do not care about other people. Public Officials do not care about the public. Ron Paul coined the term “non representing representatives” which identifies the problem to a tee. Where are our representatives? Is the system only functioning to benefit the politically elite? Lawyers do not simply have a license to practice law, but a responsibility to honor the Constitutional and rule of law. Judges police the court system and should be a model for “upholding the law and Constitution,” not violating it. Leaders are not given the privilege to break the law without consequence and should not be taking it.

We are inches from complete and utter lawlessness in a system that is so corrupt and broken, it’s surreal. Will our response be complacency still? As you slumber, lawmakers are busy writing laws to take away your rights–your freedom and liberty without due process of law. We need a few good men and women to call this what it is–OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. Tex. Pen. Code 39.10.

Written by Attorney Candice Schwager in Texas.

Reposted with permission of the author

From Ken Ditkowsky–Stop the discrimination against those you oppose, Mr. Larkin

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 17, 2015 6:38 AM
To: Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Matt Senator Kirk , Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Chicago Tribune , Janet Phelan , Bev Cooper , SUNTIMES , FOX News Network LLC , Ginny Johnson , Diane Nash , Fiduciary Watch , Cook County States Attorney , “Y. ACLU” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , Scott Evans , Edward Carter , Glenda Martinez , Barbara Stone , RosANNa Miller , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Illinois ARDC , Cook Sheriff , “” , Candice Schwager , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Alyece Russell , Eric Blair , Jay Goldman , Tom Fields , Nancy Vallone , “” , Len Holland , “Jim (” , Elaine Renoire , “” , Martin Kozak , Robert Sarhan , Kathie Bakken , Martha Jantho , Doug Franks , 60m Cbs News <>, John Howard Wyman , “Truthbetoldradio (” , Mary Richards , ACLU of Illinois , Kevin Pizzarello , “” , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Wsj Lts , “” , Greg Coleman , “” , The Wall Street Journal , KRISTI HOOD
Subject: Another of America’s dirty little secrets

America is not perfect, nor are we immune from the worst attributes of mankind.       The election of Mr. Obama was hailed as demonstration that we had matured and except for the lunatic, fringe a man’s race was no longer a barrier to election to the highest office in the land.    We, as a nation, had conquered our bias.     Unfortunately, our analysis was an illusion.   Indeed we talk a great game, but, right here in my parochial world I personally am confronted by the Illinois Supreme Court’s demonstration of racism in the Lanre Amu case (suspended for three years for practicing law while black- i.e. compliance with Supreme Court Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4) and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission barring civil rights icon Diane Nash from a kangaroo hearing involving JoAnne Denison.  (FYI the banning of Diane Nash is not coincidental, she is well known in her field, has connections to Hollywood, was featured in the movie Selma, and has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show and has been invited to Oprah personal events and parties).
A single example does not make a trend nor a criminal enterprise, but, even in the small group of individuals who have joined together to defend the elderly and the infirm from the exploitation of seniors from judicial and political criminals we have some rabid racists who raise their ugly heads.     One group (whose rants I have attempted to block from my communications) actually claim that “Jews” are the cause of the problem of “elder cleansing.”    
Defending the elderly and the disabled from those who War against the aforesaid elderly and disabled is by definition a thankless task.     Indeed, do not expect gratitude or even the reward of looking in the mirror and being able to tell yourself – Job well done.     The fight that is being waged by me is for me.     I may become elderly or disabled and thus vulnerable to ‘elder cleansing.’     I’ve seen the ravages of ‘old age’ and ‘illness.’      I’ve visited clients in ‘nursing homes’ and I saw what happened to ES when he was placed in a nursing home for rehabilitation.     I’ve seen the level of care that my wife’s grandparents received when they were placed in a sheltered care facility to recover from an auto accident [1] .     I’ve practiced law in Cook County, Illinois for fifty three years.     I am not Pollyanna!      
During my practice of law, while no one discriminated against me until quite recently, I was aware that America’s core values were always under threat.      During World War 2  thousands of Americans who had ancestors in Japan were actually herded from their homes and placed in concentration camps in the Mohave Desert!     Like the Jews of Germany their entire life was snatched from them.    America to its credit did not ‘gas’ them or make slaves out of them, but, we did exhibit our shame and disregard for our ‘core values.’       Of course we did not disturb the Nazi sympathizers.     They openly operated in Chicago (at Lawrence and Western Ave) displaying all the symbols of the 3rd Reich and its anti-Semitic roots.    
The War against the Elderly and the disabled is a repeat performance.      
There is hope.     It took 70 years for persons of Oriental origin to finally stand up and call a spade a spade.      The following article appeared this morning on the internet.
Asian-American groups accuse Harvard of racial bias in admissions
 Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY 5:57 p.m. EDT May 16, 2015
(Photo: Elise Amendola, AP)
A coalition of Asian-American groups filed a federal complaint against Harvard University on Friday alleging the school engaged in “systemic and continuous discrimination” against Asian Americans during its admissions process.
More than 60 Chinese, Indian, Korean and Pakistani groups came together for the complaint, ……
“We want to eliminate discrimination of Asian Americans, and we want procedural justice for all racial groups,” Yukong Zhao, one of the chief organizers and a guest columnist with the Orlando Sentinel, told NBC News. “All racial groups should be treated equal.”

Robert Iuliano, Harvard University General Counsel, said in a statement that the university uses a “holistic admissions process” that is “fully compliant with federal law” to build a diverse class. He added that over the past decade the percentage of Asian American students admitted to Harvard College has increased from 17.6% to 21%.
“We will vigorously defend the right of Harvard, and other universities, to continue to seek the educational benefits that come from a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions,” Iuliano said.

Yet, Yukong Zhao, a 52-year-old Chinese-American author who helped organize the coalition, told The Wall Street Journal that there are longtime stereotypes of Asian applicants….”There is a lot of discrimination, and it hurts not just Asian Americans, it hurts the whole country,” he told the paper.

Contributing: The Associated Press
Democracy is not a spectator sport.     

[1] My father (a physician) and I paid a courtesy call at the Nursing home in Miami, Florida.    We were greeted by Judy’s grandparents.  Dad noticed that Judy’s grandmother’s arm was hanging limp.    He found she had been almost a week in the facility, examined according to the charts daily by a doctor and several registered nurses and no one noticed that she had an untreated broken arm.    He called the police, supervised the arm being set and raised holy hell.    As Judy’s dad was also a physician they got immediate action.    The nursing home changed its name, its ostentatious appearance and *****.     The operator today continues to operate dozens of homes and runs a full page ad in the Jewish newspaper picturing he and his wife.     
Ken Ditkowsky

Law from article on how 93 year old Texas woman is being held against her will in Silverado nursing home

Here is the law cited (so others can use in your cases)

State and Federal Law pertaining to advocating for the needs of the disabled under Title II or III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the Elder Justice Act, the Older Americans Act, the Elder Bill of Rights as stated in Section 102.003 of the Texas Human Resources Code, Patient rights’ violations in Texas Administrative Code Sections 19.401-19.418, et seq, the First, Fifth, Fourteenth, Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Articles I and V of the Texas Constitution, 18 U.S.C. 241 (Felony violation of Constitutional Rights), 18 U.S.C. 242 (Conspiracy to violate Constitutional Rights), 18 U.S.C. 247 (Conspiracy to deprive Americans of Free Exercise of Religion), the Texas Penal Code Sections 22.04 and more mandating reporting of any suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the elderly and/or disabled. Attorneys are mandated reporters and the attorneys in this case prefer the ostrich approach, while shooting the messenger that would tell you of the abuse–no secret in countless social media and traditional journalist’s articles Nationwide.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has stated since its ratification in 1791: “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The First Amendment’s free speech clause, includes written expression as well as spoken. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991) 501 U.S. 560, 576 [111 S. Ct. 2456, 2465-2466, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504] (conc. opn. of Scalia, J.); see, e.g., Dallas v. Stanglin (1989) 490 U.S. 19, 25 [109 S. Ct. 1591, 1595, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18].) In Polk v. State Bar of Texas, Polk successfully enjoined the Texas State Bar from chilling his speech, even though he was critical of a District Attorney and Judge—suggesting corruption. 374 F. Supp. 784 (N.D. Tex. 1974).October 9, 2014 is the situs of the conspirators’ Motions for Sanctions and for Contempt and in the absence of the Judge barring the press and other concerned citizens, I invite you to come and testify as to why you believe the Courts should be open to the public in accordance with Article I, Section 13 (open courts provision) of the Texas Constitution. Our Texas Attorney General has promised to operate in the sunshine as it concerns our government–implying transparency of our government. Gag orders operate in darkness……

In Davenport v. Garcia, the Supreme Court of Texas stated, “We are fully aware that a prior restraint will withstand scrutiny under this test only under the most extraordinary circumstances. That result is consistent with the mandate of our constitution recognizing our broad right to freedom of expression in Texas. An individual’s rights under the state constitution do not end at the courthouse door; rather, the courthouse is properly the fortress of those rights. The first requirement of our standard advances from the prior holdings of Texas courts that only an imminent, severe harm can justify prior restraint, and in the context of gag orders, that harm must be to the judicial process. Ex Parte McCormick, 129 Tex. Crim. 457, 88 S.W.2d 104; Ex Parte Foster, 71 S.W. at 595.

Gag orders are almost without exception unconstitutional in civil cases unless the matter is sealed in accordance with strict constitutional mandates of Article I Section 13 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a. Sealing has historically been limited to sensitive cases involving juveniles and adoptions.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). “All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance — unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion” — fall within the full protection of the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957). Legislation or Rules that aim at penalizing the publication of truthful information can seldom satisfy constitutional standards, Smith v. Butterworth, 866 F.2d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. granted, 493 U.S. 807, 110 S. Ct. 46, 107 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1989), and is generally presumed unconstitutional.

…the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that political speech about government issues or officials is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2626, 168 L. Ed. 2d 290 (U.S. 2007)(citation omitted). There is universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1966). The Supreme Court has long held that regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of content are presumptively violative of the First Amendment, Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1986)

Also follow the cases on our websites, Let Ruby Go and! These are, of course, our opinions, and you are free to disagree with us. That is what democracy is all about……

I believe this was written by Candice Schwager, a tireless activist for senior/disabled rights down in Texas.