From AA: why is a judge charged with corruption running for office?

DISGRACED “PEOPLE FOR CASH” ​ EXJUDGE STEVE BAILEY,
RUNNING FOR CALIF. ATTORNEY GENERAL? What?
“Ole Juryless, Constitution Out The Window Bailey”–, CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FROM THE “PROBATE BENCH”
 
THIS “STINKS”—-DESPITE BEING CHARGED WITH RIGGING CASES AS PROBATE JUDGE. “PEOPLE FOR CASH” TYPE CHARGES, EX PROBATE JUDGE STEVE BAILEY while facing a CA ethics committee during the current election season, is the GOP nominee for California attorney general. Former probate judge Steven Bailey has been accused and evidence presented of his using his judgeship for election purposes, illegally receiving gifts, and rigging cases to direct business and funds to a firms where his son and nephew worked and benefited from……ALL IN VIOLATION OF LAW. Bailey served as an El Dorado County judge from 2009 through the end 2017.
 
Advertisements

From EB: more on Kise Davis and her abusive guardianship in NM

http://www.krwg.org/post/new-mexicos-guardianship-system-raises-serious-questions

New Mexico’s Guardianship System Raises Serious Questions

  OCT 7, 2018

CREDIT PETER GOODMAN

Commentary: A new AARP article reminded me of the day I said farewell to a delightful, courageous Japanese lady named Kise.

A year earlier, her stepson approached me in the market and asked me to help free his Japanese stepmother. She was “like a second mother.” When he first went to Japan at 14, she not only welcomed him but effected a reconciliation with his father.

She’d moved to the U.S. with her husband, who died in 1993. She loved her garden and her cat, but she was aging, and her stepson lived in California. They’d discussed her moving there when living alone got too hard. He’d arranged home-help for her here, but she fired the help.

It was a shock when a neighbor called: authorities had put her somewhere — for her own safety.

He and his wife came to Las Cruces. They wanted to take her to California. They couldn’t. The guardians and their lawyer vilified him.

I helped them awhile, as a lawyer, then referred them to a firm.

As a columnist, I’ve learned from other sources of heartbreaking abuses of New Mexico’s guardianship laws. I was even advised that “clients” were in the charge of a woman who had been fired, allegedly for questionable treatment of clients. (An October 2017 New Yorker article detailed abuses of Nevada’s law, which was especially favorable to guardians taking over people’s lives, even where family was willing and able to help.)

New Mexico’s Supreme Court created a commission to look into abuses and make recommendations. The Commission heard many horror stories. It recommended that when someone is in danger of being committed, family must be notified and given a voice. It also recommended making hearings public. While we’d like to keep such proceedings confidential to protect the person involved, confidentiality allows guardians to abuse their power. (In Nevada, there were numerous cases of an agency taking over a person’s life, collecting handsome sums from the person’s bank account, and refusing families’ efforts to help – or even visit.) Sometimes, though, guardians do wonderful and essential work.

In January 2017, Judge James T. Martin ordered the guardians to try to help Kise move to California. They made excuses. (They’d made clear to me that they had no intention of moving her.) They kept her living with people far less functional than she; and their willfulness cost her and her stepson lots of money. (During one visit, a lady who was intently watching a TV show for young children kept confusing Kise and me with characters in the show. Kise whispered, “You don’t get smarter in here.”)

In February 2018 the Judge ordered them to comply with his 2017 order.

We celebrated with lunch at Aqua Reef. We were so relieved that Kise could finally move to a facility near her stepson’s home, join them for meals, and go to their house to garden. She called them “a godsend.”

I wished I had a videotape of our conversation to show her “guardians.” What was remarkable about our good-bye lunch was that it wasn’t remarkable. Kise was charming and quick-witted. Her stepson and his wife treated her with the love and respect she deserved.

As I hugged everyone, I realized how moved I felt.

It seemed incredible that for over a year her guardian and court-appointed lawyer (perhaps well-intentioned), had charged Kise big bucks to keep her locked up and away from her family.

[I can’t say much more about Kise’s case, except that when I’ve had a chance to talk with her and her stepson, things sound so much better than when she was here.  Nothing against the facility in which she was kept, where the people who worked with her seemed to genuinely like her and be liked by her.  The key problem is that operating in relative darkness, guardians have pretty absolute power over their charges, particularly since in any disagreement a competent-appearing professional has a pretty significant credibility edge on a person who is or may be approaching dementia.  And we know what Lord Acton said about absolute power corrupting absolutely.  Perhaps it’s a wonder that some — perhaps the majority of — guardians are honest and caring and thoughtful.]

[In California, Kise read this column and appreciated it.  She commented that “you don’t normally read something in the newspaper so truthful.”  Thursday is her birthday — she’ll be 87 — and I’ll be thinking of her.]

[Again, I do not mean by this column to indict an industry.  Or anyone.  I mean to join the chorus warning that there are dangers here Kise did need some kind of intervention.  But the guardians, in my opinion, dug in too deeply when faced with a loving family.  Her stepson became the Enemy, and battling him seemed to become their mission.  I’m told that under the new rules, they would have been required to serve him with papers right from the start, which would have helped here.]

[By the way, although stories have also appeared in the Albuquerque Journal, the AARP Magazine piece (by Kenneth Miller), which sparked my publication of this column, is in the October/November issue and is entitled “AARP Investigates: A Legal Hostage” and subtitled, “A court-ordered guardianship nearly shattered the life of Kise Davis in a trend that now too often leads to isolation and exploitation of older Americans.”  (I’d written the column months ago, but not thought it appropriate to publish it while the case was in the courts and before the information in it had become public.)]

From EB: more on the abusive guardianship of Kise Davis

http://www.krwg.org/post/new-mexicos-guardianship-system-raises-serious-questions

New Mexico’s Guardianship System Raises Serious Questions

  OCT 7, 2018

CREDIT PETER GOODMAN

Commentary: A new AARP article reminded me of the day I said farewell to a delightful, courageous Japanese lady named Kise.

A year earlier, her stepson approached me in the market and asked me to help free his Japanese stepmother. She was “like a second mother.” When he first went to Japan at 14, she not only welcomed him but effected a reconciliation with his father.

She’d moved to the U.S. with her husband, who died in 1993. She loved her garden and her cat, but she was aging, and her stepson lived in California. They’d discussed her moving there when living alone got too hard. He’d arranged home-help for her here, but she fired the help.

It was a shock when a neighbor called: authorities had put her somewhere — for her own safety.

He and his wife came to Las Cruces. They wanted to take her to California. They couldn’t. The guardians and their lawyer vilified him.

I helped them awhile, as a lawyer, then referred them to a firm.

As a columnist, I’ve learned from other sources of heartbreaking abuses of New Mexico’s guardianship laws. I was even advised that “clients” were in the charge of a woman who had been fired, allegedly for questionable treatment of clients. (An October 2017 New Yorker article detailed abuses of Nevada’s law, which was especially favorable to guardians taking over people’s lives, even where family was willing and able to help.)

New Mexico’s Supreme Court created a commission to look into abuses and make recommendations. The Commission heard many horror stories. It recommended that when someone is in danger of being committed, family must be notified and given a voice. It also recommended making hearings public. While we’d like to keep such proceedings confidential to protect the person involved, confidentiality allows guardians to abuse their power. (In Nevada, there were numerous cases of an agency taking over a person’s life, collecting handsome sums from the person’s bank account, and refusing families’ efforts to help – or even visit.) Sometimes, though, guardians do wonderful and essential work.

In January 2017, Judge James T. Martin ordered the guardians to try to help Kise move to California. They made excuses. (They’d made clear to me that they had no intention of moving her.) They kept her living with people far less functional than she; and their willfulness cost her and her stepson lots of money. (During one visit, a lady who was intently watching a TV show for young children kept confusing Kise and me with characters in the show. Kise whispered, “You don’t get smarter in here.”)

In February 2018 the Judge ordered them to comply with his 2017 order.

We celebrated with lunch at Aqua Reef. We were so relieved that Kise could finally move to a facility near her stepson’s home, join them for meals, and go to their house to garden. She called them “a godsend.”

I wished I had a videotape of our conversation to show her “guardians.” What was remarkable about our good-bye lunch was that it wasn’t remarkable. Kise was charming and quick-witted. Her stepson and his wife treated her with the love and respect she deserved.

As I hugged everyone, I realized how moved I felt.

It seemed incredible that for over a year her guardian and court-appointed lawyer (perhaps well-intentioned), had charged Kise big bucks to keep her locked up and away from her family.

[I can’t say much more about Kise’s case, except that when I’ve had a chance to talk with her and her stepson, things sound so much better than when she was here.  Nothing against the facility in which she was kept, where the people who worked with her seemed to genuinely like her and be liked by her.  The key problem is that operating in relative darkness, guardians have pretty absolute power over their charges, particularly since in any disagreement a competent-appearing professional has a pretty significant credibility edge on a person who is or may be approaching dementia.  And we know what Lord Acton said about absolute power corrupting absolutely.  Perhaps it’s a wonder that some — perhaps the majority of — guardians are honest and caring and thoughtful.]

[In California, Kise read this column and appreciated it.  She commented that “you don’t normally read something in the newspaper so truthful.”  Thursday is her birthday — she’ll be 87 — and I’ll be thinking of her.]

[Again, I do not mean by this column to indict an industry.  Or anyone.  I mean to join the chorus warning that there are dangers here Kise did need some kind of intervention.  But the guardians, in my opinion, dug in too deeply when faced with a loving family.  Her stepson became the Enemy, and battling him seemed to become their mission.  I’m told that under the new rules, they would have been required to serve him with papers right from the start, which would have helped here.]

[By the way, although stories have also appeared in the Albuquerque Journal, the AARP Magazine piece (by Kenneth Miller), which sparked my publication of this column, is in the October/November issue and is entitled “AARP Investigates: A Legal Hostage” and subtitled, “A court-ordered guardianship nearly shattered the life of Kise Davis in a trend that now too often leads to isolation and exploitation of older Americans.”  (I’d written the column months ago, but not thought it appropriate to publish it while the case was in the courts and before the information in it had become public.)]

from EB: 277 arrested in Fla. for human trafficking scheme including doctors and cops

https://www.nbc4i.com/amp/news/u-s-world/doctors-and-cops-among-277-arrested-in-human-trafficking-online-prostitution-sting-in-florida/1096287648

POLK COUNTY, Fla. (WFLA) – A week-long undercover sting targeting human trafficking and online prostitution in Polk County ended with 277 arrests that included doctors, pharmacists and law enforcement officers.

“That’s the most we have ever arrested in the history of the sheriff’s office,” Sheriff Grady Judd said.

Operation No Tricks, No Treats” started last Tuesday, October 10 and ran through Monday, October 16. During that time, undercover detectives posted fake ads or profiles online posing as prostitutes or someone who solicits prostitutes. Other detectives responded to profiles and ads posted by prostitutes.

According to the sheriff’s office, 51 of the arrests were related to those who advertise as prostitutes online and 209 of the arrests were those who solicited undercover detectives posing as prostitutes. Seventeen arrests were made for other offenses.

Sheriff Judd identified some of the suspects arrested in the undercover operation as doctors and pharmacists, former and current law enforcement officers, a lawyer, two men who traveled to have sex with minors and two sex offenders.

These are some of the men arrested that the sheriff identified:

  • Cancer surgeon at Tampa General Hospital
  • Pediatrician at Health Care Alliance in Wesley Chapel
  • Teacher from Lake Academy
  • Active Colonel in the US Marine Corps
  • Air Force veteran
  • Retired Broward County deputy sheriff
  • Retired police officer from Birmingham, Alabama

The sheriff’s office even caught one of their own. Former Sergeant Luis Diaz resigned from the force after 17 years.

“We are absolutely embarrassed,” Sheriff Judd said. “We hold our own accountable. He messed up and no longer works for the Sherriff’s Office.”

Investigators say 215 suspects drove to Polk County from locations throughout Florida. Some were in the state visiting from Alabama, California, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

“Welcome to Polk County,” Judd said to them during his news conference.

Polk County detectives worked with detectives and investigators from Haines City police, Lakeland police, Lakes Wales police and Winter Haven police.

“We are committed to fighting human trafficking by arresting those who engage in prostitution and trying to identify human trafficking victims,” Sheriff Judd said in an earlier news release. “It’s no secret…you need to stay out of Polk County if you’re going to commit crime.”

Those arrested for soliciting a prostitute were:

1 Adams Mark 2/11/66 WM Ruskin, FL
2 Aderhold Jr John 7/30/83 WM Statesboro, GA
3 Albert John 8/12/86 BM Winter Haven, FL
4 Alcantar Cesar 10/2/79 HM Lakeland, FL
5 Aldana Nelson 5/3/77 HM Tampa, FL
6 Alejandro Samuel 11/5/94 HM Kissimmee, FL
7 Andrews Dexter 4/11/91 BM Kissimmee, FL
8 Antoine Eddy 3/28/53 BM Riverview, FL
9 Auguste Steve 5/14/86 BM Orlando, FL
10 Barbosa Joel 9/12/81 BM Kissimmee, FL
11 Beltran-Aponte Pedro 11/22/98 HM Kissimmee, FL
12 Benjamin Shuai 2/17/96 BM Kissimmee, FL
13 Bennett Justin 5/12/89 WM Mulberry, FL
14 Berti Deigo 1/14/76 HM Kissimmee, FL
15 Blas-Aviles Aldo 3/25/97 HM Mulberry, FL
16 Bowman Ryan 3/17/79 WM Tampa, FL
17 Branch Lashown 10/24/88 BM Lakeland, FL
18 Brito Jonathan 5/26/81 HM Tampa, FL
19 Brown William 4/6/81 BM Davenport, FL
20 Brown Jr Guy 2/27/86 BM Clermont, FL
21 Burgess Stephen 2/24/69 WM Tampa, FL
22 Burke Marvin 5/1/90 BM Apopka, FL
23 Caballero Jorge 8/27/66 HM Auburnale, FL
24 Carias Juan 6/24/79 HM Tampa, FL
25 Castro Harry 12/8/75 WM Oviedo, FL
26 Cebero Carlos 8/22/74 HM Mulberry, FL
27 Chaemchoey Navapat 3/19/84 OM Lakeland, FL
28 Chan Robert 10/22/71 AM Lakeland, FL
29 Chapelle Spencer 10/7/87 WM Key Largo, FL
30 Chen Peter 1/21/67 AM Plant City, FL
31 Conte Richard 2/3/75 WM Clermont, FL
32 Courtney Arthur 3/6/88 WM Kissimmee, FL
33 Cruz Richard 8/6/94 HM Kissimmee, FL
34 Cunha Eduardo 4/2/68 HM Apopka, FL
35 Daulta Hemant 2/6/93 IM Tampa, FL
36 Davis Eric 10/26/69 BM Land O’ Lakes, FL
37 Davis Larry 2/25/43 WM Lakeland, FL
38 Debesa Serafin 6/22/81 WM Winter Haven, FL
39 Diaz Luis 11/22/73 HM Polk County,FL
40 Dos-Santos William 4/27/83 OM Kissimmee, FL
41 Dowdy Donald 8/2/63 WM Plant City, FL
42 Dugue Diego 11/22/78 HM Kissimmee, FL
43 Duran Christian 7/23/91 HM Ruskin, FL
44 Dustal Kevin 3/12/66 WM Lakeland, FL
45 Ellison Eric 6/14/71 BM Tampa, FL
46 Escobar Alec 8/9/97 HM Lakeland, FL
47 Escobar Julio 10/26/88 HM Winter Garden, FL
48 Espina-Palma Owen 3/28/78 HM Plant City, FL
49 Etheridge, Jr. Percy 3/14/70 BM Winter Haven, FL
50 Felton Dennis 12/29/92 WM Tampa, FL
51 Feregrino Alegandro 11/14/95 HM Davenport, FL
52 Fernandez Jeran 5/28/95 HM Dundee, FL
53 Fernandez Edgar 11/26/97 HM Davenport, FL
54 Ferrer Daniel 5/3/91 WM Davenport, FL
55 Figueroa Francisco 6/2/92 HM Orlando, FL
56 Fisher Jason 4/19/85 WM Brandon, FL
57 Floresca Virgil 9/1/77 AM St. Pete, FL
58 Flores-Solorzano Frederik 2/16/91 HM Lake Worth, FL
59 Forero Harold 1/31/71 HM Tampa, FL
60 Forest Jonathan 3/28/88 WM Polk City, FL
61 Foster Chandler 5/1/92 WM Keizer, OR
62 Franquiz Jesus 3/31/72 HM Davenport, FL
63 Freeman Frank 5/28/65 WM Magnolia, DE
64 Galindo Druso 2/22/68 HM Odessa, TX
65 Garcia Renado 1/29/88 AM Lakeland, FL
66 Geddada Suresh 5/10/84 AM Tampa, FL
67 Gibril Amro 6/21/89 IM Orlando, FL
68 Gilbert Jonathan 2/22/87 BM Tampa, FL
69 Gonzalez Carlos 10/30/92 HM Winter Haven, FL
70 Gonzalez Alexis 6/15/79 HM Davenport, FL
71 Gonzalez-Quintana Yandy 6/1/84 HM Tampa, FL
72 Govey John 6/22/62 WM Winter Haven, FL
73 Gregg Ron 3/22/95 BM Brandon, FL
74 Gupta Shobhit 11/15/89 WM Clermont, FL
75 Ha Chau 9/7/79 WM Lakeland, FL
76 Hall Thomas 10/8/63 BM Tampa, FL
77 Harris William 6/10/77 WM Pinellas Park, FL
78 Harrison Carlon 3/4/80 BM Kissimmee, FL
79 Hawkins Marcus 11/30/98 OM Riverview, FL
80 Hernandez Jr Miguel 6/4/97 HM
81 Hernandez Jr Alberto 12/31/81 HM Plant City, FL
82 Hill Creston 6/7/88 BM Tampa, FL
83 Hong Alfredo 12/15/89 OM Kissimmee, FL
84 Houston James 5/16/80 BM Delmar, DE
85 Howell Emery 3/24/62 WM Highland City, FL
86 Hoyos Ulises 9/7/87 HM Dover, FL
87 Huggins Braxton 4/27/94 BM Lakeland, FL
88 Hulbert Justin 7/25/93 WM Orlando, FL
89 Hull David 5/10/58 WM Land O’ Lakes, FL
90 Hundley Jordan 2/28/99 BM Lakeland, FL
91 Huntsinger Chris 5/14/73 WM Gastonia, NC
92 Jacob Salil 11/23/66 WM Valrico, FL
93 Johnson Demetres 8/21/70 BM Kissimmee, FL
94 Johnson Daniel 7/18/89 WM Winter Garden, FL
95 Jones Darius 4/20/89 BM Lakeland, FL
96 Jones Dortrie 6/11/83 BM Orlando, FL
97 Juan-Martinez Jose 3/3/95 HM Tampa, FL
98 JUVENILE   17 yrs old HM Orlando, FL
99 JUVENILE   16 yrs old HM Clermont, FL
100 JUVENILE   17 yrs old HM Orlando, FL
101 JUVENILE 17 years IM Lakeland, FL
102 Kamble Shashikant 3/10/87 IM Temple Terrace, FL
103 Kawasmeh Saad 10/4/74 OM Orlando, FL
104 Khadse Akshay 7/15/92 OM Orlando, FL
105 Khaled Gebarin 1/19/51 OM Tampa, FL
106 Kimmell Samuel 8/10/92 WM Nevada, MO
107 King Tony 5/13/80 WM Tarrytown, GA
108 Klotch Douglas 4/24/46 WM Palmetto, FL
109 Lagoan Aben 6/3/85 BM Lakeland, FL
110 Lanier Raymond 3/22/84 WM Plant City, FL
111 Lee Elliott 2/25/85 BM Dunwoody, GA
112 Letchworth Samson 9/11/80 WM Lakeland, FL
113 Lopez Angel 9/14/89 HM Lakeland, FL
114 Lopez-Borrego Jose 8/23/74 HM Tampa, FL
115 Lopshire Jordan 8/5/87 WM Matthews, NC
116 Lowes Adrian 12/8/73 WM Winter Springs, FL
117 Lucas Marco 2/21/93 HM Lakeland, FL
118 Lyken Lawrence 4/22/93 BM Dublin, GA
119 Lynn Robert 10/31/83 WM Cleveland,TN
120 Maclin Justin 7/17/97 BM Riverview, FL
121 Maldonado Yonatan 3/6/98 HM Orlando, FL
122 Marin-Sosa Migdonio 4/19/63 HM Orlando, FL
123 Martinez Alejandro 12/5/84 HM Longwood, FL
124 Martinez-Maldonado Carlos 4/24/81 HM Riverview, FL
125 Mathes Kevin 7/26/67 WM Mulberry, FL
126 McGowan John 3/29/96 WM Avon Park, FL
127 McSwain Nicholas 4/5/82 BM Lakeland, FL
128 Mejias Omar 10/22/91 HM Cape Coral, FL
129 Melendez Alfredo 11/23/91 HM Tampa, FL
130 Melia Anthony 7/22/64 HM Dickenson, TX
131 Merkiel Michael 3/25/87 WM Plant City, FL
132 Merrill Willie 3/14/78 BM Lakeland, FL
133 Miller Michael 5/19/73 WM Melbourne, FL
134 Miller David 3/4/59 WM Ocala, FL
135 Miranda Luis 10/16/95 BM Lakeland, FL
136 Mitchell Foley 12/7/82 BM Detroit, MI
137 Montanez Francisco 8/24/54 HM Lakeland, FL
138 Montesano Anthony 6/2/73 WM Lakeland, FL
139 Morales Richard 12/3/78 HM Brandon, FL
140 Muscato David 11/4/56 WM Lithia, FL
141 Neto Mario 6/25/97 HM Lakeland, FL
142 Paschall Deatrick 4/5/76 BM Lakeland, FL
143 Patel Bhavikkumar 8/5/75 IM Lakeland, FL
144 Patterson Mark 7/21/59 WM Plant City, FL
145 Pena Jose 8/11/77 HM Clermont, FL
146 Perez Juan 8/7/84 HM Kissimmee, FL
147 Perez Gonzalo 4/15/96 HM Plant City, FL
148 Perez Christian 3/5/82 HM Sefner,FL
149 Perez Jose 11/23/87 HM St Petersburg,FL
150 Persaud Shawn 4/6/95 IM Orlando, FL
151 Peti Richard 9/29/65 WM Elizabeth, NJ
152 Pilato Chase 10/2/96 WM Orlando, FL
153 Ponce Carlos 10/1/76 HM Lakeland, FL
154 Potnuru Samrat 3/16/91 IM Lake Mary, FL
155 Proctor Patrick 3/17/56 WM Toronto, CA
156 Quintero Enrique 2/1/90 HM Frostproof, FL
157 Rachko Jared 3/8/99 WM Winter Park, FL
158 Ramirez Hector 1/16/92 HM Norman Park, GA
159 Ramirez Raul 10/11/90 HM San Jose, CA
160 Ramirez Matthew 6/21/96 HM Wimauma, FL
161 Ramirez Antonio 5/14/96 HM Norman Park, GA
162 Ramjit Ryan 4/12/84 IM Orlando, FL
163 Ramos Eduardo 8/6/83 HM Orlando, FL
164 Rector James 10/7/58 WM Clermont, FL
165 Reddick Shaquon 2/27/97 BM Eustis, FL
166 Rey Christopher 11/25/86 WM Clearwater, FL
167 Reynolds Donald 10/2/54 WM Hoover, AL
168 Richman Brian 6/6/79 WM Winter Springs, FL
169 Rivera Jessie 6/5/93 HM Plant City, FL
170 Rivera Hector 2/15/86 HM Tampa, FL
171 Rivera Christopher 1/4/72 WM Davenport, FL
172 Rodriguez David 10/21/90 HM Baton Rouge, LA
173 Rodriguez Juan Luis 11/2/78 HM Orlando, FL
174 Saikho Sengdao 3/23/71 AM Lakeland, FL
175 Salgaldo Luis 3/18/90 HM Orlando, FL
176 Sanchez Dalbim 12/25/89 HM Brandon, FL
177 Scott Kevin 10/29/65 BM Norfolk, VA
178 Serebrowski Yisroel 8/12/77 WM Orlando, FL
179 Serrano Merlin 9/17/76 HM Miami, FL
180 Silva Da Rosa Allessandro 2/21/78 HM Orlando, FL
181 Singh Vijay 8/1/70 OM Tampa, FL
182 Smith Joshua 1/29/75 WM Belleview,FL
183 Smith,Jr. Charles 2/18/69 WM Plant City, FL
184 Steinhauer Joshua 4/4/78 WM Brandon, FL
185 Stokes Christopher 8/19/84 WM Mulberry, FL
186 Suarez Omar 2/28/83 HM Brooksville, FL
187 Summers Robert 5/17/74 WM Tampa, FL
188 Swain Malcolm 11/22/59 WM Longwood, FL
189 Tadlock Rex 7/9/53 WM Plant City, FL
190 Taipale Christopher 2/26/79 WM Sumpter, MI
191 Tanner Charles 8/21/78 BM Plant City, FL
192 Tazi Hicham 7/11/83 OM Orlando, FL
193 Tercero Santiago 2/25/85 HM Tampa, FL
194 Tomaino Steven 9/21/66 WM Austin, TX
195 Torres Joseph 4/14/94 HM Orlando, FL
196 Torres Aramis 3/18/72 HM Davenport, FL
197 Trejo-Martinez Joakin 5/4/94 HM Mulberry, FL
198 Vasquez Juan 3/13/75 HM Winter Haven, FL
199 Vega Santo 1/23/77 HM Kissimmee, FL
200 Walsh Michael 10/13/87 WM Clermont, FL
201 Ward Christopher 12/27/74 WM Bartow, FL
202 Waters Raymond 6/24/68 BM Palmetto, FL
203 Wilkerson Leon 11/14/77 BM Riverview, FL
204 Willett Tyler 8/22/85 WM Ocoee, FL
205 Williams Kenneth 9/26/81 BM Lakeland, FL
206 Wood Travis 2/3/91 WM Mulberry, FL
207 Yagual Jose 9/25/73 HM Groveland, FL
208 Zhu Ye 12/5/82 AM Cape Coral, FL
209 Zoll Justin 12/14/78 WM Riverview, FL

Those arrested for offering to commit prostitution were:

1 Abraham Elly 11/24/95 HF Kissimmee, FL
2 Allen Priscilla 10/5/90 BF Tampa, FL
3 Baihat Tabatha 2/2/85 WF Orlando, FL
4 Buckley Shannon 6/18/94 WF Kissimmee, FL
5 Castendyk Paul 9/11/97 WM Mulberry, FL
6 Collins Latoya 8/25/81 BF Orlando, FL
7 Cortes Eduardo 1/22/71 BM Tampa, FL
8 Cradrado Giselle 11/7/91 HF Orlando, FL
9 Davila-Rodriguez Yesenia 12/27/89 HF Clearwater, FL
10 Dobbs Amber 4/18/96 WF Orlando, FL
11 Doby-Morris Antoine 2/16/88 BM Hollywood, FL
12 Eaves Kokiela 10/20/89 BF Tampa, FL
13 Figueroa Amanda 3/13/95 HF Kissimmee, FL
14 Finn Steven 4/28/80 WM Coral Gables, FL
15 Glenn Catiesha 11/28/85 BF Tampa, FL
16 Gonzalez Victoria 3/29/90 HM Tampa, FL
17 Gonzalez-Perez Yoel 8/8/84 HM Tampa, FL
18 Harris Regina 10/18/88 BF Atlanta, GA
19 Heiser Heather 6/21/80 WF Tampa, FL
20 Herron Kiana 10/19/95 BF Orlando, FL
21 Isaula Junior 6/1/97 HM Miami, FL
22 Jeune Yasmick 4/5/88 BM Pompano Beach,FL
23 Johnson Leah 8/4/78 WF Lakeland, FL
24 Knockenus Rhonda 9/18/84 WF Bartow, FL
25 Martinez Victoria 9/28/89 HF Tampa, FL
26 Miranda Yessenia 1/20/86 HF Davenport, FL
27 Morejon Eduardo 7/13/90 HM Tampa, FL
28 Mukesh Arlene 6/23/97 IF Winter Garden, FL
29 Nazario Nicole 9/27/96 HF Orlando, FL
30 Newton Shornlin 7/5/84 BF Orlando, FL
31 POSSIBLE HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIM 21 yrs old BF Ocoee, FL
32 POSSIBLE HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIM 36 yrs old WF Spring Hill, FL
33 POSSIBLE HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIM 27 yrs old HM Richmond Hill, NY
34 POSSIBLE HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIM 25 yrs old WF Gainesville, FL
35 POSSIBLE HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIM 28 yrs old WF Orlando, FL
36 Powers Josefina 8/29/60 WF Port Orange, FL
37 Ribelin Brittani 12/30/91 WF Riverview, FL
38 Rivers Robert 10/25/89 BM Tampa, FL
39 Robinson China 12/13/97 WF Ft L Lauderdale,FL
40 Scott Marcel 1/16/95 HM St. Pete, FL
41 Shavers Chevy 9/10/90 BF Tampa, FL
42 Simmons Megan 10/26/90 BF Winter Haven, FL
43 Smith Sarah 2/27/86 WF Winter Park, FL
44 Stanley Tiffany 4/18/78 WF Tampa, FL
45 Sulavka Alex 1/8/99 WM Pinellas Park, FL
46 Talavera-Ramos Fabiola 7/29/93 HF Kissimmee, FL
47 Vickers Kelsey 4/4/94 WF New Bern, NC
48 Villavicencio Jennifer 11/13/86 WF Tampa, FL
49 Whitfill Jessica 4/15/92 WF Orlando, FL
50 Wood Kayla 9/30/92 WF Debarry, FL
51 Worley Kambriel 1/29/83 BF Orlando, FL

Others arrested were: 

1 Aria Brianna 3/2/96 HF Orlando, FL Transporting for Prostitution
2 Brinkley Keivon 4/5/94 BF Orlando, FL Deriving proceeds from Prostitution proceeds from Prostitution
3 Carbonell George 5/28/75 WM Homeless Poss of Meth, Heroin, & paraphernalia
4 Chavez III Alejandro 9/28/85 HM Plant City, FL Deriving proceeds from Prostitution proceeds from Prostitution
5 Cruz Gladibel 8/19/76 HF Orlando, FL DWLSR Knowingly
6 Fay Megan 7/17/87 WF Thonotosassa, FL Aiding & Abetting Prostitution, Transporting Offer to commit Prostitution
7 Hamilton Drumond 1/14/80 BM Deland, FL Possession of Marijuana
8 Hawkins Bentley 4/20/64 WM Davenport, FL Lewd Battery, Use 2-Way Communication Device, Travel to Meet a child
9 Hernandez Abdiel 3/17/76 HF Tampa, FL Battery
10 McSweeney Sean 8/18/88 BM Orlando, FL Deriving proceeds,Ecstasy,Paraphernalia
11 Patterson Larry 12/14/88 BM Orlando, FL Poss cocaine WITS, Poss vehicle to sell drugs, Resisting arrest, Loitering, Poss paraphernalia
12 Pernaherrera Alvaro 7/10/94 HM Orlando, FL Traveling to meet minor, Use of computer to seduce child, Transmisstion of material harmful, Lewd Battery
13 Plastini Louis 4/4/48 WM Orlando, FL Deriving proceeds from Prostitution proceeds from Prostitution
14 Vasquez Armando 10/27/57 HM Spring Hill, FL Human Trafficking
15 Vaughn William 8/9/79 WM Tampa, FL Poss firearm by convicted felon, Poss controlled substance, Poss Cocaine, Poss Meth, Poss Marijuana
16 Viera Angela 5/5/86 WF St. Cloud, FL Trafficking Cocaine, Resisting arrest, Loitering, Poss Marijuana & Paraphernalia
17 Walker Amy 5/6/86 WF Valrico, FL Transporting for Prostitution

 

From DSS: The abusive Gship of Kise Davis

https://www.aarp.org/caregiving/financial-legal/info-2018/court-ordered-guardianship-separates-family.html

What Happens When a Guardianship Gets Contentious

A court-ordered guardianship nearly shattered Kise Davis’ life, in a trend that too often leads to isolation and exploitation of older Americans

Larry Davis and his stepmother Kise, who was placed into a court-ordered guardianship

JAKE STANGEL/AARP

Larry and Kise Davis were reunited after a lengthy legal battle over Kise Davis’ guardianship.

Larry Davis tried his best to help his stepmother, but distance made it difficult. Davis lived with his wife in Sonoma County, Calif.; Kise (pronounced KEEˇ-say) Davis lived in Las Cruces, N.M., 1,200 miles away. She was struggling with dementia, and Larry, who held power of attorney over her affairs, spoke with her regularly, kept tabs on her via local contacts and visited as often as he could. He was working toward moving her to an assisted living facility near his home.

That began to seem more urgent in the fall of 2016, when Kise, then 85, began complaining that a longtime acquaintance, Larry Franco — a handyman who helped her with household tasks — was stealing from her. But Kise’s illness sometimes made her paranoid; she’d lodged such accusations against friends before. Larry, who was 74, planned to fly out and investigate after the holidays. Then, shortly before Christmas, he came home from a shopping trip to learn that Kise had gone missing.

“This is Kise’s neighbor Donnie,” said the voice on the answering machine. “I thought you should know that a van just came and took her to some kind of institution.”

Terrified that harm had come to Kise, Larry called Franco and demanded to know what was going on. “I got in over my head,” Franco told him. He explained that Kise had transferred her power of attorney (POA) to him, then turned suspicious and hostile. Franco’s lawyer had advised him that the best way to ensure Kise was properly cared for was to petition a judge to appoint a professional guardian, who would take over legal responsibility for her well-being.

Kise’s newly appointed guardian, a company called Advocate Services of Las Cruces, had placed her in a dementia-care facility by order of the court. It took Larry more than a week to reach her there. When they finally spoke, on Christmas Eve, she seemed to believe she’d booked herself a room, though now they wouldn’t let her go.

“They’ve put me in an insane asylum. Please come and get me out of  here.”

— Kise Davis

Larry was furious that no one had informed him before letting strangers lock her away, but he assumed he could quickly set things right.

He was wrong.

A Court-Appointed Guardianship

An estimated 1.3 million adults are under guardianship in this country, perhaps 85 percent of them over 65. The court-ordered supervision, designed to ensure that mentally or physically incapacitated people are cared for and protected, can be partial (often covering only finances and known as a conservatorship) or full. For full guardianship, a judge transfers the individual’s civil rights — including the right to sign contracts, make medical decisions, and choose with whom to associate and where to live — to the guardian. The most common arrangement is for the judge to appoint a family member, who may draw on the person’s estate to cover approved expenses. If there is no available or appropriate family member, a professional or company may be appointed. The professional can charge the estate to handle the client’s affairs and to pay for necessary services, with court approval.

In most instances, experts say, guardians perform conscientiously and their clients benefit. Still, in an unknown number of cases, a guardianship can go disastrously wrong. A 2010 federal report identified hundreds of allegations of abuse, exploitation or neglect by guardians over 20 years. Although family members committed the majority of these misdeeds, the crimes that usually make headlines are those of professional guardians. Last year saw a bumper crop. The owner of a Las Vegas guardianship company was indicted on more than 200 felony charges for allegedly bilking more than 150 people out of their life savings. In New Mexico the two owners of Ayudando Guardians Inc. — along with one owner’s husband and son — were arrested for conspiracy, fraud, theft and money laundering in connection with an alleged plot to embezzle $4 million from clients’ trust accounts. The CEO of another Albuquerque-based company, Desert State Life Management, pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering; he faces eight to 12 years in prison and must pay $4.8 million in restitution to more than 70 special-needs clients.

Yet even guardianships that fall within the letter of the law can wreak emotional and financial devastation. Although all those involved may think their motives and actions are honorable — as in the case of Kise Davis — the slow, costly workings of the court system can cause untold confusion and pain. Moreover, activists charge that in some cases, unscrupulous professional guardians have turned legally sanctioned exploitation into a cottage industry, abetted by greedy attorneys and pliable judges. “The people who are supposed to solve the ward’s and family’s problems instead profit enormously from creating a whole bunch of new ones,” says physician Sam Sugar, founder of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship.

Testifying in April 2018 before a U.S. Senate committee, Nina Kohn, a law professor at Syracuse University and a principal drafter of the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act (a model law designed for adoption by any state), laid out an array of problems with the U.S. guardianship system. One issue, she told the legislators, is that “a subset of guardians act in ways that violate the rights and insult the humanity of those they serve,” whether intentionally, negligently or through inadequate training. Advocacy groups (including AARP) have struggled for decades to repair the gaps in the country’s patchwork of guardianship laws. Lately, there have been signs of progress. But as Larry Davis learned when his stepmother landed in a locked unit, there’s still a long way to go.

A Caregiver’s Dilemma

Born in Japan, Kise had fallen in love with Larry’s father, an Army translator, when he was a new divorcé stationed in her country; Larry traveled from San Diego to meet her shortly after their wedding, in 1956, when he was 14. Tiny, vivacious and artistic, Kise was only 11 years his senior, and he saw her as a kindred spirit: “She’s a strong personality,” he says. “She’s very attached to doing things her way.”

Larry credits Kise with repairing the frayed bond between him and his dad. He stayed with the couple often after they moved to the U.S. — first at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico; then in Newport Beach, Calif., where Kise opened a dress shop, selling her own designs; and, finally, in Las Cruces, where she remained after becoming widowed in 1993.

When Kise first began having memory problems, in 2014, Larry took her to her doctor, who ran tests that showed mild cognitive impairment. Kise drove Larry to a lawyer’s office, where she gave Larry power of attorney. Kise had long spoken of moving to Sonoma, near Larry, when she could no longer care for herself; for now, though, she insisted on staying put. At 82, she was still sharp witted, eager to greet customers at the silk-flower stall she ran at the farmers market on weekends. Larry, a retired educator with a doctorate in cultural psychology, knew that pushing too hard could push her away. So he flew home and checked in frequently.

Davis family memories in a photo album

JAKE STANGEL/AARP

Davis family photo album

As Kise’s condition worsened, Larry had to intervene more often. In 2015 she abruptly transferred power of attorney to a woman friend. Then she began complaining that the friend was stealing her possessions. After the sheriff’s department determined that the items — including a pistol, which could not be found — had actually been misplaced, Larry came for another visit and regained her POA. He asked Adult Protective Services (APS) to assess whether Kise could safely continue to live on her own; she passed the evaluation, though the agent suggested she get some help. Larry hired a home-care service to come in weekly. But Kise soon canceled the contract, saying it was a waste of money.

In June 2016, Larry returned to Las Cruces and took Kise to a geriatric physician, who diagnosed her with moderate dementia and recommended that she give up driving. Larry straightened out Kise’s checkbook, taxes and overdue bills; he interviewed several elder-care companies, but she rejected them all. Before leaving town, he asked her neighbors to call him if anything seemed amiss. Back in Sonoma, Larry and his wife, Marcia, began looking for a nearby assisted living residence that would fit Kise’s needs.

Not long afterward, Kise told Larry that the other Larry in her life, Larry Franco, had begun helping her with daily tasks. At Franco’s request, APS reevaluated her; the agency again concluded that she could live on her own. Soon after — without telling her stepson — she transferred her POA to Franco. But by November she was claiming that Franco was stealing from her. Her stepson promised to visit again after Christmas, when he planned to broach the idea of moving.

Then, on Dec. 16, he learned that Kise had been hauled off and shut away.


For more ways to protect yourself, visit AARP’s Scams & Fraud page


The Legal Fight

In the days after she became a client of Advocate Services, Larry Davis made countless calls to try to free her from custody and move her to California. When he spoke to company owner Sandy Meyer, he says, she told him she thought he wasn’t involved in Kise’s life, even though she had met him when he was researching home-care services. (In an email to me, Meyer wrote: “Mr. Davis called us that evening before we even had the opportunity to call him. He spoke with another guardian in the office Friday night and spent a half-hour yelling at me on Saturday morning, not even letting me have a chance to respond.”) He spoke with Franco’s attorney, Jill Johnson Vigil, who said she’d also been unaware that he was an interested party; because he was not related to Kise by blood or adoption, he learned, no one had been legally obligated to notify him. He sought guidance from legal experts and Alzheimer’s disease advocates, who told him to prepare for a protracted fight.

The other side, in fact, was already depicting him as a villain. As it later emerged, Kise had been telling Franco tales about her stepson similar to those she’d been telling her stepson about Franco. The handyman’s secondhand impressions of Larry Davis were reflected in the temporary guardianship petition that Franco’s lawyer, Johnson Vigil, had filed with the state District Court. Larry was described only as someone who’d previously held Kise’s power of attorney, not as a family member; the document claimed he “took no protective action for Ms. Davis,” even though he had been advised by Kise’s doctor that she “needed to be placed in a facility.” (Larry Davis denies he’d been given such advice. Both of Kise’s doctors declined to comment for this article, citing patient privacy law.) Due to Kise’s cognitive problems, paranoia and possible possession of a firearm, there was “a likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm” unless she was assigned a guardian on an emergency basis, the petition asserted.

In New Mexico and some other states, petitioners for guardianship can request specific professionals to handle the case. In addition to Advocate Services (the most prominent of the handful of guardianship companies in Las Cruces), Johnson Vigil asked the court to appoint one of the few other local lawyers who handled such cases, CaraLyn Banks, as Kise’s attorney and guardian ad litem — responsible for protecting Kise’s legal interests. Banks, Larry learned from other lawyers, was known for her skill at fending off family members who contested guardianships in which she was involved.

District Court Judge James T. Martin, who knew the players from previous appearances, granted Johnson Vigil’s request. The next step would be a hearing to determine whether the guardianship should become permanent. In order to secure Kise’s release, Larry would have to convince the judge — against the arguments of the home team — that she would be better off in his care.

However they begin, bad professional guardianships tend to be devilishly hard to get out of — and sometimes end tragically. Take the case of retired banker Denise Tighe, who fell under guardianship in 2012 after exhibiting symptoms of delirium during a bladder infection. After she was dragged screaming to a nursing home in Weatherford, Texas, her friend Virginia Pritchett found her lying on a mattress on the floor. “She was a wealthy lady who could have afforded 24-hour home help,” says Pritchett, who, along with other loved ones, was soon prevented from seeing her. “When her birthday came up, I called and said, ‘Can I bring her a gift?’ They said no.” Pritchett unsuccessfully fought state and local governments on Tighe’s behalf, but Tighe died in the institution, after two years of enforced solitude.

Dysfunctional professional guardianships often have common traits. An elderly person with no nearby relatives may begin showing signs of dementia or develop a medical condition that temporarily clouds her mind, and someone (APS, a concerned neighbor, a hospital administrator) petitions the local court to appoint a guardian. Or a relative may petition to become a guardian, but a judge rules that a professional would be more appropriate. Or two relatives file petitions, and the judge resolves the conflict by appointing a professional.

The guardian then moves the person to a nursing home or other supervised facility, even though she may still be capable of living at home or have friends or family members willing to care for her. Those loved ones are falsely portrayed as negligent or malicious and are often restricted or banned from contact with the person under guardianship. The person may be drugged, ostensibly for therapeutic reasons but perhaps also to ensure docility and skew cognitive tests. The guardian enriches himself and his collaborators by selling the person’s property (thus making more cash available) and billing her for a dizzying range of services — including defending the guardianship in court if the family contests it. “The lawyers can’t make it to the bank fast enough,” says Elaine Renoire, president of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse.

Still, troublesome guardianships don’t always arise from malice. “Guardianship cases are typically messy, because they occur when there’s been a breakdown in other systems,” observes Syracuse law professor Kohn. Well-meaning family members can make questionable decisions; vulnerable adults can say contradictory things. Those in the guardian’s camp may sincerely believe they’re doing the right thing.

“I saw this case as an example of what happens when family members do not fulfill their fiduciary duties to an elderly relative who is in need of assistance and the court is asked to step in,” Banks told me in an email. “Mr. Davis’ conduct before the court proceeding was filed was a concern to everyone involved.”

Nonetheless, Kise’s case illustrates that the system — to a degree that varies state by state, even district by district — has deep structural flaws. It can reward those on the guardian’s side for taking a harsher view of the person’s loved ones than may be justified and for resisting efforts at compromise. It lacks mechanisms to ensure accountability or to reduce conflict. As a result, it too often seems to confirm family members’ sense that the deck is stacked against them.

“You’ll find out about her assets upon her death.”

— Case manager for Kise Davis

The Financial Toll

In January 2017, Larry and Marcia flew to Las Cruces and hired an attorney, elder-law specialist Cristy Carbón-Gaul. Then they drove to the facility where Kise was being held, Haciendas at Grace Village. Kise was housed in a locked unit for residents with severe dementia, most of whom could barely communicate. The place was clean and airy, but Larry thought Kise looked haggard and unkempt. “They told me I could go home on Monday,” she let him know, “so I packed my bag and waited. But then they said the next day, and the next. They think I’ll forget.”

Halfway through the visit, Larry got a call from Carbón-Gaul: “The lawyers on the other side are up in arms, saying you’re trying to take Kise out.” Apparently, a Haciendas staffer had called someone to ask if the Davises could take Kise to lunch, raising suspicions of an escape plan. Larry says he had no such plan, but the misunderstanding cost him and Kise hundreds of dollars in fees paid to their respective attorneys.

A few days later, Larry spoke again with Franco; after comparing notes, they realized that Kise had been making delusional claims about each man to the other. Franco and Johnson Vigil told the judge they wanted Kise to go to California with Larry. But now Banks objected, citing her responsibility to protect Kise’s interests.

A hearing was set for Feb. 20 but was canceled due to a missing doctor’s report. Banks, however, produced a 17-page paper describing the perilous state of Kise’s affairs — including clutter throughout the house, rotting food in the fridge and a dead cat in the freezer — and put the blame squarely on her stepson. Larry had abdicated his duty “to protect Kise from herself and others,” Banks wrote. As evidence, she cited his failure to supply Kise with home care and his repeated loss of power of attorney (both of which, Larry notes, resulted from Kise’s actions, not his own). She also accused Larry of “agitating” Kise by discussing her case; Larry says he was simply treating her like an adult.

Larry yearned to tell his side of the story in court, but Carbón-Gaul warned that would be useless; Judge Martin, she said, had little patience for such back-and-forth. Frustrated, Larry added a new attorney to the team: Peter Goodman, a retired business lawyer he’d met at the farmers market; his knowledge of Japanese culture seemed like a potential asset. At the next hearing, in March, Goodman presented an issue that Larry had discussed with Banks and that Banks herself had mentioned in her report: the possibility that if Kise’s dementia eventually left her unable to communicate in English, she would do better at a facility — like one Larry had found in Sonoma — where some of the residents spoke Japanese. To Larry’s delight, Judge Martin agreed, though he suggested it “would be better” if Kise remained under a professional guardianship after relocating to California. He ordered both parties to cooperate in trying to arrange such a move within 120 days.

But at a hearing in April, Banks raised another roadblock. Memory-care facilities in California, she said, were more expensive than those in New Mexico. In order to ensure that Kise — whose assets totaled about $300,000 — didn’t run out of money, it would be necessary to sell her house. The property didn’t go on the market until June, and it sat there for months. (In an email, Banks explained that the contents had to be inventoried and sold off, and repairs made to the structure, before the house could be sold.)

Meanwhile, Kise languished. Although she’d been transferred to a new unit, the other residents were still far more debilitated than she was; she spent most of her time reading in her room. (In a court hearing, her case manager testified that Kise was offered a room in the highest-functioning unit when one opened up, yet refused to go. Kise and Larry both deny this.) Friends sometimes visited, but she was forbidden to leave the building. Goodman recalls sitting with her as another resident watched a TV show for schoolkids; the woman asked Kise if she was one of the characters: “Kise looks at me and says, ‘You don’t get smarter in here.’ ”

As the 120-day deadline came and went, Advocate Services made it clear who was in control. When Larry suggested reducing Kise’s dosage of a sleep aid that could exacerbate dementia, he says, her case manager told him — correctly — that only the guardian could decide on medical issues. When attorney Goodman provided a list of items that Kise wanted to take to California, the case manager emailed: “This behavior is to stop now — no more talking about taking anything.” And when Goodman asked the manager about the state of Kise’s finances, she scolded him for wasting her time and thereby increasing the fees charged to the estate. “You’ll find out about her assets,” she wrote, “upon her death.”

The case manager, who no longer works for Advocate Services, declined to comment for this article. Company owner Meyer, however, blames Larry and his team for the conflicts. “We performed our duties in the best interest of Kise Davis and her reported wishes to us,” she emailed me. “Unfortunately, Mr. Larry Davis felt that we had gone behind his back.… We always make every attempt to work with family members in a collaborative effort to meet the ward’s needs.… [This case] became contentious not due to our actions.”

Kise and Larry Davis in a garden

JAKE STANGEL/AARP

A System Under Scrutiny

Kise’s house finally sold in November 2017. At Goodman’s suggestion, Larry hired a pair of experienced guardianship litigators to fight the next phase of the battle — trying to make sure that Kise’s transfer, which Judge Martin had called for back in March, was carried out. But the next hearing was canceled when the judge had a scheduling conflict, and the case continued to go nowhere.

By then, guardianship in New Mexico was under extreme scrutiny, thanks in part to an investigative series by the Albuquerque Journal (which later ran an extensively reported story by Colleen Heild on Kise’s plight), as well as the Ayudando and Desert State Life embezzlement outrages. A commission convened by the state Supreme Court was developing proposals for regulatory reform. Legislators introduced a comprehensive bill (strongly backed by AARP New Mexico) to overhaul state guardianship rules, which passed in a stripped-down version in February 2018. The new law did make some improvements: Among other things, it required court hearings, formerly closed, to be open to the public, and a wider range of family members to be notified of a pending guardianship (which might have enabled Larry to intervene earlier). But a provision that would have established a statewide record-keeping system for guardianship, crafted to prevent embezzlement and to rein in excessive charges, was rejected as too expensive.

Since guardianship scandals erupted in the news 31 years ago, similar scenarios have played out across the country. “States pass pretty laws, but there’s no meat on the bones,” says Bernard Krooks, a past president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate, as are provisions for training guardians in the rules they’re supposed to follow.

That’s beginning to change. In 2011 the National Guardianship Network (a coalition of organizations, including AARP, dedicated to improving guardianship law and practice) launched a project known as Working Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders, or WINGS — a collaboration of courts, government agencies and civic groups in 25 states that’s working to reform guardianship systems. And Congress, last October, passed the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, which includes a section calling for the establishment of programs to assess the workings of state guardianship systems, to develop recommendations for improvement and to establish guardianship-oversight demonstration programs nationwide. But effective oversight requires good information, and most states still fall grievously short regarding this.

“We don’t really know how many guardianships there are, let alone how many are going well and how many are problematic,” says Diana Noel, a senior legislative representative for AARP. This year the Albuquerque Journal found that Advocate Services — the guardian for Kise — had failed to file annual reports for 50 or more cases going back to 1990. “We did get behind, and we’re catching up,” Sandy Meyer told the paper. Such laxity and lack of follow-up by authorities are not uncommon among guardians nationwide.

Portrait of Kise Davis

JAKE STANGEL/AARP

A Family Reunion

On Feb. 26, 2018, 11 months after he ruled that Kise should be moved to California, Judge Martin held another hearing. Larry testified, describing his close relationship with Kise and his efforts to ensure her well-being. Franco and two of Kise’s friends spoke as well. They all agreed that living near her family would be in Kise’s best interest. Banks disagreed, but the judge said he’d intended for Kise to be moved soon after his original order and was “disappointed” that she hadn’t been. He appointed Larry as Kise’s guardian and ordered that she be transferred promptly.

The next day, Larry gave Kise the good news: After more than a year of captivity, she was going home with them. “You saved my life,” she told him. At first she moved into Larry and Marcia’s home in Sonoma. Then, when a space became available, she relocated to an assisted living residence, where the activities include gardening, musical performances and outings. Kise’s loved ones can visit anytime, and she can visit them. “This is a nice place,” she says. “It’s like going to heaven.”

At 87, Kise is physically healthy, and Larry hopes she’ll remain so. But her freedom came at a considerable cost. He spent more than $50,000 on legal bills and other expenses; the charges to Kise’s estate during her ordeal are expected to top $140,000. And that’s not counting the existential toll.

“They took 14 of Kise’s last months away from her and made it a nightmare,” says Larry, who testified before New Mexico’s guardianship commission at last year’s hearings. “It was like a hostage situation. No one should have to go through what happened to us.”

From DJ: Witness Prep and how many items did BK violate?

Witness Prep

1. When asked a question, wait a few seconds for your attorney to object. Common objections are vague, misleading, compound question, facts not in evidence, hearsay. The judge will then make a ruling. If she says sustained wait for your attorney to ask another question or rephrase your question. During this time, think carefully about your answer. If you have to take some time to get your answer right, take your time.

2. When answering a question, try to be simple and direct. Do not continue on with a long narrative unless your attorney says “go on” and the judge permits it. In general, you have to answer all questions directly and concisely. One sentence is good enough. Your attorney will ask another question.

3. During questioning, sit up and look people in the eye. Don’t play with your glasses, pens or paper. Look at the jury and/or judge during your answer. Try to minimize odd movements (removing glasses, checking watch, whatever) because these are often “tells” for lying.

4. If you do not like a question, you still have to answer it truthfully. Don’t deflect. Don’t answer with something else or you will come off as a liar to judge and/or jury. If you’re not sure, just say you’re not sure or that you are approximating something.

5. Do not argue with the questioning authority, esp. the judge. Always refer to the judge as “your honor” (best) or at least “judge”. All attorneys are Mr or Ms or sir or ma’am.

6. Your demeanor at all times should be calm, kind, courteous, compliant. No joking, swearing or goofing around. Be on your best behavior at all times.

NOW FOR THE BAD WITNESS:

1. Dresses inappropriately. Wear a dark suit and white or pastel shirt for court or a dark dress to the knees. Dress like a lawyer. A bad witness shows tattoos, doesn’t comb hair, smells, wrinkled trashy clothing. Cover up.

2. Cries inappropriately. Unless you are the victim of a violent crime or lost a loved one, ask your attorney about crying in court. You don’t get to cry in court because someone smashed up your Range Rover or other luxury item. You don’t get to cry over lost high school girls friends or your mistress.

3. Debates rather than answers the question.

4. Does not answer a question directly.

5. Refuses to tell the truth when asked difficult questions. You might not like the question, but it does not give you the right to deflect or lie in court.

6. Drone on long after everyone has lost interest in you and your answer. Pay attention to the judge and jury. When they start to scowl, cut it off.

7. If the judge is chewing out someone, look down at your shoes. It’s none of your business. If the judge is chewing you out, look at the judge and apologize. Tell the judge you did not mean any offensive behavior. Your attorney can file objections later or argue for you.

You need to be aware that the judge and lawyers are all trained in “tells” for when a witness is lying.  If you’re telling the truth you don’t scowl. grimace, make faces and have odd quirk and squirms.  Opposing counsel will ask you some obvious uncomfortable questions you will be tempted to lie to. They are looking for tells or signs you are lying. Many times you cannot avoid your own tells–pupils dilating, a twitch, a movement. So jut don’t lie.  Trials really should be recorded for this reason, but courts have not entered the 21st century, — yet.  But BK was recorded, so go back and watch the video yourself and look for the tells of lying.  Everyone has them.

BTW, lie detector test results are not admissible in court. They are junk science. There is no scientific correlation between lying and your palm sweat, respiration rate and heart rate, JSYK

From JP: How to write a Federal Appellate Brief

How to write an appellate brief for Federal Court

1) download and read all the rules for your jurisdiction.

2) you will receive from the Clerk of Court the “Record on Appeal” electronically, which consists of 2 sections: A first section containing all of the pleadings filed in date order with a pqge number at the bottom you will use to cite to in your brief and second section consisting of all transcripts, again, with a page number at the bottom. You can down load your record on appeal from the appellate court’s website.

3) First step is to make a Table of Contents for the Record on Appeal consisting of the title of the document and the page number. With this, you can write your Statement of Facts (see below).

4) COVER SHEET. Prepare your cover page with the appellate case number, the name of the court you are appealing from, the district court judge’s name, the Appellant’s and Appellee’s name, address, phone and email on the cover page.

IN THE US COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE 7TH CIRCUIT
17-XXXX

JANE SMITH
Plaintiff – Appellant
v.

GEORGE PETERSON, in his individual and official capacity
Defendant – Appellee

Appeal No. 17-XXXX

From
District Court Case No. 17-CVXXXX

District Court Judge
Hon. Jane Doe
Mag. Judge John Smith

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Atty John Peters
address
phone
emailJane Smith, pro se, Plaintiff-Appellant
address
email: jane.smith@gmail.com
phone: 312 549-XXXX

(note this is in table form in the original. please click on this link to see proper format for the table of a Cover Sheet for a Fed. Brief  https://drive.google.com/open?id=12rdU0NddgmQpR28loUye_0KeNTOZy3tm

 
SECTIONS FOR BRIEF.

Do not omit any of these sections. Read the rules pertaining to each section thoroughly as you write. This is only an example from a brief.

A. Disclosure Statement under Fed R App P 26.1 and 28-a-1
All plaintiffs are pro se individuals and corporations so no disclosure of related
corporations is necessary

Table of Contents for Brief (again, this is in table form, look on link to see table form https://drive.google.com/open?id=12rdU0NddgmQpR28loUye_0KeNTOZy3tm)
Description Page
A. Disclosure Statement 2
B. Table of Contents for Brief 2
C. Table of Authorities 3
D. Jurisdictional Statement 5
E. Statement of Issues Presented for Review 5
F. Statement of the Case 5
a. Statement of Procedure – 5
b. The Motions filed by Plaintiff 13
c. Rulings and Decisions 16
G. Summary of Legal Argument 16
H. Detailed Legal Argument 18
a. Standard of Review is De Novo for all issues 18
b. Detailed Legal Argument 19
i. The Court erred when it did not Grant Plaintiff’s Motion A 19
ii. The Court erred when it dd not Grant Plaintiff’s Motion B 24
I. Conclusion and Relief Sought 30
J. Certificate of Compliance 32
K. Certificate regarding Required Short Appendix 34
C. Table of Authorities (https://drive.google.com/open?id=12rdU0NddgmQpR28loUye_0KeNTOZy3tmFrom JP: How to write a Federal Appellate Brief)
Cases Page
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 562 (2009) 16
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 17
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (6th
Cir., 1983) 20
De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003) 22
Statutes
18 USC § 242 21-22
42 USC § 1983 3, 6
28 USC § 1915A(b)(1) 22
28 USC § § 1331, 1367 3
42 USC § 1985 3
755 ILCS § 5/11a-10(f) 23
Scholarly Blogs
http://www.probatesharks.com 11
Www.marygsykes.com 11
Www.aaapg.net 11
stopguardianabuse.org (NASGA) 11
Rules
Fed.R.App.P.28 (a) (4) 3
Fed. Cir.R. 28 (a) 3
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2) 17
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12 (b)(6) 22
Government Reports
Government Accountability, 5 reports on Guardianship
https://wordpress.com/post/marygsykes.com/15773
24
Industry Surveys
From AAAPG.net http://aaapg.net/guardianship-2017-survey/
25
Indictment of Professional Guardian April Parks
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwaEJ0dkwycVNKRW8/view 12

D. Jurisdictional Statement under Fed. R App P 28-a-4 and Cir.R. 28-a
On X date, Plaintiffs filed an eight Count Complaint against the following Defendants: X, Y and Z. Appendix page A.010. The federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction because the first claim was based upon a federal question of law, 42 USC § 1983 under 28 USC § § 1331, 1367 for Plaintiffs’ 42 USC § 1983 and 42 USC § 1985 claims. A.015, A.028, A.034.
On X date Judge Smith dismissed the Original Complaint A.010, but allowed Plaintiffs 30 days to amend. A.06. On Y date Plaintiffs timely filed an Amended Complaint. A.07. On Z date Judge Smith again dismissed the Amended Complaint and terminated the case. A.07. On P date Plaintiffs timely filed a Notice of Appeal. A.07. On Q date Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Reconsider. A.08. On R date Judge Smith again denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider and finally dismissed all defendants. A.08.
This Appeal is proper under Fed. Rules App. Pro. 3 and 4(a)-1-A.
This Jurisdictional Statement is full and accurate and complete. The Notice to Appeal was timely filed after a first final judgment for all defendants.

E. Statement of Issues Presented for Review
a. Whether the Trial Court erred when it failed to grant Plaintiff’s Motion X.
b. Whether the Trial Court Erred when it wrongfully granted Defendant’s Motion Y.
c. Whether the Trial Court erred when it did Z
F. Statement of the Case
a. Statement of Procedure – the court wrongfully did this.
Now, look at your Record on Appeal, and give a brief history of the case.

On X date, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the following Defendants: X, Y and Z for (describe counts). A.15.

On Y date, Plaintiff filed this Motion which was (granted or denied) for the following reasons. A. 18 and A.33.

On Z date, Defendant X filed a Motion which was granted for the following resons. A.25 and A.62. Plaintiff filled a Response on P date on the following bases: X, Y, Z.

Etc., etc.

use sub headers as you see fit to organize your brief

c. Rulings and Decisions.

On Y date, the court issued this ruling or decision: tell what it was and why you oppose it. Cite to Record.

On z date, the curt issued this ruling or decision: tell what it was and why you oppose it. Cite to Record.

List every ruling you oppose and cite to the record what the court said and then where you opposed it at the District Court level and cite to what you said to oppose the ruling.

G. Summary of Argument

Give a brief summary of your argument on each point you want to appeal. This is an abstract, it is not the actual argument. Just one paragraph for each main point.

H. Detailed Legal Argument, including Standard of Review

a. Standard of Review for all issues is de novo.
With regard to motions to dismiss a Complaint for failure to state a claim, the stand or review is de novo.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A. Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Note: unless there was a hearing or trial where the court made determinations of the credibility of witnesses, most cases can be review on the de novo standard which makes it easier for Plaintiffs to win on appeal. The Appellate court can just sit in the place of the trial court and review all decisions and orders.

If there was a trial, for that portion of your brief, the standard will be “abuse of discretion” which is a much higher standard for litigants to beat. The decision on those points will be review under the “abuse of discretion” standard.

b. Detailed Legal Argument
This is where you list your statues and cases and explain how they apply to your case in detail. Be sure to cite to the record and note all cases you used at the trial court level in your argument before them.

I. CONCLUSION
Tell the appellate court what errors were made and what relief do you want.
I.e. the District erred in its ruling on X date when it (describe the improper ruling) and Plaintiff Appellate is respectfully requesting that this Honorable Appellate Court Reverse and Remand to the District Court with appropriate instructions.
Do this for each major point in your brief.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/s/JaneDoe/
Plaintiff Appellant, Pro Se
Prepared by:
Jane Doe, Plaintiff Appellant Pro se
address
phone email
Certificate of Compliance Rule 32-a-7
I hereby certify that this Opening Brief contains ___ pages excluding the Disclosure Statement, Tables of Contents and Authorities, this Certificate of Compliance, Verification and Certificate of Service and Verification.

Verification
The undersigned herewith certifies that this brief is true and accurate to the best of her knowledge and belief, and where statements are based upon information and belief, were believed to be true at the time the statements were made.

/
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the following entities who have filed their appearance via email, on July X, 2018.
Atty Jack Smith, counsel for Defendant Y, via email at:

via email jack.smith@gmail.com

/s/JaneDoe/
Plaintiff Appellant, Pro Se

Notice of Filing
You are herewith notified that I have caused to be filed the foregoing Opening Brief of Appellants on this July X, 2018.
/s/janesmith/
Plaintiff Appellant pro se
Table of Contents for Short AppendixDate Filer Description Page  (see https://drive.google.com/open?id=12rdU0NddgmQpR28loUye_0KeNTOZy3tm  for proper table format)

Date, Title, Page
Docket Sheet 5
2/21/17 Complaint 10
2/21/17 Cover Sheet 43
2/21/17 MD IFP Petn 44
2/21/17 LD Motion for X 48
2/21/17 HD Motion for Y 52
2/21/17 LD Mot 2 appt atty 58
2/21/17 MD Mot for P 60
2/21/17 HD Mot for Q 62
3/3/17 CO Motions denied w/o prejudiceIFP 64
3/10/17 LD IFP Petn 68
3/10/17 MD IFP Petn 72
3/10/17 HD IFP Petn 76
4/18/17 CO Motns 2 file IFP denied w/o prejudice and dismisses Complaint w/o prejudice. Pltffs allowed 30 days to file Amended Complaint. Pltffs to seek assistance from Pro Se program 80
5/17/17 HD IFP Petn 84
5/17/17 MD IFPPetn 88
5/17/17 LD IFP Petn 92
5/17/17 Pltffs Amended Complaint 97
5/17/17 Pltffs Motn 4 court to appoint atty as lit rep for Mary Jane Teichert 129
6/21/17 CO Dismiss Amnded Complint; IFP’s deemed moot and motion to appt rep for Mary Jne Teichert. Case Terminated. All Motions by Pltffs denied. All motions for Defts granted. 133
7/21/17 LD Mot 2 reconsider 138
7/21/17 MD Mot 4 M 143
7/21/17 HD IFP Petn 147
7/21/17 Pltffs 2nd Amended Complaint 161
7/21/17 Pltffs Mot 2 Reconsider 151
7/21/17 Pltffs Brief in support of MTR 212
9/25/17 CO Mot 2 Recon denied.; Complaint dismissed, IFP denied 154
Abbreviations: LD-Jane Doe Plaintiff; HS–Harold Doe, Plaintiff; MD–Mark Doe; CO – Court Order;
Certificate of Compliance for Appendix

I hereby certify that I have prepared an Appendix for this Brief which is in compliance with Rule 30 and all materiaLD required by Cir. R. 30 are included in the appendix.

/s/janedoe/
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se