http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12487436578707268804&q=Gross&hl=en&as_sdt=4,107,122   (2nd Cir 2012)

may I also suggest that judges are not free to expand the defined class of persons intended to be served by the guardianship statutes, and do so by judicial fiat —  but it is being done all the time by these judges that believe simply being old is good enough reason to appoint a guardian.

one last thing I want to point out here — the civil practice of law —- the procedure by which a court views the process — as civil law is practiced routinely and customarily —- as applied to guardianship —– is unconstitutional because the policies, practices and procedures create a unconstitutional presumption of incompetence/incapacity …….  think about,

a petition is filed —–

in normal practice an attorney would likely file a motion to dismiss —– the court would then read the petition as presumptively true

and the burden would then be on the proposed ward to stop the machine —-  except that the proposed ward is already presumed to be incompetent/incapacitated/disabled.

add to this the fact the ward will MORE THAN LIKELY NEVER have access to a review and appeal process —–

and guardianship is a proving ground for fraud ….

From Tim Lahrman, a probate victim himself, and one who is now dedicated to helping others, he hears these stories all the time, as I do.

And I have to agree with Tim.  Normal court procedure is a Complaint, followed by strenuous Motions to Dismiss, briefing schedules, hearings, then discovery, then depositions, then expert discovery and depositions, then trial on the merits.

I would have to say this process is skipped in probate about 90% of the time, and yet the process completely strips away human rights and liberties.

JoAnne