We all know when we have corrupt court cases we are supposed to go to our state AGs and complain. But most of the time we just get a sigh and they’re not interested. In the case of Lisa Madigan, she not only sighs but says “we don’t do such things” when we know for a fact she is charged with such things. But then again, she’s not running I am told.
So take a look at what the John Oliver investigative team found out about state AGs
Now this woman has some real talent and bravery.
Kristopher Sharp – who spent years in Texas foster care – opens up about his experience and praises a recent federal court ruling in M.D. v. Perry calling for specific reforms to the state’s child welfare system. The case was brought by national advocacy organization Children’s Rights and Texas co-counsel Haynes and Boone, LLP and Yetter Coleman LLP.
In her Dec. 17 ruling against Texas’ foster care system, U.S. District Judge Janis Jack was scathing. For more than two decades, she wrote, the state has created a situation where “children have been shuttled throughout a system where rape, abuse, psychotropic medication, and instability are the norm.”
I was one of those children.
I was born in Dumas, deep in the heart of West Texas. I entered the foster care system shortly before my 10th birthday. My mother was an addict — meth being her drug of choice — and would routinely beat me when she was high. My father was a Vietnam War veteran who suffered from PTSD and lived in and out of psychiatric intuitions and halfway houses for most of my childhood.
When the state removed me from my family in the winter of 2000, I thought I would finally have the chance to escape the abuse I had become so accustomed to at home. Instead, I was thrust into a nightmare that was worse than anything I had experienced before.
Throughout the more than eight years I spent in Texas foster care, I lived in upwards of 25 different placements and went to roughly the same number of schools all across the state. For the most part, I lived in what is commonly referred to as “congregate care settings,” residential facilities and group homes that typically provide care to 12 or more children, but often housing 30 or more children at a time. Some are the size of prisons.
No matter their size, where they were located or how many children they were charged with caring for, each and every one of them was imbued with abuse.
Growing up in foster care, abuse is the only constant that exists. When I was 13, I was placed in a residential treatment facility in Denton. At that facility, I was molested for the first time by one of my caregivers there — and I was just one of many victims.
The most horrific thing was that I couldn’t tell anyone. At the now-closed facility, we were forced to go to school on the grounds, our phone calls were monitored by caregivers — often by the very person who was molesting us — and it had doors that magnetically locked to guarantee that no child could escape. I was 13 and living in a state-sponsored hell, and there was nothing I could do about it. That was our reality. That was Texas foster care.
By the time I turned 15, I had been beaten and raped more times than I care to remember.
The trend continued until I turned 18 and aged out of system in Houston. Overnight, I was homeless, on the streets with no family, no support and nowhere to turn. Eight years under the conservatorship of the State of Texas, and this was what it lead me to. I spent the next six months on the streets, sleeping on the roof of a shopping strip in Houston at night and relying on the street economy to survive during the day.
There’s no denying that the Texas foster care system is badly broken. Abused and neglected children are being taken from their families, thrust into a system that will almost certainly expose them to more abuse and neglect and then leaving them with little support once they reach adulthood. Instead of caring for these children, Texas has created a state-sponsored pipeline that leads them straight from foster care to the criminal justice system or the streets.
Judge Jack’s findings in this case support what advocates have been saying for decades: The Texas Legislature is vastly underfunding the state’s child welfare system, and our most vulnerable population is suffering because of it.
Although the state has appealed the ruling, the stage is set for what will prove to be a defining moment in the future of tens of thousands of children who will inevitably pass through the system at some point. Will lawmakers give them the tools they need to succeed by investing in their futures and adequately funding the agencies charged with caring for them? Or will they stay the course and continue to allow them to fall through the cracks?
Studies show properly home schooled children fare better on test scores and in graduation rates than public school kids. This judge is right on.
I recently heard of an Illinois case where a judge told a mom not to keep her kid out of Kindercare or she would sanction mom because “kids need to go to school.” Kindercare? Really? It’s daycare, not school, and learning at home with mom (who has a PhD) certainly has to be more enriching than Kindercare. Some Illinois judges are really idiots and just need to be removed from the bench. This is one. Illinois parents have the right to home school, esp. by parents who have advanced degrees, come on now. And the kid is not even in Kindergarten and her school is only daycare with no educational format by a certified teacher.
Parents have rights.
This mom was beyond words with this judge, so I am not surprised to find this article recently.
Judge Stephen Dillard, Georgia Court of Appeals. (Photo: John Disney/ALM)Georgia Court of Appeals Chief Judge Stephen Dillard, known for his friendly banter about the Oxford comma and college football with his 14,000 Twitter followers, has taken a trial judge to task for nothing less than what he called usurping the fundamental right of parents to raise their children.
Dillard wrote a 12-page special concurrence for a 10-page decision released Thursday reversing a trial judge who had ordered a mother to stop home schooling her youngest child and commanded the mom to enroll the child in a Montessori school instead.
“The liberty interest of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is the most ancient of the fundamental rights we hold as a people,” Dillard said, adding that the concept is “deeply embedded in our law.”
Dillard said this right “preexists government, and may not be interfered with by the State except in the most compelling circumstances.” He said no such compelling circumstances were presented in this case, in which the ruling below was reversed by a panel of three that included Judges Amanda Mercier and Sara Doyle, as well as Dillard. Mercier wrote for the majority.
“I concur fully in the majority’s thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion. As a result, it may be cited as binding precedent,” Dillard said in the first of his 24 footnotes, two of which took up nearly an entire page.
“I write separately to express my serious concerns with the court’s decision to summarily substitute its judgment regarding the child’s education for the mother’s without identifying evidence of the compelling circumstances necessary to interfere with her constitutional parental rights,” Dillard said. “In doing so, the trial court failed to give sufficient consideration to the federal and Georgia constitutions, both of which afford significant protection of a parent’s right to the care, custody, and control of his or her child—which undoubtedly includes the right to make educational decisions.”
Dillard went so far as to invoke the fictional “Big Brother” in George Orwell’s totalitarian tale “1984.”
“When state actors engage in this sort of Orwellian policymaking disguised as judging, is it any wonder that so many citizens feel as if the government does not speak for them or respect the private realm of family life,” Dillard asked rhetorically. “In sum, I take this opportunity, yet again, to remind our trial courts that, in making any decision or taking any action that interferes with a parent-child relationship, our state statutes are subordinate to and must be construed in light of the fundamental rights recognized by the federal and Georgia constitutions—which both include a parent’s fundamental right to homeschool a child.”
The appeal that sparked the chief’s ire is a long-running divorce and custody battle in Bartow County Superior Court before Judge Suzanne Smith. According to the appeals court, Brian and Stefanie Borgers were divorced in 2013. The mother was awarded custody of their three minor children. In the following years, the judge held several more hearings over child support and visitation issues, during which the father was critical of the mother home-schooling the children. After one such hearing, in June 2017, the judge expressed agreement with the father.
“The Court finds it to be a shame that the Defendant Mother has not taught her children to be independent,” the judge said in an order. She added her opinion was “based on the expert witness testifying that the children have issues in small classes as they have been previously home schooled by the Mother.”
The judge held another status hearing in August 2017, after which she issued the home-school order. Mercier’s majority opinion quoted the judge’s order citing the “court’s own beliefs as to the child’s best interest” and ordering the mother to “immediately enroll the child in school and ensure the child is not ‘home schooled.’ ”
The mother argued on appeal that because the final divorce decree made her the primary physical custodian and final decision-maker regarding the children, which included the authority to make decisions regarding the children’s education, the trial court’s order constitutes an “improper modification of custody in this contempt action,” Mercier said. Mercier said that the case was not exactly like others in prior rulings, but concluded that “where a child goes to school is a parental decision.”
The mother was represented on appeal by Joel Thornton of the International Human Rights Group in Rome.
“It’s a case of first impression. This judge was extremely hostile to home schooling,” Thornton said Friday evening. “My client is thrilled to have her right to choose the educational opportunities of her children upheld.”
The father was represented at the trial court by Samir Patel of White & Choate in Cartersville. Patel said by email Friday that the father chose not to fight the appeal because “it would continue the difficulty.”
Patel said the case involved many hearings, but no transcript, and so the appellate record is not complete.
“For example, a psychologist testified that home-schooling the children in this case would be harmful to the children’s welfare,” Patel said. “Certainly I think the court understands a parent’s right to educate her children in the way she sees fit, but the court’s concern in this case was … adequate supervision and whether the children’s home schooling would even meet the very minimal requirements prescribed by state law.”
Though that concern was not fully documented in the record, it’s not at all clear that it would have changed the outcome of the appeal.
“Indeed, this ‘cherished and sacrosanct right is not a gift from the sovereign; it is our natural birthright. Fixed. Innate. Unalienable,’ ” Dillard concluded. “Thus, regardless of a court’s personal feelings or perception of a parent’s fitness to care for or retain custody of his or her child, careful consideration of these bedrock constitutional principles and safeguards must remain central to each case without exception. And when this fails to occur, we will not hesitate to remind our trial courts of the solemn obligation they have to safeguard the parental rights of all Georgians.”
The case is Borgers v. Borgers, No. A18A0910.
In North Dakota, hundreds have been arrested for protesting the building of an oil pipeline across native lands.
here is an interesting Facebook short video on the issue.
If you did not receive a letter like this recently, you might want to call and refile your complaint.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=13s2OteOJ0ibZKKHBcmwRPfFxPHfAR78W
It will be interesting to see what has happened since his prior jurisdiction, the DC Federal Court of Appels received 478 complaints while BK was at that court and all were dismissed without an investigation according to Dr. Cordero.
See the study of the US judiciary and US federal judges at:
Gerarda White-Penny (left) and daughter London Penny.
Bonnie Lou White and Gerarda White-Penny had a perfect life. Mother and daughter lived together, each doing their part to get by. Things changed rapidly after Bonnie Lou White wrote her will and trust, and a cousin found out she wasn’t a beneficiary.
The cousin petitioned the probate court in 2017, and the probate quickly bypassed any claim the cousin thought she had. But that wasn’t the end of it. Probate court officials immediately took over anyway, took out a $900,000 reverse mortgage and installed new doors, windows and floors, all at White’s expense.
After the upgrades, the court was gracious enough to allowed White to live in her home a few months before the conservator moved White to a nursing home.
White has made it clear to the court that she wants to live at home. White has no mental incapacity, she wants to be at home with Gerarda and her grandbaby.
White has been in the nursing home since January, and in September the daughter received an eviction notice.
“I’ve got less than a month before I lose mom’s home. Our home is worth over $1 million but they’ve listed it at $780,000. The court is probably going to sell it to one of their friends,” Gerarda said. “They say they’re going to pay medical expenses, but my mom has long-term care insurance. Why are they doing this to my family? We were doing fine. The Court said our house needed upgrades so they put in new windows, doors and floors. Who really needs these things, us, or the people they intend to sell it to?”
“My cousin filed the petition, which made us come to court and they conserved my mother. My cousin is not in my mom’s will and she is excluded in the trust. All she got was to see my family destroyed.”
The purpose of the probate court is to conserve families, and do what’s in their best interest.
Unfortunately many court appointed officials don’t abide by the rules written in the Probate Handbook. In the Handbook is written, “when at all possible keep the Conservatee in the home, that’s the best place for them to be.”
Current probate officials are quick to take over conservatorship because that’s how they make their money. It’s a business, a profession. Gerarda’s story is a common one.
Gerarda is fighting back. She has filed a petition to dismiss her mother’s conservatorship and taken the civil case to the Alameda County district attorney’s office. “When people file a petition, especially one where their name ain’t on nothing, the court needs to consider the person’s motivation bringing the petition, or just abide by what the will and trust says. They bypass your trust like it doesn’t exist. Courts allow these petitions because that’s the wedge they need to take over people and their estates,” she said.
SHOUT OUT JUSTICE and Cedar California recently joined with national probate fighting network “Probate Warriors.” “We find that the only time we get the court to stop running over us is when we get media attention,” says, SOJ’s Venus Gist. “Probate Warriors are families committed to fight what is becoming an epidemic of abuse by probate officials and judges nationwide.”
Hogue lives in Naples, but she said she takes trips around the five counties of the circuit to search for victims of abusive guardianships.
“This is the perfect place for such crimes as Florida is a retirement capital,” Hogue said. “This has become an industry that is fueled by ruthless greed.”
Guardianship reform has been a hot topic across the nation in the last few years, and Florida recently made changes to give the state greater oversight of the system.
As a result, a first-of-its kind administrative hearing in Palm Beach County may bar a guardian from practicing after the Office of Public and Private Guardianship (OPPG), along with the Clerk of Court Inspector General, conducted an investigation into her practices. The Palm Beach Post reported the OPPG is seeking sanctions against guardian Betsy Savitt which have the potential to bar her from practicing in the county and may include repayment of up to $190,000 in guardianship fees.
Hogue believes the problem is just as bad in Southwest Florida and stated attorneys and judges are complicit in guardians’ attempts to control the lives of their elderly wards and deplete their savings.
However, Sara Miles, spokesperson for the 20th Judicial Circuit, which includes Charlotte County, said the allegations of corruption are unfounded and untrue.
“Our judges work diligently to ensure due process and fairness,” Miles said. “The Legislature has recently enacted new guidelines and requirements and a complaint procedure for people to use as a means of maintaining checks on guardians.”
Forty-six adult guardianship cases have been filed in Charlotte County in 2018 so far, but no one tracks how many adults are actually under the care of a guardian. The clerk of court closes the cases once a guardian has been appointed, according to Clerk Roger Eaton. In Sarasota County, 111 guardianship cases have been filed since Jan. 1.
How guardianship works
Adult guardianship happens when the court finds an individual’s ability to make decisions is so impaired that it gives the right to make those decisions to another person. According to Florida law, guardianship is only warranted when no less restrictive alternative is available, such as durable power of attorney, trust, health care surrogate or proxy, or any other form of pre-need directive.
Anyone can file a petition to find an individual incapacitated and have a guardian appointed. Sometimes family is unable to care for an individual, or family members who can’t agree on a loved one’s care may go to the court for a third party decision. However, the petition could be filed by anyone who claims the individual is unable to care for themselves.
There are three types of guardians: family, public, and professional.
Despite the name, family guardians aren’t necessarily performing guardianship services for a parent or grandparent. ‘Family guardian’ simply designates a guardian with three or fewer wards under their care. Professional guardians have more than three wards, and guardianship is their profession.
Gina Rossi, executive director for the Florida State Guardianship Association, said some professional guardians enter the field after becoming the guardian for a family member, while others come through social work or finance fields.
“If you want to become a professional guardian you have to take a 40-hour, in-person course,” she said. “After that, there’s an extensive background check with includes FBI fingerprinting, an expansive credit check, and the Florida guardianship examination. Then if you pass, you are bonded, and you take all that information to the Office of Public and Private Guardians.”
According to Ashley Chambers, spokesperson for the Department of Elder Affairs which houses the Office of Public and Private Guardians (OPPG), the state has the least control over professional guardians, who are paid out of the ward’s assets. Until recently, the guardianship office in the Department of Elder Affairs was called the Statewide Public Guardianship Office.
Now, the OPPG can discipline professional guardians, but their interaction is still limited. While professional guardians register with the OPPG, they conduct their business on their own.
“We have no oversight over professional guardians,” Chambers said. “The only thing we have to do with professional guardians is we do some of their training and keep a registration list.”
In fiscal year 2016-2017, there were approximately 550 professional guardians registered with the OPPG.
Public guardians, who are typically professional guardians who agree to take on guardianship cases for indigent persons, provided services for more than 3,000 indigent wards in fiscal year 2016-2017.
Recent changes
In 2016, facing news reports and personal accounts of guardians taking advantage of the elderly, the Florida state Legislature granted the OPPG statutory power to investigate and discipline professional guardians, changing the name of the Statewide Public Guardianship Office to the Office of Public and Private Guardianship.
“That was the huge change,” Chambers said. “It completely changed the scope of the office. In 2016, the law was signed to give us authority to investigate all the accusations against certain professional guardians. The Legislature acted in order to give us a disciplinary role.”
A statewide toll-free hotline was developed to receive complaints made against registered professional guardians, as well as a website to submit complaints online. As of December 2017, the OPPG had received more than 80 legally sufficient complaints against registered professional guardians. The complaints are investigated by the Clerks’ Statewide Investigations Alliance, and the findings are turned over to the Department of Elder Affairs to decide on next steps.
“There is a range,” Chambers said. “It can be something like a letter of concern, like, ‘We’ve found x, y, and z. This is a letter of concern. It looks bad. It looks like you might not know the procedure.’ And then the higher end of it is an administrative complaint.”
In an administrative complaint, the OPPG could seek anything from restitution for the victim up to revocation of a guardian’s registration, so they can no longer practice.
According to Gina Rossi, most guardians were in favor of the new process and the Florida State Guardianship Association even helped the OPPG write the code of conduct for guardians.
“The standards, generally speaking, raised the profession of guardianship and most guardians, that’s what they want,” she said. “They want the work they do to be reflected in a standard of practice. Guardians felt like this is what they’ve been doing all along, but now it’s part of the law.”
Too little, too late?
Despite the new standards and complaint process, Hogue and others say they felt helpless when their loved ones were placed in guardianship, and some are still fighting the system even after a loved one’s death.
Punta Gorda resident Cristi Kessler is still involved in litigation in her father’s guardianship case in Collier County, even though he passed away last year. Kessler has been unable to get back a special medical bed for her veteran husband’s throat cancer, which she says has been locked down with her father’s property. The bed, intended to help her husband breathe at night, had been loaned to her father when they learned he was sleeping on a 40-year-old mattress.
“This is nothing more than abuse by a probate guardian to a veteran who served his country honorably and lovingly cared for his father-in-law,” she said.
Another Charlotte County woman’s mother-in-law died under the care of a guardian who denied family’s wishes, documented in emails in the court file. Though she declined to share her story, court documents record a disagreement over whether the ward should have been placed in a stroke center, rather than the hospice care the guardian chose.
In Hogue’s situation, she said every 20-minute conversation with her father’s guardian or court appointed attorney would rack up unreasonable bills. Her sister filed the initial petition alleging their father was incapacitated, while Hogue states that petition was full of lies. She says her father never had the opportunity to defend himself, but was instead placed under an emergency temporary guardianship until he could be evaluated for competency.
After the petition was filed, three examiners evaluated Mr. Hogue, one of whom was a gynecologist.
Chambers said while that might seem strange, it’s common for examiners to come from a variety of backgrounds, and all court-appointed examiners receive special training to evaluate competency. Members of the examining committee must receive a minimum of four hours training, per Florida statute.
Ultimately, a professional guardian was not appointed, though Hogue claims both the temporary guardian and her father’s court-appointed attorney pushed for one. Instead, Hogue and her sister agreed to an order which allows Mr. Hogue to live with Hillary while his accountant serves as his power of attorney.
Now, several months after the process has ended, her father is still afraid to leave the house, and her young son fears the “guardianship police” will come take his grandfather away. Still, she considers herself lucky her father got out so easy.
A guardian’s perspective
Gina Rossi said while she doesn’t have knowledge of specific cases, most guardians take their jobs very seriously, and few people realize the amount of scrutiny they are under. Any medical decisions are discussed with family, doctors, nurses, and hospital ethics teams — “everybody you would listen to if it was somebody in your family,” she said.
When it comes to money, guardians must submit detailed financial reports to the court on a yearly basis, which are closely audited by the clerks of court. People might think of guardians as rogue individuals taking control of a ward’s life, Rossi said, but none of the decisions made by a guardian are made in a vacuum.
“A guardian cannot just come in and spend all your money,” she said. “I guess there’s always cases of people being really bad people, but generally speaking the system is not set up so that’s easy to do. You’re literally stealing in front of a judge. That takes a lot of nerve.”
After a ward’s death, Rossi said sorting out the property can be a lengthy process due to the court overseeing the accounting.
“Every case is so different,” she said. “Occasionally, someone will be like, ‘Oh no, that’s my ring, my mom promised it to me,’ but the guardian would not be in a position to give it away.”
In addition to education and networking for guardians, the Florida State Guardianship Association works to educate the public on alternatives to guardianship and how to avoid it.
“We would just encourage people to be educated about guardianship to find out exactly what it is and make sure that all your documents are in place, that you’ve done the best to care for yourself so you won’t need a guardianship,” Rossi said.
She also wants people to know guardians aren’t villains.
“I know so many guardians who have totally changed people’s life, took them from a terrible situation to a safe situation where they had a great quality of life,” she said.
Since creating the complaint investigation process, the state has received 126 guardianship complaints across the state. The administrative complaint against Betsy Savitt is the only one yet to be filed, though Chambers said there may be others going that direction. However, for the five complaints involving professional guardians in Charlotte and Sarasota counties, no disciplinary action was warranted based on the investigate findings, according to the OPPG.
“As a department, if you ever hear of any requests for help from a constituent complaining for something that is putting an elder in jeopardy, that concerns us,” she said. “Now that we have the authority to investigate complaints when they come in, we take that seriously because protecting vulnerable adults is of the utmost priority for the department.”
Email: aeasker@sun-herald.com
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.)]
http://www.krwg.org/post/new-mexicos-guardianship-system-raises-serious-questions
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.)]
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:
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.”
JAKE STANGEL/AARP
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.
JAKE STANGEL/AARP
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.”
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
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
What an embarrassment to the WH
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-500-law-professors-condemn-010208585.html
More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation’s highest court.
“We regret that we feel compelled to write to you to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Thursday, September 27, 2018, the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land,” the letter says.
The letter is signed by many high-profile law professors, including eight from Yale Law School, where Kavanaugh obtained his law degree. The letter remains open for additional signatures through Thursday, when it will be presented to the Senate.
The legal experts fault Kavanaugh for failing to remain open to the necessary search for truth after being accused of sexually assaulting a girl when he was a teen and instead becoming “repeatedly aggressive with questioners.” The signees also criticize the judge for indicating that he believes allegations made by professor Christine Blasey Ford and other women are “a calculated and orchestrated political hit” by members of the Democratic Party rather than acknowledging that the Senate must try to understand and investigate the facts surrounding the allegations.
“Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory, and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to questioners,” the letter reads. The law professors cite two statutes, governing bias and recusal, that require a judge to step aside if he or she is at risk of being perceived as being unfair.
Here’s a copy of their letter:
Signed Law Prof Kavanaugh L… by on Scribd
The FBI is investigating Blasey’s allegation that a drunken, teenaged Kavanaugh pushed her into a room, pinned her on a bed, groped her and covered her mouth when she tried to scream during a gathering of high school friends. Kavanaugh has denied her allegation, along with allegations of sexual misconduct from two other women. On Friday, Republicans gave the FBI one week to look into these claims.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is eager to put Kavanaugh on the court, regardless of the allegations against him, said Tuesday that he’s aiming to hold Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote this week.
“We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh,” the professors state in the letter. “But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.”
Another open letter was also made public Tuesday, this one directed at Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), signed by more than 800 faculty, administrators and staff at colleges and universities who live and work in Maine, urging her to vote no on Kavanaugh’s nomination. All of the signatories have students and colleagues who are survivors of sexual violence, and many who signed the letter are survivors themselves.
“We are at an historic juncture, and your vote, your words, and your actions as our representative will be a focal part of what happens this week,” the letter to Collins says. “Will you send a message to the tens of millions of American women and men who are victims of sexual violence that their experiences will be met with indifference and even disbelief? Or will you make a choice for the greater good, and send the message that survivors can trust that they will be heard if they have the courage to come forward?”
From Joanne;
This was my take on the testimony as I have already published. His testimony was deplorable. No judge I have ever seen even in Cook County has ever exhibited such lowly behavior. Talking over the Senate committee, arguing with them, refusing to answer questions. Deplorable.
Note, while Dr. Ford had her attorneys to the left and right, Justice Kavanaugh had no attorneys with him. I know why.
Deplorable.
Not suited to be a judge. Despite blatant lies about terms in his Hight School Year book or even Dr.Ford.
He took out a rifle and shot himself in both feet.
Let him go home in disgrace. His wife was scowling. I agree with the wife. Much smarter than her husband.
Joanne
And now, to remove him from the bench, please print out the following letter on your letterhead and send to the DC Court of Appeals, Executive Committee.
JUSTICE 4 EVERY1, NFP
5330 W. Devon Ave. #6 JoAnne Denison, Executive Director*
Chicago, IL 60646 Cell Phone 773-255-7608
ph 312-553-1300 http://www.justice4every1.com
fax 312-553-1307 JoAnne@Justice4Every1.com
October 2, 2018
Clerk of Executive Offices,
Federal DC Circuit, Court of Appeals.
333 Constitution Ave.,
NW Washington, DC 20001
RE: Justice Kavanaugh and 478 uninvestigated complaints against Judges in your circuit
Dear Clerk of Court;
I have review the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh before the Senates.
Ms. Ford’s testimony appears to be credible.
Justice Kavanaugh appears to consume alcohol to excess and exhibited behavior unbefitting a judge during the Senate Hearing.
I am asking for a full investigation of Justice Kavanaugh and all of his sexual assault accusers.
He also appears to have lied at numerous points during his testimony regarding the terms “FFFFF” and “boofing” and “devil’s triangle” and other commonly used phrases by sexual deviants.
Please investigate and remove him from office and then pass his case onto the Lawyer’s disciplinary board for further disciplinary action.
I am also demanding that you investigate the 478 judicial complaints without any investigation. How many of these involved Kavanaugh and sexual assault and/or drinking? Dr. Richard Cordero did the research and it is published on my blog.
The public is demanding accountability from the US court system. This is not going to end anytime soon. Justice Kavanaugh is an utter disgrace to the legal and judicial professions.
Very Truly Yours,
JoAnne Denison
Executive Director
cc: Mary G Sykes and FaceBook
please cut and paste on your letterhead and mail out today
October 2, 2018
Clerk of Executive Offices,
Federal DC Circuit, Court of Appeals.
333 Constitution Ave.,
NW Washington, DC 20001
RE: Justice Kavanaugh and 478 uninvestigated complaints against Judges in your circuit
Dear Clerk of Court;
I have review the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh before the Senates.
Ms. Ford’s testimony appears to be credible.
Justice Kavanaugh appears to consume alcohol to excess and exhibited behavior unbefitting a judge during the Senate Hearing.
I am asking for a full investigation of Justice Kavanaugh and all of his sexual assault accusers.
He also appears to have lied at numerous points during his testimony regarding the terms “boofing” and “devil’s triangle” and other commonly used phrases by sexual deviants.
Please investigate and remove him from office and then pass his case onto the Lawyer’s disciplinary board for further disciplinary action.
I am also demanding that you investigate the 478 judicial complaints without any investigation. How many of these involved Kavanaugh and sexual assault and/or drinking?
The public is demanding accountability from the US court system. This is not going to end anytime soon. Justice Kavanaugh is an utter disgrace to the legal and judicial professions.
Very Truly Yours,
JoAnne Denison
Executive Director
cc: Mary G Sykes and FaceBook
As a member of the public and having reviewed Dr. Ford’s testimony and Kavanaugh’s testimony on youtube.com, you have the right to demand he be removed as a Federal Appellate Justice. You have to write to the Clerk of Executive Offices, Federal DC Circuit, Court of Appeals. 333 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001. For more info, see http://www.uscourts.gov/…/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct…? and https
the next step will be to remove him from the DC bar. When he is removed from the Court of Appeals for DC, I will publish info on how to remove him as a lawyer for past misconduct.
We have to stop giving judges jobs when they come from court systems where any judicial complaint was dismissed without a thorough investigation.
This is how corruption in the courts flourishes.
see below.
Joanne:
From Dr. Cordero
Dear Ms. Denison, Victims of, and Witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
Thank you for your email.
To those “readers who think it’s okay to dismiss these complaints out of hand”, put the question:
“How would you feel if you complained about the performance of the judge(s) in your case and they dismissed out of hand your complaint without any investigation?”,
As stated in my article:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:755¶7
If your readers want to see the official tables of complaints about judges prepared by the courts, compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, whose director is appointed by the U.S. Chief Justice, for submission to Congress in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, let them know the following:
Dr. Cordero has collected all the statistics on complaints against federal judges that are available on the website of the Administrative Office. They cover the 21 fiscal years from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 2017; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_complaints_v_judges.pdf.
He has created a table collecting all the District of Columbia Circuit statistics for the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period during which both Judge Kavanaugh and Now-Chief Judge Merrick Garland have served on the Court of Appeals for that Circuit; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf.
Use the data found in the collected tables to create a table for another circuit or court by filling out the table template at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf.
More importantly, tell your readers that they have the opportunity to bring to the attention of their senators and the other senators a way of evaluating Judge Kavanaugh’s impartiality, fairness, and respect for the law, particularly its due process and equal protection requirements, that is based on official statistics submitted to, and accepted by, them rather than personal allegations and partisan opinions.
Indeed, as the article below shows, in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period, people have filed 478 complaints against J. Kavanaugh and his DCC peers, but he and they have dismissed 100% of them without investigation.
By so doing, J. Kavanaugh and his peers have institutionalized their abuse of their power to exonerate themselves from the complaints and exempt themselves from any discipline, while leaving complainants at the mercy of complained-about judges and their covering-up peers.
They have turned themselves into Judges Above the Law.
To expose them, encourage your readers to use the contact information in §G below to contact at least two senators by:
By taking action and being instrumental in exposing judges’ institutionalized abuse of power, you and your readers can become nationally recognized Champions of Justice. This is realistic: On Friday, September 28, two courageous women confronted Senator Jeff Flake on the elevator in the Senate and caused him to force the Committee to ask for an FBI investigation.
But time is of the essence because the Senate may vote on the Judge by October 5.
Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and passion for justice are.
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse
Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com
NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
**********************************
MaryGSykes.com 