Blog Archives

Guardian crimes get ‘cover’ from government agencies by Janet Phelan

Guardian crimes get ‘cover’ from government agencies

Dees Illustration

Janet Phelan
Activist Post

Recent admissions by government agencies pledged to provide oversight for those handling the affairs of the most vulnerable of American citizens — the elderly and disabled — point to  systematic ‘cover’ being granted professional conservators and guardians.  The degree of ‘cover’ provided those pledged to care for the elderly and infirm could be seen as providing absolute immunity for acts of criminal misconduct.
Guardianships (also called conservatorships in some states) are generally initiated through court proceedings when there are allegations that a person is lacking capacity and unable to care for his own affairs.  Upon the appointment of a guardian, the alleged incapacitated person may lose all access to his property and assets and may also lose the rights to make his personal decisions, such as where he will live, whether or not he may see family and friends and whether or not he will receive medical treatment.   

He also generally loses the right to hire an attorney to defend against this grave revocation of rights. It must be stressed that these guardianships are launched on allegations alone, and no proof of incapacity may be provided or required.

Ernest Moore was alarmed when he received the reply to his complaint to the California State Bar. The Los Angeles man had provided proof to the State Bar that attorneys had lied to the court, misrepresenting assets belonging to his mother, who is under a conservatorship.  After denying the merits of his complaint, the responding SB attorney advised him that “the court where the matter is pending is the appropriate forum to determine whether either (attorneys named) engaged in improper conduct. If that court makes a specific factual determination of misconduct . . . you may contact this office with a copy of the court record for further consideration.”
It has been the long-standing mandate of the State Bar to discipline attorneys. A call to the media representative for the California State Bar confirmed the suspicion that there was no legal basis for the statement made by the state bar attorney that the court was the proper venue for Moore’s concerns. Moore’s complaint, incidentally, included transcripts which backed up his contentions that the attorneys lied to the court.
But Moore’s complaint focused on attorney misconduct in the guardianship of his mother; and true to the mandates of ‘cover’ for those involved in guardianships, the State Bar denied his complaint. 
Similar response letters have been issued by the California Professional Fiduciaries Bureau. When Janis Schock received a notice that her complaint about misconduct by professional conservator Ron Olund had been closed, she was equally surprised to learn that she, too, was advised that the proper forum for her complaint was the court where the proceedings took place.  The PFB was so embarrassed by the attention given this misstatement of law by their analyst, Angela Bigelow, that they reopened Schock’s complaint. And shortly thereafter, closed it again.
Schock was actually fortunate. Most complainants to the PFB find that they receive no notification that their complaints have been closed.  It was only after three or four requests for information as to the dispensation of his complaint that Joseph Quattrochi learned his complaint had been closed seven months prior. Jamie Lamborn received a phone call advising her that her complaint was being closed. Her requests that this be put in writing have not met with a reply. These illustrations are typical rather than the exception.
The short history of the PFB has been marred by difficulties. A Los Angeles Times series in 2005, “Guardians for profit—when a family matter becomes a business” shocked its readership with disclosures of misconduct and predatory behavior by unlicensed fiduciaries and guardians.

Responding to the public outcry, the California legislature passed a package of new laws.  Entitled the Omnibus Conservatorship Reform Act of 2006, the Act mandated the formation of a new agency, the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau. This new bureau, housed in the Department of Consumer Affairs, was charged with the responsibility of licensing fiduciaries and conservators and also investigating and disciplining allegations of their misconduct. 

Governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law in 2006 then proceeded to line-item veto all funding for the new agency for two years running.  The PFB did not open its doors for business until 2008.
A recent response to a public records act confirmed what had been suspected concerning the Bureau, which had, according to many complainants, been functioning without any apparent rudder or rationale in terms of its dispensation of complaints. In an email dated January 27, 2012, DCA press officer Russ Heimerich admitted that the PFB had no written guidelines in terms of a policies and procedures manual.
The implications of that admission deserve further scrutiny. As the PFB deals with matters of alleged criminal misconduct, its functioning could be considered to be quasi-legal.  Imagine, for a moment, going to court to discover there were no procedures and no guidelines governing your case. Imagine calling 911 for assistance to find that the police had no guidelines for determining their response to your call. The result would be chaos.
In addition to failing to produce written guidelines for its functioning, there are other notable gaps in the functioning of the PFB. The  board which is to oversee the PFB functioning has a glaring omission — the seat on the board reserved for an elder advocate has remained empty now for years.  The other board seats, including professional fiduciaries and members of the public, are filled but the board has now met for session after session without the input of someone with the interests of the elderly foremost in mind.
It gets worse.  Recent public records act requests by complainants have resulted in a curtain of secrecy being drawn.  Complainants who wish to see what sort of investigation and conclusions were conducted by the PFB are finding that their requests to see their files are being denied.
A recent email by PFB chief Gil Deluna cited 6254 f of the Government Code as the justification for his denying the production of the file to a complainant.  However, 6254 f affirms the right of a victim to see his complaint file.  

Deluna has not responded to repeated requests to discuss his interpretation of 6254. Press officer Russ Heimerich has only stated that the perception that a victim may get his file is “wrong” and adamantly refuses to discuss why.

The annual report of the PFB confirms its dismal performance record. The report ( states that for the fiscal year of 2009-10 there were zero criminal or civil actions filed.  There were zero cases initiated by the Attorney General and zero dollars ordered or received for consumer restitution. To its credit, the Bureau reports it did deny one license application for a professional fiduciaries license.
Equally, the office of the California Attorney General recently returned a bundle of complaints by victims of California conservatorships. An email from the Executive office of the AG explained that the office does not cover probate. Requests for the legal authority allowing AG Kamala Harris to ignore crimes committed by conservators have not engendered a reply.
If this all seems very technical, consider the overall picture. Someone goes to court and says that you can’t handle your own affairs. There is no attempt made to prove this allegation, and, as a result, you lose all access to your money and cannot hire an attorney to get it back. In addition, you may not be getting medicine you need, or you may be getting medicine you don’t need. You have no right to object to this, and if a family member tries to intervene, the guardian may have a restraining order issued against him.  You are subsequently isolated and may be withheld food and water, or you may be visited by a nurse with a hypo full of deadly morphine.
This appears to have been the fate of a growing number of conservatees, including Corinne Bramson, Lawrence Yetzer, Elizabeth Fairbanks and Raymond Horspool, to name just a few.
And after your funeral is paid for, out of your assets of course, the guardian and his attorneys go to the bank.
Is this picture getting clearer?

Read other reports by Janet Phelan here

You can support this story by voting on Reddit:

Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist whose articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The San Bernardino County Sentinel, The Santa Monica Daily Press, The Long Beach Press Telegram, Oui Magazine and other regional and national publications. Janet specializes in issues pertaining to legal corruption and addresses the heated subject of adult conservatorship, revealing shocking information about the relationships between courts and shady financial consultants. She also covers issues relating to international bioweapons treaties. Her poetry has been published in Gambit, Libera, Applezaba Review, Nausea One and other magazines. Her first book, The Hitler Poems, was published in 2005. She currently resides abroad.  You may browse through her articles (and poetry) at

Turnover Settlement for Ronald Kirkwood Estate No.10CD-PR00059 & Probate Letters of Administration No. 11CD-PR00088


Turnover Settlement & Estate papers 102411

Turnover Settlement for Ronald Kirkwood Estate No.10CD-PR00059 & Probate Letters of Administration No. 11CD-PR00088


Turnover Settlement & Estate papers 102411

Appalling information about Missouri & Elder Abuse!

Photograph taken on the grounds of the Weinber...

Image via Wikipedia

I am appalled! Now this explains a little bit more to me why APS allowed my Dad to remain in the home of someone who was reported for neglect / exploitation / fraud etc. 4 times! My father died. I have yet to find a single person in Missouri that cares about elder abuse & guardianship / conservator abuse. Especially in Cedar County, the judges look past the obvious abuse that is taking place in order for the attorneys and public administrators to PROFIT! Something has to be done! signed, Lark E. Kirkwood

Click on this link to be directed to the article: St. Louis Beacon – Missouri official challenges federal report on elder abuse in state

Guardian’s Recipe for Success

(Government and Judicially Approved Stratagem for Abuse and Exploitation of the Elderly)

by Advocate Mary Claire Connors

1.) PREDATORS – can be: government agencies, APS, (Adult Protection Services) and their contract agencies, County Area Agency on Aging, State Department of Aging, social workers, nursing facility corporations, care providers, care givers, law enforcement, attorneys, (including guardian ad litem) courts, (judges, court reporters), and their associates, such as medical doctor, psychiatrist, other professionals or greedy family members / in-laws. Litigation is the slaughter of the predator bait. The predators co-operate (collude), with each other for mutual benefit: financial gain, real estate, Federal funding stream, favors, job security, political agenda, etc.

2.) PREDATOR BAIT – elders and disabled who are victims of crime, (especially white collar), accident, friendly neighbor’s call to APS, (Adult Protective Services), disagreement among family that goes to litigation, health crisis, family crisis, any event that results in litigation; you can be advised, intimidated into believing that you need a lawyer, hence – litigation. Also, elders whose family lives out of state, elder property owner, (especially if property is wanted by state / corporation or connected to others). Widows are more common targets than male elders. Also vulnerable are those with small families, especially living out of state, and those with no doctors / attorneys in immediate family. There is something of value to be taken – financial, real estate, political, (funding stream, precedent case, etc.), by the predators…the “takings”. You do not need to be rich; assets of some kind between $100,000 and millions of dollars.

3.) Unbeknownst to you, you are rapidly encircled by “predators” before the guardianship is granted which guarantees the guardianship outcome without accountability. The circle is like strangulation. You are very unlikely to get out. You are completely surrounded by the predators which includes your own attorney and / or appointed guardian ad litem. (Bar attorneys first allegiance is to the court – not their client; it’s “job security”, etc.).

4.) If you are relative or anyone acting in behalf, defense of the targeted ward and you have a DPOA, (Durable Power of Attorney); are legitimately entitled to information, etc., YOU ARE AN OBSTACLE TO THE STRATAGEM. You will be demonized; accused of the exploitation the predators are perpetrating or the criminal actions of those who victimized you. Accusations of mental illness, (you will be ordered to get psychological testing from predator’s associate, a fairly common tactic), drug addiction, etc. No proof is necessary. Maybe the, (covered), criminal will testify against you. You are not charged with anything – therefore you have no right to face your accuser and get evidence in your defense. Accusations are made off the court record, in the court hallway. Remember, it is a kangaroo court proceeding. The judge makes the decisions, issues the orders and ignores the laws with impunity and no remedy. Elders are “expected” to get ill and die. Hence, this stratagem has been practiced on them for years in darkness of no exposure without a court order. The disabled; now publicly initiated.

5.) APS, (Adult Protective Services), are often one entity in the circle of predators.

6.) Intimidation and deception are always tools of the predator’s trade.

7.) The “circle of predators”, usually thru intimidation, makes sure, (while treating you as a criminal), there are no witnesses; no written, verbal uncensored communication; demands severe unnecessary restrictions; refuses to write them down, (avoid any possibility of proof of abuse and liability), such as, no visitors; only one visitor at a time, no video cameras; telephone access, audio recorders, no vitamins, nothing from home. You may be allowed “supervised visits”. The targeted ward’s assets will pay for the “visit supervisor’s” time. You need no record of abuse whatsoever; no verifiable evidence of abuse; you may even have proof of good care giving, (an obstacle to predators “recipe”), which will never be entered into the court record.

8.) The targeted “ward” and later declared “ward” is denied specialized medical treatment even when he / she can pay for it. He / she is allowed no contact with medical professionals outside of the predators’ circle, which includes its associates. He /s is not supposed to improve, since that is an obstacle to squeezing every penny, (possible benefit), from the ward and avoiding any possibility of liability. No independent medical evaluation is allowed, though law requires it. The predators’ doctor examines the targeted ward and that is his / her “independent med evaluation”’.

The ward is expected to be and almost always is a ward until death. The ward is sentenced to enforced health decline. The family has NO SAY AT ALL. If the ward is dying, the family member who is the “obstacle” to predator’s profit is often not told. THE GUARDIAN OWNS THE WARD and the fruits of his / her and his / her spouse’s lifetime of labor. Wards and slaves are regarded as property, not as humans, and are owned as a result of NO ACCOUNTABILITY, NO REMEDY, just as in the Terri Schindler display of corruption and murder.

9.) Deception and no exposure: two fundamental keys to success. The media will not print the real story if they print anything at all. Notice how most people think Terri’s case is uncommon! If exposed, there would be no predator bait.

10.) Felony crimes committed against you are suppressed, covered up. Authorities will not prosecute the crimes against you because the predators are likely to use alleged criminal against you as witness(es), etc. The acknowledgment of crime might be obstacle to gaining guardianship over the targeted ward, which is the lock down of the “takings”. Any and all ‘obstacles’ are removed with no regard for laws, crimes, human rights, abuse and exploitation. Obstruction of justice is a predator specialty. No law enforcement nor remedy, recovery, justice for the crimes committed against you is allowed.

11.) An “emergency temporary plenary guardianship of the person and estate” may be granted to one of the PREDATORS without a hearing, in the judge’s chambers. Your lawyer will play dumb or fabricate an explanation such as, “it’s just temporary until things can be investigated” and “it’s normal”.

NO! It is the initial stage of OWNERSHIP (GUARDIANSHIP) of the “ward” and the beginning of HELL.

12.) The ward’s mail, finances, health care or lack, complete existence is taken over by the emergency temporary guardian/permanent guardian. You, her advocate, will be allowed no information at all. You become non-existent. The ward has no family, for all practical purposes. If you make a complaint about the facility; you are not allowed to know the results, etc.; all information goes to the guardian. You have rights, on paper; in reality, you must know them; your attorney probably won’t tell you. When you exercise them, you will be considered angry, aggressive or something equally negative. Sometimes you are punished and can never see your loved one again.

13.) If your family seeks help thru government agencies, state government, Federal government, legislative representatives, you will get a run around, shut down, and told to leave. The more grievous the violations, the more of a closed door, “get out” reaction you get. The greater the wrong committed toward you, the more impossible to get any help.

14.) Most attorneys seem to equate “guardianship” cases with leprosy – untouchable. If you have $100,000 or more remaining, an attorney may take your case; that has nothing to do with the outcome. Contingency does not exist for guardianship. Public interest law groups will not “touch” it.

15.) Your attorney does not make a good record for appeal since he must be favorable to the probate judge. If you can still afford an attorney, you are most likely to appeal and lose. If you can’t; you can try to find remedy as a “pro per” litigant. I have been more successful learning from experienced “pro per” litigants and representing myself. The State Supreme Courts: Pennsylvania., Florida, Nevada, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, and more have a negative reputation and are not known for “upholding the rule of law”.

16.) If you try federal court or bankruptcy court, (both Federal), you may delay some of the confiscation of property. Remedy is unlikely; exposing corruption in high, (Government), places is taboo. Then the excuse of “abstention doctrines”, (abstention doctrines are not in the Constitution), covers for the “taboo”. Federal courts do not take jurisdiction of cases litigated in state court if the outcome would trump a state court decision, even in matters of Constitutional violations. It is possible to get past the abstention doctrines, though much more likely, there is no remedy, as seen in Terri Schindler’s case.

17.) The ward and advocating family member pay for your own abuse, exploitation and involuntary institutionalization. After the guardianship is permanent, involuntary institutionalization may be paid by Medicare fraud; the predators want as much as possible of the “takings” to divvy among themselves.

18.) This “war” goes on for years if you persist toward remedy. Your health is negatively affected from the constant stress and you have difficulty functioning as well as you did before HELL, which compounds the stress. Depression, anxiety, ulcers, cancer, or other chronic illnesses affect the ward and family. Your financial losses are not recovered and you can easily become totally broke. A great deal of time is required for “pro per” litigation. Your family relations are difficult or shredded, due to abuse, loss, helplessness, disillusionment, etc. (This stratagem is from my experience and many others).

19.) The “ward”, (your mother, daughter, family member) is held hostage while you spend most of your time and resources attempting to free her / him.

20.) If you cannot free the ward, your family member, when he / she is no longer a profit producer, (about the time limited medical treatment produces diminished health / illness), he / she will have a “duty to die”.  First, no food or water, when organs start to fail, some morphine, which hastens death by reducing respiration. The above stratagem without truthful media exposure is “silence of the lambs”.

Note: Without forewarning of this entire “recipe”, the predators almost always succeed and you and the “ward” pay, as victim(s) of crime with unimaginable loss, abuse and exploitation without remedy, an epidemic practice.        

%d bloggers like this: