We Will Not Forget What We Witnessed: Part 6 Wade McNalley and his Father, Bruce McNalley

-by-Angela V. Woodhull, Ph.D. (Part 6)

Wade McNalley and his Father, Bruce McNalley*

Back at the probate court files in Seminole County, things were heating up. Rebecca “Fierle’s” attorney in my mother’s case (Reverend Attorney Anthony Nardella) actually began billing my mother’s estate every time I was observed reading the court files. Imagine that.

“Phone call from probate clerk stating that Woodhull is reading the probate files once again.” Charge: $58.”

The next file I began assessing was yet another veteran. By now, we clearly understood that Rebecca “Fierle” had quite an appetite for veterans, since she automatically receives five per cent of their monthly income—no matter what is done or not done during the course of a month.

Another veteran, Carlisle Bosworth, we noticed that $250,000.00 of his assets had been spent in a very short period of time.

What about Bruce McNalley, a veteran? First of all, becoming increasingly savvy at ascertaining the court records more quickly, we noticed that “Fierle” had placed McNalley in a regular nursing home, rather than a veteran’s nursing home. There is a “reason” for this. A veteran’s nursing home is free. Therefore, there would be nothing to bill for. However, if “Fierle” places a veteran in a non-veteran’s nursing home, not only can she bill, but she can also GENEROUSLY bill. I called the nursing home where McNalley was staying and posed as a concerned daughter looking to place my father somewhere in an upscale nursing home. The administrator told me that a top-of-the-line private room, with all the bells and whistles, would cost about $6,000.00 per month.

And what was “Fierle” claiming to the court? “Fierle” was claiming that she was spending $12,000.00 a month in McNalley’s care. We wondered: Where is the other $6,000.00 per month going?

Because of the exorbitant and completely unnecessary spending (to reiterate, McNalley is a veteran—between his monthly income and the fact that he could be placed in a veteran’s nursing home for free, McNalley should have had enough money to sustain himself indefinitely), “Fierle” had initiated a lawsuit against Wade McNalley, Bruce’s son. Wade was facing

being evicted from his homesteaded residence if he could not find the money to purchase his father’s half of a trailer home. The title was “joint tenancy with right of survivorship” but that hadn’t stopped Rebecca “Fierle” for attempting to make Bruce’s son homeless. It was time to visit Wade McNalley.

************************

How can I describe Wade McNalley? The words that come to mind are “fun” “vivacious” “opinionated” “strong willed” “straight shooter.” Wade likes to drink beer, kick back, tell a few jokes, and use a lot of colorful language, especially when describing his feelings toward Rebecca “Fierle.”

After introducing ourselves at his door, one of his first comments were, “Oh, don’t even get me started talking about that c---.” We knew we were in for an interesting evening.
Wade and his father had lived together quite amiably on several occasions. He described Dad as a “skirt chaser” and somehow he ended up in an expensive retirement center due to that fact where he could flirt with all the gals. There were some health problems and soon he had been transferred to a nursing home. Wade had been out of town when he learned, upon his return, that a woman named “Rebecca Fierle” was now his father’s guardian.

“What the hell was that sh-- all about!? You tell me. It’s gotta be about his money! The b---- just wants his money. Don’t even get me started talking on that subject. Then she moves Dad so far away that I can’t even get to go see him. I’m on a very limited budget and I suffer from arthritis.

How the hell am I supposed to go clear across town to visit my dad?

As far as that lawsuit against me, she can go f--- herself! I have an attorney on it and she ain’t gonna get a g—d---m dime outta me!”

Wade told us how his attorney had been very good to him. Wade had recently been released from a hospital and his attorney had actually been paying for groceries and delivering them to Wade’s door. “What a fantastic guy! I couldn’t ask for better.”

Truthfully, an attorney going out of his way THAT much for a client just didn’t sound right. We wondered what it all meant. We were soon to find out. Wade was in the middle of suing someone, a personal injury case.

The “nice” attorney was actually pre-spending the few dollars that Wade would end up with from the settlement. In the end, there wasn’t much left for Wade out of the settlement money, and at that time, “Fierle” just happened to want to “settle out” with Wade. She offered to let him stay in his homesteaded home if he would simply turn over $10,000.00 to her—the same, exact amount of money Wade was about to get in a settlement. (How ‘bout that there.)

We asked Wade, after he cooked us supper and gave us a few beers, if he would like to drive to the neighboring town and see his father. “Would you like to go see your dad this evening?”

“Hell, yeah, I’d love to go see my father! I’m going to get him the hell out of there once I get my settlement money and then I’m going bring him back home. I’m going to be the guardian! I mean, what the hell, I am his son! Who ever heard of some f------ c--- stranger being my dad’s guardian?! Who ever instituted this crazy f---ed up shit?! I was doing one hellofa job taking care of my dad and I know he was happy here. He needs to come home. There’s nothing mentally wrong with him. You’ll see.”

The three of us piled into my van and Wade directed us to the nursing home. It was late at night and we found his father laying in bed, this tall man who seemed very similar natured to his son. The hugs and tears between these two macho men brought tears to the eyes of both David and me. We were ecstatic to have brought them together. “Honey, let’s videotape this because I see no mental incompetence whatsoever.”

Bruce seemed a little startled at first that were videotaping him. “Don’t worry about it, Dad. These are my new friends. They’re here to help you.

I wanna get you back home, Dad, and this can help.”

Bruce was then all right with the videotaping. He stated on many occasions that he would like to come home, that he wanted his son to definitely stay in the trailer home and he was definitely upset to learn that Rebecca Fierle was in the process of trying to make his son homeless.

“When you bail me out of here, we’re going to sue the hell out of her.

Oh, yeah, just you wait and see,” Bruce declared adamantly.

Staff workers, not used to seeing visitors in Bruce’s half of the room, kept peeking into the room. We would hide the phone camera every time a staff worker appeared.

Soon, it was time to leave. “I don’t see any mental incompetence with your dad,” David stated. “Neither do I.”

“See? I told you so!” Wade responded. “We got to get him the hell out of there. I’ve never seen him in such bad physical shape. This place is killing him. I want my dad home.”

************************

The following day, Rebecca “Fierle” found out that Wade had managed to go see his father.

Her response? She had Bruce Baker- acted—put into a straight jacket and medicated on psychotropic drugs. She then contacted her attorney and they wrote a Petition to the court asking the judge to NOT permit Wade McNalley to see his father any more. “Fierle” claimed that it upset the father so much to see his son—and whom he “didn’t really want to see” according to “Fierle”—that she had to Baker Act him. Little did “Fierle” know that we have video footage of the father that is so contrary to these claims that it is rather surrealistic to even fathom that such a statement would be written in the court records.

Lo and behold, at the court hearing, Judge John D. Galluzzo actually decided he would not go along with “Fierle’s” petition. He denied the motion and stated that Wade was free to see his father any time he wanted.

However, Galluzzo’s decision did not stop Rebecca “Fierle” from wielding her unlimited authority. Her response? She simply moved Bruce McNalley to yet ANOTHER nursing home so far away that Wade would have to spend the entire day taking a series of buses just to get to the new location.

***********************
Wade never saw his father alive ever again.
**********************

The next time we saw Wade, he told us hold his attorney was planning on having “Fierle” removed as the guardian—a motion serious enough, that if awarded, “Fierle” could lose her license as a professional guardian.

“I thought we were moving ahead. Next thing I know, I’m getting a call from one of ‘Fierle’s’ staff members. The b---- didn’t even have the nerve to call me herself. Fierle’s employee stated to me, ‘Where do you want us to drop off your father’s ashes?’”

“What!?! My father died?! When did my father die?”

“More than a month ago,” the staff member responded in a flat tone.

“You mean to tell me my father has been dead for more than a month and this is the first time you’re even telling me about it! What the f--- bull---sh-- is this!?”

This big, warm-hearted man, a true man’s man, stood there in front of us and wept. He broke down and he literally wept.

“Oh, there’s a special place in hell for people like Rebecca ‘Fierle,’ Wade stated. “I didn’t even get to say good-bye to my father. My dad had a pre-paid burial plot. He didn’t ever want to be cremated! What the f--- kind of sh—is that?!” “Oh, believe you me, there’s gonna be a payback time!”

Wade could not stop weeping.

************************

Shortly thereafter, Wade became seriously ill – to the point of almost dying. He was hospitalized on several occasions and needed extensive home health care. “I can’t focus on any of this Rebecca ‘Fierle’ bullsh—any further,” Wade told us. “It literally ruined my health. At least that b---- wasn’t able to get a f------ dime out of me. At least I have my home.”

************************

*Not their real names.

***********************

*Note: Dr. Angela V. Woodhull, a licensed private investigator, spent more than two and a half years investigating court records in Seminole and Orange Counties, Florida and interviewing family members and victims in order to compose this story. All court records that verify the contents of this article were submitted as attachments to the editor of the F.B.I. journal as verification of accuracy. Woodhull can be reached at (352) 327-3665 or

(352) 682-9033.

A Heartbreaking Story of Elder Abuse and Legal Thievery

by Jim Fargiano

Until relatively recently, I was unaware of how rampant elder abuse is within the legal court system. For almost the last two decades, my life has been consumed by helping as many people as I could in a different way than most give help. I have informally counseled and helped thousands of people through the publishing of my book, as well as in private sessions as a medium/psychic. It was not until my good friend started to share her story with me that my eyes were opened to something far more prevalent than I was cognizant of; at least on a conscious level.

I have been privileged to know Diane for over five years. During that span, she has never been anything but helpful, loving and compassionate to everyone. Doing what I do for a living generally makes me able to be a pretty good judge of character. Ironically, it is a judge and his decisions that prompted me to write this article. The choices and attitude he has expressed have been protected by legal statutes. While they might be legal, they are far from moral, ethical or compassionate.

This all began approximately two and a half years ago. Diane's mother had given her power of attorney and named her the healthcare proxy. Like many families, there were disagreements with the siblings. Diane was being told that her brother and sister wanted to sell their mother's home and place her in a nursing home. While this elderly woman, Dorothy, had some early dementia and knee problems, she was still a vibrant, cognizant person. She had no interest in being displaced so that those two could have her money. Diane's family suggested she file for legal guardianship to protect her home and to protect her mother's life as well. It seemed to make an abundance of sense.

To tell the events of what unfolded quickly is really an injustice to the elder abuse that has incurred since. The siblings contested the petition for guardianship.

Instead of reaching a mediated agreement, the judge listening to the case decided he would be better at making decisions for everyone. He assigned a law guardian and a healthcare manager. It appears these three have worked together before.

Diane was immediately removed from what her mother wanted; to have her take care of her needs if there was any reason for it. As it was, Dorothy would spend many weekends at Diane's house. It must be noted that Diane works from home and took care of her father in his last years. It would give Dorothy a change of scenery and much appreciated love and companionship. All of that was about to change.

Diane, rightfully, brought in a lawyer to help overturn the judge's decision. This attorney had handled her parents' legal needs in the past. Not only was he familiar with the family dynamics, but he had intimate knowledge of what Dorothy wanted. He was even going to represent Diane pro bono. All he wanted to see was that this aged woman was allowed to live happily at her own home, or with Diane.

The Supreme Court judge, based in Nassau County, New York, took it upon himself to unfairly disallow the attorney's generosity and right to represent Diane. It was the first step in a string of negatively prejudicial rulings against my friend.

The law guardian requested that a reverse mortgage be approved for $275,000 on Dorothy's home of six decades. In open court, opposed by some, this magistrate authorized the financial decision and stated that the money would allow Dorothy to remain in her home for at least five years. It is now only two years later and all of that money has been spent. In addition, social security and a couple of small pensions were still coming in. In a mere twenty-four months, more than $325,000 had been frittered away!

As of the writing of this story, the judge has ordered Dorothy into a nursing home. In his ruling, he admits this goes against Dorothy and the family's wishes. The law guardian, healthcare manager and another person showed up unannounced and told Dorothy they were taking her to the doctor to check on a problem she was having. Dorothy, now eighty-seven years old, willingly went with them. She was hustled to a nursing home that was a distance far from the only child who has been battling for her freedom. She is frightened beyond belief.

The lie to get her into the car is one of a long string of deceptive tactics used by the law guardian, healthcare manager and the judge himself. There has been hearing after hearing over the last thirty or so months where the three of them have waged a war of defamatory statements, incredulous lies and perjury against Diane. They have fought the only daughter looking to do the right thing for her mother, with their end game being a complete bleeding of Dorothy's modest estate.

Her health has been compromised, and from my outsiders view, it was done solely to line their own pockets. The tragic thing in all of this has been that the judge, elected to uphold the rights of all people, has spearheaded his attack on an elderly woman.

How I wish I could condense hundreds of pages of documents into a short article. There was the theft of over thirty thousand dollars of jewelry. Dorothy stated that her other daughter absconded with it and she has been asking to have it returned. The supposed law guardian knows about it, but has refused to step in.

There was a sworn statement from another legal person stating that from all of the interviews she had with people familiar with the family, that Diane was seen as the most loving and giving child of the three. It states that her brother is known to have a violent temper and would be a danger to his mother. In court, the very same woman stood before the judge and said that this same man would be the best person to have Dorothy live with. In my opinion, these egregious actions of Diane's siblings has been overlooked in exchange for their support in allowing all of this to go on without their objections.

As I sum this up, I would share with you that there was a previous time that Dorothy was locked away for thirty days in another facility. She was denied the chance to be taken out by Diane for Thanksgiving, nor was she allowed to attend her only great granddaughter's christening; something that she wanted very much to be a part of. In trying to support Diane in whatever limited way possible, I have found that elder abuse is a much broader problem than I was aware of.

The National Association To Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA) has stepped in to help with this case; one of a multitude they are bringing to the attention of Congress and other law related committees. It seems like power-hungry people who are trusted to protect the rights of our senior citizens run amuck and take advantage of them, their families and so forth. Justice is supposed to be blind, yet it is those in society who need not be blind to the fact that this goes on far too often. If you find yourself in a position to make a difference by correcting the wrongs of these judges and guardians, make sure you do not wait for someone else to fix it. What would you do if this was your Mom or Dad; if it was your family faced with this?

About the Author

Jim Fargiano is a student and teacher of spirituality and universal awareness. He has shared his ability to communicate with Spirit with thousands of people. There is a daily blog for like-minded people who are willing to improve their lives. Jim can be reached at http://www.JimFargiano.com.

Follow Jim Fargiano's daily blog at http://www.JimFargiano.blogspot.com

Source=>>here

"I Want Your House! "

By Janet C. Phelan

It seemed that the struggle over the conservatorship of Jean Tanaka couldn’t get more bizarre. Well, it just did.

On June 2, 2011, Tanaka conservator Linda Cotterman asked the court to have Mrs. Tanaka’s daughter, Jeannie, declared to be in contempt of court, an action which may involve jail time and will most likely cost Jeannie her job (Jeannie is an attorney with the State).

Cotterman is apparently steaming that Jeannie Tanaka, who is the Trustee for the Tanaka Trust, has asserted her rights as Trustee and is cleaning up the Westwood house which was left vacant when her mother, Jean Tanaka, was forcibly removed in the summer of 2010.

Jean Tanaka is under a conservatorship and Linda Cotterman is, peculiarly, the conservator, even though the Tanaka Trust documents clearly list Jeannie Tanaka as the person to assume that position.

The fact that Jeannie Tanaka was adhering to advice of her counsel, Robert Canny, in asserting her rights to clean up the property does not seem to concern Linda Cotterman. Jeannie and Jean had been residing together in Mrs. Tanaka's large Westwood home until Cotterman went to court to have Jeannie evicted and her mother taken forcibly from the house. Per the court orders, Jeannie was given three hours to remove her belongings. She moved out in February of 2010.

Upon her return to the house in May of this year, Jeannie found a terrible disarray, which she alleges was the result of Cotterman sacking the house. This is how she describes what she found:

“All of parent’s dresser drawers were emptied! Pictures torn off the walls, paint torn off, many damaged areas requiring painting of especially kitchen and stairway walls. Curtains in bedroom drawn, refrigerator light bulb was put in the ceiling, replacing the 100 watt bulb Mama’s large bathroom trashed clothes, papers, trash thrown all over the counter and floor. All of her expensive perfumes, colognes,cosmetics, toiletries, etc. removed.

Dining room trashed: parents personal belongings pulled from all over the house and piled in the dining room. When attorneys had a meeting in fall 2009 (creutz, reed, lodise, carol white) the room was of course neat and clean.

2 cabinet doors torn off hinges: one in kitchen, one in laundry room.
Expensive carpets in kitchen and laundry room removed and replaced with tile. Told the carpets were dirty and instead of cleaning, were removed. Flooring under the sink had been ripped out and I had to have it replaced. All kitchen pots and pans missing, cabinet shelves emptied, pantry emptied, all recipe books removed. Boxes and boxes of photo albums pulled into the kitchen and stacked All of Mama’s nick knacks removed from the living room. Mama’s 3 mink coats missing, chinchilla coat missing.

Large box of Japanese swords, including numerous national treasures worth millions missing. Upstairs bathroom door frame pulled off wall by someone who locked themselves out of the bathroom. Garage piled high with black trash bags of parents’ personal belongings,
unprotected clothes-moth eaten. Garage trashed: once neatly packed and stacked boxes were rummaged through contents thrown in heaps. Piles and piles of unwashed sheets and clothing found thrown in piles upstairs closet and living room.

Up until Mama was taken to the basement unit, I was not allowed to enter other rooms when I visited Mama. It was when we changed the locks and went in beginning May that I could see the full extent of what the temporary conservators and christine (ed. note—Christine Tanaka, Jeannie’s sister) were doing.”

Jeannie Tanaka then hired a couple of helpers and began spending her weekends trying to clean up the mess. The contempt of court pleadings claim that Jeannie is now living on the property, which a court order last year denied her from doing. Jeannie maintains she lives in her condo in West L.A.

The conservatorship of Jean Tanaka will probably go down in the annals of legal abuse of the elderly in pursuit of their money with the apparent goal here being the Westwood house, valued at several million dollars. The elderly Tanaka, a Japanese American, was detained during WWII in the Death Valley detention center, along with her then infant daughter, Jeannie. The conservatorship was launched in a hearing wherein Tanaka siblings made allegations demonizing Jeannie’s care of her mother, with whom she had been residing for eight years. The court ignored evidence to the contrary and discounted the legal documents, which named Jeannie as conservator and Trustee.

This reporter has reviewed letters and cards previously sent to Jeannie Tanaka by her sister, Christine, congratulating her on the wonderful care she was giving her mother. But things changed abruptly when Mr. Tanaka passed on, leaving the mother more vulnerable. Almost immediately upon his demise, Christine Tanaka filed for conservatorship, attacking her sister Jeannie for the very efforts she had so highly praised her for.

Jeannie must now pay $100 an hour in monitoring fees to see her mother and is restricted to three visits a week. Ironically, one of the allegations hurled at Jeannie in an attempt to wrest the conservatorship from her was that she was isolating her mother.

A medical doctor, Dr. Laura Moire, became concerned that medical care was being withheld Jean Tanaka by her conservator. The doctor then called Adult Protective Services and the police to make a complaint.

In a Kafkaesque maneuver, Judge Reva Goetz then slapped Dr. Moire with a restraining order, prohibiting her from making further reports about the welfare of Jean Tanaka. The fact that Dr. Moire is, as a physician, a mandated reporter of elder abuse didn’t seem to bother Judge Goetz, who seems intent on isolating Mrs. Tanaka from anyone and everyone who might be concerned for her welfare.

Dr. Moire’s report detailed numerous concerns that Mrs. Tanaka’s health was being negatively impacted by Cotterman’s care. Of special note was the discontinuation of physician prescribed supplements which had previously stabilized Mrs. Tanaka’s blood pressure, normalized her cholesterol levels, built bone density, and strengthened her immune system and cognitive functioning. Dr. Moire noted that this discontinuance has been followed by several back -to- back urinary infections, at least four collapses and several hospitalizations where she was transported unconscious by ambulances none of which were brought to the attention of a cardiologist. Mrs. Tanaka has reportedly further suffered weight loss, lack of basic dental care, isolation and restrictive monitoring of highly limited visits with her daughter, Jeannie.

Dr. Moire was also concerned about the apparent placement of Mrs. Tanaka on “comfort care” in the absence of any terminal condition or diagnosis, which has resulted in not only the continued withdrawal of care (such as supplements) which were deemed beneficial to the ninety-five year old woman but the denial of care for other medical problems, including her now painfully swollen hands, extreme fatigue, and erratic blood pressure.

The Tanaka Will and Trust had left all the property to Jeannie, including the Westwood home, located in a prime real estate location. The actions by Cotterman, supported and endorsed by Judge Goetz, have effectively nullified the Will and the Trust.

According to a couple of the helpers who have been assisting in cleaning up the Tanaka residence, Cotterman has lately been hanging around the house, showing up early in the morning and late at night, taking pictures and verbally accosting the helpers. One of the helpers, Nahid , quit the job this past weekend. She told this reporter that Cotterman confronted her on a couple of occasions recently outside the house, demanding information from her and snapping her picture and pictures of her vehicle. Nahid reported she was “frightened” by Cotterman.

In the pleadings to the court to have Jeannie deemed in contempt of court, Cotterman’s attorney made a statement which may reveal Cotterman’s real interest in this case.

Attorney Scott Schomer writes; “If respondent’s position (that all conservatee’s assets belong to the Trust) is correct, then there are no assets in the conservatorship and there is no conservatorship of estate.”

And if that were true, Cotterman and Schomer wouldn’t be able to charge a dime. Conservatorships are very expensive, with legal bills running in the tens of thousands a year and conservatorship fees running a close second.

Calls to Mr. Schomer were not returned.

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 janetphelan.com

My Husband Is a Medical Hostage For Profit.

Sara and Gary Harvey

Sara Harvey for Salem-News.com

(WASHINGTON D.C.) - Where does one turn when you become disabled, vulnerable or old and become unlawfully a victim of the system? There are no kind words for the injustice that Chemung County New York has visited upon my husband, Gary Harvey and me.

My husband a veteran who served his country and fought for our freedom is being denied his.

Until January 2006, my husband was leading a normal life. I am telling this story on behalf of a “Person”.

Not a corporation, not a piece of “Human Capital” and definitely not a legal instrumentality for quasi-corporate monetary gain. I am talking about a man named Gary Harvey.

Although Gary Harvey is still a living person, he has not been treated as such since 2006 when he fell down a flight of stairs and sustained traumatic brain injury.

Sometime later, his prognosis worsened into a vegetative condition, but this would only be the beginning of his nightmare.

Gary was placed in Chemung County Nursing Facility - and a familiar battle began.

I started complaining about the quality of care - or lack thereof.

After pushing their own allegations, the facility was successful [in 2007] in having I deemed "unsuitable” as my husband's guardian, severely limiting contact and removing any right to make decisions on his behalf.

The County Department did not file for an Adult Protective Services (APS) guardianship, but the county attorney shows up unannounced at a purely civil/family court proceeding, and secures the commissioner of department of social services(DSS) as his guardian and she administratively designates Adult Protective Services.

They turned the article 81 guardianship into an adult protective service proceeding.

From that point forward, I have been struggling against all odds to save my husband from what I fear could be the same fate that confronted the Schindler family’s beloved Terri Schindler Schiavo.

After my husband’s constant trips to the ER over the years from negligent care, on May 16th 2009 his fate was never to return to Chemung County Nursing Facility after unknown, unexplained occurrences that destined him confined to St. Joseph hospital where in conjunction with his court appointed “protectors” attempted to end his life by dehydrating and starving him to death and were successful in attaching an unlawful DNR (Do not resuscitate) on him while my husband’s court appointed attorney coached the “protectors” how to do it, and his knowledge of my husband’s wishes.

Can you believe that Adult Protective Services of Chemung County New York who is suppose to “Protect”, a community guardian of and for Gary since March 2007 ... they actually petitioned the county court for permission to kill their ward?

An adult protective services unit, a public guardian, a charitable non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, sought court permission to kill their ward.

Although I got wind of a meeting, I was not permitted to attend, have any input nor know the results of said meeting until a week later.

In fact, prior to my official notice from the Ethics Committee, the Ethics Committee had already arranged and conducted meetings with Gary’s estranged children, his mother, and unbelievably – even his ex wife!

He is denied second opinions, Why? He is a veteran and the VA is denied to evaluate Why? What is it they are trying to hide? The law was written to protect and preserve the ward. Many cases out there this is not so.

My husband has been kidnapped and is being held against his will as what I believe a medical hostage for the profits and purely private interests of persons and entities who have no legal authority or business being his court appointed guardian.

New York law clearly prohibits the public guardian from attaining guardianship, and serving as guardian, in the manner so attained and within the plain and obvious conflicts of interests as do in fact exist in this sad situation.

The County nursing home where Gary resided for 2 years --- is assured a resident and payment, and when the community hospital became the residence for Gary nearly two years ago, the same county attorney who, from his part-time private practice is counsel for the hospital, counsel for the guardian, counsel for the county, and counsel for the public guardian, and the ole "Robed One" thinks we are all stupid and do not recognize the obvious, who also worked for the same law firm.

When every attorney involved works for the same law firm Senator O'Mara's law firm. How do I Sara Harvey who has no attorney, fighting alone ever get a fair hearing and/or trial?

Perhaps, lets evaluate this a bit. Chemung county law department a public agency that is suppose to protect the people in our community, the vulnerable, elder and disabled.

A few of those attorneys from their public office are also private practice associates with Davidson & O’Mara P.C. Lets see, St. Joseph Hospital, not his choice doctor, his appointed guardian CCDSS, his designated guardian APS and his assigned case worker APS and all have the same theme in common Davidson & O'Mara attorneys.

St. Joseph Hospital billed my private insurance $932K last year, out of those submitted claims $800.00 were for therapy. Sounds like good care right? Davidson & O’Mara’s client has a lot to lose if my husband were permitted to return home or placed elsewhere. Ironically, I am the only one who sees the very obvious motive.

My husband has suffered abuse, neglect and pure isolation from his court appointed protectors. You go to them and complain and they are not going to admit they are abusing and exploiting my husband.. Routinely he has surgery, like clockwork.

Anyone can see the pattern and fail to protect him from unnecessary surgical procedures because of negligence. I strongly feel that my private insurance should not have pay for their negligence.

I have no say in the matter, the county uses HIPAA as their shield for protection. I report it to the district attorney who sees no crime and guess what, his trail goes back to Davidson & O’Mara and the judges husband is an assistant district attorney who also worked for Davidson & O’Mara.

report it to his court appointed attorney from MHLS and unbelievable the trail goes back to Chemung County Law Department via. Davidson & O'Mara.

Let’s further examine this, the appointed case worker, who works for APS and part time employee of St. Joseph hospital who in turn approve these routinely surgical procedures that are being billed to my private property insurance policy…no prejudice here.

End result who’s interest and benefit are they really protecting, while my husband remains as a “cash cow” for them? Gary has no adequate remedy of law in this county.

Perhaps there are those in New York such as the NY Law Commission who define a “Person” as a corporation, “public” corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, joint venture, governmental subdivision, agency or a instrumentality of any other legal or commercial entity, but in the real world with real “Persons”, we in society commonly refer and know a “person” to be a “Human Being”.

I don’t consider your spouse, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, grandparents or friends as anything other than that of a “Human Being” to be honored and dignified with natural and constitutional rights as provided under God’s Law as well as mans law entitled to rights established by our forefathers in the “The Constitution of the United States”.

Gary Harvey has been institutionalized for more than 5 years and isolated from the love and compassion of his wife. Gary deserves the love and companionship of his wife, the comfort of his home and friends.

Not only is it inhumane to continually deny him quality care, treatment and testing but cruel to continue restricting his wife's visits. I am not the one who tried to kill him, his guardian—Chemung County, and St Joseph Hospital are. Death Panels do exist.

The crime against disabled, vulnerable and elders is growing. This is a new wave of income for the crooked lawyers, judges and appointed guardians. The law is designed to steal and they all know the tricks. Watch out baby boomers you are next and my husband is one of them.

What happens when state government breaks its own laws? They make new ones. AOLTC --- AnOpenLetterToCongress.info. Gary is on page 4 titled DNR as Punishment for Wife’s “Interference”.

You have no rights... not even if you are legally married.

The marriage vows mean nothing in this county. Marriage is an advance directive from my husband when we said our vows to each other and before God, family and friends.

If I had not taken my plight to the media... I would be a widow. They tried to end his life and these people are still in control and managed to attach an unlawful DNR to him. How sick does that get?

The wards/victims and family members can only sit and helplessly watch while the spider comes for his meal, sometimes being spoon fed by judges that are also players in this extremely unbalanced game.

The meal is comprised of the persons life, liberty and property and is enabled the promulgated purpose, powers and objectives set forth in the Facilities Development Corporation Act (per the pleasure and convenience) encompassed in the FDA statutes.

Sharon and others who share her views, are featured in this recently published video by Press TV in Washington D.C.

http://youtu.be/gndiJuaS8xY

Gary during his service to his nation, in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He is circled at the top right of the photograph in the back row.

California Attorney Confesses Crime in Open Court--Judge Fails to Take Notice

Tim King & Michael Hjelmstad Salem-News.com

The Probate Code strictly forbids specific commingling of funds.


(RIVERSIDE, Calif.) - In a hearing this week in Riverside Superior Court, a local attorney, Toni Eggebraaten, cited a criminal act committed by her in conjunction with her client, The Riverside Public Guardian's office, as a reason for not having to abide by the law mandating she reveal accountings to a beneficiary of a Trust. In a statement worthy of Franz Kafka's absurdist classic novel, The Trial, Eggebraaten baldly stated that she pooled the funds in the Phelan Family Trust with "other estates" managed by the Public Guardian's office as a reason for not supplying the bank statements to a beneficiary. The Probate Code strictly forbids such commingling of funds. The request for discovery was made by Janet Phelan, after she noted that Eggebraaten's accountings were not consonant with the minimal discovery that the attorney provided. Eggebraaten had supplied cancelled checks with payee, endorsement and bank cancellation information redacted (blacked out) but refused to submit the bank statements, which are necessary to reconcile the account. Phelan has stated that there appears to be fraud and possible embezzlement of funds. Eggebraaten has replied that since she pooled the Phelan Trust monies with other accounts, it would violate the privacy of those other estate beneficiaries receiving funds from the pooled account if she were to abide by discovery laws and turn these over to Janet Phelan. Phelan promptly informed the Judge, Thomas Cahraman, of the violation of law by Eggebraaten but Cahraman did not respond. Phelan had already issued subpoenas for the bank records, which were served on the financial institutions last week and states that a continuance is necessary due to the fact that there are active subpoenas. In 2009, Phelan, who is an investigative reporter, broke a story in the San Bernardino County Sentinel which stated that a number of Inland Empire judges had questionable financial transactions keyed to their home loans, and were possibly laundering bribes and pay-offs through these loans. At that time, Judge Cahraman was the Presiding Judge of Riverside County. Cahraman subsequently pulled three judges whose loan history was questioned off the Phelan Trust case, although he issued an angry and accusatory letter to Phelan, refusing to investigate the loans and citing Phelan as making things difficult in the court system.

When first contacted by Salem-News.com, attorney Tony Eggebratten said, "I don't feel comfortable discussing the details of this trust with you..."

She went on to say, "The trust pays for the benefit of each a monthly stipend of $2500; if Janet told us to make a direct deposit into her account, we would. If you start with the beginning balance, we show every expense that we pay."

Eggebratten contends that her actions were reasonable and credible according to the law.

"Just do the math. Take the starting balance, documented income, subtract the expenses, it all comes out to the balance we have on hand."

Phelan responded, "Toni Eggebraaten's response failed to address the issues of illegally pooled accounts. Nor does it answer the questions raised by her attorney's time records, which indicate that she most likely has falsified the accountings."

Cahraman has taken the issue of the continuance under consideration and will be issuing a decision shortly. No action appears to have been taken on the violation of law by Toni Eggebraaten and the Public Guardian's office. To the knowledge of this reporter, this is the first time that an attorney has claimed that she is not bound by the law due to her committing a prior illegal act.

_________________________________________________________

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience in broadcast and Internet news. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor. Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 in Afghanistan, and he was in Iraq over the summer of 2008, reporting from the war while embedded with the U.S. Army and Marines.

Tim holds numerous awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing, including the Oregon AP Award for Spot News Photographer of the Year (2004), first place Electronic Media Award in Spot News, Las Vegas, (1998), Oregon AP Cooperation Award (1991); and several others including the 2005 Red Cross Good Neighborhood Award for reporting. Tim has several years of experience in network affiliate news TV stations, having worked as a reporter and photographer at NBC, ABC and FOX stations in Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. Tim is a member of the Orange County Press Club in Southern California, you can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com
_________________________________________________________
Michael Hjelmstad and Salem-News.com founder Tim King met in the Anbar province, at al Asad Marine Corps Air Station in Iraq, when Tim was covering Marine operations there during the summer of 2008. In addition to his work in Marine Corps Public Affairs, Michael has a highly diversified background in media. Mike works as the U.S. Motion Picture and Television Liaison for the Marine Corps, ensuring that movies portraying Marines do so with accuracy.

Mike is another Los Angeles native who shares a common past both as a U.S. Marine and as a journalist. We at Salem-News.com sincerely appreciate Michael's valuable contributions and his highly developed skills in both writing, and press and sports photography. Email sent to our newsroom at newsroom@salem-news.com, will be forwarded to Michael Hjelmstad.

Government Corruption - Guardianship Abuse - Puppets Acting Out a Probate Guardianship Court Hearing

Another 'How could this go on in America?' Story

"Under Colorado law, the courts are supposed to follow a hierarchical list when choosing a guardian: Spouses, adult children and family friends all rank higher on that list than professional guardians. . . . Stewart followed none of these procedures . . . . 'It's criminal what they've done to me and my son,' Letty said. 'How could this go on in America? All my rights have been taken away. . . . They've taken my money and keep me from seeing my son when he's done nothing wrong.'"

Read it all here =>>BlondJustice.0rg

Social Utility: How Much Are Grandpa and Grandma Worth? Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. submitted by Lisa

In a previous essay, I discussed a concept that is always on the mind of the socialist planner and that is “social utility”. To fully understand this concept one has to understand the socialist philosophy, if it can indeed be called a philosophy—in general, philosophies are analytical. In their world view, which is basically a gnostic one, the world is occupied by two basic forms of human life—those who are wise and chosen and those who make up the common rabble—the masses.

The wise, in an older gnostic view, are anointed by the divine force to lead mankind and mold his nature based on an understanding derived from arcane knowledge carefully guarded by mystics of the ancient world. This idea, that certain men are chosen to rule mankind has permeated many governments of the world since and in modern times has attained a less metaphysical tint, but which is still divided between those who cling to the ancient notions of gnosticism, such as the theosophists (Alice Bailey), and the modern view of the New World Order Movement. Of course, they intermingle quite often. We are witnessing an exploding interest in wisdom derived from the gnostic gospels, as taught by its chief disciple Elaine Pagels. Many intellectuals, high-ranking policymakers and even clergy have accepted gnostic beliefs.

When it is accepted that certain men are chosen to rule purely based on their divine anointment and that they rule not based on raw power, but by the fact that they possess a wisdom far beyond the common man, it becomes accepted that the masses (ordinary people) must obey—it is their duty.

In the view of the gnostic, society is chaotic, poorly planned and unjust. Therefore, through a series of carefully thought out plans, in their view, society can be molded or engineered to create a more free, just and happier society than would otherwise occur. This requires that the masses, the people, be convinced to adhere to the “plan” and if they are not convinced they must be tricked into accepting the plan. As Edmund Burke said, -“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion”. The last resort is outright force.

The wise ones see society as a parent views their small children, they must be made to take their medicine because only the wisdom of the parents can know that in the long run it will be good for them—the idea of the paternalistic society. Likewise, they are assured that the common rabble will never have the vision and intellectual capacity to understand the plan in its entirety. We see this level of arrogance in all their writings.

Armed with this world view, the chosen elite have concluded that since they must engineer the perfect society, they alone must gauge a person’s worth in terms of social utility—what does the individual or group have to offer to the New World Order. In this view, social utility is based on one’s contribution to the plan. The socialist only deals in terms of society as a whole or to the economy in general.

One who works, pays taxes and is not a burden on the state is of higher social utility than is a retired or disabled person, who not only does not contribute skills (work) or pay taxes, but more likely is a burden on the state. In the collectivist way of thinking (seeing society as a whole and having no concern for the individual) the latter person should be removed from the society, either by positive or negative euthanasia. It is positive if one actively kills a person and negative if they just deny those persons access to life sustaining care—in both cases they are just as dead.

The American gnostic elite have chosen negative euthanasia as the system that will be most accepted by the people, the masses. The mechanism for this mode of killing is rationing of health care. It is ironic that during this debate on national socialist health care many vocal defenders deny that the administration wants to kill anyone, yet if we read the words of those who designed this plan, that is exactly what they say. More on that later.

Historian Paul Johnson wrote in his book, Intellectuals, that “social engineering is the creation of millenarian intellectuals who believe that they can refashion the universe by the light of their unaided reason. It is the birthright of the totalitarian tradition.” These intellectuals are the chosen wise ones of modern times. Socialist Edward Alsworth Ross in his book Social Control, makes plain that some, the wise, must create a plan that establishes control over the society and that it is these leaders who must control the behavior and actions of the people. This book, which was highly influential among policymakers, was written in 1910. In the chapter on The Need for Social Control he explains:


Although the social fabric is at first held together by sheer force of arms, time gradually masks naked might, and moral and spiritual influences partly replace brute force. It is in the composite society, then, where the need of control is most imperative and unremitting, that the various instruments of regulation receive their highest forms and finish. Here has been perfected the technique of almost every kind of control.

He then goes on to say:

The only thing that can enable a society to dispense with control is some sort of favorable selection. The way to produce a short-clawed feline is not to trim the claws of successive generations of kittens, but to pick out the shortest clawed cats and breed from them.

This, of course is a call for eugenic engineering of society to breed for desirable people and rid society of the unfit and undesirable. It is important to keep in mind that those supporting these draconian eugenic programs were not disgruntled dreamers cogitating in some New York coffee house, they were men and women of high social rank, intellectuals, presidents of major universities, policymakers, corporate heads and even presidents of the United States. These were people in positions of power and influence who could enforce these dreams of a utopian society and that made them very dangerous.

Lily Kay, in her book, The Molecular Vision of Life, a history of molecular biology, she states:

By the time of the launching of the molecular biology program, the Rockefeller philanthropies had considerable experience with eugenics. … they did support eugenics projects, such as the sterilization campaign of the National Committee for Mental Hygiene to restrict the breeding of the feeble-minded, The Rockefeller philanthropies also acted in the area of eugenics through the Bureau of Social Hygiene (BSH) and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial (LSRM).

Enthusiasm for social engineering and eliminating the “unfit” reached beyond our shores with links being made to the German eugenics movement, a favorite topic of Hitler and the National Socialist. Edwin Black in his history of the eugenic movement, War on the Weak, says:

The third International Congress of Eugenics was held in New York City in August of 1932, once again at the American Museum of Natural History. Although organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation were donating vast sums to German eugenics for research and travel, the grants were frequently limited to specific activities within Germany or neighboring countries.


The reason for quoting this material is to show how even in a country such as ours the brightest and most educated class can sometimes be obsessed with dangerous ideas that can harm individuals. These individuals become especially dangerous when they control the reins of education, dissemination of news and government policy-making. As the title of Richard Weaver’s book says—Ideas Have Consequences.

The Modern Social Engineers

Unknown to many, once again a group of our most politically-connected intellectuals are pursuing an idea that can harm a great many people in our society. Much of the funding for these ideas once again flows from the major foundations in our country, especially the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and affiliates and the Carnegie Foundation. These major foundations are networked with hundreds of other foundations and research study groups, giving them enormous influence in society and among politicians who can carry out these ideas by specific legislation.

I have chosen the Hastings Center for my source of writings on the new understandings on health care as being promoted by this administration. I say this administration, but I am certain this bill was not drafted in any congressional office, but rather had been prepared long ago by one of the foundation think tanks. I base this on my knowledge of the foundations’ obsession with health care planning and socialized medicine and the complexity of this bill.

The Hastings Center, as some will remember, was involved in much controversy many years ago as the group promoting the idea of negative euthanasia to establish more equity in health care distribution. They were not as openly radical as the Hemlock Society, which felt it their duty to eliminate those considered unfit for life and for promoting the idea of having panels of experts to decide who shall live and who shall die in nursing homes.

One of the fellows of the Hastings Center is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obamas’ health care czar and a source of constant input on health care “reform”. His scholarly paper is included in a package of articles expressing the Hastings Centers position on health care reform and life in general.

On this website they make the following statement:

Death may not have changed, but dying is quite different from what it used to be, thanks to medical technologies that have extended life and made dying frequently a lingering process rather than a sudden event. People with failing kidneys can survive on dialysis for 20 or more years. People with incurable cancer can live for months or years with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Victims of car accidents who would once have died of head trauma can now be kept alive by ventilators and feeding tubes. Meantime, life-saving therapies for what were once sudden killers, like heart attack, mean that increasing numbers of us end up with chronic complications or decline into dementia.

In other words, because of advances in medicine we can now give people longer lives, even though they have presently incurable diseases and in their view this is wrong. Why?, because it just means they may end up with something worse years later—such as dementia. That is much like saying it would be a waste to fix the fence because eventually it will wear out anyway.

A paper from this Hastings Center collection is one by a senior consultant for the Center, Bruce Jennings, titled—Liberty: Free and Equal. In essence, it is a discussion of how liberty is to be redefined in light of the “new thinking”. Socialists have redefined most words dealing with their assaults on free societies. For example, Lenin defined a moral act as one that further the socialist revolution. Thus, killing millions in gulags is moral because it promoted the communist revolution.

On the first page he resorts to the mercantilist idea that a country has a fixed amount of wealth and that it is the job of the social planner to make sure there is a “just” distribution of this wealth. We can think of the economy as a pie of a fixed size in this view. He says:

Such a conflict is thought to arise, for example, when allowing all individuals the freedom to accumulate as much as they can undermines the capacity of the entire society to ensure that each individual receives a fair share.

In other words, the economic pie is only so large and if some take a larger slice, others get a smaller slice. Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations and many economists since that time, have shown that this is not true--the size of the pie is ever-growing in a free market society and is determined by the creativity and genius of those operating in a free society in which private property is protected. These socialist planners do not understand this because they are socialist and socialism can never create anything in terms of economic growth—it can only redistribute by force what the free market has produced.

We also find that socialist often redefine certain words that they use to deceive the public. For example, as stated above Lenin taught that an act was moral if it promoted the revolution. This justified the mass killing of tens of millions of Russians because it furthered the communist revolution. In his essay Liberty: Free and Equal, Bruce Jennings, a senior consultant for the Hastings Center says:

The health reform conversation has to be reframed at the grass roots level so that a new way of seeing what liberty is and what it requires will grow out of that conversation. One tenet of this movement should be that equity in access to health care, reduction of group disparities in health status, and greater attention to the social determinants of the health of populations and individuals are all polity goals through which liberty will be enhanced, not diminished.

So, we see that the definition of liberty is now turned on its head and we are told to view this assault on liberty as enhancing liberty. He means that when looking at the larger picture and when wearing the special goggles of socialism, forceful redistribution of your earnings will appear as greater liberty. This is because in the socialist view, engineering of humanity will make health care more just.

Again, that depends on one’s understanding of economics—if you accept the mercantilist view of a nation’s wealth, that there is a pie to be divided, yes it is true justice demands that access be redistributed, but in a truly free society where wealth creation arises from individuals and groups of free individuals participating in free market operations, it is not true. In a free society we are not dividing up a fix amount of resources, we are allowing people to decide what is the best way for them, using their own money, to individually satisfy their health care needs and desires.

When the socialists say that they are dividing “scarce resources” one needs to ask—What are the resources in question? In a free market resource availability depends on demand and creativity of the entrepreneur. In fact, in many of their publications they complain that consumer demand is driving the development of more technology and advances in medicine. They cannot have it both ways.

One must understand that socialism is about compulsion. The socialists believes that their view of society is the only correct one, since they are the chosen wise of gnosticism, and therefore people must be made to follow their plans. As I stated in my previous paper on National Health Insurance: The Socialist Nightmare, when the legislator encounters resistance to the plan they become more frantic and dictatorial.

Jennings concludes:

Liberty rethought can then be one of the touchstones for a democratic, grass roots movement for health reform that will demand health justice in a nation of free and equal persons.

In the paper he rejects the wisdom of many of the philosophers of freedom that one cannot have absolute enforced equality and personal liberty. Using a perverse logic he somehow twist the principle of using compulsion by the government, that is, to take from some (deny access to mainly the elderly, the chronically ill and the presently incurable) and give to the ones anointed by those in power.

Equality as a principle in a free country means that the government will not make laws that denies access to the benefits of freedom, which are directed at a select group or individual. For example, both segregation laws and racial quotas specifically target certain groups to be denied certain freedoms or as being anointed. What is being discussed by the socialist is that access should be guaranteed to the “poor”, a rather broad term, and selectively denied to those with the highest health care cost (the elderly and the chronically ill), which is mostly through no fault of their own.

Another paper of the series of Hastings Center publications is by Paul T. Menzel, a professor of philosophy at Pacific Lutheran University titled—Justice and Fairness: Mandating Universal Participation. I found this paper to be especially enlightening. He opens by stating that it is unjust that one person is cured of their illness and left unscathed by the cost and another dies or is left financially ruined. This health care plan, as with all such socialist health care plans, reverses the situation and says, in essence, it is they, the elite, who should choose who lives and who dies, usually meaning that the elderly, the chronically ill and the presently incurable are in the latter category.

To attain “justice” he says, mandatory health care must be legislated. Any time something is mandated, someone must be denied their liberties. For instance, mandated vaccines means you will be forcibly vaccinated, as in the case of the thousand children and teenagers in Maryland who were forcibly vaccinated in the courtroom by the judge’s order. To mandate universal health care, under their definition, means everyone will be forced into the system even against their will. This is the antithesis of freedom, despite their attempt to redefine freedom.

He says:


We have already collectively decided to prevent hospitals from turning away the uninsured. In such a context, allowing insurance to remain voluntary is unfair to many of the uninsured. The obvious way to alleviate this unfairness is to mandate insurance.


Like the ACORN intimidation of banks, forcing them to give loans to people who were bad financial risk, forcing hospitals to take non-pay patients in mass numbers, especially illegal aliens, has led to bankruptcy of many smaller hospitals and serious financial strain on many others. It also means, because of cost-shifting, the insured and self-pay patient will pay more than just for their services. But then, that pushes more to accept the idea of socialized medicine.

One of the most controversial issues is the new system of analysis called Quality Adjusted Life Years—which divides cost with how long one would expect the person to live. For example, fixing an 85 year-old person’s cataracts just so they could see well, only to have them die a year later, seem unjust and foolish to a social planner. To the person and their loved ones, it is humane and rational.

If you treat people like a statistic, as do social planners, many inhumane things can be justified. We also see that a policy that won approval when the above example is used, soon expands to reclassify a person age 55 as “too old” for a health care service, as happens in both the UK and Canada.


Efficiency, Quality Care and Money


In general, the old adage—you get what you pay for—is true. If you have bare-bones health care, you get marginal care and if you pay more, you can get the best medical science has to offer. Most of the planners for national health care plans intended for the public to get bare bones care, but they sold them on accepting the care by telling them it would offer unlimited service and quality.

Now we are hearing a different story from the planners. Suddenly, we are hearing major players in health care suggest that we should “turn back the clock” on health technology and top dollar care. In other words, people should settle for care at a 1960 level rather than a 2009 level. Professor Callahan states it this way:


Serious progress would mean turning back the clock; learning to take care of ourselves, to tolerate some degree of discomfort, to accept the reality of aging and death.


Further he says:


One could make a good case that improvements in education and job creation could be a better use of limited funds than better medical care. Social and economic progress would have double and even triple benefits beyond improved health.


Thomas Murray, the president of the Hastings center agrees. He says that, “At times the best investment for health may be in education, job creation, or environmental protections, not in health care.”

Daniel Callahan notes that the carrot and stick approach may have to be used to guide people to accept changes in health care. As for the sticks he says:


The stick will be the message that you should take care of yourself and not expect medicine to save you when your time runs out—that is no longer an option.


Already, government funded medical care provides less medical care than privately insured patients, especially those with expensive plans. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health czar, wrote an article for the Hastings Center in 1996 in which he said;

Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic covered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.

Dr. Emanuel goes on to suggest that:

Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

Does Doctor Emanuel suggest that the Alzheimer patients should receive no care? What about the early Alzheimer patients, should they be seen for a bladder infection, a degenerative hip or diarrhea? Or should we just let the family deal with it so we can use that money for other social engineering projects, perhaps a new projector to show sex-education propaganda to grade-school children. It is obvious that under such a system, we must measure a person’s “social utility” to determine if they are worth the expenditure.

Who Are the Elderly?

From a series of statements by Doctor Emanuel it is apparent that he, and many others in positions of power, conclude that the elderly have lived their lives and it is time for them to move on, especially if they are costing the state money. This is not a new theme among the elitists of society, as we went through this with Social Security as well.

One must then ask-Who are the elderly and why do they deserve to live? This question poised by the socialists, assumes that one must give a justification to the federal government for existing in this society. This is the social utility argument. If you serve no useful purpose in the society, as far as some social usefulness, then you have no social utility and are no longer welcome. This is not really that far away from the German National Socialist Party’s thinking, which referred to those with no social utility as “useless eaters” and the disabled, chronically ill and incurables as “life unworthy of life”.

I remember when I was a boy my dad introducing me to this very old fellow. We got to talking and I learned that the old gentleman had fought in the Spanish American War. He told me things that I could never learn from a history book and it stuck with me all my life. My dad later told me that there were older people all over who had interesting stories to tell, people who had done amazing things and accomplished much in life. They were a storehouse of history, wisdom and interesting stories of life during America’s greatest moments.

I have gotten to know many who survived the Great Depression, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam. I even met a fellow once who saw the Hindenburg burn. My mom used to tell me stories of listening to FDR on the radio and my Aunt Ann was working as a telephone operator when it was announced that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. These things are invaluable.

To have the older generation around as long as possible is a great value to us all. There was a time when we honored our parents and grandparents as sources of great wisdom, yet in modern times we just see them as old fogies that have no idea how to send emails or program a DVD. We are now being taught by our “elite leaders” and intellectuals that we would all be better off if the elderly would just accept death and that denying them health care can speed the process.

There is a polarization between the young and old, which can only be worsened by the present debate on the elderly’s “social utility”. With so many divorcees, a growing number of youth often feel little real attachment, appreciation or abiding love for their parents or grandparents. One can make a strong case for the present destruction of families and marriages being the result of a series of earlier social engineering plans and schemes.

We also need to appreciate that because of the great number of children born out of wedlock, Grandmothers are often raising these children for their daughters, so many have “social utility” not recognized by the elite planners and social engineers. Yet, even beyond this, we should appreciate that the elderly have lived good lives, worked hard, paid their taxes, obeyed the laws and many have made significant contributions during their lives that have made life better for others.

A great number have served nobly during America’s wars--lost limbs and suffered from the stress of war. Are we to dishonor them now for their sacrifice by telling them they are a liability? Others gave their sons and daughters during wars and lived with the anguish of the loss. Is this how we honor that sacrifice—to tell them that they are of no use? When I read the stories of the young men and women who have sacrificed their lives in battle in today’s wars I wonder will they be dishonored in such a way when they get old or sick?

We can honestly say that it was the labor of our seniors that built this great country, so how can we betray them now? Even worse is that we are telling them that we don’t even care that they are suffering during their last days and that they are aware that relief of their suffering exist, but they cannot have it—the money, they are told, would be better spent on educational programs, studies of global climate change and a plethora of other socialist dreams.

If we let this happen, we should hold our heads in shame.

Reference=>>here

Reports of elder abuse result in Restraining Orders...But Not How You´d Think...

Illustration by Dees

by Janet Phelan as originally reported on Salem News

In an unparalleled action in an ex parte hearing on April 1, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reva Goetz issued a Restraining Order against a local physician, Dr. Laura Moire, blocking her from taking further action or making more reports in regards to conservatee Jean Tanaka.

Dr. Moire, who is considered an expert in elder abuse, is a founder of the Geriatric Division of the American College of Emergency Medicine, a founding member of the American College of Forensic Medicine as well as a member of the White House Conference on Aging, among numerous other honors and affiliations. Dr. Moire took a sole action of calling both Adult Protective Services and the police on the evening of March 30, 2011, in an attempt to alert these agencies as to her concerns of abuse being inflicted upon Mrs. Tanaka through the auspices of conservator Linda Cotterman.

In an interview last week Dr. Moire stated that she had testified during the conservatorship trial of Tanaka on March 3 and was concerned to learn that no action had been taken to address her concerns as to Mrs. Tanaka's care.

Moire's testimony dealt with a number of specific areas wherein she stated that Tanaka's health was impacted by the type of care being delivered by Cotterman. These included concerns that Mrs. Tanaka was forcibly removed from her spacious Westwood home and subsequently confined in a small basement apartment, as well as the discontinuation of physician prescribed supplements which had previously stabilized Mrs. Tanaka's blood pressure, normalized her cholesterol levels, built bone density, and strengthened her immune system and cognitive functioning. This discontinuance has been followed by 5 back -to- back urinary infections,4 collapses and several hospitalizations where she was transported unconscious by ambulances none of which were brought to the attention of a cardiologist. She has reportedly suffered weight loss, lack of basic dental care, isolation and restrictive monitoring of highly limited visits with her daughter, Jeannie.

Of specific concern to Dr. Moire was the placement of Mrs. Tanaka on “comfort care” in the absence of any terminal condition or diagnosis, which has resulted in not only the continued withdrawal of care (such as supplements) which were deemed beneficial to the ninety-five year old woman but the denial of care for her now painfully swollen hands, extreme fatigue, and what has been reported as sudden inability to stand up on her own and walk, brainfog and erratic blood pressure.

The Salem News has obtained a copy of the ex parte notice, written by attorney Margaret Lodise, in which she advises that “we will be making an ex parte application tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. In Room 258 (Dept. 9) seeking an order restraining either Jeannie or Dr. Moire or either of their agents from making any calls to the police, the paramedics or any similar agency reporting elder abuse regarding Mrs. Tanaka until further order of the court.” Lodise's office has declined to comment on this matter .

At the April 1st hearing, Judge Goetz chose to also restrain Jeannie from any further contact with her mother. According to witnesses, Jeannie showed up at her mother's dwelling that evening after Dr. Moire had made the phone calls to APS and police and was not involved in Dr. Moire's actions. Goetz subsequently reversed this decision on April 13th, allowing Jeannie a total of three hours per week of paid monitored visitation with her mother.

Dr. Moire states she was not served with a notice of hearing and calls the efforts to restrain her “ludicrous and illegal.” She has previously typified the efforts to separate mother and daughter as follows: “The isolation from daughter Jeanie is sorrowfully self expressed by Mrs. Tanaka and deprivation from the company of her daughter Jeanie is cruel and abusive to them both.” Jeannie Tanaka has been ordered to pay hundreds of dolllars per visit to a monitoring company.

The use of Restraining Orders to restrict family members from their ability to oversee the care of conservatees has become epidemic. In a case involving conservatorships and the rich and famous, Goetz also approved a temporary restraining order against singer Courtney Love that bars her from seeing or contacting her daughter, Frances Bean Cobain. Love had protested that her daughter, who is under a guardianship, had been molested by Jamie Spears, who is the father (and conservator) of another famous conservatee, singer Britney Spears. In a less publicized case, retired peace officer Willliam Horspool was restrained from his father, conservatee Raymond Horspool, after taking photographs which allegedly demonstrated the poor care being received by his father. San Bernardino Court Judge Michael Welch said he “didn't believe” the photos, which apparently showed the elder Horspool lying in soiled bedclothes, and ordered the photos destroyed. William Horspool was subsequently restrained from his father without a hearing, a violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The use of a restraining order to block a physician, who is a mandated reporter of elder abuse, from reporting elder abuse may be groundbreaking. According to Jeannie Tanaka's attorney Robert Canny, the decision by Judge Goetz effectively overturns the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.

Last June, conservator Linda Cotterman called the police and told them that Jeannie had violated a Restraining Order by visiting her mother. Jeannie Tanaka, who is an attorney with the State of California, was hauled away in handcuffs in full view of her mother. She was released from custody prior to booking when the police discovered there was no Restraining Order in place. Jeannie Tanaka has filed a complaint with the Los Angeles police, stating that Cotterman knowingly made a false police report. The State of California deems false police reports to be a misdemeanour punishable by jail. At the time of going to press, Cotterman has not been taken into custody.

Both Mrs. and Jeannie Tanaka, who are Japanese American, are survivors of the World War II detention camps. President Roosevelt had ordered all Japanese Americans to be rounded up and herded into detention facilities, as potential enemies of the State.

Stormtroopers and Child-Snatchers

As posted on Estate Of Denial.Com

A friend sent this column off LewRockwell.com. Over the years we have enjoyed Rockwell’s writing and broadcast interviews and were fortunate to hear him speak in Houston earlier this year.

The column, Stormtroopers and Child-Snatchers, was written by William Norman Grigg. While the piece addresses some egregious sounding actions on the part of Child Protective Services agencies, it is reminiscent of actions we see occurring with disabled adults via probate courts.Posted: 13 Apr 2011 04:30 PM PDT

Ariana Goldboldo, a mentally handicapped 13-year-old, was abducted from her home at gunpoint on March 24. Her captors have systematically poisoned her through injections of a dangerous psychoactive drug. There is also reason to believe that Ariana, who has reportedly tested positive for an STD, has been molested during her time in captivity.Ariana’s mother, Maryanne, made a valiant but futile effort to protect her daughter. As a result, she may end up in prison. If this happens, Ariana almost certainly won’t survive.

Godboldo, a college dance instructor, had attempted to school her daughter at home, but eventually decided to place the youngster in a local government school. This meant that the girl would have to undergo a government-dictated suite of vaccinations.

Shortly after receiving the injections, the girl experienced severe side-effects, including behavioral problems she hadn’t previously experienced.

When Godboldo consulted with local health and welfare officials, she was told that her daughter would have to receive regular injections of Risperdal, supposedly to counteract the effects of the other government-mandated vaccinations. This is a bit like prescribing cancer to treat diabetes. Among the documented side-effects of that drug are tardive dyskinesia (difficulty with basic motor skills) and severe emotional problems – including suicidal thoughts. When Godboldo’s long-suffering child began to display those symptoms, the mother refused to continue with the injections.

The local “child protection” bureaucracy – which, like all other agencies of its kind, subscribes to the totalitarian assumption that children are the property of the state – decreed that Godboldo was “in denial about her daughter’s mental health issue.”

There’s no evidence that Godboldo disputed the seriousness of her daughter’s condition; as Ariana’s primary caretaker, she understood it very well. She had very reasonable doubts about the competence of the therapeutic officials who were forcing Ariana to undergo injections of a potentially lethal drug. But it is impermissible for parents to entertain such reservations about the wisdom of those clothed in the purported authority of the State, or to resist their prescriptions, whatever their efficacy.

Sure, Ariana might die or be driven irretrievably mad as a result of government-mandated treatment – but this was a decision for the Anointed Ones to make, and for parents to accept with proper docility. Accordingly, the CPS authorized itself to “liberate” Godboldo’s daughter in order to continue poisoning her with Risperdal injections. A small team of government kidnappers – CPS workers and Detroit Police officers – materialized on Godboldo’s doorstep, demanding that she surrender the child.

“They broke into my home illegally in an effort to take my daughter,” Godboldo recalls. “They had no documentation that said they were allowed to enter my home.”

Godboldo, acting on her natural authority as a parent to protect her child, refused to let the kidnappers take her daughter.

When Godboldo refused to let CPS take her daughter, a home invasion team – led, appropriately, by a veteran of the Iraq occupation, Lt. Michael Nied – forced its way into the home. Nied claims that Godboldo fired a gunshot that sprayed him with drywall residue and made his little heart quiver. He and his fellow heroes retreated and called in a “barricaded gunman situation.” A ten-hour siege then ensued.

Prudential considerations aside, Godboldo would have been within her rights to gun down the kidnappers, had she possessed the means to do so. She hadn’t committed a criminal offense, and the police didn’t bother to bring along one of those cunning little permission slips judges reflexively issue any time police want to invade a home. In moral and legal terms they were no better than any other gang of armed intruders.

Eventually a paramilitary SWAT team – complete with automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, and helicopters – was dispatched to surround Godboldo’s home. The mother eventually surrendered and was put in jail on a $500,000 bond. Although Maryanne was released on bail, her daughter remains in the custody of her abductors, undergoing forcible injections of a drug that is slowly destroying her body and mind – and, quite possibly, being subjected to sexual violation as well.

Godboldo can take a small measure of comfort in the fact that Ariana – unlike Aiyana Jones, who was murdered by a Detroit SWAT team in a gratuitous raid staged for a “reality TV” program a year ago – is still alive. But the risk to that child increases with every minute she remains in the custody of Michigan’s child “protection” service.

Last year, Detroit ABC affiliate WXYZ presented a detailed report on the murder of 10-year-old Johnny Andron, a child suffering from epilepsy and cerebral palsy who was seized by the state and starved to death in what was referred to as a “foster care facility.” Johnny’s mother Elena, a single parent, devoted most of her free time to caring for her wheelchair-bound son.

After she lost her factory job, Elena made the tragic error of seeking “help” from the child “welfare” system, which makes a federally subsidized profit each time it steals a child from his parents. Johnny was made a “temporary ward of the state,” a judicial designation that was tantamount to a death sentence. The same was true of Elena’s parental rights, since the same ruling placed her on a central registry of “abusive” and “neglectful” parents. She was placed inside the hamster wheel of government-approved “parenting classes” taught by profiteering busybodies who’ve attached themselves like boxcars to the federal gravy train.

For months, Elena struggled to find and keep a new job while dutifully attending classes that did nothing but clutter her schedule. During the same period she watched her son, who had been a hefty child but – considering his disabilities – a healthy one, slowly waste away through deliberate criminal neglect.

Infuriated that her child was being tortured to death through starvation, Elena dared to complain. This action was taken as evidence of her unsuitability to be a parent. She was summoned to court and informed by a black-robed functionary that she wouldn’t be permitted any further visits with her son. She had no further contact with Johnny, and no updates on his status until a representative of the criminal syndicate that had taken him hostage announced to her that he had died.

Mike Ratte nearly lost his seven-year-old son into Michigan’s foster-care gulag after mistakenly allowing the child to take a sip from a beverage called Mike’s Hard Lemonade during a Tigers game in 2008. Ratte, a professor of archeology at the University of Michigan, didn’t know that the product contained alcohol. Since the sign advertising the drink described it only as “Mike’s Lemonade,” Ratte assumed that it was a badly overpriced soft drink.

Leo took a sip of the beverage, immediately found it distasteful, and place the bottle on the floor near his bleacher seat. Shortly before the game ended a Comerica Park security guard waddled over, picked up the bottle, and asked Ratte if his son had been drinking from it.

Although Reed was puzzled by the question, he replied in the affirmative. His puzzlement mutated into alarm when he was told that the “lemonade” was actually an alcoholic drink. The guard demanded that Ratte and his son remain seated while a scrum of his buddies assembled to escort them to a police substation located in the stadium.

When questioned by the police, Ratte admitted – once again – that Leo had taken a swig of the drink, repeating as well his insistence that this was an innocent mistake. Anybody burdened with even a particle of common sense would recognize this as the truth. If Mike Ratte were perversely determined to get his son drunk, would he do so in public? If questioned about this, would such a person admit that his son had sampled the forbidden libation?

Anybody capable of making an EEG needle twitch would recognize that this was an honest mistake, not a crime. (Another Michigan family recently had a similar but scarier experience, due to a mix-up at an Applebee’s restaurant.) This was made all the more obvious when an exam confirmed that Leo wasn’t intoxicated. But this didn’t prevent the police from doing what they are programmed to do in such circumstances, which is to use any available pretext to kidnap the child.

“Class has something to do with the fact that the child was only in care for two days,” points out Don Duquette, a law professor at the University of Michigan and director of the university’s child advocacy center said. “If you’re not sophisticated, the system isn’t set up to give you very much of a chance to work against the ritual that’s ordinarily done.”

The “ritual” Duquette refers to is a form of bureaucratic child sacrifice: Families are destroyed, and children are abused under the color of supposed government authority, in order to placate the demands of the tax-feeding class. That ritual can commence at any time, for any reason. And any family can be selected as sacrificial victims. All that is required is the conjunction of an anonymous complaint and a willing bureaucrat. I write those words as a father who has confronted that prospect face-to-face.

As described in a civil complaint filed on behalf of the family, Mike and Leo were forced to take an ambulance ride to a nearby hospital, where Leo was forced to endure a blood test that confirmed the absence of alcohol in his body. While his son was being needlessly bled and perforated, Mike was taken to a separate room and questioned by Officer Celeste Reed of the Detroit Police Department’s Child Abuse Division. This wasn’t an investigation; it was a dilatory maneuver. Reed was simply waiting until the child-snatchers had worked out the details of the abduction.

When she finally acknowledged to Ratte that she and her comrades were going to steal his son, Reed played the Nuremberg Defense card, blaming a superior who was “pushing this case to impress her new boss.” Once Leo was in custody, however, Reed took the initiative, perjuriously claiming in her report that officers had “observed [Leo] to be intoxicated.”

Leo was sequestered from his family and put into temporary foster care while the CPS bureaucracy labored to find some way to make their abduction permanent. The “referee” assigned to the case announced that she would keep it open for a week. However, Mike and his wife – unlike most of the families victimized by the child-snatchers – were people of means and influence. With the help of a capable attorney they were able to free their son after a mere two days’ captivity.

The kidnapping of Leo Ratte occurred because his father made a trivial mistake involving a government-restricted mood-altering substance that inflicted no measurable harm on the child.

By way of contrast, Elena Andron and Maryanne Godboldo have been traduced as “neglectful” parents because they sought to preserve their handicapped children from state-sanctioned harm. As a result, Elena’s son Johnny is dead, and the same people responsible for that atrocity will quite possibly kill Ariana unless Maryanne is able to rescue her from the child “protection” system.

If Maryanne goes to prison, her daughter will die. At present, her prosecution on assault charges is being held in abeyance pending a ruling from the Michigan State Supreme Court in a case “that will determine if residents have the right to defend themselves from police officers entering a home without proper authority,” reports the Detroit News.

Embedded in this delay is a critical admission by the prosecution – namely, that Godboldo is correct in claiming that the CPS raid was conducted without legal authority. Unfortunately – albeit predictably – the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that it is, in all circumstances, a “felony” for a Mundane to obstruct or resist the aggressive violence of a police officer acting without lawful authority.

In a 1999 ruling (People v. Wess), the Michigan Court of Appeals, citing the state legal code, admitted that citizens had a right, explicitly protected by state statute, “to use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest.” However, in the dicta of that ruling the court all but begged for either the legislature or the state Supreme Court to change the law:

“We share the concerns of other jurisdictions that the right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded and dangerous doctrine, and we urge our Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the first available opportunity…. we see no benefit to continuing the right to resist an otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law enforcement officer, merely because the arrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given modern procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the `right’ only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant.”

The line about “procedural safeguards” is unfiltered codswallop, of course – but remember it, because we’ll return to it anon.

In 2002, the Michigan state legislature modified the relevant section of the state code (MCL 705.81d) by removing the clause recognizing the common law right to “use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent” an unlawful arrest (that is, an armed kidnapping) by a police officer.

In a 2004 ruling (People v. Ventura) that dealt with a self-defense claim against an unlawful arrest, the Court of Appeals, in a perfectly nauseating display of mock humility, proclaimed that “it is not within our province to disturb our Legislature’s obvious affirmative choice to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest.”

Of course, the legislature made that “choice” after being invited to do so by the same Court of Appeals.

In the 2008 case headed for the state Supreme Court (People v. Moreno), the Appeals Court observed that “we find no reference to the lawfulness of the arrest or detaining act” in the statute, which “states only that an individual who resists a person the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his duties is guilty of a felony.”

As the Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged, the Common Law recognizes an unqualified right to resist an unlawful arrest. The Constitution – for whatever it’s worth – reinforces that right by placing due process impediments (such as the necessity of obtaining search warrants) on the ability of armed hirelings in government-issued costumes to inflict themselves on their betters. But the Court of Appeals – like every statist body of its kind – insists that the costume trumps the Common Law and the Constitution.

Now let’s return to the notion that the right to resist arrest has become “outmoded” because of the “procedural safeguards” that supposedly protect criminal defendants. In the Moreno case – the one bound for the Michigan Supreme Court – the “criminal” act of resistance was a demand that police get a search warrant before entering a home, and then closing the door when the police refused to leave. The trial court agreed that Moreno acted within his rights by refusing to permit police to invade his home illegally. The position taken by the state Court of Appeals is that merely uttering the phrase “Not without a warrant” can be construed as grounds for arrest, and that any physical act intended to prevent that illegal arrest constitutes a felony.

Ariana Godboldo has never been charged with a crime; neither had her mother, until she engaged in a heroic but doomed effort to protect her child from an assault on their home that the prosecution now tacitly admits was unlawful.

As Elena Andron and countless other parents have learned, there are no procedural safeguards for parental rights or the individual rights of children once the CPS intervenes.

The federally subsidized child “protection” universe is a joint production of Lenin, Kafka and Salvador Dali in which power means everything, facts and law mean nothing, and the contours of “reality” are warped in the service of self-enraptured bureaucrats.

Unless a parent is a person of means and influence, like Mike Ratte, active resistance may be the only way to keep his child or children from disappearing into the CPS Archipelago once the family comes to the attention of the child-snatchers. Ideally, this would mean pro-active measures to conceal a targeted child, or to provide for the child’s escape in the event the child-nappers arrive.

As the abduction of Ariana Godboldo demonstrates, the child “protection” apparatus is literally at war with American parents, and police are prepared to murder any parent determined to keep his children out of the hands of those who can drug them, starve them, and molest them with impunity.

Source=>>Here

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.