Please let everyone know. I took my mother's guardianship that commenced in the wrong venue with many other Chapter 744 abuses and errors up to the 5th DCA court of appeals. On July 21, 2008 my mother was given an overdose of morphine sulphate which caused cardiac arrest (her death).
NOW the co urt of appeals, 5th DCA, has dismissed my challenge of the guardianship saying that since my mother is dead, the point is "moot." However, until a personal representative is appointed, the guardian still has my mother's money which should have gone to me by now because the accounts were POD/ITF to me. I'm think of going on the the Florida Supreme Court because if all they have to do is kill the "ward" in order to cover up their wrongdoings, then
murder has now become "legalized." Please let everyone know about this. Would appreciate any useful advice on how to proceed.
Angela
sharannd@comcast.net wrote:
What an awful story, Angela. I'm so sorry for what you have experienced. Thank you for sharing. Have you taken this to the prosecutor?
From:
"eric c. baxter"
My dad was drowned like a rat just days before a court ruling would have freed him and exposed the embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the guardian and his lawyer. We were even able to tell the police where the body would be found as we had intercepted emails detailing various threats and plots which they refused to acknowledge.
That lawyer was elected judge at about the same time and so remains above the law. Yes, it is likely wards are often killed to conceal wrongdoing and
the authorities consider their lives worthless. Incidentally, my dad was a highly decorated veteran of three wars and I often think he really shouldn't have bothered to protect our evil society. Let's hope it soon collapses under the weight of its own rotted mass. Perhaps something can be salvaged. Meanwhile, I think of immigrating to whatever place has the fewest lawyers per capita.
-ECB
I have long thought addressing professional misconduct, engaging in conflicts-of-interest particularly, would be the effective way to prevent the great bulk of elder exploitation. We have discussed the possibility of new legislation to protect the elderly - as if only the law needed reform. Rather, I think we have enough well-written laws to systematically ignore as it is.
The failure lies more in the hands of those who administer and profit from the law. Professional disciplinary bodies tout their chief purpose as being to "protect the public" and should be taken to task. How? I have no idea. But if they aren't, there is little that can be to save the elder whose life has fallen into the hands of an unethical attorney pretending to represent him and his welfare interests.
Below are links to the record of an attorney disciplinary matter in which the respondent was belatedly disbarred but is remarkable only because the state supreme court admitted therein how the
"complaint was additionally prompted by the airing of a national television exposé on the topic of elderly abused by their children." Actually, the complaint had been made long before the broadcast which presented no additional evidence. So, it was purely
the embarrassment of publicity which corrected the dismissal in the first sham proceeding. Of course, none of this was accomplished in time to benefit the client-victim or "protect the public". Read this, connect the dots. i.e., the foul deliberative droppings below, and one recognizes the
spoor of kangaroos.
http://ladb.org/NXT/gateway.dll/HC/1998-04-29_96-db-059.htmhttp://ladb.org/NXT/gateway.dll/DB/1998-10-21_96-db-059.htmhttp://ladb.org/NXT/gateway.dll/SC/1999-09-08_1998-2646.htmIncidentally, Louisiana disciplinary complaints are generally secret except for purposes of retaliating against the person making them. Moreover, this policy of secrecy defeats the collection of evidence and the very exposure which the disciplinary process admittedly requires. I would guess that an unethical attorney is more likely to be struck down by lightening than a national television exposé. So, what can be done? In the next day or so the Louisiana supreme court will scuttle litigation of my late father's succession and the last possibility of exposing his homicide by appointing a judge who can feign ignorance of the conflict-of-interest which precipitated his death.
Dear Ray;
I'm so upset and frustrated by this tyrannical guardian harassing us pretty much daily, I can't even think straight, this is such a sick system that no one seems to be able to do anything about, it's just bizarre, the lawyers protect the guardians, the judges protect the lawyers, while they are all profiting off of these "wards", court sanctioned abuse, neglect, exploitation and down right theft of these elder americans, what is happening?
Teri Sigman
I feel for all of you, I am one of the lucky ones, they released my mother Clara G. Fernandez from the Guardianship of Donald E. Yates on Friday , Oct 3 2008 alive. I was planning to go and buy her medicines and food on that day thinking that her social security income would also be available for her. Little did I know that would be too much to expect, my mother had to go without as the Guardian chose humiliation as a tactic of choice and to show his power over my 92 year old mother by witholding her much needed social security income.I have never been so humiliated by having to beg for my own mother's income so that I can keep her alive, these people feel they deserve our parents money because they are unable to produce anything of value and must attach the sweat equity of our parents' legacy and get off knowing they have the power of life or death over our parents .Our parents are expendable, and if they die in the process, it becomes a "moot point" Eric, Sharon, Teri our parents through the sacrifice shaped this country and the disdain that these of the "Control Group" lord over us of the sheeple class is nothing short of reprehensible.Ray Fernandez
