It's not very often that we hear of victims of guardianship and conservatorship escaping from their sentences, but we've just seen the Chism victory in Michigan - he came out alive. Recently, there was a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on a Connecticut case that a court-appointed attorney and a conservator involved in an elderly man’s improper conservatorship were not entitled to absolute federal quasi-judicial immunity and can be sued. Unfortunately, Daniel Gross died before he could enjoy that victory, but his daughter, Dee King, will pursue it.
On our website we ask "Who's to Blame" - and the list is long. However, as we've been learning more and more over time, the greatest share of blame lies with the judges and their blatant violation of law on several issues:
(1) The first requirement of due process of law is notice. A judge must first look to his/her jurisdiction. After a petition is filed, and if it has slipped by the court clerk without proof of service on all parties, then the judge is to blame if he/she proceeds with the case, without personal jurisdiction. Due process requires both sides of a case to be noticed and present. "Both sides" means the victim and his/her relatives should have prior notice of a petition having been filed. If there is no due process notice prior to an adjudication of incompetency, such an order should be vacated, as void. But will the "tag team" players raise that issue? Not if they're looking to land another lucrative guardianship! And how can the victims (non-noticed "respondents") hire a lawyer if their assets are suddenly no longer under their control, having already been confiscated by a judge and turned over to a court-appointed guardian or conservator, without due process of law?
(2) The second element of constitutional due process is "opportunity" - opportunity for both sides to participate in a hearing, which must be fair and impartial. With the growth of so-called "emergency" petitions, there is total violation of rights if an adjudication is made based on an ex-parte "hearing." Mere conclusory allegations contained in a petition heard ex-parte do not constitute evidence. The legislators are to blame if they don't fix that growing problem.
(3) The third element, "fair and impartial," means that both sides should be present and participating and the judge should be fair and impartial. Really? Not in the guardianship game!
(4) Next comes the statutory evidentiary requirement for guardianship and conservatorship cases in most states. In making findings, a judge must follow the "clear and convincing" standard and recite such in the order of adjudication. Those critical words are necessary to support findings, if any - and there are occasions when there are no specific findings!
(5) Having once signed an order committing a vulnerable person to a lifetime in "protection" jail, stripped of all rights including the right to complain, is the judge off the hook? Not yet, he/she is responsible for what the appointed fiduciaries are doing. Many judges fail to monitor their cases. Many "conservators," failing to conserve the ward's assets, simply help themselves to them without seeking court authority for payment. And many judges, even if authority is sought, don't bother to examine the billings, merely rubberstamping their approval.
The offices of court administration are also to blame for lack of monitoring of what their judges are doing.
And where is law enforcement in this? Generally not interested, but maybe they're waking up! The FBI has just raided a Georgia probate judge's records and confiscated them all. We anxiously await further news on this exciting issue.
And then there is the public interest. Protective statutes are promulgated in the public interest, and the public must know what's going on in the courts! Operating under color of law and cloak of darkness is an invitation for rape and plunder by professional fiduciaries ("persons of trust"?).
Excessive sealing of court records in these "protection" cases is unnecessary other than to remove critical personal information. The Chicago Tribune recently had an article on judge's sealing of all kinds of cases. That should not be allowed, other than to remove critical personal data.
There must be open records so the public knows what's going on behind the black wall, especially at election time.
See Also:
Retired Chiropractor Returns to Being a Free Man
Elderly Man Can Sue Conservator, Attorney for Nursing Home Stay
NASGA: Who's Really to Blame?
Very well written. Victims are getting the shaft in these guardianships and we've got to stop it!
ReplyDeleteThis should be on the front page of the Tampa Bay Times. We have more guardians in Florida than any other place in the US. We also have tree terrible Judges, Judge Patrick Caddell, Judge Lauren Laughlin, and Judge Jack St.Arnold, who have caused so much fraud within our courts. They have tight relationships with the Pinellas Guardianship association and the local Florida Bar groups. The public has the right to know to protect themselves and their assets from this terrible unjust system!
ReplyDeleteDue process? Do they understand it or are they just ignoring it - on purpose?
ReplyDeleteI once took a guardianship case through seven levels of courts, state and federal.
ReplyDeleteAt the intermediate state appellate level, my issue was lack of jurisdiction.
I subpoenaed five years of probate files to that court and asked them to search for jurisdiction.
They decided it would be easier to lose the files, and so they did!
The decision? "Your lawyer waived the jurisdictional issue when he answered without objection." The bum never got paid!
I moved to the next appellate level, filing "as of right" on constitutional grounds, but the chief judge, sitting alone, said there was no constitutional question.
What could be more constitutional than lack of jurisdiction?
Worse yet, in that same case, during a hearing on guardian misconduct, I told the hearing officer the court acted without subject matter jurisdiction.
His response? "I don't believe you."
Well, folks, learn a lesson from this: I checked those court records regularly and you should, too! I got not only a certified copy of the minutes pages made, but an "exemplary" copy as well, signed by a judge.
And after the HO called me a liar, I checked again, and lo and behold, there were the missing papers, now "filed" - three years after the fact, and backdated.
As a matter of law, every action taken in the case should have been voided, but not in our wonderful "Just Us" system!
When I got to the Supremes, they issued the usual denial of certiorari, by way of a letter without even a signature.
I called the clerk and asked for a signed order. "Why?" "So I can frame it." What I didni't tell him is that it would hang on my wall rerminding me to stay the hell out of corrupt courts!
Thank you for the education, NASGA! The more we know about guardianship and guardianship abuse, the better we are.
ReplyDeleteWe hear more and more about secret hearings and then sealing of the records.
ReplyDeleteWords all victims should print out and hang up in their office as a constant reminder..........
ReplyDeleteOne thing each of us has to learn the hard way, it seems, is that the justice system isn't about justice. Instead, it's about who has the best lawyer that day in court. And yes, it's about stacking the deck ahead too.
ReplyDelete