Gisela has not been charged with a crime. She has not been sentenced to prison. No judge ordered her isolation. Gisela lost her freedom with the stroke of a pen, when Judge Thomas Cain approved a conservatorship petition submitted by Santa Clara County Public Guardian Donald Moody.
Moody seized Gisela’s bank accounts in 2010 and sold her home in 2011. Moody now uses Gisela’s own estate to keep her imprisoned at Villa Fontana, a residential care facility that will violate resident’s rights in exchange for payment. Taxpayer dollars, authorized by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, fund the Public Guardian’s abusive activities.
Imprisoned and Isolated
In March 2010, control of Gisela Riordan’s life was given to the Public Guardian. The Public Guardian seized Gisela’s assets, imprisoned her in a facility, and denied her contact with the outside world.
Gisela’s liberty and property were taken from her with the stoke of a pen. Gisela was denied her right to a trial. Gisela was denied her right to a jury of her peers. Gisela was denied her right to face her accusers and to address the court. Gisela was denied her right to counsel representing her interests.
A quirk of the Probate Code denies Marcus Riordan standing to sue for elder abuse while Gisela lives. Standing to sue lies with the Public Guardian, who is Gisela’s abuser. Marcus will gain standing only after Gisela dies.
Full Article and Source:
Silicon Valley Tax Dollars Fund Elder Abuse
Well said. Our tax dollars are paid to entities like the Public Guardian's office, who in this case, abuses defenseless wards of the state.
ReplyDeleteThere appears to be direct violation fo law by the PG - pronounced "pig" - which no one in government is doing anything about.
ReplyDeleteIf there is clear violation of law by the PG - prounced "pig" - why isn't government doing something about it?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with with what Linda Kincaid is saying about the Public Guardian's Office. I had a family member that was conserved and I can say that the public guardian that handled the conservatorship was professional and took care of business. I was happy to see that there were many checks and balances in the conservatorship process that Kincaid fails to mention. Problems that may arise is corrected by the many checks and balances of this process. For example, the person who is being conserved can obtain an attorney or if they cannot afford an attorney is appointed an attorney to represent them.
ReplyDeleteThen there is a court investigator who reports to the court on things that may not be in the best interest of the person being conserved. Your court investigator will make recommendations to the court in the best interest of the person being conserved. You then have the public guardian who is an officer of the court. Their main focus is looking after the best interest of the person being conserved. You mix that with doctor reports, social worker and other professional reports and you can see that the final decision is not based on one person as Kincaid is leading her readers to believe, but the reports of many professionals who are there to look out for the best interest of the person being conserved. The final decision then goes to the judge who then lays out the rules of conservatorship.
There are better ways to address the things you think are wrong, like for instance, getting an attorney to file a petition to the court to bring it back in front of the judge. Contacting the conserved person's attorney to voice those concerns.
To deliberately misinform the readers of this blog as in what Kincaid is doing only serves her slanderous defamatory agenda. By design, it does noting but anger those who do not understand the process. It appears that Kincaid plays to that audience. Do fall for it, a little research goes along way and do not believe everything you read on the internet, especially any blog that Kincaid is associated with. Kincaid claims to be highly educated, but when it comes to the legal process she does not have a clue. Kincaid uses the blogs to defame and slander those she opposes without backing the accusations with the facts.
To compare the person conserved to that of being holocaust survivor is such a poor way of describing the person. That is a slap in the face of the Ombudsman whose job in this process is to be that person who answers only in the best interest of the conserved. One has to question why an Ombudsman would hide facts that the conserved is in poor health because of the conditions Kincaid describes. Why would any person working in this area risk their livelihood knowing that there are many checks and balances that will expose any wrong doings? Most of those who fall into conservatorships are elderly. Many look this way because they are aging. Many are demented and may not have family that are willing to provide them with the care they need. This is what normally happens when one ages, not because of what Kincaid is try to infer.
As for the conserved person's home and bank assets being used for the conserved person's care, why is Kincaid so outraged. Does she believe that you the taxpayer should foot the bill when it is obvious that the conserved person has the assets to pay for these services. Those family members who object to this usually have one thing of concern, and that would be their inheritance. As you can see complains made about the public guardian's office is usually two fold, and you will not hear that from Kincaid or the organization she represents.
Again, with all the checks and balances in place, I find it hard to believe that all these agencies as Kincaid is leading you to believe are conspiring to do bad things to the conserved person. Kincaid calls herself an activist, but clearly lacks the knowledge of the conservatorship process. There is alway two sides of the story.
Informed
Do not believe everything you read online. Do your research and draw your opinion from that. To cast judgement on an alleged crime without evidence is just as bad. What ever happened to the phrase "innocent until proven guilty. To make derogatory statements of others without the undeniable proof only shows ones ignorance to the issue.
ReplyDelete