Saturday, December 29, 2012

Virginia: Scott Schuett, Operator of 5 ALF's, License Revoked!

Scott Schuett, who currently operates five assisted living facilities in Hampton Roads, had his administrator and preceptor licenses revoked by the Virginia Board of Long-Term Care Administrators on Tuesday.

After two hours of testimony by state inspectors on conditions involving code violations at three of his facilities — Ashwood Assisted Living in Hampton, Madison Retirement Center in Williamsburg, and Oakwood Assisted Living in Suffolk — the Board deliberated for 30 minutes before voting to revoke Schuett's licenses. Schuett has owned assisted living facilities in the region since 2003. The problems cited at the hearing involved conditions observed in 2011 and 2012. The decision does not prevent him from owning or operating homes with licensed administrators on site.

Schuett was a no-show at the hearing. He informed the Board that morning that family illness prevented him from attending the formal public hearing held in  Henrico County. The hearing followed the Sept. 13 suspension of Schuett's licenses,the Board having determined that his practice posed "a substantial danger to the public health and safety."

The Board also levied a $25,000 fine against Schuett. Lisa Hahn, executive director of the Board, deemed the fine "suitable" for the 28 violations presented. Schuett was informed of the vote by phone. He did not return phone calls for comment. In an interview prior, he indicated that he expected to lose his license and talked of returning to his home state, Michigan. The regulations allow him to petition for reinstatement after three years and the payment of the fine.

Five witnesses spoke about conditions at Schuett's homes. Virginia Goodell, licensing inspector for the Department of Social Services, described the ongoing problems at Madison, a home she described as having a "high population of chronically mentally ill adults." Complaints ranged from a lack of food and infestations of cockroaches and bed bugs to fist fights and the delayed report of the death of a diabetic resident who refused medical care.

Ivy Burnham, the inspector for Ashwood, presented a similarly long list of infractions involving insufficient staffing, undocumented medication administration, failure to follow admissions policies and poor record keeping. Burnham estimated that 90 percent of the facility's residents have mental health issues. Both facilities are in jeopardy of losing their licenses.

Trish Meyer, licensing administrator for the Eastern Regional Office of the Department of Social Services, reviewed inspections from Oakwood. She observed that there had been 19 reported assaults of residents within six months, alone evidence of insufficient supervision.

Full Article and Source:
Scheutt Loses Assisted Living License

See Also:
Scott Schuett: Operator of Peninsula Assisted Living Homes Fights for License

Newport News Assisted Living Facility Closes

Woman arrested for malicious wounding in Newport News retirement home incident

Man Charged in Assulting Woman, 92, in Suffolk

Injury Leads to More Scrutiny for Suffolk Home

Assisted Living Concerns: Facility Resident Tried to Enter Home

Board Alleges Improper Care at Adultcare Homes

State Suspends Assisted-Living Facility Administrator's Licenses

Check the License Status of Any Facility Through the Virginia Department of Social Services Website

CARR: California's First Only ONLINE Assisted Living Public Recrod Search

CARR'S Facility Search is a novel approach to researching assisted living facility options. CARR founders recognized the paucity of objective information available to seniors & their families and have worked since 2009 to configure a website that offers more than marketing material. CARR's Facility Search for RCFEs (or Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly)is the first & only website in California to offer online, the actual public documents on assisted living facilities. 
Visitors using our site can locate a facility by name, zip code or city using the search bar to the left. Each facility profile contains the following valuable information:
  • Who owns the facility
  • Who owns the property
  • How many residents are allowed (capacity),
  • Whether the facility has waivers (special approvals to offer hospice, bedridden, dementia, or other types of more specialized care to residents)
  • Inspection reports
  • Complaint investigation reports
  • Regulatory violations and cited deficiencies
  • Non-compliance Conference Summaries
  • Secretary of State registration information
  • Fire Marshal Clearances
  • Other relevant documents

Full article and Source:
California's First Only ONLINE Assisted Living Public Record Search

Friday, December 28, 2012

The Dictators of Non-Compassion: Gary Harvey Case and the Unexpected Twist

Sara & Gary Harvey
How long has it been since Gary Harvey fell down those basement stairs? Some days it seems as though it was only yesterday, but it wasn’t. It was January 21, 2006. It has been nearly seven years and little has changed, since the county took over and began their reign of merciless dictatorship.

Oh, Gary & Sara Harvey have gotten seven years older and he is no longer in the nursing home, but a ward connected to St. Joseph Hospital. Only his location has changed, as the desperate and uncalled for battle goes on with the power hungry feeding upon, demeaning, and controlling this husband and wife.

On December 10, 2010, I wrote:
Amazing! I can actually recycle my article as if it was current and remaining accurate. How often does that happen?
Here it is the holiday season of 2010 and Sara Harvey gets a letter from Bryan Maggs, Chemung County Attorney, stating that her visitations with Gary are suspended immediately. Isn’€™t that the same gift they offered last year? I’€™m so impressed with the repeat gift and the timing –” NOT! (Wife’€™s Visitation in Jeopardy: The Recycling of Gary Harvey’€™s Holiday Restrictions)  
Would anyone be surprised to learn that Sara didn’t get to visit Gary on Christmas Day 2012?

It isn’t often that one can continue to recycle articles and pretty much be assured that there is going to be some excuse… some mistake… some problem raising it’s ugly little head and taking away anything that could be considered special for Gary and Sara, especially during this special holiday season. It isn’t often, unless the articles happen to involve Gary and Sara Harvey, Chemung County and St. Joseph Hospital.

Anyone see a pattern?

Where has Kevin Moshier been? Silent once again?
Guardianships are like adoptions in that it is the obligation of the guardian to look out for the ward he has been put in charge of. Unlike adoptions, the guardian is supposed to act on behalf of the ward and make decisions as the ward would make for self if capable. And then there is the attorney to insure the rights of the ward. So, where has Kevin Moshier (the appointed attorney) been when Gary Harvey’€™s wishes have been trampled upon?
 As I reported in the past, “€œGary Harvey is the brain injured man from New York, who seems to have his own private “€œdeath panel”€ determined to kill him off and to make his and his wife’€™s life as miserable as possible, ‘until the sentence is carried out. One might think it could get no worse than it has been. One should never think such thoughts, lest one (or more) be shown that –€” for however bad –” things can actually get worse!  
Just where was Kevin Moshier, the attorney who should be representing Gary against any wrongs, when the so-called ethic’€™s committee wanted to put Gary down by starving and dehydrating him to death? Did he stand strong and ask what these people were thinking and why they would even consider such a thing? 
When they put the DNR on Gary, did Kevin Moshier demand they lift it?  
When Sara Harvey’€™s visits with her husband were restricted, did Kevin Moshier step up to the plate and say, “€œI don’€™t think so. This is not what Gary would want. This is not in Gary’€™s best interest. Gary has a right to have time with his wife.”€ Did he? Of course he didn’€™t.  
Sara is a danger to Gary? I didn’€™t even go to law school and I can see that the case against Sara is trumped up and so full of holes that even a pre-med student could dissect it in a few moments. But Kevin Moshier couldn’€™t or can’€™t?  
Even more amazing is the fact that it was the guardian & pals that tried to kill off Gary, with Moshier quietly hanging out, though it was Sara who was, and has been, labeled the danger. (I have trouble getting my reality oriented thoughts around that one.)
What about the press conference where information was given about Gary Harvey’€™s case that should not have been given? Information that I believe was to turn people on Gary. Did Kevin Moshier do anything about that? Did he file on those responsible? ~ (August 5, 2011) The Silence of Kevin Moshier
Gary’s life is in the hands of these county vultures. Yes, the very group of people who attempted to have their ward starved and dehydrated to death, claiming he was terminally ill. Oh, but it is Sara that they treat and report as the threat? The irony is beyond belief. However, these people have not fooled everyone, nor have they covered their tracks as well as perhaps they think. The day will come when they answer to the one they can hide nothing from. It will be a day their cold hearts shall be placed in judgment and every cruel thought and action shall be reviewed.

Gary Harvey does not need to be under the guardianship of the County. He is their ward due to half-truths, non-truths, attorneys backing out at the last minute, attorneys not doing the job but taking the money and things such as that. They think we don’t know all this, but many of us do.

Full Article and Source:
The Dictators of Non-Compassion: Gary Harvey Case and the Unexpected Twist

See Also:
Terri Schiavo's Brother, Bobby Schindler, Petitions Court to Intervene in Guardianship Case

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Terri Schiavo's Brother, Bobby Schindler, Petitions Court to Intervene in Guardianship Case

Attorney Christopher Johnson has filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asking the court to allow Mr. Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo to serve as Guardian for Mr. Gary Harvey.

In 2006, Mr. Harvey, a Chemung County resident, was involved in a home accident, which left him with a profound brain injury. His spouse, Mrs. Sara Harvey, sought guardianship only to be denied by the Chemung County Supreme Court who ultimately appointed the Chemung County Department of Social Services as Mr. Harvey's guardian. Since that time, Mrs. Harvey has been in a prolonged court battle with Chemung County officials and the New York State Court System.

Indeed, it was in May of 2009 when the ethics committee from the hospital where Mr. Harvey was residing recommended the removal of his nutrition and hydration tube, and also issued a "do-not-resuscitate order" (DNR).

Fortunately, the court denied that request. However, inexplicably, the DNR stayed in place and Mr. Harvey remains under the control of Chemung County, despite the fact that the county tried to end his life.

"I have raised the question many times, 'How can Chemung County, Guardian of Mr. Harvey, be acting in his best interest when they, in fact, tried to kill him?' From all indications, it appears that Mr. Harvey has been warehoused and denied the opportunity to receive the care and rehabilitative services that would benefit his condition," stated Bobby Schindler.

It is the hope that with this filing, the court will recognize that Mr. Harvey deserves the chance to receive aggressive therapy and rehabilitation. Certainly from Mr. Schindler's experience with brain injured persons, he would afford Mr. Harvey the help he needs in the hopes to significantly improve his quality of life.

Schiavo's Brother Petitions Court to Intervene in Guardianship Case

The Forgotten Ones: Compassion for the Elderly

" I am the one no one wants, like a stray cat or an orphaned child."

~ A nursing home resident

*Please volunteer to visit our lonely and forgotten elderly. ♥

The Forgotten Ones: Compassion for the Elderly

Brain Injury Survivors Help Each Other Recover

More than two million Americans sustain brain injuries each year. There are few programs in Hawaii that help patients transition from hospital and acute care into the community, but we found one that helped change them - right before our very eyes.

Through the Brain Injury Association of Hawaii, transformation happens. 56 year old Carl Debo is teaching 22 year old Consolacion "Ching" Mongco to swim.

The pair couldn't be more different. Carl is an attorney and former teacher. Ching is former college student. The two were brought together by both hardship and hope.

Three years ago, Carl suffered a stroke. Everyday life as he knew it would never be the same. He became introverted, and finding the right words can still be difficult. He was slow to respond in our interview.

Around the same time in 2009, Ching left a party with her ex-boyfriend who she says had been drinking. They got in his car. He started racing another driver, lost control, and flipped. Ching was badly hurt. "I was in a coma for, like, one month," she said. She still uses a crutch to walk.

When Ching and Carl heard about a pilot program for people suffering from brain injuries, they applied. Hawaii has little out there to help survivors transition into the mainstream.

"It will give us something to have a structured program after brain injuries, relearning. So relearning how to talk, relearning how to communicate, social skills, you know, our brain controls everything," said Mary Wilson, the Executive Director of the Brain Injury Association of Hawaii.

1.7 million Americans sustain traumatic brain injuries (TBI) each year, according to the Brain Injury Association of America, and almost 800,000 have acquired brain injury from non-traumatic causes. More than three million have lifelong disabilities due to TBI, and 1.1 million have a disability due to stroke.

Full Article and Source:
Brain Injury Survivors Help Each Other Recover
See Also:
Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Ohio Resident Questions Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Integrity

I am copying below three e-mails which I received from representatives of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) concerning the reason why the CFPB’s "privacy attorneys" blackened out what it did from the material which the CFPB now posts online at!documentDetail;D=CFPB-2012-0018-1047.

You can easily determine exactly what these attorneys blackened out by comparing pages 3 and 5 of the redacted version posted by the CFPB to the same pages of the unredacted version which I post online at http:\\\~tvfields\UnredactedCFPBSubmission.pdf.

By making this comparison, you can verify the following:
• NOT redacted from page 3 is the reference to my father by the line which reads “The second example is represented by the page copied below from the medical record of my father.”
• NOT redacted from page 5 are the signatures of my father, Dr. Steinmetz, Nurse Nemeth and Dr. Sonneborn.
• What was redacted includes (1) the mention of an attorney’s involvement, (2) the mention of the attorney’s relationship to the parties, (3) the identity of Boca Raton Community Hospital, (4) all references to the fact that the patient was on a morphine drip, under a Do Not Resuscitate order, and just hours from dying of cancer.
• What remains after the redaction leaves false impressions about what was redacted. For example, it leads some people to wrongly suppose that what was redacted on page 5 was filed with the court as the patient’s Will and then contested as such. It leads others to wrongly suppose that the patient had not made out and saved his Will before these notes were entered into the medical record.

Considering what was and was not redacted, I have concluded that, contrary to the reason given in these e-mails, the redactions were NOT to protect the personal privacy of others.

To make this point even clearer, I post online at http:\\\~tvfields\ReasonableRedactions.pdf what these redacted pages might have looked like if the purpose of the redaction was just to protect the personal privacy of others.
~ Tom Fields

----- E-Mails Received from the CFPB -----
From: 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: Update re. Request for Congressman LaTourette's Assistance

Mr. Fields -- Thank you for sharing this email with our office. It appears that you unfortunately may not have received the subsequent email that we sent to you, which explains that the information you requested be posted contains confidential information. Todd Vanlaere, who is posting the comments, offered to post your comment without the confidential information if you wish to resend it to him. Again, he can be reached at:

We are attaching our previous email for your reference.

Thank you again for contacting the Ombudsman's Office, CFPB Ombudsman’s Office
Tel: 855 830 7880 (Toll-free)
Fax: 202 435 7888

From: []
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Fields:

I just wanted to touch base with you and let you know that I've received your email, and I am aware of your concerns about your submission. Your concerns are being addressed and I anticipate that I will be able to post your submission soon, but please advised that there will be some redaction. If you'd like me to send you the final redacted version of what our privacy attorneys clear to post prior to posting it, I'm happy to do so.


From: []
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:20 AM
Subject: re. Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Fields:

I have attached a redacted copy of what you have submitted to us. As a matter of policy, we redact comments that discuss individuals other than the commenter to protect their personal privacy. Therefore, as you can see, a lot of your document has been redacted. Per your request, I will not post anything for public viewing until you approve it.


Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Today, we light a candle for those victims of guardianship and conservatorship abuse – the elderly, the young, and the disabled - who are cruelly isolated from their family by their court-appointed “protectors” on this holiday. We remember them, and their suffering families, in our hearts and our advocacy.

Happy Holidays

Monday, December 24, 2012

Defeated judges find way back to bench

The Illinois Supreme Court in the past year kept seven politically connected judges on the Cook County bench after they were rejected by voters, a common practice the high court had pledged to curtail.

One had given more than $20,000 to the Cook County Democratic Party. Two had connections to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Others have ties to powerful Chicago Democrats who decide who gets the party's support to be judge.

They weren't the only active Democrats chosen for Circuit Court duty by the high court's three justices from Chicago, all who are Democrats themselves. A Tribune review also found the court reappointed three judges who dropped out of judicial races, making room for the Democratic Party's favored candidate.

Supreme Court spokesman Joseph Tybor said the appointment of judges who lost elections was "not a black and white issue."

"The appointment of qualified candidates who already have some experience as a judge — even though they may have lost a primary election — can be a useful way to replenish the bench with proven judicial talent until the voters have another chance to choose in the next election," Tybor said.

Critics have said the court's penchant for keeping non-elected judges on the bench lacks openness and could circumvent the will of voters.

The majority of the state's judiciary — from circuit judges to the seven Supreme Court justices — are elected. But the constitution gives the high court broad appointment power in its role as supervisor of the state's court system.

For years, the Supreme Court has kept judges on the bench after they lost elections, citing its power under the Illinois Constitution to bring back "retired" judges whenever it determines there is a public need — a practice known as "recall." The Chicago Council of Lawyers threatened to sue the Supreme Court in 1993 for the practice, and the court pledged to stop. But it didn't.

Last year the Tribune revealed the court had recalled to the bench 18 judges who lost elections since 2000 — many of them active Democrats. In response to that story, the Supreme Court said it had recently decided to stop recalling losing judges and provided a June 2011 letter from Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride.

"In short, our court has determined as a matter of administrative policy that non-elected circuit and appellate court judges shall not be considered for recall," Kilbride wrote.

But the latest Tribune review found the court continued to keep politically connected judges on the bench after election losses by appointing them to specific vacancies — including two judges who were previous beneficiaries of the court's recall practice.

Tybor said Kilbride's letter did not mean the court would not reappoint judges who lose elections — only that they would not be brought back under the recall procedure.

"Keep in mind, however, while the end result may be the same (they are still on the bench) the court did not go back on the policy it had announced last year," Tybor said in an email.

David Morrison, deputy director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said the Supreme Court should be more transparent in how it fills coveted spots on the bench.

"The Supreme Court should be less of a black box so you have an idea how they decide who should be a judge," Morrison said. "Certainly, party affiliation and political donations should not be a factor. The point should be to find the most qualified and skilled lawyers to be on the bench."

How the Supreme Court decides whom to appoint remains a mystery. Those chosen often have a common qualification on their resumes — ties to powerful Democratic politicians.

In Cook County, the process typically goes like this: The Supreme Court appoints a lawyer to the bench, the new judge later runs for election and loses, and the court then reappoints the losing judge to the bench at the same salary and benefits.

That's how it played out for Alfred M. Swanson Jr., a former radio news reporter, veteran lawyer and faithful Democrat.

For years, Swanson wanted to be a judge. He ran for an associate judgeship in 2007, a process where judges are chosen not by voters but by full Circuit Court judges in a secret ballot. Swanson ran with the blessing of Speaker Madigan who wrote a letter endorsing him.

Still, he lost.

In October 2010 when the Supreme Court tapped him to fill the vacancy of retiring Judge John A. Ward. The appointment seemingly gave Swanson a leg up in the 2012 election to fill Ward's seat, allowing him to campaign as a sitting judge.

Swanson had other factors in his favor, as well. The Democratic Party in October 2011 endorsed him as its preferred candidate. During the next three months, Swanson and his campaign committee gave $20,000 to the party, according to state campaign finance records.

All that did not matter. Voters selected former Assistant Public Defender Elizabeth Hayes over Swanson and four others.

Weeks before he was to leave the bench, the Supreme Court on Nov. 9 reappointed him to a new vacancy created with the retirement of another judge. The appointment is good through November 2014.

Swanson declined to comment.

In addition to Swanson, four other Democrats who lost in the March primary had their judicial wishes granted by the Supreme Court.

They are Peter J. Vilkelis, a donor to county Democrats; Gregory E. Ahern Jr., a veteran county prosecutor backed by North Side Ald. Richard Mell, 33rd; James L. Kaplan, a past chairman of the Illinois Board of Higher Education; and Daniel L. Peters, a southwest suburban lawyer whose committee gave a $450 donation to Ald. Edward Burke, 14th. Burke runs the county's judicial slating committee.

Kaplan said he wrote a letter during the summer to the three justices from Cook County — Mary Jane Theis, Charles Freeman and Anne Burke, the wife of Ed Burke.

"I let them know that I'd like to remain a judge," Kaplan said. "Everyone who ran wanted to be kept around. I've done a good job so I'd like to think the Supreme Court wanted to keep me."

Vilkelis and Peters could not be reached.

Ahern said the Supreme Court's pledge does not apply to him since he has never been a judge and is not being recalled to the bench. He said he first sent his resume to the justices about five years ago asking to be considered for a judicial appointment.

"I don't have any clout," he said, "or I would have been a judge five years ago."

Also in this year's crop of appointments are two who were previously appointed under the court's recall provision.

Lauretta Higgins Wolfson, the wife of a former appellate court judge, was first made a judge by the Supreme Court in 2006. Madigan backed her for an associate judge position in 2008, but she wasn't selected and she also lost when she ran for the bench that same year. Yet she has remained on the bench ever since, without having to face voters.

That's because the court keeps reappointing her. The court issued "recall" orders in 2008 and 2009 to keep her on the bench through late 2012. Then earlier this month, the court gave her a new appointment that lasts until Dec. 1, 2014 — but this time, they did not issue a "recall" order. Wolfson could not be reached for comment.

Also in this year's crop of resurrected judges is Kenneth L. Fletcher, a politically active former public defender who has been reappointed to the bench multiple times after losing the 2008 Democratic primary. Fletcher did not return a call for comment.

One other appointment since Kilbride's letter was that of Diann K. Marsalek, a party-backed candidate and Democratic donor. She lost the 2010 primary election and was appointed in September 2011 despite the Chicago Council of Lawyers' finding that she was "not qualified" to be a judge.

Marsalek, running as a sitting judge, was elected this year. She could not be reached for comment.

The Supreme Court elevated three lawyers to the bench in 2012 after each had bowed out of his or her race instead of going up against the Democratic Party-favored candidate.

Thomas J. Carroll was running for judge in 2012 against Daniel R. Degnan, the son of Timothy Degnan, a top aide to former Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Carroll's Democratic loyalties run deep. His family was friends with Ald. Burke. He also regularly gives to Democratic candidates, donating $250 in 2012 to Justice Theis, a total of $500 to Madigan's 13th Ward Democratic organization, and a total of $3,000 to Burke during the past year.

Carroll dropped out of the March primary race, leaving Daniel Degnan — who was rated as "not recommended" by the Council of Lawyers — as the lone candidate.

Two months later, on May 17, the Supreme Court reappointed Carroll to fill the vacancy created by the death of a judge.

"I don't know if that helped or not," Carroll said about his decision to drop out of the race. "The Supreme Court liked me so they reappointed me."

Carroll declined to comment on who suggested he withdraw, nor would he say if his campaign donations and ties to Burke helped.

The two others who dropped out were former state prosecutor Anthony C. Kyriakopoulos, who was running against former Ald. Tom Allen, and Caroline Kate Moreland, a former county prosecutor who stepped aside in a race against Michael T. Mullen, whose campaign committee gave $30,000 this year to the county Democratic Party.

Kyriakopoulos did not return messages. Moreland said she sought reappointment this fall and was selected Nov. 30.

"I didn't make any deals," Moreland said of withdrawing from the race. "That was a personal and political decision that I made."

Full Article & Source:
Defeated judges find way back to bench

Petition: Mom, It's Christmas 2012 - Your Daughters Will Never Stop Fighting for Your Freedom

STOP The Injustice Of An Innocent Woman Being Held Against Her Will, Isolated From Family & Friends For The Past Five Years In A Nursing Facility Through No Fault Of Her Own.

Why Are We Forcing Our Tax Payers To Pay Out HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR Forcing Mollie Florkey To Be Held Prisoner In A Nursing Home When It's Not Necessary ?


See Also:
NASGA:Mollie Florkey, Ohio Victim

Petition to the FDA; Regulate Nursing Home Injuries and Deaths

Family members expect bed rails to protect the parents, grandparents, and great grandparents spending their nights in nursing home beds.

Warning labels are not placed on the bed rails that have strangled and injured Senior Citizens for years. The FDA finally issued a warning in 1995 about the dangers of bed rails.You've heard about that, right? Exactly. No one has. And so the deaths and injuries continued.

After the FDA's ineffective warning, officials discussed placing warning labels on bed rails. But, manufacturers resisted, so the FDA let it slide.

Shoving the issue of bed rail safety labeling under the rug won't hide the needless deaths and injuries that vulnerable senior citizens face. Putting a warning label on a product that needs it, however, will save lives.

SIGN the Petition - FDA: Regulate Nursing Home Injuries and Deaths

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Tonight on T.S. Radio

As we come to the close of 2012 and celebrate Christmas, we also have cause to celebrate a few victories. This evening, Linda Kincaid, Elder Advocate/California, and Beverly Newman, Elder Advocate/Florida, join together to bring news of progress and hope in the fight against guardianship abuse.

Hopefully, you will find this show to be uplifting and encouraging.

7:00 CST ... 5:00 PST ... 6:00 MST ... 7:00 CST ... 8:00 EST

LISTEN to the show LIVE or listen to the archive later

Petition: To Return Mary G Sykes Home and to Remove Carolyn Toerpe as Plenary Guardian

Probate elder abuse in Cook County is a continuing issue. The courts are corrupt and deny the elderly their human rights on a regular basis.

Mary G Sykes, a 92 year old woman is just one example.

While she stood in open court and wanted to tell the judge she wanted to return home with her daughter Gloria J Sykes, she was denied this right. She was repeatedly denied the right to an attorney by the court. Her GAL's only listened to one party--Carolyn Toerpe and the entire procedure was railroaded. Gloria was denied the right to be her guardian--even though she lovingly cared for her for 10+ years in Mary's own home. Carolyn, who had little contact and rarely took her mother was awarded Plenary Guardianship in a railroaded proceeding.

SIGN THE PETITION to Return Mary G Sykes Home and to Remove Carolyn Toerpe as Plenary Guardian

Florida is a Zero-Tolerance State for Human Trafficking? Not Really!

In tracking the rampant organized criminal activity across the country with regards to the abuse of elderly individuals [with assets] who are targeted by professional predators working within the probate system, Florida jumps to the forefront in the abuse, exploitation, and looting of personal assets of the elderly.

While Florida may have been at one time, the most desired state to retire to, it is now the preferred hunting grounds of professional predators who operate within and with the cooperation of the probate court system. This is human trafficking for profit.

From the Attorney General's website:  
“Contrary to some misconceptions, human trafficking crimes do not require any smuggling or movement of the victim,” says the Department of Justice on its website.

Florida's status as a hub for human trafficking has state officials pushing a "zero-tolerance" policy toward criminals who exploit others for profit.

“It’s important to me because this is a crime against humanity, it’s truly modern-day slavery,” State Attorney General Pam Bondi said in an interview.

These should be comforting and reassuring words, and for the most part I presume that most find them so. Still, I wonder why Attorney General Bondi refuses to even acknowledge another form of human trafficking rampant not only in Florida, but across the nation. The trafficking of the elderly who committed what must be the new crime of, aging with assets.

Full Article and Source:
Florida is a Zero-Tolerance State for Human Trafficking?  Not Really!