No financial
monitoring of the judges, attorneys and professionals is proposed; the
word “audit” is not found once in 150 pages of proposed statutes.
Instead, existing laws are re-written, disguising while continuing the
existing unconstitutional, yet deemed legal, actions of judges and their
appointees.
Current law explicitly states that judges
have the first priority in appointing who may become
guardian/conservator. The recommended ULC statute reads:
Section
309 (c) The court, acting in the best interest of the respondent, may
decline to appoint as guardian a person having priority under subsection
(a) and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority.
Note
that “no priority” means anybody of the judge’s choosing can be
appointed your guardian or conservator. Judges currently have – and will
continue to have – unconstitutional authority to void your legal
contracts and replace your legal instructions with the judge’s choice,
violating your civil and constitutional rights.
Another
fundamental flaw of the proposed ULC statutes is the inclusion of two
words – “and equity” – contained in the title and the sole sentence
comprising Section 103. The words “and equity” must be stricken from the
proposed statutes. As long as the words “and equity” remain, judges can
base their rulings on “equity” principles, principles which allow
judges to ignore black letter law and accept their own appointed
attorneys’ arguments that the appointees’ action have been “equitable” –
even when those actions grossly violate laws, as well as the wards’
civil, constitutional and human rights.
The suggested
Uniform Commission Laws recommended statutes do not offer the wards and
their families protection from the judges’ and their appointees’
actions, should those actions turn out to be financially unfavorable to
the ward, as currently estimated in 35 percent of all guardianship
cases, according to retired Judge Ted Baca in this year’s March 22 town
hall meeting.
Currently, and in the future, should these
ULC statutes be adopted, there is not, and will never be, any recourse
available to wards or their families to complain or receive justice from
anyone if the judge and their appointees act contrary to the wards’ or
the families’ and loved ones’ interests. Meanwhile, state regulators
have not done their legislatively required jobs of annual audits,
bonding requirements or even minimal oversight of the court-appointees
to whom the judges have given total authority over living human beings
and their entire lives’ assets.
At Americans Against
Abusive Probate Guardianship we support legislation such as HB 146
Protection of Vulnerable Adults as originally introduced in the 2017
legislative session by Reps. Yvette Herrell, R-Alamogordo, and Deborah
Armstrong, D-Albuquerque. The original wording of HB 146 criminalized
and penalized actions that defraud vulnerable adults, such as the
actions taken by court-appointed Paul Donisthorpe/Desert Trust and
(allegedly taken by) Ayudando Guardians. HB 146 could also be used to
investigate cases of suspected fraud, such as the case of Blair Darnell
and the cases of several other clients of the same court-appointed
attorney, including the RC Gorman estate.
In the
protection of vulnerable people who are at the court’s mercy, the devil
is truly in the details of the law. Legislators would do well to nix the
Uniform Law Commission proposed changes since they offer no guarantees
to New Mexicans that if the courts fail to follow existing laws – as has
been documented time and time again by the Journal – that the harmed
parties have recourse to hold those judges and their appointees
accountable, and for the wards to be reimbursed ALL money improperly
taken from them by court order.
Legislators should
instead enact 2017’s HB 146 as originally submitted, to put some teeth
and punishment toward criminals who abuse their judicial or
court-appointed authority to steal from the vulnerable.
Full Article & Source:
The road ahead: Critical flaws abound in proposed guardianship laws
All law, new or old, positions the judge and attorney in the best position. That's just the way it is because they can afford to hire lobbyists. The people have no real say.
ReplyDelete