Marti Oakley

“Even should these often contrived diagnosis’s have any legitimacy, this is still not a valid, lawful or moral reason for unlawfully denying the victim legal standing. And as no crime has been committed, a mental incapacity should never be used as the excuse to deprive another individual of their right to speak for themselves, to retain their identity and legal standing.”
If protecting the elderly who might be vulnerable was truly the concern of the unconstitutional probate tribunals, every effort would be made by those hearing examiners or administrative clerks, both who attempt to claim the title of “judge” (as in a court of law”), to preserve and protect the legal standing and legal capacity of the targeted victim. Instead, these pretenders to the bench move immediately to declare the victim as dead in the law. This is referred to as a “statutory civil death”, a legal fiction created now applied to probate, to enable the theft of estate. The loss of legal capacity and standing are considered to be collateral consequences of being convicted of a crime, yet the targeted victim has committed no such crime, other than aging with assets that a professional predator has decided should belong to him/her.

Legal Capacity

Arbitrarily removing your legal standing which is necessary to preserve your rights and protections under the law (not statutes and codes) is the first step to ensure the tribunal sanctioned theft of identity and the ensuing unlawful conversion of real property and liquid assets by the predators who prey on the elderly for profit. Legal standing is necessary to preserve your legal agency (your right to act on behalf of yourself)…your right to exercise your rights and duties as a living, breathing human being. To be recognized in the law as, existing.

Becoming a “ward of the state” and by extension, guardianized, is an unconstitutional theft of your legal capacity and your legal agency.

Mental Capacity

Mental capacity involves decision making skills and can vary distinctly from one individual to another. These variances can be the result of cultural, religious, and other social factors. They can also be the result of the vast differences in people in general. And in the case of predatory guardians and probate tribunals, they can simply be fabricated and exaggerated claims of what they declare to be unusual behavior that for some reason should allow them to take ownership of the victim. False, exaggerated and fabricated claims are allowed to be entered into the record of the tribunal as evidence that the individual needs to be neutralized, rendered defenseless and robbed. I liken this to modern day grave robbing only no one has dug the hole just yet.

In the probate tribunal, mental capacity is the weapon of choice used to denigrate, marginalize, diminish and render the targeted victim as having lost legal capacity and by extension their legal agency. Even if mental capacity is legitimately in question, why would this be used as the rationale for taking away the rights and protections afforded to any other individual? This is discrimination based on a real or an conveniently created mental disability. And if the individual is truly suffering from diminished mental capacity, why would the probate tribunals use this to cause further harm and suffering? Wouldn’t the proper and moral thing to do be to make sure all rights and protections were preserved? After all, the tribunal is hearing claims that the individual is already at a disadvantage.

The Status Approach used to Deny Legal Standing

Although regularly used as the pretext for the guardianship which enables the theft of the estate, mental capacity hearings are not objective, nor are they based on any provable scientific criteria. These most commonly used pretexts are made as observations that have no other supporting medical evidence other than the predator has declared it to be so. In many cases, the supporting observations of mental health professionals who many times have never actually interviewed the individual, are supplied to the tribunal containing only hearsay based diagnosis’; these the result of comments made to the professionals by stakeholders in the desired guardianship and can be, and most times are, fabricated.

The Outcome Approach Used to Deny Legal Standing

Any decision made by an elderly individual, especially if it entails transfers of assets or attempts to sell real property, can be deemed to have negative consequences that the predators use as evidence to begin the process of identity and asset theft. But this can also be something as simple as refusing to take a medication with horrific side affects, or, deciding not to mow your yard for a month. What are the outcomes of these decisions?

The Functional Approach to Deny Legal Standing

Although there are truly instances where an obvious deficiency in decision making skills comes into question, these instances should not be used to deny legal capacity. Supportive decision making that includes family and friends should be in order to keep the individual as independent as possible. As it is, the ability of the individual to understand the consequences of a decision and what the most likely outcome would be based on that decision, is commonly used as the pretext for taking them hostage in the probate system.

The Right to Equal Recognition Before the Law

Discriminatory psychological labels are applied to the victim which seldom have any relation to reality. And even less seldom is any evidence produced to support the contentions of the predators that any such mental disability actually exists. Even should these often contrived diagnosis’s have any legitimacy, this is still not a valid, lawful or moral reason for unlawfully denying the victim legal standing. And as no crime has been committed, a mental incapacity should never be used as the excuse to deprive another individual of their right to speak for themselves, to retain their identity and legal standing.

If the intent was to actually protect the vulnerable elderly individual, every effort would be made to preserve their legal standing and legal agency. Instead, the exact opposite happens. Now, monetized, and owned by the predatory guardian, they are treated as a “thing”, as a commodity or chattel: now moveable goods and property and treated with as much care and dignity
CIVIL DEATH, persons. The change of the state (q.v.) of a person who is declared civilly dead by judgment of a competent tribunal. In such case, the person against whom such sentence is pronounced is considered dead. 2 John. R. 218. See Gilb. Uses, 150; 2 Bulst. 188; Co. tit. 132; Jenk. Cent. 250; 1 Keble, 398; Prest. on Convey. 140. Vide Death, civil.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you “lack standing” to bring the suit and dismiss your case.
There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:
  1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.
  2. Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.
  3. Redressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury.