Florida's Probate Mill

In 1995, the St. Petersburg Times won a Pulitzer Prize for an editorial investigation called Final Indignities. This powerful four-part series exposed flaws in Florida’s probate system and detailed ways in which estates are mishandled by lawyers and executors.

In 2008, there does not seem to be much, if any improvement in the probate system throughout the United States.

Final Indignities by Jeffrey Good, staff writer:

1. Broken Promises
Floridians should be able to face death trusting the legal system to carry out their last wishes. But we found that, too often, the trust is broken.

2. Broken Trusts
You've heard the sales pitch: Living trusts are the best way to escape the "horrors of probate." Simply sign a trust and, after you die, every dime of your estate will automatically pass to chosen friends, family and charities. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Too bad it's a lie.

3. Forgotten Victims
After seeing lawyers plunder their inheritances, victims of estate rip-offs suffer again when the legal system leaves them empty-handed.

4. The Road to Reform
An 86-year-old man left a gift for his family, only to have it stolen. A crowd of senior citizens sought guidance on living trusts, only to be hoodwinked. The heirs of looted estates heard promises of repayment, only to be forgotten.

In Memoriam - Terri Schindler Schiavo

The Judicial Murder of Terri Schindler Schiavo

See also:

Statement of Diane Coleman on Terri Schiavo

Terri Schiavo's mom pleads: 'Give my child back'

Nov. 10, 1984, set stage for Terri's death

Targeting the Disabled: Turning Crimes Into Acts of Compassion

Husband Held Captive

My husband Gary E. Harvey, age 55, suffered a tragic accident leaving him severely brain injured. As his wife and sole advocate, I’m fighting to ensure he gets the best possible care and quality of life. We have been abused and taken advantage of by Chemung County, CCNF, APS, DSS, Attorneys, and Supreme Court.

I pray that Gary has a full recovery. A man who served his country should not be treated this way! No matter what, I want him home where he’ll be loved, safe, and properly cared for.

The County is divorcing me from my husband and holding him prisoner.

All they care about is money. I only count when it comes to keeping health insurance on Gary and paying the bills; an obligation - not a WIFE. We are not rich and don’t want to see our home and all we worked our entire lives for, taken by the county.

While in Chemung County Nursing Facility-CCNF, Gary lost weight, teeth, and suffered black eyes. He laid in bile & feces, had defective feeding tubes left unattended, and received less than adequate oral care. All this with no justifiable reason as to how or why it happened. His tongue is like coarse sandpaper; his bottom lip is half gone due to their lack of compassion and aggressive behavior. During the time I was assisting with his care, he did not have any of these issues. The facility fails to mail or notify me of incident reports regarding accidents where he has received cuts, bruises, etc.

Adult Protective Service-APS restricts visitation to family (only) ... which means no friends; so he has only me. I feel harassed by staff when they prevent me from taking him out of his room for a change of scenery. I have also been instructed not to kiss or hug my husband. The list is endless. We lost all spousal rights; and my husband is being treated beneath the dignity of an animal rather than a human being.

My husband is a very strong man, a fighter who would not want me to give up on his recovery; nor have I. He has beaten many obstacles and tragedies in his life and I will never stop fighting to help him beat this one. I feel the more stimulation he has, the better his outcome will be. I am all he has and will do anything for him. I do not treat him as if something is wrong which adds to his confusion. Gary needs love - not mystery and abuse.

Source: NASGA

Judicial Immunity

The case of Daniel Gross that was filed to hold the judge, the conservator, the court appointed attorney, the ombudsman, and the state responsible for their actions, was turned down in federal court even though Gross was held a prisoner, locked up, denied all rights, isolated, and drugged against his will.

See: From Hospital, to Locked Ward, to Civil Action

The case was turned down on "Judicial Immunity."

A previous judge who freed Daniel Gross on a writ of habeas corpus and terminating the conservatorship had stated: "A terrible miscarriage of justice has happened here."

See: NASGA - Great Escapes

Welcome to Connecticut --- Where any probate judge and court can apparently get away with taking your loved one against their will and doing whatever they want to them.

Guardianship and Conservatorship is an organized crime that is apparently protected all the way to the federal bench.

Wake up, you could be the next victim!!!

See also:

Connecticut Conservatorship

How Can This Happen?

NYC Guardianship Protest

Unwanted Guardianship

Norman Baker is an American hero who has been detained against his will for more than three years.

His "crime": owning too much property. 


His sentence: a court-appointed guardianship on the brink of costing him everything he spent his life building.

His rights in this case: virtually none, significantly less in many ways than an actual law-breaking criminal. 


His future if this continues: long-term de facto imprisonment, followed by abject poverty, if he has anything left at all. 


Facts as reported:

He has been stripped of his right to vote and access to his own assets, which appear to have been well in excess of $1 million as little as three years ago.

Until he was placed in a nursing home against his will by the court-appointed attorney he is trying to reject, Norman Baker owned and managed two dozen rental properties, many of which he designed and built himself. He also owned a 33-acre farm, with four horses, an array of tractors and other heavy farm implements, a carefully preserved century-old barn, a restored farmhouse from which he drew steady rental income, and a 3,000-square-foot brick home, which he also designed and built.

Norman Baker also had some $250,000 in cash and liquid investments above and beyond his real estate holdings. He rented his properties and lived a quiet, private life.

Today, without writing a check or using a credit card or making a single bad investment, Norman Baker has less than $20,000 in cash.

Baker's court-appointed guardian was recently more than six months late in providing the court with a report on the status of Norman’s assets.

Robert Baker (brother) also charges that the attorney appointed by the court to be his brother's guardian sold his own personal antique tractor---inherited from his father---from his brother Norman's farm, and has never accounted for the proceeds.

Norman Baker's farm has also been stripped of many of its accouterments without a full accounting.

Norman Baker has continuously requested that he have input in to the property management of his estate. But he has been ignored.

At one point in his involuntary guardianship, a medical examiner hired at Norman's expense found him competent and recommended that he no longer need a guardian. But the attorney running Baker's guardianship refused to surrender control of Norman’s assets.

A Harvard-trained medical examiner has repeatedly tested Baker, who just turned 80. This doctor, whose most recent examination has been videotaped, has consistently found Baker competent to manage his own affairs and to hire his own professional help.

More than a year ago, a physician for the nursing home where Norman has been confined recommended that he be given an immediate discharge to the community. Baker walks three miles a day inside the home, and does his own laundry. He is dependent on no medications.

Judge Williams has repeatedly refused to vacate the guardianship.

Full Article and Source: How an unwanted guardianship cost a firefighter his freedom and his fortune

See also: Interview with Norman

American Probate

An eye-opening account of the prevalence of fraud and abuse inherent in American probate law.

New Hampshire judge and probate attorney John Fairbanks, a court-appointed executor and trustee, stole thousands of dollars from the estates of his trusting elderly clients. Successful Virginia lawyer David Murray misappropriated nearly four million dollars from estates entrusted to him in one of the largest financial swindles by a lawyer in U.S. history. Enterprising attorney James Gunderson drafted wills and living trusts for many residents of Leisure World in Orange County, California, who named him the sole trustee and major beneficiary.

These are just some of the cases examined by Paula A. Monopoli to illustrate the unsettling prevalence of fraud and abuse inherent in American probate law. Probate courts are intended to provide a vehicle for the orderly disposition of property after death, to balance the interests of creditors, the government, and heirs, and to protect the rights of the elderly and others with special needs. In this insightful work, Monopoli shows how an array of flaws in the system allows corrupt and unethical lawyers to take advantage of the nation's most vulnerable citizens. She delves into such subjects as the history and purpose of probate, procedural complexities, lack of regulatory oversight, inadequate judicial resources, and the growth of non-probate alternatives, concluding with a blueprint for reform that emphasizes deterrence, detection, and compensation for the victims.

This informative account casts new light on the intricacies and failures of a legal process that affects millions of Americans every year.

Source: Northeastern University Press

Paula A. Monopoli, Professor of Law at the Southwestern University School of Law and Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, practiced trusts and estates law for several years. She has published articles in numerous law reviews and journals. She lives in Bethesda, Maryland.

Free Silvia Klaiber

"My story begins when I removed my daughter from her day program at Community Gatepath in San Mateo. At the time, I was Conservator of the Person and San Mateo County was Conservator of the Estate. I had called the local regional center and was waiting for a call back when I began to get calls from Community Gatepath wanting to know why I had removed my daughter."

Two years ago, the Public Guardian and Silvia’s attorney entered the home without permission, without a warrant and without notification. These people then performed an illegal search of the home. After they induced Silvia into saying she wished to live in a group home (Silvia had never seen one) they petitioned the court to remove her mother as conservator of the person. The court decided that because her mother was paid IHSS funds for her care, this constituted a “conflict of interest”. Silvia has lots of other relatives but none of them were notified by the court or contacted in any way.

After two weeks at the group home, Silvia told her Guardian that she would like to return to her family. The change of conservatorship was only temporary at that point. Neither Silvia nor her mother received notification of the hearing date which made the order permanent. Silvia has constantly continued to verbalize the wish to return to her family during the two years. The home she once owned was sold for about $75,000 less than the market value. Her mother who co-owned the home and Silvia’s 12 year old sister were forced to move out of the home as a condition of the sale. However, her mother was still responsible for the payments during the 6 months that it took to sell the home. Silvia was removed from a community based program she attended and placed in a sheltered workshop where she had been verbally abused and which has a practice of administering performance reviews of it’s disabled clients in public.

While at the group home, Silvia was not bathed nor cared for properly and it was discovered that her roommate was sexually assaulted repeatedly in Silvia’s presence. Only as a result of her mother’s diligence was Silvia removed. Two weeks before Christmas, Silvia was again cruelly stripped away from her family. It was the eve of her grandmother’s death and her mother was served with a restraining order obtained by the Public Guardian using false information.

"I discovered that the PG had gotten the restraining order by alleging that I had taken Silvia from the group home without permission and refused to return her two months earlier and that I would not now tell them her location. The TRO also indicated a "past history of abuse". It wasn't abuse by me. They lied. They themselves approved her stay with me but it was the only way they could have obtained such an order."

There was a 3-day trial. Silvia was able to speak to the judge in chambers and told her she wanted to see her Mom and that she wanted to go home to live with her family. The judge decided that the actions leading up to the TRO constituted abuse because Silvia had to be taken in such a traumatizing way.

"County Counsel had indicated to my attorney that they would be coming after my 12 year old next. I saw the file from Family Court Services with my other daughter's name in big black print in the arms of Lani Blazer, a supervisor. I knew there was nothing incriminating in it, but I also knew that it didn't mean anything because they manufacture what they wish and innuendo becomes fact. So I was scared. I'm still scared."

Finally, the judge ruled that Sylvia's mother could speak to her by phone and could begin visiting her in the group home.

Conversations with Silvia indicate that they placed her back in Community Gatepath and she is occupied with work approx. 20% of the time. She cannot have a confidential phone call at the current group home due to only one phone. She describes being discouraged to call her advocate and the PG. Until recently, Silvia did not have the phone numbers for any family member or agency. She is not allowed to use the phone at work for personal calls. There might as well be barbed wire and gun towers. Silvia is scared to speak openly on the phone and has told her mother this.

See also: Send Sylvia Home

The Retirement Nightmare

The Nightmare:
A very real possibility that you or someone you love will be forced to surrender your decision-making powers over almost all personal and financial matters at some point during your senior years. Surrender to whom? Surrender to a friend, a relative or a total stranger who convinces one judge in an unwanted conservatorship or guardianship proceeding that you are no longer managing your affairs in a reasonable manner.

The Book:
Most people do not know that being old in America exposes them to ruinously expensive and patently unnecessary conservatorships and guardianships. In the hands of disgruntled or angry adult children, step-children, nieces and nephews or even by total strangers in the social welfare community, these secretive state laws can strip the elderly of their personal and financial independence for the rest of their lives.

The Laws:
Conservatorship and guardianship codes were developed to help the state safeguard the interests of "infants and lunatics." States now act in their role as "parens patriae," or "parent of the country," to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Over time, however, states have begun to interfere in the lives of people who are simply OLD and who are making decisions about personal and/or financial matters that are different from or less "reasonable" than decisions made by younger people (whatever "reasonable" might mean in a given court on a given day).

The Proceedings:
The system is completely weighted against the elderly. Once in court, you must prove you are not incompetent. You must prove you are capable of providing for your food, clothing and shelter. You must prove that you are capable of making every financial decision without the undue influence of another human being--surely a very artificial definition of autonomy! Yet there is no clear way to prove you are NOT incompetent, and there is a presumption of incompetence and incapacity based on age alone.

The Lawyers:
If the proposed ward cannot afford an attorney, he may or may not be assigned one, depending on the state. Stop to think how ironic this is: a person alleged to be incompetent is then expected to appear in court without a lawyer to defend his/her personal and/or financial freedoms.

How Can it Happen:
An example of this egregious fact drawn from the pages of The Los Angeles Times (November 1997). Glen Hawkins, 89, had bicycled two miles from his Orange County home in Leisure World, California, to confer with his investment counselor. Once there, he was told that the $380,000 in his account was no longer his to control. A professional conservator had been assigned to manage his financial and personal affairs. As Mr. Hawkins soon learned, he already owed almost $1,200 in conservator and attorney fees. How could this be? A social worker at Glen Hawkins' retirement community had filed a petition for an emergency conservatorship over Mr. Hawkins, claiming that he was too ill to attend the required hearing and too addled to understand the legal proceeding.

No One is Totally Safe:
Try to imagine a time when you are over 62 and living alone. Perhaps your spouse has died, you are alienated from your children, and you've moved far away from your relatives. You are aging well, but you finally reach a point when you really do need a little help managing your investments or driving to the stores and the bank. You have just become a sitting duck for anyone who wants to takeover the control of your money and of your affairs for the rest of your life.

Who Pays:
If a judge decides you are not making "reasonable decisions" concerning your life and your money and appoints someone else to control your retirement years, guess what? YOU get to pay for every single expense involved in the conservatorship or guardianship proceeding. YOU will pay for all attorneys' fees for BOTH sides. YOU pay for every expert witness who is called by either side, and YOU pay for all court costs.

Freedom Lost:
Simply put, you are reduced to the legal status of an unemancipated child. You are no longer considered to be an independent adult.

Protect Yourself:
These so-called "protective proceedings" should never be used to control any adult of any age whose decision-making capacity is intact.

Full Article and Source:
Ten Questions - The Retirement Nightmare
See also: The Retirement Nightmare

Dr. Diane G. Armstrong is a clinical psychologist who lives in Santa Barbara with her husband Bruce. They have been married since 1966. Mother of two adult daughters, she works as a writer and consultant specializing in the abuse of involuntary conservatorship and guardianship proceedings in today's courts.

Her breakthrough book was inspired by the million-dollar court battle that ensued when four of her six siblings attempted to establish an involuntary conservatorship over their competent 72-year-old mother. The book exposes a web of state laws that were originally created to protect "infants and lunatics" and are now being used to strip elderly men and women of financial and personal independence during their golden years of retirement.