Silver Collar Crimes & Organized Elder Exploitation Map – VP Task Force ™

Silver Collar Crime Is Organized, Premeditated and Reoccurring Elder Exploitation.

“Silver Collar Crimes” are financially motivated crimes intentionally perpetrated against elder persons with diminished cognition, using the court system or legal documents. Silver Collar Crimes are a subsection of elder exploitation and include court-adjudicated guardianships, official land records, powers of attorney, wills, and trusts.

— Anthony Palmieri, JD, CFE, CIG, CIGI, CIGA, CGI, CIA, CCSA

C.F.R Violations Capacity Civil Breech Civil Procedure Violation Civil Rights Violations Collusion Conservatorship Corruption Criminal Conspiracy Criminal Profiteering Crowd-source Defalcation Dept. of Health and Welfare Violations Dept. of Health Violations Elder Abuse Embezzlement Evaluation Expert Witness Affidavit Exploitation Extortion Felony Crime Fiduciary Violations Financial Predator FINRA Violations Fraud Fraud in the inducement Fraud in the procurement Fraud Upon The Court Fraudulent Concealment Graft Guardainship Guardian Ad Litem Incapacity Malpractice Manipulation Moral Turpitude Negligence Officer of The Court Organized Repeating Criminal Events Political. Corruption Predator Priest Lake Psychologist Republican Restricted Access Rigged Rule 1.1 Rule 1.10 Rule 1.14 Rule 1.15 Rule 1.16 Rule 1.7 Rule 1.8 Rule 4.1 Rule 4.2 Rule 4.3 Rule 4.4 Rule 7.1 Rule 8.1 Rule 8.3 Sandpoint Spokane County SSA Section 28 Violations SSA Subtitle B – Elder Justice SSA Title XVIII Violations State Bar Violations Stevens County TEDRA Violations Undue Influence Uniform Power of Attorney Act Violations Uniform Probate Code Violations Uniform Trust Code Violations

MAP DIRECTIONS: Click Tacks on or below map to view related articles, links, reports, video or other trend analyses data.

Click Tacks on or below map to view related articles, links, reports, video or other trend analyses data.

NAVIGATION: Use + or – buttons to zoom map in or out. For heavily concentrated areas (heat-zones) click circle clusters for detail view of more regional Pins. Click on Map Pins wait for data to load then access links to regional public news articles, victim/advocate stories with supporting evidence, videos, agency reports and related information specific to that geographic area.

PIN YOUR OWN ELDER ABUSE, EXPLOITATION & NEGLIGENCE EVENTS: Mouse scroll and zoom to your city. Double click/tap map to add your own story, when dialog box appears add text, pictures, links, video links and evidence. Click submit button to send data. These features work on desktop computers and mobile devices. You may also use forms to submit your event circumstances.

VIOLATION TAGGING, FILTERING & TREND ANALYSIS: Below the map is tagged data of Statutory, Federal Act and occupational compliance violation codes, current case investigations, research data, profiles of repeating perpetrator patterns. Press buttons to filter map data to identify cross-related cases, stories and events.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act United States [1970]

U.S. federal statute targeting organized crime and white-collar crime. Since being enacted in 1970, it has been used extensively and successfully to prosecute thousands of individuals and organizations in the United States.

Part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) makes it unlawful to acquire, operate, or receive income from an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Geared toward ongoing organized criminal activities, the underlying tenet of RICO is to prove and prohibit a pattern of crimes conducted through an “enterprise,” which the statute defines as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.”

Under RICO, it is a crime for an individual to belong to an “enterprise” that is involved in a pattern of racketeering, even if the racketeering was committed by other members. Specifically, Section 1962 of RICO prohibits “any person” from: (a) using income received from a pattern of racketeering activity or from the collection of an unlawful debt to acquire an interest in an enterprise affecting interstate commerce; (b) acquiring or maintaining through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt an interest in an enterprise affecting interstate commerce; (c) conducting or participating in the conduct of the affairs of an enterprise affecting interstate commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt; or (d) conspiring to participate in any of these activities.

In order for an individual or organization to be convicted of racketeering under RICO, there must be proof of a “pattern” of illegal offenses, which RICO defines as the commission of at least two identified criminal offenses within a 10-year period.

RICO defines racketeering in an extremely broad manner and includes many offenses that do not ordinarily violate federal statutes, such as any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs.

In addition, RICO lists numerous federal offenses that the statute defines as racketeering: bribery, sports bribery, counterfeiting, embezzlement from union funds, loan sharking, mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, prostitution and trafficking in people, bankruptcy fraud, drug violations, and obscenity. As long as the “racketeering activity” is “chargeable” or “indictable” under an applicable criminal statute, the substantive RICO charge is available.

RICO creates offenses and penalties above and beyond those prescribed for specific criminal offenses for those involved in an ongoing illegal enterprise that engages in racketeering. The maximum criminal penalties for violating RICO include a $25,000 fine and imprisonment for 20 years. These penalties are imposed on top of the criminal penalties resulting from two or more substantive offenses that the individual or organization has committed in the 10-year period. In addition to the criminal penalties, there are forfeiture provisions requiring the violators to forfeit any business or property derived from their illegal offenses.

Alongside criminal actions, RICO permits private plaintiffs and the government to seek redress in a civil action. Indeed, perhaps the most controversial aspect of RICO is that the government can seize and confiscate what it deems to be the proceeds of crime through the civil courts. RICO allows the government or a private citizen to file a civil suit requesting the court to order the forfeiture of assets, to impose sanctions, or to provide injunctive relief against an individual or organization involved in a “pattern of racketeering.” The civil action provisions of RICO can: force a defendant to forfeit any interest in property, restrict a defendant from engaging in certain future activities or investments, or dissolve or reorganize an enterprise. These penalties were intended to address the economic roots and organizational infrastructure of ongoing criminal conspiracies.

With respect to asset forfeiture, the state can seize property without notice upon an ex parte application of probable cause that the property is associated with criminal activity. In this case, criminal charges need not be provided against a defendant. In contrast to criminal prosecutions, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, only the lesser standard of proof—a balance of probabilities—is required under the civil provisions of RICO. The attraction of this approach is that the onus of proof is shifted to the defendant, who must prove that the assets were acquired through legitimate means. Civil RICO injunctions can prohibit individuals from owning or becoming involved in certain legitimate or illegitimate businesses or activities. Moreover, if successful, the victim may be able to recoup treble damages (that is, the defendant must pay to the plaintiff three times the amount of damages, as well as legal expenses, that have been determined by the court).

Although it took some time for federal prosecutors to fully understand and incorporate RICO into their array of proprietorial tools, the statute has been increasingly used and has realized much success. By 1990, more than 1,000 major and minor organized crime figures had been convicted and given lengthy prison sentences under RICO. It proved especially valuable in the pursuit of organized crime networks’ senior leaders who, being far removed from the individual criminal acts perpetrated by low-level members, were previously out of prosecutors’ reach.

Although the original purpose of RICO was to address organized crime, the broad wording of the RICO statute has meant that both the criminal and civil provisions of RICO have been applied to a variety of offenses and defendants and not just those typically associated with organized crime. Other RICO defendants have included anti-obscenity protesters, adult video and bookstore owners, financial institutions, politicians, doctors, and law-enforcement personnel.

Court cases have also expanded the reach of RICO. In Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.(1985), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that RICO is not limited to organized crime but may be applied to legitimate commercial-enterprise businesses. The Belgian company Sedima filed an action against rival Imrex in a U.S. district court in 1982, alleging that Imrex inflated its purchase prices and costs by preparing fraudulent purchase orders and credit memos. The action was originally dismissed by the lower court on the grounds that no RICO injury occurred, and the court’s decision was upheld on appeal.

However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, considerably broadening RICO’s scope and initiating a plethora of civil and criminal suits involving legitimate companies. Following this decision, RICO was increasingly used by the government to prosecute white-collar and corporate crimes, as well as unfair trade practices, committed by legitimate companies not associated with organized-crime groups.

Probate Court Corruption & Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Federal Court Equates Elder Guardianship to Racketeering:

//www.newsbreak.com/news/1498169756733/federal-court-equates-elder-guardianship-to-racketeering

“The 6th Circuit ruling confirmed my client’s right to challenge a court order, which may have been obtained through abuses of judicial processes,” said Dr. Saghafi’s attorney Chuck Longo in a telephone interview. “The decision will have far reaching negative implications for guardians and lawyers who improperly use guardianships as criminal enterprises to defraud the elderly and incompetent, which is a violation of the RICO statute.”

RICO, Guardianships & Elder Abuse | The STATE OF NEVADA Plaintiff, -Vs_- APRIL PARKS #1571645, MARK SIMMONS, GARY NEAL TAYLOR, NOEL PALMER SIMPSON

“Defendants APRIL PARKS, MARK SIMMONS, and GARY NEAL TAYLOR, did on or between December 21, 2011 and July 6, 2016, then and there, within Clark County, Nevada, knowingly, willfully and feloniously, while employed by or associated with an enterprise, conduct or participate either directly or indirectly, in racketeering activity through the affairs of said enterprise, and/or in the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity, did engage in said acts, to wit: by Defendants working for A Private Professional Guardian, LLC using their position to steal funds belonging to elderly and disabled persons over whom they had guardianship authority, through the use of a series of fraudulent billing practices, said activity constituting Racketeering contrary to NRS 207.400 (1)(c)(2).“

KTNV 13 Las Vegas: The guardian is guilty: April Parks, others plead guilty in guardianship abuse case

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) //www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html

NASGA: OHIO LAWYERS ACCUSED IN GUARDIANSHIP RACKET | Landmark Ruling: Simonoff v. Saghafi

Racketeering in Boston Probate? //www.stopprobatefraud.com/blog/2017/08/28/racketeering-in-boston-probate/

OHIO COURTS ENFORCED FRAUD; RACKETEERING SAYS SUIT //www.stopprobatefraud.com/blog/2019/10/27/ohio-courts-enforced-fraud-racketeering-says-suit/

Probate Courts: Criminal racketeering sanctioned by government //ppjg.me/2011/02/20/probate-courts-criminal-racketeering-sanctioned-by-government/

Attorney: Elder “Protective Services” is a Racketeering Enterprise Medically Kidnapping Seniors

//medicalkidnap.com/2018/07/17/attorney-elder-protective-services-is-a-racketeering-enterprise-medically-kidnapping-seniors/

Seattle Times: Secrecy hides cozy ties in guardianship cases

Potential conflicts of interest radiate through guardianship cases, a Seattle Times investigation has found. The roles played by lawyers, guardians, court-appointed investigators and investment managers often overlap or blur. Sometimes, the same person assumes multiple responsibilities that would normally be kept separate.

And who’s to know? The Weed file, for instance, has been stamped secret — one of hundreds of such cases to be improperly removed from public scrutiny.

Judges and court commissioners across the state have sealed the entire file in at least 398 guardianship cases since 1990, The Times found during its ongoing series investigating concealed court records. Most of the cases were sealed in King County.

Activist Post: Was Annette Hayes “Taken Out” by Veterans Group

//www.activistpost.com/2019/01/was-annette-h…

“It does seem very odd,” commented Kerri Kasem, Founder and President of the Kasem Cares Foundation, which advocates for guardianship and probate reform. “Here’s someone who declined to leave in 2017 when her replacement was announced, then without advanced notice she’s just gone. You would think there’s a reason for her leaving office so suddenly.”

The organized effort for investigation of corruption in the U.S. Attorney’s Office was led by a national Seattle-based group that has aggressively pursued the criminal prosecution of corrupt judges and attorneys, Veterans for Guardianship and Probate Reform (VGR), together with GPF organizations AAAPG, CEAR, and the Kasem Cares Foundation.

After reviewing dozens of probate and guardianship cases with serious problems, VGR Paralegal Sophia Bagnaschi noticed a pattern of names, contacted ad hoc guardianship advocacy groups to compare notes, performed exhaustive searches of thousands of records, and discovered evidence that Washington State public officials are being bribed.

“When you work directly with people who’ve been affected by court fraud, you see the human cost, the loss of life, the destruction of families. You really feel the pain, the trauma, the loss of faith, and the hopelessness. It’s just unbelievable, the total devastation. When I found out that staff attorneys at the U.S. Attorney’s Office wouldn’t prosecute corrupt judges and lawyers because the victims are, to quote, ‘either dead or diminished so they don’t make good witnesses,’ that was it,” said Bagnaschi, “I just knew something was very wrong. I needed to know why this was happening. I just became completely outraged and went to work,” said Bagnaschi.

Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Northwest Trustee Services of Bellevue, Washington, for Illegally Foreclosing on Servicemembers’ Homes

//www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-northwest-trustee-services-bellevue-washington

“The amount of abuse is crazy. You’re going against a rigged system.”

OC Register: Money-draining probate system ‘like a plague on our senior citizens’

“…. often there is a little buddy-buddy system going on, sometimes a judge has friends who are attorneys,” said Thomas Coleman, a Palm Springs lawyer who specializes in representing the disabled.”

BuzzFeed News : BEYOND BRITNEY: ABUSE, EXPLOITATION, AND DEATH INSIDE AMERICA’S GUARDIANSHIP INDUSTRY

Organized “Elder Exploitation Crime Rings” Devastate Families & Highlight Corruption in County Probate Courts & Healthcare Systems.

The Guardians: Documentary Trailer

“If you’re retired, wealthy, and thinking of moving to Las Vegas, think twice. An investigative look at the systemic abuse of elderly people by court-appointed guardians.”

Denver 7: Colorado guardianships can bleed estates with little to no oversight | “It’s a money-making machine,” says one man.

Dr. Gina Loudon Newscast on Real America’s Voice: The Silent Epidemic Preying on America’s Elderly: Bernie Kerik & Rick Black fighting estate theft

Can a RICO Claim Be Brought Against The Executor Of An Estate?
Article Courtesy of probatestars.com

Yes. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that RICO claims can be brought in connection with unlawful activities by an executor or personal representative of an estate, in connection with the estate of the father and financial backer of noted fashion designer Vera Wang.

In King v. Wang, 2016, U.S. App. Lexis 15753 (2nd Cir. 2016), the estate of noted artist and art collector C.C. Wang was at issue. C.C. Wang was also the father and financial backer of fashion designer Vera Wang.

Before and during the administration of his estate, the Defendant was alleged to have engaged in a scheme to deprive the Plaintiff’s of their rightful inheritance from the Decedent.
As explained by the lower court:

Here, Plaintiffs’ RICO claims are based on allegations that Defendants engaged in an “ambitious scheme . . . designed to change C.C. Wang’s financial affairs and long standing estate plan” in order to facilitate the diversion of family assets away from Plaintiffs and into Defendants’ hands. (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 154-57, 179.) To the extent, therefore, that Plaintiffs’ RICO claims seeks damages from Defendants personally on the ground that their conduct prevented Plaintiffs from receiving an expected gift or inheritance, they are exactly the type of probate-related claims that Marshall permits federal courts to address. See Marshall, 547 U.S. at 304; Rothberg, 2013 WL 1314699, at *11.

The Second Circuit affirmed Federal jurisdiction over the RICO claim, explaining:

To determine whether a case falls within the probate exception we must assess: (1) whether the action requires “the probate or annulment of a will [or] the administration of a decedent’s estate;” and (2) whether the action requires the court “to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court.” Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006); see also Lefkowitz v. Bank of N.Y., 528 F.3d 102, 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Following Marshall . . . so long as a plaintiff is not seeking to have the federal court administer a probate matter or exercise control over a res in the custody of a state court, if jurisdiction otherwise lies, then the federal court may, indeed must, exercise [jurisdiction].”). Post-Marshall, the probate exception is to be construed narrowly, such that unless a federal court is endeavoring to (1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer (or invalidate the administration of) an estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court, the probate exception does not apply. Lefkowitz, 528 F.3d at 105-06. We agree with the district court that the RICO claims raised here “are exactly the type of probate-related claims that Marshall permits federal courts to address.” King, 2015 WL 4207076, at *5.

The Court also succinctly explained the basic requirements for pleading a RICO action for civil damages:

To adequately plead a pattern of racketeering activity, a “plaintiff must plead at least two predicate acts, and must show that the predicate acts are related.” GICC Capital Corp. v. Tech. Fin. Grp., Inc., 67 F.3d 463, 465 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). In addition, plaintiffs must plead the predicate acts “amount to, or pose a threat of, continuing criminal activity,” the “so-called ‘continuity’ requirement.” Id. “Thus, a plaintiff in a RICO action must allege either an ‘open- ended’ pattern of racketeering activity (i.e., past criminal conduct coupled with a threat of future criminal conduct) or a ‘closed-ended’ pattern of racketeering activity (i.e., past criminal conduct ‘extending over a substantial period of time’).” Id. at 465.

JUSTICE.gov: Civil RICO: A Manual for Federal Attorneys

//www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usam/legacy/2014/10/17/civrico.pdf

States Currently With Civil RICO Statutes

COMPARATIVE MAP & 5 PHASE ELDER PIPELINE DIAGRAM LINKS BELOW

I. Organized Elder Exploitation by Probate Court Professionals.

II. The Elder Abuse & Exploitation Pipeline

Primarily research findings as leading cause for compounding elder abuse, negligence and exploitation events:

Intentional failure to mandatory report by medical professionals and Model Rule Violations by attronies.
Premeditated, Organized Elder Abuse, Negligence and Exploitation Patterns: Review 5 Phase Elder Human Trafficking Pipeline By Professionals In Probate Court Process With Map Links to Verifiable News Articles, Cases/Related Evidence & Repeating Trend Analysis Diagram Below.

STATE MAPS ON ELDER EXPLOITATION, NEGLIGENCE, ABUSE, MALPRACTICE/CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST TRENDS, REPEATING PATTERNS, TRENDS, LAWS, NEWS ARTICLES & ADVOCATE INVESTIGATIONS.

DEPT. of JUSTICE ELDER ABUSE, NEGLIGENCE & ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION STATUTES.

PROBATE COURT, ELDER LAW ATTORNEYS, SOCIAL WORKERS, PHYSICIANS AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PATTERNS; ARTICLES, ADVOCATES & RESEARCH PLATFORMS.

Grass Roots Elder Advocacy Organizations & Article Research Sources.

CEAR – CENTER FOR ESTATE ADMINISTRATION REFORM

KASEM CARES – LEGISLATION BY STATE

AAAPG NEWS

STOP PROBATE FRAUD

PROBATE COURT, ELDER LAW ATTORNEYS, SOCIAL WORKERS, PHYSICIANS AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PATTERNS; ARTICLES, ADVOCATES & RESEARCH PLATFORMS.

NASGA WANTED LIST

COURT VICTIMS NETWORK

JUDICIAL CONDUCT RESEARCH

ELDER ABUSE EXPOSED

THE COMMITTEE

SATELLITE GEO-SPATIAL REFERENCE IMAGERY.

Mouse scroll and zoom to your location. Select person icon and drag icon over map to 360 degree street level view.

Research Support Articles, PDF Handbooks, State Statutes & Resources

Dept. of Justice; Elder Rights Initiative, American Bar Association & American Psychiatrists Association: ELDER ABUSE RESOURCES, LAWS & GUIDES

DIMINISHED CAPACITY ASSESSMENT HANDBOOKS

Grassroots Stakeholder Movement Resources: Vulnerable Person (VP) Task Force Aggregating, Curating, Tracking and Profiling Webs, Maps & Apps:

Elder Advocacy Consulting Resources by DEFALCATION.org & Citizen’s Public Safety Network

Diagram 1: The Elder Exploitation Fraud Triangle (click the zoom feature/scroll over image to read box descriptions, hold mouse or finger to scroll diagram and click crossed arrow to view full size PDF).

Adopted from Criminologist Donald Cressey Creator of the Fraud Triangle. ACFE; Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Fraud Triangle.

“Trusted persons become trust violators when they conceive of themselves as having a financial problem which is non-shareable, are aware this problem can be secretly resolved by violation of the position of financial trust, and are able to apply to their own conduct in that situation verbalizations which enable them to adjust their conceptions of themselves as trusted persons with their conceptions of themselves as users of the entrusted funds or property.” 1

1 Donald R. Cressey, Other People’s Money (Montclair: Patterson Smith, 1973) p. 30.