Get It & Source It ‹ Corruption Maps — WordPress

VP Task Force ™ Crowd-sourced and AI Curated News Articles

Research Project Data  Source  Summary



PROJECT: Inland Northwest Vulnerable Person Rural Collusion Network. Current Project:  Kootenai & Bonner County, Idaho | Stevens & Spokane County Washington. Rural Area Collusion of Vulnerable Person Exploitation Project.

Public Safety; Vulnerable Adult Crowd-sourcing Geo Project 1: Kootenai, Bonner Counties of  North Idaho, District – Region 1.  Stevens & Spokane Counties  Eastern Washington – Coeur d’Alene area, Sandpoint area, Spokane Area  Coeur d’Alene,  Vulnerable Person Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation: Idaho: IC 18-1503, IC 39-5302  and/or IC 18-7803 Violations Research & Washington:  RCW 74.34.020 Violations Research.


Kootenai, Bonner, Spokane and Stevens County evidence indicates that several legal professionals acting in concert with their side guardianship services, conservator companies and informally affiliated colleagues in vulnerable adult service and legal professionals (estate planning, guardianship and conservator-ship law)  have a repeated 10 + year history of exploiting elders and vulnerable persons with physical and mental infirmities, these general incident details are outlined in Table 1.0.




Rural County Collusion Network Repeating Patterns.

Current investigation subject area:  North Idaho – Eastern Washington.

  1. For confirmation of findings with actual fact based evidence reference alleged perpetrators named in news articles, media announcement organizational chart,  Reference 3 core related estate cases with 6 additions supporting related cases, charts and perpetrator map legend content below.

Common patterns and primary connection in all  3 – 9 estates are:

  1. Vulnerable Persons have assets worth several million dollars,
  2. most VP’s are elderly women with either physical/cognitive impairments usually both,
  3. each has age or medical circumstance related to cognitive decline or combination of both as they undertook estate planning and was intentionally restricted access or isolated from trusted family members or friends,
  4. Undue influence factors intentionally placed upon victim by financially driven family member-primary caretaker
  5. each included in concert and/or collusion with white collar professional legal/medical and in some cases established felon criminals,
  6. Attorney, LSW and geriatric care physician and neurocognitive clinician malpractice.

     Additional repeating variables and repeating patterns include: Dependence, intentional, isolation/restriction on private access with trusted family member(so or friends by primary caretaker and permitted by attorney, new financial planning advisers and/or estate planning attorney, guardianship/consulting attorneys brought in prior to G/C petitions when VP first began suffering physical and cognitive diagnosis, new primary care or, geriatric care physicians, one or series of cognitive evaluation completed by  neurocognitive clinician completed without medical or  (against best practices) use of licensed social workers in collusion networks group for court visitor evaluations braising reports in doctors and clinics concealed and/biased cognitive evaluations and additions the LSW do not in driver court mate rails in family contentions or suspect financial matters and are repeating legal clients of attorneys operating in concert with suspect family member or caretaker, LSW or other individual in group also working in Dual role capacity as owners of geriatric service company while simultaneous employment  at health facility or hospital which allows them personal contact or knowledge of wealthy vulnerable person.   Estate planning attorney or financial, planning advisor also owning additional companies that they refer services of their vulnerable clients to their own or affiliated companies whom are also repeating clients of attorney as is the case of LSW an other geriatric evaluators; PCP physician & clinical Psychologist each whom were intentionally (concealment)  not disclosed prior physical and mental health diagnosis for their evaluative reports or court appointed declarations. In the medical profession these would business practices would be considered violations of the Stark Act.

Partial Research Findings Concerning Repeating Conflicts of Interest, Collusion, Bias,  Unethical Practices and Model Rule Violations. 

     Estate Planning Attorney are often Guardianship Attorneys and have established mutually beneficial cross relationships with other vulnerable person attorneys in the same region as well as established networks with specif geriatric care physicians or clinical psychiatrist(s) often use the same guardianship appointed visitor company which they motion for in VIP G/C petitions who refer VIP cases to their choice of guardianship company or fiduciary services company. At least one attorney also owns a fiduciary services company and each of the business entities use the same network of attorneys for litigation services. There is also documented court evidence that of a court appited geritric care phsysician intentionally concealing critical mental health diagnosis in in 5/2017 Physcians declaration. Several related cases also indicate physicians withholding medical diagniosis in physicians declarations and in one case the court pohysician gave a completly contray opinion to three other indepedant doctors review. The victim in this case estate went from #10 million dollars to under one million dollars in less than five years. Court record research indicats this has been ongong for at least 10 years. See perpertstot profiles to access witness accouts, recordings, esate documents and court documents for verification.


Levels 2 and 3 Research or Investigative Profiles May  Include:

  • Newsworthy public safety information,
  • Research and evidence on professional malpractice, 
  • IC 18-1505 or related violations,
  • IRS Circular 230 violations,
  • Federal Act violations,
  • Social Security Administration Title XVIII violations,
  • State Bar violations,
  • Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) violations,
  • Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) violations,
  • Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses (IBOL) violations,
  • IC 18-7803 violations,
  • FINRA and/or SEC violations,
  • FINCEN violations,
  • UPC, UTC, UPOA and/or TEDRA violations,
  • IRPC, IRCP, IRE and related violations,
  • Stark Act Violations,
  • “Alleged” civil/criminal activities and/or
  • Repeating patterns of collusion in relation to vulnerable person estate planning or guardianship matters,
  • Partial related case history of repeating unethical patterns,
  • Attorney, LSW or Physician’s side businesses in vulnerable person services (conflicts of interest),
  • Attorney’s associated business relationships in vulnerable person ligation and repeating network of associates involved in such litigation ,
  • Identification of collusion related to vulnerable person exploitation and negligence,

State Statute identification of documented evidence concerning moral turpitude

4 thoughts on “Get It & Source It ‹ Corruption Maps — WordPress


    IN RE: ESTATE OF LINT, 135 WN.2D 518, 535, 947 P.2D 755 (1998):
    A will executed by a person with testamentary capacity may be invalidated if undue influence existed at the time of the testamentary act (citing Dean v. Jordan, 194 Wash. 661 (1938)).

    Undue influence that is sufficient to void a will must be something more than mere influence but, rather, influence which, at the time of the testamentary act, controlled the volition of the testator, interfered with his free will, and prevented an exercise of his judgment and choice, (citing In re: Estate of Bottger, 14 Wn,2d 676 (1942)).

    DEAN V. JORDAN, 194 WASH. 661, 79 P.2D 331 (1938):
    The will contestant bears the burden of proving the will’s illegality by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.

    Suspicious facts and circumstances that could raise a presumption of undue influence:

    That the beneficiary occupied a fiduciary or confidential relation to the testator;

    That the beneficiary actively participated in the preparation or procurement of the will; and

    That the beneficiary received an unusually or unnaturally large part of the estate.

    Added to these may be other considerations, such as the age or condition of health and mental vigor of the testator, the nature and degree of the relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, the opportunity for exerting an undue influence, and the naturalness or unnaturalness of the will.

    If the presumption of undue influence is raised, the will proponent must produce evidence to rebut the presumption. The absence of rebuttal evidence may be sufficient to set aside a will, but the contestant retains the ultimate burden of proof.

    IN RE: ESTATE OF MARTINSON, 29 WN.2D 912, 914-915, 190 P.2D 96 (1948):
    Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish suspicious facts that raise a presumption of undue influence.

  2. Search domain › articles › 28974 › idaho-high-court-affirms-undue-influence-ruling-in-will-dispute
    BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Supreme Court on July 30 upheld a decision by an Idaho magistrate court that one son of a now-deceased woman exerted undue influence over her when he helped her prepare a holographic will leaving everything to him and acted improperly when he transferred all of her assets, prior to her death, to himself, leaving the estate with nothing (In the Matter of the Estate of …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *