Warning signs of a senior citizen exploitation by caretaker, fiduciary or estate planning attorney entrusted to manage elder’s financial affairs.

Elder Exploitation Crimes in Seven Clusters:

The document separates the Financial Exploitation of Seniors into Seven Clusters. They are:

1. Theft;
2. Scams;
3. Coercion;
4. Financial Exploitation;
5. Signs of Possible Financial Abuse;
6. Financial Entitlement; and
7. Money Management Difficulties.

A senior or his or her family member who suspects financial elder abuse may review the Statements associated with the Seven Clusters. The chart provided in the 2009 study is worthy of interest.

1. Undue Influence
2. Coercion is needed. Remember that unfairness is not enough. Cluster 3 below identifies some common activities that make up coercion.
3. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof may shift to the alleged abuser requiring that abuser prove that he or she did not exercise undue influence over the senior. The three elements that the plaintiff must demonstrate to make the legal evidence shift are:
a. A confidential relationship between the senior and suspected abuser;
b. The abuser was an active party in forming the senior’s will or trust.
c. The abuser unduly benefitted from the senior’s new estate arrangement.
4. Susceptibility. The senior’s mental condition is a critical component when proving undue influence. The senior victim must be susceptible to manipulation by the wrongdoer – in other words, in a weakened mental state. The California Jury Instructions explaining susceptibility (vulnerability) include (but are not limited to) “incapacity/illness/disability/injury/age/education/impaired mental abilities/emotional distress/isolation/ [or] dependency.”

The Seven Clusters of elder financial exploitation is replicated below. 

Cluster 1: Theft
1. Trusted other steals from senior.
2. Trustee misuses ATM card or credit cards belonging to the senior.
3. Trusted other takes prized belongings (jewelry) without permission.
4. Items are substituted within the senior’s home by a trusted other (high level items with lower level items).
5. Caregiver overcharges for their services.
6. Trusted other agrees to do work for the senior, takes their money, but does not perform the task.
7. Trusted other steals identity of senior or helps someone else steal the identity of the senior.
8. Fiduciary uses money on own behalf instead of the seniors benefit.
9. Unauthorized withdrawals from senior’s bank account.
10. Senior’s attorney misappropriates funds.
11. Deprivation of services to senior to use money for inappropriate purposes.
12. Someone sells senior’s property without his or her permission.
13. Coercion to sign contracts.
14. Trusted other handles senior’s resources inadequately.
15. Care of senior is not commensurate with the available resources.
16. Senior feels cheated after someone sells something to him or her.
17. Senior is tricked into buying something that they now regret buying.
18. Suspicious signatures on checks or other documents

Cluster 2: Scams
1. Institution commits fraud (overbilling and under billing) using seniors identifying information (such as social security number).
2. Senior pays for work and is scammed or ripped off.
3. Scams that involve giving to bogus charities.
4. An institution affiliated with the senior misuses his or her funds.

Cluster 3: Coercion
1. Trusted other takes advantage of cultural or family expectations to obtain seniors resources.
2. Trusted other exploits senior’s alcoholism or drug dependency to get money.
3. Trusted other forces senior to sign legal documents.
4. Forcing child rearing and cost of child care on elders/grandparents raising/support grandkids.
5. Senior is pressured to co-sign a loan for a trusted other who has no ability to repay the loan.
6. Trusted other uses pressure, intimidation, or punishment to obtain access to resources belonging to the senior.
7. Senior is brainwashed by trusted other and makes financial decisions they would not normally make.
8. Senior lets trusted other spend some of their money on themselves, but the senior does not like it.
9. Trusted other says senior should give them money because they gave money to a sibling or other relative.
10. Trusted other promises companionship in exchange for senior’s money.
11. Senior persuaded to give others money or personal property.
12. Senior lets caregiver spend their money on him/herself because they are fearful of them.
13. Senior consents to let caregiver spend some of their money on themselves, but the senior does not like it.

Cluster 4: Financial Exploitation
1. Trusted other says they are buying something for the senior, but it is really for their own use.
2. Trusted other tricks senior into signing legal documents.
3. Trusted other prevents or deters senior from spending money in an effort to maximize their inheritance.
4. Trusted other uses some of the senior’s resources for his or her own purposes with the permission of the senior.
5. Trusted other borrows money from a senior but does not pay it back.
6. Senior pays money so they can stay in the home but then are made to leave.
7. Trusted other convinces senior to turn title of home over to them and then sells house and keeps money.
8. In-home caregiver promising lifetime care for the senior, but then does not deliver care.
9. Trusted other misuses funds primarily allocated for the seniors care.
10. Trusted other misuses elder’s power of attorney or guardianship.
11. Senior gives adult child money but frequently does not get back change or not all the change.
12. Trusted other misuse of funds allocated for the seniors care.
13. Trust other allows senior to give them large sums of cash as a gift, or buy them cars or homes.
14. Someone takes advantage of senior’s weakness to get a hold of his or her resources such as a house, car, or money.
15. Trusted other handles senior’s resources irresponsibly (e.g., gambling, illegal activities).
16. Senior is tricked by trusted other into selling valuable possession.
17. Trusted other says they are buying something for the senior, but it is really for their own use.

Cluster 5: Signs of Possible Financial Abuse
1. Senior frequently writes out checks made out to cash.
2. Senior has recent beneficiary changes in a will or insurance policy.
3. Trusted other commingles his/her funds with those of the senior.
4. Trusted other will not give accounting of how senior’s resources have been used.
5. The senior signs over their will to a neighbor or friend.
6. Senior makes excuses for adult child.
7. Trusted other is financially dependent on the senior.
8. Senior has unusual activity in his or her bank accounts.
9. Family members frequently fight over senior’s money.
10. Sudden changes in senior’s financial management (titles are changed, retirements or investments cashed in).
11. Senior’s relationship of trust with someone includes an element of dependency.
12. Senior changes long time providers (bankers, etc.).
13. Trust other refuses to change living arrangements because finances coming from the senior contribute to the household.
14. Senior signs documents without understanding the nature of transaction.
15. Trusted other has senior add them to bank account as signatory.
16. Changes occur in senior’s will or trust in favor of only 1 family member or other individual.
17. Trusted other plans the senior’s budget without their input.
18. Trusted other refuses to give accounting of spending to the senior.

Cluster 6: Financial Entitlement
1. Someone lives with the senior, but refuses to pay his or her share of expenses.
2. Trusted other feels entitled to use senior’s money for him/herself.
3. Trusted other gives implausible explanations for spending senior’s money.
4. Senior is talked into making investments that are not in the senior’s best interest.

Cluster 7: Money Management Difficulties
1. Senior has trouble saving money for something expensive.
2. Senior is unable to manage money independently.
3. Senior has serious problems due to poor money management.
4. Senior presents with financial problems or need.
5. Senior has some trouble budgeting, but is able to manage money without help.

Can a RICO Claim Be Brought Against The Executor Of An Estate?

The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) can be used as a civil remedy in instances of a pattern of significant criminal activity.  RICO provides for treble damages.  But can a RICO claim be brought against the executor of an estate?

Article Courtesy of probatestars.com


Can a RICO Claim Be Brought Against The Executor Of An Estate?

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.



States currently with Civil RICO Statutes
States currently with Civil RICO Statutes

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




National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System

The Department may be contacted by phone at the following: Department Comment Line: 202-353-1555. Department of Justice Main Switchboard: 202-514-2000. TTY/ASCII/TDD: 800-877-8339 (or Federal IP Relay Service) Department of Justice components may also be contacted directly. Find their information on the Component Contact Information page.


What is NAMRS?

The National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System (NAMRS) is a data reporting system established and operated by the Administration for Community Living (ACL) for the purpose of better understanding the phenomena of adult maltreatment in the United States. Currently, the data collected is submitted by adult protective services (APS) programs.

NAMRS annually collects data on APS investigations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of older adults and adults with disabilities, as well as information on the administration of APS programs. The data provide an understanding of key program policies, characteristics of those experiencing and perpetrating maltreatment, information on the types of maltreatment investigated, and information on services to address the maltreatment.

What Data is Submitted to NAMRS?


  • Organizational information, including: number of investigators, how programs collect reports of maltreatment, and populations investigated.
  • Number of reports of alleged maltreatment received by APS programs.
  • Number of adults with a substantiated investigation of maltreatment.
  • Number of allegations by type of maltreatment (such as self-neglect, financial exploitation, and abuse).

There are various “components” to NAMRS for different kinds of data and different kinds of reporting. Follow the links below to learn more about each.

To learn more about the difference between Key Indicators and Case Component, view our Key Indicators vs. Case Component graphic. You may also wish to view the Code Values and Definitions for explanations of NAMRS data values.


Adult Maltreatment Reports



RICO and Organized Elder Exploitation In Your Local Probate Court

RICO and Organized Elder Exploitation: 

Your Local County Probate Mafia

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.”


“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


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/

“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.”


Article excerpt” “In local courts across the country — often woefully unfit for the sweeping power they command — guardians, lawyers, and expert witnesses appear frequently before the same judges in an established network of overlapping financial and professional interests. They are often paid from the estate of the person whose freedom is on the line, creating powerful incentives to form guardianships and keep them in place.

“The judge knows the lawyers, the lawyers know each other,” said J. Ronald Denman, a former state prosecutor and Florida lawyer who has contested dozens of guardianships over the past decade. “The amount of abuse is crazy. You’re going against a rigged system.”

Organized Elder Exploitation Crime Rings Devastate Entire Counties.

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

The Probate Mafia Articles


Estate Planning & Intimidation with the Local County Probate Rackets.

Rackets: Are Courts Targeting Your Family …

//www.stopprobatefraud.com › blog › 2018 › 10 › 12 › rackets-are-courts-targeting-your-familyHave Probate Courts Become a Crime Syndicate? A Peek Via: The Economist. Originally Published: October, 2014. THE protection racket was one of the first businesses the Sicilian mafia entered into. Mafiosi have shaken down firms, large and small, on the island for over 150 years.

Unconscionability in the Law of Trusts

//scholarship.law.nd.edu › cgi › viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=ndlrSee, e.g., Peter Nicolas, Fighting the Probate Mafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. CAL. L. REv. 1479, 1482 (2001). Thus, in Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), the United States Supreme Court clarified that the “probate exception” only forbids federal courts from hearing issues2

The Probate Mafia www.probatemafia.com. Under the Color of Law Exists an Organized Crime Industry. Public Notice to the Texas Bar; What is the ProbateMafia? The Greatest Threat to National Security is the Corruption of Justice. We-Hold-These-Truths-To-Be-Self-Evident; Search. Search for: Close search.Public Notice to The Texas Bar – TheProbate Judge – Attorney Tamorah Christine Butts Texas State Bar No.

Fighting the Probate Mafia: a Dissection of The Probate …

//fliphtml5.com › bmca › qvtj › basic › 51-70Check Pages 51 – 70 of FIGHTING THE PROBATEMAFIA: A DISSECTION OF THE PROBATE … in the flip PDF version. FIGHTING THE PROBATEMAFIA: A DISSECTION OF THE PROBATE … was published by on 2015-05-09. Find more similar flip PDFs like FIGHTING THE PROBATEMAFIA: A DISSECTION OF THE PROBATE …. Download FIGHTING THE PROBATEMAFIA: A DISSECTION OF THE PROBATE …

Fighting the probate mafia: A dissection of the probate …

//www.researchgate.net › publication › 265758380_Fighting_the_probate_mafia_A_dissection_of_the_probate_exception_to_federal_court_jurisdictionGiardina v. Fontana, 733 F.2d 1047, 1053 (2d Cir. 1984). See also Caminiti, 962 F.2d at 703 (noting that where the probate court lacks jurisdiction over a particular claim as against a particular …

PDF United States Court of Appeals

//ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov › opndir › 02 › 06 › 012898P-pdfNicolas, Fighting the ProbateMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction , 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1479, 1493-94 & n.70 (2001) (gathering and discussing cases). Other courts, including our own, have recognized that there might be instances when the probate exception applies in diversity actions involving

PDF No. 04-1544 In the Supreme Court of the United States

//www.justice.gov › sites › default › files › osg › briefs › 2005 › 01 › 01 › 2004-1544.mer.ami.pdfPeter Nicolas, Fighting the ProbateMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1479 (2001) ….. 17 1, 8 1 John Norton Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence as Administered in the United States of America (5th ed. 1941) ….. 17 John F. Winkler, The Probate Jurisdiction of the

ElderAbuseHelp.Org: *Washington D.C. Probate Mafia

//elder-abuse-cyberray.blogspot.com › 2009 › 12 › washington-dc-probate-mafia.htmlWashington D.C. ProbateMafia; Reason for this Page. Studies estimate that 50% of elderly American are victims of financial exploitation while only 4% to 15% case are ever reported. Financial swindles are one of the fastest growing forms of abuse of the elderly according to NCEA.

Marshall v. Marshall :: 547 U.S. 293 (2006) :: Justia US …

//supreme.justia.com › cases › federal › us › 547 › 293See generally Nicolas, Fighting the ProbateMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1479 (2001).

Home [www.citizen4justice.com]

www.citizen4justice.com The elderly, disabled, those with compromised health, significant legal claims and families of the newly deceased worth 200k+, are being hunted by an operation I call. The Las Vegas Probate Mafia

In Search of the Probate Exception

//scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu › cgi › viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context=vlrgenerally Peter Nicolas, Fighting the ProbateMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. CAL. L. REV. 1479, 1503-14 (2001) (chronicling Chancery’s power over decedents’ trusts, fraud claims, suits seeking discovery, and the administration of estates to protect heirs, creditors, and legatees). 9.

Probate Lawyer – Mafia Universe Wiki

//www.mafiauniverse.com › wiki › Probate_LawyerGeneral. The Probate Lawyer won’t actually receive the last wills. Since last will mechanics are unusual, the host must immediately contact any dead townies before posting the day start story if the setup isn’t open to prevent them from potentially talking with other dead players about the game. The deadline for submitting the last will will …

PDF The Seventh Circuit Turns a Blind Eye to the Playmate: The …

//www.kentlaw.iit.edu › sites › ck › files › public › academics › jd › 7cr › v2-1 › nagler.pdfFighting the ProbateMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. CAL. L. REV. 1479, 1482-1483 (2001) (discussing various policy justifications for the probate exception). SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 2, Issue 1 Fall 2006 63 question cases is less certain.4 Given that the …

Why Probate Courts Consistently Fail Us-2019 – Aaapg

//aaapg.net › why-probate-courts-consistently-fail-us-2019why probate courts consistently fail us For years I have written about the shortcomings in our equity legal system particularly in probate guardianship. Having just celebrated National Elder Abuse Awareness Week, this is a good time to recall what makes equity probate court and the guardianships it creates such an enormous disappointment and in …

Michelle Malkin: Blowing The Lid Off Probate Predators …

//vdare.org › articles › michelle-malkin-blowing-the-lid-off-probate-predatorsMichelle Malkin: Blowing The Lid Off Probate Predators. There is a silent epidemic in this country claiming the lives and property of untold numbers of innocent elderly and disabled Americans. It has nothing to do with exotic viruses. In fact, it’s a homegrown phenomenon involving corrupt elected officials, judges and lawyers.

Marshall v. Marshall – Harvard University

//h2o.law.harvard.edu › cases › 3320MARSHALL. v. MARSHALL. No. 04-1544. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 28, 2006. Decided May 1, 2006. [298] Kent L. Richland argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Dana Gardner Adelstein, Alan Diamond, Edward L. Xanders, and Philip W. Boesch, Jr.

A Prudential Exercise: Abstention and the Probate …

//repository.law.umich.edu › cgi › viewcontent.cgi?article=1574&context=mlrMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception . to . Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. CAL. L. REv. 1479, 1500 & n.113 (2001). 17. Markham, 326 U.S. at 494 (“[A] federal court has no jurisdiction to probate a will or

Blowing the Lid off Probate Predators – The New American

//thenewamerican.com › blowing-the-lid-off-probate-predatorsThe allegation that Harris threatened Nina Simone’s family in the battle over her estate will be very familiar to other families who have faced similar intimidation 

Peter Nicolas | UW School of Law

//www.law.uw.edu › directory › faculty › nicolas-peterPeter Nicolas, Fighting the ProbateMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1479-1547 (2001). Peter Nicolas, The Use of Preclusion Doctrine, Antisuit Injunctions, and Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals in Transnational Intellectual Property Litigation, 40 Va. J. Int’l L. 331-404 (1999).

Michelle Malkin: Blowing the Lid Off Probate Predators …

//www.cnsnews.com › commentary › michelle-malkin › michelle-malkin-blowing-lid-probate-predatorsThe family’s plight is still not over. Zurko’s assets have been liquidated by the conservators, and Lacy is saddled with $250,000 in legal bills. The allegation that Harris threatened Nina Simone’s family in the battle over her estate will be very familiar to other families who have faced similar intimidation by the Probate Predator Mafia.

Mexican Mafia hit focus of Pinal trial | Area News …

//www.pinalcentral.com › casa_grande_dispatch › area_news › mexican-mafia-hit-focus-of-pinal-trial › article_9cf37e21-9e7b-542b-9854-0f903705cee4.htmlThe state labeled Armenta a “probate” of the Mexican Mafia at the time the letters were written. Parra explained the hierarchy of power that exists within the gang: starting with a single leader, followed by captains, lieutenants, sergeants and regular members.

Michelle Malkin: Blowing the Lid Off Probate Predators – AAAPG

//aaapg.net › michelle-malkin-blowing-the-lid-off-probate-predatorsThe deadly disease running rampant in our court system is probate and guardianship abuse. This week, the granddaughter of the late iconic singer and songwriter Nina Simone blew the whistle on Vice President Kamala Harris’ alleged role in a scheme where the entertainer’s estate “was taken away from us” after she died in France in 2003.

PDF United States District Court Northern District of New York

files.constantcontact.com › 850d9fbc501 › 236a9c50-9fb6-4fb3-931f-d16cf4daab1d.pdf Fighting the ProbateMafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1479, 1500 (2001). 2 Because issues of probate fell outside the jurisdiction of those courts (probate of wills and the administration of estates were left to England’s

Estates, Probate, Nina Simone and Kamala Harris | GOPUSA

//www.gopusa.com › estates-probate-nina-simone-and-kamala-harrisThe allegation that Harris threatened Nina Simone’s family in the battle over her estate will be very familiar to other families who have faced similar intimidation by the Probate Predator Mafia …


Data aggregation sources and leads: regional newspapers, VP Taskforce, AltrueSoft Tech Platforms, Citizen to Citizen Reporting, Citizen’s Bureau of InvestigationNorthwest Journal NewsGrassroots Elder Advocate Organizations, state & national GAO research monitoring & grant projects. Key search terms: § 18-1505, § 39-5302, Adult Protective Services, Dept. of Health, Elder Abuse and Exploitation. Aggregated & direct interviews via Citizen research and complaints focused on corruption, professional cronyism among state licensed service providers such as Estate Planning Attorneys, Doctors, Physicians, Clinicians & coordinated medical/neurocognitive/capacity evaluations, Conservator, Court Visitor, LSW, Guardian, Guardianship, Trustee, Management Services, IRPC, Idaho State Bar, CMS, Hospital, Facility ManagementSECFINRACode of Federal Regulations,Tax Fraud, Wealth Management Services, Certified Financial Forensics & CPA Investigation manuals, Uniform Code and many more industry compliance guidelines . Supported by research from over site sources, Bureau of Occupational Licenses and all State Statutes relevant to Negligence, Exploitation & Abuse including Probate Court monitoring, Senate Hearing on “Toxic Conservatorships“, recent federal legislation, Acts of Congress, Elder Justice ActElder Abuse Guide For Law Enforcement (EAGLE), American Bar Association & American Psychologists Association Resources on & Elder Abuse & Vulnerable Person Legislation.

Courtesy of Spokane; Washington, Sandpoint & Coeur d’alene; Kootenai County, Idaho Elder Abuse Advocates & Grassroots Networks.