Ageism, Sexism and Disablism Document Schemes Run Rampant In Probate Courts; Disabled Elderly Women Most at Risk

Silver Collar Crimes, Undue Influence and Professional Conflicts-Of-Interest: Key Matters In Kootenai County, Idaho Probate Court Elder Exploitation Cases.

Kootenai county the emerald-forest and sapphire-lake crown atop the gem state. Centered in the Idaho panhandle is Coeur d’alene, Heart of An Awl; the lake city and according to an April 2021 Wall street Journal article America’s hottest housing market. Florida of the north for seniors, some might say. And just like Florida, the Northern Idaho area is developing a revealing reputation of long-entrenched professional cronyism in the county probate court. Characteristic of many probate courts, which rule on estate transfers as well as guardianship and conservatatorship matters; the litigation is consistently corrupted by conflicts of interest among the court officers and those providing support litigation services for the court’s preferential attorneys. Such practices define why elder law matters are often referred to as a racket; the epicenter spawning the exponential growth of elder abuse & exploitation. This appears to hold true among certain service providers managing elder needs, ranging from social services, financial management, health support and those individuals or firms teamed with estate planners and for-profit conservators in the various judicial district’s probate courts.

"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

This article presents topical regional news articles as a forewarning to what awaits the unfortunate, naive elder residents and re-locators when they find their health and memory failing. The fact is that Idaho’s professionals who’s predatory practices thrive off of the elderly are counting on the financial opportunities brought forth by both the local aging community and the nations migrating vulnerable seniors. Particularly the wealthy ones and they are prepared.

Like Florida, Nevada, California, Connecticut, Ohio, Arizona, New Mexico and pretty much every US state, local predatory elder law professionals have a tried and true playbook for elder wealth extraction; or what they innocuously term wealth transfer; voluntary or in the case of the vulnerable, dependent & memory impaired; involuntary.

One of the most common and effective wealth extraction tool is the elder law professional’s team approach.  This requires getting at least one insatiably greedy family member or acquaintance in control of the senior’s health and estate documents. Once that is achieved the finish line is nearly crossed because the pro’s meticulously perfected undue influence tactics and the “team’s” procedural playbook have proven time-and-time again a guaranteed lottery to millions. They know the system is rigged because they rigged it. Police and Prosecutors view these matters as civil, out of their purview.

The insidious tactics initially commence with a family or friend of the seniors becoming the Power of Attorney (PoA) and ideally healthcare proxy too. These documents can be modified to place the predator to be the default Guardian and Conservator as well. You just have the new estate planning attorney add a couple more provisions to the PoAs. And while your at it and another limited financial PoA for the new estate planning attorney. A senior can never give away too much control of their authority over their health and estate, as the suited wolves would convince the elder to believe, just as long as that control they are transferring is going to them. Such transferring of authority is particularly dangerous when the PoA is also the live in or contracted home-care provider.

An “on the surface kind & concerned” acquaintance or family member that controls the elders living circumstances and life’s necessities; shelter, food & water supply, alcohol use and its mix with prescription medications, medical transportation needs, phone & visitation access/non-access to other family or friends, coordination for the development of urgent estate drafting and the elders signing of new estate documents that coincidentally name the seniors care-provider the new Power of Attorney, new deed holder on property, joint bank account holder, full beneficiary on life insurance and annuities; in essence the new proprietor of the vulnerable elders entire estate and primary, if not sole beneficiary of the seniors assets, in exchange for their devout selfless care for the senior. The exchange for care loophole is the crux that allow’s the attorney to justify there was a contract-type exchange for the theft of assets.

To avoid prison and guarantee success the “benevolent” care-provider must accomplished the self-directed illicit estate transfers with an Idaho state-bar licensed attorney, and ideally a Living Trust to make the transfers quicker just in case the elder doesn’t pass in the short term. The estate planner already knows the probate courts will allow the transfers no matter the circumstance and even fight on behalf of the scriveners “ruling documents” legitimacy despite the elder being in a hostage like, siege mentality environment; aka Stockholm Syndrome akin to a cult dominated by undue influence over-lords wielding consistent coercion by the “team”; family care provider and estate-fee professionals looking out for what they determine are the elders “best interests” and their new wishes that are oddly contrary to the seniors long-established desires.

The Coeur d’elene Press article of July 19, 2019: Elder Abuse: A Big Ugly Secret, provides an insight to an isolated seniors life at home under a domineering home-care provider and why Adult Protective Services are essentially unable to assist.

“Most elder abuse occurs at home, most victims are women, and most abusers are family members. The abuser is rarely a stranger, but more likely a spouse, son, daughter, grandchild, other family member or care giver, and usually someone the elder knows, trusts and depends on. Why don’t the abused victims tell? Many victims won’t admit to being abused because it could get a loved one in trouble or end an important relationship. If an abuser is found guilty, what happens to the vulnerable elder? Some victims may feel shame and even blame themselves. They may be afraid of not being believed and of retaliation from the abuser. Some victims with dementia may not be able to speak out or understand what’s happening.”

“You might think that the effects of physical abuse would be obvious, but a twisted arm may leave no mark or a purple bruise can be hidden under clothing.  How do the abusers hide from discovery? They might always be in the room when someone visits, or have signals that warn the victims of consequences if they tell. The caregiver may refuse to allow visitors, or cut off or monitor all outside contact.”

Adult protective Services inability to provide assistance in these types of circumstances essentially green-lights the abuse, exploitation and negligence, which is particularly dangerous in Counties where Prosecutors and Law Enforcement refuse to take action, because they deem the matters civil offences. The predators are aware of this and take full advantage; they know they are untouchable.

Once a dependent senior has capitulated to any demand of the care-provider, PoA, trustee, landlord, attorney, the elders new doctor or other confidential relationship, and this may only take a week or two to break ones will to forced subservience to another, the amount of control exercised over the dependent vulnerable senior is shocking. Like cult members the seniors turn on long-trusted family and friends to roboticly acquiescence to whatever the dominating care-provider demands. This is execution of undue influence at’s finest; the insidious psychological breaking of an asset rich dependent senior allows the power mad, psychopathic predator the means to accomplish any desire including long festering dreams of sibling revenge. The assisting attorneys and their infallible; bestowed under the authority of God himself, estate documents supposedly make all the fraud in procurement legal. The ends justify the means, regardless of the means. These events occur far more often than one would think, particularly in rogue probate jurisdictions where undue influence is a myth, fabricated by disgruntled family, so called experts and evidence to the contrary is intentionally suppressed. irrelevant or false.

The National Center on Law and Elder Rights (NCLER) addresses Psychologist Margaret Singer research in their June 2017 Issue Brief. Elder Abuse; The Impact of Undue Influence.

“Psychologist Margaret Singer was one of the first researchers to connect elder abuse to undue influence, which she defined as “(w)hen people use their role and power to exploit the trust, dependency, and fear of others. They use this power to deceptively gain control over the decision making of the second person. The psychological tactics of undue influence have been likened to tactics used by cults, ….”

How is the relevant to Kootenai County Probate Court and other Idaho cases involving elder exploitation? In the past to the present day there has been repeating patterns of expensive long-litigated cases involving elderly senior women with memory impairments and attorney stoked in-fighting among their family members. Sibling’s disgruntled because other sibling destroyed their relationship with their parents, were responsible for their loved ones rapid health decline and used coerced fraud written documents to steal their parents assets for themselves. Events happening all over the USA and other countries, because this is the nature of modern day probate in lawless, incompetent or abetting jurisdictions further exasperated living trust scams, document fraud , networked toxic conservators and state bar licensed professional orchestrating the theft of elderly women’s and on occasion men’s estates long before the senior even passes.

One case included the nations foremost undue influence expert, Park Dietz associate and his verifiable testimony. Undue influence is an insidious form of elder abuse and includes multiple layers of poly-victimizattion to gain total control of a person. i Since the probate court also green-lighted the undue influence the untouchable legal teams and their crony-aligned officers of the court realize there is no stopping them. They are the law and undue influence is a mere myth in Idaho. Not surprisingly these were also multi-million dollar estate that were essentially being looted and justifiable sibling rivalry in North Idaho is a sure path to disinheritance when the family predator is the PoA, care-provider newly networked with the “untouchable team” of state bar licensed professionals, members of influential civic groups and connected to those with firm-rooted positions on municipal court benches. The well-oiled, senior’s estate cash-infused, machine knows the undue influence playbook by heart, no rehearsing required because they have done this many times before. However, The articles below demonstrate the inconsistency among the more lawful vs the lawless Probate Courts in Idaho, These examples also contrast the influential power of the particular attorney and the support of the various professionals orchestrating the seniors transfers in the different regional jurisdictions.

Repeating Patterns and Contrast in Legal Interpretations in Different Counties In the Same “Uniform Code” State.

With an understanding of the aforementioned you can read between the lines in the stark contrasting judgement described in the articles below. The first article occurred in south Idaho, and justice was served, the latter two in Kootenai County’s crony-networked municipal court; the land of the untouchable probate pirates and family ran newspaper conglomerates. The various Journalists reporting the stories are also cognizant not to agitate the powers that be in their regions newspaper publishing circles when selecting a spin on sensitive court cases.

Undue Influence of Mother by Attorney in South Idaho.

IDAHO PRESS July 30, 2018: Court rules lawyer exercised ‘undue influence’ over elderly mother’s will. 

“The Idaho Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court’s ruling that a Boise attorney exercised “undue influence” over his elderly mother when he served as sole witness for a will leaving all her assets to him — cutting out his sister and brother. Victoria H. Smith, who died in 2013 at nearly 100 years old, and her late husband had real estate holdings and other assets estimated at between $1 million and $27 million, according to the high court’s decision. Smith made her will in 1990. In 1999, she granted power of attorney to her son, Vernon K. Smith, and after a fall in 2008, granted a more far-reaching set of legal powers to him. The son drafted both documents. He then used those powers in 2012 to transfer all his mother’s assets to himself.”

Undue Influence of Mother(s) by Attorney in North Idaho.

Elite (old mining baron family money) regionally established power-family and well-connected Idaho Probate/Business Law Attorney has his own brother disinherited while working on another case where he and others orchestrate to have 4 siblings, including a disabled sister disinherited (see second Spokesman Article below). Each case involves dependent elderly women with failing health and memory.

Spokesman Review, July 24, 2015: Magnuson son sues siblings over estate.

“Before she died, Colleen Magnuson’s health had been in decline for several years, according to the lawsuit. Her will was drafted in 2002 along with her husband’s, and both named all five of their children as primary beneficiaries. Her husband died in 2009, and in 2011 she signed a new will drafted by a notary who worked in John Magnuson’s law office. The new will removed Thomas Magnuson as a beneficiary and granted more money to his four siblings. Another revision in 2013, signed by a beneficiary on Colleen Magnuson’s behalf, granted all art, jewelry, furniture, tools, cars and boats, among other belongings, to the other four children. The suit says John Magnuson provided their mother’s legal counsel and “otherwise had a confidential relationship” with her while the will was being revised.”

Spokesman Review: Siblings battle in court over fate of forested ‘piece of heaven’ on Lake Pend Oreille.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42916

Siblings’ expert witness, Dr. Bennett Blum, submitted an affidavit in which he opined that the Sixth Amendment “resulting in the Plaintiffs being disinherited and James Green receiving Ralph and Jeanne’s entire estate indicates a transaction that was the result of James Green’s undue influence over Ralph and Jeanne.”

Green v. Green :: 2017 :: Idaho Supreme Court

Dwight Randy Green, Kathy Lefor, and Gary Green (collectively, “Siblings”), appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal of their lawsuit against James Green (“James”). Siblings brought this action to challenge the Sixth Amendment to the Ralph Maurice and Jeanne GreenRevocable Inter Vivos Trust (“the Trust”), alleging it was the product of undue influence.

//bonnercountydailybee.com/…/supreme-court…/

“Buchanan dismissed the siblings’ complaint after striking an affidavit filed by a doctor who concluded that the elder Greens were subjected to undue influence by John Green. Buchanan ruled that the doctor failed to link his opinion to supporting facts.

Idaho Needs Consistency In Probate Courts, Undue Influence Written into State Statues & New Title 18 Code: These Were The Merits of House Bill 404.

The reality is that in Kootenai county Idaho if an attorney assists in elicit/unduly influenced estate transfers or the abusive care-provider has an attorney assisting/defending them in legal matters there is prosecution and no accountability is required by those commuting abuse, negligence fraud or exploitation, even if the seniors estate is liquidated or the senior is injured or dies prematurely from a home-care provider’s gross negligence.

May be an image of ‎text that says '‎The ۔ fthe Idaho Legislature HOME HOUSE COMMITTEES LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS STATE IDAHO WHO'S 2020 REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2020 LEGISLATION 2020 Legislation HOUSE BILL HOUSE BILL 404 each bill, resolution, procamati notbe erko lInformation journals Links: actions the Friendly andth maintained gislative day. ofthe publish offices Secretary the ngrossed Note ncorporates adopted amendments. highest numbered ngrossment version w provide offense RULES AND DMISTRATION 03/13 financial exploitation ng Administration place lder. Whole amended 03/16 Second Reading FAILED 21-48-1 Andrus, Armstrong, Moon, Necochea, Nichols, Rubel, Zito McCrostie Office the Clerk Raymond Remington, Ricks, Shepherd Smith, Stevenson, Syme, Wintrow, Youngblood, Speaker Collins,‎'‎

Undue Influence Key Indicia and Idaho Probate Court Support Research Sources,

Leading Undue Influence Expert Court Witnesses.

» The Bernatz SCAM Model,

bernatzexperts.com/areas-of-expertise/scam%E2%84%A2-model

» Bennett Blum, Undue influence-Behavioral Models,

bennettblummd.com/undue_influence_models.html

UNDUE INFLUENCE IN AN ESTATE PLAN

//yourlawcounsel.com/undue-influence-in-an-estate…/

A probate judge will look for a claimant to prove that the will either

1) Leaves property in an unexpected manner, cutting out close family members in favor of others without an obvious explanation before their death

2) The will-maker may have been particularly trusting of, or dependent on, the influencer, sometimes referred to as a confidential relationship

3) Frailty, illness, or fear of abandonment make the will-maker susceptible to undue influence

4) The confidential relationship influencer took outright advantage of the will-maker and directly benefited by substituting a will of their choosing and not the will-makers

Document Suspicions Circumstances of Elder Abuse, Exploitation Fraud & Undue InfluenceSuch As:

 (1) the identified victim’s susceptibility or vulnerability to influence (including among other things issues related to age, physical or mental deterioration, emotional state, education, finances, etc.);

 (2) a confidential relationship between the supposed perpetrator and identified victim;

(3) beneficiary’s active involvement or participation in procuring the legal instrument in question;

 (4) secrecy concerning the existence of the transaction or legal changes, or the events occurring in haste;

(5) lack of independent advice related to that transaction or new legal document;

(6) changes in the identified victim’s attitude toward others;

(7) discrepancies between the identified victim’s behavior and previously expressed intentions;

(8) the unjust or unnatural nature of the terms of the transaction or new legal instrument (new will, new trust, etc.);

(9) anonymous criticism of other potential beneficiaries made to the identified victim;

 (10) suggestion, without proof, to the identified victim that other potential beneficiaries had attempted to physically harm him or her;

(11) withholding mail;

(12) limiting telephone access;

(13) limiting visitation;

 (14) limiting privacy when victim is with others (which conduct is generally known as “chaperoning”); (13) discussion of transaction at an unusual or inappropriate time;

 (15) consummation of the transaction at an unusual place;

 (16) use of multiple persuaders against a single vulnerable person;

 (18) demand the business be finished at once;

(19) extreme emphasis on the consequences of delay;

 (20) obtaining a lawyer for the victim;

 (21) using victim’s assets ‐ such as property, money, credit cards, etc.;

(22) becoming conservator, trustee, beneficiary, executor, etc.;

(23) obtaining access to bank accounts;

 (24) obtaining access to safety deposit boxes;

(25) having the victim name the perpetrator on Power of Attorney forms;

 (26) isolating the testator and disparaging family members;

(27) mental inequality between the decedent and the beneficiary;

 (28) reasonableness of the will or trust provision;

(29) presence of the beneficiary at the execution of the will;

(30) presence of the beneficiary on those occasions when the testator expressed a desire to make a will;

(31) recommendation by the beneficiary of a lawyer to draw the will;

(32) knowledge of the contents of the will by the beneficiary prior to execution;

 (33) giving of instructions on preparation of the will by the beneficiary to the lawyer drawing the will; and,  (34) securing of witnesses to the will by the beneficiary.

Undue Influence & Probate Research Projects

Research Focus State, Idaho: Elder Abuse, Undue Influence Cases & Probate Precedents.

1. Undue influence may be inferred from the fact that the beneficiary was active in the preparation of the will. In re Lunders’ Estate, (1953) 74 Idaho 448, 454, 263 P.2d 1002; Estate of Randall, (1939) 60 Idaho 419, 93 P.2d 1.

2. Undue influence has been defined as domination by the guilty party over the testator to such an extent that his free agency is destroyed and the will of another person substituted for that of the testator. In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563(1963); In re Lunders’ Estate, supra.

3. Although conclusive rights should not be given it, the fact that the testator having the capacity and ability to do so failed for a substantial period of time to change or revoke a will alleged to be the product of undue influence, negatives the claim of undue influence.” 94 C.J.S. Wills § 261, p.1143. With respect to a will which also continued unchanged for two years prior to the testator’s death, calling it strong evidence that he was not coerced into making it, but that it was entirely satisfactory to him when made and that satisfaction continued until his death.”Laberee v. Laberee, 112 Or. 44, 53, 227 P. 460, 462, 228 P. 686; In re McCaslin’s Estate (1960) 222 Or.599, 352 P.2d 1111.

4. If, prior to executing his last will, a testator shows a continuity of purpose running through his former wills and codicils which indicates a settled intent or consistent state of mind on his part as to manner of distributing his estate, such fact may be considered in determining whether he is in possession of a disposing mind, that is, had testamentary capacity and was free from undue influence in making his last will.” In re Nelson’s Estate, 72 Wyo. 444,266 P.2d 238 (1954); In re Hart’s Estate, 107 Cal.App.2d 60, 67, 236 P.2d 884, 889.

5. Weakened mental and physical condition of Testator are factors to be considered in determining question of undue influence. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 15 P.2d 604; In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 263 P.2d 1002.

6. “Undue influence consists of domination by guilty party over testator to such extent that his freeagency is destroyed and will of another person is substituted for that of testator.” Witthoft v. Gathe, 38 Idaho 175, 221 P. 124; In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 263 P.2d 1002.

7. Undue influence is any means employed upon and with testator which under circumstances and conditions by which testator was surrounded, he could not well resist, and which controls his volition and induced him to do what otherwise would not have been done. In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563.

8. Influence arising from gratitude, affection or esteem is not undue, nor can it become such unless it destroys the free agency of the testator at the time the instrument is executed and shows that the disposition therein results from fraud, imposition and restraint of the person whose superior will prompts the execution of the testament in the particular manner which the testator adopted. In re Estate of Hill, 198 Or. 307, 335, 256 P.2d 735, 747; In re McCaslin’s Estate, 222 Or. 599, 352 P.2d 1111.

9. Influence gained by kindness and affection will not be regarded as undue if no imposition or fraud be practiced, even though it induced Testator to make unequal disposition of his property in favor of those who contributed to his comfort. In re Reddaway’s Estate, 214 Or. 410, 329 P.2d 886.

10. It is not sufficient for the contestant to merely prove circumstances consistent with the exercise of undue influence; that before the will can be overthrown the circumstances must be inconsistent with the voluntary action on the part of the testator. In re Welch’s Estate, 43 Cal.2d 173, 272 P.2d 512 (1954).

11. Mere existence of a confidential relationship to testator does not in itself establish undue influence. To set aside a will on the ground of undue influence there must be shown influence used directly to procure will, amounting to coercion destroying free agency on part of testator.In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563.

12. A will cannot be impeached by the subsequent oral declarations of the Testator. Gwin v. Gwin, 5Idaho 271, 48 P. 295.

13. The declarations of a testator made after the execution of a will showing his dissatisfaction therewith and his intention to execute a new will are not admissible to show that said will was executed under duress or undue influence. Gwin v. Gwin, 5 Idaho 271, 48 P. 295.

14. The general rule established by the overwhelming weight of authority is that declarations of the testator not made contemporaneously with the execution of the will, or so near thereto as to constitute a part of the res gestae, are not competent as direct or substantive evidence of the truth of the matters stated when offered on the issue of undue influence inducing the execution of the will. In re Estate of Wayne, 134 Or. 464, 291 P. 356, 294 P. 590,79 A.L.R. 1427; 148 A.L.R.1225.

15. A confidential relation exists between two persons, whether their relations be such as are technically fiduciary or merely informal, whenever one trusts in or relies on another. The question is whether or not trust was reposed. Sewell v. Ladd, (Mo.App. 1942) 158 S.W.2d 752,756.16. The existence of a confidential relation is purely a question of fact. Ringer v. Finrock, (Pa. 1941) 17 A.2d 348, 350.

17. A confidential relation may exist as a matter of fact whenever one person has reposed a special confidence in another to the extent that the parties do not deal with each other on equal terms, either because of an overmastering dominance on one side, or weakness, dependence or ignorance on the other side. Ringer v. Finrock, (1941) 340 Pa. 458, 17 A.2d 348, 350; Floyd v. Green, (1939) 238 Ala. 42, 188 So. 867, 871; In re Null’s Estate, (1930) 302 Pa. 64, 153 A. 137,139; In re Day’s Estate, (1953) 198 Or. 518, 257 P.2d 609, 614.

18. Where the beneficiary took the testator to a lawyer and remained with the testator during the preparation and execution of the will, even though the beneficiary was outside of the lawyer’s office, or in the waiting room, while the testator was conferring with the lawyer and while thewill was being executed, there is such evidence of activity in the preparation of the will that undue influence may be inferred from the presence of the beneficiary in this manner. In re Lunders’ Estate, (1953) 74 Idaho 448, 451, 263 P.2d 1002; Estate of Randall, (1939) 60 Idaho419, 93 P.2d 1; In re Gagliasso’s Estate, (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 65, 309 P.2d 513, 514; In re Estate of Leonard, (1949) 92 Cal.App. 420, 207 P.2d 66, 72.

Related Idaho Elder Exploitation and Probate Matter Articles – North Idaho’s Probate Court Dominating Attorney’s Intentionally Stoking Family Conflict To Transfer Assets To Their Clients & Themselves.

Seattle Times: Secrecy Hides Cozy Ties in Guardianship Case

The Gold Bar Reports; A Whistle-blower & Former Lawyer’s Expose of Inland Northwest Corruption in Elder Law, Probate Courts & State Bars

“License to steal” with the assistance of the Washington State Bar and Washington State Guardian Board //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/…/lin-odell…/

Geriatric Care Service Providers: Murder & Nursing Home Case Management //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/…/attorney-lin…/

State Bar & Racketeering //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/…/washington…/

SnoCo Reporter Investigative Journalism: Bad Business & Undue Influence: 

//www.snocoreporter.com/lin-odell-bad…/

“License to steal” with the assistance of the Washington State Bar and Washington State Guardian Board //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/tag/mary-cus…

Undue Influence & Elder Abuse; The Status Que in Idaho Estate Planning.

Court rules lawyer exercised ‘undue influence’ over elderly mother’s will //www.idahopress.com/…/article_2fcaba58-eae0-5274…

Elder abuse can be ‘hidden problem’ //www.idahopress.com/…/article_ea36e923-7fa6-559d…

Insidious Pressure & The Sandpoint, Idaho Real Estate Baron’s Trust Battles. VILLELLI v. R.A.V., INC.

//www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20121228040

Who Runs The Elder Care Policies & Probate Courts: A lesson for Kootenai County From Clark County.

Organized “Elder Exploitation Crime Rings” by Probate Court Professionals Devastate Families & Highlight Corruption in County Probate Courts & Eldercare Facility Networks.

Elders are the undeserved community this is glaringly obvious becuase apathetic, absent, tax-paid professionals such as city and county law enforcement, courts & prosecutors can’t or refuse to keep the communities elderly safe or prosecute white-collar criminals, Elder exploiters often run in packs of professionals which can included; estate planning attorneys, guardians, conservators, primary care physicians, neurocognitive psychologists, LSW court visitors, Guardian ad litems, accountants, real estate agents, bankers, and financial managers. Individually and as a group they intimidate frail and memory-compromised seniors in concerted efforts to force them to capitulate to their demands. All emboldened knowing that law enforcement, prosecutors and compromised probate courts will not enforce the states elder protection statutes. In the case of state licensed Guardian; April Parks she ran her exploitation & elder trafficking schemes with the assistance of attorneys, judges & police.

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

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.”

In the Rare Case An Elder Exploitation Case Is Presented to a Jury.

Below Are the Juror Instructions (Rigged Probate Court Doesn’t Allow Jurys).

Idaho Civil Jury Instructions

//isc.idaho.gov/main/civil-jury-instructions

Although the Court is not approving any specific instruction and will simply address instructions through appellate review, the Court does hereby accept the recommendation of the Committee and in accord with IRCP 51(a)(2) the instructions shall be disseminated for general use by the trial bench and the bar in Idaho

IDJI 6.28.6 – Defense of undue influence

INSTRUCTION NO. ____

            To establish the defense of undue influence, the party must prove each of the following propositions:

            1.         The party was compelled to accept the contract by deceit, force or fear;

            2.         But for the deceit, force or fear, the party would not have entered into the contract.

            A person has a right by fair persuasion or argument to induce another person of sound mind to contract in his favor, and a transaction under such influence will not be invalid on that account.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the [party claiming the issue]. If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for [party adverse to this issue].

IDJI 6.07.2 – Unjust enrichment – equitable theories

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            Even though there is no agreement between the parties, under certain circumstances where a party has been unjustly enriched by the actions of another the law will require that party to compensate the other for the unjust gain.  To recover under this theory, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following:

            1.         The plaintiff provided a benefit to the defendant;

            2.         The defendant accepted the benefit; and

            3.         Under the circumstances, it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff for its value.

Comment:

For the elements of unjust enrichment, see Hertz v. Fiscus, 98 Idaho 456, 567 P.2d 1 (1977); Common Builder, Inc. v. Rice, 126 Idaho 616, 888 P.2d 790 (App. 1995).

IDJI 6.27.1 – Fraud

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            To establish the defense of fraud, the defendant has the burden proving by clear and convincing evidence each of the following propositions:

            l.  The plaintiff made a representation of a past or present fact;

            2.  The representation was false;

            3.  The represented fact was important;     

            4.  The plaintiff knew the representation was false (or acted with a reckless disregard of the truth of the representation);

            5.  The defendant was not aware of the falsity of the representation;

            6.  The plaintiff intended that defendant rely upon the representation in agreeing to enter into the contract;

            7.  The defendant did rely upon the representation;

            8.  The defendant’s reliance was justified; and

            9.  The defendant [has returned] [has offered to return] to the plaintiff (whatever the defendant would be legally obligated to return in order to prevent his being unjustly enriched.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.  If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Estoppel

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is “estopped”. Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.

IDJI 6.10.1 – Breach of bilateral contract – general case – no affirmative defenses

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1.  A contract existed between plaintiff and defendant;

            2.  The defendant breached the contract;

            3. The plaintiff has been damaged on account of the breach; and

            4.  The amount of the damages.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of the propositions required of the plaintiff has been proved, then you must consider the issue of the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, and explained in the next instruction.  If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of the propositions in this instruction has not been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            In order to establish plaintiff’s claim of breach of a unilateral contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1. The defendant made statements which constituted an “offer” as defined in these instructions.

            2. The defendant intended that a person, such as the plaintiff, would perform acts in accordance with the offer.

            3. The plaintiff performed the acts required or requested by the defendant’s offer.

            4. The plaintiff performed the acts with the intention that the acts would constitute an acceptance of the defendant’s offer.

            5. The defendant was notified of plaintiff’s performance within a reasonable time.

            6. The defendant has not fulfilled defendant’s part of the offer.

            7. The nature of the performance required of defendant to complete the contract, and the value or dollar amounts thereof.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Idaho Civil Jury Instructions – Capacity To Contract, Unjust Enrichment & Fraud

//isc.idaho.gov/main/civil-jury-instructions

Although the Court is not approving any specific instruction and will simply address instructions through appellate review, the Court does hereby accept the recommendation of the Committee and in accord with IRCP 51(a)(2) the instructions shall be disseminated for general use by the trial bench and the bar in Idaho



IDJI 6.02.4 – Capacity to contract – mental capacity to contract

INSTRUCTION NO. ____

            A person has the mental capacity to enter into a contract when the person possesses sufficient mind to understand, in a reasonable manner, the nature, extent, character, and effect of the contract in question.

To establish the defense of undue influence, the party must prove each of the following propositions:

            1.         The party was compelled to accept the contract by deceit, force or fear;

            2.         But for the deceit, force or fear, the party would not have entered into the contract.

            A person has a right by fair persuasion or argument to induce another person of sound mind to contract in his favor, and a transaction under such influence will not be invalid on that account.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the [party claiming the issue]. If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for [party adverse to this issue].

IDJI 6.07.2 – Unjust enrichment – equitable theories

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            Even though there is no agreement between the parties, under certain circumstances where a party has been unjustly enriched by the actions of another the law will require that party to compensate the other for the unjust gain.  To recover under this theory, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following:

            1.         The plaintiff provided a benefit to the defendant;

            2.         The defendant accepted the benefit; and

            3.         Under the circumstances, it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff for its value.

Comment:

For the elements of unjust enrichment, see Hertz v. Fiscus, 98 Idaho 456, 567 P.2d 1 (1977); Common Builder, Inc. v. Rice, 126 Idaho 616, 888 P.2d 790 (App. 1995).

IDJI 6.27.1 – Fraud

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            To establish the defense of fraud, the defendant has the burden proving by clear and convincing evidence each of the following propositions:

            l.  The plaintiff made a representation of a past or present fact;

            2.  The representation was false;

            3.  The represented fact was important;     

            4.  The plaintiff knew the representation was false (or acted with a reckless disregard of the truth of the representation);

            5.  The defendant was not aware of the falsity of the representation;

            6.  The plaintiff intended that defendant rely upon the representation in agreeing to enter into the contract;

            7.  The defendant did rely upon the representation;

            8.  The defendant’s reliance was justified; and

            9.  The defendant [has returned] [has offered to return] to the plaintiff (whatever the defendant would be legally obligated to return in order to prevent his being unjustly enriched.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.  If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Estoppel

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is “estopped”. Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.

IDJI 6.10.1 – Breach of bilateral contract – general case – no affirmative defenses

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1.  A contract existed between plaintiff and defendant;

            2.  The defendant breached the contract;

            3. The plaintiff has been damaged on account of the breach; and

            4.  The amount of the damages.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of the propositions required of the plaintiff has been proved, then you must consider the issue of the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, and explained in the next instruction.  If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of the propositions in this instruction has not been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            In order to establish plaintiff’s claim of breach of a unilateral contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1. The defendant made statements which constituted an “offer” as defined in these instructions.

            2. The defendant intended that a person, such as the plaintiff, would perform acts in accordance with the offer.

            3. The plaintiff performed the acts required or requested by the defendant’s offer.

            4. The plaintiff performed the acts with the intention that the acts would constitute an acceptance of the defendant’s offer.

            5. The defendant was notified of plaintiff’s performance within a reasonable time.

            6. The defendant has not fulfilled defendant’s part of the offer.

            7. The nature of the performance required of defendant to complete the contract, and the value or dollar amounts thereof.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

7 CLUSTERS OF ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION

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

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

DOJ EAPPA DATA OVERVIEW
//www.justice.gov/elderjustice/eappa-data-overview

NATIONAL ADULT MISTREATMENT REPORT SYSTEM (NAMRS)
//www.justice.gov/elderjustice/eappa-data-overview#NationalAdult

National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System
//namrs.acl.gov/

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.
//www.justice.gov/contact-us

 

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
//namrs.acl.gov/Learning-Resources/Adult-Maltreatment-Reports.aspx

ELDER ABUSE AND ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION STATUTES

//www.justice.gov/elderjustice/prosecutors/statutes

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:

 //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/

“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

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

CITIZENSPUBLICSAFETYNETWORK

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 …

STATE BAR CORRUPTION ARTICLE RESEARCH


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.

Get It & Source It ‹ Corruption Maps — WordPress

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

Research Project Data  Source  Summary

 

OVERVIEW

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.

 

ONGOING PUBLIC DATA SUMMARY RESEARCH SOURCES

 

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

Important Idaho, Washington State & Federal Statues

Citizen’s Public Safety Network VP Task Force Educational Resources. 


Idaho, Washington Statues & Federal ACTs concerning Vulnerable Person Protection.

Idaho Statutes

I.C. § 18-1505(1), § 39-5302(7)

IC 39-5303, CMS and SSA Title 28  & SSA Subtitle B – Elder JusticeElder Mistreatment and The Elder Justice Act

~

Washington Statutes

Repeating ABA Model Rule Violations common in Vulnerable Person and Estate Planning and Guardians and Conservator Litigation:

Rule 1.1, Rule 1.7, Rule 1.8, Rule 1.10, Rule 1.14, Rule 1.15, Rule 1.16, Rule 4.1, Rule 4.2, Rule 4.3, Rule 4.4, Rule 7.1, Rule 8.1 and Rule 8.3.

~

IRS Circular 230; Section 10.5. See Table 2 Below & TEDRA Violations:

I.C § 15-8-103 (e), IC 5-219, IC 18-2403, IC 5-218

~

Legal protection Federal Statutes when Restricted Access at Hospitals and Eldercare Facilities.

Restricted Access of Vulnerable Person with Family at Kootenai Health or other regional Facilities and Hospitals.

Department of Health and Human Services – Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: 42 CFR 482

Hospital and healthcare facility access and visitation

If you are being denied visitation to a loved one who is in a nursing home or hospital, this federal bill will help you in all 50 states.

42 CFR 482.13 – Condition of participation: Patient’s rights.

  • 482.13 Condition of participation: Patient‘s rights.

hospital must protect and promote each patient‘s rights.

(a)Standard: Notice of rights – (1) A hospital must inform each patient, or when appropriate, the patient‘s representative (as allowed under State law), of the patient‘s rights, in advance of furnishing or discontinuing patient care whenever possible.

Access and Visitation

The resident has the right and the facility must provide—subject to the resident’s right to deny or withdraw consent at any time—immediate access to any resident by:

  • Immediate family or other relatives of the resident. (42 C.F.R. §483.10(j)(1)(vii))
  • Others who are visiting with the consent of the resident, subject to reasonable restrictions. (42 C.F.R. §483.10(j)(1)(viii))
  • The facility must provide reasonable access to any resident by any entity or individual that provides health, social, legal or other services to the resident. (42 C.F.R. §483.10(j)(2))
  • If a resident is married, he or she and their spouse must be assured privacy and to be able to share a room if both are residents in the facility and both agree to do so.  (42 C.F.R. §483.10(e)(1)  and (m))
 
 

Data Curated by Corruption Maps – Publishing Newsworthy Public Safety Information.

Crowd-sourced and AI RSS Publication System; Data Gathered from Public Resources, Events,  News Articles and Advocate/Victim Witness Accounts of White-Collar Misdemeanor Infractions or Felonious that Often Results in re Irreparable Devastation to Vulnerable Persons. 

 

Citizen’s Public Safety Network – Vulnerable Person – VP Task Force:  White Collar Crime Tracking GEO API and Relational Database Social Technology Applications.

 

Person’s Submitting Evidence are Protected By Federal Whistleblower Protection Statutes In Conjunction With the US Constitution.

National, state and municipal white-collar civil, felony offences and corruption trends based on AI and crowd-sourced newsworthy public safety awareness sources. Information is  then cross-referenced with curated data of alleged or convicted perpetrator profiles. Information is based on historical and current crowd-sourced, advocate researcher and AI harvested news articles, national, state and local news events, and Geo API database resources. This platform uses the latest AI and open-source social technology platforms in combination with citizen public safety reporting systems and public domain data.  The sites GEO API maps layer and filter profiles and infractions to visually depict the trends of vulnerable person exploitation, domestic violence and inter-related vulnerable person crimes as each is a systemic societal epidemic;  crimes which often are perpetrated hand-in-hand with  professional malpractice, collusion and corruption pre-established in various urban and rural regional professionally affiliated networks.

 

One state example  of the  legal resources Law Enforcement can utilize to address the  repeating patterns of vulnerable person infractions and felonies  that consistently occur over a period of time by the same offenders with Federal and statutory civil and criminal violations occurring across county lines, State and even national borders.

CHAPTER 78 RACKETEERING ACT

TITLE 18

CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 78

RACKETEERING ACT

18-7803.  DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter, (a) “Racketeering” means any act which is chargeable or indictable under the following sections of the Idaho Code or which are equivalent acts chargeable or indictable as equivalent crimes under the laws of any other jurisdiction:

(1)  Homicide (section 18-4001, Idaho Code);

(2)  Robbery, burglary, theft, forgery, counterfeiting, and related crimes (sections 18-140118-140518-2403,18-240718-312318-312418-312518-360118-360218-360318-360518-360618-360718-360918-361018-361418-361518-463018-6501 and 49-518, Idaho Code);

(3)  Kidnapping (section 18-4501, Idaho Code);

(4)  Prostitution (sections 18-560118-560218-560318-560418-560518-560618-5608 and 18-5609, Idaho Code);

(5)  Arson (sections 18-80118-80218-80318-804 and 18-805, Idaho Code);

(6)  Assault (sections 18-908 and 18-4015, Idaho Code);

(7)  Lotteries and gambling (sections 18-380118-380218-380918-490218-490318-490418-490518-4906 and18-4908, Idaho Code);

(8)  Indecency and obscenity (sections 18-151518-151818-410318-4103A18-410418-410518-4105A and 18-4107, Idaho Code);

(9)  Poisoning (sections 18-4014 and 18-5501, Idaho Code);

(10) Fraudulent practices, false pretenses, insurance fraud, financial transaction card crimes and fraud generally (sections 18-240318-270618-300218-310118-312418-312518-312618-671341-29341-294 and41-1306, Idaho Code);

(11) Alcoholic beverages (sections 23-60223-60623-61023-70323-90523-91423-92823-934 and 23-938, Idaho Code);

(12) Cigarette taxes (sections 63-2505 and 63-2512(b), Idaho Code);

(13) Securities (sections 30-14-40130-14-40230-14-40330-14-40430-14-50130-14-50230-14-505 and 30-14-506, Idaho Code);

(14) Horseracing (section 54-2512, Idaho Code);

(15) Interest and usurious practices (sections 28-45-401 and 28-45-402, Idaho Code);

(16) Corporations (sections 18-190118-190218-190318-190418-190518-1906 and 30-1510, Idaho Code);

(17) Perjury (sections 18-5401 and 18-5410, Idaho Code);

(18) Bribery and corrupt influence (sections 18-1352 and 18-1353, Idaho Code);

(19) Controlled substances (sections 37-2732(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f), 37-2732B37-2734 and 37-2734B, Idaho Code);

(20) Motor vehicles (sections 49-22849-23149-232 and 49-518, Idaho Code);

(21) Terrorism (section 18-8103, Idaho Code).

(b)  “Person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(c)  “Enterprise” means any sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business, labor union, association or other legal entity or any group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, and includes illicit as well as licit entities; and

(d)  “Pattern of racketeering activity” means engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering conduct that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one (1) of such incidents occurred after the effective date of this act and that the last of such incidents occurred within five (5) years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct.

 

Report Perpetrator’s and Contact your Congressman’s office.

 

Please contact your Congressman’s office and State legislators to inform them how in-partitive that Vulnerable Persons and those assisting them need their attention and commitment to help the public citizens combat professional exploitation, negligence and malpractice. Vulnerable persons, especially dependent persons need to have have greater protection when perpetrators have ceased control of their free agency or when they the VP is  to afraid or deceived to understand their precarious circumstance.

These person are often unduly influenced, in fear,  denial or acquiesced to a state of perpetual submission and  learned helplessness in order to survive their abuser and those acting in concert with the exploiter to achieve their ambitions, These vulnerable victims  and  and those advocating for therm need  access to affordable resources to: 1) report their circumstance in a safe environment, 2) have their circumstances accurately vetted and objectively investigated on every side of the circumstances, not just the non-fact based accounts or fictitious projections of the current persons  whom have insidiously usurped control of their affairs and confidential relations. 

It is often best to contact political offices supported by the public taxpayer to ensure thier public safety  in writing and send a copy of your letters to Vulnerable PErson Advocacy groups limke the Citizen’s Public Safety Network.

 

Abuse, Negligence, Exploitation, Malpractice: 

“See It, Lot It, Blog It, Post It, Share It,  Map It, . . . STOP IT! 

 

Data Curated by Corruption Maps – Publishing Newsworthy Public Safety Information.

Crowd-sourced and AI RSS Publication System; Data Gathered from Public Resources, Events,  News Articles and Advocate/Victim Witness Accounts of White-Collar Misdemeanor Infractions or Felonious that Often Results in Irreparable Devastation to Vulnerable Persons. 

 

Citizen’s Public Safety Network – Vulnerable Person – VP Task Force :  White Collar Crime Tracking GEO API and Relational Database Social Technology Applications.

 

 

Coeur D’Alene, Kootenai County, Idaho Elder Abuse VP Task Force ™ Article

Public Safety Tools – IRS Circular 230 Malpractice Protection.

Cautionary Estate Planning Educational Alerts – Article Excerpt:

Illicit Estate Planning Attorney Strategies, their Physically/Cognitively Impaired Dependent Elderly Clients & IRS Circular 230 Regulations.

Qualitative Research Report Results for Regional Blog & Education Publication Series:

Inland North West Research Summary Articles from the NW VP Collusion Project.

Estate Planning Attorneys are required to follow the IRS Circular 230 regulations if they do not they can be suspended from practice.  if they are exploiting, manipulating their client or aware of others doing this or even isolating their clients and substituting their intentions for the long-held intentions of their clients this would be an IRS circular 230 violations and should be reported to the State Bar and IRS office of professional responsibility.

The IRS circular 230 notice is important for the fiduciaries to be aware of since it holds additional Estate Planning and Accountant accountability mechanisms beyond those of the Statutory Laws, State Bar Model Rules and Court procedures that are useful so the fiduciaries  can have a means to stress the importance of following 1) the treasury regulations (and aforementioned & attached) and 2) that best practices are involved for those estate planners drafting the estate and implementing tax strategies. Specifically when benefactor has facts been substantially misrepresented (fraud) has been coercively pressured (undue influence), under gone recent physical and mental emergencies resulting in dependence due to physical and cognitive impairments, and in some cases intentionally restricted private access all while estate planning and transferring substantial assets to new confidential relations (new caretaker, POA, Trustee/Fiduciary Landlord, Doctor, Friend and/or attorney) contrary to long established “natural disposition” to many damaging scenarios including the automatic migration and substantial negative tax consequences in sue we can use the following information “preemptively” to ensure that both the Grantors and the beneficiaries best interests are of paramount importance in the ongoing estate planning process and for all the required ongoing reporting and tax filing.

RESOURCE:

//www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/Revised_Circular_230_6_-_2014.pdf

When the following  circumstances occur  then in additional State bar Model Rule violations  IRS circular 230 violations specifically apply:

IRS-Treasury Department Circular 230 Violations (examples of repeating IRS Circular violations among many other State Bar, Federal act act and statutory vulnerable person laws  can be reviewed with password access regarding a 2016 Kooenai County Guardianship Case estate matter of a wealthy physically and cognitively impaired elderly woman.

IRS Circular 230 Section 10.50: Sanctions

Under §10.50, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, a practitioner may be censured (publicly reprimanded), suspended, or disbarred from practice before the IRS for incompetence, disreputable conduct (see the discussion of §10.51 below), failure to comply with Circular 230 regulations (§10.52), or intent to defraud or knowingly mislead or threaten a client or prospective client.

The third part of Circular 230 allows sanctions for violation of the Regulations. The Director of the IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPRS), after notice and an opportunity for a proceeding, may censure, suspend, or disbar any practitioner from practice before the Internal Revenue Service for the following:

  • The practitioner is incompetent or disreputable;
  • The practitioner fails to comply with Circular 230; or
  • The practitioner, with intent to defraud, willfully and knowingly misleads or threatens a client or prospective client.
  • Any discipline from the IRS is public and the IRS swill notify the practitioner’s professional association, such as a state bar association.

Learn more at:

//www.rhlaw.com/blog/circular-230/

//www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2008/may/areviewofthereviseddisciplinaryprocessundercircular230.html#sthash.kTzqafIe.dpuf

Additional Circular 230, Uniform Probate Code, TEDRA (ID, WA, OR), Federal Act, Statutory  AND ABA Model Rule violations include:

  • Aurelio to plan for, or the intentional disregard for negative tax consequences for elderly clients on the nature of “Majority-ruled” revocable and amendable Trusts when Trustees are also beneficiaries whom can control the Trusts asset disposition,
  • the negative tax consequences, possible risk of asset seizure with having a foreigner on a domestic/US Trust
  • Fraudulent clandestine Trust amendments that shift substantial Trust assets to “majority-ruling” Trustee-beneficiaries when benefactor has suffered recent physical health and cognitive impairments and
  • Deception plan by tax strategist-estate planning Attorney recommending a TEDRA agreement to be signed by all Trustee-beneficiaries except the benefactor (physical and cognitively impaired 82 year old woman) to lock in previous illicitly gained Trust asset disposition shifts to the majority-ruling Trustee-beneficiaries. Tax strategist – estate planning attorney states not to have the benefactor (Trust Grantor/owner of the assets) not  sign the agreement so not to arouse scrutiny of the IRS. One reason would be because Trust in its formation and due to circumstances was in violation of numerous Federal Acts, State Laws. IRS Circular 230. ABA Model Rules.  Uniform Trust & Probate Codes.