Listing to the radio this afternoon, it is clearly apparent that citizens are fed up with the illusions that the pols present and the 'cover up' of the governmental assaults on the Constitution. I suggested that law enforcement would have a good deal of its work done for it on the issue of elder cleansing if it just tuned into the blogs Probate Sharks, MaryGSykes, ****. Over the years of persecution that some Illinois lawyers, including yours truly have endured a supporter I have referred to NASGA and have recommended to law enforcement to us it as a source. I do so again.
The Utility of NASGA as a source is best illustrated by its references to GAO reports concerning the elder cleansing (guardian) scandal. Please note - Jerome Larkin and the IARDC (and the Supreme Court of Illinois) prosecutes attorneys who refer to these GAO reports - Any HONEST investigation that exposes the isolation, abuse, exploitation and criminal conspiracy (18 USCA 371) that is going on in Illinois (and elsewhere) is according to Larkin's gang of conspirators "like yelling fire in a crowded theatre."
ON NASGA you will find the following:
Read the GAO reports on guardianship and conservatorship:
In its report, GAO found that only 13 states require criminal background checks on all potential court-appointed guardians, and that there are gaps in information sharing that can adversely affect incapacitated adults. GAO recommends that the Social Security Administration (SSA) find ways to share information with state courts dealing with the appointment of guardians for SSA beneficiaries. GAO also recommends that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services consider supporting promising court pilot programs that monitor guardians.
|
|
“Most of the allegations we identified involved financial exploitation and misappropriation of assets. Specifically, the allegations point to guardians taking advantage of wards by engaging in schemes that benefit the guardian but are financially detrimental to the ward under their care. Also, the allegations underscore that the victim’s family members often lose their inheritance or are excluded by the guardian from decisions affecting their relative’s care.”
|
|
VA’s Fiduciary Program has policies in place that are intended to ensure that qualified fiduciaries are selected and regularly monitored; however, insufficient staff compliance with some policies and weaknesses in others hinder VA’s ability to safeguard veterans’ benefits. For example, VA was late in conducting required follow-up visits to monitor fiduciaries or provided insufficient documentation to show whether these visits were conducted in about 18 percent of the cases GAO reviewed. In addition, while GAO estimated that nearly 40 percent of fiduciaries who were required to submit financial reports to demonstrate how beneficiary funds are managed turned their reports in late, VA did not always take actions to obtain them on time or provide documentation that an attempt had been made, as required by VA policy…...Moreover, VA does not have a nationwide quality review process to ensure that these reviews are conducted properly and consistently.
|
|
GAO’s 2004 report had three principal findings. First, all states have laws requiring courts to oversee guardianships, but court implementation of these laws varies. Second, those courts recognized as exemplary in the area of guardianships focused on training and monitoring. Third, there is little coordination between state courts and federal agencies or among federal agencies regarding guardianships. At present, these findings remain largely the same, but there are some new developments to report. Since GAO’s report was issued, some states have strengthened their guardianship programs. For example, Alaska established requirements for licensing of private guardianships and New Jersey and Texas established requirements for the registration of professional guardians. However, there continues to be little coordination between state courts and federal agencies or among federal agencies in the protection of incapacitated people.
GAO’s report made recommendations to federal agencies, but to date little progress has been made.
|
|
All states have laws requiring courts to oversee guardianships, but court implementation varies. Most require guardians to submit periodic reports, but do not specify court review of these reports. Interstate jurisdictional issues sometimes arise when states do not recognize guardianships originating in other states. Most courts responding to our survey did not track the number of active guardianships, and few indicated the number of incapacitated elderly people under guardianship.
|
|
There are limited safeguards to protect older adults from abuse by guardians, who are granted authority by a state court to make decisions in the best interest of an incapacitated individual concerning his or her person or property. While guardians can play a key role in managing the assets of these older adults, we have noted in past reports that guardians are only subject to limited safeguards that could protect these older adults from financial exploitation. For example, local officials in California noted that it can be hard to determine whether a person applying to be a guardian is doing so to further his ward’s best interests. We have also reported that few states conduct criminal background checks on potential guardians. Moreover, we have noted concerns with weak court oversight of appointed guardians, as well as poor communication between the courts and federal agencies that have enabled guardians to chronically abuse their wards and/or others.
|
|
After you read these reports you will note the similarity to the complaints that so many citizens have made to their elected representatives, consumer protective organizations, the AARP, Civil Liberties Union, law enforcement etc.
How does this happen in the United States of America we have our own holocaust going on? Why is unethical for an attorney to comply 18 USCA 4 to report the felonies of fiduciaries?
It is time for action now! It is time for an HONEST investigation and for corrupt jurists, judicial officials and public servants to face criminal charges for their War on the elderly and the disabled.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.