Why are judicially ordered exams of potential wards/victims called “incapacity” determinations rather than “capacity” determinations?
Why is hard proof of a ward’s capacity submitted to the court called “a suggestion of capacity”?
Why are so many court examiners’ reports so often identical as if they were copied and unanimous in favor of total incapacity?
Why does guardianship legislation allegedly intended to limit the court’s enormous latitude in these cases constantly use the terms “may”,
“shall” or “can” instead of the term “must” when referring to the court’s obligation to follow the statutes?
Why are guardianship hearings often closed and sequestered?
Why are there no juries in guardianship matters?
Why is valid evidence of capacity so often discarded by the court?
Why do the courts constantly fail to monitor abuses in the guardianships they create?
The answers are simple.
The function of the court, the default position of the court, the profit generated by the court and the power held by the court is rooted in finding people incapacitated whether they are or not! The court could not and would not be sustained (funded) if there were not a steady stream of new victims and cash flow. That stream justifies the demands for more funding and more power. Once that goal is accomplished and another innocent is thrown to the guardianship wolves, the court has little interest or time to spend with what happens next–they are well aware of how their system works and do not want to hear about the abuses because to do so would impugn their imperious rule and bring into question their decisions to hand over lives to predatory lawyers and guardians.
So, rather than adhering to advance directives, the court bypasses them because that advances the aim of the court which, as we have shown is to create profitable guardianships and fuel the predation industry. Rather than solving problems in families, the court creates new problems that force families into needless costly litigation that benefits only the court insiders. Rather than actually protecting vulnerables, the court is fully complicit in their exploitation.
This bias is a horrifying reality and an unspeakable affront to the the public who justifiably, lose faith in the judiciary every day these egregious cases are exposed.
Abuses in guardianship ALWAYS track back to the the same cabal of (mostly elected)state judges whose dubious, logic defying decisions become the genesis of many years of pain, suffering and exploitation at the hands of the court insiders. It is the judges who create far too many guardianships and then complain that these cases overwork them!
Judicial bias and abuse of process can have many origins. Whatever the inducement or even absent any inducement the deadly fallout from probate/family court must be exposed if there is any chance that it can be stopped.
AAAPG continues to do just that.