A New and Exciting Approach to End Probate Court Abuses
Because of the long standing, multigenerational failure to remediate the abuses perpetuated in probate courts throughout the country, it is instructive to examine novel approaches to solving certain other social problems. Outside the box, Critical thinking may be required to solve problems of social import when traditional forms of redress are consistently ineffective.
This paper seeks to promote and foster a reasonable construct with which to address the abuse of a class of citizens, namely the several million senior citizens and Wards of the United States of America who have been and/or may be abused and systematically disenfranchised by the State based equity Probate court system which repeatedly and inappropriately deprives them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in violation of the 14th amendment, which states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
It is useful and instructional to draw upon the progress of certain currently prominent social movements which have at their core the desire to end certain forms of discrimination to create a more just and desirable society. One such movement, embodied in the BLM phenomenon, which has burst into the public dialogue recently, has its origins in an academic construct referred to as Critical Race Theory.
Over the last 40 years critical race theory has become a widely taught staple of American liberal postmodern education and legal thought particularly in law schools across the country.
Critical race theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power. It is loosely unified by two common themes. Firstly, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Secondly, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as pursuing a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly. Developed out of postmodern philosophy,[dubious – discuss] it is based on critical theory, a social philosophy that argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues.
By 2002, over 20 American law schools, and at least 3 law schools in other countries, offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally. In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women’s studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies. Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Camara Phyllis Jones, and Mari Matsuda.
Critics of CRT, including Richard Posner and Alex Kozinski, take issue with its foundations in postmodernism and reliance on moral relativism, social constructionism, and other tenets contrary to classical liberalism. They also propose that CRT is inherently racist.
As one consequence of the widespread dissemination of this theory and its application, Americans have been exposed to elites and celebrities who espouse the somewhat vague and unfamiliar term “Speak your truth”. This benign sounding phrase is a classic example of relativism which rejects the idea of any absolute truth but instead favors a position that there is no absolute morality, justice or truth and that all facts and social circumstances must be viewed in the context of the specific society in which they exist. As an example, bribing an official is an accepted form of legitimate political activity in some countries but not in others. In the CRT construct, the personal lens through which each individual perceives his circumstances is not only unique, but dominant and superior. Therefore justice is not automatically related to history, precedent, ethics, morals or convention, but rather it becomes fungible and plastic, depending on an individuals’ story or personal experiences and circumstances, which can be used to justify almost any action including violence.
This stance allows individuals to reject what much of general American society would deem as normative and instead encourages a narrative that an individual’s truth depends on the very personal lens through which it is seen and is independent of and need not be supported by standard ethics, legal precedents, morals or widely accepted norms. In this construct, and in the Marxist ideology that spawned it, objections to the theory or implementation of the theory by others are automatically assumed to be racist in nature and therefore illegitimate and null. No conversation or dialogue can be allowed. If you argue and fail to accept or submit to the ideology, you are labeled as enjoying some sort of unearned and illegitimate privilege you do not deserve—you are to be marginalized or even attacked as a racist no matter how you view yourself.
One of the prominent features of critical race theory is that it does not simply attempt to explain in an academic sense the reasons for discrimination, but rather it goes to the next step in which it demands that action be taken to eliminate the causes and perpetrators of intolerance and bigotry as defined by storytelling techniques (not rational processes) and quite frequently with the use of violence and force..
CRT in the US first began in the 60s during the civil reform and protests. It has direct roots in Marxism. It aims to define and categorize people by race and once defined instructs people to look at society through the lens of race instead of inalienable freedoms of mankind. It also shares the view of Marxism whereas the only acceptable answer to a debate about the matter is acceptance. Any form of rejection or alternate viewpoint to achieve the same goal is deemed unsatisfactory and racist by perpetuators of CRT. This mentality presents itself as authoritarian, and fascist in nature much like the Marxists theory on which it is based. It is controversial due to this. CRT is not considered to be conducive to progress, by its critics, because followers of the theory systematically repress or silence opposition or opposing thought by labeling opposition as racism
If you think CRT is enormously flawed, then you agree with most of academia. However, given the enormous acceptance whether actively or passively by American corporations who have donated untold billions to this movement and given the widespread popularity of the theory and the movement it spawned with elitists influencers and politicians, the tactics and methods employed are surely worth studying and certainly worthy of consideration as a game plan to effect change.
New Critical Guardianship Theory (CGT) will provide a national platform whose ultimate purpose is meaningful action to facilitate and demand the elimination or at the very least the significant reduction in numbers of cases of equity probate court abuse, universal application of the 14th amendment in these courts, and the propagation of laws and rules that protect the rights of potential wards and their families. It will encourage victims of probate guardianship court abuse to speak their truth to power and demand an end to the widespread corruption and misapplication of existing statutes. It will engender a national discussion about and public interest in this problem which could potentially affect every American, and it will generate financial support from the same industries and corporations that have so generously funded BLM movement as well as the general population.
The CGT construct is as follows:
Critical guardianship theory (CGT) is a theoretical framework in the law and social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of age, law, and power. It is unified by two common themes.
- CGT proposes that ageism and excessive and sometimes corrupt legal power are maintained and self-perpetuating over time, and in particular, that the Guardianship and Probate laws—as applied or misapplied in equity courts– play a pivotal and enabling role in this abusive process.
- CGT can be transformative towards the goal of transforming the relationship between equity courts and allegedly incapacitated persons of all ages , as well as pursuing the just end of achieving emancipation and anti-subordination from such court abuses.
As a social justice issue, anti-guardianship abuse advocacy has suffered from a crippling lack of cohesion, and almost complete absence of funding, and perhaps most importantly a failure to generate empathy or even interest from a significant portion of the public and media. Thought leaders from several volunteer advocacy organizations and their followers have consistently attempted to utilize traditional means in the courts to bring about not only satisfactory resolution of individual cases but more importantly, to draw attention to the widespread systematic abuses of power that regularly occur in certain hotspot Circuit Court districts across the country. These earnest efforts including filing appeals, appealing to oversight organizations and state bars, telling media stories about the abuses, court watching, holding large public meetings to educate the public, as well as a variety of other traditional techniques of redress of grievance, have largely been unsuccessful with only an occasional success story.
As is well known, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. It is high time to discard the traditional approach to grievance redress and replace it with a technique and process that has proven to be wildly successful as a tool to make enormous changes in the American psyche, in the position of American industry, and in directed fundraising. This approach has demonstrated that it is not absolutely necessary to write new laws to achieve change within a society. I suggest that a parallel approach be initiated now with the goal of ending guardianship abuse within the next five years. I suggest that the name for such an initiative be “The critical guardianship theory initiative” and I invite comment from any interested party to begin the discussion of where, when and how to move forward with implementation.
Doctor Sam Sugar