DOUBLETHINK AND DOUBLESPEAK AND RULES FOR RADICALS IN PROBATE

Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to accept a clearly false statement as the truth, or to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one’s own memories or sense of reality.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. “
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. “

Whether we are talking about war, national politics or probate court, it helps to understand the battle plans of your opponent when you fight an existential battle and the outcome determines the difference between life and death, liberty and subjugation, freedom versus enslavement.  After years of study and thousands of cases reviewed by multiple advocates across the country, it is clear there is a guardian “playbook”, implicit or otherwise, used in nearly all probate abusive guardianship cases.  This action plan, tried and tested, is a step-by-step deliberate process relied on by the court.  Insiders to guarantee success in maintaining their massive income streams by abusing and exploiting not only innocent vulnerable seniors, but also by extracting and transferring wealth from their families into their pockets just using words and shuffling papers..

Let us first consider the tactic of doublethink.  

In the political arena we see examples of doublethink all the time.  For example, the famous joke of I’m from the IRS and I’m here to help you.  We have been told “the war in (fill in a country name) is only about spreading democracy.  All of Germany’s problems are due to the Jews.  Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.  I did not have sex with that woman.  We are winning the Vietnam War.  You can keep your own doctor and plan”.  The reason you recall these falsehoods now is because you could not reconcile them with your own internal reality and that cognitive dissonance—even though you chose to compromise and accept statements and actions that were inconsistent with your own experience– is embedded in your memory. 

As employed in guardianship, the most obvious application of this technique is the idea that taking away an individual’s rights, isolating them from friends and family, over medicating them to the point of zombiehood, seizing all their assets and funneling them into massive and outrageous fees, selling their home for pennies on the dollar, placing them in putrid lockdown units and bankrupting all family members who choose to fight the guardianship is in the best interests of the ward.

Another glaring example is the use of fabricated unfounded slander and libel against anyone who objects to a guardianship. The daughter is a drug addict/alcoholic. The son is a thief. They used undue influence. They are trying to poison the ward. They are liars. Whenever a falsehood is incessantly repeated, despite every indication that it is NOT true and NO evidence that it is true exists, indoctrination into accepting a clearly false negative often occurs.  When that indoctrination is encouraged by both essential bias on the part of the judge and financial incentive on the part of all the court insiders, the outcome is predictable, and no opposing or contrary argument can be accepted or even tolerated.

Doublespeak

Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, “downsizing” for layoffs and “servicing the target” for bombing in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. There are four types of doublespeak: euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook, and inflated language.

Euphemism: purpose to make the uncomfortable truth more palatable

In politics: incendiary device for bomb, “downsizing” for layoffs and “servicing the target”. For bombing. Collateral damage – When an attack kills innocent people (or damages homes, hospitals, schools, etc.). Armed intervention – This simply means “military attack.” Extraordinary rendition – This is when an army takes someone away without going through any legal system. Friendly fire when an army kills people on its own side, usually by accident.

In probate hearings: Hearings where nothing is heard; surcharge a secret code word for reparations from a criminal guardian

Jargon: words whose true meaning is familiar only to the insiders.

In politics: untruth is a lie. Earmarks is corruption. Pork barrel spending usually benefits small interest groups and campaign contributors. Single payor means government healthcare.

In probate hearings: Ex parte, advocate, inventory, muster, non disclosure, non disparagement, sequestration, stipulation, invoke the rule, conflict of interest

Gobbledygook: obtuse, made up words or phrases to obscure the opposite meaning

In politics: family values, emoluments,

In probate hearings: visitation,

Inflated language: aggrandizing

In politics: omnibus, universal,

In probate hearings: your honor, esteemed counsel, expert witness, with prejudice, pray for relief,

If you have ever been involved in probate court guardianship hearings, you will no doubt recognize many or all of the doublespeak words produced in probate litigation and how pivotal they are in the kabuki dance of guardianship hearings which nearly uniformly not only allow but encourage the abuse, neglect and exploitation of innocent seniors.

Rules for Radicals

Lastly, let us consider the striking similarities we can see in both politics and court with the tactics modeled after “rules for radicals”.  Litigants will quickly realize how each and every one of them plays a role in the fixed, staged and endless litigation and abusive probate guardianships.

Of all the 13 rules for radicals as they apply to the actions of the court insiders in probate number five may be the most effective:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Attacking someone’s integrity when there is no legitimate reason to is one of the reasons that litigants spend enormous amounts of money hiring as many as half a dozen lawyers who uniformly fail to clear their name.  They fight for as long as they can until they realize it is impossible to save their loved one, and it is just as impossible to save their reputation.

Because guardianship is typically sprung as a surprise on unsuspecting victims and their loved ones, non-insider litigants are immediately disadvantaged by their status as tyros.  The guardianship freight train catches them unaware and by the time they are even cognizant of the need to fight, the game is over and they have lost.

The court insiders speak a different language, play by different rules, have no real skin in the game, have long-standing alliances with one another, play along to get along and profit no matter who wins or loses.

What a system.

1 Comment on DOUBLETHINK AND DOUBLESPEAK AND RULES FOR RADICALS IN PROBATE

  1. At a recent Legislative Delegation Meeting County Clerks and Public Defenders complained about the Thousand cases backed up because of the Pandemic. I suggested that judges Freeze Guardianship Cases to free up their Caseloads

Comments are closed.