COURT ORDERED THEFT: Expect to be outraged!


For most Americans, the concept that the government could take control of your life, seize for redistribution all of your assets, and deprive you of the comfort of family and friends while doing so is beyond a Kafkaesque notion. The court ordered control of lives, destruction of families, elimination of personal wealth, and the complete disregard for individual directives is happening.  These are not isolated cases of bad people, mismanaged funds, or folks with duplicitous intent looking to surreptitiously get rich quick off of Grannies life savings…there are many cases of full blown, court ordered removal of Constitutional rights, personal directives being ignored, families drug though years of legal wrangling based on hearsay without the benefit of evidence, and nothing short of legal thievery.  The families fight back at great personal cost and suffer at the hands of the courts in ways most citizens would never believe…until you see it for yourself. 

There is a storm building of moral outrage.  Families being torn apart, lives shattered, and the best laid plans of loving and caring spouses, parents, and children being ignored.  The collusion that is taking place between the courts/judges, the fiduciary agents, and probate attorneys could make organized crime syndicates look weak in comparison.

This coming storm is not to be ignored.  Here is one story…the first of many.


  1. ham sandwich says

    on the surgace this sounds awful, but if you look at how it started you’ll find a less sympathetic story. Marie had a dispute with her sisters and appointed a niece as her original guardian. That niece moved her to California before essentially abandoning her — she pocketed some of the $1.3 million as well.

  2. With all due respect, I have no idea what you’re getting at here.

    The problem alluded to seemed to be at the guardianship agency, no so much the court itself, but your intro is very excitable anti-probate.

    Maybe a simple, “To avoid probate court, pay a lawyer $250 for a consultation and sensible will. Review annually and update as necessary as circumstances change.”
    A will is the best way to keep greedy relatives, greedy agencies and probate courts which don’t have the time to discover all the nuances of every case out of the mix. It is not the time to be a cheapskate and try to bluff through with a “holographic” will.

    BUT, your linked article mentions the “we need more laws to protect…” line favored by Democrats and their political soul-mates the RINOS. IS that what you are suggesting? More laws? Like WHAT sort of NEW LAWS do you have in mind?

  3. On the surface, underneath, and in the middle this is a horrible story. Shouldn’t the law be the safeguard that protects citizens from the ill intent of others?

    This poor woman, and now she is, ends up indigent because the court ordered fiduciary, Sun Valley, took hundreds of thousand of dollars to oversee her care. Including the fortune Sun Valley took from her to pay for THEIR attorneys to defend their right to continue to take her money!

    Where was the protection against that sort of abuse? Instead we have attorneys appointed as judges who in turn appoint fiduciaries or other attorneys to legally drain off whatever money might be available. Need an expert witness to prove the need for a guardian? Oh, they have those on the payroll, too!

    It is nothing more than a syndicate of thieves working under the cover of the court. The judges, fiduciaries, the attorneys appointed as guardian ad litem, the expert doctors…all getting very wealthy.

  4. This reminds me of Bell, Calif.

    No one was watching, and the mice ran away with the money. Now we seem to want action, maybe some more laws to stop this?

    How about the lack of personal responsibility exhibited by her family? Do we resort to new laws to punish those who fail to meet their God given kinship responsibilities?

    Which is it: The uncaring or the unscrupulous? (is that even a word??? Gee, I just looked it up, and it seems both sides were….)

  5. One Nation Indivisable With Liberty & Justice for All. Justice for all. Arizona
    abuses its people and thinks poorly of its
    families on the State Level. Elitists groups
    run this system and for that they must be
    punished for bad behavior toward the families and hard working people. These elistis are two bit criminals in the Judiciary and are eligible for Federal Custody. As an agent for the United States,
    it is incumbent that the Grand Jury be impaneled as soon as possible by Prosecuting
    their crimes against Vulnerable Adults and their families. BRING ON THE GRAND JURY!

  6. How is this any different from asset forfeiture? Can you explain THAT, Molly?

  7. Oberserve,

    My understanding is that in asset forfeiture the person having their assets seized has committed, or been accused of committing, a crime. A drug dealer has the Bentley seized in a drug raid where it was found to be hauling 10 kilos of marijuana.

    Victims, and they are victims, of probate abuse have their assets seized by the court ordered fiduciary, spent by the court ordered consultants, and drained by the court ordered attorneys. All the while, the person who rightfully earned and owns the funds is nothing more than the conduit of access.

    The government should not have such broad power as to negate personal directives and use ones own funds to do it.

  8. Why were these cases in probate in the first place? Isn’t that when there is no will so property and guardianships have to be determined by established state laws?

    I’ve seen this same sort of destitution by a thousand cuts thieving by relatives, helping themselves to their relation’s money, taking full advantage of the widow, widower. So, what laws would be appropriate to address that?

    As with probate court, the lawyers will take most of the money regardless. How about some laws capping lawyer’s fees? hmm?

  9. wanumba, you just hit the nail on the head. There are no regulations restricting the amount of money these COURT ORDERED services can charge.

    Open mail…$100. How much mail does an 80 year old get? Open mail twice a week, $800 per month. $10,000 a year to have someone throw away the Kohls ad. Need more cash flow…open more mail!

    Go look at Christmas lights in a limo, with a crowd but charge the client. Really?

    This isn’t free market system, it is court imposed. It is a legally run syndicate.

  10. @7 Molly,

    You are incorrect. Asset forfeiture occurs upon mere suspicion of a crime with no allegation filed and no due process.

    So, I must ask again, how does what you write about differ?

  11. Oberserve,

    I’m not sure what your point is; if you are trying to draw attention to a different situation or if you are just particularly cranky. Whatever your intent, in my view anytime due process is ignored, the rights of the citizen is violated.

    One does not negate the evil of the other.

  12. Molly, are you presenting this to propose laws? And if so, what sort of laws did you have in mind? This is a state issue, right?

  13. Of course, Barney Frank (DEMOCRAT) thinks no one has a right to inheritances, just the government, so if he gets his way, this won’t EVER be a problem, will it be?

  14. @Molly,

    I guess my point is that you say any time due process is ignored you have a problem with it.

    However, you seem not to care about asset forfeiture when you do care about this issue which is also asset forfeiture.

    So, in order to not be a hypocrite, one would expect you to be just as incensed about asset forfeiture.

  15. Lauren Kuby says

    Congressional Democrats (House Committee on Aging) were attempting to address situations like the one you described. I have a sneaking suspicion that the new House will not be similarly inclined. Thanks for alerting us!

  16. wanumba,

    It is both a state and a federal issue.

    Many cases of probate abuse involve entities that cross state lines, folks who have holdings in one state but may live in another, and directives that are recorded in one state but seek to be enforced in a different state.

    Currently, in Arizona a fiduciary is given control of ones finances, can estimate the life expectancy of the individual and arrange fees that will be certain to drain every last dime prior to death. California has a fee structure that prevents that as do other states.

    No entity should be granted legal carte blanche without any recourse or accountability.

  17. Molly,
    Did this end up in probate because there was no will?

  18. ………………
    Lauren Kuby Says:
    December 29th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
    Congressional Democrats (House Committee on Aging) were attempting to address situations like the one you described. I have a sneaking suspicion that the new House will not be similarly inclined. Thanks for alerting us!

    Outrage against the mean old Republicans sort of partisan thingy?

  19. No wanumba, the presence of a will or personal directives does not guarantee probate court will not impose power.

    If a person has a directive on record, someone can petition the court to amend the directive. It is the court’s prerogative to act. There are currently cases that have gone on for months and at great cost, where someone challenges a will and the court accepts the challenge with nothing more than hearsay. No evidentiary hearing, no substantive complaint, but there have been court ordered…and personally paid for…actions.

    As for the new Congress…the interest of private citizens to be protected from rhe corruption, government collusion and the court ordered redistribution of wealth will be made more difficult in the new Congress.

  20. ……………………….
    Molly Pitcher Says:
    December 30th, 2010 at 12:21 am

    As for the new Congress…the interest of private citizens to be protected from rhe corruption, government collusion and the court ordered redistribution of wealth will be made more difficult in the new Congress

    Why? The GOP is measurably more pro-individual rights than the Democrats, and always has been. As for “government collusion and redistribution of wealth,” isn’t that the Number One priority of Democrats?

  21. Agreed…my perception of the “new Congress” is one that will be decidedly more pro-individual rights led by new Republicans.

  22. Was actually doing some research and came across this website. Have to say that this info is great! Keep writing more. Will be following your posts

Leave a Reply