Marti Oakley

Copyright ©


Reading this bill made it abundantly clear that no one is about to upset the apple cart when it comes the continuing exploitation of vulnerable people at the hands of the BAR Association, The National Guardianship Association, The College of Probate Judges and assorted other stakeholders who have a vested financial interest in keeping this predatory system running.  S 178 contains absolutely not one thing that will stop or hold accountable those who exploit other human beings for financial gain.  This bill is an insult to many of us who have fought against this system for years.


Dear Senators: Mr. GRASSLEY(for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. KLOBUCHAR,

Mr. CORNYN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BENNET, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary :

S 178 To prevent elder abuse and exploitation and improve the justice system’s response to victims in elder abuse and exploitation cases.

I have just completed an in-depth examination of S 178 that is supposedly going to finally address the issues of elder exploitation, including financial, emotional and physical abuse and the ongoing theft of assets from the elderly and the disabled, by predators of all kinds. Also at risk are individuals who have inherited or, who stand to inherit trust funds or other financial instruments. Any one can be targeted in this system if a professional predator operating as “guardian” or, “attorney” decides that the victim has assets that can be stolen under the protection of a probate or family court.

Questions that should have been asked, but were not:

Q: Why should being declared a ward of the state render you dead in the law?

A: Because Probate courts become active only upon presentation of the death certificate. The estate is either testate, or intestate. The declaration of “ward” is the defacto death certificate of the living person.

Q: Why is it necessary to immediately strip the living (dead) person of all natural rights and liberties?

A: This stripping of all rights and protections allows the predators and the probate administrator unfettered access to assets. The living (dead) person’s identity is assumed by the predators as are the assets. The victim is now deprived of the right to due process or to mount a defensive action against the predators.

Q: Why is there not one state or federal law, prohibiting the stripping of Constitutional rights and protections especially in the case of probate of the living person?

A: Because all of the statutes are written by the BAR Association and other vested stakeholders such as The National Guardianship Association and the College of Probate Judges. The individual rights have to be taken away to leave them defenseless. Without these protections in place, they have no right to challenge the predators.

Q: What was included in S 178 that could have conceivably been interpreted to address the ongoing assault on elderly individuals targeted, to facilitate the theft of the estate?

A: Nothing

Q: What provisions were included in S 178 for sighting crimes committed against the victims by professional predators? Who would enforce prosecuting those crimes? What enforcement enabling provision was included?


Another bill to make it look like they are doing something

S 178 To prevent elder abuse and exploitation and improve the

justice system’s response to victims in elder abuse and

exploitation cases.

The title above shows either a total misunderstanding of separation of powers or an intentional subterfuge meant to make you think the judiciary can, will or should intercede in this. It is also very misleading. All probate tribunals are attached to the executive branch and linked to state agencies. Those agencies are all operated as executive branch agencies.

The Judiciary, has excused itself from entering into the realm of probate by declaring that what is in motion in the state courts (including administrative tribunals) belongs to the state. Once in either of these systems, all property automatically becomes the property of the state, including its residents. This is the Probate Exception

Justice Ginsburg then reviewed Markham v Allen,11 which she described as “the Court’s most recent and pathmarking pronouncement on the probate exception[.]”12 In Markham, the Court construed the probate exception to mean that “federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits to determine the rights of creditors, legatees, heirs, and other claimants against a decedent’s estate, so long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings.”13 Justice Ginsburg recognized that the meaning of the phrase “interfere with the probate proceedings” was unclear. Therefore, the Marshall Court interpreted Markham “to proscribe disturbing or affecting the possession of property in the custody of a state court,” based on the “general principal that when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res.”14 

What was intentionally omitted?

What this bill, like in-state passed bills before it, does not even attempt to address but should have contained if this were in fact a genuine effort to secure the safety and preservation of the targeted individuals is listed below. Yet none of these things were even indirectly alluded to in this bill:

  1. NO ONE by virtue of being declared a “ward of the State” can be stripped of their Constitutional rights and liberties.
  2. It should be a felony for any professional guardian or attorney to isolate an elderly individual, yet this is done with regularity even though it is strictly prohibited in statute.
  3. Once declared a ward of the state, the case must be moved immediately out of the administrative tribunal, and into state courts of law in order to provide Constitutional protection and access to the common law. After all, you are attempting to deprive the individual of their life and property.
  4. An end to the victim being forced to finance the activities of all kinds,many of which are frivolous lawsuits brought by unscrupulous attorney’s and predatory guardians whose interest in the victim is financial exploitation and fee churning. This is done under the facilitation and protection of the administrative tribunal.
  5. A cap on the amount attorney’s and guardians can take from any estate under any circumstances.
  6. An end to the BAR Association in any state exercising any control over guardianship statutes, agencies or other erected barriers used to secure their ability to continue to exploit with probate administrators intentionally empowered to provide access and protection.
  7. A substantial list of crimes committed against the elderly by professionals should be created
  8. A companion list of criminal charges associated with these crimes should be created
  9. And, most importantly, there must be a final clause stating who or what agency will perform enforcement and,
  10. What enforcement will be composed of.

This is the short list!

What we didn’t get

This bill will do nothing to address the exploitation of the elderly other than telephone scams and the like. Minor issues in comparison to the massive assault on targeted individuals perpetrated and facilitated by the BAR Association, so-called Professional Guardians and Probate administrators. As an aside: Probate administrators are NOT judges of law. They sit in place of an actual lawful judge. The difference between them is that administrators deal with statute and code erected to by-pass the common law and natural rights and liberties, whereas Judges sit in actual courts of law. Not that that means much these days.

This bill that you have sponsored (who wrote it?) We know you didn’t, you simply sponsored it. The absence of any real effort to stop the ongoing targeting and victimizing of seniors, children, the disabled and those who stand to inherit via trust fund or other legal instruments, by professional predators calling themselves “attorney’s and professional guardians” is significant. It is also very telling. This bill, S 178 does NOTHING to impede the exploitation of victims for the sole purpose of self-enrichment by those professionals gaming the system.

The death grip of Administrative Tribunals

Guardianship: Is the loss of identity of the victim, and the assumption of identity by the predator who now also claims the right to access all assets, including Social Security, VA benefits and other pensions. This is identity theft taken to the extreme. The victim is stripped of all natural rights and liberties as provided in state and federal Constitutions, and suffers what is referred to as a “civil death”. The predators often times refer to those whose identity they have assumed as “units”.

In every instance of the construction of administrative statutes, the intent is NOT to create a more orderly society. The intent is to erect a barrier to the individual meant to prevent them from accessing a constitutional court of law and exercising their protected rights under the law.

Administrative law” is an oxymoron. Anything administrative is code and statute with copious amounts of rules and regulations used to bypass congress, the common law and the Constitution. It is back door law making in violation of the Non-Delegation Doctrine. Congress cannot cede power and authority it does not have to an agency or its agents.

Another aspect of this issue of exploitation is conservator-ship. Conservator-ship is “plenary guardianship” light. In this instance, the predator takes over the finances of the victim while supposedly leaving the physical, legal person intact. But conservator-ships also leave the conservatee destitute while the conservator helps himself to the financial assets.

Emulating state bills passed over the last few years, the federal bill S 178 curiously avoids any mention of the professional predators whose parasitic existence is dependent upon the intentional absence of ANY LAW that would hold them accountable. This is no accident. When the BAR Association can depend largely on its ability to buy favor with legislators both state and federal, we don’t stand a chance of ever correcting this system of human trafficking for profit.


S 178 To prevent elder abuse and exploitation and improve the

justice system’s response to victims in elder abuse and

exploitation cases.

The probate Exception

the Non-Delegation Doctrine

The principle in administrative law that congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to agencies. Rather, when it instructs agencies to regulate, it must give them an “intelligible principle” on which to base their regulations.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 1, vests all legislative powers in the Congress of the United States. The text permits no delegation of those powers, and so when Congress confers decision making authority upon agencies Congress must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform. The degree of agency discretion that is acceptable varies according to the scope of the power congressionally conferred. [Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’Ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001)]

Nondelegation doctrine is also known as delegation doctrine.