The Most Evil Thing - Because it is Legal- That I Have Ever Read

[TrueTomHarley]

This may be one of the most evil schemes I have ever read, and it is all the more evil in that it is perfectly legal. It is more evil still in that perpetrators may think themselves benefactors. Rachel Aviv deserves a Pulitzer. No punishment is too severe for the perpetrators, who may be legion. People who insist upon gun rights will say this is exactly why they advocate for them.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights

[hatcheckgirl]

This is really horrible! Poor people!  What a sick world...  

[tekmantwo]

I regret reading that.  It's too early in the morning to be depressed by this satanic system.

I'm going to play with my cat for a bit, then go for a bike ride, a nice, early morning clean air bike ride....I have to cleanse my mind of that glimpse into....a very dark place. 

 

God I hate this system ---

[GeordieGirl]

That was sickening.  

[outwalkin]

2 hours ago, tekmantwo said:

I regret reading that.

 

Thank you for the warning. I'll pass.

[trottigy]

Be very careful if you ever designate someone as your guardian. They also get power of attorney over you. Scary! 

[TrueTomHarley]

24 minutes ago, trottigy said:

Be very careful if you ever designate someone as your guardian. They also get power of attorney over you. Scary! 

 

In this case, the guardian self-designates himself against your wishes and knowledge. Things as wicked as this are not hard to find in this system of things. However legal things as wicked as this are.

 

This is the type of thing that makes you think the gun-rights people may have a point. However, In this case, I think a gun would not be of much use. The scheme is legal. Note that, though every sort of authority was called to intervene, none did - because the villains were operating within the law. One might have pointed a gun and found satisfaction in shooting one of them (there were four in the case of the North family) or just scaring them away, but that would have only strengthened the court perception that you were in need of a guardian, and probably prison besides.

It's not even government,  It is private enterprise doing the foul deed, bending government law to its will. You could even make the case that it is not too much government, but too little, that is the problem. The laws upon which guardianship is based go back 800 years. One it ten American seniors abused in this way. Legally. It's breathtaking.

3 hours ago, tekmantwo said:

I have to cleanse my mind of that glimpse into....a very dark place. 

 

God I hate this system ---

 

Yes. Exactly. I couldn't readily set it aside, either. Sorry.

Edited October 4, 2017 by TrueTomHarley

[TrueTomHarley]

30 minutes ago, trottigy said:

Be very careful if you ever designate someone as your guardian. They also get power of attorney over you. Scary! 

 

This article strikes me harder than it might otherwise because I did have power of attorney over my dad, who recently passed away at 94. For personal reasons - you could not budge him on this - he would not see doctors for anything. I could have overrode him as I gained power over him and he declined, (and would have in the case of absolute calamity) but I didn't - out of respect for his wishes, regardless of mine. 

 

Turns out it was the smartest thing he could have done. You never know when someone is going to give a shyster the chance to take charge of your life.

[hatcheckgirl]

I am not aware that this is possible in Australia. Perhaps we're not as "innovative entrepreneurs" as in the US(!?)

 

But I would have thought that the family would be able to be the first choice as guardian, since they are the closest, unless it can be proven that family members were also abusing their elders, which sadly also happens.

 

I've heard more about carers robbing their elderly employers, or getting them to sign over the will to them. Usually the relatives are able to take that one to court and maybe reverse the will. The law here states that the will can be contested by family members if unfair.  But this is very different to the depths of the caper, described in the article, has fallen to. And, seemingly legal. Unrighteousness to an extreme point.

[Joey]

Terrifying!

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, hatcheckgirl said:

I am not aware that this is possible in Australia. Perhaps we're not as "innovative entrepreneurs" as in the US(!?)

 

It probably is not. Nobody can touch the US for innovative entrepreneurs.

 

1 hour ago, hatcheckgirl said:

But I would have thought that the family would be able to be the first choice as guardian, since they are the closest, unless it can be proven that family members were also abusing their elders, which sadly also happens.

 

Of course. It is so obvious. It's amazing that any society could get around it.

 

1 hour ago, hatcheckgirl said:

I've heard more about carers robbing their elderly employers, or getting them to sign over the will to them. Usually the relatives are able to take that one to court and maybe reverse the will. The law here states that the will can be contested by family members if unfair.  

 

Of course. Once again, these common sense deeds are the expectation here, too. That's why it is so shocking to see them easily circumvented.

 

If I weren't allergic to kangaroos, I'd move to Australia, where you are.

[Cool Cat]

Here in the UK we call that abuse and they would be Jailed. However it wouldn't get to that point as best interest meetings are held and affairs are discussed with family, doctors and care professionals present.

[GeordieGirl]

I can't believe they are acting under a law that was put into place in England 800 years ago, taken to the US when it was colonised and it has never been repealed.  It's okay saying they are acting within the law and that nobody can do anything about it but the US government could throw that law out.

 

However according to this they are actually not acting within the law. 

 

It is believed that the Statute de Prerogativa Regis of 1324 simply confirmed an existing jurisdiction and that there may be a lost statute from Edward 1st's reign

"The history of lunacy administration can be traced back with reasonable certainty to 1339, the assumed date of the Statute de Prerogativa Regis, which limited the King's jurisdiction (already existing) over the estates of idiots or natural fools, whose profits he was to take, but for whom he was to find necessaries. For anyone 'that beforetime hath had his wit and memory' and should 'happen to fail of his wit' ... the King was to keep his estate safe and maintain him and his household competently out of his profits, but the King was to take nothing for his own use" http://studymore.org.uk/xblack.htm#1.8.18.2 ......... after the death of such idiots he shall render the estate to the heirs; in order to prevent such idiots from aligning their lands, and their heirs from being disherited.

Edited October 5, 2017 by GeordieGirl

[Allabord4Jah]

When my eldest Brother passed away, the care of both my parents passed to me.  In order to protect their lives, and their (what little they had of worldly possessions) I went to see an attorney along with both my parents who still had their minds in tack.  The attorney counseled both my parents and my parents both agree to let me be their POA for all their legals rights, including their medical POA'S.   I was glad to do it even though there were times when I wanted to '"throw in the towel" but with Jehovah's help, it never came to that point.  Back in 03, when my dad was coming down with dementia, my mother was being duped by some care agency.    I was at my law-en-forcement job and I got a call from my mom.  She was crying and scared.  I placed a call to the police and had them sent to their home.  The "so called care giver" backed off.  I also had called the family attorney, and he made a few calls and found out that there was a major mistake.   That mistake almost removed my parents from their home.  This was right after 2001  When the entire world turned upside down, and lives of human beings went from bad to worst.  I believe there are demonic people influenced by greed and to hurt unsuspecting people who have cruel adult children and or they are appointed POA's by the court.  And the courts are worthless when it comes to POA'S for Home matters, and medical issues.  I fought for both my parents, and I used what Jehovah gave me in prayer - Wisdom.  This story was really scary above is very scary.  And am afraid each day there are more and more people that are going to lose their rights to live in their own homes and who do not understand the full scope of having someone make decisions for them.   I never forced my parents into anything they didn't want to do.  Love motivated me not to hurt them.     

[GeordieGirl]

Another sign of how close we are to the end. Jesus said at Matthew 24:12: and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold. 

 

Jesus said that the love will cool off BECAUSE of the increasing of lawlessness. We must be careful that we are not affected by the awful things that are happening in the world.

 

We have some articles in upcoming Watchtowers on Love and Compassion.  Apart from a study article, there is also going to be a series on the fruitages of the spirit and the first one of those, in the current study WT, is on Love.  We need this more and more as the world's love cools off and we have to stand out as different, not only as an organisation but individually in our dealings with our brothers and sisters, our family and our neighbours.

[sunshine]

I know in England I have seen such reports - it is best to see a lawyer and make sure that your loved ones and family are named as your "wards" or whatever the term is in case you are deemed unable to look after yourself; everyone thinks it's automatic - that the children automatically gain legal rights over their parents but that is not the case.  Same with bank accounts and property.