Lawfare Deployed Against Those in Guardianship Proceedings As Well as Against Media
Janet Pipes, who is a real estate agent in Tucson, was coming back over the border into the US from Nogales, Mexico, where she had gone for the day, when she was stopped by a US border control agent and questioned. Pipes, who is not your average 70 plus year old woman and has a strong history of anti-guardianship abuse activism as well as having a published book on the subject, did not take kindly to the stop. Here is her account of what took place--
“Nothing like crossing the U.S. border to understand how prevalent forced professional guardianship fraud is!
I’ve shared this with a couple of you last night while I was still in shock over the incident. I was coming back into the United States at the Nogales, Mexico border. I had a real estate client in the car - we had dropped in to Mexico to take over-the-counter eye drops to a friend.
The border guards run a background check on everyone crossing back into the United States - which is why the wait-time takes so long. I thought we would be slam-dunk. Just the opposite. We were questioned, pulled over, questioned by someone else, pulled off to the side, questioned again - and then I was asked to get out of the car and talk to this one border patrol agent. He asked if I knew that I had a Protection Order against me. I hit the roof - and said it had to do with a forced professional guardianship matter and that the judge, lawyers and guardians killed my friend. He tried to calm me down and said that he knew about guardianship and these "junk orders” and that it happens all the time. This is what the man called them - JUNK ORDERS - which of course is what they are. I told him that my order states that I can't talk to law enforcement or government officials about my case or face 10 years in prison and another $80,000 fine. He couldn't wait for me to leave! He didn't want to know anything - he didn't want to talk about it - he just wanted me to leave!”
Another guardianship activist, Jennifer Roach of the state of Washington, chimed in that the same thing had happened to her. Wrote Roach,
“I had the same thing happen to me coming back from Canada. Every year I go up for a dance and for the last 4 years we have been stopped and questioned. It is more than obvious that I don't have an 80 year old man in the car and they have everyone's ID, but they still make us go inside every time. Very annoying to be treated like a criminal and the real criminals are still abusing Larry.”
And now, a similar order has been lodged in a California court against this reporter, for the act of contacting a government employee and her husband, who is an instructor at a Bible college, asking for them to open their financial records for review. This request was made due to the bizarre and inexplicable actions of the government employee, who works for a branch of the California Department of Social Services, in covering up the crimes being committed against an elderly man in California. California Department of Social Services Threatens Reporter for Asking Questions
These “junk orders,” as they were called by the US border patrol guard, are regularly issued in guardianship proceedings, with questionable legality.The effect of restraining orders in these proceedings is to legally inhibit the oversight of a third party in matters relating to the viability and well being of a ward, whose rights have been stripped due to the imposition of guardianship. In the current matter, Scott is not under a guardianship and the effect of this restraining order is to criminalize non-criminal actions where the oversight being restricted is press oversight on rogue government workers.
This reporter previously experienced the brute force of a court when a Riverside County Judge, Stephen Cunnison, issued a completely illegal order, barring me from contacting the police, the district attorney, Adult Protective Services—from anyone who, in an official capacity, might be able to help my mother out of the situation in which the probate court had maneuvered her. Interestingly, Judge Cunnison included the “Central Intelligent (sic) agency” in the list of prohibited contacts. The fact that a court does not have the right nor the power to restrain a citizen from contacting law enforcement did not apparently trouble the judge.
This may be the first time that a restraining order has been used as a mechanism to violate press rights, however. And there are questions as to whether LA Superior court has any jurisdiction over this matter. I neither work nor reside in California. Pursuant to the court stomping all over the First Amendment, I filed an answer with the court, which was subsequently rejected by a David Slayton, whose job it is to neither reject nor sign rejections of documents. As there were no medical records attached to my answer, the rejection is fraudulent.
Slayton is the CEO of the LA County court system, and in this capacity manages a $ 1 billion budget. A number of lower level clerks expressed shock and surprise that he would put his signature on the rejection of any paperwork. Apparently, I got the big guns here. https://impact.stanford.edu/people/david-w-slayton
There is also the matter that there is no legal proof of service on me. Details, but important ones…And apparently the commissioner sitting on the case, Laura D. Cohen, was too busy self- congratulating for being “all about due process” to notice that there were serious due process violations taking place in her courtroom. The attorney for the California Department of Justice, Nancy Droege, was informed that she served the papers on an empty building in Chiapas, Mexico but she failed to correct her action.
The rejected answer clarified the devastating impact of Melissa Spaeth’s actions against the rights of my friend, Scott, as well as provided evidence of repeated such violations of his rights and discussed the inappropriateness of leveraging a restraining order against a member of the press for doing her job.
Community Care Licensing has a troubled history. This reporter is aware of numerous cases in which the agency tried to cover up misconduct by the homes it is pledged to oversee. This includes the preventable death of a resident in a care home, by the name of Lester Moore, who died because the home in question failed to adequately follow doctor’s orders concerning Moore’s constipation and he expired of a bowel disorder.
The preliminary investigation into Moore’s death was ruled a nada. It was only after a non-government agency, Foundation for the Elderly, picked up on this matter that CCL reversed itself and found that the care home, "Sally's" was delinquent. The home was subsequently fined $500.
You read that right. Causing the death of a vulnerable elder is not an expensive endeavor. One might go so far as to say that at $500, life is damn cheap in California.
Outreach was made to the media relations department for the court, as well as to the press office for the California Department of Social Services. David Slayton was also contacted. At the time of going to press, no response has been received.