Award Winner, Composer/Vocalist/Chef Slim Man to Appear on Saddleback College radio station KSBR 88.5FM's “Breakfast with Gary & Kelly”

Posted by CotoBlogzz

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA –  Composer and vocalist Slim Man will be the special guest on the Saddleback College radio station KSBR 88.5FM's  Breakfast with Gary & Kelly broadcast on Saturday, July 16^th. The Saturday morning radio show will broadcast live starting at 9:00 a.m. from the beautiful Capo Valley Performing Arts Center on the campus of Capo Valley High School in Mission Viejo.  

A studio audience will be welcomed in for the 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon show; doors will open at 9:30 a.m. with the final hour being videotaped for later broadcast.  The program airs on Saddleback College’s SCTV Channel 39 throughout the Cox Communication cable system in Orange County and also on all Charter Cable franchises in the state of California on Channel 188. The television production is provided by AlertTheGlobe.com, which also live streams the television program around the world.   AlertTheGlobe.com is a service focused on connecting all musicians and music lovers around the world. Their advisory staff includes members from the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band, Ringo Starr, Stevie Nicks and others. 

Slim Man is a true renaissance man who has written songs recorded by the Temptations, Angela Bofill and others.  He has hosted his own radio and television shows.  He organized and hosted a nationwide talent contest that discovered multiple Grammy award winning Brooks and Dunn.  His own recordings (he’s released a dozen CD’s since 1995!) show off his unique blend of jazz, soul, and pop and inspired JD Considine to write in Rolling Stone magazine that he was “A near-perfect example of how jazz and soul can be combined as pop.”   He’s also an accomplished cook who recently wrote and released “Slim Man Cooks - The Adventures and Recipes of Mr. Man.”   Most recently he was named “Best Jazz Vocalist” at the 2016 Coachella Music Awards!

Now in its sixth season on TV, Breakfast with Gary & Kelly  have hosted Al Jarreau, Melissa Manchester, Dave Koz, Mindi Abair, Jonathan Butler, Ray Parker Jr., Debbie Reynolds, Linda Evans, David Benoit, Peter White, Diane Schuur, Keiko Matsui, Rick Braun, Paul Brown, Bill Cantos, Brian Culbertson, Nick Colionne, Spencer Day, and more.  Gary and Kelly have conducted numerous remote broadcasts from locations all over Southern California, including the Festival of Arts in Laguna Beach and Catalina Island and the Malibu Guitar Festival.

KSBR is a community service of Saddleback College.  For more information on the Radio on TV monthly series and how to become part of the audience for this very special July 14^th show, please tune to 88.5 KSBR or visit their website at www.KSBR.org.

Located in Mission Viejo, Saddleback College provides quality higher education and training to the greater south Orange County community. Having served more than 500,000 students since 1968, Saddleback College offers over 300 degree and certificate programs to help students reach their personal, career, and educational goals. For more information, please visit www.saddleback.edu and for Fine Arts information, please visit www.saddleback.edu/arts.

Seven Los Angeles Men Charged with Racketeering and for Firebombing African-American Residences

All defendants are members and associates of the Big Hazard or Hazard Grande (Hazard) street gang, 

Posted by CotoBlogzz

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA -   Seven Los Angeles men were charged in a 10-count indictment unsealed today June 7, 2016 with participating in the 2014 firebombing of residences of African Americans living in the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles.  The defendants were also charged for their roles in a racketeering enterprise that used violence and intimidation to control the perceived territory of the Big Hazard street gang.    

On June 22, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment under seal charging the defendants, all of whom are members and associates of the Big Hazard or Hazard Grande (Hazard) street gang, with a variety of violations stemming from the racketeering enterprise and related to the alleged firebombing that occurred on May 12, 2014, which was intended to drive African Americans from the Ramona Gardens Housing Development (RGHD).  The RGHD is a federally and city funded housing development that is occupied primarily by Hispanic residents and located in Boyle Heights.

Carlos Hernandez, aka Creeper and Rider, 31; Jose Saucedo, aka Lil’ Moe, 22; Francisco Farias, aka Bones, 25; Joseue Garibay, aka Malo, 23; Edwin Felix, aka Boogie, 23; Jonathan Portillo, aka Pelon, 21; and Joel Matthew Monarrez, aka Gallo, 21, were charged with conspiracy to violate civil rights; conspiracy to use fire and carry explosives to commit another federal felony; attempted arson of federal property; using fire and carrying explosives to commit another federal felony; aiding and abetting; violent crime in aid of racketeering and interference with housing rights.  Hernandez and Farias were also charged with possessing, using, carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and Felix was also charged with making a false statement to the FBI.


The indictment alleges that, in early May, Hernandez led a Hazard meeting at a location in the gang’s territory near the RGHD which was attended by the other defendants.  During the meeting, Hernandez allegedly told the group that they were going to use Molotov cocktails to firebomb residential units in the RGHD that were occupied by African-American families.  According to the indictment, Hernandez allegedly told the defendants during the meeting that the purpose of the firebombing was to “get the n****** out of the neighborhood,” or words to that effect.  


On Mother’s Day, May 11, 2014, Hernandez instructed the other defendants to meet at a location in Hazard territory to prepare for the attack.  At the meeting, Hernandez distributed materials to be used during the firebombings, including disguises, gloves and other materials, according to the indictment.

The indictment alleges that Hernandez instructed the other defendants to split into groups, break victims’ windows in order to make clean entries, then ignite the firebombs and throw them into the victims’ residences in order to maximize damage.  The defendants also took precautions in order to avoid detection by law enforcement.

Evidence gathered by investigators indicates this attack was motivated by hatred stemming from racial bias.  Most of the victims of the firebombing were African-American families who were at home with their children, many of whom were minors.


According to the indictment, the defendants were members and associates of the Hazard street gang, a criminal organization whose members engaged in, among other things, robbery, extortion, witness intimidation, trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances.

The indictment further alleges that Hazard gang members promote the reputation of the criminal enterprise among other Hispanic gangs in Southern California and inside of state and federal prisons by carrying out Hazard leaders’ orders against rival gang members and perceived enemies.  Further, Hazard members maintain control and authority over its territory, often through threats, intimidation, civil rights crimes and other acts of violence, including murder.

Hazard members are known to retaliate against rival gang members who challenge Hazard’s authority or who fail to pay debts owed to Hazard members and associates.  The indictment further alleges Hazard members expose and punish fellow Hazard members who violate the gang’s rules, as well as expose and punish potential witnesses to crimes by Hazard members and associates who are suspected of cooperating with law enforcement or disrespecting Hazard members.  The indictment further alleges that Hazard members impose unwritten rules regarding the control of its territory, including that African-American residents reside in RGHD at the pleasure of the gang and that they face retaliation and/or expulsion from RGHD if they offend Hazard members.


The indictment alleges that the defendants and others conspired to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate African American residents in violation of their constitutional rights, including the right to occupy a dwelling free from injury, intimidation and interference based on race and color.  The indictment alleges Hazard members would spray paint or “tag” gang monikers and symbols on businesses and residences, obtain and possess guns and other dangerous weapons in order to enforce the authority of the Hazard gang, intimidate rivals and residents and attack rivals and African Americans, among other things.

The defendants and others allegedly met to discuss ways to threaten, intimidate, and attack African Americans in their residences, on the streets and elsewhere, to deter them from living in Ramona Gardens because of their race and color.  Saucedo would confront African-American residents, including mixed-race children, and individually or collectively threaten them by telling them they were not welcome in Hazard gang territory, namely, RGHD, and that they risked harm if they remained as residents.

The investigation was conducted by agents and detectives with the LAPD’s Hollenbeck Division; the LAFD; the ATF; and the FBI Los Angeles Division’s Civil Rights Squad.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mack E. Jenkins and Douglas M. Miller of the Central District of California and Trial Attorneys Patricia Sumner and Julia Gegenheimer of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section.

Gardena-based info tech companies to pay $5.8 Million for Misrepresentations Relating to Small Business Status and Contract Fee Payments

Posted by CotoBlogzz

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA - En Pointe Gov. Inc., En Pointe Technologies Inc., En Pointe Technologies Sales Inc., Dominguez East Holdings LLC and Din Global Corp., all of Gardena, California, have agreed to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by falsely certifying that En Pointe Gov. Inc. was a small business in order to obtain contracts set aside for small businesses and underreporting sales under a General Services Administration (GSA) contract to avoid the payment of fees, according to announcement by the Department of Justice (DOJ)

According to court records, between 2011 and 2014, the defendants were liable for false representations that En Pointe Gov. Inc. met Small Business Administration (SBA) requirements to obtain work that was only available to small businesses.  In particular, the DOJ alleged that En Pointe Gov Inc.’s affiliation with the other defendants rendered it a non-small business and, thus, ineligible for the small business set-aside contracts it obtained.

The DOJ also alleged that defendants caused En Pointe Gov. Inc. to file false quarterly reports with the GSA between 2008 and 2015 underreporting sales made under a GSA schedule contract that allowed other federal agencies to purchase from En Pointe.  Under the terms of the contract, En Pointe was supposed to return to GSA a percentage of its sales receipts.  By allegedly misrepresenting the amount of its sales, En Pointe underpaid the fees that it owed to GSA.

The settlements resolve allegations filed in a lawsuit by Minburn Technology Group, LLC (Minburn), a Virginia company that sells information technology products and services, and Anthony Colangelo, Minburn’s managing member.  The lawsuit was filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery.  The Act also allows the government to intervene and take over the action, as it did in this case.  Minburn and Mr. Colangelo will receive approximately $1.4 million.

This settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California and the GSA and SBA Inspector General Offices.

FBI James Comey: Hillary will not be charged: too big to jail

Posted by Cotoblogzz

FBI James Comey in prepared statement said that while there were multiple violations, and others in similar circumstances would face consequences, Hillary is too big to jail.

Mr. Comey's complete remarks follow:

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Pennsylvania gets failing grade in 2015 State Integrity Report

Every Pennsylvania elected official should be ashamed and disgraced!  State Integrity 2015 -  Pennsylvania gets F grade in 2015 State Integrity Investigation, www.publicintegrity.org

Excerpt:

"Pennsylvania

GRADE:F(58)

RANK:45th

By Cynthia Stephens

This State Integrity investigation is just a "peek" at what is really going on in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania!  Why is anyone re-elected?  Th judicial and legal abuses, the atrocities and cover ups are inexcusable.  The HOA homeowner horrors, I believe are among the worst in the nation and the predators and perpetrators of these crimes, those from the legal and judicial systems that have assisted in the facilitation and carrying out of these criminal and fraudulent acts need to be prosecuted and held accountable!  No matter who they are, or who they know.

I believe Representative Rosemary Brown has to take the responsibility professionally and personally to demand investigations of these HOA homeowner abuses and gender, or other discrimination based HOA homeowner abuses and property thefts, as I believe an HOA/COA built by her father, Ken Maula, and another around 1985 in Monroe County, Pennsylvania to be maybe the most abusive and criminal, or among the most abusive and criminal, HOAs in America.  The courts will not uphold any of the "communities," CC&R's, By Laws, Rules and Regulations, or "contractual" provisions and protections for HOA homeowners there and I trust it has been nothing but some type of HOA homeowner abuse, criminality and foreclosure mill for over 15 years, or longer.  Some in the courts, or who were in the courts and some attorneys, possibly some banksters and possibly some in the insurance industry and even other HOA homeowner "investors" have been involved in the most unthinkable crimes and injustices and property thefts imaginable and these individuals need to be exposed and their acts of criminality and property theft made known to the public!  Why has this HOA and those involved not been investigated for what they inflicted upon innocent HOA homeowners and gotten away with all these years?

Wake up Pennsylvania elected officials, members of the press, voters, HOA homeowner advocates, HOA victims and housing experts, HOA homeowner attorneys, investigative and prosecution agencies and those whose job it is to stop the HOA criminality and property thefts!

Read Public Integrity article in full:

 https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18507/pennsylvania-gets-f-grade-2015-state-integrity-investigation

Texas HB1438 State Sponsored Abusive Probate Guardianship: Judge Guy Herman should step down

Educate - Advocate - Legislate

Americans Against Abusive ProbateGuardianship

PO Box 800511

Aventura, Florida 33280

(855) 91 EL

DATE: May 21, 2015

TO:​Texas Governor GregAbbott Bobby Wilkinson, BudgetAnalyst Cara Crawford, BudgetAnalyst

Senate State Affairs Chairman Senator Joan HuffmanSenate State Affairs Vice Chair Senator Rodney EllisSenate State Affairs Member Senator Brian BirdwellSenate State Affairs Member Senator Brandon CreightonSenate State Affairs Member Senator Craig Estes

Senate State Affairs Member Senator Troy FraserSenate State Affairs Member Senator Jane Nelson

Senate State Affairs Member Senator Charles SchwertnerSenate State Affairs Member Senator Judith Zaffirini

RE:  HB 1438, an act that is unconstitutional.

Dear Gov. Abbott and staff, Chairman Huffman and committee members,

I wanted to ensure that you saw the May 18, 2015 news report concerning the abusive guardianshipcase of Dr. Mike Reichert of Titus County, Texas, and how much worse it would have been for Dr.Reichert and his family, had HB 1438 already been enacted.

Below is a more thorough analysis of the complete Engrossed version of HB 1438 – a bill that wascompiled only after all time for public testimony had passed - because HB 1438 (Engrossed version)contains language from other house bills that had not met with favorable response from the publicduring open, public testimony. The only people testifying in favor of the bulk of what has now becomeHB 1438 were Texas Presiding Probate Judge Guy Herman and the REPTL division of the TX StateBar -- all of whom authored the various bits & pieces of HB 1438, whatever HB numbers under which

they were originally introduced.

There are two sections of HB 1438 that I have already discussed with Governor's office staff BobbyWilkinson and Diana Hodges of the Senate State Affairs Committee staff in a widely-circulatedAAAPG analysis of HB 1438. It is agreed these two sections are unconstitutional because they deny Due Process to proposed wards, before a court order has been entered finding themincompetent:

1. Section 9 of HB 1438: Allow the courts to seize a proposed ward's entire estatebefore the ward is legally made a Ward.

2. Section 10 of HB 1438: Allow the courts to charge a proposed ward's estate forlegal fees accrued before the proposed ward is made a Ward, as well as

There are many other unconstitutional sections with HB 1438, including:

1. Section 6 of HB 1438: Allows "the court to obtain an Order requiring a person who files an application, complaint, or opposition relating to a guardianship proceeding, other than a guardian, attorney ad litem, or guardian ad litem, to provide security for probable costs of the proceeding before filing the application, complaint , or opposition." This is unconstitutional and a denial of Due Process of the rights of the Ward under Texas State Constitution Article 1, section 15a which guarantees , "to provide for a method of appeal from judgments rendered" in cases ofguardianship.

NOTE 1: The Texas State Constitution mentions nothing of a requiring a Ward to havemoney to make a security payment to the court to cover his costs of trial. Justice is not open to only those with money to afford it, or is that what the courts have become in Texas? Dispensers of favorable orders in administrative proceedings in proportion to how much youpay?

NOTE 2: To the best of AAAPG and our coalition partners' knowledge, no appeals ofan adjudication of incapacitation in the State of Texas have ever been filed, much lessbeen successful.

2. Section 7 of HB 1438 limits the ability of people outside a narrow blood-related group of people to the proposed ward, to intervene about a proposed guardianship. (Wealthy) childless couples are targeted by predatory for-profit guardianship corporations such as Guardianship Services Inc (GSI) of Tarrant County, which was originally started by two probate judges and to which these probate judges continued to refer all their court-ordered wards for up to 20 years, while sitting on the bench. They have both since retired. It is unknown if they still own stock in GSI or continue to otherwise profit from their years of referrals to this one corporation.

3. Section 8 of HB 1438 further disfavors childless couples and makes them ripe forvictimization through guardianship, since childless couples may not have family that falls within the required blood-related family members to serve as their guardians in the event of serious injury or illness. With a limited pool of relatives allowed to become a person's guardian, this ensures continued high rates of return for for-profit guardianship service providers.

It should not matter the size of your family, or whether your chosen representative(s) areblood- related, to carry out a person's right to execute pre-need legal documents namingwhomever they like to take care of them following injury or illness that results in (temporary)incapacitation, especially when it allows the individual the right to self-determination and

escape from the financial and emotional predation of court-appointed guardianship.

4. Section 10 of HB 1438 states:

(b) After examining the proposed ward's assets or the assets of any management trustcreated for the proposed ward's benefit under Chapter 1301, and determining that theproposed ward or the management trust is unable to pay for services provided by theguardian ad litem, the court may authorize compensation from the county treasury.

With HB 1438, the State of Texas justifies examining an alleged incapacitated person's financialstate of affairs prior to a court's order! Section 10 of HB 1438 is unconstitutional and represents illegal search & seizure of a citizen's private property without cause or due process. On what grounds does the State of Texas justify having to investigate the financial condition of its proposedwards?

This is where it becomes obvious what HB 1438 is all about: Seizing a proposed ward's entire assets before the caught-off-foot ward and their family can do anything about it, thus rewarding the probate judge and his/her court-appointees with all the available cash and assets of the ward, now controlled by the judge, the courts, and the court-appointees.

5. Section 11 of HB 1438 makes minor changes to forms that will be used by individualsoutside of the legal profession. When ultimately presented in a court of law, these minorlanguage changes can be used in to invalidate perfectly clear instructions as to the signatories desires, disqualify the Alleged Incapacitated Person's choice as guardians and ensure more wards are created for the benefit of the for-profit guardianship serviceproviders.

6. Section 13 of HB 1438 makes Texas DPS/FBI criminal background checks mandatory forall family members who wish to become guardians. Previous to Section 13 of HB 1438such criminal background checks were not needed if you were family or an attorney. Now only the attorneys are not in need of these criminal background checks.

The only reason to include family members in required background checks is so the judge caneliminate them based on flimsy, circumstantial, or even wholly fabricated “evidence” of criminal activities. Time and time again in Texas we have seen judges disqualify family members from becoming guardians merely upon suspicion that they might be involved in something criminal. Section 13 of HB 1438 makes it easy to justify striking family members from guardianship eligibility and allowing more people to fall under for-profit guardianship service provider care – care facilities and services that might be partly or wholly-owned by any or all of the participants in the courtroom, except the Ward.

7. Section 15 of HB 1438 allows the court to set all court costs – which can easily run into the

$100,000 of dollars, especially when judges, having already examined the ward's assets (see Section 10 of HB 1438) know that the ward not only possesses enough assets to cover extensive and lengthy litigation, but the assets of the ward are now under court control and can be spent on:

“...the court costs of the proceeding, including the cost of the guardians ad litem, attorneys ad litem, court visitor, mental health professionals, and interpreters appointed under this title, shall be set in an amount the court considers equitable and just....”

This is unconstitutional and represents illegal search & seizure by the courts.

8. Section 18 of HB 1438 Allows a guardian to make an unsworn report annually, instead ofa sworn Affidavit. Filing an unsworn report is meaningless and guts any attempt at oversight of the “professional” for-profit guardianship service providers.

9. Section 20 of HB 1438 Extends to 12 months the length of a “temporary” guardianship,allowing what should have been “temporary” guardianships to endure for much longer,leaving the ward's assets exposed and being spent on legal fees that may do nothing to advance the ward's legal case.

10. Section 22 of HB 1438 allows a guardian up to 30 days after receipt of a proposed ward'sproperty to file an inventory with the court. Again, we see the courts of Texas seizing aproposed ward's property prior to any order being issued by the court. Section 22 of HB1438 is unconstitutional and:

• A Denial of Due Process,

• A Denial to the right to a jury trial and

• A Denial of the right of appeal of an adjudication of incapacitation

- all contrary to the Texas State Constitution's Article 1, Section 15a.

11. Section 28 of HB 1438 discusses Section 59.006(a), Finance Code, which currentlyreads:

(a) This section provides the exclusive method for compelled discovery of a record of a financial institution relating to one or more customers but does not create a right of privacy in a record. This section does not apply to and does not require or authorize a financial institution to give a customer notice of:

(1) a demand or inquiry from a state or federal government agencyauthorized by law to conduct an examination of the financial institution;

Section 59.006(a), Finance Code is already unconstitutional because it is illegal search of a citizen's property by government officials without any probable cause other than to investigate if the person is suitably wealthy enough to be put under guardianship so that the courts and their appointees canenrich themselves off this innocent individual's private property.

What makes Section 28 of HB 1438 so harmful to all Texans is that it gives the court explicitpermission to spy on the financial “health” of prospective wards during the course ofInvestigation of Guardianship Application (Section 1054.151 of Estates Code), during thegeneral Duties of the Court Investigator (Section 1054.152 of Estates Code), and duringCourt-Initiated Investigations (Section 1102.001 of Estates Code).

All of these instances of the courts' ability to compel a financial institution to provideprivate financial information about its customers to the court, without notifying thecustomers, is an unconstitutional search of personal property by a government entity.

Furthermore, these Court Investigations can occur upon receipt of a letter from anyone whowishes to inform the court that they have a suspicion that something is not right with the Alleged Incapacitated Person.

12. Section 29 of HB 1438 gives the Presiding Judge powers to oversee any court claimingjurisdiction and the re-assignment of cases from judges who have been recused ordisqualified.

 

Because this bill was written by Presiding Judge Guy Herman, who also testified in support ofHB 1438 during a meeting of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence onApril 14, 2015, this bill has an unconstitutional in its authorship as it violates Texas StateConstitution's separation of power doctrine. In practical application this means that a sittingjudge cannot help write legislative bills, testify on their behalf, and see these bills become law ifthe judge will then preside over a court in which these laws will be used in the judge'sadjudications.  That is flat-out unconstitutional behavior.  Judge Herman should be removedfrom the bench for such an unconstitutional action, breaking the very vows he swore to upholdwhen he become a judge and assumed absolute power over other human beings.

13. Sections 30, 31, and 32 of HB 1438 are similar to section 29 in that it rewards Presiding Judge Guy Herman with great powers beyond those he already exercises. Just as with Section 29, Sections 30, 31, and 32 are unconstitutional in their having been written by the Presiding Judge described in these very sections which give the Presiding Judge increased powers over the lives of his victims.

14. Section 33 of HB 1438 is quite similar to Section 13 of HB 1438 (See point #6 above) in that in amends sections 411.1386(a) and (e), Government Code, to make criminal background checks mandatory for all family members who wish to become guardians, leaving in tact an exemption from this rule for attorneys. This is another attempt by a for-profit industry of guardianship service providers to use laws written by probate judges and attorneys to disqualify as many non-corporate guardians as possible to ensure the for-profit corporations – which may be part or wholly-owned by the judges and attorneys participating in guardianship cases -- have the most number of profit-making, court-captive payers available.

15. Section 34 of HB 1438 repeals the sections of the Government Code governing the recusal of judges in guardianship cases. This section repeals existing law that stands between Presiding Judge Guy Herman and his probate empire, in which power to assign and re-assign lucrative guardianship cases is awarded to Guy Herman's current position: Presiding Judge.

Finally, no proposed or current law, statute, or any governmental department offers any redressto the Reicherts and similarly victimized families for their loss through improper seizure bycourts in the State of Texas. That is not only unconstitutional, but unconscionable, especiallygiven that the seizure of property and the loss of Constitutional liberties and rights are beingdone by Courts of "Law."

For all these reasons, Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship believe that should the Stateof Texas Legislature decide to vote HB 1438 into law, and should Governor Abbott decide to sign HB1438 into law, then a grossly unconstitutional law will have been knowingly created. This type ofhigh stakes legislative barratry simply has no place in a functioning democracy.  We implore you tostop HB 1438 now, before it becomes an unconstitutional law.

Respectfully submitted,

Kelley Smoot GarrettSan Marcos, TX 78666kelley@aaapg.net

512 653 3879

Sam J Sugar MDFounder, AAAPGwww.aaapg.netendxploitation@aaapg,net