Robin Westmiller, president of the National Associaiton to Stop Guardian Abuse responds to Marin County defamation lawsuit June 18, 2007
The First Amendment of our United States Constitution was made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. It states, in part, that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
This protection is tantamount in a free society. It allows reporters and media the ability to inform the public on a number of important matters which, in other countries, would be censored for fear of reprisals.
However, when individuals use the court system in order to circumvent this freedom, punish or otherwise seek malicious revenge against reporters and their publications, our very freedoms are threatened. Such is the case in Bakes v. Alvillar & Coastal Post. (Marin County Superior Court case number CIV 032918)
In a 2002 article published by Coastal Post, "County Fails To Protect Frail Elderly" Terri Alvillar attempted to expose the major problems with the guardianship system. As president of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, I was not at all surprised by this article, since everything she reported on not only occurs in California, but in over 20 states in our country.
As far back as 1989, Money Magazine reported on the "Gulag of Guardianship". In December of 2005, the Los Angeles Times ran a four part series on "Guardians for Profit" and I myself published my own memoir "Blood Tastes Lousy With Scotch", How I rescued my father from greedy cousins, thieving attorneys and the Florida Guardianship System. All of these articles and reports name the parties involved with this horrific practice, yet not one has threatened or pursued legal action, because truth is the absolute defense in defamation cases.
The Black Letter definition of Defamation is very explicit. "The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person, (published), and if the alleged statement involves a matter of public concern, the plaintiff is constitutionally required to prove both the statements’ falsity and the defendant's fault and that the false statement damages another's reputation." (Black's Law Dictionary, West Group, St. Paul, Minn, 2001)
Terri Alvillar's article was not "opinion". Her facts were well documented in the public record by a statement made by Marin attorney, Nancy C. Field, " Field admitted these details of the conservatorship attempt with Bakes and Boyden in her own declaration signed under oath, dated September 22, 2000. But because Ms. Alvillar's father was a victim of guardian abuse by the same probate court, she, and her paper are being targeted by Attorney Bakes in an effort to shut her up.
Apparently the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three didn't agree that the issue of guardian abuse IS, most definitely a matter of public concern, so this case will be heard by a jury in January of next year. And Ms. Alvillar will no longer have the freedom to do what she does best as a reporter, investigate and uncover corrupt practices in the guardianship system. If the media is threatened with law suits when they are doing the job our FREE society is designed to protect, we are ALL threatened.
NASGA will continue to monitor this case and report all aspects which is a matter of public record. We will not be threatened and we will not be silenced. We will continue to expose each and every party, attorney, probate court, public and private guardians, agencies and all others who continue this abuse, not only in Marin County, California, but in every state, in every district and in every county nationwide.
The best way for these individuals to avoid negative press coverage, and frivolous defamation law suits, is to STOP their practice of guardianship abuse. For Attorney Bakes to use our court system in this way is unconscionable. Robin Westmiller, President National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA)
SOURCE: Indybay.org
-----------------------------------------------
I have included this article, as I believe that some of the issues brought up, are still valid in the newer cases today.
We must acknowledge that the guardianship/conservatorship programs must have help countless frail and disabled seniors. However, it is clear from the increasing number of guardianship abuse cases, posted by bewildered and suffering family members; that there is an urgent need to "overhaul" the system.
You can read a post defending the Court of Appeal decision at Lawprofessors
No comments:
Post a Comment