A conservatorship has drained $1 million of my mother’s life savings, and no one can stop it. A court-appointed conservatorship in Santa Clara County has eaten up much of the money my parents saved over a lifetime for their retirement. The current system is taking away people’s rights, and our lives have been ruined in the process. By Anonymous In early 2020, Britney Spears posted a TikTok video that concerned her fans, and the #FreeBritney movement soon went viral. A petition seeking a congressional investigation into Britney’s conservatorship received hundreds of thousands of signatures, and news outlets nationwide reported on her plight. Eventually, she was released from her conservatorship. This was the first introduction much of the public had to conservatorships. But many of us with elderly parents or other vulnerable family members are in a battle with conservatorships that we feel leave them without agency in their own care and finances, for years on end. We have watched helplessly as our loved ones’ assets and savings accounts have been consumed by legal fees, with little accountability. And unlike Britney, they have no voice, and no one is on TikTok talking about them. My mother is under such a conservatorship. The road to this arrangement began around the time my parents were in their 80s and planning their will. My parents had worked hard since they arrived in the United States in the 1970s, and had managed to save a decent nest egg for retirement. But some of their decisions about their finances and care led to conflict with their son, my brother. He suggested that they go to a seniors home—something they did not want. He then wanted to be a beneficiary of my father’s life insurance, which my… Read More
The History and Effect of California’s Judicial Corruption In 1985, Los Angeles County started paying California Superior Court Judges sitting on the State of California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles “supplemental judicial benefits” in addition to the judges’ State of California Compensation. In 1988, Los Angeles County Supervisors justified the payments stating they were necessary to “attract and retain qualified people to serve as judges on the LA Superior Court.” On its face, such explanation doesn’t make sense. Paying a sitting judge, a “supplemental judicial benefit” will not retain him/her in office as he/she must face an election to retain his/her judicial office. It will not recruit a judge as the judge is already in office. Nor does it appear that over time the Los Angeles County “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” attracted more successful, experienced private lawyers to apply to be politically appointed for judgeships or to run for judgeships more than the usual government lawyers such as deputy district attorneys, deputy public defenders, county counsels and state employees. The real reason for the Los Angeles County “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” payments was to increase the compensation of the individual members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Article II, Section 4 of the Los Angeles County Charter states in relevant part: “They [Board of Supervisors] shall each receive as compensation for their services a salary, payable monthly from the County Treasury, which shall be the same as that now or hereafter prescribed by law for a judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles,”. Other counties and Superior Courts followed Los Angeles County In 2008, such payments were held to be unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution, in… Read More
