"The irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) is a valuable and commonly used estate planning tool. An ILIT can be beneficial for clients having liquidity needs at death due to support obligations for dependants or transfer taxes imposed on assets held outside the ILIT." ~ HuschBlackwell, 2007
 |
| https://www.huschblackwell.com/ |
Husch Blackwell is the law firm Engler hired to audit Michigan State University.
I do not know why, but I immediately thought of the Children's Trust Fund when I saw they were from Kansas.
This was meant for me to find.
These are the schemes of the children's trusts.
They are specifically training through Continuing Education Credits for the Michigan State Bar attorney licensing, Insurance Wagering, when it comes to corporate parents.
These people are wagering on the trust fund, not the individual.
This is why they are pushing the co-optimization of abortion to be recognized as termination of parental rights.
"The guardian or conservator has an insurable interest in the life of the individual for whom the guardian or conservator was appointed."
That is why they are trying to "de-gender" everything.
This is legal trust nomenclature for foreign privateering the children's trust funds.
Corporations, like law firms, have pecuniary rights to the best interests of the child, you know.
I see children's trust funds, everywhere.
Hush Blackwell Trust Fund I... by on Scribd
So, let me get this straight.
You can come in as a Child Placing Agency and get legal corporate guardianship, where you then go get some life insurance on the kid, paying the premiums probably under Medicaid, to take out a loan on the policy, wagering on the viability of the trust.
Now, since the administrator of the trust is called an "interested individual", you have a situation of NO-NAME, where you only know that there exists a pecuniary interest in the trust, not the individual, or in this instance, the child, and not who is running ops.
Are these foster children?
Are there other schemes for all the children of "The Poors"?
Are these Social Impact Bonds?
Is this predictive modeling crap?
Does the sun rise every morning?
But, it gets better.
So, it is now, not, illegal to wager on the death of the trust, and not the death of the child.
Then, just because I am very good at being morbid when it comes to child welfare in Michigan, I am going to go out there and say, only because Engler was up in this mix, that these law firms were taking out these ILIT policies.
This is the point I am inserting the entire termination of parental rights in the womb called "aborting birth" to expedite the paperwork for the insurance policies.
I am going to eventually have to map this out..
This is chattel law and I am going to go push the proverbial envelope and say that these people are pushing terminating parental rights as a form of civil asset forfeiture, where this pushes up equity in these corporate shape shifters who leverage the guardianship of the Medicaid cost reimbursement of dumb services which are also federally funded as human subject research projects of foreign universities to keep stealin' by taking out multiple mortgages on properties they got from other property tax and mortgage fraud schemes?
The termination of parental rights, or rather abortion, is the death of the child, where the corporate parent can cash in on the trust, and just issue a new birth certificate through a new birth called adoption?
These people have been expediting this child welfare rebranding.
Is this how all these Public Private Partnerships got leveraged with the Office of Michigan Attorney General?
It very much so looks that way to me.
Hey Bill, Smooches!
Dana Nessel had no idea of what she stepped into with these massively overlapping federal investigations, because she refused to listen to the people.
Do it very slowly, my precious ones, I want to watch and savor each and every morsel of my moments of retribution.
As the fallout from the Larry Nassar sex abuse scandal lingers at Michigan State University, the Board of Trustees may pursue the path that General Motors followed to move past a massive safety recall.
Officials at the state's largest public university are considering whether to authorize an independent investigation into how Nassar's decades of molestation and assaults were allowed to occur.
 |
| Dan Kelly, vice-president, MSU Board of Trustees |
The independent investigation is being discussed by the trustees' Committee on Audit, Risk and Compliance, chaired by board Vice Chairman Dan Kelly, who said after the last board meeting Feb. 15 that he hopes such an inquiry will occur.
"There needs to be more done in terms of public disclosures," Kelly said.
Board Chairwoman Dianne Byrum added, "There (are) multiple conversations going on about how we can assist the survivors in their healing.
"Everything is on the table right now for discussion."
Trustee Brian Mosallam, who has long called for an independent investigation, said last week that nothing is finalized but there are active discussions about the nature and scope of a possible independent investigation.
He said he has made numerous statements that an independent investigation is needed for "public consumption for a number of reasons."
In May, he wrote a statement called "New Day at MSU" that said: "We must immediately begin an independent internal review of the Larry Nassar matter to demonstrate to our courageous survivors, their families and all other MSU stakeholders (and government and regulatory authorities) that drastic voluntary remediation is better late than never."
The issue is heating up as MSU faces criticism from Nassar victims and state investigators for withholding more than 6,000 documents from the Michigan Attorney General's Office, citing attorney-client privilege. That probe has resulted in criminal charges against three former MSU officials, including ex-president Lou Anna Simon, but many say a deeper, broader inquiry is needed.
Those critics argue the AG's investigation is limited in scope and is not enough for MSU to understand what happened, to make changes and to ultimately allow victims, their families and the community to create a better culture.
"We need to look at what happened and why it happened," said Rachael Denhollander, the first woman to publicly accuse Nassar of sexual assault. "If we don’t find out those answers, it will be very difficult in looking forward."
GM, the nation's largest automaker, found itself in a similar situation five years ago, as scrutiny mounted over what the company knew and when it knew it about the defective ignition switches used in its Chevrolet Cobalt compact cars.
At the time, the automaker had known for more than a decade about the problems and faced several investigations, yet hadn't begun three recalls of the affected cars until January 2014.
CEO Mary Barra, who had been on the job for two months, apologized shortly after the recalls, emphasized it had taken too long and added she had told Anton Valukas, a former U.S. attorney who was leading GM's internal review, that there would be no roadblocks or "sacred cows."
Two and a half months later, Valukas delivered an independent report that found a "pattern of incompetence and neglect" led to the delay of the recalls by nearly a decade. In response, GM fired 15 employees, disciplined five others and made major changes at the company to identify, elevate and train around safety issues.
"We failed these customers," Barra told employees during a town hall meeting in June 2014 after the report was released. "We must face up to it and learn from it. To that end, on behalf of GM, we pledge that we will use the findings and recommendations from this report as a template for strengthening our company."
Experts say an independent investigation is often the first thing an entity will do to resolve an issue and demonstrate transparency.
"It looks good to the outside world to have a third-party investigator," said Michelle Krebs, a Detroit-based executive analyst for Autotrader, a car shopping website operated by Cox Automotive. "Internally, it allows them to do it in a way that internal politics can’t get in the way. It is indeed a third party, not someone in the company who has bias."
Krebs noted that Ford Motor Co. announced last month that employee concerns prompted an outside investigation of whether incorrect computer modeling might have caused it to misstate fuel economy and emissions for government testing.
She also pointed to a 2010 third party investigation conducted as Toyota recalled millions of vehicles after reports of unintended acceleration that were suspected in the deaths of at least 89 people.
"You need to get out in front of it, fast," Krebs said. "Because then you get it over with more quickly.
Then you can get on with your business; otherwise, it’s this cloud that hangs over the company, the institution, longer than it needs to and it delays putting into practice new processes to prevent it from ever happening again."
Then you can get on with your business; otherwise, it’s this cloud that hangs over the company, the institution, longer than it needs to and it delays putting into practice new processes to prevent it from ever happening again."
That's exactly what MSU needs, Denhollander said. Nassar was enabled in his crimes by conduct at MSU that was not necessarily illegal, such as reporting failures, communication silos and training shortfalls, she said.
"This is a healthy step that many organizations have taken much faster than MSU," Denhollander said. "We want to know what went wrong so we can deal with it."
Many have called on Michigan State to do an independent investigation since the earliest public allegations against Nassar in September 2016. But until now, the idea has faced resistance from many university leaders.
Then-university spokesman Jason Cody addressed it in November 2017.
"As for the call for an independent investigation, the FBI and MSU Police Department conducted a joint investigation earlier this year to determine whether any university employee other than Nassar engaged in criminal conduct," Cody said. "The results of that investigation were sent to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan. We have no reason to believe that any criminal conduct was found."
More recently, former interim President John Engler addressed an independent investigation days before he was forced to resign under pressure In January, saying that such a probe had already been done by Husch Blackwell, a Kansas City law firm that examined MSU's Title IX process.
"There are some people who want to continue to investigate and inquire into lots of things," Engler said. "I wouldn't support any more. ... We're trying to get rid of lawyers and consultants now. We're trying to go back to work."
In January 2018, MSU trustees asked then-Attorney General Bill Schuette to do an investigation into the university's role in the Nassar scandal in the wake of testimony by more than 150 women about the former sports doctor's crimes. The university promised it would cooperate.
MSU handed over reams of documents, including some that had nothing to do with the Nassar investigation.
Officials at the attorney general's office, under Schuette and his successor, Dana Nessel, have alleged that MSU blocked its investigation by withholding documents under attorney-client privilege. Part of MSU's argument for doing so is that the university is still in litigation with insurance companies.
As lawyers in the Attorney General's Office went to court to have a judge review the withheld documents, Nessel said in January that it appears her office is not going to see the majority of those documents because MSU has "fought this office every step of the way."
Proponents of an independent investigation at MSU say an outside investigator could review the privileged documents to see what's in them and include them in a final report without making attorney-client discussions public.
"We want answers. All the answers," said Sterling Riethman, who was among the scores of gymnasts and other athletes assaulted by Nassar. "To get those, we need both an independent investigation and the remaining documents to be turned over to the AG’s office.
"If MSU wants to show us that they’ve truly turned a corner, the solution is simple: Engage and encourage the independent investigation we’ve been advocating for, and release the remaining documents to the AG’s office."
WITH GUARDIAN OR CONSERVATOR
House Bill 4619 as passed by the House
Sponsor: Rep. Kate Segal
House Bill 5192 with committee amendment
Sponsor: Rep. Larry DeShazor
House Bill 6272 with committee amendment
Sponsor: Rep. Jon Switalski
Judiciary (HB 5192 & 6272)
BRIEF SUMMARY: The bills would put in place additional protections for certain assets of wards and protected individuals, in order to prevent misuse or fraud by guardians and conservators.
FISCAL IMPACT: These bills would have a minimal fiscal impact on the judiciary system. The bills' new requirements may cause an increase in administrative workload for some courts, depending upon the number of relevant cases they handle.
THE APPARENT PROBLEM:
In recent years, several high profile stories about guardians and conservators bilking elderly or disabled individuals of their life savings have received media attention. In 1991 and 2000, several officials with a professional guardianship business, Guardian Inc., were sentenced to prison on charges of fraud and embezzlement involving hundreds of clients in Wayne County. More recently, dozens of seniors in Eaton County have been victims of guardians and conservators with a combined loss of over $3 million.
The Estates and Protected Individuals Code establishes the rules for when a guardian may be appointed to take care of an individual and when a conservator may be appointed to take care of an individual's financial affairs. A person can have both a guardian and a conservator appointed on his or her behalf. Generally speaking, a guardian is appointed when a finding is made by a court that a person is legally incapacitated—that is, unable to make informed decisions about his or her own care and custody. During the process to determine if an individual is legally incapacitated, a guardian ad litem is appointed to represent the best interests of the individual if he or she does not already have legal counsel of his or her own choosing. A person who has had a guardian assigned is referred to as a "ward" and a person who has had a conservator appointed to take care of his or her money or property is referred to as a "protected individual."
Most often, the person appointed as a guardian or conservator is a relative, such as a spouse, child, or parent, although a guardian or conservator can also be a neighbor, attorney, bank, or business that operates a service as professional guardians and/or conservators. In some cases, the petitioner for guardianship is a government worker, i.e, a social services caseworker. Current law requires certain duties of a guardian, a conservator, and a guardian ad litem (who may be an attorney, social worker, or volunteer). For instance, guardians and conservators are required to file documentation of how the ward is cared for and how the personal property of the protected individual is managed.
Discovering why abuses continue to happen despite current protections in law and how to stop those abuses has been the subject of several formal and informal task forces convened since the mid-1990s, the largest being a task force on guardianships and conservators convened by the state Supreme Court in the mid-1990s and a more recent one convened by the governor in 2005 and 2006 on elder abuse. Though both task forces compiled recommendations believed to be necessary to protect the state's vulnerable citizens, few of those recommendations have been implemented.
For example, Michigan law prohibits a conservator from selling the home of a protected individual in his or her care without prior court approval. Yet, there are no prohibitions in place preventing the conservator from opening up a line-of-credit loan on the home's equity, or other type of home equity loan that essentially strips the home of its value, and then through fraud or mismanagement, use up the proceeds. It is believed that requiring a conservator to obtain court approval before a home equity loan could be secured would give an additional layer of oversight that could stop unnecessary or intentionally fraudulent loans from being made, thus protecting the assets of the protected individual.
In light of the growing numbers of guardian and conservator appointments, and the continuing problems with foreclosures associated with refinance loans, legislation has been offered to implement several more recommendations of the task forces.
THE CONTENT OF THE BILLS:
House Bills 4619, 5192, and 6272 taken together would amend several sections of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC) to require a guardian ad litem to ask about the amount of assets considered as "liquid assets" belonging to the individual and include an estimate of the amount in his or her report to the court; grant a court discretion under certain circumstances to order the guardian to petition for appointment of a conservator; prohibit a conservator from selling, mortgaging, or disposing of the protected individual's property without court approval; and require, with certain exceptions, a conservator to furnish a bond.
House Bill 5192 and 6272 are tie-barred to each other and to House Bill 4619 (previously reported). Consequently, the bills could not go into effect unless the bills to which they are tie-barred are also enacted into law. House Bill 4619, previously reported by the Senior Health, Security, and Retirement Committee, has passed the House and is pending Senate committee action.
House Bill 4916
House Bill 4619 would amend the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (MCL 700.5305). In addition to the current duties of a guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed for an individual alleged to be incapacitated, the bill would require a GAL to ask the individual and the petitioner for guardianship about the amount of cash and property readily convertible into cash that is in the individual's estate (liquid assets).
Under the bill, if a court determined that the total amount of cash and property readily convertible into cash exceeded the limit for administering a small estate under Section 3982 of the act, or if the court determined that financial protection was required for the ward for another reason, a court could order the guardian to petition for the appointment of a conservator or for another protective order for the ward's estate. If a conservator had not been appointed for a ward's estate, and the guardian determined that there were more liquid assets in the ward's estate than were reported by the guardian ad litem, the guardian would have to report the amount of the additional cash or property to the court.
As a part of his or her duties, a guardian ad litem must also make numerous determinations. The determinations must be included in the report the GAL prepares for the court. The bill would revise one of the required determinations. Currently, the GAL must determine whether there are one or more appropriate alternatives to the appointment of a full guardian. The code lists as alternatives the appointment of a limited guardian; appointment of a conservator or another protective order; or execution of a patient advocate designation, do-not-resuscitate declaration (DNR), or durable power of attorney. The bill would require the GAL to also determine whether one or more actions should be taken in addition to the appointment of a guardian, and would require the GAL to consider the appropriateness of at least each of the listed alternatives described above as alternatives or additional actions to the appointment of a guardian (e.g., guardian and conservator, or guardian and DNR order, etc.). In addition, in the report informing the court of the determinations, a GAL would have to include an estimate of the amount of cash and property readily convertible into cash that is in the individual’s estate.
House Bill 5192
The bill would amend the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (MCL 700.5410) to require a conservator to furnish a bond if the estate in question exceeded the small estate threshold. Specifically, a court would have to require the conservator, with some exceptions, to furnish a bond if the court determined that the value of cash and property readily convertible into cash in the estate and in the conservator's control exceeded the small estate threshold for administering a decedent's estate, adjusted under Section 1210 for the year in which the conservator was appointed. This requirement would not apply if one or more of the following applied:
· The estate contained no property readily convertible to cash and the cash was in a restricted account with a financial institution.
· The conservator had been granted trust powers under Section 4401 of the Banking Code.
· The court determined that requiring a bond would impose a financial hardship on the estate.
· The court stated on the record the reasons why a bond was not necessary.
The bill would take effect April 1, 2011.
House Bill 6272
The bill would amend the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (MCL 700.5422 and 700.5423) to specifically prohibit a conservator from mortgaging, pledging, or causing a lien to be placed on the protected individual's home without court approval. Currently, a conservator must obtain approval from the court in order to sell or otherwise dispose of the protected individual's real property (in general, land and buildings or fixtures on the land) or interest in real property. A sale or other disposal of real property or an interest in real property can only be approved if, after a hearing with notice to interested persons and consideration of evidence of the value of the property, the court determines the sale or disposal of the real property is in the protected individual's best interest. Under the bill, these provisions would also extend to a conservator's ability to mortgage, pledge, or cause a lien to be placed on the protected individual's real property or interest in real property.
A conservator would be required to record an order allowing the sale, disposal, mortgage, or pledge or placement of a lien on real property in the records of the register of deeds for the county in which the real property is located. Unless the order had been recorded or a person to whom an interest in the property was transferred had been given a copy of the order, the person would not be entitled to presume that the conservator had the power to make the transaction.
The bill would take effect April 1, 2011.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The bills are reintroductions of House Bills 5186-5188 of the 2007-2008 legislative session. Those bills were passed by the House of Representatives but failed to see Senate action. Supporters of last year’s initiative included the AARP Michigan, the Michigan Probate Judges Association, and the Michigan Probate Court Association.
ARGUMENTS:
For:
In many cases, petitions to appoint guardians for individuals are filed by people unfamiliar with the duties of guardians or conservators. Petitions are also filed by social service workers or health care workers who may not be familiar with the personal details of the individual. Thus, it often happens that an individual for whom a guardian is appointed has a substantial estate that should be under the management of a conservator. If the guardian is not astute in money management, or is corrupt, the ward's assets can easily be frittered away or stolen.
One easy way to identify those cases in which a conservator should also be appointed is to have the guardian ad litem (GAL) assigned by the court make some initial inquiries as to the amount of cash and personal or real property – that could be easily converted into cash – that is owned by the individual. The GAL process is a fairly quick assessment of the individual's situation, and many GALs are either volunteers or paid below current market for their services. Therefore, the bill would not require an exact figure, which could take days or weeks to determine. However, even a few well placed questions can identify an estate that perhaps should be under the management of a conservator.
To that end, House Bill 4196 would require the GAL to include an estimate of the individual's liquid assets in the section of his or her report to the court in which a determination of whether or not an appointment of a conservator or another protective order would be an appropriate alternative or additional action to appointment of a guardian. The bill would also establish a threshold for the size of the estate for which a court could--but would not be mandated to--require the newly appointed guardian to petition for a conservator to manage the estate. If the guardian found assets that the GAL did not know about, and therefore did not report to the court, the bill would put an onus on the guardian to report those assets. The court could then reconsider whether a conservator should be appointed.
Identifying the amount of the liquid assets up front could also alert the potential guardian that if a conservator were not appointed, it would be his or her duty to responsibly manage the ward's estate. Knowing the amount of the funds involved may also help the court in its determination as to the suitability of a particular person's appointment as guardian.
For:
House Bill 6272 would close a loophole in the law that enables a conservator to obtain a mortgage or home equity loan on the home of a protected individual (the person found to be legally incapacitated). Reportedly, there have been cases of conservators stripping homes of equity through various loan products and then either embezzling those funds or mismanaging them. Regardless, the result is that when the protected individual needs that equity to provide for his or her needs, or to pass on to an heir, it is gone. Requiring court approval should add an extra layer of protection. This is particularly important in light of the numerous mortgage products offered today and the problems that have arisen from subprime loans.
For:
House Bill 5192 would address another concern raised by the Michigan Supreme Court and Governor Granholm's task forces to end elder abuse. Under the bill, a conservator would have to furnish a bond if the estate exceeded the small estate threshold. If the conservator mismanaged or pilfered the assets, the bond would cover the loss to the protected individual. Basically, requiring a bond would provide another layer of oversight which should discourage fraud. Insurance companies providing the bonds also have the resources to aggressively go after "bad apples" and collect from those conservators the money paid out by the bond. An insurer is also apt to deny a bond to a person who has a sketchy credit history, a criminal history, or otherwise appears to be a bad risk; thus, without a bond, the person could not be appointed conservator.
So that the bond requirement would not provide hardship or be ordered unnecessarily, there would be several exceptions. For instance, if the conservator were the spouse or child of the individual, and it appeared the relative would provide proper care and management of the assets, a court would not have to require a bond, though the court would have to record the reasons why it determined the bond was unnecessary.
For:
As a package, the bills would provide a few more layers of oversight and protection for those for whom a guardian and/or conservator is appointed and would do so with minimal to no cost to the state. The measures won't cure all that ails the system, but will screen out some bad actors from being appointed guardians or conservators, will identify upfront some estates that should go into conservatorship that would be missed under the present process, and will provide a financial mechanism for protected individuals cheated by a conservator to recoup some or all of their losses.
Against:
The bills are an excellent first step in implementing some quick, low-cost fixes. However, according to an article published in AARP The Magazine entitled "Stolen Lives" in February, 2004, even professional guardians receive little training and are not required in most jurisdictions to be certified. By comparison, those certified by the National Guardianship Foundation, the certification arm of the National Guardianship Association, must adhere to a code of ethics and undergo continuing education. According to the article, "the vast majority of the (then) estimated 600,000 Americans under guardianship are receiving care from people without certification." Requiring certification of professional guardians, or even providing some minimal training and refresher courses for friends or family members appointed as guardians, could also help to protect the assets of wards from mismanagement or out and out fraud.
POSITIONS:
A representative of Elder Law of Michigan testified in support of House Bill 4619. (6-10-10)
A representative of the Michigan Advocacy Project indicated support for House Bill 4619. (6-10-10)
A representative of the Office of Services to the Aging testified in support of House Bills 5192 and 6272. (7-21-10)
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM) indicated support for House Bills 5192 and 6272. (7-21-10)
A representative of the Long Term Care Ombudsman indicated support for House Bills 5192 and 6272. (7-21-10)
The Michigan Bankers Association indicated a position of neutrality on House Bill 5192.
Susan StutzkyBen Gielczyk
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment