We research, target specific evidence on elder financial exploitation, negligence, abuse and estate planning attorney chicanery, collusion and fiduciary defalcation. Exploitation often consists of embezzlement: the act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, either to be held, distributed per long-held intentions or to be used for specific purposes. Embezzlement is a type of financial fraud, e.g. a lawyer or caretaker or guardian might embezzle funds from the trust accounts of their clients; a financial advisor might embezzle the funds of investors; and a person who embezzle funds from a bank account jointly held with their vulnerable victim.

Advocates Use The Fiduciary Abuse: DEFALCATION Model(s):

D – Dependence

E –  Exploitation/Embezzlement

F –  Financial Control

A – Authority Breech

L – Larceny/Loss

C –  Collusion/Chicanery

A –  Attorney Misconduct

T – Trust Betrayal

I – Isolation/Intimidation

O – Oppression

N – Negligence

Warn Others In This Sites Blog:

Victims, Their Family and Friends are on the Front Line,  As a Public Safety Measure Warn Others to help Eradicate Vulnerable Person Exploitation.

Blog to share your experience and warn other of your, your family members or friends negative experience with an exploitative caretaker, POA, Estate Planning Attorney, Guardianship-Conservator Attorney, Guardianship-Conservator, Licensed Social Work Evaluator, Primary Care Physician, Neurocognitive Psychologist, Court Visitor, Banker, Wealth Manager, Real Estate Agent, Executor or any white-collar professional exploiting a vulnerable or elder person.

The court, in a unanimous decision, said those claiming defamation could sue only the original source of the comments, not publishers or distributors, even if the distributor was an individual. Internet users are protected by the same 1996 Communications Decency Act that grants immunity against defamation claims to publishers in most circumstances, the court said, overturning a San Francisco appeals court.

The ruling means that plaintiffs claiming defamation cannot get around the 1996 federal law by filing state suits. Internet service providers, search engine companies and civil liberties groups said that holding Web publishers liable would force Internet companies to keep track of every posting in every discussion group.

The case represents the first time an individual sought the same immunity from defamation liability that is afforded to Internet service providers under federal law, the court said.

“It’s good news for free speech on the Internet because the Internet can’t be the vibrant forum for free speech that it’s become if users and Internet service providers alike have to worry about getting sued when they republish something that someone else says,” said Ann Brick, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.