30.12.2016 Views

vv 1-17 web

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Steve Miller<br />

My First Encounter<br />

Guest Column<br />

Robert Telles<br />

Seeking Assistance for a Ward<br />

In 1999, I received a visit from Thomas<br />

Gaule, the son of Anna Marie Gaule, a wealthy<br />

downtown property owner whom I had known<br />

during my tenure at Las Vegas City Hall. Accompanying<br />

Thomas was Ted Gunderson, a<br />

former FBI agent.<br />

Thomas asked if I would go with them to a<br />

private rest home to see his mom. He explained<br />

that his mother had been brutally beaten the<br />

night before.<br />

On the way, Thomas said his mom had been<br />

made a ward of the court, that her bank accounts<br />

were being drained and properties<br />

transferred to the-then elected Clark County<br />

Public Guardian Jared E. Shafer. Her mom and<br />

Thomas had been making inquiries about her<br />

finances before she sustained her injuries.<br />

He wanted witnesses to testify in court the<br />

following week about her abuse. I grabbed my<br />

camera and we proceeded to the home.<br />

We were greeted by a man who told us “No<br />

visit! No visit!” when Thomas asked to see his<br />

mom. Gunderson already had his foot in the<br />

door and immediately wedged our way past<br />

Victim Anna Marie Gaule<br />

the man.<br />

Thomas led us to Anna Marie’s bedroom<br />

where we found her sitting in bed with two<br />

black eyes and a broken nose. Though stricken<br />

with Alzheimer’s and suffering from her injuries,<br />

she warmly greeted her son and his guests.<br />

I began shooting photos while the caretaker<br />

yelled for us to leave. Thomas lifted his<br />

mother’s robe and showed us bruises on<br />

her legs. I asked if she had received medical<br />

care.<br />

Thomas said she hadn’t. I asked how<br />

she sustained the injuries and Thomas<br />

said he was informed she “fell out of<br />

bed.”<br />

The following week, Thomas acting as<br />

his own attorney, appeared before Clark<br />

County Family Court Judge William Voy<br />

to ask that Shafer be removed as guardian<br />

and let Thomas care for his mom in<br />

one of her homes. He planned to show his<br />

Guardian Certificate obtained from Shafer’s<br />

office certifying Thomas graduated<br />

from a $1,500 course taught by Shafer.<br />

At the hearing were Shafer and his attorney<br />

Gardner Jolly. While Gunderson and I<br />

patiently waited to be called, Thomas pled his<br />

case.<br />

After three hours, Thomas emerged to inform<br />

us that Judge Voy denied his request to allow<br />

Gunderson and I to testify and show photos.<br />

Additionally, Thomas was to be restricted<br />

to only thirty minutes with his mom per visit.<br />

He was also told that could not bring guests<br />

nor take photos of her. Thomas then said Anna<br />

Marie was going to be transferred to Pahrump<br />

- over fifty miles away.<br />

Shafer and Jolly emerged from the court<br />

room. When they saw the three of us, they<br />

broke into laughter and walked away.<br />

Anna Marie was moved the next day and<br />

because Thomas doesn’t drive, he was rarely<br />

able to visit his mom in the final year of her<br />

life. She died alone, drugged and isolated from<br />

Thomas, her only living relative.<br />

Her fortune was never accounted for, a requirement<br />

of Nevada law. According to Thomas,<br />

Anna Marie’s assets included several commercial<br />

properties, two houses, bank accounts,<br />

insurance policies, and annuities.<br />

From the day of that hearing, I’ve vowed<br />

to expose the heinous guardianship fraud in<br />

Las Vegas and will continue doing so until the<br />

enabling judges, ruthless guardians, and their<br />

attorneys are finally brought to justice.<br />

8197_SSHIX_OE_Jan_VegasVoice_FIN.pdf 1 12/21/16 4:21 PM<br />

You may have a friend who has had<br />

a guardianship ordered over him or<br />

her. This person may have complained<br />

about the fact that he or she did not<br />

have the opportunity to ask why the<br />

guardianship was ordered.<br />

In my own practice, I have come<br />

across circumstances where people<br />

over whom a guardianship was awarded<br />

never actually received the opportunity<br />

to object to the guardianship.<br />

This can result from a doctor’s erroneous<br />

opinion that the person could not<br />

speak his or her own opinion in court.<br />

This may result from the doctor’s belief<br />

that the person would not have the<br />

physical ability to attend court, would<br />

be unable to voice his or her opinion,<br />

or for some other reason. However, the<br />

guardianship court is concerned with<br />

ensuring that any person over whom<br />

a guardianship has been ordered have<br />

the ability to speak to the court.<br />

Really, only those who should be excused<br />

from attending court hearings<br />

would be a person who is unable to<br />

safely leave a hospitable bed or is truly<br />

a danger to him or herself or others.<br />

Those who have had a guardianship<br />

ordered over them are known as wards<br />

or protected persons. These folks are<br />

those who have shown to be a danger<br />

to him or herself or to others.<br />

This may include an inability to<br />

manage one’s own financial affairs or<br />

the inability to adequately maintain<br />

his or her own health without the assistance<br />

of others. This often includes<br />

those who have unfortunately been<br />

diagnosed with a disorder that erodes<br />

the memory, such as Alzheimer’s or<br />

dementia.<br />

Other circumstances may involve<br />

something more physically severe,<br />

such as an illness that confines that<br />

person to a hospital bed. The former<br />

circumstances, Alzheimer’s and dementia,<br />

may not necessarily call for<br />

an immediate confinement to involuntary<br />

commitment in a memory care<br />

unit.<br />

A memory care unit is a place where<br />

people are placed and are monitored<br />

on a 24-hour basis. As previously<br />

mentioned, this may not be the first<br />

option.<br />

Often times, the protected person<br />

has the money and the health necessary<br />

to continue living at home. Unfortunately,<br />

even loved ones can jump<br />

the gun and determine that the first<br />

option should be commitment to a<br />

memory care unit.<br />

What can be done? If you know<br />

someone who has not had the opportunity<br />

to address the court in his or her<br />

guardianship, that person can contact<br />

an attorney who can petition the court<br />

to allow the protected person to speak<br />

to the court. This can often result in a<br />

re-evaluation of the case and whether<br />

that person meets the necessary criteria<br />

to return home or a less confining<br />

arrangement.<br />

Unfortunately, even well-meaning<br />

family can jump the gun and move<br />

straight to a restrictive living arrangement<br />

for that person even when that<br />

person might be able to live in his or<br />

her own home with the assistance of<br />

some paid help.<br />

If you believe you know someone<br />

living in restrictive living arrangement<br />

unnecessarily, be sure to have<br />

that person contact a qualified guardianship<br />

attorney.<br />

Rob Telles is the founder of Accolade Law, a law firm that serves clients in<br />

guardianship, estate planning and probate. His office can be reached at (702) 337-<br />

3000<br />

22 www.thevegasvoice.net<br />

january <strong>17</strong><br />

23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!