Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Morford Update: "I am not dead"

sfGate.bmp

Morford emailed this out to his subcriber list. Apparently, there is much more to the tale than meets the eye:

Just a quick note, a delirious reply to all the astounding queries and the "Where the hell are you?" emails.

This is to you. This is to everyone who wrote in, about 1,300 of you (yes, this is a mass email reply -- deep apologies, but I had to), not knowing a thing of what happened to me or my column, not really believing the line that I was on sudden unannounced vacation/hiatus and intuiting, quite correctly, that Something Must Be Wrong. Here, then, is the bottom line:

I am not dead.

That is, for most, the good news. I, Mark Morford, am not dead and my Notes & Errata column on sfgate.com is not dead and my deeply skewed, wildly popular, ever-lubricious Morning Fix email newsletter, well, that's a different story.

The newsletter and I, we have been through a bit of legal and corporate hell lo these past six weeks, as our futures with this company were suddenly under duress, picked apart, threatened, reviewed and revised and reconsidered. It was ugly. Blindsided me completely. Access to my sfgate.com email was disabled in early March and not reactivated until last Friday. I had no way to read or reply to anyone who wrote in to this address. Such is the way. Let that be a lesson to me. Or something.

The short of it: The case against me did not hold. The fire and brimstone died down, explanations were delivered, punishments were doled. I am still with sfgate.com. My Notes & Errata column still lives and should return this week, intact. The future of the Morning Fix remains to be seen. Life, it be surreal and spasmodic.

(Note: My case, apparently, reached far up the corporate heirarchy. So please, no angry emails to sfgate.com editors/management -- they had little to do with it).

You who wrote in asking about my status, you should be gilded and licked by angels. I am flattered by all the concern and wish you all a long hard intensely felt tongue kiss coupled with a gentle back massage and maybe a nice bottle of expensive sake poured slowly over your tailbone by gangs of moist dreamy nymphs who can recite Keats while playing with your nipples with their toes. Thank you.

Salud, namaste, kampei, lube on,

--mm

Side note: I hope to have markmorford.com, which I already own, up and running relatively soon (right after I work through the logistics of how to design and maintain it) so readers will have somewhere to go in case this happens again. Which of course it won't. But in case it does. Which it won't. But just in case. Know what I mean?
--

Posted at 10:15 AM in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d8345bfd1553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Morford Update: "I am not dead":

Comments

I've missed your hilarious (and accurate) assessments of the bush regime. Please include me in your e-mail list or whatever.

Posted by: Genie | Oct 16, 2005 2:39:17 PM

Mark do you ever look into the governmental scams run by San Francisco? I have been chronicling a real doozy. Many brokers who have experienced the forced selling off of SF's senior citizen's assets by the SF Public Guardian's office have written and called me about it.
I have court transcrips of lies told by the attorney for this agency to gain financial conservatorship over SF's elderly in an "Informal Hearing" and when they resist the agency goes to court and gets personal conservatorship over them. Once they have both personal and financilal conservatorship over the person, they set about looting the assets of the senior until they have forced the person into institutionalized poverty. Then they proceed to sell off the person's property. During the process they have gotten liens on the properties by their associates who they hire to "manage", be their "agency appointed attorney", "health care giver", etc. The elderly person has no access to anyone who can speak for them. Their mail is rerouted to the agency. They can receive no outside contact without the permission of the SF public guardians office. They cannot hire an attorney of their choosing. The "managers" of their assets do not have to give them an accounting of how their assets are being spent but once in the first year and then once every two years. I have chornicled the plundering of Mrs. Y' s assets. The agency took a quater of a million dollars out of her bank accounts.
Then they proceeded to spend it at an alarming rate. I have kept some of the receipts from food and general items that the agency has hired a local supplier to provide for Mrs. Y. They double the cost of what she was paying for the same items.
The agency has a cosy relationship with the cottage industry of players who have sprong up around San Franciso's scheme to harvest the wealth of its Baby Boomers. It is frightenly easy for the SF Guardian's agency to get a temporary conservatorship over a senior citizen in this city. It is done in an "informal hearing". That means the agency gets to present it case with a judge or commissioner being present. There is on recording of the procedure so the attorney can allege anything to gain access to the elder's person assets.
Call any of the "probate attorneys" listed in the yellow pages. They will tell you that the agency has "95%" chance of getting the temporary conservatorship. These so called probate attorneys that practice in SF are part of the scam. Most of them are involved in a revolving door relationship with the agency. One day they represent the senior citizen fighting the conservatorship, the next they are appointed by the agency to be the attorney for a senior citizen that the agency has been granted a conservatorship over. These shysters lie to the senior citizen first by telling them that they have a 5% chance of beating the agency. This is not true check the records the agency gets the conservatorship automatically 100% of the time. Why the lie? So the shysters can start right away looting the senior citizen. These shysters often go to the "informal hearings" with the names of people who they want to get appointed as "conservators" of the person they are supposed to be representing against the consrvatorship. It is a unbelieveable racket.

They have many ingenious ways to muscle their way into the life of a senior citizen. The government recently signed into law a bill requiring bank tellers to inform the government if they think a senior senior is being unduly influenced. Now there's a fresh set of opportunities for senior citizens to have their identities stolen and whole new set of crimes perpetrated upon them by bank tellers peering into their bank accounts.
If a senior citizen gets scammed and reports it to the agency, or if someone else reports to the agency that the senior citizen may be scammed or maybe under too much influence by someone, this agency moves right in and takes complete control of that senior's assets without his permission.
In the quise of helping those seniors that do need help, this agency is using the permissiveness of the court to help themselves to the assets of the unaware and defenseless seniors in SF.
San Francisco's seniors are having their assets taken and they are being made prisoners of the city without any hint of due process and no appeal. Once the agency has been given personal conservatorship over you, you have been made a prisoner of the city of San Francisco for life without possibllity of parol. Hell, convicted crimminals get a better deal than that. I am going to make it my life's work to get someone to take a look into this. I may not be a lawyer, but I know that this arrangement the public guardian's office has with the court and the SF probate lawyers will not stand the scrutiny of a higher court. Hell, you get a judge or commissioner in traffic court. How this agency is getting away with getting "temporary" conservatorships without either is totalitarian. When you see what happens under a "temporary" conservatorship you will understand immediately that this agency knows that the permanent court order is a fait acommpli. A Judge Dearman is the head of the special family court that "over sees" this agency. Yet, he allows his courts to be conducted without a judge or commissioner being present when a person's entire lifetime of assets is being taken from him and his liberty and dignity is removed as if he were some stray dog being locked away in a shelter. Don't take my word for it. Attend any of the daily hearings run by his "informal court" and the San Francisco's Guardian's office. Judge Dearman granted an exparte order for Mrs. Y's home and property to be searched for guns. He did this because the attorney for the agency Sally Gratz alleged that she and others were threatened by this 73 year old Japenese lady during the informal hearing. Mrs Y's attorney, Jason Luie, who was present at the hearing said that the subject of guns never came up. The order was granted by a judge who was not present because no judge, commisioner, or court stenographer was present.
The home and other property was searched. No guns were found. But the agency used the opportunity to illegally follow the cops in and conduct a search for "anything that looked suspisious." This was told to Lori Szuki, Mrs Y's attorney by the SF Public guardian's estate investigator, Victoria Flores when she was admonished by Lori Suzuki for searching though files while accompaning the police.

When the agency was forced to litigate in a real court setting with a commissioner and a court stenographer present, the agency was deniged temporary conservatorship of Mrs. Y. The issue is that the attorney for the SF public guardian's office told 48 impeachable lies to the court as if it meant nothing to be an officer of the court. I have a copy of the transcript and I have documented each lie. If this lawyer will tell any lie to win in a setting inwhich her testimony is recorded what lies must she be telling in an "informal hearing" to get conservatorships over people whom she and her associates profit from. Who cares about these people? This is just my story. How many thousands of elderly citizens have been incarcerated for life against their will and had all their assets confiscated by these theives acting under color of authority. This is a hugh scandal. With the value of property in SF and the foxes in charge of the hen house, there is a lot of misuse of power going on. Some of the seniors are being forced to pay $300.00 to $420.00 a day out of their assets to whomever the agency appoints for their care. Mrs. Y was threatened with personal conservatorship because she wouldn't sign a document authorizing a person Victoria Flores brought to her home to "take care of her physical needs." Mrs. Y balked when she was told that the basic cost would be $320.00 A DAY. The lady gets about $6,500 a month. She said that she couldn't afford it. Victoria Flores assured her that she could afford it.
Play this scenario out a few times a day. This agency is forcing the people the court has put under their care into institutionalized poverty so they can be forced to sell their coveted San Francisco real estate. Don't take my word for it check the records. This is happening to the middle class seniors all over this city. If a senor citizen with no assets complains, he or she is told to call the police after the agency investigates their assets not the crime to see if it is worth going after their assets. What is with a Mayor who claims to be so empathetic with plight of the gays in SF? You think you could tell him that some of the seniors that are being abused by his public guardian's agency are undoubtly gay. Maybe he will look into the abuse then. If I can't get any help from the agencys or press in the City, I intend to do a bloq and to send my research to the foreign press. People should know what can happen to them if they decide to spend their elderly years in a city that lock them away for life without due process and confiscate all their assets. You think the lyrics to that song should be changed to "I left my assets in San Francisco?"

Posted by: bill kennedy | Nov 18, 2005 6:05:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.