us who examined mr rocker and then for maining testimony which was basically in our opinion mostly hearsay testimony to establish that in the position of the guardian that mr rocker was the subject of scammers and that because he was being scammed that this hardship should continue i think the medical testimony was overwhelming that mr rocker did not suffer at that time from any sort of the illusion he was not so very suffering from a peter said i fine he knows what he's doing he's not suffering a delusion he's making a conscious decision on his part but he's knocking the result that he wants he still continues to do so for it so i believe there's additional statements from the trial court in making his findings that mr rocker was declared by a psychiatrist to be decisional that he understands he's sending money but it's not washable it's not something to he has a basis for a belief that the money is going for need of a guardian analysts estate to keep it from suffering waste and i don't believe he's kate ball capable of resisting the calls that he receives and i think ben beck gets back to the two part analysis that i mostly get into first off the medical testimony i think the court's only conclusion can be reached based on the to psychiatrists examined him was that he's not the sable from a medical standpoint i think it's well but he call and seek treatment nothing to that state dr robert said that you know the words of bipolar person is always a bipolar person but maybe manage sufficiently for them to control their affairs or to get along a lot of there's a large percentage of the population suffers from b and yet he still has this what one could call compulsive desire and one could simply call what the judge said he is not capable of resisting these calls  capability to resist the temptation it is not necessarily or sara lee part of being bipolar but it's certainly something to consider when you're either estab guardianship or attempting to terminate the guardianship correct but i think there is a distinction in that both of psychiatry is indicated that he is decisional so there's no doubt that he was sending money to people he didn't know that was established what the reason for sending that money was is again part of this appeal as to the hearsay evidence of the loud by the trial court to establish why he allegedly assume that my so that goes to the evidence of some knocking  minute but from a standpoint of did mr rocker know that he was sending money to people did he know what he was doing the site has both said it without any doubt yes he knows what he's doing the all conscious decisions that he is making this is not the product of any psychosis this is not the product of his bipolar condition any more than any other person is walking around the suffer from bipolar condition or from depression to make a decision how they want to spend their money and or not every person that has depression or bipolar condition is subject to a guardianship will be reasonable for you to can see and this is on a different issue that if he continues to make these decisions and choices that it will lay waste to as a state no i would not concede your honor for a couple of reasons first off if you look at the situation he's under where he's a lot of a certain amount of money by the guardian every week to spend he has his income from his self employment as a gardener the testing of the hearing was that this fight the fact that he's been saying this money to people not a single time has he ever had to go back to the guardian said look i don't have enough money because i haven't budget is so i don't have any money for food i don't have any money for gas i don't have money for my basic living expenses which again i think if you look at just the non medical evidence the stablish is that even if he's sending this money to people that he's able to know look i can only spend x number of dollars or send x number of dollars to these people who i believe are in need because i need to pay for food and pay for gas i need to pay for all my necessary living expenses if you look at the evidence is that not a single time since you've been in this guardianship has he ever had to go back to the guardian say i don't have money for food in fact he manages all the rest of his  assets and his money himself the only aspect and i think it's clear from the judge's ruling that the only aspect that the guardian believes is necessary to be managed and the reason for parent ship is because they believe that he's sending money to people overseas th is it easier to understand the dangers to sue i think you can understand what the judge based on so i don't think the judge's decision was based on the medical evidence so i think it was based solely on the hearsay partner who had a state or allegedly had a state somewhere in africa and th going to reap some benefits for him in the future of the only testimony came from mr rocker so that he said that that he'd been contacted and notified that there was a state out there that he was hoping to receive money from significant some correct significant correct and very significant perhaps larger than his own dress that's correct and this was from a an alleged representative of was it the nigerian government or but there was no evidence presented by anyone that that in fact was not the situation whether in fact as late partner did not have an estate me it might be something that would be hard to comprehend but if there is the potential and you have the money available to spend perhaps a small sum of money just to try to see look maybe i'm going to inherit millions of dollars all i should do is spend a small sum of money to be able to get this it's a worth it's a risk th worth taking because i have the money to be able to do that maybe that's not a reasonable thing to do maybe that's not a basis for continuing a guardianship but there was no evidence that this in fact was a scam so the only evidence that mr rocker was subject to the so called scammers came from lorne counts and that wasn't even talking to or discussing mr rocker specific situation with anyone this was mental disease i believe that that is required and i think as a kid in your reply brief there's not a whole lot of case law out there on what's required term nation of guardianship and so this court valve's case in the gavin case  cited is look back to what is required for the initial appointment of a guard and if you look at the definition of a person with a disability under section eight there are eleven a dash two of the probate code makes it clear under some paragraph being that it's a person with a mental illness a person with a developmental disability who because of his mental illness or developmental disability is not fully able to manches person or a state so if you look at  determination the part find some of the disabled adult not just that he has a mental illness and he's making decisions that we don't believe are appropriate or that we don't believe are in the best interest of his estate those decisions or the that he said he was delusional at that point that he was suffering from bipolar condition that he was unable to manage his own affairs and i think that's all specifically in his report i think that the mental illness which at that point was only bipolar condition which was managed he said it was under control and had been a control for quite some time so the decisions he was making and they both were asked are you aware that he's wiring money to people you sane people they both suggest they work but that is not the crux of their determination that he's not in need of a guardianship he's not safe this court found that it was not clear whether the court actually ma to say that we need specific findings as to whether or not is meets the stache for a definition of disability and whether or not the decisions that he is making are that are because of the product of a mental illness he's personally suffering from i think that's really would be appropriate and we would ask the court also then to yes i think we need a rehearing because again i don't think it's appropriate that all that hearsay evidence was admitted and again this was not simply a harmless admission of hearsay remember that on mr rocker testimony in minute he sent money to people he's made of the center wires and and money words and things like that he said that i'm religious person i believe that's what god wants me to do i believe these are charitable donations i talk to some of these people these are people in need one person i sent one to because they're suffering a plea from cancer they died before they cashed the the money or hurt their family sent the money back to me i believe that these are all legitimate people in need and i think that's  called upon to do by god because i'm a religious person the only evidence to contradict that was all this hearsay evidence that were let in that the judge allowed his clearly was the proof that  well let's go back to the state your name charitable about that about sending money to people who who claim that they're going to recover for you your partners and state rep and i'm assuming that when this testimony came in there weren't any parents there were questions how long have you known your partner did you know before that he had this is there any reason for you to think that rather substantial state or been involved in some sort of litigation involving his parker brothers well and that this was something that came up afterwards after the state had been close enough to reach an agreement on the settlement of his state here in the united states  wasn't aware that he had a bank account so i think the bank accounts are actually england i believe where it was it was going to hell through a merchant banker in south africa so i think he did say look he wasn't aware that there have been great bank accounts in england that at that that were part of his state but you know i guess that was the only evidence if the court was consider that to be a potentially some sort of scam that's the only evidence is part of his testimony that anything that he was sending overseas was not a legitimate charitable contribution to people that were in need or anything like that another question do we have do we know in the record what his cash flow there are  well we know that he was getting four hundred dollars a week from them from the truck from the truck or from the guardian for his basic living expenses the guardian mr cohen said that she did not know specifically how much money that he was receiving from his gardening work basically he keeps that money he doesn't always deposit that money with the bank he manages that centrally himself and that he reports a figure for purposes of preparing his tax return each year he gives them his mileage  business expense but the guardian to nestle know how much money other than what he report on income tax returns as to how much he very from his current well what did his return show up i don't know those were introduced into  evidence but so we don't know and i don't know that this is in central which is curiosity we don't know what is disposable income correct and i think the important thing from that though is that outside of that four hundred dollars per week that the guardian has given him he managed all that money himself right and he kept track of everything you don't know how much all that money is correct and which has something to do with his ability to budget but apparently he was able to do that because he never once sisters were involved that's correct and what brought their attention to the fact that they believe their brother needed a guardianship up at that point there was evidence that he m rocker had been involved in a scam where he has sent the i'm actual mount of money i think was a dispute somewhere between one hundred to two hundred thousand dollars to a woman i believe florida rules of money was prosecuted for before that came to their attention and he had a history as far as they knew making donations to charitable organizations or sometimes perhaps maybe making falling victim to what mine scheme i don't believe there's any evidence in the record from what i can see i was not mr rogers counsel that time and nothing i can see from the marriage that would indicate that prior to that that he was subject to such  guardianship i'm not certain about that because if that hearing was not a contested here and so i do not know i believe it was an uncontested hearing were simply the report of the dr roberts was on file and the current ship was was entered at that point and i don't believe the initial report from dr roberts nicky's how long mr rocker had been suffering from the leisure room wouldn't that be important for the future knowing whether he was bipolar long before that and was already in or the opposite he was not diagnosed did not have any of burnt behavior and yet he always gave contributions to charity versus having the disease diagnosed it's in a bad state with delusions then it's treated with medication and now we have to look at his remaining life what because if i can attribute it if it is if is it i would want to known if i would the psychiatrist would this was an ongoing part of his behavior when he was know you're happy it twelve when you're at a major depression eighty and it's more likely that that will occur in the teen years or early early adulthood burmistrov i think the more significant thing is that he's not been suffering from psychosis for several years before the petition to file i think both the psychiatrist agree that at least the last three four years that he had not been delusional not been suffering or psychosis even though it was it is a permanent condition we don't they know when the onset was that it's been a controlled condition as much as any other person is walking around doesn't have a current ship is under control and is separate from the same thank you and thank you for the additional time you will have r place terminations under the statute has three three factors report to the guardianship but it is no longer needed there are reports here that it's no longer needed that's true and his counsel pointed out there was no medical evidence on the other side to put up a direct rebuttal i will point out a couple of things with respect to the reports of the doctors the council had i think incorrectly stated mistakenly stated that the position stated that they were aware various wire transfers made through wal mart i think that the record was clear that they were not aware of those wire transfer potential here for him to be scammed i don't think that's as clear a statement from dr weiss and the intentional murder but he agreed as the court pointed out that he still does suffer from bipolar disorder and that it's not and i think that he necessarily found him this able by result ok let me rephrase it is it necessary for you to succeed here today before this court odd for us to question asked opposing counsel if the court needs a specific finding on that i do think that it's in the purview of the authority of this court to order remand to make more specific findings that's necessary  don't think it's necessary in this particular case and we look at the second factors your honor and the personal disability no longer wishes to be under guardianship there's no question on where that actor lies mr rocker does not want guardianship i don't think that any of the parties here and it was in the report of the guardian ad litum nobody in this case wants to force this type of thing upon anyone it's to prevent a waste of the estate and the only thing that has changed to want two things they say you only think two things change it appears that is a problem bipolar disorder has been better maintained since the initial findings but the other thing is change since the initial and need more money this week that's true he's on a limited budget there if the budget is unlimited which of the guardianship is lifted it will be i'm a little bit limited to the amount of resources that he has no more suggests that this whole thing c me ask your question and i don't mean this in jest at all but rather you let us suppose that after it's diagnosed and some of this financial activity is going on and now it's switched and he wants to travel to a larger city for paid companionship whether we call it an escort service or it would fall under devotion there that could do into a state with that be permissible i mean in the sense that you recognize that that doesn't have anything to do with potential internet scams or lonely widows or anything that you know we see on t v or we read about is simply a decision of choice and yet there are those who would say well that's going to waste the asset that's not good use of your resources even if you think you're getting something back what would what would the  i don't know what the bank would do if i were in charge i don't know that you could prevent that money from going to that one how is that different than here juicing if it's not the product of isn't disease but it maybe you know maybe the temptation is greater as the doctors say you might be more susceptible manipulation we're all susceptible to manipulation in some way or another i spouses or children or grandchildren or society at large and this a manipulation that we don't like but it in response to that we're all under manipulation i was reading into the doctor's report when he when the doctor say that i'm susceptible without a fourth grader and me coming out your honor i don't mean to do that again that it's a business transaction with a legitimate business purpose say in the state of nevada and we don't know that to be the case for example we don't know the purpose of this state and south africa or nigeria or whatever but common sense with the judge it's understandable sure smacks of an illegal activity on the part of someone trying to get money with no chance of benefit other than the partners everything else they stop hiring for this christian belief him to do that your honor but the difference here i believe is is the way that he was gone about is that the there must have been some question i'm surmising must been some question in the mind mr rocker as to whether this should be doing and whether it was a compulsion because one of the transactions at least was done under the suit was done under i think it's partly machine else's name he didn't disclose those to the doctors rocker about sending money i don't know apologise there are certainly conflicting opinions in this this matter between the doctors and the information that the doctor has and i think that there was also the assertion that the only thing that the court the trial  two i apologize for that error because even when i was looking for it yesterday when i knew what i was looking for i was wondering if i had made it out because i couldn't find it immediately not apologize to counsel to the question part based upon your interactions with mr rocker you believe is financially vulnerable yes and when we get down to the basis so i believe based upon the information that was obtained from the various walmart's in the area and the amount of money th various people so her decision wasn't even on this phone call and why she had gotten the number she testified as to what she experienced with that particular phone call and understanding  that maybe it was not a particular of the large amount of weight that should be given that it doesn't appear from the court's ruling that a lot of weight was given to that we don't know where the other that we think that it's unlikely or you can seen it that it was hearsay well if it was offered to prove that he was scammed by that particular individual than i do yes i don't know well if it wasn't offer why was it well it was offered to show these are the types of phone calls that he's receiving now but it was never here relevant unless those types of phone calls involves the phone less w behavior and his activity in regard to these things that some could be scam some would be the gist of it contributions charitable organizations but they were not fully informed and that their i understand this is speculative might they have come to a different who they may have we don't know we don't yeah i don't know i don't mean to suggest that there's reports you have to disregard it i think it goes to to the way of the rebut there are reports that are primarily based upon what the client told them or did not tell them and their observations that's true as as with any medical advice that any of us i believe the record indicates that dr roberts was specifically told by mr rocker that he was making these transfers that the transcript of dr roberts testimony indicates that during its examination mr rocker that mr rocker did tell dr roberts that wire transfers had been made by him he told in the vinson the wire transfers by western union so i think that was part of dr roberts evaluation of whether or not were told if he was doing this with this change your opinion and they both said no it would not so did anybody ever ask mr rocker if he would have been satisfied with a significant increase in his own i don't think anyone ever asked  about that now would that have possibly resolved the issue i don't think it would resolve the issue i think this is a situation where mr rocker has the same level capacity to decide what he wants to do with the property as anyone else that's out there and certainly if people give money to television evangelists who are billions he returns that may be suffering from some sort of mental illness they're not subject to a sort of guardianship i think he simply wants to be restored to the billion mansions own a state has no money because he feels he has the same capacity as anyone else that that's out there so i don't think increasing the amount of money that's given to him would be a resolution of the case  what the guardian can do i think if i think mr brock or always has the ability to file a petition with the court to say look i don't think occurrence given me enough money i think the courts order the current give me more money i think mr rocker always has that option  under the statute surely has ability to craft whatever the alternative remedy that they believe is appropriate to try to remedy the situation i think just appear struggle with x if you look at his find he said look i've thought about this it's a close call i've been trying to figure out how to resolve the situation but i can't come up with anything and so therefore i think the guardianship should continue it's possible that if this were man's this case to the trial court that there may be some resolution that the parties could simply not there to the common sense evidence is not there outside of the circe a testimony that was admitted which was in there no reason other than to show that these people who were contacting mr rocker were fact scammers the mere fact that ms control cv email for the mere fact that she received phone calls is of no significance to the case it's the content of those phone calls the content of those e mails and the content of where these phone calls came from coontz discovered not through any personal knowledge but by going on to a website determine where these phone calls came from which is her reporting her hearsay finds him she's a simply a late witness she's not an expert and even if all that went into her determination to conclude to the court that mr brock her was subject to scammers that's her late opinion she's not an expert on internet crimes and an expert on internet solicitations she's not a medical expert she's not your cd training in how to conduct any sort of  investigations into your neck crimes or anything like that that's really opinion which i don't think carries any weight whatsoever the significance of her testimony was what these people who were in jamaica or in other countries told her bring this conversation because that bolstered evidence out yet it is overwhelming to first off his decision to send money or not the product the mill if he doesn't suffer it doesn't satisfy the definition of a person disability any more it's a knowing decision to psych a decision any of us would make about how we're going