UNDUE INFLUENCE AND FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION: THE CASE OF

AUGUST C. BAXTER

August Baxter, 80 years old, a Lieutenant Colonel retired from the U.S. Army Engineer Corps, and a recent widower, has suffered two strokes during the past five years, leaving him with profound vision and hearing losses, a debilitating short term memory deficit, a catastrophic reading disability, and an extreme vulnerability to undue influence. Following his most recent stroke three years ago, a concerted effort by his oldest stepson, Robert Lewis, to have him placed in a nursing home was thwarted by his youngest son, Eric Baxter. Among his four children, one grandchild, three stepsons, and four step- grandchildren, Eric and his brother were Mr. Baxter’s only visitors from family members during his critical hospital recovery, except for his wife who visited a few times. Mr. Baxter was very agitated during his time in the hospital and was comforted only by the presence of his sons, primarily Eric who visited him daily during his father’s final week of hospitalization where he was confined to a locked psychiatric ward. The sons had not been informed of their father’s stroke at the time it happened and he had been admitted to the psychiatric ward before they were notified.

.

To fully understand this case and the extent to which Mr. Baxter has been unduly influenced by the interlopers, some family history must necessarily be presented. as follows:

Mr. Baxter was married three times and had two daughters by his first wife. The second marriage took place when the two daughters were very young and they had little contact with their father until they were adults, despite the second wife’s efforts to keep him involved in their lives. The two sons, born of the second marriage, had grown up in their father’s home, accompanying him on his various military assignments, and were adults at the time of Mr. Baxter’s third marriage to Mr. Lewis’ mother. The sons continued to have a close relationship with their father over the years, particularly Eric, a physicist working as a consultant while completing his doctoral research, who was extremely close to his father as a child and throughout adulthood.. In junior high school, by choice, he lived alone with his father while his mother was in graduate school. After the marriage, however, visits with their father were limited due to his preference for seeing them without the interfering presence of the stepfamily For this reason, holiday visits were out of the question as one or more of the wife’s children or grandchildren were always there at that time. This situation was extremely difficult for Eric, but, fortunately, with both sons living in New Orleans, they were able to visit at a minimum two or three times a year.

The wife in the third marriage had three sons and one daughter, all of whom were adults living elsewhere at the time The daughter later came to live with the Baxters when she was terminally ill with cancer and died in the home. Still later in the marriage, an incorrigible grandson was sent to live with his grandmother, which caused Mr. Baxter incalculable grief because of the grandson’s delinquent behavior, which included crashing a car which Mr. Baxter was persuaded to purchase and, in an unrelated incident, assaulting a police officer. There was extensive damage and injuries to the other car and its occupants, causing Mr.Baxter considerable expense and stress, and may have contributed to his subsequent stroke. The disposition of the case of the assault on the policeman has mysteriously disappeared from the legal records.

The oldest Lewis son, Robert, was in his 30’s at the time of his mother’s wedding to Mr. Baxter an officer in the Marine Corps, and an infrequent visitor in Mr. Baxter’s home. Until his last stroke, Mr. Baxter complained bitterly to his sons throughout the marriage about the stepsons, whom he always referred to as "the dumb jock straps", They had been high school athletes and appeared to have no interests in life other than sports. Mr. Baxter, who was something of an intellectual with many interests in literature, science, politics, and the arts, and spoke five languages fluently, often complained that he was unable to converse with the Lewis family members since he had no interest in sports. On the contrary, he spent hours with his sons in "esoteric" discussion as the three shared many interests, and he enjoyed conversing in German with Eric who also spoke the language. Mr. Baxter was inordinately proud of his sons, especially Eric, and his mother’s family members were sometimes subjected to his bragging about his sons.

Prior to the marriage, Mr. Baxter and Mrs. Lewis signed and filed a comprehensive premarital agreement, declaring their assets would be maintained separately throughout their marriage. At the time the agreement was filed, it was made known to Mr. Baxter’s former wife and the two sons and

they were given a copy of the agreement. The former wife was included in this discussion as she had left in Mr. Baxter’s care considerable community property in the form of art objects and artifacts in addition to one specific item created by her grandfather which was left at the request of Mr. Baxter.. The divorce agreement specified that he would keep the community property items safe, neither selling nor giving them away, until they could be appraised and equally divided. On very nearly every visit with the sons, the subject was discussed and the sons were frequently asked to designate which of their father’s property they particularly wanted as the Baxters "wanted to write it into the (father’s) will". The sons always declined, stating they could not claim their father’s property but would cherish anything he chose to leave them. The community property was never divided, but was not a particular concern to the former wife as she trusted Mr. Baxter and his wife to protect it and see to it that her sons inherited her share as agreed. The phrase used repeatedly by the Baxters was that "we want what is Gus’ to go to his heirs and what is Lou’s to go to her heirs so there won’t be any problems between the children when we die." This arrangement seemed to be particularly important to the wife, possibly because she had greater assets at the time of the marriage, or a guilty conscience for breaking up Mr. Baxter’s marriage to his former wife while she was away in graduate school. This separation of assets and income was rigorously maintained throughout the marriage, at least until the time of Mr. Baxdter’s first stroke and separate attorneys were used for their legal affairs. There can be no question that the wife also informed her own children and her attorney, D. H., although both Mr. Lewis and D.H. have denied it. The sons had always been kept fully informed of their father’s business matters until his first stroke. It appears that the situation may have changed when the wife, her children, and attorney came to believe that "Gus will be the first to go." Reciprocal wills may have been written at that time to reflect "community property" as, after his wife’s death, Mr. Baxter told Eric on several occasions that "we left everything to each other." From his comments, he apparently still believes that he inherited his wife’s estate.

The sons were not informed of the wife’s terminal illness until she lay dying. As soon as Eric learned of her impending death he quickly arranged his affairs to come home, although he was discouraged from coming by the stepson who told him to wait for the funeral. Within a day or so, Eric arranged to leave a tenant in charge of his home in New Orleans and informed his associates that he would continue his contractual work with them from his father’s home as he expected to be with him indefinitely. Knowing of his father’s opinion and distrust of his stepchildren, the fact that his daughters lived in California and most likely had not been kept informed of his father’s business, and the previous neglect of his father by all of the family members while he was hospitalized, as well as the stepson’s previous plan to place Mr. Baxter in a nursing home at that time, Eric fully expected to assume responsibility for his father until his situation could be evaluated and his needs determined.

Eric’s expectations included moving in and caring for his father at no expense to his father since he had his own income and would support himself while there. Knowing of the property agreement and his father’s contempt for the entire Lewis family, Eric’s assumption was that, after the funeral, the stepsons would pack up their mother’s personal belongings and be on their way. Eric had long been concerned that his father was not getting the therapy he needed for the effects of the stroke and had already worked out a treatment regimen for him, which included first a complete neurological evaluation to determine the totality of the damage, the prognosis, and recommended treatment. Mr. Baxter had repeatedly told Eric that he needed an evaluation to find out why "my brain is not working right." In any case, Eric planned to procure large print books for him, eye glasses, hearing aids, and a telephone he could use without assistance. Eric had planned on getting his father back to attending church, which he had not done regularly since the

second stroke, and involved in activities as his father also complained of being bored because he couldn’t see, hear, or read. Eric had located gym facilities for his father to use since he also complained that he got no exercise, and planned to restore his father’s workshop so he could once again do his woodworking. Mr. Baxter had long dreamed of making a trip back to Italy to visit the little town he had been instrumental in restoring after World War II and Eric contacted the mayor of the town to inform him of the possibility of his making the trip back with his father. However, after the funeral, Eric learned of the many changes that had occurred during the month of his stepmother’s terminal illness and the extent to which his father had lost control of his life.

How Mr. Lewis gained control over Mr. Baxter so quickly classically illustrates the five principles of undue influence. Because of the disabilities resulting from Mr. Baxter’s stroke, it was not difficult for Mr. Lewis to 1) Create a feeling of total dependency on him. With the loss of certain faculties, Mr. Baxter was easily convinced that he couldn’t do anything for himself. It had long concerned his sons that their stepmother had fostered helplessness in their father rather than encouraging him to use the considerable abilities he had left. With the impending death of his wife who had relieved him of all his responsibilities, Mr. Baxter was extremely vulnerable and Mr. Lewis easily persuaded Mr. Baxter that he, and he alone, was in a position to take care of his affairs..

This 2) Promotion of powerlessness left Mr. Baxter convinced that he was helpless, had no other choice, and was "very lucky that Bob was there to take care of things for me." Other options were never presented to him. In view of his past opinion of Mr. Lewis, Mr. Baxter’s total conviction that "Whatever Bob wants" is the proper way to go is a true measure of the extent to which he has been unduly influenced.

To accomplish the above, it was and is necessary to 3) Keep him unaware of reality. As will be presented later, he remains totally unaware of how he has been exploited and robbed of his assets. As a brief example, once when he was demanding to know where his money had gone, he listened to Mr. Lewis’ explanation that he had a lot of debts to pay off, which in reality he did not, then said, "Be sure and take a generous amount for yourself, Bob, for all your work."

The 4) Creation of a siege mentality, has emerged in order to alienate Mr. Baxter from his sons. There is considerable evidence that since his stroke he has been besieged with derogatory comments about his son Eric since he has been most assertive in trying to rescue his father. Eric has been accused of being "out to get his money", taking things from the house without permission, being blamed for everything that goes wrong, plotting to remove his father from his home, and a danger to his father.

Mr. Lewis realized early on, after witnessing the close relationship between Mr. Baxter and his son that the 5) Isolation of Eric from his father would be essential if his plan to strip Mr. Baxter of his assets was to be successful. How he accomplished this will be discussed later.

1. Had a new will drawn up only hours before the wife died, ignoring the prenuptial agreement and partially allocating "community property" to the Lewis sons, potentially stripping Mr. Baxter of his assets. The will itself is highly questionable due to numerous inconsistencies and the fact that the wife was dying of liver failure which causes brain dysfunction weeks before death. Very likely she did not know what she was doing. She signed the will with an "X", but her confusion is apparent in her attempt to sign other documents that same day. Her "signature" indicates she didn’t know her own name by that time. This crime is as much against the wife as Mr. Baxter since the change in her will is contrary to her long expressed desires to keep their property separate.

2. Rewrote Mr. Baxter's will without his clear understanding that it did not include his late wife’s sassets which he apparently thinks he inherited. His comment to his son on several occasions that "We left everything to each other," attests to that belief and explains why he agreed to rewrite his will to "Include some Lewis heirs." The necessity for rewriting Mr. Baxcter’s will the day before his wife died is also questionable..

3. Obtained power-of-attorney from a dying woman without cause, unless for some ulterior motive related to exploiting Mr. Baxter.

4. Obtained power-of-attorney from a grieving, disabled, elderly man at a most inopportune and unnecessary time, without clearly delineating his options to him, and without discussion with his sons. Although Mr. Lewis reportedly discussed the "arrangements" with Mr. Baxter’s daughters and his brother, they had not had the confidence of Mr. Baxter over the years and were not privy to his personal desires, needs, and business. Any discussion with them was therefore inappropriate unless the sons were present. In addition, Mr. Lewis apparently was able to intimidate them and gain their acquiesence in a way that was ineffective with the sons.

5. Accepted executorship of his mother’s estate succession although he is not a resident of the state of Louisiana and has not filed delegated authority appropriately as required by law. Being executor for his mother and having power-of-attorney over Mr. Baxter, Mr. Lewis has total control over both estates and can maximize his inheritance at Mr. Baxter’s expense.

6. Distributed the property of Mr. Baxter and that of his former wife without the knowledge or consent of either. Mr. Baxter complained to his older son that "Everything I wanted to keep is gone," and regarding one item belonging exclusively to the former wife, he told the son that, "If I ever find out who took it, I’ll get it back for her."

7. Used Mr. Baxter’s assets to pay off his wife’s debts in violation of the prenuptial agreement, thereby retaining her assets to increase the Lewis children’s inheritance.

8. Without Mr. Baxter’s knowledge and contrary to his expressed desires, purportedly contracted to pay the late wife’s granddaughter, $2,000 - $2,500 a month to live in Mr. Baxter’s home with her husband and infant, although they are both full time college students and have no time for meeting Mr. Baxter’s needs. This arrangement also specifies that if he should die or go into a nursing home the couple would continue to live there under the same contractual conditions., presumably continuing to receive payment from his estate..

9. Apparently opened a new bank account which only Mr. Lewis has access to and into which he diverted Mr. Baxter’s military retirement pay. This is an assumption based on the fact that a printout of Mr. Baxter’s City Bank checking account does not reflect a deposit of his retirement pay for that particular month, as will be discussed later.

10. Diverted Mr. Baxter’s bank statement to Mr. Lewis’ home in Kansas and informed the bank it would not be necessary to send a copy to Mr. Baxter. His excuse was that he would provide a monthly "summary" showing how the money was spent.

11. Discontinued Mr. Baxter’s long distance telephone service which effectively isolated him from contacting his sons and other family members or friends. Installed cordless phones with ringers that he couldn’t hear and had difficulty using. Refused to allow his older son to install a phone that Mr. Baxter could hear and easily operate, thereby increasing his isolation and dependency.

12. Most significantly, in order to ensure that Mr. Baxter’s isolation from his son, Eric, is complete, composed a letter without Mr. Baxter’s knowledge or consent, forbidding Eric to enter his home. When the letter was shown to him and the contents explained, he was shocked and appalled, both that the letter could have been written at all and the fact that he had signed it without knowing its contents. Yet when given the opportunity to sign another letter retracting the first, he declined to do so saying that he would have to wait until Bob got there to tell him what to do -- another measure of the extent to which he has been unduly influenced.

13. Denied Mr. Baxter’s requests to have his son review and explain to him all the documents he had signed that he did not understand and denied his request for his son to accompany him to the lawyer’s office.

14. The granddaughter and her husband make personal use of Mr. Baxter’s automobile as if it belonged to them, while he continues to pay the insurance and, most likely, the upkeep. Their use of his gasoline credit cards is suspected but not known.

When Eric first arrived at home, his stepmother had already died, but Mr. Baxter expressed his pleasure in seeing him and Eric accompanied his father to the funeral. Following the funeral, Mr. Baxter walked Eric through the house, telling him that "You have first priority. Put your name on anything you see that you want" which Eric refused to do, knowing of the prenuptial agreement and that everything would go equally to his father’s children. Mr. Baxter also told Eric that he had signed a lot of papers that he "didn’t understand a quarter of what I have signed" and asked him to review the documents

and "explain them to me since you are the only person that can explain things so I understand." Mr. Lewis overheard these comments and intervened, telling Eric that the property had already been distributed among the Lewis and Baxter heirs. He attempted to persuade Eric to take something "for the Baxter boys" and sign a statement to that effect which Eric refused to do on the basis that he had no right to his parent’s property while he was living. He did finally agree to take several items since he knew they belonged to his mother and that they would otherwise disappear, but he insisted on giving Mr. Lewis a receipt stating they were in his possession for safekeeping only. Concerning Mr. Baxter’s request that Eric review the documents, Mr. Lewis informed him that "it won’t be necessary" and later refused Mr. Baxter’s request that Eric accompany them to the attorney’s office.

When Eric attempted to inform Mr. Lewis of some of the plans he had for his father’s care, Mr. Lewis became enraged, informing Eric that he, Mr. Lewis, had obtained a durable power-of-attorney to conduct Mr. Baxter’s affairs and that all arrangements had been made for his care, that a Lewis granddaughter, her husband, and infant would be moving in to enroll in the local university, that Mr. Baxter would be paying them $2,500 a month to live there while they were in college, that "when" Mr. Baxter went into a nursing home or died, the couple would continue to live there until graduation from college, and that when Mr. Baxter went to a nursing home it would be in California near his daughters’ homes.. He further stated that various family members, including Mr. Baxter’s brother, his daughters, and his daughter’s husband, but excluding his sons, were scheduled to stay with Mr. Baxter until his niece moved in. Mr. Lewis also informed Eric that he was closing Mr. Baxter’s bank account and would open another under his exclusive administration and that he was having the bank statement sent to his own address in Kansas. (However, he later informed Eric that he had not closed the account, but subsequent information revealed that he apparently had opened another one, possibly in Kansas, for the deposit of Mr. Baxter’s military retirement check of approximately $3,300 monthly.) During this tirade, Mr. Lewis made numerous allegations including accusing Eric of stealing property belonging to the wife and having failed to visit his father regularly. Since these accusations were exactly the opposite of the truth, it appears that Mr. Lewis was still harboring resentment toward Eric for his having prevented them from placing Mr. Baxter in a nursing home following his stroke. Each time Eric attempted to question the necessity for the arrangements in view of his plan to stay with his father, Mr. Lewis would respond only with such comments as "don’t piss me off, you really don’t want to piss me off," accompanied by "appropriate" threatening facial grimaces and glaring eyes, apparently reflecting his training in intimidation as a special forces marine.

Mr. Lewis also informed Eric that if he attempted to have Mr. Baxter interdicted, he had arranged to have himself appointed Mr. Baxter’s curator in the event he were declared incompetent and that he was currently Mr. Baxter’s "tutor."

In view of the hostility exhibited by Mr. Lewis combined with his father’s inability to discuss anything substantive, the fact that Mr. Lewis was frequently seen lurking around to eavesdrop on their conversation, and realizing there was nothing to be gained in trying to reason with a clearly disturbed individual who could be dangerous to Mr. Baxter, Eric decided to wait until Mr. Lewis returned to Kansas to talk to his father to make sure he understood how he was being manipulated.. Despite the great extent to which Mr. Baxter had been unduly influenced, Eric believed that a few days out from under Mr. Lewis’ control, his father could be helped to understand what had happened to him and would see how he was being exploited.

Considering the plans as outlined by Mr. Lewis and his behavior towards him, Eric was fearful for his father’s safety and stayed by his side for the next three days, leaving at night to return to his mother’s home, and trying to avoid further confrontation with Mr. Lewis. During the three days, Eric and Mr. Baxter were inseparable. with his father following Eric everywhere as he went about cleaning and organizing Mr. Baxter’s workshop, repairing tools that appeared to have been purposely dismantled, and running an occasional errand for a needed part, etc. On one occasion, Mr. Lewis came to the workshop and told Mr. Baxter he wanted to talk to him privately. When Mr. Baxter returned, he told Eric that Mr. Lewis said if Eric disagreed with any of the arrangements, that Bob’s opinion should prevail, then said that he did not know what that was all about.

Regardless, Mr. Baxter. continued to complain to Eric about the arrangements. He did not want the niece and husband to move in because he had a near physical confrontation with the husband the previous summer because he refused to relinquish Mr. Baxter’s preferred chair and that the niece had earlier been "sent to a reform school". Mr. Baxter’s wife had been so upset by the chair incident that she sent the couple away. However, Mr. Baxter told Eric that he had to let them come there to live or else would have to go to a nursing home and finally said in resignation, "I guess it will be all right if he will just stay our of my way." When later asked how much he would be paying them to live there, he responded with a puzzled, "Nothing!" It was apparent that he did not know his money was being used for this purpose. He complained repeatedly that he did not want to go to California when the time came that he "had to go to a nursing home". When Eric attempted to inform him that he didn’t have to do any of these things if he didn’t want to, that he would stay with him as long as he needed him and that he would never have to go into a nursing home, Mr. Baxter would either ignore Eric or become agitated and say, "But, that’s what Bob wants me to do", or "I have to do what Bob wants, he’s the oldest son."

Since Mr. Baxter continued to plead for an evaluation to find out what was wrong with his brain and whether anything could be done to restore his reading ability, Eric attempted once more to discuss the issue with Mr. Lewis. At one point, Mr. Lewis responded that he may permit it under some conditions but that he would "have to think about it." Because his father persisted, Eric brought up the subject again as he was about to leave at the end of the third day, to which Mr. Lewis responded by charging across the room, making obscene comments, saying menacingly, "This visit is over! You will not return without permission. Now don’t make me do this in front of your father!", grabbing Eric by the shoulders and shoving him towards the door. Not wanting his father to witness a fight, Eric left thinking he would return as soon as Mr. Lewis departed for Kansas in a few days. Before leaving, Eric did appeal to his father by asking him if he saw what was happening, to which he responded, "Maybe it would be better if you left, if that’s what Bob wants."

For the following two days, Eric repeatedly tried to contact his father by telephone, but was unsuccessful. Having personally experienced Mr. Lewis’ propensity toward violence, he was extremely concerned at having been forced to leave his father in Mr. Lewis’ care. At his mother’s suggestion, Eric decided to take his concerns to the local police and ask for their advice. The officer he spoke to was extremely supportive. He knew Mr. Baxter and had just led the wife’s funeral procession. The officer advised Eric to remain at the police station while he sent someone to check on his father’s welfare. The two officers dispatched to the house called back to the station and asked Eric to join them as they were convinced Mr. Lewis was in the house but "hiding" from them. Eric joined them at the house and soon found his father alone, asleep in the sun room with a rifle leaning suspiciously near the back door. He told the officers that he had been cleaning the gun but had no idea where Mr. Lewis was. At the suggestion of the officers, Eric took his father to the workshop where they chatted with them for a short while. During this time, Mr. Baxter made several comments such as he was glad Mr. Lewis was there to take care of his business at the attorney’s office because he "did not understand a quarter of what went on there", just as he had said on earlier occasions, and he further explained to them that Mr. Lewis had taken him there "to add some Lewis heirs to my will." He made friendly small talk with the officers and encouraged them to "take anything from the shop you want." After the officers returned to continue their search of the house, he remarked to Eric in an amused tone, "I wonder what that was all about." Shortly afterward, one of the officers returned to the workshop and asked Mr. Baxter to assist them.

The officers continued to search the house for 45 minutes or so, when Mr. Lewis suddenly appeared at the door of the workshop where Eric was alone He told Mr. Lewis that the officers were there to ascertain Mr. Baxter’s well being, to which Mr. Lewis replied, "You f***ing little toad!" After gaining control of his emotions, Mr. Lewis presented himself to the officers inside the house for a discussion, the content of which is unknown. However, eventually the senior officer went to Eric and said, "You’re not taking your father anywhere." When Eric commented that he did not understand what he meant as he had no intentions of taking his father anywhere, the officer repeated himself. After several rather hostile repetitions of this, the officer stated that as Mr. Lewis was the executor of his mother’s estate and held Mr. Baxter’s power-of-attorney he had the right to say who could or could not come on the property. He further stated that Eric could stay a little while, but he must then leave and not return without Mr. Lewis’ permission. The officers left and Mr. Lewis retreated, leaving Eric and his father to continue puttering and chatting in the shop as if nothing had happened.

Occasionally, Mr. Lewis would appear at the door, grimace threateningly, and then disappear again. During one emergence, he said to Eric, "Don’t try to get a restraining order against me", to which Eric replied, "I hadn’t intended to, but I’m sure, first thing Monday morning, you’ll try to get one against me." Eric reminded him that, at least in theory, one needs to produce evidence of a good cause to obtain such an order.

Eric did not attempt to return to the house for several days until he knew Mr. Lewis had returned to Kansas and that Mr. Baxter’s son-in-law was there as the designated "caretaker". The senior police officer had assured Eric, before speaking to Mr. Lewis, that he would check on Mr. Baxter every day that he was on duty, so Eric felt reasonably comfortable that his father would be safe in the meantime. When Eric did return to the house, Mr. Baxter again expressed his delight in seeing his "favorite son" and the two of them resumed their task of organizing the workshop and repairing the tools. Since Eric is also a gourmet cook, he took on the additional task of preparing meals for the three men. Eric and his brother-in-law were highly compatible, although they had met only once before, and they both reported having two very enjoyable days. At the end of the second day, as he was setting a loaf of sour dough bread to rise for his father, Eric noticed a certified letter addressed to him taped to the refrigerator in the location his stepmother

had reserved for posting Eric’s mail until he came home to pick it up. He sometimes received mail there as he had always given it as his permanent address in college.

Eric took his letter but did not read it until he left the house. Upon reading it he was shocked that Mr. Lewis felt so threatened that he would have the attorney draw up such a document forbidding Eric to go to his father’s home and threatening him with arrest if he did so. However, he did not take the letter seriously since it was obviously written by Mr. Lewis, clearly fraudulent, and totally contrary to his father’s expressed desires. Although it was purportedly written at his father’s instruction, Eric knew, as well as anyone else who had ever seen them together, that it was the total opposite of his father’s wishes. He also knew that it would have been impossible for his father to formulate such ideas and if he had been so displeased with a son’s behavior, he would have told him so and not resorted to such a cowardly and underhanded method of informing him. Also, in citing a no trespassing law, Mr. Lewis had inserted a condition for a visit with permission from the "caretaker" which is not provided for in the cited law. Later checking with several legal authorities yielded the consensus that this was an obvious attempt by Mr. Lewis to isolate the father from the son who could not otherwise be intimidated, and that the exception clause was a ruse to have him arrested if he violated the cited law. In addition, the letter specifically stated that the action was taken in retaliation for Eric "calling the police to the home", a clear violation of the state’s elderly protective laws.

Eric returned to the house the next day with the letter, intending to return it to the refrigerator after he realized the original had been mailed to his home in New Orleans. Considering the congenial and enjoyable two days the three men had just spent together, Eric did not anticipate that his brother-in-law would try to enforce an order he knew was so clearly contrary to Mr. Baxter’s best interests. However, he was wrong as when he arrived he was met on the driveway and not allowed to exit the car by the brother-in-law who explained that he had talked to Mr. Lewis and that he had no choice but to follow his instructions. Eric left after asking him to explain to his father why he was unable to keep his promise to finish the work in the shop and to bake his bread.

Two days later, Eric’s mother called the brother-in-law to try to determine the source of the problem and why Mr. Baxter was being deprived of his son’s care and comfort. In the discussion, as recorded in shorthand by the mother who was once a court reporter, he acknowledged that he had been told how worthless and incompetent Eric was, that he couldn’t do anything, and that his father had supported him all his life. He then stated that everything he had learned about Eric during the two days they had spent together was the direct opposite of what he had been told and that Eric was owed an apology. He said that the only negative thing that happened from Eric’s visit was that on both nights after Eric returned to his mother’s home, his father was somewhat agitated. However, he acknowledged that Mr. Baxter showed no agitation while Eric was there, only after he left. He further stated that Eric was one of the "most intelligent, sensitive individuals" he had ever met, that "there is nothing he can’t do, from repairing the power tools to baking bread", and that he had really enjoyed the meals he had prepared for them. In response to a question concerning how Mr. Lewis had gained control, he stated that "He was here, and everybody just let him do it", but that his wife, who had been named executor of Mr. Baxter’s estate during the frenzied drafting of legal papers, "was not totally satisfied with all the arrangements, either." However, his new insights did not change his determination to participate in the program to isolate Mr. Baxter from his son. Obviously, Mr. Lewis has been more successful in intimidating other family members than he has been with Eric.

The extent of the undue influence and evidence of exploitation was most apparent on one occasion when Eric met Mr. Baxter at a restaurant where he was having lunch with Eric’s cousin. Eric had arranged for his cousin to take his father to lunch as he had not seen him for about two months. On the advice of his legal advisor, Eric used the opportunity to attempt to obtain Mr. Baxter’s signature on a statement retracting the letter forbidding him entry to his father’s home. When Eric entered the restaurant, Mr. Baxter greeted him joyfully and with a big hug. During lunch, Eric introduced the subject of having been forbidden to come to the house and recorded Mr. Baxter’s shocked disbelief when he was told that Eric had received a letter to that effect. Mr. Baxter denied knowledge of the letter or any desire to have Eric’s visits restricted.. When Eric produced a copy of the letter for his father, he struggled to read it and was stunned when he recognized his own signature. In the taped conversation, it is clear that he was offended by the letter and by the notion that his son, even in an emergency, had to get permission from his "caretaker" in order to see him. When Eric asked his father, "but you do want me to visit you, don’t you", Mr. Baxter’s vehement response was "Hell, yes!!" However, when Eric offered a simple, prepared statement to revoke the letter, Mr. Baxter became quite agitated and declined to do so, stating he would have to wait until Bob came back to tell him what to do.

Other documentation of exploitation is seen in the printout of Mr. Baxter’s checking account activity record obtained from the bank teller on an occasion during which Mr. Baxter’s oldest son, Brandt Baxter, accompanied his father and the "caretakers" to the bank. The purpose of the visit to the bank was to obtain Mr. Baxter’s signature on a CD that had been cashed three days earlier by Mr. Lewis. However, Mr. Baxter had been asking his son to take him to the bank to ascertain his checking account balance and to determine his monthly income. He informed his son that he should have about $10,000 in his checking account and offered the son $1,000, if he needed it, which the son declined. Mr. Baxter was unaware of the true purpose of the visit, but dutifully signed the documents the teller had already prepared for him. As the "caretakers" started to leave with him, he turned to his son and asked, "Well, what did we learn?" His son turned back to the teller and explained that Mr. Baxter wanted to know his balance and his income, to which she responded by handing him a printout of the account activity for a two week period, which happened to be the last week of one month and the first week of the next month, covering the period during which his retirement checks were credited to his account. Mr. Baxter was shocked to find that, before Mr. Lewis deposited half of the redeemed CD into the checking account, he had little more than $3,000 in the account and that his military retirement check of approximately $3,300 had not been deposited. Mr. Baxter was extremely agitated and upon returning home, insisted the son call Mr. Lewis for an explanation. Mr. Lewis informed him that there were "substantial" debts that he was paying off, although Mr. Baxter had not known of any debts, but appeared to accept whatever Mr. Lewis told him as he ended the conversation with, "Be sure and take a generous amount for yourself for all your work." However, after ending the conversation, Mr. Baxter continued to complain about his financial situation and decided that the government had cut his retirement, asking, "Why do you think the government would do that to us old retirees?" It was during the son’s visit that Mr. Baxter was asked how much he was paying the "caretakers" to live there, to which he vehemently responded, "Nothing!", and further, that "With the kids living here, and since he is the oldest son, Bob is paying for the utilities and groceries." It was obvious to his son that Mr. Baxter did not know he was paying the "kids" $2,000 - $2,500 to live there and did not understand that his resources were being used to pay his late wife’s debts, although it is possible he had agreed to it since he thought he had inherited her estate.

During this same visit, Mr. Baxter inquired why Eric had not come to the house. When reminded of the letter forbidding Eric to do so, he looked very confused and asked who had sent him such a letter. When an attempt was made to explain, it became apparent that he neither understood why Eric had been forbidden to visit him nor had any memory of the letter.

Several attorneys, including one retired judge, the author of one of the state’s laws addressing exploitation of the elderly, and this country’s foremost expert on undue influence were consulted. Most of these people also reviewed the evidence in order to advise the sons on the legality of the documents and the most appropriate way to pursue the matter in court. The consensus of opinion was that the case was a criminal matter involving exploitation and undue influence, and they concurred in Eric’s filing of a petition with the court and a complaint with the District Attorney. When these efforts failed to get appropriate action, the legal advisors encouraged him to seek the assistance of the police in the matter. When the police would take no action, Eric sought help from the Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s office. When the chief investigator there refused to take action, the author of a relevant criminal statute personally telephoned him to say that she had reviewed the case and that it was definitely a criminal matter. The undue influence authority, offered to talk to anyone involved in the case to help them understand the process involved in bringing a vulnerable person to the point where he trusts those who are exploiting him, but no one wanted to talk to her, and no action was taken.

Eric also consulted the office of a state senator pursuing an agenda of elder abuse legislation. Agreeing with the attorney’s opinions, a staff member reported the abuse to the state Elderly Protective Services (EPS), thinking that the alleged perpetrators would be removed from Mr. Baxter’s home until an investigation could be completed. However, apparently no investigation was made of the financial exploitation and undue influence of this vulnerable, elderly, disabled man and the case was closed as "unsubstantiated".

The investigator concluded that "we have to go by what’s on paper", by which he meant, not the long-standing and carefully maintained matrimonial agreement which would protect Mr. Baxter from his late wife’s heirs, but rather the conflicting and highly questionable deathbed will. No consideration was given the fact that a retaliatory letter, purportedly expressing Mr. Baxter’s threat to arrest his son for bringing his abuse to the attention of the police, was apparently a forgery.

The investigator instead noted that Mr. Baxter was "neat and clean" which had nothing to do with the allegations. The judge called the EPS investigator, trying to ascertain his reason for ignoring the evidence of financial exploitation and undue influence, but was unsuccessful. The judge and another of Eric’s advisors then collaborated to find a local lawyer who with enough knowledge of elderly exploitation laws could take the case into civil court, but found the only one they thought "fearless" enough, was unwilling to "sue another attorney." Apparently, after reviewing the evidence, he came to the conclusion that the attorney who drew up the documents in accordance with Mr. Lewis’ instructions was also at fault and would have to be sued in order to obtain justice for Mr. Baxter.

As a result of the refusal of various officials to do their duty and implement the laws written to protect elderly citizens, Mr. Baxter continues to be exploited, isolated, and his physical and emotional needs neglected. With the prima facie evidence available to them, had the EPS considered the legal issues involved and referred the case to the District Attorney for prosecution as the various experts expected, Mr. Baxter would be likely back in control of his life and his finances. He would also be enjoying the companionship of his sons. involved in stimulating activities. and would be receiving the treatment he needs to enrich his remaining years. This situation seems particularly ironic as the city of Natchitoches is touted as one of the top retirement communities in the country, yet their law enforcement agencies refuse to provide protection for one of their most distinguished citizens, a veteran of three wars and recipient of numerous combat medals, including two Purple Hearts and a Silver Star.

6/11/03 It was later learned that the loss of interest of the law enforcemnt people, following their initial expression of concern, was due to the fact that the attorney had personally gone to each of them with a story that obviously succeeded in distorting the truth of the situation to the extent that each official refused to pursue the matter in compliance with the laws designed to protect the elderly.