Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett – still incarcerated in the hospital | Bettina Network's Blog

Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett – still incarcerated in the hospital

without medical reasons and where beds are needed for the coronavirus. How come?

We have the beginnings of a reason that we see – maybe right, maybe wrong, but it makes sense to us, looking at all the facts.

1)  Besides being held against his will in Mass General Hospital having been put there by Somerville Cambridge Elder Services, many other of Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett’s rights were trampled – including his right to vote.

If you miss voting because of your choice then shame on you.  

If you miss voting because someone or some institution has taken away your freedom of movement intentionally and without cause, that is an institution taking away  a very sacred right that you have enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

If that right is taken away on the day you were to vote – you asked to be allowed to vote – and that request was rejected more than once,  that taking away of your right to vote was intentional and caused by force.

By forcibly incarcerating Robert Bennett against his wishes, against his rights and for the apparent reasons of greed, control over, and more is making an example of Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett to scare others into going along with you and your program.  

In the process, if it takes away your right to vote,  it  dishonors the sacrifices that so many have made to gain the right to vote – especially African American men and women.  

What happened with Robert Bennett sets in place a precedent which is re-enforced in other ways by the same and similar groups – insuring that the rights for future generations to vote are in jeopardy.

You can vote if……..you can vote unless…….you can vote, but we are finding ways to prevent and limit your group to all of the votes it should have.

By illegally and unethically incarcerating Robert Bennett on March 3rd, in spite of the fact that he asked several times about voting – from the hospital bed in which he was put and kept on March 3rd, he was very effectively prevented from this sacred right so guaranteed by the Constitution.

He was also not fed, not provided water and had to ask several times because he was just out of the hospital. Being put through such deprivations could have moved his recovery down several steps putting the  maintenance of his health in the future in jeopardy.  Although it was claimed this was being done for his health. Through all of this the one thing being put in such a place as to jeopardize his health is being claimed as protecting his health and recovery.

2)  We think Attorney James O’Sullivans’ right to practice law needs to be called into question, investigated and if reason is found, his license taken away and he be barred from the practice of law.

Attorney O’Sullivan went to Court and used his familiarity with judges and others in the Court to obfuscate, we feel to deliberately not present all the evidence, and ask the Court to hear his side without notifying the other side of the action he was asking which would result in Attorney O’Sullivan and the people he represented incarcerating a citizen of the Commonwealth very deliberately and arrogantly without a hearing. When this is done claiming “health” reasons, incarceration is becoming more common and being used to incarcerate more and more African Americans against whom criminal charges cannot be brought, but they can be entrapped and incarcerated if they dare enter a hospital.

When one is held against one’s will – no matter the place – that is incarceration.  It does not have to be an actual, physical prison built for the purpose of taking away a citizens rights to freely move around.  If one is kept, even in a hospital against one’s will, especially with either a spurious reason or an outright fraudulent reason,  the person, institution and/or groups which caused such and caused it knowingly for reasons of greed, control over and more, need to be called to account for their actions.

We are asking that this be done with Attorney O’Sullivan and the Somerville Cambridge Elder Affaires group along with other such groups across the Commonwealth and investigated.  We are asking that their monies be held up and only restored to those groups who do not and have not violated the rights nor irresponsibly or otherwise destroyed the assets of the people they claim to help nor have irresponsibly managed the monies received in the form of grants from the state or other institutions, groups or individual people.

Attorney O’Sullivan went to Court and asked for and received an ex-parte hearing which he knew could result in depriving Rev Dr. Robert Bennett of his freedom and cause him to be incarcerated – no matter how long or how short a time – and asked that the hearing be held without giving the Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett notice of such a hearing.  For the court to comply with such a request and with the other actions that the Court validated makes the Court complicit in what has happened with Rev. Dr. Bennett.  We ask that the judge so involved also be investigated and  removed, if such is found.  If the judge is retired and came back for just this hearing we ask that his right to be re-called be removed.  

What needs to be kept up front is that Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett is African American, is well known in the community and whatever happened to him would create a chilling effect in the African American community and make them and their assets open for raiding by those so disposed.

Additionally, Attorney O’Sullivan, during the hearing either intentionally, in collusion with his client, or for some other reason kept crucial information from the Court to allow his arguments to have weight they would not have had in a hearing in which both parties were represented.

3)  Attorney O’Sullivan asked the Court to take away from Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett his right to choose who he wanted as his Health Care Proxy.  

Attorney O’Sullivan knew Rev. Dr. Bennett had chosen who he wanted several  months before Attorney O’Sullivan went to Court and that choice was made with a probate attorney of his choice – it was signed and that signature witnessed by people who he knew and to whom he was known for some 20 to 30 years and that in addition, a second Health Care Proxy with Dr. Bennett’s choice of who he wanted as his Health Care Proxy was a part of the documents Attorney O’Sullivan and/or his clients had in their possession naming the same Health Care Proxy some many months after the first was created and that made by a very reputable institution – the person at Massachusetts General Hospital whose job it  is to deal with patients and their choices of a health care proxy.

The second Health Care Proxy was made because the attorney who created the first left in place a typographical error in date in that Health Care Proxy – that inaccurate date coming on the line after the signature of Dr. Bennett.  All people involved, however, knew the correct date as did Attorney O’Sullivan and the group he represented.

Because they saw that typo, Mass General Hospital stepped in with another Health Care Proxy to clear up what might have created confusion and they did that after an extensive interview with the patient.

Both of those Health Care Proxies were ignored by Attorney O’Sullivan.  If they were not and were indeed presented to the Court and and the Court replaced the choice of Dr. Bennett with a Health Care Proxy of their own choosing, that is a gross violation of Dr. Bennett’s rights.   Dr. Bennett had specifically said, at the time of the creation of both Heatlh Care Proxies that he did not want the person the Court established as his Health Care Proxy, making decisions about his health. In fact, the reason for creating both those Health Care Proxies was to honor Dr. Bennett’s wishes to make sure Dr. Bennett’s wife was in that position and the person named by the Court was not because a Health Care Proxy surfaced with that person’s name and Dr. Bennett wanted to keep the record clear as to his choice.

The damage to Dr. Bennett is incalculable from actions taken by Attorney O’Sullivan and it was done knowingly by Attorney O’Sullivan with the intention of gaining power and control over someone who had assets – including insurance – which Attorney O’Sullivan’s clients could then raid.  Attorney O’Sullivan was clearing a path over which he clients could run, cleaning out Dr. Bennett’s assets.

Once these initial moves were successful it cleared the way for guardianship over Dr. Bennett and the person or persons with such guardianship could have easily “cleaned out” Dr. Bennett, making him indigent.

Those intentions are clear in the way Attorney O’Sullivan characterized Dr. Bennett in that hearing.  He identified Dr. Bennett’s financial status as “indigent”  in spite of the fact that both Attorney Sullivan and his clients knew this was not true.

The end intent of this action is shown clearly in the beginning of this legal action.

4)  To justify removing Dr. Bennett’s wife as his Health Care Proxy, Attorney O’Sullivan claimed in his filing that Dr. Bennett’s wife abused him and he should immediately be removed from his home because of such. Libeling Dr. Bennett’s wife and attempting to use the possibility of publicly claiming such to keep her quiet and let this abuse of Dr. Bennett by the Court, by Attorney O’Sullivan by Somerville Cambridge Elder Services go forward.

Attorney O’Sullivan knew that was untrue and brought this charge to the court in spite of knowing it was not true.  In addition, not only did he have no proof at all, but Somerville Cambridge Elder Services, Attorney O’Sullivan’s clients, also knew this was not true and they brought this charge to win their claim removing Dr. Bennett’s wife to smooth the way for them to financially destroy Dr. Bennett and his wife and thereby enrich others with what they could rip off.

We ask that this group be investigated with how they have handled the monies and other assets they have handled or caused to be spent claiming it was for the benefit of clients that they have served.

This is the group which, before this action was brought, had some anger because the Bennett’s refused to accept their “free” services to provide someone to clean their home; someone to cook for them; someone to walk their pet (which they do not have); plus other services “for free”, which in fact, would have been charged to their insurance – and depending upon the terms of their insurance would have caused the Bennetts’ to pay out monies not necessary and or more – and – which are services the Bennetts’ felt they did not need nor want especially if it meant taking such possibilities away from those who did need and could use such “free” services.

This is also the group which had been following the Bennett’s several years before  they moved with Attorney O’Sullivan in this life and property destroying action.

5) Dr. Bennett and his family have suffered much from all of this and that needs to be acknowledged.  Emotional, financial, reputation and more.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe to receive an email notice when a new item is posted