4. I also began researching state records regarding past abuse, evidence of exploitative adoptions on the part of the family, and why Karen's associates cannot do anything about her situation.

5. I found that in her state, only family members can act on behalf of a family member with a disability. Or a contractual lawyer or disability advocate. Her past advocate did not follow-up on her comments that she was being punished for speaking out. Her rights were taken away before she could find another advocate.

6. Friends and associates can only 'petition' a tribunal for a hearing and, in Karen's case, they have been turned down. The only option is a police investigation, which is a lengthy, time-consuming process.

7. I also have multiple documents Karen left with me in case her rights were taken away. I have been criticized for using them to bring this story to light. I have told the family repeatedly that Karen gave me permission to use this information to write about her case, and that if she no longer wants me to do so, she could tell me in person. However, the family has declined to arrange for a meeting for me to speak directly with Karen.

So she walks and talks to the extent of being competent to arrange a meeting verbally in public, at uni . Sounds like she has no use of her hands, probably from Thalidomide and maybe has never had to sign her name to arrange actions. Otherwise is ready to go. She's able to speak into some-one's phone , walk into police / court-house or ask Dr T to arrange a refuge. If the carer starts physically forcing her not to walk into refuge and Karen yells " help. call police " in the main street , then someone should respond..

5." I found that in her state, only family members can act on behalf of a family member with a disability. "

She's in North Korea? My wife has a disability , i'm her carer and she acts on her own behalf.

Looks like the problem is that you are playing within the framework of the legal game, prolonging Karen's sufferings. Rather you, Patricia, along with Karen's university friends should forcibly break into Karen's place at a time she has her talking keyboard (to talk with her carer): use stealth and act fast before the keyboard can be disconnected, then physically snatch Karen out with her keyboard into a waiting van and drive her to a police station where she can tell them everything.

For inspiration, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe

Nicknamenick... Keep asking your good questions.

1. Karen cannot speak at all. No yelling out for help or talking on the phone. She can only type, and she needs her talking keyboard to be able to communicate. No keyboard, no communication. No access to email, no communication.

2. Karen requires assistance and accompaniment into the community. She is never without a paid carer by her side. This is what the $200,000 a year pays for – carers to ensure she can participate in life to the fullest extent possible. She does not have an intellectual disability. Karen can earn a university degree, start a business, pay taxes, get married and raise a family. But, with her profound physical disabilities, none of that is possible without professional carers and access to her keyboard.

3. I do not have permission from Karen to write specifically about her medical conditions. But, at the risk of sounding simplistic.... If you woke up tomorrow mute and blind (i.e. you could hear everything that goes on around you, but could not respond, and could not leave the house without a guide dog or personal assistant) how would you reach out for help? If you could no longer contact a lawyer, an advocate or the police, how would you inform others about financial abuse and punishment?

This is why I wrote the article. The profoundly disabled are uniquely vulnerable to this type of abuse. And they are the ones who get the six-figure packages. In the void created when Karen lost access to her communication device, the adoptive family started speaking for her, even though they have no legal right to do so. Her disabled appearance gives people the impression that they are her legal 'guardians' when they are not.

There needs to be more diligence on the part of policy-makers and those tasked with supervising the process to ensure that people like Karen are not vulnerable to having their rights removed – with little hope of having them reinstated – when they speak out about embezzlement and theft from their taxpayer-provided funding.

Lack of autonomy, as you describe. Is the keyboard connected to the Internet,
Or, like a computer, has a duel function, where the Internet is irrelevant?

If the only crime committed, is the disconnection from the Internet, than that would hardly constitute an offence.
But the act of disconnecting her computer from the Internet, renders her defenceless to a large degree.

This is a very narrow thread on which to base an assault against her prison wardens!
But I still believe, that under her profound disability circumstances, an apprehended violence order would succeed in helping her raise a voice above her current confinement.

Her freedoms are being largely curtailed by her disconnection from the Internet.

Have a chat to the local Sargent. Ask for an interview with him in private, in an interview room with a witness.
London to a brick on, you will achieve at least an inquiry at the local level, which would be a wedge for her to gain her autonomy back!

Dr T
It's taken many posts for you to explain the correct story.
".. instructed them to not allow her to speak with anyone in public, schedule any meetings, or visit anyone without their knowledge and approval". But she is mute so that is misleading.
If the talking computer , ( which presumably now means a Braille verbaliser , not voice recognition monitor) is not available then
"allowing to speak in public" is irrelevant - it's impossible even with permission.
So she can hear and nod her head ? So if asked does she want to go to police and nods then someone can act .