Workgroup Discussion:

 

Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:46:42 -0800

From: “Sutro, Sarah” <Sarah.Sutro@SEN.CA.GOV>

Subject: Elder Access to the Courts

 _______________________________________

 To Interested Parties:

 A number of you participated in the November 19, 2003 meeting on elder access to the Courts.  The Senate Subcommittee on Aging and Long Term Care convened this meeting under the direction of Committee Chair Senator John Vasconcellos to identify issues affecting access to the Courts for the older population. This meeting was the first step in understanding the dynamics of the problem and in discussing possible solutions.

The attached document is a work-in-progress, and attempts to summarize the issues presented at the meeting.  Not everyone at the meeting agreed with the problems outlined, or the solutions offered. We would like your feedback as to whether the problem has been properly summarized (and whether opposing perspectives are also fairly represented), whether the potential solutions raised are feasible and of merit, and whether you have any other suggestions for possible solutions. 

Please feel free to forward this document to other interested parties. Thank you.

Sarah

_______________________________________

Sarah Sutro-Steenhausen, Consultant

Senate Subcommittee on Aging and Long Term Care

Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair

Legislative Office Building, Room 545

916.323.8436

 

Workgroup Discussion:

 

The Senate Subcommittee on Aging and Long Term Care convened this meeting under the direction of Committee Chair Senator John Vasconcellos to identify issues affecting access to the Courts for the older population.   This meeting was the first step in understanding the dynamics of the problem and in discussing possible solutions. This document is a work-in-progress, and we would like your feedback as to whether the problem has been properly summarized, whether the potential solutions raised are feasible and of merit, and whether you have any other suggestions for possible solutions.

 

In addressing this issue, we are not debating the merits of certain cases, but rather, we are examining the system as a whole and the general problems that prevent access to the Courts.  While the meeting focused on the less-than-affluent-elderly, it is evident that these problems affect all populations - old and young, healthy and disabled - all of which to some extent confront disparities in access to the legal system.  This is not a “new” issue- but this meeting and further discussions will serve to educate those of us who are new to the issue so that we can seek new opportunities for change.  

 

We would like to hear from you, especially if you were not at the meeting and would like to comment on these issues.  Please feel free to provide any feedback to Sarah Sutro- Steenhausen of the Senate Subcommittee on Aging and Long Term Care, email at sarah.sutro@sen.ca.gov.

 

Present at the Meeting: *Terri Abelar, Aging Solutions, INC; *Glenn Ackerman (LAPD, Retired); Jessie Cedille (CANHR); *Alexia Cirino (Victim’s Daughter);  *Jodi Cohn, Dr. PH, (SCAN);  *Victoria Connelly; Kim Daughton (WISE Senior Services, LTC Ombudsman Program); Larry Doyle (State Bar of California); Jon Ellison (Legal Center for the Elderly and the Disabled); *Marc Hankin, Esq.;  Robert Harvey (AARP); *Loline Hathaway (Victim’s Daughter); *Barbara Jagiello, Esq.; *Mitch Karasov, Esq.;  Helen Karr (California Commission on Aging); *David Sawyer (Conservator of parents); Caroline Lucito (OWL); *Janet Morris (Bet Tzedek); Joe Murphy (AARP); *Robert Neshkes, M.D..; *Norma Nordstrom (APS, Retired); Dan Pone (Judicial Council of California); Lark Park (Asm Joe Simitian and Select Committee on Elder Abuse); Betty Perry (OWL); Sil Reggiardo (State Bar Estate Planning and Probate Section); Lynda Shapiro (APS); Patty Skalisky; *Randy Spiro, Esq.; Sarah Sutro-Steenhausen (Senate Subcommittee on Aging and LTC); Paul Valentine (Senior Legal Hotline); Burns Vick (Policy Consultant); Rob Waring (California Judges Association); *Stephen Webber, Esq. 

[* = Member of the RALE group (Real Access to the Law for Elders, pronounced “rally”)

                               

Purpose of Meeting:

·        To better understand issues confronting less-than-affluent elderly who need access to the courts; 

·        To examine at the court system and the general problems that may prevent access to the protective umbrella of the courts; and

·        To explore and debate potential solutions.

 

Although this document summarizes problems that have been raised, it is important to note that there are many capable individuals who advocate for elderly family and friends, including vigilant law enforcement officers who take allegations seriously and make good judgment calls about enforcement,  judges who are fair and efficient in the way they run courtrooms, and many attorneys who routinely take pro bono or reduced fee elder abuse cases.  The problems outlined in this summary highlight problems that were raised at the meeting, but may not necessarily be representative of the entire system.

 

Less-than-Affluent Elderly Cannot Access the Courts 

Older adults who are not affluent often cannot access legal representation. Elder abuse and/or conservatorship litigation is very demanding of resources, time and expertise.  Many entities in the elder abuse prevention field have voiced their reluctance to accept cases from clients with limited assets, as they are not likely to receive adequate or just compensation for their services. Legal services programs provide help in areas of MediCal benefits, tenant’s rights, and grandparent custody issues.  But very few of the organizations offer help with elder physical abuse or financial elder abuse, or contested convervatorships.

Many elders own their own homes, but do not have any cash flow. Where does a competent elder get help when s/he needs help evicting a person she rented a room to who does not pay rent and has trashed the home?  S/he is considered not-needy because she has property, however, she rented the room for income to pay her bills. S/he is not affluent and cannot afford to pay for any attorney.  If s/he needs a contested conservatorship for protection from physical or financial abuse or self-neglect, there is a need for lawyers, professional conservators and trustees.  The attorneys and other associated parties are often wary to undertake these ventures involving high demands of resources, and high risk of non-payment or inadequate payment.

 

Role of EADACPA and the Probate Court: Although the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) promises full fees and costs to successful attorneys, attorneys and related parties often are unwilling to take cases where they must rely upon the “promise” for payment, because they lack of confidence that they really would be paid. In addition, some contend that EADACPA’s designation of the Probate Court as a court of general jurisdiction for elder abuse has not been as effective as the Legislature intended.  Although EADACPA encouraged the Probate Court to be the forum where elder abuse cases should be heard, many contend that Probate judges discourage attorneys and associated parties from tying up the Probate calendar with less-than-affluent estate elder abuse cases.  Some attorneys contend that some Probate judges have a policy of transferring elder abuse litigation out of the Probate Court without reading the pleadings.  A number of individuals at the meeting noted that there are some judges who do not enforce discovery law or restraining orders, as they lack a requisite awareness concerning the impact of delays on elders’ physical and mental health, and modern neuro-behavioral science.   A number of individuals at the meeting also asserted that they have seen judges target attorneys and related parties for retribution if they speak out publicly about these issues.

 

Other perspectives:  According to The California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR operates a long term care Lawyer Referral Service in California), a lack of resources does prevent access to the courts for elderly individuals who have little or not resources, i.e., less than $2,000.  This is a particular problem for low-income families who need to obtain a conservatorship for an elder, when the elder has little or no money and the family has no money to pay an attorney.  Most attorneys do not do pro bono or low fee conservatorships, and lack the expertise to handle them properly anyway, and the courts do not offer assistance to these family members.  However, CANHR states that people with “modest” estates, i.e., $150,000 or less, not including the home, can always find an attorney through CANHR’s lawyer referral network.  CANHR states that this does not necessarily apply for contested conservatorships.

 

Abuse of Conservatorships

Many advocates contend that there is significant abuse of the conservatorship/guardianship system by organizations, private conservators and attorneys who represent incapacitated elders.[1]  In a recent article published by AARP Magazine, the conservatorship/guardian system is “rife with opportunities for financial exploitation, medical neglect, and wrongful usurping of a competent person’s freedom.”[2]  Many conservatorships/guardianships, according to the article, are based solely on flimsy evidence, often without methodical court hearings to determine the scope of the subject’s competence.[3]  CANHR reports of having several cases where elders were conserved against their will, placed into facilities, had their assets depleted by private conservators or attorneys “representing their interests.”  In several of these cases, the elders were ultimately found to be competent and able to return home.  However, the conservatees had to pay dearly to fight for their freedom.

 

Fragmentation

Proper resolution in elder abuse cases often requires teamwork between APS, law enforcement, Ombudsmen and the District Attorney (DA). However, in most situations, these entities often don’t have the time, resources or drive (i.e., energy / commitment) to enable proper communication and coordination of cases.  A “multidisciplinary team” approach would allow for better monitoring and resolution of cases.  In addition, the current system is not set up to track an individual throughout the process- from APS to law enforcement to the DA’s office. Therefore, many cases go unresolved due to lack of communication between and action from all associated parties.

 

Flawed System of Response

Elder abuse cases are labor-intensive, and in reality, many involved parties and agencies want to avoid these cases altogether.  The District Attorney is less likely to file these cases because they often do not understand issues of diminished capacity and undue influence, and lack the drive or resources to learn the subject area and work the cases properly.

Problems with Public Guardians

The Public Guardian system is overburdened with too many cases and too little resources.  At the state level, there is little oversight over how the county Public Guardian’s offices operate, leaving little accountability for actions.  Many contend that, in a number of counties, the Public Guardian system fails to represent the less-than-affluent, taking only those cases involving the wealthy, and leaving lower-income persons without representation.

 

Lack of Resources

Many of the systemic problems would be resolved if there were better representation for less-than-affluent elderly through legal-aid programs, and resources to assist self-represented litigants.  Many contend that it is important to join existing efforts through the State Bar and Judicial Council rather than attempt to resolve a problem outside these entities.  However, many also argue that the need is so great that this alone would not solve the problem.

 

Attorney, Conservator And Trustee Fees and Costs

Another critical issue raised at the meeting was attorney, conservator and trustee fees and costs.  Judges have the discretion to cut the fees awarded to these parties.  Some participants at the meeting noted that they will no longer agree take cases for anyone who is less-than-affluent because there is no assurance that they will get a reasonable fee for working on a case.  In addition, some participants at the meeting noted that they have witnessed judges who penalize attorneys who challenge fee decisions.  They also report that upon challenging fee and cost awards, they begin to see a vindictive pattern of reduced fees and costs reimbursement.

 

Standards of Competency and Testamentary Capacity

The general standards for decision-making capacity were addressed in the Due Process in Competence Determinations Act (DPCDA), which has governed this practice in California since 1996.  The key principles of DPCDA are that capacity requires the ability to understand and appreciate the consequences of the proposed action and that this understanding can be communicated. Testamentary capacity continues to be governed by principles derived from case law, but  in practice, the standard for testamentary capacity is very much lower than would be compatible with DPCDA principles.  In many cases, wills are executed by a person recognized as having compromised or lost capacity for almost any other decision—sometimes reluctantly to have been found to be able barely to satisfy the current common law standard.  On review, it may be painfully obvious that the import of the provisions of the will could not have been “understood and appreciated,” or that the person was completely dependent on others (who, astonishingly, become the beneficiaries) for information of even a basic nature. 

 

Wills are often signed by persons with a very low level of competence and/or those who are vulnerable to and the victims of influence.   A prime example is a 90+ year old life-long bachelor whose niece arranged a live-in caregiver in his dotage—only to learn a year later that this person had taken him to Las Vegas for a marriage. Despite the niece’s initiating legal measures promptly and devoting substantial finances to the matter (finally totaling over $300,000), the matter required over a year and a half to resolve.    Pity the isolated and “less-than-affluent” who might have to cope with a similar situation. The potential opportunity here for abuse by caregivers or others is all too obvious.  The unscrupulous feign kindness, ingratiate themselves, or pose as the person’s bulwark against unpleasant truths (e.g. the state of their memory impairment itself, and its consequences).  Once “trust” has been established, or the person is perceived as irreplaceable, it is not difficult for the vulnerable person to be influenced to “reward” or to ensure continued presence and loyalty.

 

Durable Power of Attorney

There are concerns about the broad powers granted through the Durable Power of Attorney documents.  Some contend that these documents are often broadly drafted to give people tremendous power over the assets of another.  Many people signing those documents do not understand their implications or when they become effective.

 

Incompetent Older Persons Who Cannot Afford to Hire an Attorney

Incompetent persons who cannot afford to hire an attorney are left without possibility of representation. Under current law, neither a trustee nor a conservator nor the personal representative of an estate, nor an attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney, can handle a case in propria persona.

Assume that an incompetent individual is swindled out of $40,000 through a Revocable Living Trust.  Assume also that the individual’s friend and Trustee is unable to hire counsel to handle the litigation because [1] the amount in controversy, $40,000.00, is relatively small, and [2] the defendant has a reputation for being very litigious.   The incompetent individual has no money left with which to hire an attorney. The Trustee is an experienced litigation paralegal, who wishes to sue the contractor before the statute of limitations runs out.  Under existing law, the Trustee would have to let the statute of limitations run, because the Trustee is unable to find an attorney to handle the case.

 

 

The following are the proposed solutions raised at the meeting, but we are looking for additional feedback.  Please send your comments or questions so that we can incorporate all perspectives into this document.

 

·        Bolster Funding for Existing Programs

Efforts should focus on bolstering funding for legal aid programs (equal access funding),  training programs for self-represented litigants, or training judges.   However, funding is short and it is unlikely that additional resources will be available in the near future.

 

·        Education and Communication: Creating a Center for Elders and the Court

Judges and other stakeholders need to be educated on the issues of diminished capacity, undue influence, and general elder abuse to better understand the dynamics of the problem.  The Administration of the Courts (AOC) established a Center for Children, Families and the Courts.  This center has helped raise awareness and bring attention to the important issues affecting this population.  A center for the elderly could achieve similar results.   It is unlikely that additional resources will be available in the near future. However, it is possible that the AOC may be able to shift a few positions in establishing this Center, with additional resources dedicated when available in the future.  Senator Vasconcellos is interested in pursuing this solution and may be sponsoring legislation this year. 

 

·        Special Court System

Some contend that much of the problem with the Court system could be solved if these elder abuse and Conservatorship cases were dealt with outside of the larger court system.  Establishing a Conservatorship-Elder Abuse Court would increase attention given to these cases, instead of diffusing them through the large court.   

  

·        Survey

This proposal would mandate that the Judicial Council oversee a survey of professionals who work with the elderly population.  The survey would seek to determine what specific impediments may be denying these individuals access to the court system, and how to address these impediments.  The survey would seek the insight and views of people including, but not limited to, the following:  probate and mental health judges and staff, Adult Protective Service employees, Ombudsman employees, senior center social workers, hospital discharge planners, bankers, professional conservators and trustees, lawyers, and elder health care providers.

 

In a published decision (Conservatorship of Levitt), the Second District Court of Appeals asserted that the Legislature should conduct the necessary fact-finding to determine whether access to the State’s judicial system poses a problem for the less-than-affluent elderly, because the judicial systems is unaware of any evidence that the fee awards practices employed by Probate Courts deter attorneys from taking these cases.  The survey would reveal whether courts’ fee awards practices deter attorneys and related parties from taking these cases, how the system is operating and where the related problems lie.  Supporters of the survey contend that the survey would reveal whether fee awards practices and other practices allegedly employed by Probate Courts do impede the attainment of justice and further deter attorneys and related parties from taking these cases.  Supporters hope that the survey would help educate the Legislature and the Judiciary about what problems really exist, and what changes the Judiciary and other agencies need to make.   

 

At the meeting, some participants raised concern that the proposal may not yield significant results, and may be divisive, driving some judges and attorneys farther apart.  In addition, these individuals fear that even if the survey were to reveal problems with the court system, it still would accomplish little in resolving these problems.  Some questioned whether this would be the best use of resources in attacking the larger systemic problems of elder abuse and the Courts (note: the proposal would call for funding by private contributions).

 

·        Raise the Standard for Testamentary Capacity

This proposal would seek to change the criteria for testamentary capacity, to bring practice in line with current understandings and realities of elderly lives and with the increased clarity that has been provided by DPCDA.  The proposal would require that attorneys accept responsibility for monitoring capacity for the actions proposed and requested for those who want to carry out estate planning.  

             

Issues raised regarding proposed solution:   Some individuals have expressed concern that if a new standard for capacity were required, then it may be too difficult for many people to get wills. If we raise the bar for testamentary capacity, it may prevent abuse, but if it is raised too high, it will facilitate abuse. Is it appropriate to require attorneys to accept responsibility for monitoring capacity, and if so, would they be fit do so?  Would it be too much of a burden to the system?  Many fear that if a higher standard were applied, it would lead many more individuals into conservatorships that are more difficult to overturn than wills. Instead, some suggested that it may be better to focus on special categories and burdens of proof (such as with gifts to caregivers) of the nature that exist under current law.     

 

 

·        Allow Trustee to Represent Conservatee in Court

This proposal would permit trustees to have the right to petition a Court for the authority to file the action (even if the Trustee is not an attorney).  The Court would have the jurisdiction to authorize the Trustee to handle the lawsuit without counsel, if the Court determines that the cause of action otherwise would be lost, and that there is good reason to believe that the trustee can handle the case under the court’s supervision.

 

Issues raised regarding proposed solution:  Some participants present at the meeting expressed concern that allowing non-attorneys to represent conserved clients may result in additional problems. Our current system is designed to ensure that those who practice law meet certain minimum standards and have certain responsibilities. Some fear that by permitting non-attorneys to represent clients, there is potential for additional abuse, not to mention the burden placed on the system.  The problem may be better addressed by bolstering the legal services system, and expanding the pool of available legal aid attorneys to represent such clients.

 

 

_______________________________________

 

List of Email Addressees

 

To: “Sutro, Sarah” <Sarah.Sutro@SEN.CA.GOV>,

   “‘Terri Abelar’“ <abelar@agingsolutions.com>,

   “‘Arthur A. Cappilla’“ <ACappilla@aol.com>,

   “‘ACLUinfo@aclu-sc.org’“ <ACLUinfo@aclu-sc.org>,

   “‘DanOsterweil MD’“ <AgePlus@AOL.COM>,

   “‘Alice Mead’“ <alicemead@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Patient’s Rights Advocate’“ <Angie.Romanello@mail.co.ventura.ca.us>,

   “‘Anthony Alba’“ <apalba@aol.com>, “‘David Azizi’“ <azizilaw@pacbell.net>,

   “‘Russell Balisok’“ <balisoklaw@att.net>,

   “‘barbarajagiello@aol.com’“ <barbarajagiello@aol.com>,

   “‘Bernie&EllynGelson’“ <BERNELLYN@AOL.COM>,

   “‘Robert Foster’“ <bob@rftw.com>,

   “‘William Bondareff-MD-Prof’“ <bondaref@hsc.usc.edu>,

   “‘Bonnie Wolkenstein’“ <bonnie@drbonnie.net>,

   “‘Brian Boyer’“ <brian.boyer@smartstop.net>,

   “‘Brian Boyer’“ <brianmb@attglobal.net>,

   “‘Carmen Alberio’“ <calberio@lasc.co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘Prescott Cole-Esq’“ <CANHRmail@canhr.org>,

   “‘Jonathan Kos-Read’“ <caocao@bjgwbn.net.cn>,

   “‘Carey Cahlin-LA-CountyCounsel’“ <ccahlin@counsel.co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘Chris Fierro’“ <cfierro@dmh.co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘Cathy Wilson’“ <CJW4Upland@aol.com>,

   “‘Nancy Coleman’“ <colemann@staff.abanet.org>,

   “‘Caren Nielsen’“ <crn@gngslaw.com>,

   “‘Dan Brzovic’“ <dan.brzovic@pai-ca.org>,

   “‘David Shacter’“ <david@shacter.org>,

   “‘Ram David Greenwald’“ <davidg@support.ucla.edu>,

   “‘David Simon’“ <davidsimon56@earthlink.net>,

   “‘dave harned’“ <davito52@yahoo.com>,

   “‘Debra Bierman Esq’“ <dbierman@bettzedek.org>,

   “‘David Brewer’“ <dbrewer619@aol.com>,

   “‘Denise Richman’“ <ddb4@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Denise Weinstock’“ <denisew@cyberhotline.com>,

   “‘deniseweinstock@bigfoot.com’“ <deniseweinstock@bigfoot.com>,

   “‘Daniel Stubbs’“ <dgstubbs@pacbell.net>,

   “‘Dan McLinden, Esq.’“ <dmclinden@pnbd.com>,

   “‘Don Green’“ <dongreen@worldnet.att.net>,

   “‘Marti Dunayer’“ <dunayers@aol.com>,

   “‘dvoratreis@yahoo.com’“ <dvoratreis@yahoo.com>,

   “‘Daniel W. Willick’“ <dwillick@nossaman.com>,

   “‘David Trader, MD’“ <DWTraderMD@aol.com>,

   “‘Bunny - Barbara - Dybnis’“ <DYBNIS@AOL.COM>,

   “‘ed pallota’“ <ed@pallottalaw.com>,

   “‘ed_kimble@dailyjournal.com’“ <ed_kimble@dailyjournal.com>,

   “‘Annie Latham’“ <ekermalt@hotmail.com>,

   “‘Burns Vick’“ <fburnsvick@att.net>,

   “‘Felicia Brown-Prob-Ct-Investigtor for Santa Clara County’“ <Felidali@aol.com>,

   “‘Fredric M. Adler MD’“ <fmadler@ucla.edu>,

   “‘Frumeh Labow’“ <Frumeh@probate.org>,

   “‘Glenn Ackerman’“ <gackerman@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Robert Spaak’“ <gcabana@pacbell.net>,

   “‘Chris Rodemich-RN’“ <gene@ccrwest.org>,

   “‘Caren Nielsen’“ <GEWILL@AOL.COM>,

   “‘Catherine Goodman-PhD’“ <goodman@csulb.edu>,

   “‘Greg Overross’“ <grego@aplustotal.org>,

   “‘Guillermo Gonzalez’“ <guillermo_gonzalez@feinstein.senate.gov>,

   “‘Gwendolyn Thomas’“ <gwenat@prestongates.com>,

   “‘Halperin@uclink.berkeley.edu’“ <Halperin@uclink.berkeley.edu>,

   “‘handyforles@earthlink.net’“ <handyforles@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Harlean Carroll’“ <hcarroll@lasuperiorcourt.org>,

   “‘Helena Chui, M.D.’“ <hchui@dhs.co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘Henry.Weinstein@latimes.com’“ <Henry.Weinstein@latimes.com>,

   “‘Hiram Ash’“ <hiramash@yahoo.com>,

   “‘Howard Myers Esq’“ <hmyers@goldsmithcalaw.com>,

   “‘Harcourt Hervey’“ <hooklaw@att.net>,

   “‘Evan Marshall’“ <houseofskye@yahoo.com>,

   “‘Howard Gold-Esq’“ <howielaw@hotmail.com>,

   “‘Henry Weinstock’“ <hweinstock@nossaman.com>,

   “‘Irv Goldring’“ <idglaw@sbccglobal.net>,

   “‘IKos-Read@TownsendPA.com’“ <IKos-Read@TownsendPA.com>,

   “‘Isaac Kos-Read’“ <isaacdkr@aol.com>,

   “‘Irving Small’“ <ismall@bellsouth.net>,

   “‘Jerry Krakowski’“ <j.krakowski@gte.net>,

   “‘James Ellis’“ <james.b.ellis@jpmorgan.com>,

   “‘Darcy Bender’“ <Jarcy001@juno.com>, “‘Darcy Bender’“ <jarcy1@juno.com>,

   “‘James Birren-Prof’“ <JBirren@mednet.ucla.edu>,

   “‘Joel Block’“ <jblock@calstate.edu>,

   “‘John Peck’“ <jdpecklaw@earthlink.net>,

   “‘jeffrey_anderson@dailyjournal.com’“ <jeffrey_anderson@dailyjournal.com>,

   “‘Joseph Dimento’“ <jfdiment@uci.edu>,

   “‘Carol Jiminez’“ <jimenzlaw@earthlink.net>,

   “‘James Pries, Esq.’“ <JJP987@EARTHLINK.NET>,

   “‘Jodi Cohn’“ <jodi2010@aol.com>,

   “‘Charisse Anderson’“ <joyceonella@aol.com>,

   “‘James Preis’“ <jpreis@mhas-la.org>, “‘Pynoos, John’“ <jpynoos@aol.com>,

   “‘Jim Spar’“ <JSPAR@MEDNET.UCLA.EDU>,

   “‘Judith Goldberg’“ <judibene@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Judith Copeland’“ <JUDY@COPELANDANDTIERMAN.com>,

   “‘Kate Robinson-Esq’“ <KAOCR@AOL.COM>,

   “‘Andrew Kaufman-Esq’“ <KFMN96@AOL.COM>,

   “‘Kenneth Petrulis’“ <kgp@gwtaxlaw.com>,

   “‘Kim Daughton (E-mail)’“ <kdaughton@wiseseniorservices.org>,

   “‘Kathryn J. Black’“ <kjblackcat@aol.com>,

   “‘Debra Bierman Esq’“ <kzimm23@mediaone.net>,

   “‘larry.doyle@calbar.ca.gov’“ <larry.doyle@calbar.ca.gov>,

   “‘John Torii’“ <law@jtorii.com>, “‘Lee Dunayer’“ <LDUNAYER@pclient.ml.com>,

   “‘Leah Granof’“ <leahgranof@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Leslie Salzman’“ <lesliesalzman@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Felicia Brown-Prob-Ct-Investigtor for Santa Clara County’“

 <LewBrown3@aol.com>,

   “‘Laury A. Gelardi’“ <lgelardi@naela.com>,

   “‘Laura Goldin-Esq.’“ <lgsplace@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Lori Holt’“ <LHolt@MEDNET.ucla.edu>,

   “‘lisa.k.edwards@bankofamerica.com’“ <lisa.k.edwards@bankofamerica.com>,

   “‘Lisa Nerenberg’“ <lnerenberg@gioa.org>,

   “‘Loline Hathaway’“ <loline@xenth.com>,

   “‘Matthew S. Rae’“ <lsimmons@dhrlaw.com>,

   “‘Lita Small’“ <lsmall@officedepot.com>,

   “‘Laura Trejo-MSW-MPA’“ <ltrejo@co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘Margo Hamilton’“ <mahamilt@riverside.dpss.org>,

   “‘Marita Marshall-Esq.’“ <marita_marshall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>,

   “‘Marshall Oldman’“ <marold@aol.com>,

   “‘Charlotte Winkler’“ <mecharlie@aol.com>,

   “‘Mary Gillick’“ <mgillick@LUCE.com>,

   “‘Eric Carlson’“ <milodon@pacbell.net>,

   “‘Michael Linfield’“ <mlinfield@EarthLink.net>,

   “‘Mitch and Sylvia Matcovsky’“ <mmatcovsky@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Laura Mosqueda’“ <mosqueda@uci.edu>,

   “‘Michael Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H.’“ <mrodriguez@mednet.ucla.edu>,

   “‘Marc Sallus’“ <msallus@oclslaw.com>,

   “‘May Lee Tong’“ <mtong@starkwells.com>,

   “‘Warren Sinsheimer-Esq’“ <mtwasi@aol.com>,

   “‘Neil A. Harris’“ <naharris@sunset.net>,

   “‘Mitch Karasov-Esq.’“ <office@mkarasov-elderlaw.com>,

   “‘Paul.Feldman@latimes.com’“ <Paul.Feldman@latimes.com>,

   “‘Paul Kleyman’“ <pkleyman@asaging.org>,

   “‘Peter Stern’“ <Pstern1939@aol.com>,

   “‘Arnold Meltzner-Prof’“ <rameltsner@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Robert Brisbin’“ <rbrisbin@socal.rr.com>,

   “‘Risa Adler-York’“ <rdadleryorkphd@hotmail.com>,

   “‘Stephen Read-MD’“ <ReadSMD@aol.com>, “‘Francine Russo’“ <remakru@aol.com>,

   “‘Robert Temmerman-Esq’“ <ret@tdplaw.com>,

   “‘Randolph B. Godshall’“ <rgodshall@sheppardmullin.com>,

   “‘Rick Lieberman’“ <rl4361@aol.com>,

   “‘Robert Neshkes, M.D.’“ <rneshkes@ucla.edu>,

   “‘Chris Rodemich-RN’“ <rodemich@netra.glendale.cc.ca.us>,

   “‘Roland Jacobs-MD’“ <RolandJacobs@starband.net>,

   “‘Ron Berman’“ <ron@berman-law.com>,

   “‘Ruth Phelps’“ <rphelps@elderlawyers.com>,

   “‘Ron Barkley_Esq’“ <RRBarkley@aol.com>,

   “‘Gary Ruttenberg’“ <ruttenberg@aol.com>,

   “‘Gary Ruttenberg’“ <ruttenberg@aol.com>,

   “‘Sandie Einbinder’“ <sandiewise59@yahoo.com>,

   “‘Sarah Hardcastle’“ <SaraJCare@aol.com>,

   “‘Bonnie Bursk’“ <savinbursk@aol.com>,

   “‘Jerry Beigle’“ <SeniorLife@AOL.COM>,

   “‘Steven Webber-Esq.’“ <sewebber@sbcglobal.net>,

   “‘David Long’“ <sfdlong@ix.netcom.com>,

   “‘Sibylle Grebe, Esq.’“ <sgrebeesq@aol.com>,

   “‘Barry Shanley’“ <shanley1@ix.netcom.com>,

   “‘Susan House’“ <SHOUSE@hahnlawyers.com>,

   “‘Sherwood Kingsley-CPA’“ <skingsleycpa@att.net>,

   “‘Stanley Lamport-Esq.’“ <slamport@ccnlaw.com>,

   “‘Stacie Lee’“ <slee@counsel.co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘Steven Dorchinsky’“ <SMDORCHI@hewitt.com>,

   “‘Srul Alexander’“ <srul_ora@shomrat.com>,

   “‘Sari Steel’“ <Ssteel@counsel.co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘Stan Kohls’“ <stankohls@dock.net>,

   “‘Stephen McConnell-AlzDisAssn’“ <stephen.mcconnell@alz.org>,

   “‘David Sawyer’“ <DavidMarcSawyer@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Chris Stoy’“ <stoy@usc.edu>,

   “‘Stan Ulrich-LawRevnComm’n’“ <sulrich@CLRC.CA.GOV>,

   “‘Susan M. Orloff’“ <susan.orloff@calbar.ca.gov>,

   “‘Susan Aziz’“ <susanaziz@medione.net>,

   “‘Tamila C. Jensen’“ <tamila@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Thomas Beltran, Esq.’“ <tbeltran@earthlink.net>,

   “‘Antonia Graphos’“ <tgraphos@desertfoundation.org>,

   “‘Thom Blumel’“ <thombluemel@yahoo.com>,

   “‘Bert Tigerman’“ <tigerman@bhba.org>,

   “‘Terry Magady’“ <tmagady@elderlaw.net>,

   “‘Terry Nunan’“ <Tnunan1022@aol.com>, “‘Terry Nunan’“ <Tsn@rhdlaw.com>,

   “‘Mary O’Neal-Esq.’“ <TTFN1957@AOL.COM>, “‘Terry Brown’“ <tyb8058@cox.net>,

   “‘Uri Treisman’“ <uri@mail.utexas.edu>,

   “‘Victoria Connolly’“ <vconnol@prodigy.net>,

   “‘Victoria Connolly’“ <VConnolly@altaregional.org>,

   “‘Michael-V Vollmer-Esq.’“ <vollmer@socal.rr.com>,

   “‘Michael-V Vollmer-Esq.’“ <vollmerlaw@sbcglobal.net>,

   “‘Warren Sinsheimer-Esq’“ <was@ssbtlaw.com>,

   “‘Wayne Carmona’“ <wayne@ivwnet.com>,

   “‘Kathleen Wilber-ProfPhD’“ <Wilber@mizar.usc.edu>,

   “‘Khalsa, Gurubanda’“ <wongkhalsa@att.net>,

   “‘Tom Yendes’“ <yendes@earthlink.net>,

   “‘yrenfrew@renfrewlaw.com’“ <yrenfrew@renfrewlaw.com>,

   “‘Marcy Zwelling-Aamot, MD’“ <Zdoc1@aol.com>,

   “‘yvette@hankin.com’“ <yvette@hankin.com>,

   “‘Sari Steel’“ <Ssteel@counsel.co.la.ca.us>,

   “‘patm@canhr.org’“ <patm@canhr.org>,

   “‘rspiro@earthlink.net’“ <rspiro@earthlink.net>,

   “‘barbara-gard@calpsych.org’“ <barbara-gard@calpsych.org>,

   “‘rneshkes@mac.com’“ <rneshkes@mac.com>,

   “‘alan.achen@mail.va.gov’“ <alan.achen@mail.va.gov>,

   “‘zdoc1@aol.com’“ <zdoc1@aol.com>,

   “‘denis.o’neal@cco.co.scl.ca.us’“ <denis.o’neal@cco.co.scl.ca.us>,

   “‘dhawks@elderlawadvocate.com’“ <dhawks@elderlawadvocate.com>,

   “‘spaine@foleylaw.com’“ <spaine@foleylaw.com>,

   “Collins, Peggy” <Peggy.Collins@SEN.CA.GOV>,

   “Wong, Gene” <Gene.Wong@SEN.CA.GOV>,

   “‘mmoreno@aarp.org’“ <mmoreno@aarp.org>,

   “‘bperry3249@aol.com’“ <bperry3249@aol.com>,

   “‘joanblee@juno.com’“ <joanblee@juno.com>,

   “‘fburnsvick@worldnet.att.net’“ <fburnsvick@worldnet.att.net>,

   “‘rmastalish@ccoa.ca.gov’“ <rmastalish@ccoa.ca.gov>,

   “‘chettsmith@ccoa.ca.gov’“ <chettsmith@ccoa.ca.gov>,

   “Anderson, Peter (ASMMX1)” <Peter.Anderson@ASM.CA.GOV>,

   “Gould, Kevin (ASMMX1)” <Kevin.Gould@ASM.CA.GOV>,

   “‘spenney@cmanet.org’“ <spenney@cmanet.org>,

   “‘marc@marchankin.com’“ <marc@marchankin.com>,

   “‘barbarajagiello@aol.com’“ <barbarajagiello@aol.com>,

   “‘jessie@canhr.org’“ <jessie@canhr.org>,

   “‘jfmurphy@pacbell.net’“ <jfmurphy@pacbell.net>,

   “‘johnpappap@juno.com’“ <johnpappap@juno.com>,

   “Ma, Tam” <Tam.Ma@SEN.CA.GOV>,

   “‘jeffrey_anderson@mindspring.com’“ <jeffrey_anderson@mindspring.com>,

   “‘Hehskarr@aol.com’“ <Hehskarr@aol.com>,

   “‘sreggiardo@DowneyBrand.com’“ <sreggiardo@DowneyBrand.com>,

   “‘kali042278@aol.com’“ <kali042278@aol.com>