Investigative Reporters on Elder Financial Abuse are Stonewalled and Slimed

janice.rocco@asm.ca.gov;
sbcsentinel@yahoo.com;
jonathan.cooper@doj.ca.gov;
russ.heimerich@dca.ca.gov;
gary.duke@dca.ca.gov;

To Whom It Might Concern:

Dear Sirs;

As a non profit group we represent elder financial abuse victims in most all 50 states and have documented cases of exploitation and elder financial abuse which has been called *the scourge of the 21st century by experts and has reached epidemic proportions ...

It is clear that victims and or investigative reporters attempting to call attention to the problem are often discredited and run into a wall of secrecy,intimidation,and non cooperation.

I can assure you that that a great many of us have lived in the flesh the cover up and propagation of conservatorship/guardianship abuse and attempting to write off the problem as "ludicrous and absolutely untrue" is pouring salt into the wounds of those of us who have lost loves ones because of insensitivity of public officials who turn their backs on the very same people they have vowed to protect.

Sincerely,

Ray Fernandez
Editor

*Financial abuse of elders continues to increase at an alarming rate experts say that elder financial abuse is "the crime of the 21st century" as the burgeoning senior population is increasingly targeted. Tragically, it is estimated that 150,000 to 200,000 seniors are financially abused in California each year, and the National Center on Elder Abuse estimates that there may be 5 million victims a year, nationally. ref=>>http://www.blogger.com/www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement.../5484854-1.html

--------------------------------------------

From: writejanet@live.com
To: russ.heimerich@dca.ca.gov; gary.duke@dca.ca.gov
CC: janice.rocco@asm.ca.gov; sbcsentinel@yahoo.com; jonathan.cooper@doj.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:21:02 -0400

Mr. Heimerich,

I am working on an article concerning the PFB. I would appreciate your comments on the following:

1)What action did the PFB take on the issues detailed within the article concerning Lawrence Yetzer, which was emailed to Gil DeLuna ont he recommendation of Gary Duke? The medical records and financial records point to multiple felonies committed by Melodie Scott and attorney J. David Horspool, in the course of that brief conservatorship. Was an investigation launched and/or was law enforcement contacted?

2)The PFB has refused to release information as to the disposition of reports and has gone so far as to refuse to reveal the stats pertaining to reports, which would do an end run around the privacy issue. Why is that?

3)To my knowledge in review of the applicable correspondence and affirmed by your legal counsel, Gary Duke, PFB analyst Angela Bigelow made inaccurate statements as to the very mandate of the PFB to Janis Schock, and informed her that the PFB has no dominion over professional conservators. In another case, a former employee of the PFB told a potential complainant, Carolyn Perkins, that there was no point in making a report to the PFB, as it would likely not receive proper attention. A number of other complainants have reported that there reports have gone unresponded to--no letter confirming that their complaints were investigated or processed in any manner.

I have grave concerns as to what is going on inside your Bureau. You are maintaining a level of secrecy that is not consonant with democratic institutions. You are certainly free to attack me and my journalistic skills any way you wish. If you cannot respond to the questions, a good hard left at the questioner may --in some cases--deter her. But it isn´t going to work here.

I will look for your reply. If you choose not to reply, I will report that your answer was to refuse to respond to questions and to attack my credibility.

Sincerely,

Janet Phelan

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ.Heimerich@dca.ca.gov
To: writejanet@live.com
CC: sbcsentinel@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:14:00 -0700
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request

Ms. Phelan –

You are, of course, free to cc your e-mails to anyone you wish – I am not in the least concerned.

However, your question about whether PFB is engaged in covering up conservatorship crimes, or murders, or embezzlement is ludicrous and absolutely untrue. It is worthy of no other polite response than that.

From this point onward, you may request whatever public documents you wish under the California Public Records Act and we will fulfill them in accordance with the law. However, we will no longer consider you a bona fide reporter and we will no longer entertain further questions from you. Any communication from you that does not include a Public Records Act request will be ignored.

As a courtesy, I am cc-ing the San Bernardino Sentinel in case your editor or publisher wishes to contact me about this matter.


Russ Heimerich
Office of Public Affairs
(916) 574-8171 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (916) 574-8171 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (office)
(916) 416-8878 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (916) 416-8878 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (cell)

From: Janet Phelan [mailto:writejanet@live.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:12 PM
To: Russ Heimerich
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request

Please define "appropriate."

Be advised that my emails are being bcc'ed to a number of parties, including now Assemblyman Dave Jones' office and others. As you are clearly NOT contacting law enforcement when reports come in alleging crimes committed by conservators, would you typify the PFB as a cover for conservatorship crimes?

There is growing nationwide concern that the judicial commissions and police internal affairs are, in fact, covering up the crimes committed by judges and police officers, respectively. Would you typify the PFB as serving a similar function for conservators? I am aware that reports have come into the PFB alleging murder, embezzlement and more. You have refused to supply stats on the disposition of reports, not responded to many complaints in any manner and are refusing to answer questions as to whether the allegations are even investigated.

I am eagerly awaiting your response to my question: Is the PFB in fact engaged in covering up conservatorship crimes? The documentation I have accumulated points to an affirmative response. Do you have anything to show that would prove otherwise?

Yours in the Constitution,

Janet Phelan

------------------------------------------------

From: Russ.Heimerich@dca.ca.gov
To: writejanet@live.com
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:38:10 -0700
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request

My replies are in blue, below.

Russ Heimerich

Office of Public Affairs
(916) 574-8171 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (916) 574-8171 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (office)
(916) 416-8878 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (916) 416-8878 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (cell)

From: Janet Phelan [mailto:writejanet@live.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Russ Heimerich; Janet Phelan
Subject: Re: Public Records Act Request

As the Redlands Police have denied that the DCA or PFB has contacted them in reference to Scott offering services without a license, could you please tell me what guidelines you use to come to a decision about contacting law enforcement?

We contact law enforcement when it is appropriate for us to do so.

And as your Department received numerous complaints from individuals alleging crimes committed by Melodie Scott in her performance of fiduciary duties, and the Redlands Police also denies contact from the Department concerning these alleged crimes, would you then maintain that the PFB has investigated all these allegations and found them without merit? Or would you maintain that law enforcement WAS contacted?

As I have already told you, investigatory material is confidential and not subject to disclosure. That means we will not discuss investigations with you, nor will we provide you with any investigatory materials. Members of the public, including reporters, are only entitled to receive information and public documents regarding those cases in which a publicly disclosable act, such as a license revocation, has occurred.

As to the Janis Schock issue, I stated in my last email my reluctance to contact the PFB on her behalf. I was trying to encourage your agency to answer the question she has tendered as to the disposition of her report. I have in my possession the names of numerous individuals who are now alleging that their complaints were improperly processed or seemed to have disappeared into a black hole. At some point in time,this will become a matter of further scrutiny. In the meantime, I stand by my earlier efforts to encourage your agency to respond to Ms.Schock's question as to whether her initial complaint was closed or not.

Sincerely,

Janet Phelan
San Bernardino County Sentinel

------------------------------------------------

From: Russ.Heimerich@dca.ca.gov
To: writejanet@live.com
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:12:42 -0700
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request

No, the PFB is NOT the only body that can investigate alleged crimes committed by professional fiduciaries.

The PFB only has authority over a licensee’s license. If a fiduciary commits a crime, it is up to local law enforcement to prosecute, though as is the case with many of our boards and bureaus, we will assist when it is appropriate to do so. If a fiduciary commits murder, that is a felony and must be investigated and prosecuted by local law enforcement. We can certainly take action against a license for such things as murder, embezzlement, etc. And if an investigation turns up a felony, our boards and bureaus turn that information over to local law enforcement and it becomes their investigation.

As for advertising oneself as a professional without a license to do so, we can and do investigate but it is up to the local law enforcement – the DA, to be precise – to prosecute. Local law enforcement also has the authority to investigate, but most of the time they have other, more pressing matters to attend to and will leave investigation into such misdemeanors in the hands of the appropriate board or bureau. They tend to focus more on enforcing the Penal Code, not the Business and Professions Code. Whether they prosecute as a result of our investigation is up to them.

In reality, most of DCA’s boards and bureaus have very little – if any – power to take action against unlicensed practitioners. We can, and do, investigate unlicensed activity and one or two of our boards can issue notices to appear, citations, and fines. But in most instances it remains up to the local DA to prosecute. Some counties are more aggressive in prosecuting than others – some will work closely with us and some have other, more pressing concerns.

PFB’s business with Janet Schock is between PFB and Janet Schock. Your attempts to intervene on her behalf, while stemming, no doubt, from good intentions, are inappropriate, and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss any issue regarding Janet Schock with you. In order to make myself perfectly clear, we will not communicate with you regarding Janet Schock and, after this communication, will not acknowledge any questions you may have about her or her case.

Russ Heimerich
Office of Public Affairs
(916) 574-8171 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (916) 574-8171 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (office)
(916) 416-8878 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (916) 416-8878 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (cell)