JANIE HICKOK SIESS #166869
Attorney at Law
1765 Cape Cod Circle
Lodi, California  95242

(209) 366-1446
(209) 481-3815


Attorney for Objectors/Cross-Petitioners
FLORENCE WENDLAND and REBEKAH VINSON

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

In Re Conservatorship of                              

            ROBERT WENDLAND,

Conservatee,

 

 

 

Case No.  6 5 6 6 9

EX PARTE PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS

[Probate Code, section 2359]

 DATE:     July 12, 2001
TIME:      8:15 a.m.
DEPT.:     11

Before the Hon. Bob W. McNatt

            Objectors/Cross-Petitioners FLORENCE WENDLAND (hereinafter “Florence”), Robert’s mother, and his sister, REBEKAH VINSON (hereinafter “Rebekah”) bring this ex parte Petition for Instructions before the court because issues have arisen concerning the health and best interests of the conservatee, ROBERT WENDLAND (hereinafter “Robert”), that require the Court’s immediate attention and action.

1.     Florence arrived at Lodi Memorial Hospital – West (hereinafter “the Hospital”) on Wednesday, July 11, 2001, and learned that Robert was seriously ill.  As set forth fully in the Declaration of Florence Wendland in Support of Ex Parte Petition for Instructions (hereinafter “Florence’s Declaration”), served and filed concurrently herewith, she was informed by the Hospital staff that Robert’s conservator, ROSE WENDLAND (hereinafter “Rose”), has ordered that Florence not be given any information about her son’s medical condition.

2.     Florence was informed by a member of the Hospital’s staff named Linda that Rose’s directives to the Hospital are as follows:

a.     Florence is to be given no information concerning Robert’s condition, treatment, prognosis, etc.

b.     Rebekah is not, under any circumstances, to be allowed to visit Robert.

c.     If Florence questions Robert’s caregivers concerning his condition, treatment, prognosis, etc., Rose will prohibit Florence from visiting her son.

d.     If Florence informs anyone about or discusses this matter with anyone, Rose will prohibit Florence from visiting her son.

            3.     Rebekah arrived at the Hospital shortly after Florence and was advised that she would not be, in accordance with Rose’s orders, even allowed to enter the Hospital’s lobby to talk with her mother.

            4.     Rebekah called Rose at home and left a message on her answering machine, imploring Rose to allow her to visit with her brother.  Rose did not return her call.

                  5.    Meanwhile, Florence and Rebekah’s counsel contacted Rose’s counsel, as detailed in the Declaration of Janie Hickok Siess in Support of Ex Parte Petition for Instructions (hereinafter “Siess Declaration”), served and filed concurrently herewith.  Lawrence Nelson (hereinafter “Nelson”) recited Rose’s orders, as follows:

a.      Rose will not share any medical information concerning Robert with his mother and sister, nor permit him to give any information to their attorney.

b.     Rose will not, under any circumstances, allow Rebekah to visit her brother.

c.      Florence can continue visiting with her son, but if she – “in Rose’s words” – causes a “ruckus” at the Hospital, Rose will immediately prohibit her from visiting with Robert.  Causing a “ruckus” was defined by Nelson as asking Robert’s caregivers and/or doctors for information about Robert’s medical status.

            6.     These events have left Robert’s mother and sister upset, distressed and worried about Robert’s condition, which appears to be grave, as described in Florence’s Declaration.  Florence and Rebekah have no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy other than this instant Petition.  They have no authority, absent an order from this court, to grant their retained expert neurologist or other physician permission to examine Robert for the purpose of advising them about his present condition, diagnosis, prognosis, course of treatment, etc.

            7.     This current controversy has been “brewing” since on or about Friday, June 1, 2001, when Florence arrived at Lodi Memorial Hospital-West (hereinafter “the Hospital”) to visit with Robert.  Upon her arrival, Florence was summoned to the office of the Hospital’s nursing supervisor/administrator.  There, she was informed that Rose had issued a directive to the Hospital that, effective immediately, no one would be allowed to visit Robert other than Florence, including Robert’s sister, Rebekah. 

8.     Moreover, Rose ordered that Florence henceforth be confined to visiting with Robert in his hospital room.  Since Robert’s 1993 injury, Florence has wheeled Robert throughout the hospital corridors in his wheelchair, spent time with him in the Hospital’s “quiet room,” accompanied him to the Hospital’s multi-purpose room for activities, etc.  (See Florence’s Declaration.)

9.     Since Florence was informed of these developments just two (2) days after this matter was argued before the California Supreme Court, she reasonably believed that Rose’s directives concerning her visits with her son constituted temporary measures designed to protect Robert from media intrusions.  Florence anticipated that, as soon as the publicity surrounding the Supreme Court arguments subsided, Rose would rescind her orders restricting the manner of Florence’s visits, and allow Robert to venture outside his hospital room.

            10.  On or about June 16, 2001, when Rose’s orders had not yet been rescinded, Florence’s counsel contacted Rose’s counsel for clarification of his client’s orders and intent.  (Exhibit “A.”)

11.  Robert’s court-appointed appellate counsel, James Braden (hereinafter “Braden”) responded on or about June 17, 2001.  (Exhibit “B.”)  Braden stated:

The main rhetorical point of your letter to Larry Nelson is your claim that it can hardly be in Robert’s “best interests” for his wife and conservator, Rose Wendland, to put certain restrictions on the manner in which his mother, Florence, may conduct visits with him , and to entirely bar visits by Robert’s half-sister, Rebekah Vinson, as well as other family members.  If there were nothing more at issue here than a purely private family matter, one not being angrily litigated in both the courts and the state and national news media, your complaint might be well taken and I probably would agree with you that one family member should not restrict the visiting rights of other family members.  (Emphasis added.)

Braden accuses Florence of making false statements to the media about Robert’s condition, arguing that

it definitely is not in his best interests for [Robert’s] mother (or anyone else) to visit him and then go out and make false statements about his condition.  Moreover, it is not in his best interests for her to utilize those false statements in her misconceived campaign to interfere with the ability of Rose, as Robert’s conservator, to make the decision about his continued medical treatment that all available evidence --- from Rose, from Robert’s children, from Robert’s brother Michael, and indeed from others – plainly indicates was and would now be his preference, i.e. to bring an end to that medical treatment.

 

Braden admits that, although appointed to serve as Robert’s counsel, he has made no attempt to investigate Florence’s statements. 

12.  Nelson responded on June 20, 2001.  (Exhibit “C.”)  As is equally apparent from Nelson’s correspondence, Rose’s orders concerning Florence’s visits with her son have no relationship to and are, in fact, in direct contravention of her duties as Robert’s conservator.   Rose’s directives have no basis whatsoever in a concern for Robert’s best interests.  Nelson states, with regard to restricting Florence’s visits to Robert’s hospital room::

[T]he outrageousness of her claims about Robert’s functional abilities increases when he is taken elsewhere.

 . . .

However, Rose retains the right to withdraw visiting privileges from anyone at any time for behavior contrary to Robert’s interests, such as publicly claiming that he can perform tasks that Dr. Kass and the facility personnel state that he cannot do.  [Emphasis added.]

            7.     Such statements are illogical and nonsensical vis a vis Robert’s best interests.  Robert has been adjudicated incompetent to make medical treatment decisions for himself.  He has no awareness of the publicity surrounding this matter, or of the public statements made by any of the parties, including Rose and her children.[1]  Public statements have absolutely no impact upon Robert, and should have no bearing upon the quality of his care and treatment.

            8.     Rather, Rose’s orders were , as plainly evidenced by the representations of Nelson and Braden, motivated by her desire to win a public relations battle at all costs.  What Rose, Nelson, and Braden all overlook is the fact that the Justices of the California Supreme Court will determine the outcome of this case based upon the record before them, not media reports on the case, or interviews given or appearances made by the parties and/or their counsel.

9.     Plainly, if Rose has concerns about the media attention this case has garnered, the appropriate course of action is to bring those concerns to the court’s attention by seeking a “gag” order (as she did unsuccessfully in 1996).  Instead, in dereliction of her fiduciary obligations to Robert, she directed the Hospital to limit Robert’s interaction with his mother and other relatives, thereby harming Robert.

10.  This is not the first time that Rose has threatened to attempt to prohibit Florence from visiting with Robert.  In or about January 2001, following interviews with both women on “Good Morning, America,” Rose threatened to issue an order to the Hospital directing that Florence no longer be allowed to visit her son.  (See Siess Declaration.)

11.  Florence and Rebekah maintain that Robert’s best interests will be served by allowing him regular, unfettered and consistent contact with them.

12.  Florence and Rebekah are gravely concerned about Robert’s present medical condition, diagnosis, prognosis, and the appropriateness of the care and treatment he is receiving.  While it is not disputed that Rose, as Robert’s duly appointed conservator, has authority and responsibility to safeguard Robert’s medical privacy, her refusal to apprise his family members, who are interested parties in this proceeding, of his medical status constitutes a calculated and, indeed, heartless abuse of that authority.

13.  Florence and Rebekah have no access to information relevant to the preservation not only of their rights as interested parties in this proceeding, but also to a determination of whether or not Robert’s myriad rights are being adequately safeguarded by Rose.  In light of the statements made by both Rose’s own counsel and Robert’s court-appointed counsel, Rose’s actions are highly suspect.  Florence and Rebekah hereby assert that it is mandatory and appropriate for their retained expert neurologist, Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., to have an opportunity to examine Robert, review his medical records, and speak with his caregivers and physicians in order to form an opinion as to Robert’s current medical condition, diagnosis, prognosis, and the appropriateness of the care he is receiving under the existing conservatorship.

14.  This court must act cautiously and decline an invitation by either Rose or Robert’s court-appointed counsel to relitigate the question of whether Robert should live or die.  That ultimate issue is not before this tribunal and, indeed, is, at this point in time, beyond this court’s jurisdiction.  Rather, this Petition, and any orders arising out of it, must be strictly limited to the specific requests for relief set forth below.

            WHEREFORE, Florence and Rebekah hereby submit this Ex Parte Petition for Instructions, asking the Court to order:

            1.     That Rose Wendland immediately apprise Florence and Rebekah of Robert’s medical status/condition, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis and provide them with regular updates about his care and treatment;

2.     That Florence and Rebekah’s retained expert neurologist, Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., be immediately afforded an opportunity to examine Robert, review his medical records, and consult with his caregivers and physicians in order to ascertain Robert’s current physical status, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. and advise Florence and Rebekah concerning the appropriateness, in his estimation, of Robert’s care and treatment.

3.     Consistent with Robert’s best interests, allow both Florence and Rebekah unfettered and regular visits with Robert.  Such visits should not be confined to Robert’s hospital room, as such is contrary to Robert’s best interests.

            4.     Make such other and further orders as the court deems proper and consistent with both the conservatee’s best interests and the conservator’s fiduciary obligations to the conservatee.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        _________________________________ 

                                                                                  FLORENCE WENDLAND

                                                                                 Objector/Cross-Petitioner

                                                                       _________________________________

                                                                                  REBEKAH VINSON

                                                                                  Objector/Cross-Petitioner



[1]  For instance, Rose told CNN’s “Burden of Proof” on January 15, 2001, that Robert is “brain dead.”  Rose has conducted numerous interviews, made appearances on many television programs, and allowed the media, with the Hospital’s blessing, to go to Robert’s hospital room to see and photograph him.  She has refused to allow the media to observe Florence interacting with Robert.

 

 

JANIE HICKOK SIESS #166869
Attorney at Law
1765 Cape Cod Circle
Lodi, California  95242
(209) 366-1446
(209) 481-3815

Attorney for Objectors/Cross-Petitioners
FLORENCE WENDLAND and REBEKAH VINSON

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

STOCKTON BRANCH

In Re Conservatorship of

ROBERT WENDLAND,

 

Conservatee.

 

 

 

 

Case No.  6 5 6 6 9

DECLARATION OF FLORENCE WENDLAND IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS

[Probate Code, section 2359]

 DATE:     July 12, 2001

TIME:      8:15 a.m.

DEPT.:     11

Before the Hon. Bob W. McNatt

I, FLORENCE WENDLAND, declare:

1.    I am the mother of the Conservatee, ROBERT WENDLAND (hereinafter “Robert”), and one of the Objectors/Cross-Petitioners herein.

2.    If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the truth of all matters herein alleged, except as to those matters alleged upon information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

3.    Since Robert was injured in September 1993, I have consistently visited him both at San Joaquin General Hospital and Lodi Memorial Hospital – West (hereinafter “the Hospital”).  I ride the bus to the Hospital at least three (3) days per week.  Each time I visit, I spend several hours with Robert.  I have only missed my visits with Robert when my own ill health has prevented me from going to the Hospital to see him.

4.    Robert’s wife and conservator, ROSE WENDLAND (hereinafter “Rose”), has not allowed me to take Robert outside to the Hospital courtyard since this lawsuit began in approximately July 1995.  Before that, I was able to take him out to the courtyard in his wheelchair where I would read, sing, and talk to him.

5.    Until June 1, 2001, my visits with Robert have always taken place inside the Hospital, but have not been confined to Robert’s hospital room.  For instance, I wheeled Robert around the corridors of the Hospital.  We would go into a room in the Hospital that I refer to as the “quiet room” where I could read, sing and talk to Robert.  I have also gone to the multi-purpose room with Robert where he and other patients participate in various activities.

6.    Robert responds to me when I arrive at the Hospital.  I believe that he recognizes me.  He responds not only to the sound of my voice, but also when I ask him to do things.  For instance, I ask him, “Do you want to kiss my hand, Robert?” and he takes my hand to his lips and kisses it..  I will say to him, “Robert, can I kiss your hand?” and he will hold his hand up to my lips and allow me to kiss it.  He takes my hand and squeezes it.

7.    I have seen him move both his right arm and right leg, even though Rose contends that he is completely paralyzed on that side.

8.    Robert has different facial expressions and shows  what I believe to be varying emotions.  For instance, sometimes he looks very frustrated, as though he is trying to talk and say something to me but he just can’t.  I reassure and encourage him.

9.    Robert cries.  As recently as yesterday, July 11, 2001, when I was present in Robert’s room, I observed tears running down his face.  I talked to him, telling him “It will be all right, Robert.  It will all be all right.”  As he listened to me, he seemed to get more peaceful, and he stopped crying.  In the years since his accident, I have seen Robert cry numerous times.

10.  I believe that Robert understands things that are said to him.  For instance, I have been with Robert at the Hospital on more than one occasion when someone has mentioned this legal proceeding in his presence.  His eyes got very big and he seemed to become agitated and upset.  In order to calm him down, I stroke his hair and his face, and reassure him that “no one is trying to hurt you, Robert.”  He responds to me with his facial expressions, and becomes calm again.

11.  I have observed Robert in the multi-purpose room, bowling with the other patients.  I have seen him aim and throw the ball.  He has a trophy in his hospital room recognizing him as the best bowler at the Hospital.

12.  I purchased and keep a “shape-sorter” type of game in Robert’s hospital room.  It requires Robert to place different colored and shaped pegs into the matching slots.  He seemed to enjoy that activity and can do it successfully.  There is just one peg that he has trouble with.  But after he works at it for a bit, he manages to get that peg into the slot, as well.  He has been seen doing it by members of the Hospital’s staff engaging in this activity.

13.  I have on numerous occasions observed Robert responding appropriately to the Hospital staff as they care for him.  For instance, when one of the staff asks him to raise his arm so that they can help him get his shirt on or off, he does so.

14.  I have observed Robert respond to members of the Hospital staff as they enter his room.  Not too long ago, a gentleman came in with whom I am not acquainted, but it seemed to me that Robert recognized him.  He said, “Hello, Robert” and, as he moved toward Robert’s bed, he held out his hand to Robert.  Robert reached up with his left hand and shook the gentleman’s hand.

15.  I firmly believe that Robert recognizes me.  Recently, I was ill and did not get to the Hospital to visit Robert for a few days.  The next time I went to visit Robert, he did not look at me when I first entered his room  and he seemed angry with me.  I asked him, “Robert, are you upset that I wasn’t here visiting you for a few days?  I’m sorry.  I was sick and I couldn’t come to see you.”  Robert began crying as I spoke to him.  After a few moments, and I explained my absence to him, he became calm again, stopped crying and responded to me as he normally does (as described herein).

16.  On or about, Friday, June 1, 2001, I arrived at the Hospital to visit Robert and was immediately taken into the office of the Hospital’s nursing supervisor/administrator.  She told me that Rose had ordered that no one but me would be allowed to visit Robert, including my daughter, Rebekah.

17.  She also told me that I would no longer be allowed to visit Robert outside of his hospital room, therefore, I could no longer push him around the Hospital corridors in his wheelchair, go to the “quiet room” or multi-purpose room with him, etc.

18.  Since I was told about these new restrictions just two (2) days after the argument in the California Supreme Court, I thought that Rose was just concerned about the publicity this case has attracted and, as soon as it died down, I would be allow to visit with Robert in the manner that I always have.

19.  I was hospitalized during the week of July 2, 2001 and, because of my illness, did not get to visit Robert for about a week and a half.

20.  Yesterday, July 11, 2001, when I arrived at the Hospital, I noticed the staff looking at me strangely.  When I went into Robert’s room, I found him in his hospital bed with additional tubes in his throat, chest, etc.  Robert was “clammy” to the touch and seemed to be having trouble breathing.  He tried to cough and seemed too weak.  I tried to encourage him, saying “Robert, you can do it.  Try hard.”  But he couldn’t.

21.  Finding Robert in this condition made me extremely upset, distressed, and worried.

22.  I believe that, even in his weakened condition, he recognized me yesterday.  He still responded to me.  He took my hand and squeezed it, and held it in his own hand on the side of the bed.  He started to cry as I talked to him, and tried to comfort him.

23.  I asked the nurses what was wrong with Robert.  They told me that they couldn’t tell me anything about his condition, and that I would have to talk to Rose.  I asked if I could speak with his doctor, Dr. Kass.  They told me that he was out of town and a different doctor was caring for Robert, but that I could not talk to him about Robert’s condition.

24.  A member of the Hospital’s staff named Linda told me that Rose has issued new orders to the Hospital:

a.            I am not to be  given any information about Robert’s condition;

b.            Rebekah is not, under any circumstances, to be allowed to visit Robert.

c.            If I question the nurses or doctors about Robert’s condition, Rose will cut off my visits with Robert completely; and

d.            If I discuss this situation with anyone at all, Rose will stop me from visiting my son.

25. This is not the first time that Rose has threatened to stop me from visiting my son.  In January 2001, both Rose and I were interviewed by “Good Morning, America.”  After the interview was aired, I am informed, believe, and hereupon allege that Rose threatened to stop me from visiting Robert because she was unhappy about the things I said in the interview.

            26.  Yesterday, July 11, 2001, Rebekah arrived at the Hospital shortly after I got there and was told that she could not even come into the lobby to talk with me.  I had to go out to the parking lot to talk to her.

            27.  I am extremely upset, distraught, and worried about my son’s health and well-being.  I love him and I do not want any harm to come to him.  As his mother, and a party to this lawsuit, I feel that I have a right to know what is happening to him.  When I saw him today, it was obvious that he is very, very ill.

            28.  I am respectfully requesting that the court order Rose to keep me informed about my son’s medical condition.

            29.  I am also respectfully requesting that the court direct Rose to allow me to visit with my son in the way that I have since he was injured nearly eight (8) years ago.  I do not believe that it is in Robert’s best interests to have to remain in his hospital room during our entire visit.  It is best for me to best able to take him around the hospital in his wheelchair as I did before.  Because Rose will not allow Rebekah to visit with him, I informed, believe and hereupon allege that I am the only person who does these kinds of things for Robert.

            30.  I am informed, believe and thereupon allege that I am the only member of Robert’s family who visits him regularly.  I am also informed, believe and thereupon allege, as stated above, that no one else performs the activities I have described here with him, e.g. wheeling him around the Hospital corridors, singing to him, reading to him, stroking his hair, engaging in activities such as the “shape-sorter” game, etc.  Surely it must be in Robert’s best interests to continue to receive this type of care and treatment from me, his mother, when his wife and children have openly told the media that they do not visit Robert.  I have no reason to disbelieve their statements.

Executed under penalty of perjury this 12th day of July 2001, at Stockton, California.

                                                      ___________________________________

                                                               FLORENCE WENDLAND

 

 

JANIE HICKOK SIESS #166869
Attorney at Law
1765 Cape Cod Circle
Lodi, California  95242
(209) 366-1446
(209) 481-3815

Attorney for Objectors/Cross-Petitioners
FLORENCE WENDLAND and REBEKAH VINSON

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

 STOCKTON BRANCH

In Re Conservatorship of

ROBERT WENDLAND,

 

Conservatee.

 

 

 

Case No.  6 5 6 6 9

 DECLARATION OF JANIE HICKOK SIESS IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS

[Probate Code, section 2359]

DATE:     July 12, 2001
TIME:      8:15 a.m.
DEPT.:     11


Before the Hon. Bob W. McNatt

I, JANIE HICKOK SIESS, declare:

1.    I am an attorney at law, duly admitted and licensed to practice before all Courts of the State of California, and the attorney of record for Objectors/Cross-Petitioners herein, FLORENCE WENDLAND (hereinafter “Florence”) and REBEKAH VINSON (hereinafter “Rebekah”).

2.    If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the truth of all matters herein alleged, except as to those matters alleged upon information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

3.    O Wednesday, July 11, 2001, I spoke with conservator ROSE WENDLAND’s (hereinafter “Rose”) counsel, Lawrence Nelson (hereinafter “Nelson”) by telephone.  I was advised by Nelson that Rose had instructed him not to disclose any information concerning Robert’s medical condition to anyone, including my clients or myself.

            4.    I requested that Nelson contact Rose and request authorization to apprise me of Robert’s condition, prognosis, etc. “as a matter of simple human decency.”  I told him that I would pass the information on to my clients.  Nelson stated that he felt this was a “family matter” and Florence should contact Rose directly.  I explained that Florence was extremely upset and distraught, and I did not feel that it would be in my client’s best interests, especially in consideration of her health, to cause her further stress by forcing her to contact Rose about these issues.  I am informed, believe and hereupon allege that the two women have not spoken to each other since this litigation began in 1995.

            5.    I also advised Nelson that Rebekah desired to visit her brother, and that she had again been refused admittance to the Hospital.

            6.    Nelson called me back a short time later.  He stated that he had spoken with his client and her orders are as follows:

            7.   Rose will not share any medical information concerning Robert with his mother and sister, nor permit Nelson to divulge the information to me.

8.  Rose will not, under any circumstances, allow Rebekah to visit her brother.

            9.  Florence can continue visiting with her son, but if she – “in Rose’s words” – causes a “ruckus” at the Hospital, Rose will immediately prohibit her from visiting with Robert.  Causing a “ruckus” was defined by Nelson as asking Robert’s caregivers and/or doctors for information about Robert’s medical status.

            10.  This is not the first time that Rose has threatened to attempt to stop my client from visiting her son.  In January 2001, both Rose and Florence were interviewed by “Good Morning, America.”  That evening, I received a call from Nelson, who told me that Rose was “extremely” upset by Florence’s remarks during the interview.  Nelson stated that Rose was contemplating prohibiting Florence’s visits with Robert.  I informed Nelson that, in my opinion, such action would be “ill-advised.”  The matter was dropped until approximately June 2001.

            11.  Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference is a true and exact copy of the letter I sent to Nelson on June 16, 2001.

            12.  Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this reference is a true and exact copy of the e-mail I received from Robert’s court-appointed counsel, JAMES BRADEN (hereinafter “Braden”), on June 17, 2001.

            13.  Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated by this reference is a true and exact copy of the e-mail I received from Nelson on June 20, 2001.

            14.  I am informed, believe  and hereupon allege that Vincent Fortanasce, M.D. stands ready and willing to examine Robert, review his medical records, and consult with Robert’s caregivers and physicians in order to advise Florence and Rebekah.  Dr. Fortanasce will be available to go to Lodi Memorial Hospital- West for these purposes on Saturday, July 14, 2001 or Sunday, July 15, 2001.

            15.  I informed Nelson of this ex parte hearing via telephone at approximately 2:20 p.m. on July 11, 2001.

            16.  I informed Doran Berg of this ex parte hearing via voice mail message at approximately 2:23 p.m. on July 11, 2001.

            17.  I informed Pamela Sieux, of the Law Office of James Braden, of this ex parte hearing via telephone at approximately 3:40 p.m. on July 11, 2001.  (My earlier attempts to reach Braden’s office were apparently rendered unsuccessful due to a problem with Braden’s telephone answering system, as I explained to Ms. Sieux.)

         Executed under penalty of perjury this 12th day of July at Stockton, California.

                                                               __________________________________

                                                                        JANIE HICKOK SIESS