California Bar Journal
spacer.gif (810 bytes)


spacer.gif (810 bytes)

Lawyers' Professional Liability Insurance Program 
Online!] APPLY ONLINE! -- it's fast and easy -- Click here to get the details.
Approved by: 
The State Bar of California
Administered by: 
Kirke-Van Orsdel Specialty
Underwritten by: 
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
More than 165,075 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same names.

All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers. Attorneys must report address changes within 30 days.

spacer.gif (810 bytes)
LAURA ELIZABETH WILSON [#165504], 47, of Sun Valley was disbarred Sept. 17, 1999.

Wilson was charged with misconduct in eight consolidated matters, including six conviction referrals and a failure to comply with rule 955, as required by a previous order of suspension.

Wilson's problems began in March 1995 when, faced with serious financial problems, she went to a Long Beach swap meet and tried to sell videos, CDs and other items. The videos were given to her by friends in the entertainment industry, but they were promotional copies restricted from resale. An individual at the swap meet who was a member of the Screen Actors Guild told Wilson it was illegal to sell the videos and called the police, who confiscated all her sale items.

She was charged in September and later was convicted of violating the penal code by offering videos for sale without disclosing the origin of the recording. The State Bar Court concluded that Wilson's actions involved moral turpitude. In addition, she asked to represent herself in the case, falsely telling the court that she was a teacher with the Los Angeles school district. The bar court found that she made misrepresentations to the court.

Prior to being charged in Long Beach, Wilson went to a Los Angeles swap meet in May 1995, and was arrested and charged with failing to disclose the origin of a recording. She pleaded no contest. Again, the bar court found she committed an act of moral turpitude, particularly since she was on notice by the Long Beach incident that selling the videos in question was illegal.

Wilson also was arrested in March 1995 for being in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and pleaded no contest to a charge of disturbing the peace.

In July 1996, Wilson was cited for driving on a suspended license, failing to carry insurance and driving an unregistered car. She pleaded no contest to driving on a suspended license and the other charges were dismissed. At the time, she was on criminal probation as a result of the swap meet incidents.

The following year, she was arrested on suspicion of shoplifting and gave two different, false names to police. She admitted she lied, saying she was scared and was getting a new job. She pleaded no contest to petty theft and giving false identification to police officers, both misdemeanors which the court found involved moral turpitude. She was still on probation for the swap meet arrests, and there was no evidence of a new job.

Wilson was placed on interim suspension by the bar in 1996 as a result of the Long Beach arrest, but she continued to make court appearances and accept fees to perform legal services. She told a judge who knew about her suspension that she expected the suspension would be lifted in a few days. The judge advised Wilson she could not practice and ordered her to inform the judges in all her cases of her suspension. The next day, she made an appearance by telephone.

In 1997, Wilson was charged and pleaded no contest to six counts of felony unauthorized practice of law while suspended. She failed to appear at sentencing due to a calendaring error and a bench warrant was issued. She then changed her no contest plea, pleading guilty to one count of unauthorized practice, a felony. Again, the bar court found her actions constituted moral turpitude.

As part of the interim suspension, Wilson was ordered to comply with rule 955 by notifying her clients, other counsel and all pertinent parties of her suspension and to submit an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court. The bar court found that she failed to notify the required parties of her suspension, failed to refund unearned fees, and continued to represent parties while suspended.

In mitigation, Wilson has had a very difficult life; her parents went to prison when she was very young and she was adopted at age six after bouncing among foster homes. Her adoptive parents abandoned her, she was abused in group homes and ran away. Eventually, however, she graduated from college and Whittier Law School. While waiting to pass the bar exam, she became a special education teacher. She passed the bar in 1990 but was not admitted until 1993 because she could not afford to pay bar dues.

She earned little income and was evicted from her home. It was in her desperation for money that she tried to sell some of her possessions at swap meets.

Judge Madge S. Watai recommended disbarment and wrote that Wilson "lacks the ability, or is unwilling, to be honest, straightforward and candid, as required of an officer of the court, and that gives this court serious doubt about her ability to practice law in accordance with the standards of professional conduct."

WILLIAM DAVID PRIDE [#107429], 43, of Fairfield was disbarred Sept. 24, 1999, and ordered to comply with rule 955.

In a divorce matter, Pride was entrusted with $34,560.04, representing the balance of proceeds from the sale of the divorcing couple's residence. He was to keep the money in his client trust account pending further order of the court.

In December 1994, the court ordered Pride to pay various bills from the funds entrusted to him and to disburse about $14,000 to the wife and $12,000 to the husband. At that time, he had only $11,661.35 in the trust account; $22,898.69 was missing.

Pride then bounced checks, deposited money in the account from Dean Witter Reynolds, wrote a $4,200 check to "cash" and three more checks to himself for $1,750.

Although he paid the wife the money due her, he had not paid the husband. In June 1995, he wrote a check to the husband for $14,240, representing his share of the sale of the home and a $2,000 reduction in Pride's legal fees. The check was presented and returned due to insufficient funds twice. Eventually, Pride paid the husband with a cashier's check.

The State Bar Court found that Pride misappropriated $22,898.69 in entrusted funds for his own use, commingled personal and entrusted funds, committed acts of moral turpitude and made misleading statements to the court and to the State Bar about his trust account.

In mitigation, Pride had no record of discipline since his admission to the bar in 1983, he had performed pro bono services in the area of domestic violence and child support, served as a pro tem in Solano Superior Court and has been involved in community service programs for the homeless.

However, his conduct harmed the husband in the divorce, and the court pointed out that his handling of his financial problems was an aggravating factor, particularly criticizing Pride for taking client money to pay his personal expenses "when he had monies of his own that could have been used for that purpose."

MONROE SHERIDAN STARK [#97143], 55, of Greenbrae was summarily disbarred Sept. 24, 1999, and ordered to comply with rule 955.

Stark was convicted of grand theft of personal property in 1998 and was placed on interim suspension by the bar early this year.

His conviction meets the two criteria for summary disbarment: Stark was convicted of a felony, and the crime involved moral turpitude.

RONALD E. LAIS [#66511], 57, of Anaheim Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and until he makes restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 13, 1999.

The State Bar Court's review department increased the level of discipline recommended by a hearing judge after finding that Lais committed 12 ethical violations in five client matters. It increased the length of actual suspension and added some probation conditions.

In the first matter, Lais was asked by a friend to handle a legal malpractice case for another individual. Lais' friend paid $10,000 for the client's representation. Shortly after receiving the money, the client met with Lais' associate, but did not sign a retainer agreement because he was concerned about the purported non-refundability of the $10,000.

When Lais learned of the client's reluctance, he advised that his office would advance the costs. The client agreed. Four days later, however, the client wrote a letter to Lais complaining that he was unhappy about dealing with an associate rather than Lais, and he asked for a refund of the $10,000 and the return of the file.

Neither Lais nor the associate learned about the letter until after they filed the malpractice complaint two days later.

Lais wrote a letter informing the client that the suit had been filed, describing the $10,000 as "basically a non-refundable deposit toward attorney fees," and indicated that any refund would belong to the client's friend who had paid the money.

A few weeks later, Lais' office mailed interrogatories to the client, who did not respond. The client later asserted he had not authorized Lais' firm to litigate the case and again asked for a return of the $10,000, warning that he would complain to the State Bar.

Lais' associate asked the client to cooperate in order to avoid sanctions and prejudice to his case, and sent a substitution of attorney form which the client did not sign.

Eight months later, Lais sent a bill to the client and offered to return about $4,800 if the client would withdraw his State Bar complaint.

Although the court found that Lais should have communicated more clearly with his client, it rejected bar prosecutors' argument that Lais appeared for the client without authority. It found that he should have refunded more than $8,400 and that he did not cooperate with the bar's investigation of his conduct.

In another malpractice case, Lais' office did not notify his client that a cross-complaint was filed against her. Two motions to withdraw as her counsel were rejected, but Lais did not prepare for or appear at trial and a default judgment was entered against his client.

He failed to keep his client informed about developments in her case, provide competent legal services or return her file, and he withdrew from representation without protecting the client's interests.

In another matter, a couple hired Lais and paid him $2,900 to handle a guardianship matter involving their grandson. Several days later, they said they had changed their minds and asked for a refund.

Lais did not respond to a letter or several phone calls, so the couple complained to the State Bar. He then negotiated an agreement under which he would substitute out of the case and refund the fee if they would withdraw their bar complaint.

Lais was advised by the bar that any attempt to induce withdrawal of a complaint involved moral turpitude.

The review department found that he disregarded the warning and committed an act of moral turpitude, and he failed to respond to clients' status inquiries or refund advanced fees.

Lais also induced another client to withdraw a disciplinary complaint in a fourth matter, and he improperly deposited client funds in a general account rather than a client trust account.

In mitigation, Lais had no record of discipline for 15 years, presented witnesses who attested to his good character, and performed substantial volunteer work.

MELVIN CAESAR BELLI [#111309], 42, of Mexicali, Mexico, was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual one-year suspension and until he makes restitution and pays litigation costs, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 20, 1999.

Belli stipulated that he misappropriated and mishandled funds entrusted to him on behalf of his sister, Melia, and that by making unauthorized distributions to himself, he breached his fiduciary duty to his sister. The misappropriation amounted to moral turpitude.

The son of Melvin Belli, the well-known and often controversial San Francisco attorney who died in 1996, Caesar Belli worked in his father's law firm.

He was a beneficiary with Melia of an oral trust created in 1978 that included ownership interest in properties in Sonora and the San Francisco buildings known as the "Belli Buildings" where the law practice was located. Each child was given 50 percent ownership, and Caesar Belli was appointed trustee for Melia until she reached the age of 18.

The trust terminated in 1991, when Melia turned 18.

The State Bar contended that during the preceding 10 years, when Belli administered the trust, he diverted more than $200,000 from it for his own use.

In 1992, his sister sued him, seeking damages and an accounting. The case was tried in 1994, with the court concluding that Belli breached his fiduciary duty to his sister by making excessive distributions to himself and by making personal and unrelated expenditures with trust funds.

It ordered Belli to pay his sister $204,508, including $167,339.20 as reimbursement for his expenditures and distributions to himself, and more than $37,000 as reimbursement for an insurance premium on her father that she paid on behalf of the trust. The court later reduced the reimbursement from the insurance premium to $18,584.52, and ordered a final judgment against Belli of $117,588.48 plus costs of the suit.

He made partial payment to Melia of $51,000 in April 1995 but made no further payments.

In mitigation, Belli mistakenly believed it was acceptable to disburse more funds to himself than to his sister because he needed funds for living expenses to support his family. At the time, his father was providing living expenses and additional cash to Melia.

Belli suffered financial problems when the Loma Prieta earthquake rendered the Belli buildings unusable, he had marital difficulties and serious problems with his father, and the law firm broke up acrimoniously. Caesar needed about $100,000 for his own legal fees, interfering with his ability to repay Melia.

He has no record of discipline since his admission to the bar in 1983, and has devoted time and resources to improving the legal profession.

DAVID R. CADWELL [#30054], 65, of Los Angeles was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with a three-year actual suspension and until he makes restitution and proves his rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Aug. 20, 1999.

Cadwell stipulated to misconduct in six consolidated cases.

In two matters, Cadwell allowed the balance in his client trust account to fall below the required amount and three times misappropriated client funds as a result of grossly reckless mismanagement of the trust account and lax maintenance of its records. He also failed to pay out client funds promptly, perform legal services competently, advise clients of significant developments in their case, or promptly return client files and papers.

In a personal injury matter in which he was retained by two clients, Cadwell filed a complaint but after it was sent to arbitration, he did little to pursue the matter. It was dismissed after the court concluded that the case did not go to trial within five years. Cadwell did not notify a client of the dismissal.

A claim for wrongful death and medical malpractice also went awry. The case was abated early when the court ordered that all indispensable parties be located; Cadwell stipulated that he should have acted diligently either to locate all parties, dismiss the case or withdraw as counsel.

He dismissed one defendant without discussing the issue with his client, and he subsequently missed court hearings. The case was dismissed. Cadwell's actions did not give his clients the opportunity to seek other counsel. He decided unilaterally that the matter could not be prosecuted and allowed it to be dismissed. He did not return his client's files when she requested them.

In another case, he delayed paying a client settlement funds and as a result she hired a new lawyer and incurred additional expenses of $3,000, which Cadwell agreed to pay.

He issued settlement funds to another client but did not reimburse an advanced fee of $3,000, as he had agreed to do in a written fee agreement. That client filed a small claims action against Cadwell, but he did not appear at the hearing. Judgment was entered in the client's favor.

Cadwell was disciplined in 1975, following a conviction for grand theft which resulted from his unilateral taking of trust funds to pay his legal fees. In a related civil action, it was determined that Cadwell owed his client $34,000 and the client owed Cadwell $29,000 in legal fees. He also practiced law while suspended.

In mitigation, he made restitution of the trust funds prior to the filing of disciplinary charges. He also experienced significant upheaval in his life at the time of his misconduct which contributed to his actions. He had to move suddenly because his landlord was experiencing financial problems, and his wife, who helped in his office and cared for the couple's children, had to make numerous trips to Japan because her parents' home was destroyed in an earthquake.

A temporary bookkeeper did not properly reconcile his trust account, he and his staff used a computer system which required more skill and time than they could apply to it and a great many errors and discrepancies resulted. As a result, he withdrew more funds from his client trust account than he was entitled to, thereby misappropriating client funds. Some of his actions resulted from misunderstandings.

Cadwell also presented a record of professional accomplishments, including acting as lead counsel in a landmark housing discrimination case and receiving the NAACP Outstanding Legal Services award.

GARY JAMES DUNLAP [#40151], 58, of Lompoc was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 22, 1999.

Dunlap represents two men, Terry and Michael, who are disabled, incapable of looking after their financial affairs, and who would be homeless without Dunlap's help. He deposits their social security checks and disburses funds to them throughout each month. Because both men usually are broke before the end of the month, Dunlap finds odd jobs for them to supplement their incomes.

Dunlap's problems began when he reduced his law practice and made frequent trips out of state. He deposited Terry and Michael's funds in his client trust account, and Terry wrote a large number of bad checks against the account.

It was Dunlap's practice to write out checks for Terry's food, rent and medication, and give them to Terry with instructions to not cash the checks until he was sure his money was deposited. When Terry failed to follow the instructions, he presented the checks prematurely. Occasionally, Dunlap made deposits late.

After he learned the checks were returned, Dunlap tried to rectify the problem by depositing $500 in the trust account to cover overdrafts and bank charges. The overdrafts continued, however, with the bank adding special handling charges which increased over time from $1 to $18 to $25 per check. A total of 17 overdrafts were written.

Dunlap did not reconcile his account and eventually was advised by his accountant to clear the account by withdrawing the money. Efforts to have an outside agency oversee Terry's finances were short-lived.

At this time, Dunlap has rectified the problems and keeps better track of Terry and Michael's funds.

Nonetheless, the State Bar Court found that even after repeated notice by the bar and the bank that checks were being returned, Dunlap continued to draw checks on his client trust account without sufficient funds. His actions constituted moral turpitude.

In mitigation, Dunlap cooperated with the bar's investigation, the checks were honored when presented a second time, and neither Terry nor Michael was harmed. The bar court commended Dunlap for helping the two men without personal monetary gain. "He gave them dignity by giving them some sense of independence," wrote bar court Judge Madge S. Watai.

MON BILL HOM [#57338], 51, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years with an actual 80-day suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 22, 1999.

Hom stipulated to 10 counts of failing to maintain client funds in trust. He repeatedly issued checks drawn on his client trust account to disburse funds which were not yet deposited into the account, committing acts of moral turpitude.

In each case, Hom failed to maintain funds received on behalf of the client, and disbursed settlement funds he had received on behalf of other clients. His client trust account also fell to a negative balance.

As a result of a 1995 IRS levy on Hom's trust account, and concerned about a future levy, he began writing checks to disburse client funds prior to depositing settlement drafts. He was required to reimburse client funds taken by the IRS with his own funds. He believed he was acting in his clients' best interest by writing them checks and then depositing their funds; he believed he could protect their funds from future IRS levies. He now utilizes a management company and deposits settlement drafts before disbursing funds.

Shortly before the misconduct, Hom's father died and he experienced marital difficulties. Both problems affected his attention to detail.

DAIN ROY BIRKLEY [#69884], 53, of Modesto was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 22, 1999.

Birkley was paid $3,000 in advance fees to represent a defendant company in a federal lawsuit which was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

He then was retained by the company, on a contingency basis, to handle a bad faith insurance matter against the plaintiff in the federal case. He failed to file a civil complaint or take any other significant legal action. He stopped communicating with his client and did not respond to requests for an accounting and a refund of the advanced fee in the federal matter.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Birkley failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, provide an accounting or cooperate with the bar's investigation, and he withdrew from employment without protecting his client's interests. Although he was charged with failing to return an unearned fee, the court said there was no evidence that fees connected with the federal court matter were unearned and dismissed the charge.

In mitigation, Birkley has no record of discipline in more than 20 years of practice.

MARY E. COCHRAN [#162269], 60, of Inglewood was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 120-day suspension and until she makes restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 26, 1999.

Cochran stipulated to misconduct in six consolidated matters, including failure to properly administer her client trust account, maintain client funds in trust, return unearned fees and costs, competently perform legal services, or cooperate with the bar's investigation. She also practiced law while suspended for nonpayment of bar dues and collected a fee in a probate matter without court approval.

Two of the charges against Cochran involved separate client trust accounts. Three checks were written against insufficient funds in one account and 23 bad checks were drawn on the other. Both accounts were closed by the banks.

In a probate matter, she informed a client she no longer wished to handle the case, sent a substitution of attorney form and promised to refund $500 of the $1,000 fee he had paid in advance. She never made the refund.

In a second probate case, Cochran demanded and collected an advance fee of $4,000 without the required court approval.

A client in a civil trial paid Cochran $5,000 for anticipated costs. Cochran tried the case while suspended from practice and did not notify her client of her status. Following a jury verdict against the client, the client requested a return of the unused funds at least 10 times. Finally Cochran promised to refund $2,907, but never did.

In a federal case, Cochran represented two clients who paid $5,000, signed a substitution of attorney form and gave her a copy of a motion filed by the other parties which required a response within a month. About a week later, Cochran assured the clients she would file a response. Subsequently, however, she told the clients she decided to dismiss the moving defendants from the action and therefore would not file a response.

When the clients objected, Cochran said she would seek a continuance.

An hour before the response was due, the court contacted the clients to remind them of the deadline and of a scheduled hearing. Cochran did not file the substitution of attorney, respond to the motion in question or seek a continuance. When the client met her outside the courtroom, Cochran said she did not want to go into the courtroom and then left the courthouse. The case was remanded to state court.

Although Cochran wrote a check for $4,900 as a refund to the clients, the check bounced and she never made the refund.

In mitigation, Cochran has no record of discipline since her 1992 admission to the bar. She also was suffering personal difficulties at the time of the misconduct.

JACK R. WILLIS [#43789], 59, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect Aug. 27, 1999.

Willis represented a client in a personal injury action after she discharged her original law firm. When the case settled for $30,000, the insurer issued a check to Willis, the client and the original lawyers.

Willis wrote to the insurance company, arguing that there was no properly asserted lien for attorneys fees and stating incorrectly that the other law firm had entered into a bankruptcy. He did not provide a copy of the letter to the other firm.

The insurance company issued a new check to Willis and the client.

Although Willis claimed his statement about the bankruptcy was a simple, good faith mistake, the State Bar Court found that his statement was deliberate and made for the purpose of depriving the law firm of its share of the settlement.

Willis was disciplined in 1992 for misconduct involving his handling of four client matters.

In mitigation, he has a record of pro bono work and presented testimony attesting to his good character. The court rejected Willis' claims that stress caused by three automobile accidents and a serious illness contributed to his misconduct.

ALAN WESLEY CURTIS [#56827], 56, of Newport Beach was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to make restitution and pay sanctions, take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 22, 1999.

Curtis was charged with misconduct in four consolidated cases; one was later dismissed.

The State Bar court found that in the first matter, Curtis violated the conditions of a 1994 probation by failing to file timely quarterly and financial reports or to make restitution to two parties.

Curtis was sanctioned in a second matter for filing an appeal "wholly without merit," but he did not pay the sanctions or report them to the State Bar until after an investigation began.

In the third matter, Curtis was designated as an escrow holder in his clients' purchase of a lease of property located near the Santa Ana River Canyon. One of the clients gave him $310,000 in cash, which Curtis placed in a safety deposit box.

The bar court found that Curtis violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to deposit the money in a client trust account.

Curtis was disciplined in 1994 for failing to maintain complete records of client funds received, provide his clients with written fee agreements, promptly return unearned fees, render an accounting, and respond to clients' status inquiries, and for communicating with a party represented by counsel.

In mitigation, he experienced severe personal problems which led to depression during some of the period of misconduct. He has performed extensive pro bono work, taken steps to avoid further misconduct, and presented evidence attesting to his good character.

CHARLES FRANKLYN BENNINGHOFF III [#63634], 55, of San Juan Capistrano was placed on interim suspension Aug. 9, 1999, following his conviction for conspiracy to falsify financial statements to a federally insured financial institution. He was ordered to comply with rule 955. He resigned from the bar Sept. 18, 1999.

ROBERT ALAN FIDDES [#129261], 54, of Palos Verdes Estates was placed on interim suspension Aug. 30, 1999, following his federal conviction for one count of conspiracy to make false statements. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

CHANCE XCALIBER OBERSTEIN [#152557], 41, of Costa Mesa was placed on interim suspension Sept. 9, 1999, following his conviction on charges of intercourse with a minor, sodomy with a person under 18, and oral copulation of a person under 18. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

MICHAEL PATRICK CASTELLANETA [#149363], 36, of San Diego (June 19, 1999)

DERRICK ANTHONY HOO [#59518], 54, of Los Angeles (July 22, 1999)

DAN WAYNE GORDON [#99715], 38, of Fremont (Aug. 11, 1999)

LYNN JOYCE BARRETT [#112299], 44, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (Aug. 13, 1999)

RICHARD M. POWERS [#111918], 63, of South Pasadena (Aug. 26, 1999)

DANIEL A. HERNANDEZ [#24017], 74, of San Jose (Sept. 5, 1999)

GREGORY MICHAEL KIMBROUGH [#165874], 33, of Whittier (Sept. 5, 1999)

MELVIN WALTER MAGNUS [#17235], 88, of Bakersfield (Sept. 5, 1999)

HARRY EDWARD WEISS [#17469], 84, of Los Angeles (Sept. 10, 1999)

WILLIAM PAUL CIRIMELE [#59236], 60, of Sonoma (Sept. 17, 1999)

DONALD FRED MULL [#77523], 55, of Stockton (Sept. 17, 1999)

FRANK COSTA NUNES III [#90009], 46, of Irvine (Sept. 17, 1999)

CHARLES F. BENNINGHOFF III [#63634], 55, of San Juan Capistrano (Sept. 18, 1999)

MELVIN LAWRENCE DEMOFF [#93420], 50, of Sacramento (Sept. 18, 1999)

ALAN J. SCHULTZ [#82726], 54, of Encino (Sept. 18, 1999)

LINDA LENORE WILGUS [#112204], 56, of Danville (July 30, 1999)

JOHN INGRAHAM MEEKER [#95878], 50, of Sacramento (Aug. 11, 1999)

JEFFREY J. WIEBE [#147834], 37, of Alameda (Aug. 11, 1999, ended Sept. 30, 1999).

DOUGLASS EDWARD HUBERT [#32173], 63, of Monterey (Aug. 31, 1999)

JOHN RAYMOND DEMPSEY [#102658], 44, of Fountain Valley (Aug. 31, 1999)