The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:03 a.m., on Monday, February 15, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District 10

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

John P. Sande III, Attorney At Law, Jones, Vargas, Nevada Bankers Association

Robert L. Crowell, Attorney At Law, Crowell, Susich, Owen & Tackes Ltd., State Bar Association

Andrew J. Puccinelli, Attorney at Law, State Bar Association

Rob Bare, State Bar Association, Consumer Protection Committee

Stephen Klearman, State Bar Association, Chairman Consumer Protection Committee

Ann Bersi, President Elect of the State Bar Association

Wayne Blevins, Executive Director of the State Bar Association

Radrigo Zainos, Private Citizen

Carlos Camarena, Private Citizen

Juan Saenz, Translator for Carlos Camarena

Gary W. Richter, Manager, Legal Self Help/NALT

Keith Grimes, President, Legal Data, Inc.

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and proceeded with roll call. There was a quorum present.

Chairman Anderson announced he planned to take care of some business of the committee and then would present bills in a different order than listed on the agenda. The bills would be presented as follows A.B. 75 and A.B. 18. He announced the meeting was being teleconferenced to the Sawyer Building in Las Vegas.

Chairman Anderson introduced and gave a brief overview of the following Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).

• BDR 11-445 – Submitted by Welfare Division Child Support Enforcement. Makes various changes to provisions relating to enforcement of child support and appointment of guardian ad litem in paternity action. The legislation conformed to national guidelines. A.B. 231

• BDR 15-274 – Requested by Clark County makes various changes concerning crimes of engagement in and solicitation for prostitution.

A.B. 230

• BDR 5-304 – Submitted by Attorney General. Authorizes assignment of certain juvenile offenders to program of cognitive training and human development. A.B. 229

• BDR 10-678 – Requested by Elko County. Repeals certain provision governing common-interest ownership. A.B. 228

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District 10 stated in his private life he was a financial investment consultant. He handled a tremendous amount of retirement and estate planning, as well as college savings plans. While working on estate planning issues he discovered a number of opportunities states had when they change laws to create a haven for assets. People coming to Nevada to domicile their assets received certain advantages and disadvantages.

Mr. Goldwater found some states were extremely aggressive in attracting trust assets. Some states allowed large tax advantages and created economic opportunity in the area of trusts and estates. He said there was an obscure provision called the rule against perpetuities. He explained it was a very difficult concept to understand. "Perpetuities, there was a rule against them." There was a constitutional provision which was very specific stating "there would be no perpetuities" and also a statutory rule against perpetuities.

Assemblyman Goldwater said perpetuities were developed over the past 7½ centuries to prevent property rights from vesting within a time too remote and to promote the free exchange of property interests. "If you own something, if you had an asset you would only have control of where it went and who had control of the asset up until the time of anybody that was alive today, plus some definite period of time, 21 years was the rule of thumb."

The rule against perpetuities prevented a grantor of property from creating a lengthy series of successive contingent future interests that would tie up the transferability of property for an indefinite period of time. Refer to Exhibit C for remaining presentation.

Mr. Goldwater requested the change of the statutory rule against perpetuities. He referred to a letter (Exhibit D) from the Legislative Counsel Bureau stating the provisions of A.B. 75 would be held unconstitutional if enacted.

He then discussed the proposed amended language (Exhibit E). Mr. Anderson questioned Mr. Goldwater whether it was his desire to have the committee examine the letter the proposed amendment and treat it as the bill.

Mr. Goldwater said that was correct.

Mr. Goldwater felt once the committee amended the bill it would be constitutional and could take effect upon passage and approval.

John P. Sande III, Attorney At Law, Jones Vargas, representing Nevada Bankers Association testified, that eight states had already adopted changes to their statutes and three more including Texas and Ohio were considering changes. The proposed language change came from the State of Illinois. The reason for having a rule against perpetuities was to stop the buildup of dynasties. He read from the proposed amendment (Exhibit E).

Assemblyman Goldwater said A.B. 75 along with other legislation he had proposed was to make Nevada the most progressive state in the Union so far as estate trusts and planning was concerned.

Mr. Sande said perpetuities was a 700 year-old rule created in "feudal society." The time limit placed on the sale of real property was before the committee and was something which could be used in other pieces of legislation to make sure the trustee could sell an asset in the trust or terminate a trust. The bill would create economic diversification for the State of Nevada.

An estate planner from Las Vegas had informed Mr. Sande he had drafted 100 trusts to be domiciled in the State of South Dakota. He said it was an issue of economic diversification.

Assemblyman Collins questioned whether they were discussing real property or stocks and bonds.

Mr. Goldwater said the bill had to do with real property.

Assemblywoman Buckley discovered while doing a check of the internet she noted the State of Alaska was one of the states that amended its rules against perpetuities to make it inapplicable to trusts. But in order to prevent any kind of challenge it had to be distributed at the discretion of the trustee to a person living when the trust was created. She asked Mr. Sande to elaborate.

Mr. Sande said the proposed amendment said the trustee must have the power of sale or the trustee or some other party must have the power to terminate the entire trust. The proposed language was broader than Alaska’s law. Alaska addressed the problem by saying the trustee had the power during somebody’s "life and being" to distribute income or principal to that person.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked where would economic diversification be if the law on perpetuities changed. Mr. Goldwater said his vision was to have Nevada be the most aggressive and best state in which to put your assets. Estate attorneys would receive increased business opportunities. The trust companies would find Nevada an attractive place. Banks would have the ability to be very aggressive and add additional trust departments. The State of Nevada would receive increased tax revenue. Increased fee revenue would benefit real estate agents and real estate management companies. Economic diversification would benefit the service industry.

Mr. Carpenter questioned whether the assets would ever enter Nevada. Mr. Goldwater said he had intended the scope of his amendment would require assets be on file or in some way domiciled in Nevada. Real assets would be very difficult to domicile but financial assets in the case of real assets would require a trustee located in Nevada or use of a Nevada Trust Company.

Chairman Anderson said he planned to have the legal division review the proposed amendment to A.B. 75 and make a recommendation to the committee at a work session. Chairman Anderson asked for additional drafting language to change the effective date to solve some of the constitutional questions.

The hearing on A.B. 75 was closed.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 18.

Robert L. Crowell, Attorney At Law, Crowell, Susich, Owen & Tackes Ltd., represented the State Bar Association. He introduced the following proponents and gave a brief overview of what would be addressed (Exhibit F)

Andrew J. Puccinelli, Attorney At Law, current President of the State Bar Association, would discuss what the state bar did in terms of providing legal services to those in need.

Rob Bare, Attorney At Law, Bar Counsel, State Bar Association, Consumer Protection Committee, would explain the need for the legislation.

Stephen Klearman, Attorney at Law, State Bar Association, Chairman, Consumer Protection Committee, would present facts and circumstances why the legislation was necessary from a practical standpoint.

Mr. Crowell also introduced Ann Bersi, President Elect of the State Bar Association and Wayne Blevins current Executive Director of the State Bar Association.

Mr. Crowell said there were a lot of people who had traveled a great distance to appear before the committee. He made the following statements regarding

A.B. 18:

1. It would not change the definition of the current practice of law.

2. The bill allowed the Supreme Court, the judicial branch of government, to define what constitutes the practice of law.

3. The bill was drafted on purpose.

4. It was not meant to put anyone out of business.

5. It was to make sure daily activities conformed to the statute.

At that time Rob Bare, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada said "the public was being harmed. People were being harmed. Your constituents are being harmed and that is why we are here." He said the proposal did not protect lawyers or their turf. It protected the public. As bar counsel for the State Bar Association he received complaints from all over Nevada against those not licensed to practice law. It was his job to do something with those complaints. He said it was not normally his job to handle complaints because his job was to spend time with the professional discipline of attorneys.

He explained once a complaint was received, it was forwarded to the Consumer Protection Committee, Chairman Steve Klearman, Attorney At Law, Reno, Nevada. He said "The victims those members of the public, those people being harmed were here in the audience."

NRS 7.285 was already in existence but it was not a strong enough law. He was not asking for a new law. He asked to give some teeth to a law already in existence. It called for the unauthorized practice of law to be a misdemeanor. The Nevada State Bar Association asked that it become a gross misdemeanor first time offense. If the offense happened again within 7 years it would be a Class D Felony.

He then went on to explain the bill line by line, reviewing mandatory provisions of the proposal.

Section 1, subsection 1 expanded the definition of those that were authorized to practice law in the state by adding the amendatory language "or as otherwise authorized to practice law in this state." He felt that made sense. They wanted to set up a situation where they could see who was authorized and licensed to practice law in this state. Attorneys who held law licenses in the state and were in good standing were authorized to practice law.

Supreme Court Rule 42 allowed for out-of-state attorneys to come into the state, make application to the court, and be allowed to practice law in a special case or circumstance. Language had to be added to encompass that possibility.

Section 1, subsection 2 stated the Supreme Court would provide by rule the activities that constituted engaging in the practice of law. The section was added to address some previous concerns.

He explained Supreme Court Justices regulated the practice of law. His law license was signed by the justices who were in place when he was sworn. They held his law license and every other law license in the state.

He said there was an ethical rule that all lawyers had to uphold. Supreme Court Rule 189 said in the relevant part, it was unethical for an attorney to practice law without a license in a jurisdiction where they were not licensed unless specially admitted into the state. Assisting another party who was not licensed in the practice of law was also an ethical violation.

NRS 2.120 referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada could make rules. Rules not inconsistent with the constitution for government of the State Bar of Nevada. He felt the statute clearly spelled out the Supreme Court would govern the State Bar of Nevada and would determine what was the practice of law.

Mr. Bare said the present law called for a misdemeanor, 6 months in the county jail, $1,000 fine, maximum penalty for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The State Bar Association asked for a gross misdemeanor, 1 year in the county jail and $2,000 fine. If the offense happened again within 7 years it would be a Category D Felony, 1 year in the state prison minimum, 4 years maximum, and a $5,000 fine. He felt they would need to add a recidivism provision because something had to be done about repeat offenders.

Andrew J. Puccinelli informed the committee what the State Bar of Nevada was doing to provide access to justice for people of low and moderate incomes. Supreme Court Rule 191 referred to as the "Pro Bono Rule" adopted in 1996 required:

1. Lawyers were to fulfill the aspirational goal of providing 20 hours of yearly legal services for no fee.

2. Provide 60 hours of yearly legal services at a reduced fee.

3. Contribute $500 per year to a pro bono service provider.

He said several "bench bar committees" had been established in various judicial districts to help implement Supreme Court Rule 191. Three foundations were created in Washoe County, Clark County and the Tri-County which consisted of the First, Third, and Ninth Judicial Districts (Carson, Churchill, Douglas Lyon and Storey Counties,) to administer pro bono activities.

He said the State Bar of Nevada had a "justice committee" which met quarterly and supported the various pro bono foundations and traditional legal services providers, not only with assistance but also with money.

It also had a "lawyer referral service" where people of moderate income who could not afford to pay all the "freight" for a lawyer could be referred to a lawyer who would provide legal services at reduced fees usually much less than $75 an hour. The referral services offered were usually in the area of family, bankruptcy, landlord, and tenant law. Those were the primary areas in which the low income sought help.

The State Bar of Nevada also had a "young lawyers section" for providing legal help to those in need. He stated during the "New Years Flood in 1997" the young lawyers mobilized and provided assistance to victims of those devastating floods helping with Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) applications. Those lawyers were trained to step in when natural disasters occurred.

The State Bar of Nevada was in the process of establishing a "Washoe and Clark County self help center" for people to help themselves especially in the family court or family law area. The centers would offer legal information and simple forms at little or no charge. There would be lawyers staffing the centers. Law students from the Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas would also staff the centers. Law students from Boyd School of Law would also work in clinical settings.

They also had the "traditional legal service providers" to which the Nevada Bar Association membership provided $500 a year. Those associations included Nevada Legal Services, Clark County Legal Services, Clark County Pro Bono Project, Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevada, Washoe County Legal Services, and Volunteer Lawyers Washoe County. There were a number of organizations available to provide assistance to people of low and moderate income.

Mr. Puccinelli felt the statement "people who are unlicensed and who are not practicing attorneys are providing the service that lawyers do not provide" was simply just not true. He said there were plenty of services readily available and they were trying to develop more. "If someone was truly in need of legal help and cannot afford help, it would be provided for them, they just need to call the state bar."

Chairman Anderson asked the following be made part of the permanent record:

Mr. Anderson:

Mr. Crowell:

The answer was no.

The second statement Mr. Anderson wanted in the permanent record follows:

Mr. Crowell said they were indeed able to do that, the reason why it was there was explained by Mr. Bare. He believed the idea of what constituted the practice of law was within the purview of the Supreme Court to decide. He said the bill said is let the Supreme Court of the judicial branch of government take "its first cut."

Mr. Crowell:

Chairman Anderson:

Mr. Crowell:

That was correct.

That concluded the end of testimony to be put in the permanent record.

Assemblyman Collins asked if there had been numerous convictions to justify the increased penalty.

Mr. Bare said there had not been many meaningful prosecutions under current law. That was one of the reasons they were asking for the change to strengthen the law to assist prosecutors in providing proper deterrents.

Assemblywoman Buckley disclosed she was an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada. The legislation would not affect her any differently than any other attorney and she would participate in discussion and voting.

Assemblyman Brower said he would make the same disclosure as Ms. Buckley.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall disclosed she was a member of the State Bar of Nevada "although not presently actively practicing and this will not affect me in any matter other than any other member of the state bar, so I will participate."

Ms. Ohrenschall said there were several organizations in southern Nevada including Immigration and Refugee Section of Nevada Catholic Services, who frequently employed people who appeared in Federal Immigration Court, who either were not law school graduates or were members of the California Bar. Those individuals had a high degree of expertise in immigration law. She questioned whether the bill would affect organizations such as Nevada Catholic Services.

Mr. Bayer said he did not believe such organizations would be affected. The state bar deferred to the agency itself and abided by their rules. Regarding Ms. Ohrenschall’s actual life scenario, they would defer to the rules of the immigration court or the federal court. If the federal court sanctioned and allowed for the participation of out-of-state attorneys or those who were not licensed anywhere they would simply respect that and give it deference.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked how paralegals fit in the legal system. Mr. Puccinelli said paralegals formed a very important part of the legal delivery system. He had a paralegal in his office. He felt paralegals should be in the direct supervision of attorneys much like physician assistants. "Same type of analogy." They prepared documents reviewed by attorneys to make sure they were done properly. Paralegals in law offices did provide services at a reduced fee. Their time was not charged out the same as an attorney. He felt paralegals had a place in the legal delivery system, but by themselves standing alone without the direction supervision of an attorney they did not. They did not have the knowledge or expertise.

Mr. Carpenter referred to A.B. 18, line 5, section 2, which said "The Supreme Court shall provide by rule the activities that constitute engaging in the practice of law." He asked were public hearings held when the Supreme Court was involved.

Andrew Puccinelli said yes they held administrative docket hearings where the public or any group could speak. Hearings were noticed for public hearing.

Chairman Anderson directed a question to Mr. Bare relevant to making sure attorneys who were practicing before the state bar were fairly representing their clients.

Mr. Bare said Supreme Court Rule 151 required that attorneys act with competence to represent their clients as an ethical matter.

Chairman Anderson asked if the bill would prohibit someone from representing themselves if they wished to testify in front of the court once their attorney had reached some sort of agreement or side bar agreement. Andrew Puccinelli responded no.

Chairman Anderson asked whether an attorney who would not allow his client to speak in front of the court would be subject to discipline from the state bar.

Mr. Bare said that would require a lengthy answer, but in general terms a lawyer had input regarding whether his or her client testified in a matter. In most courts it was the client’s absolute right to testify or not testify. If they were in criminal court and a client wanted to testify the attorney’s ethical duty would be to allow that person to testify. "If you have a right to a jury trial or demand a jury trial you get a jury trial. That was a person’s right as a client." The legislation would in no way hurt a client’s right to testify.

Mr. Anderson asked how civil cases were different. Mr. Bare said in some civil cases it may be different depending on the area of law.

Assemblyman Nolan asked how many complaints had been received for unlicensed versus licensed practitioners. Mr. Crowell said they received about 1,600 complaints against attorneys in the past year. He deferred to Mr. Klearman.

Mr. Klearman said he was Chairman of the Consumer Protection Committee and that committee was charged with the power and responsibility to protect the public. The consumer protection committee had limited resources and it was not targeting banks, insurance companies, title companies; in fact the committee was not even targeting those independent ethical legal technicians and scribeners. They were concerned with criminals. The Consumer Protection Committee had received 50 to 60 complaints, which involved the egregious blatant violations of the current unauthorized practice statute. They needed more power to enforce the statute and to provide an enforcement mechanism.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Klearman to explain the term "scribener" which was from the term "scribe."

Mr. Klearman said the State Bar of Nevada had a legal assistance division and those individuals who were part of the division and worked for attorneys called themselves legal assistants or paralegals. He believed the politically correct term for those people who were independent was "scribeners" or legal technicians.

Mr. Nolan questioned why the committee had only received 50 to 60 complaints compared to 1,600 against attorneys.

Mr. Klearman said the Consumer Protection Committee was a new committee and it was difficult to gauge the number of complaints received throughout the years. There had been hundreds of complaints received throughout the years but with the new incarnation of the committee there had been approximately 50 to 60 complaints since February 1998.

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Klearman for clarification whether he was saying that the committee had not previously existed as a separate committee within the state bar or was it newly constructed with new membership as of the beginning of the calendar year.

Mr. Klearman said the committee had existed in a different form. It was previously called the "Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee." It was not as structured as the current form and he felt it had not been as organized or successful as the committee was in its present form.

Mr. Anderson asked whether Mr. Klearman’s committee dealt with the unlawful practice and malpractice of law.

Mr. Klearman said Mr. Bare was there on behalf of the bar’s counsel which disciplined attorneys. Attorneys were subject to licensing and oversight issues. The Consumer Protection Committee only had jurisdiction over unauthorized practice of law issues and toward that end only did two things. They either referred cases to the district attorneys in the north or the south for prosecution, or on behalf of the state bar the committee proceeded to district court to seek injunctive relief against those individuals accused of blatant cases of unauthorized practices of law.

Mr. Bare said there were 5,000 active attorneys in the State of Nevada.

Due to the interest of time, Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Klearman to select three witnesses to testify regarding problems encountered when they used unlicensed legal services.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Camarena to give his experience and why he felt the law would be good for the citizens of the state.

At that time Carlos Camarena, private citizen, spoke with benefit of Juan Saenz, translator:

At that time Chairman Anderson surrendered the chair to Assemblyman Leslie and asked her to translate for the committee so the gentlemen would understand.

Mr. Anderson asked how much money did Mr. Camarena have to pay in order receive legal services that were requested.

Acting Chairman Leslie interpreted the question in Spanish.

Mr. Camarena replied through the translator:

Ms. Leslie translated the question.

Mr. Camarena replied through his translator:

Mr. Klearman commented and disclosed that Juan Saenz, the translator was from his law office and the two individuals were represented by his office.

Mr. Klearman wanted the committee to know that Mr. Camarena stood a very good chance of being deported as a result of the services he received from Amigos Services. It was one of the organizations he had sought and obtained an injunction against.

Radrigo Zainos, private citizen, testified:

Chairman Anderson told Mr. Zainos he felt he understood what he was trying to say. He asked how he came to determine who to choose. He asked if he had been aware of the pro bono or other ways of obtaining free legal service.

Mr. Zainos opined they had been approached through television and radio and stated:

Mr. Carpenter concurred with what the two gentlemen had said. He had a number of Spanish speaking people who worked for him and also he had very many friends in the Spanish community in Elko. Typically "legal technicians" would come in and they were able to persuade his employees they could get the job done. He was not sure why the Spanish people did not come first to someone they felt they could trust for help. In many instances he found after they had been to "legal technicians" it was more difficult to get the situation straightened out. For immigration matters he usually used attorneys in Carson City. If one of his employees had a difficult situation he would use expert attorneys in Arizona who would confer with his attorney in Elko and they were usually able to straighten out the problem.

Mr. Zainos made concluding remarks:

Mr. Anderson replied "as the son of an immigrant it would be unconscionable for me not to see the great benefits of being born in this country. I hope your children have the great opportunity that has been afforded me so that they may participate fully in our society."

At that time the chairman closed the pro argument section of the bill in the interest of time to allow testimony of those against the bill.

Chairman Anderson said the following documents would to made part of the permanent record:

109 faxes all the same in form in opposition to A. B. 18, only 1 copy to be made part of the permanent record (Exhibit G).

Phone survey 21 in favor and 6 against (Exhibit H).

Letter from Carolyn Edwards, Henderson in favor (Exhibit I).

Letter from Calvin Dunlap, Reno Attorney in favor (Exhibit J).

Letter from Darcie Beckman, Henderson in opposition (Exhibit K).

Gary Richter, operator of a legal typing service from Las Vegas testified in opposition of A. B. 18. He said he did work for the general public and work for attorneys. He said he did not pass himself off as an attorney. He had been operating since September 1990, and to the best of his knowledge and belief he had not had a complaint filed against him or against any work processed by his office. Mr. Richter had a small office with three employees. He referred to himself as an independent paralegal. He averaged about 50 phone calls per day and felt there seemed to be a need for his services. His office explained the pro bono program and lawyers referral service and other alternatives available to all of their customers. They also provided a free consultation and explained what they could and could not do. He referred to his written testimony (Exhibit L).

Mr. Richter felt there was a way for both sides to get together and work out a solution so there would be a win/win solution. He said if he was going to be legislated by law, he needed to see what the practice of law and the unauthorized practice of law were in writing, by definition, and then he would know what he could and could not do.

Keith Grimes, President, Legal Data, Inc., testified he owned a small firm in Las Vegas and provided various legal services. About 40 percent of his clientele were attorneys, 50 percent were corporate legal departments, and 10 percent of the cases were prepared legal documents for the public. Usually the members of the public who came to his office had either been referred by the courts, an administrative agency, or an attorney. To the best of his knowledge his office had never received a state bar complaint. He asked if the committee were to pass the bill to specifically state in the bill that union business agents as was the concern of Chairman Anderson were exempted and not rely on promises of the state bar.

By creating a new felony without codifying what acts constituted the felony he felt made the bill unconstitutional.

Mr. Grimes said A.B. 18 in section 4 removed prosecutorial discretion and prosecution. It said the state bar may refer cases to the district attorney and then the district attorney shall prosecute them. He said that would never stand up, the bill needed a lot of work. He thought the committee should look towards neighboring states of Arizona and California who had come up with systems to regulate paralegals. He felt "to create an entire new class of felons out of literally hundreds if not thousands of working Nevadan’s would not be fair. Refer to remaining testimony (Exhibit M).

Mr. Anderson said he felt Mr. Grimes had brought up an interesting point. Regarding the question on constitutionality, the Speaker of the Assembly would be informed one of his committees was about to do something against the constitution of the state. As a courtesy he would inform the bill drafter or chair of the committee they were about to do something against the law and put the state into harm’s way. The legislature did not like to pay for the mistakes that were made from time to time.

Mr. Anderson said the Committee on Judiciary had heard that particular problem for over the last three sessions. There seemed to be a reluctance to come to common ground. He would have preferred all the discussions had taken place long before the bill arrived at committee, with the short time track involved.

At the same time Mr. Anderson was greatly distressed to keep hearing session after session from people who came forward with the facts they had lost something of great value, their children that could not be replaced, or they were about to lose their citizenship.

Mr. Anderson asked anyone present with written testimony they wanted put in the record to please make sure the secretary had a copy. He asked Mr. Crowell, Mr. Bare and Mr. Puccinelli to be available to work with Assemblyman Claborn to try to resolve the issue and provide language that both sides could agree upon.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Novella Watson-Lee,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: