Friday, September 14, 2007

Montgomery County PA Joins Barnes Fight

On September 12, 2007, Montgomery County (PA) formally joined the fight for reconsideration of the proposed move of the Barnes Foundation from that county and into Philadelphia County, by filing a petition for reconsideration, and holding a press conference to announce the filing.

This latest action by the Montco Commissioners demonstrates a renewed commitment to the role of the Barnes Foundation within Montgomery County.

It is a culmination of what the
Philadelphia Inquirer previously described in an article as an "about-face". See: "Montco's about-face on Barnes Museum", by Tom Infield (07/09/07).

It also follows efforts made in early August, 2007, by the Montco Commissioners to convince the Pennsylvania Attorney General to intervene in a manner consistent with the County's concerns. See: "Montco Seeks Out Attorney General Over Barnes Role", by Jim McCaffrey, published August 6, 2007, in The Bulletin (Philadelphia).

The Bulletin reported the latest development in an article published on September 13, 2007, entitled "Montco Petitions Barnes Move", by Bradley Vasoli, with the byline, "County Asks For Renewed Consideration To Keep Famed Art Collection At Its Current Home".
Montgomery County yesterday filed a new Orphans' Court petition to thwart the attempt by the state and the Barnes Foundation's Board of Trustees to move the renowned art collection from its current home in Merion to Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia.

Montgomery County Deputy Solicitor Carolyn T. Carluccio asked the court to give renewed consideration to a plan whereby the county would purchase the property currently housing the Barnes on North Latch's Lane in Merion and lease it back to the foundation. The county asserts that the art collection's board is on rickety legal ground attempting to move its site to Philadelphia from the property on which it was built in 1923 and on which founder Albert Barnes wished it to remain.

Carluccio asserted that the county's standing to petition the Court of Common Pleas to rule on this matter derives in part from the economic loss the area stands to suffer if it loses one of its most celebrated destinations.

"We stand to lose a world-renowned collection of art," she said. "We have an immediate threat of a negative economic impact." Montgomery County's Board of Commissioners and other area lawmakers shared her concern. * * *

Thus, Barnes' wish, specified in an official trust, to leave the Barnes in its current location should be honored, the petition said.

"It is axiomatic that if conditions dictate diverting from the language of a trust or the intent of the grantor when financial circumstances will no longer allow the carrying out of a charitable trust, when circumstances again change in such manner to allow the grantor's intent to be carried out, the language of the trust should be followed and the trustee has the obligation to follow a course in accord with the grantor's wishes," the county argued. * * *
At the press conference (pictured above), Montgomery County Commissioners and Supervisors from Lower Merion Township were joined by Congressman Jim Gerlach. He has proposed giving federal status to the Barnes Museum as a national historic landmark, which would enable it to apply for federal arts support.

Montco's actions follow the prior initiation of reconsideration litigation by the Friends of the Barnes Foundation. See: PA EE&F Law Blog posting
"Petition Filed for Reconsideration of Barnes Relocation" (08/28/07).

As of this date, this development inserting Montgomery County into the dispute was not noted on the websites of the County of Montgomery, the Friends of the Barnes Foundation, or the Barnes Foundation.

The proceedings to be held in the courtroom of the Orphans' Court Division, of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, likely will be followed widely by persons interested in philanthropy, art, museums, charitable foundations, economic development, trust law, and politics.

Update: 09/15/07:

For a totally contrary & very critical view of the position taken by Montgomery County in the Barnes Foundation matter, read the commentary by Jack B. Siegel, entitled "
Montgomery County Lacks Standing When It Comes to the Barnes Foundation" (09/14/07), posted on the Charity Governance Consulting Blog. He is the author of A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good (April, 2006), published by John Wiley & Son, Inc.

Update: 05/19/08:

On May 15, 2008, the
Orphans' Court Division, of the Montgomery County (PA) Court of Common Pleas, per Judge Stanley R. Ott, issued a Memorandum Opinion (8 pages) that denied "standing" to the Friends of the Barnes Foundation and the County of Montgomery in the litigation referenced as The Barnes Foundation -- Petitions to Reopen Proceedings.

See:
PA EE&F Law Blog posting
"No Standing" for Barnes Foundation Petitioners (05/19/08).

Thursday, September 13, 2007

"There is No Free Lunch" --SEC

On September 5, 2007, the United States Securities & Exchange Commission issued a Press Release (No. 2007-172) entitled "SEC Charges 26 Defendants in $428 Million Securities Fraud That Targeted Senior Citizens and Retirement Savings", about actionable conduct "that victimized thousands of seniors and other investors throughout the United States."

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed charges stemming from a $428 million securities fraud that victimized thousands of seniors and other investors throughout the United States.

The SEC's action, filed in federal district court in Chicago, Ill., charges 26 defendants and alleges that they participated in a massive fraud that involved the sale of securities in the form of "Universal Leases."

The investments were structured as timeshares in several hotels in Cancun, Mexico, coupled with a pre-arranged rental agreement that promised investors a high, fixed rate of return. The fraudulent Universal Lease scheme eventually collapsed, leaving investors with losses that exceed $300 million. * * *
Further details about the case are set forth in the Press Release.

The reach & level of the alleged fraud is frightening, particularly when the targeted individuals are considered: seniors who "invested" their retirement funds.

Under these circumstances, the response of the SEC is gratifying.

The case is part of the Commission's crackdown on financial fraud against senior citizens, which has already resulted in more than 40 enforcement actions over the past two years. * * *

"This case illustrates the Commission's continuing commitment to hold accountable those who prey upon the retirement funds of older Americans," said Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Kelly and his cohorts told investors they were purchasing a safe, high-income investment suitable for a retirement account. In reality, investor funds were at grave risk as investor funds were used in a way that guaranteed the collapse of the scheme."

Merri Jo Gillette, Regional Director of the SEC's Chicago Regional Office, added, "Kelly and those involved in his operation may have hoped to evade U.S. law enforcement by operating the Universal Lease scheme from abroad. The action we filed today shows that the SEC will vigilantly pursue those who target older Americans, no matter what the obstacles. The SEC plans to aggressively seek recovery from the defendants to offset the huge losses they inflicted on investors." * * *
This prosecution could be labeled as Exhibit "A" in an argument to prove the SEC's point: "There is no "Free Lunch".

The SEC has made the point before. See: EE&F Law Blog posting "
SEC's Senior Investor Protection Seminar on May 18" (05/07/07).

This point was repeated, explicitly, and was substantiated by a new investigative report, during an SEC public educational event -- the second annual "
Seniors Summit" -- held earlier this week, on Monday, September 10, 2007.

Combating financial fraud against older investors [was] a focus of the Commission's second annual Seniors Summit in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 10. The Summit also [included] the release of findings from regulatory examinations of 110 firms offering "free lunch" investment seminars aimed at seniors.

The SEC's Seniors Summit [began] at 10 a.m. ET on Sept. 10 and [was] webcast live on the SEC Web site at www.sec.gov. The event [further examined] how regulators, community organizations, and others can increasingly coordinate efforts to educate older Americans and protect them from abusive sales practices and investment fraud.

[I]nformation and other materials about the Seniors Summit are available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/seniors/seniors_summit.htm.

On that webpage, the SEC provided links for its Media Kit for SEC 2007 Seniors Summit and also a List of Outside Participants.

Along with materials from the first annual Senior Summit (see: Archive: 2006 Seniors Summit), the materials from this recent second annual Senior Summit are now available online from the SEC:

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

"I bequeath my machine gun to . . ."

Recently there have been discussions on the listserv of the National Center on Elder Abuse regarding the possession and use by elderly persons of firearms. These discussions lead, logically, to concerns about disposition of firearms upon an owner's death.

One of the students in my current Elder Law class at Widener University School of Law (Harrisburg Campus), accepted my invitation to write an article on such a topic for posting on this Blog.

Following is the informative article written by Joshua G. Prince [joshua@princelaw.com] (as revised, supplemented & edited by me for posting here).

Grandpop’s Machine Gun in the Chest, Part I

What does an attorney do when, after an elderly person dies, a search of the home reveals a gun?

This issue faces estate attorneys quite frequently, especially in pro-gun states, such as Pennsylvania. Most attorneys, even those not proficient in firearms law or firearms in general, will properly handle the transfer of a typical firearm.

What does an attorney do when the search reveals an automatic weapon -- essentially, a "machine gun" (or "machinegun" under federal law)?

Uncertainty in proper disposition of such a firearm could lead to one’s client being convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm, punishable by up to 10 years, $250,000 in fines and the forfeiture of the weapon and any “vessel, vehicle, or aircraft” used to conceal or convey the firearm. [1]

Initially, an attorney or personal representative should investigate whether there are any firearms among estate assets. What the heirs believe are just routine firearms, may actually be machineguns. Thus, consider carefully if a firearm is a revolver, a bolt action, a semi-automatic, or an automatic firearm. The distinction is crucial.

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) provides online identification assistance in a two part slide presentation, Identification of Firearms, Part I and Identification of Firearms, Part II. Furthermore, with a picture and description of the firearm, an attorney or personal representative could determine the character of a firearm on Subguns' NFA Firearms Discussion Board. Its contributors pride themselves on the identification and proper procedures for determining the status of a specific firearm. Also, a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer can be consulted to make such a determination.

Machine guns are governed by several laws. The main statutes are the National Firearms Act (NFA of 1934) [described by Wikipedia here] [2], the Gun Control Act (GCA of 1968), [described by Wikipedia here] [3], and the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA of 1986) [described by Wikipedia here]. [4]

The consequences of unauthorized possession or use of such a firearm can be severe. For an example of such consequences in a federal criminal law setting, see: United States v. Carter, a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case decided October 17, 2006, regarding the definition of "machinegun" and also "silencer".

The definition under federal law of a "machinegun" is “[A]ny weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” [5]

Any machine gun must be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). [6] A firearm for which there are no or incomplete records in the NFRTR is considered contraband and is subject to seizure and forfeiture by BATFE. [7]

Thus, once a determination is made that a firearm is a machine gun, an attorney or fiduciary is advised to search for the registration of that firearm, since it is common for such a weapon not to be in the registry. [8]

If the attorney or fiduciary is unable to find a registration, the weapon's status can be confirmed by contact in writing to BATFE. [9] This inquiry should be accompanied by documentation showing the executor’s or administrator’s authority, under state law, to represent the decedent and to dispose of the decedent’s firearms. Although BATFE is prohibited from disclosing tax information (which all NFA registrations are), it may disclose the owner information of the firearm, to persons lawfully representing registrants of NFA firearms. [10]

If the registry does not show the weapon to be registered, BATFE requests that the administrator or executor contact the local BATFE branch office, so the weapon can be destroyed. But there are other alternatives.

The cheapest registered machine gun runs around $4,000, with some transferables (the term used for weapons which are registered) going for upwards of $200,000. While these are the prices for complete “transferable” weapons, the price of the parts to such weapons may also be high.

While BATFE desires to dispose of such weapons, in entirety, including parts, which in themselves are not machine guns, BATFE allows for a weapon to be decommissioned instead.

“The preferred method for destroying a machinegun receiver is to completely sever the receiver in specified locations by means of a cutting torch that displaces at least one-quarter inch of material at each cut location.” [11]

“A machinegun receiver may also be properly destroyed by means of saw cutting and disposing of certain removed portions of the receiver.” [12]

BATFE has published preferred procedures for the destruction of specific machine guns. [13] By destroying the receiver, you are enabling the estate or the beneficiary of the weapon to sell the “parts”.

Furthermore, if the estate does not wish to destroy a war relic or an antique firearm, the estate may donate the weapon to a museum. Museums are accustomed to such transfers and will usually handle the contact with BATFE and transfer of the weapon.

The downside is two-fold. For one, the estate will not receive any money for the weapon, unlike the sale of the parts. Furthermore, if BATFE should offer a new amnesty to allow one in possession to register a previously unregistered machinegun, the estate (or its distributee) no longer would have possession of the firearm. If however, the estate cuts the receiver, per BATFE specs, and the estate's distributee of the weapon's parts would retain them "in kind", it could be possible, during such an amnesty, to register the receiver later, after it would be “repaired.”

Thus, the issues of firearms in estates can be daunting, especially to those with little or no knowledge of current firearms laws.

As the veterans of past wars who retained collectible firearms, or the elderly gun collectors who preserved them, die in greater numbers, the issue of "war bring-backs" will surface, requiring that more estate attorneys and fiduciaries deal with these complex legal issues.

For example, the NFA Owners Association promotes pending federal legislation on such issues on its homepage.

NFAOA supports H.R. 1141, proposed legislation to allow veterans and their heirs to register historic firearms obtained while the United States was at war or during foreign conflicts (click here to read H.R. 1141, which is identical to H.R. 2088, which was introduced in the 109th Congress but was not passed).

NFAOA continues to support a Congressional request for the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) to investigate ATF's administration of the World War II War Trophy program, as well as the 1950s era DEWAT program, and its impact on veterans and their heirs (click
here to read the letter). * * *

On the other hand, BATFE has known since at least 1981 that several thousand machine guns are registered to dead people; yet, they have failed to take any action. [14]


Footnotes:

[1] 26 U.S.C.S. §§ 5861(d),(j); 26 U.S.C.S. § 5872; 49 U.S.C.S. §§ 781-788.

[2] 26 U.S.C.S §§ 5801-5872; 73 P. L. No. 474; 48 Stat, 1236.

[3]
90 P. L. 618; 82 Stat. 1235, § 921.

[4]
18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1) (1986); 99 P.L. 308; 100 Stat. 452, § 102(9).

[5]
26 U.S.C.S § 5845(b).

[6]
26 USCS § 5841.

[7]
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002, Part 3, Statements of Members of Congress and Other Interest Individuals and Organizations, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, GPO, 2002), p. 9.

[8]
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Oversight Hearings on Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington GPO 1979). P.39. (investigating why one, J. Curtis Earl, was declared to be in illegal possession of FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE machineguns; yet, he had the registration paperwork for all of the firearms.)

[9]
BATFE, ATF National Firearms Handbook, 58 (June 2007).

[10]
Id.

[11]
Id. at 21-22.

[12]
Id. at 22

[13]
Id. at Appendix B (ATF Rulings 2003-1, 2003-2, 2003-3, 2003-4)

Update: 09/13/07:

The editor of the website of the American College of Trust & Estate Counsel requested permission to repost this article, with a link to this post, on its "members only" area, which Josh & I granted.

Also, this entry was the subject of a message posted on September 12, 2007, by James C. Counts, II, CPA, on the American Bar Association's Tax Section Listserv:

As advisors to clients each of us may work with a fiduciary that calls you and asks what do I do with Grandpa's machine gun? To have idea what you need to do you might wish to read this article.

I have read the article and it alerts the reader to legal issues if a fiduciary should find a machine gun in the assets of someone. What are the legal issues involved and what should the fiduciary do?

The article has several links to authoritative sites for governmental agencies and related nonprofit sites.

For anyone that does fiduciary work I would suggest you read the article and bookmark some of the sites the author provides.

If the fiduciary does not do what is required they could have some legal problems for themselves.

In any case the basic article only took a few minutes to read. You can spend whatever time reading the sites linked in the article.
It has also been the subject of postings on many gun-related blogs & forums, including the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Discussion Forum.

On September 13, 2007, Professor Gerry Beyer posted an entry on the
Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog, which he edits, entitled "Dead People With Guns", referencing this post:
One of the growing estate planning niches is preparing for the death of gun owners and handling the estates of gun owners.

Here are two sites which have detailed information about the issues and the solutions:

The second site discusses the legal tool of a "Firearms Trust" (or "Gun Trust"), which provides special powers to a trustee not normally considered or granted, to carry out specified purposes of maintenance & disposition of weapons.

See also: BATFE Special Notice, "Transfers of National Firearms Act Firearms in Decedents' Estates" (Rev 02/23/06). It notes contact information for inquiries:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
National Firearms Act Branch
244 Needy Road
Martinsburg, WV 25405

Phone: 304 616-4500
Fax: 304 616-4501

Update: 09/14/07:

I exchanged email messages today with David M. Goldman, Esq., of Jacksonville, Florida, who authors the Florida Estate Planning Lawyer Blog. He referenced my post in his own, dated September 14, 2007, entitled "
Guns after Death". He adopted the same great graphic supplied to me by Joshua G. Prince.

Speaking of Josh, he offered to send to anyone who would email a request to him
[joshua@princelaw.com], a copy of his original, unedited, and less politically-correct (my words) version of his article. So, contact him if you are interested.

I also received an email message in response to this post from a former student & a good friend, Stephen R. Maitland, Esq., now a member of the staff of the Army Heritage and Educational Center, in Carlisle, PA.

He offered owners of weapons an opportunity to consider:

[Y]ou can let people know that, as a federal museum facility, the Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle can accept working machine guns into its collection.

Whether AHEC accepts a weapon depends on the history and condition of the weapon and how many of that type we have.

So before sawing through the receiver, please advise heirs and attorneys to check with us first!

We can also accept Medals of Honor, which, by statute, may not be sold.
I note that the Army Heritage and Education Center is supported by a non-profit foundation, the Army Heritage Center Foundation, also headquartered in Carlisle, PA.

Steve's contact information is: Stephen R. Maitland, Esq., Development Officer, Army Heritage Center Foundation, P.O. Box 839, Carlisle, PA 17013-0839; Phone: 717-258-1102, Ext.25, or or 1 866 ARMY HTG (toll free); Fax: Email: smaitland@armyheritage.org.

Update: 10/19/07:

Joshua G. Prince wrote a sequel to his original posting, which is entitled "Grandpop's Machine Gun in the Chest, Part II". I posted it on this Blog on Friday, October 19, 2007. See:
"I Inventory the SBR, AOW, DD, & Suppressor at . . .".

Update: 06/27/08:

See: "Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Part I", posted on this Blog.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Chief Justice of PA Supreme Court Will Retire

Earlier today, at 11:21 am, Tuesday, September 11, 2007, it was announced that Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Ralph J. Cappy will resign from the Court effective Dec. 31, 2007.

He then will be replaced as Chief Justice by
Justice Ronald Castille; and the resignation will create a vacancy on that court in 2008, to be filled by election in 2009.

The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts posted a Media Advisory on September 11, 2007, about the resignation tendered to the Governor in a letter. AOPC included links to textual & graphic material:

Please find attached a statement issued today by Chief Justice of Pennsylvania Ralph J. Cappy and the text of an accompanying letter from the chief justice to Gov. Ed Rendell. Additional attachments include a photo and the chief justice's biography.

The Chief Justice's statement summarized his thoughts in resigning:

After serving for nearly 30 years as a member of the Pennsylvania judiciary, I have notified Governor Rendell of my decision to retire and resign as a Justice of the Supreme Court at the end of 2007.

It is a decision made for personal reasons and after thoughtful consideration. As I said in my letter to the Governor, I am proud of the Supreme Court's record during the five years I have served as Chief Justice. We have modernized. We have developed new programs to better serve people who use the courts. We have worked to address the needs of families, women and minorities in the courts. We have improved courthouse security. And we have set in motion initiatives designed to ensure other improvements as the years go on.

But for me, after years of an extremely busy work schedule, I believe it is time to go. I had a hip replaced in July. During the period of recovery I had time for reflection. I realized that, after nearly three decades on the bench, the time had come for me to pass on the torch. I am 64 years old. My health is still good. But I want to spend more time with my family and to pursue personal interests. * * *

Many newspapers in Pennsylvania reported the resignation, including:

The successor in the Chief Justice role, beginning in January, 2008, will be Justice Castille. He gained his primary experience & expertise in law enforcement & complex litigation roles. I wonder then, how will the Orphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas Courts be addressed in the future under the changing leadership?

Monday, September 10, 2007

PBA Elder Law Section's Fall, 2007 Newsletter

In late August, 2007, the Elder Law Section, of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, issued its semi-annual Newsletter (Vol. 6, No. 2), containing thirteen articles or notices, to its members.

For a limited time, that issue was made available to non-members and to the general public on the PBA website
here, in PDF format (26 pages), for viewing or download.

The contents of the Fall, 2007 PBA Elder Law Section Newsletter are set forth on its first page:

  • Message From the Chair: The Elder Law Lawyer, by Leslie Wizelman, as Chair of the Section (pp. 1-2)
  • Elder Law Institute Celebrates its 10th Anniversary, by Carolyn L. Wepfer & Barbara K. Thornton, of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (p. 2)
  • Contact the Editors, by Robert C. Gerhard III, as Newsletter Editor (p. 2)
  • Pennsylvania SeniorLAW Helpline: A Valuable Service for Vulnerable Seniors in Pennsylvania,”
    And a Unique Pro Bono Opportunity for Elder Law Practitioners
    , by Sue Wasserkrug, of the SeniorLAW Center (pp. 3-5)
  • Pennsylvania’s Top Five Elder Law Cases of the Year, by Robert Clofine (pp. 6-8)
  • PA Elder Law Section Leadership List (p. 19)
  • Elder Law Numbers Quick Reference (effective as of 07/01/07), by Robert C. Gerhard III. (p. 20)
  • Improving the Social Security Representative Payee Program, by Neil Hendershot (pp. 21-22)
  • What is a POLST?, by By Jeffrey A. Marshall (pp. 23-24)
  • On the Practice of Elder Law, by Kathleen M. Martin (p. 24)
  • Divorce and the Elderly, by Stephanie Little (pp. 25-26)
  • Help With Your PBA Listserv (p. 26)
The Editor of the Newsletter, Robert C. Gerhard III, of Glenside, PA, commented about this issue of the PBA Elder Law Section Newsletter:
Thanks to the Section members and others who contributed to this newsletter. It would not be possible without your help.We are sure you will agree that the newsletter is one of the most valuable benefits of membership in the Section.

We need your help to continue providing this high-quality resource. Please contact the editor with your offerings for publication, your request to be involved and with any suggestions in general:
Robert C. Gerhard III, Editor
Gerhard & Gerhard
222 S. Easton Rd., Suite 104, Glenside, PA 19038-3918
(215) 885-6785
rgerhard@paelderlaw.net
If you are not a PBA Elder Law Section member, then read or download this issue of its Newsletter quickly.

After a "reasonable" time, this issue will be moved away from public access and into that Section's "members-only" archive, to join predecessor newsletters published by that Section during the prior five years.

Again, the
Fall, 2007 PBA Elder Law Section Newsletter can be accessed online here (until removed).

Friday, September 07, 2007

PBI Publishes "Elder Law in PA", 2nd Edition

On September 1, 2007, the Pennsylvania Bar Institute announced publication & availability of the updated reference by Jeffrey A. Marshall, Esq., founder of Marshall & Associates, entitled "Elder Law in Pennsylvania", Second Edition.

It was promoted today in an email message sent to lawyers as "a 'must have' resource for
lawyers who counsel older adults".

The Second Edition of Elder Law in PA brings you up to date on the dramatic recent developments in the laws governing planning for seniors.

It will help you understand the implications of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) on transfers of assets and planning for long-term care, provide effective advice about advance health-care planning after the new Act 169, and guide you and your clients through the maze of Medicare prescription drug plans.

There is nothing like the Second Edition of Elder Law in PA to provide the Pennsylvania practitioner with the tools needed to counsel clients in advance health-care planning.
Anticipating its release, I had exchanged email messages in August with Jeff, asking if I could use the book in teaching my Elder Law class at Widener Law School (Harrisburg Campus).

Jeff's book addresses many of the topics scheduled to be covered in our Elder Law class. The Table of Contents of Elder Law in PA, 2nd Ed. displays such topics:
  • Ethical Considerations in Representing the Elderly
  • Planning for Incapacity – Financial Issues
  • Planning for Incapacity – Health-care Issues
  • Guardianship
  • Social Security and Supplemental Security Income
  • Medicare
  • Medicaid (Medical Assistance) — An Introduction
  • Veterans’ Benefits
  • Medical Assistance Eligibility and Transfers
  • Medical Assistance Marriage Issues
  • Home and Community-based Services
  • Medical Assistance Applications and Appeals
  • Medical Assistance Estate Recovery
  • Elder Abuse and Protective Services
Beyond the detailed explanations, and even beyond the source materials cited, this publication offers professionals & consumers in this Commonwealth two significant advantages.

First, although referencing the national or federal settings for laws, this book is state-specific to Pennsylvania.


Second, the companion CD-ROM duplicates the text in PDF format and offers forms in three formats (PDF, Word, & WordPerfect), so the reference is also electronic. The text and forms become reproducible, portable, and searchable.


This is the on-disc explanation provided by PBI as to the forms:

The forms that are part of this book and CD-ROM are available in several formats. For reading or viewing on screen like the rest of the text, they are printed in the book, and are included in this Adobe Acrobat version of the book.

For an attorney’s use in preparing his or her own versions of these documents, they are included in a separate FORMS folder on this disk in two word-processing formats: WordPerfect and Microsoft Word. These are word processing files separate from the Acrobat files that constitute the “book” you are reading now.

In addition to these WordPerfect and Word files, there are Adobe Acrobat PDF versions of forms that did not lend themselves to a simple word-processing format. These forms are used by opening Adobe Acrobat and filling in form fields. The instructions that follow refer to the forms included in the FORMS folder on this CD-ROM.
The CD-ROM is, very simply, fantastic! It alone should be worth the price charged. Yet it does not completely replace the book. PBI notes:
Not all of the appendices in the manual are included on the disk. Appendices that are for information only or forms that must be obtained from original sources were not included.
I commend Jeff for his scholarship and for his continuing contributions to the profession.

I also commend PBI for support of Jeff's efforts and for its continuing faith in users -- that they will not abuse the capabilities of the product offered by unlawful sharing or reproduction.


Two hours before class last evening, the book showed up in a big box sent by PBI. I took it to class.


I circulated the book & we noted the contents of the CD-ROM. The book's sheer size (996 pages, in a binder) produced a reaction of "wow!"; and the capabilities of the accompanying CD-ROM produced a reaction of "cool!"

Yes, we'll use this reference in class. I thank you, Jeff, for making it available to us (all).