Sunday September 27, 2020
SNc Channels:



Apr-15-2011 15:52printcomments

Reports of Elder Abuse Result in Restraining Orders... but Not How You'd Think....

The use of Restraining Orders to restrict family members from their ability to oversee the care of conservatees has become epidemic.

Restraining order

(LOS ANGELES) - In an unparalleled action in an ex parte hearing on the first of April, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reva Goetz issued a Restraining Order against a local physician, Dr. Laura Moire, blocking her from taking further action or making more reports in regards to conservatee Jean Tanaka.

Dr. Moire, who is considered an expert in elder abuse, is a founder of the Geriatric Division of the American College of Emergency Medicine, a founding member of the American College of Forensic Medicine as well as a member of the White House Conference on Aging, among numerous other honors and affiliations. Dr. Moire took a sole action of calling both Adult Protective Services and the police on the evening of March 30, 2011, in an attempt to alert these agencies as to her concerns of abuse being inflicted upon Mrs. Tanaka through the auspices of conservator Linda Cotterman.

In an interview last week Dr. Moire stated that she had testified during the conservatorship trial of Tanaka on March 3 and was concerned to learn that no action had been taken to address her concerns as to Mrs. Tanaka's care.

Moire's testimony dealt with a number of specific areas wherein she stated that Tanaka's health was impacted by the type of care being delivered by Cotterman. These included concerns that Mrs. Tanaka was forcibly removed from her spacious Westwood home and subsequently confined in a small basement apartment, as well as the discontinuation of physician prescribed supplements which had previously stabilized Mrs. Tanaka's blood pressure, normalized her cholesterol levels, built bone density, and strengthened her immune system and cognitive functioning. This discontinuance has been followed by 5 back -to- back urinary infections,4 collapses and several hospitalizations where she was transported unconscious by ambulances none of which were brought to the attention of a cardiologist. She has reportedly suffered weight loss, lack of basic dental care, isolation and restrictive monitoring of highly limited visits with her daughter, Jeannie.

Of specific concern to Dr. Moire was the placement of Mrs. Tanaka on “comfort care” in the absence of any terminal condition or diagnosis, which has resulted in not only the continued withdrawal of care (such as supplements) which were deemed beneficial to the ninety-five year old woman but the denial of care for her now painfully swollen hands, extreme fatigue, and what has been reported as sudden inability to stand up on her own and walk, brainfog and erratic blood pressure.

The Salem News has obtained a copy of the ex parte notice, written by attorney Margaret Lodise, in which she advises that “we will be making an ex parte application tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. In Room 258 (Dept. 9) seeking an order restraining either Jeannie or Dr. Moire or either of their agents from making any calls to the police, the paramedics or any similar agency reporting elder abuse regarding Mrs. Tanaka until further order of the court.” Lodise's office has declined to comment on this matter.

At the April 1st hearing, Judge Goetz chose to also restrain Jeannie from any further contact with her mother. According to witnesses, Jeannie showed up at her mother's dwelling that evening after Dr. Moire had made the phone calls to APS and police and was not involved in Dr. Moire's actions. Goetz subsequently reversed this decision on April 13th, allowing Jeannie a total of three hours per week of paid monitored visitation with her mother.

Dr. Moire states she was not served with a notice of hearing and calls the efforts to restrain her “ludicrous and illegal.” She has previously typified the efforts to separate mother and daughter as follows: “The isolation from daughter Jeanie is sorrowfully self expressed by Mrs. Tanaka and deprivation from the company of her daughter Jeanie is cruel and abusive to them both.” Jeannie Tanaka has been ordered to pay hundreds of dolllars per visit to a monitoring company.

The use of Restraining Orders to restrict family members from their ability to oversee the care of conservatees has become epidemic. In a case involving conservatorships and the rich and famous, Goetz also approved a temporary restraining order against singer Courtney Love that bars her from seeing or contacting her daughter, Frances Bean Cobain. Love had protested that her daughter, who is under a guardianship, had been molested by Jamie Spears, who is the father (and conservator) of another famous conservatee, singer Britney Spears. In a less publicized case, retired peace officer Willliam Horspool was restrained from his father, conservatee Raymond Horspool, after taking photographs which allegedly demonstrated the poor care being received by his father. San Bernardino Court Judge Michael Welch said he “didn't believe” the photos, which apparently showed the elder Horspool lying in soiled bedclothes, and ordered the photos destroyed. William Horspool was subsequently restrained from his father without a hearing, a violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The use of a restraining order to block a physician, who is a mandated reporter of elder abuse, from reporting elder abuse may be groundbreaking. According to Jeannie Tanaka's attorney Robert Canny, the decision by Judge Goetz effectively overturns the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.

Last June, conservator Linda Cotterman called the police and told them that Jeannie had violated a Restraining Order by visiting her mother. Jeannie Tanaka, who is an attorney with the State of California, was hauled away in handcuffs in full view of her mother. She was released from custody prior to booking when the police discovered there was no Restraining Order in place. Jeannie Tanaka has filed a complaint with the Los Angeles police, stating that Cotterman knowingly made a false police report. The State of California deems false police reports to be a misdemeanour punishable by jail. At the time of going to press, Cotterman has not been taken into custody.

Both Mrs. and Jeannie Tanaka, who are Japanese American, are survivors of the World War II detention camps. President Roosevelt had ordered all Japanese Americans to be rounded up and herded into detention facilities, as potential enemies of the State.

Janet Phelan is a journalist whose articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The Santa Monica Daily Press, The Long Beach Press Telegram, Oui Magazine and other regional and national publications. Her poetry has been published in Gambit, Libera, Applezaba Review, Nausea One and other magazines. She resides in Los Angeles. Read more about conservatorships in general and Melodie Scott in particular at:

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Ray April 17, 2011 8:46 am (Pacific time)

Americans are getting a taste of what is like living in a police state and they are not liking it!
Ray Fernandez

Prior restraint of speech April 16, 2011 6:20 pm (Pacific time)

'Prior restraint of speech' cases have been heard before, at State and Federal levels. Here are some federal case citations.

‘[A]dministrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such M[elville B.] Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom communications are to occur.’ 4.03, of Speech[:  A Treatise on the Theory of the First Amendment ] § p. 4-14 (1984)․ Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions-i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities-are classic examples of prior restraints. Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993)
Prior restraints carry a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S.Ct. 631, 9 L.Ed.2d In Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 584 (1963). S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931) the United States Supreme Court declared that prior restraints are permissible only in exceptional cases such as war, obscenity, and “incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow 283 U.S. at 716, 51 S.Ct. 625. by force of orderly government.”
The Court again considered the constitutionality of limiting certain types of speech in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 The trial court found Chaplinsky guilty of L.Ed. 1031 (1942). violating a state statute prohibiting persons from uttering offensive, derisive or annoying words, calling another person offensive or derisive names, or making any noise or exclamation in another's “ ‘presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him Chaplinsky, 315 from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.’ ” U.S. at 569, 62 S.Ct. 766 (quoting 1926 N.H.  2).  Laws, ch. 378, § Chaplinsky argued that the statute was an unreasonable restraint on his Id. The Court disagreed, finding that the statute freedom of speech. prohibits fighting words-words that are not  protected by the First In dicta, the Court provided a Id. at 573, 62 S.Ct. 766.  Amendment. laundry list of “certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought  Id. at 571-72, 62 S.Ct. 766.  to raise any Constitutional problem”. Id. Included in the list was libelous, lewd, and obscene speech.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly  noted that the line In Carroll v. between protected and unprotected speech is very fine. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 183, 89 S.Ct. 347, 21 L.Ed.2d 325 (1968), for example, the Court stated:
An order issued in the area of First Amendment rights must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the In this sensitive field, the State may not employ “means public order. that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488[,81 more narrowly achieved.” S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) ]. In other words, the order must be tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case.
See also Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 559, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975) (“It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable.”).

Elaine Renoire April 16, 2011 5:21 pm (Pacific time)

NASGA is an organization of victims and families working to expose and end unlawful and abusive guardianships and conservatorships.

Many of our members who are the only voice and advocate for their loved on in this type of situation, are retaliated against - by the guardian or the court.

Guardianship abuse IS elder abuse!

For more information, visit NASGA at,,, and

Forewarned is forearmed!
Elaine Renoire

Amanda April 16, 2011 1:02 am (Pacific time)

What happened to our laws? How can an Officer of the court violate the Constitution, bother federal and State?? Where is the oversight??? Law enforcement seems to be lacking nationwide regarding elder exploitation, abuse and "Murder"..

[Return to Top]
©2020 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

Articles for April 14, 2011 | Articles for April 15, 2011 | Articles for April 16, 2011
Your customers are looking: Advertise on!

Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar


Donate to and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.