The Chancery Court, London
At 014:32 1/25/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:32:21 -0800
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10
Again, with all due respect, you refuse to see the obvious. None of the proceedings that led to the abduction and false hospitalization of Richard Fine was under law of the State of California or the United States.
There is no need therefore, to get into any of the detailed theoretical scholastic considerations of why this false hospitalization was unlawful. It was unlawful on its face.
This is rehashing and rehashing what was already discussed a couple of months ago. At that time, I challenged Attorney Ronald Gottschalk to prove that Marina v LA County (BS109420), in ancillary proceedings of which Attorney Richard Fine was purportedly jailed, was a case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. He could not provide any valid record to establish such fundamental fact.
All the rest is nonsense.
However, since scholastic and sophistic discussions are the favorite pastime here, let me offer the following:
For lack of better term, I call the numerous cases, which I identified as falling into the same category as Marina v LA County as part of the LA-JR (Los Angeles Judiciary Racket) Equity/Enterprise Track:
Enterprise - in this context refers to RICO Enterprise, and
Equity - in this context refers to the extinct Equity Courts of England, since the judges of the LA-JR conjured up this delusional authority to run equity courts in Los Angeles.
The conduct of the LA-JR's Equity/Enterprise Track was the subject of my complaint to US Dept of Justice in early 2008, and the subject of inquiries by Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Watson on FBI and US Dept of Justice, over a year before Richard Fine was arrested.
You may recall that one of the major differences between Equity Courts and Common Law Courts was that Equity Courts were limited to actions ad hominem - against the person. Therefore, Equity Courts routinely engaged in imprisonment for debts. In fact, protest against the conduct of Equity Courts and imprisonments for debt was the routine subject of Charles Dickens literature. Likewise, the US Constitution article that you quoted was meant to put an end to such practice in the United States.
At 01:32 PM 1/25/2010, Attorney Brad Henschel wrote:
There is a line of cases in which some states tried to tax the paper and ink used by printers to try to get around the prohibition against abridgement of the press, which includes no taxation and which is there basis for no taxes on newspapers. The US Supremes held that taxing the implements of the press, namely paper and ink was the same as taxing or abridging the freedom of the press.
I was researching some constitutional issues for an appeal I am writing and came across Art I sec 10 prohibiting imprisonment for debt. I saw the imprisonment of former Atty Fine as being an extension of being imprisonsened for debt for Fines refusal to answer the debtor exam questions.
I find the entire Fine scandal odd because I had conversations with Richard Fine during his State Bar discipline case and he told me he was out of money and hurting financially. Being in jail can't help him financially in such a situation.
Moreover, there are statutory exceptions, exemptions, and restrictions to what assets may be seized to pay such debt. The well known Homeowner exemption with Richard Fine being a senior that exemption doubles in Calif. There is an exemption for social security benefits and payments. Tools of his trade are exempt, an automobile of a certain value and more. I can't imagine that Richard Fine doesn't know these exemptions, really has no money, or simply intends to tax the system until they let him out of the LA county Jail.
However, I have not fully researched the issue, but I would be happy to work pro bono with an attorney in LA to get Richard out with a Writ on this point, if the research indicates what I expect it to indicate. Moreover, the Writ might allow an investigation into judge Yaffe, who does not enjoy a very good reputation among those who know him or have had dealings with him before he became a Judge. When I was practicing law I appeared before him in a family law case and his ruling was quite amateurish and surprisingly wrong in that matter if I remember correctly.
I am quite surprised that this group seems to be so contentious since all roads lead to mecca, there are many answers to the problems of government not abiding by the constitution, when it is run by flawed human beings. For example, the main source of fixing government wrongdoing or overreaching is the election process as happened in Mass. They elected a Republican Senator in a hugely Democratic area with a record turnout. That large turnout tells me that the people were angry to get them off their couch to go vote.
the first thing to do is come to a consensus on the action to take then acting as a group you can make a significant change.
By just getting 12-20 of my friends to write letters in the 1980s we stopped a number of bad laws before they got past the introduction stage in the Calif legislature. After Prop 13 passed they were running scared. I had them write from many counties in the State to show there was no support for their bill.
Understand that when a bill is first introduced few people know about it. So one letter equals about 1/2 to One million voters. When we sent 12-20 letters ALL in opposition to a bill it got dropped right away. In fact one tax bill that would have taken taxpayers rights away was stripped of all the taxing language and turned into a state income taxpayers bill of rights. It depends on how long you wait.
Most bad bills are allowed to sit, so when the government begins to enforce those bad laws, the government argues that nobody complained during the legislative process, until the enforcement began.
The place to stop bad laws is early and often.
With that said, I am sure we all realize that what is being done to Richard Fine can be done to all of us. So there needs to be some limit to Judge Yaffe jailing Richard Fine, some error in his ruling, some limit to his power of civil contempt.
Our economy is going to take care of the Judges taking unconstitutional money as that money is drying up fast. The Judges told me last month that in LA County alone 150 courtrooms will be closed, 1500 clerks will be fired and more cuts will be coming. Already the judges are donating 1 days salary a month to help pay their clerks as a voluntary matter. The chickens they are coming home to roost.
So what can we do to put everyone together on some track, at least the letter writing track? I propose that personal attacks be stopped and in it's place the statement, I disagree with you because ......... I don't agree with your position. On the issues and strategies you agree with you should then decide what action to take, no matter how minor it may seem, it is the JOINT ACTION that government fears.
For judicial Action I like Quo Warranto or other writs. For the legislature I like to talk to candidates, especially judicial candidates and give them some contributions, and I like letters. Most who run for office have giant egos but they want that office for emotional reasons. They need such recognition and they are willing to support whoever supports them, good or bad.
Those are my suggestions for unity. It is still true that United we Stand and Divided we fall. The founders gave their lives and fortunes so we could have freedom, be left alone and to reap the bounty of that freedom. So maybe the first order of business is to try and get Richard Fine out of Jail? I am willing but I need an attorney to work with on it.
Brad Henschel, JD currently an inactive member of the State Bar of California.
HENSCHEL NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.
At 01:02 AM 1/25/2010, Attorney John Wolfgram wrote:
From: John Wolfgram
To: email@example.com; Brad Henschel
Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 1:02:16 AM
Subject: RE: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10
Actually, Joseph, I put Lawsters on Brad's message to solicit, ummmm, slightly more constructive input from you on the issue that Brad raised. It was something of a compliment to you, which you kind of missed, recognizing you more or less as the resident authority on the factual issues and seeking your input on the legal issue. I kind of expect that you are aware of whether any of the issues Brad or I raised have been addressed; and, he or I may have a standing issue that has been addressed; or we might address it in a first amendment context ... you know, the freedom to speak includes a freedom not to speak which neither Congress nor the states may abridge?
Ohhhh, is that what I am "clueless about"? This can not possibly be a First Amendment case? Has that issue been tried and failed and you are not just the resident expert on the facts, but on the First Amendment and on Habeas Corpus and on the Fifth Amendment? Are you so familiar with the 1950s Communist cases that you know that there is no right not to speak involved in those cases? Well, you got me there, because I'm not so sure that there is not such a right tangently recognized, in those cases or elsewhere.
Maybe you can just tell me so that I don't have to research it.
How utterly, utterly, utterly foolish of me to miss all of that expertise rolled up into one little Jose.
At 00:26 AM 1/25/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:26:18 -0800
Subject: RE: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10
Mr John Wolfgram:
With all due respect, you are clueless, as ever, which never stopped you from going full speed ahead.
At 12:20 AM 1/25/2010, Attorney John Wolfram wrote:
- I think the issue is that Fine refused to answer questions pertaining to assets. Assuming that pertained to an attempt to collect a "debt", is being imprisoned for refusing to answer questions about assets the same thing as being imprisoned for debt within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 10? Think about it. Does a debtor have the right to refuse to answer questions aimed at discovering his assets? Is Art. I, Sec. 10 the same as to debt as the Fifth is to self incrimination?
- There are some grave implications here Brad. But you know, theoretically, the answer might be different as to government compelling answers on behalf of government. That might raise a First Amendment issue. Does the freedom to speak include a freedom not to speak? Is compelled speech an abridgment of the First Amendment? After all, upon the same kind of theory, the government can enslave people by threat to take all of their property for disobeying it. Remember to Communist cases... Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of the First Amendment. Was that all freedom of association, or a right not to speak?
- Huummm: As I think about it, putting a person in jail for not disclosing assets presumes that he has assets. Compelled speech is to make him declare under penalty of perjury that he has none, or forfeit them. There is something resembling the Fifth Amendment here. I can just imagine putting a person on the dunking chair until he answers with sufficient answer of property to pay the alleged debt.
- First, what are the relevant Fine facts on this point?
- Second, what have the cases held as to this point, Brad?
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0800
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10
- To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; DrshirleyM@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
- The Calif Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt, even if it is couched as contempt of a debtor hearing as is happening to Richard Fine. Anyone for a Writ of Habeas Corpus? - Brad
- Calif. Const. Art. I, section 10- SEC. 10. Witnesses may not be unreasonably
- detained. A person may
- not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime
- for a militia fine.
- HENSCHEL NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
- This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.