Monthly Archives: May 2010

Jerry O’Neil wins major victory against the Montana Bar, strikes a blow against “Legal” Monopoly restrictions on freedom of speech and association

Of all my friends, I think I brag about knowing Jerry O’Neil more than anyone else, even though I have only known him since December 2004 or January 2005.  Jerry O’Neil is a great American Patriot and a hero to all who fight against corruption and oppression on behalf of the individual citizen.  He has never been to law school, but knows the law and applies it better and more constructively than 99% of the lawyers I have ever met.  Jerry: CONGRATULATIONS.  This is Jerry’s own:

PRESS RELEASE            May 24, 2010         For immediate release

For more information contact:

Jerry O’Neil
985 Walsh Road
Columbia Falls, MT   59901


Former State Senator Jerry O’Neil, presently a candidate for House District 3 for the Columbia Falls area, has achieved a historic victory in his ongoing crusade to increase public access to Montana’s judicial system.
According to O’Neil, the Montana Attorney General’s Office has dismissed their case against him rather than make an unsuccessful attempt to persuade a jury it is “deceptive” for an Independent Paralegal to advertise competitive services in the
Attorneys section of the yellow pages.
The complaint against O’Neil was originally filed by the Montana Attorney General in 2007. Earlier this year, the AG’s Office was denied a summary judgment motion that they had requested. Their motion would have taken away O’Neil’s right to a jury trial.
Judge Sherlock in Helena allowed the Attorney General’s staff until May 24th to answer several of O’Neil’s discovery demands and to explain why they could not identify a single person who claimed to have been deceived by O’Neil’s alleged deceptive advertising. Instead of admitting there was no deception, the Attorney General’s Office chose to dismiss their case.
O’Neil is also asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to increase the allowable scope of para-professionals’ abilities to help the public access their judicial system. Defendants in that case are the Montana State Bar Association and the Montana Supreme Court Commission on Unauthorized Practice, which the Montana Supreme Court recently found to be operating outside of their Constitutional jurisdiction.
O’Neil says, “This win, along with the
Montana Supreme Court disbanding their Commission on Unauthorized Practice of Law, will make it easier for people of modest means to receive legal services. I am proud and grateful to have made a contribution to the publics access to their judicial system.”

Richard Wagner’s 197th Birthday—Are Law and Contract Evil because they are antithetical to Love and Will?

Richard Wagner was born on May 22, 1813.  He is famous for a great many things, the most sublime music ever composed and performed by mortal man being first among them.  When I say “sublime” I mean of course, capable of concentrating the mind and spirit of human beings on all emotional and physical aspects of love in a manner equated by no one.  Many hundreds of tomes have been written about Richard Wagner…some say more has been written about Wagner than anyone on earth since Jesus Christ, although I suspect there are actually at least a few competitors for the “most books and articles written” about any one person, including, of course, Wagner’s own most infamous 20th century fan.

But what I write about today is just a short note about one of the recurring themes in Wagner’s operas: whether law and specifically contract are antithetical to love and will?  Are law and contract therefore evil?  (By evil, I mean, on the net more destructive than creative or positive in support of live, in this case).   An agreement to abide by a contract or law limits our freedom and hence our ability to manifest and actualize our will.  An agreement to disregard a previous agreement becomes rather complex.  A law forbidding certain types of agreements is yet another level of complexity.

The most famous Wagnerian character who was defeated by his own contracts and laws was none other than Wotan, king of the gods in Der Ring des Niebelungen.  In essence, Wagner concluded that too many agreements, too many laws, rendered the king of the gods less than mortal, distinctly immoral, and less than human because it was inevitable that the agreements, contracts, and laws accumulated and began to contradict each other so that there was no legitimate coherence in the law or the contractual world.  Wagner was commenting, of course, in part on 19th century capitalism.  But the reality of the modern corporate world is that the truth of his metaphoric treatment is much truer now than it was 130-140 years ago.

A mortgage contract is a reasonably good example.  Nobody seems to give much importance to contracts of sale anymore.  The sale and purchase of property and assets is not nearly so important as the creation of money through debt.  The reason is that the creation of money through debt is really the sole purpose of these contracts.  So, there is no recitation of offer and acceptance, no recitation of the terms of bilateral consideration and performance, no recitation of tender and receipt.  Instead there is only the lengthy list of obligations that a mortgagor do everything that a good and prudent owner should do.

I believe that the Twilight of these particular Gods is upon us, that just as Wagner saw Wotan as so compromised and twisted into multiple pretzels that he could no longer take any action with integrity, so the modern Gods of Finance have sacrificed the productive purpose of the economy (the betterment of humans) to their own parasitic ways.   I am writing this late on a Friday night and have a seminar both to give and in which to participate starting at 9:00 tomorrow, but I will continue my commentary on Wagner’s views at a later date.  In the meantime, I urge everyone to listen at the very least to one act of Der Fliegenden Hollander, Lohengrin, Tannhauser, or Tristan und Isolde today in memory of the Shakespeare of musical drama.  Wagner’s poetry and dialogue may not have the stature of Goethe’s Faust, but his merger of music and mythic metaphor is quite simply unparalleled on the globe.

Let’s find ONE in the state of California—ONE WITNESS who has WON… a defendant in an eviction proceeding following a non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924

Judge David O. Carter has given Renada Nadine March another interesting albeit non-conclusive, non-final “win”: he has reset from Wednesday May 19 to Monday, June 14, a hearing on the evil eviction-Shark/Shylock, Steven D. Silverstein’s, vengeful Motion to have her third and latest Civil Rights Removal of her Eviction case remanded to state court, which this time was coupled with Silverstein’s Motion to have Renada declared a “vexatious litigant” which in California amounts to slamming the doors of every courthouse in the state against you and padlocking it from the inside—even if you are a defendant.  Carter entered the order resetting this hearing in response to Renada’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal: 28 USC 1447(d) RNM Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Extention of Time; 28 USC 1447(d) RNM Motion with DECLA ISO Stay Pending Appeal and Extention of Time.

The significance of this development is that Renada and her octogenarian mother Fay now have the opportunity to present evidence on what I would call the key “Greenwood v. Peacock” factor which is this: whether by the mere fact of bringing a defendant into state court, in a certain type of proceeding, the outcome is already determined against the defendant. Greenwood v Peacock 1966.

In support of Renada’s efforts, I would like to issue this challenge, statewide, or to anyone who has ever lived in the state of California. Can anyone bring to me the case number, complete docket, and trial transcript of a single eviction case, tried or summarily disposed anywhere in the state of California, during the past thirty years (that would be since Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980), in which a Plaintiff has lost, and a defendant has actually won, and prevailed, in a judicial eviction action instituted in a property which had been non-judicially foreclosed pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924 and related statutes.  I am certainly interested in collecting interesting stories about settlements, dismissals for want of prosecution, death of Plaintiff’s attorney by shark attack or otherwise, or any other outcome favorable to the defendant and the circumstances which gave rise to such defendant-favorable outcomes, but none of these are what I’m really looking for.  I want to see if anyone can document even ONE SINGLE CASE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE PAST THIRTY YEARS, in which any defendant has actually PREVAILED, as a matter of trial-of-facts or summary judgment or dismissal as a matter of law, against a non-judicial foreclosure effected under the terms of California Civil Code Section 2924.  If anyone can find such a case, and properly document it with references to Court, date of disposition, Judge, case number, parties, and available docket report, I want to see it.  Steven D. Silverstein, Larry Rothman, and Carol G. Unruh, attorneys for Meglodon Financial, are all especially invited to participate in this little concourse, this “race to the heart of darkness.”  I am betting that not even one truly Defendant-won case will be found, but if even one can be, I want to know everything there is to know about how it was done.  If I am right, or even if there is exactly one case per decade, I think that Renada and Fay March will be well-able to sustain their plea of “fixed outcome” to justify either Civil Rights Removal under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443(1) and 1447(d), as well as Greenwood v. Peacock, or else a Civil Rights Injunction analogous to the one entered in Dombrowski v. Pfister DOMBROWSKI v PFISTER 380_US_479 and found to be specifically authorized by Congress in Mitchum v. Foster Mitchum v Foster 407_US_225.  Thank you, Judge David O. Carter, for this opportunity! Mitchum v. Foster is, in my opinion, an underappreciated and underutilized source of Federal-State jurisprudence whose time has come, precisely because the state courts have drifted so very deeply into unconstitutional and unconscionable procedures and court customs having the force and effect of unconstitutional law. Mitchum v Foster 407_US_225

Anyone with pertinent information should send it to me at, or else to Renada Nadine March at, or else call Renada at 949-748-0398 or 949-586-4020.  Comments with relevant information can also be left (and will be published) on this blog, below:

(However, I think it is important to qualify that no one reading this request for data, except a person already employed in the chambers of Judge David O. Carter, or just possibly someone employed elsewhere in the United States District Court for the Central District of California or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, should even THINK of contacting judicial chambers trying to discuss the question outside of the context of litigation with this very fair-minded judge.  It is completely improper ever to engage in such tactics as trying to extrajudicially influence the Judge, even though some licensed attorneys in the state of California have, within recent memory, tried to stir their supporters to mount telephone calling or letter writing campaigns to this and/or other judges).

The Failure of the United States Supreme Court and other Federal Courts to develop the potential of Civil Rights Removal and Civil Rights Injunctions against state proceedings is, to my mind, one of the most notable failures of the expansion of Federal Power which was and remains connected with the overall decline in individual freedom in the United States seen and witnesses since the end of the Second World War.  I believe that, on the whole, the entire Civil Rights movement of the period 1948-1976 was a bit of a sham, perhaps even a scam, in that the concept of civil rights was developed ONLY as a means of raising up the African-American population of the United States just enough to keep them from being fertile ground for communist infiltration—but the U.S. Supreme Court never intended a really or fully free society. The net effect of the civil rights movement, in the end, was actually a diminution of average freedom in the United States, even considering the advances of the African-American population towards something more closely resembling equality. The white population, by-and-large, saw a diminution in its freedom and average individual autonomy, on a population wide basis. And how can the temporal correlation between the Civil Rights movement and the Explosion of the U.S. Prison population be explained except as part of a coordinated plan to destroy general individual freedom in the United States and replace individual freedom and autonomy with dependence on the State?

Mother’s Day 2010—of mothers, grandmothers, Gregg Abbott, and the Alamo….

On Mother’s Day, I can’t help thinking what an amazing and diverse institution motherhood is. Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World” predicted a society in which motherhood would be gone, a thing of the past. I think of the difference between my two grandmothers, one with one child and the other with 9. Yet they both remained married to their first and only husbands for life, and in fact outlived their husbands.

Then I think of a recent new acquaintance and friend of mine, Melinda S., now pregnant with her second child, by a second father, still never married, and I think of or try to imagine how different her life is now and is going to be from either of my grandmothers. Will she have five children by five different fathers before she turns 30? At this rate….quite possibly. Is she the future? Melinda’s mother is taking care of her first son already. I know lots of grandmothers taking care of their grandkids. But come to think of it, my grandmother raised me more than my mother did. Although my mother had a great influence on my life as a teacher and friend, albeit with great ups and downs and sometimes time gaps in our relationship—sometimes really major time gaps in fact. But my mother taught me the Magnificat and most of the prayers I know, and a great deal of everything I know in and about English, French, German, and Italian literature, music, and civilization traces to my mother directly or indirectly. Still, she really never played any games with me or dressed me when I was young–that was left to my grandmother or others. My mother was, I suppose, half-way between my grandmothers and Melinda…. both chronologically and behaviorally. What a strange, interesting thought. All three generations very intelligent, and very atypical of their own time in some ways, while epitomizing their time in others. I admire my grandmothers and their lives and marriages. I see few others. It does appear that my Latin American Comadres Betty M. and Lee A. will stay with their first and only husbands through life, Betty M. more surely than Lee. A recent friend as of last year, Milenne D., an economically privileged wife of an M.D. and mother of four, seems like a mother of the old school, even to the point of joining her husband in dinnertime prayers every night….but she’s yet young….how will she seem in 20 years I wonder? Will she be able to maintain her traditional status? Kathleen W., another relatively young mother of four beautiful children, is nowhere nearly as economically privileged as Milenne, but she has cleaved to her troubled marriage rather than dissolving all ties to an absent and unsupportive husband, but Kathleen’s children at least benefit from her stability and commitment to them and to the concept of family, while even someone like my mother has shown a definite “modern” commitment to self over family. So Is Motherhood on the rise or declining or stable as an aspect of human life? Or is motherhood just changing, now “divorced” from traditional family in a strangely pseudo-Huxleyan fashion? Will mothers ever be replaced by test-tubes and labs? Life would be so much poorer. But, in essence, Sigmund Freud taught of the hazards of motherhood interconnected with “Civilization and its Discontents” and warned the 20th century to fear the psychological consequences of the mother-child bond, and the social engineers of the 20th century have certainly been persecuting the family as a whole, trying to make it less and less stable and relevant. Huxley equated or conflated Sigmund Freud’s research and teachings with Henry Ford’s mass production: observing that both led to socio-economic philosophies advocating and idealizing “instant gratification”. If there’s anything I think motherhood is not, it is instantly gratifying. Texas is where I was born and where I became aware of all the problems and pitfalls of family, especially my first contact with the Family Court system, which I consider to be one of the most evil and socially destructive institutional systems in modern America. The Texas Attorney General, like all modern state attorney generals, is largely if not primarily a debt collector, a hunter seeking out “deadbeat dads”, berating them, jailing them, punishing them. Child support is a disguised socialistic wealth-redistributive tax that is particularly in tune with the socialist agenda because it both encourages families to split and maximizes tension between spouses after the split. The Texas Attorney General has his central offices in Austin, Texas, located in a county called Travis, named after William Barrett Travis, remembered as the Heroic Commander of the Alamo in the Texas War of Independence. Yet Travis himself was the consummate “deadbeat dad” having left not only his native South Carolina but his native country, the United States of America, to escape his responsibilities to his wife and children back on the old farmstead. History records very little of the study of William Barrett Travis’ wife or his children. Did they even know of their husband/father’s status as a hero in that radio-less, televisionless, AP-wireless era? What were their lives like? Were any of his children Confederate officers or soldiers? Would his wife have been better off if William Barrett Travis had been hunted down by a 19th Century Gregg Abbott and jailed for failure to pay child support? What would have happened at the Alamo and in Texas History Generally? What comments would William Barrett Travis’ wife have to make about this article? About the concept of mandatory child support? Or about the Revolution in Texas and her husband’s last stand at the Alamo? About his pronouncement that, “I will never surrender or retreat” in his last letter of which my grandparents had an engraved copy hanging in the bedroom in Highland Park, Dallas, in which both of them died, 21 years apart, in 1980 and 2001?