Freedman Law Firm

11/17/2019

https://www.nbi-sems.com/ProductDetails/84273ER?ctname=SPKEM

I will be a presenter at the NBI Probate Boot Camp on December 5 and 6, 2019.

Attend a live seminar in San Francisco, CA on 12/05/2019 and earn California CLE credit to satisfy your continuing legal education requirements for only ¤649.00.

10/12/2019

01/22/2019

The referendum solution

The U.S. government is shut down and the strain of this impasse continues with no solution in sight. After one month of irrational, self-indulgent posturing by the President over his border-wall fantasy, and the lack of any political courage by the Senate to go ahead and override the possible veto of a budget bill, everyone has dug-in. The government through extremes of partisanship is paralyzed. But the government is the people of the United States and the vast majority of people want the budget bill to pass. 71 percent polled said Congress should pass a bill to reopen the government while budget talks continue. If that question were a referendum, the impasse would be over.
In California, the Article II, Section 9, of the California Constitution provides for the referendum process. in California, a proposition or initiative must first qualify and if the qualification criteria are met, the proposition is placed on the ballot. The US constitution has no such process. That 71 percent of people polled can only send a message to our representatives. The message is not getting through. Apparently, for the President, the decisions are dictated by his die-hard zombie-like followers who number about 30% of those polled. Therefore, as the Senate has now ceded all of its authority to the President, only this 30% controls. The President is correct in his thinking that this “base” of supporters who carried him to the whitehouse, together with the partisan Republican voters, will be needed again in 2020 for him to win. That is really what this shut down is all about.
If we could put this national question of great importance to the voters, we could finally have some common sense in our government. Rather than be at the mercy of partisan politics, the electoral college, and corporate lobby money, we could have ordinary voters take charge of such major issues confronting our country. This would be a national vote, not an electoral college vote. There are many such questions that could be resolved by referendum. Gun control, for example, comes to mind. Again, polling shows that the vast majority of people want common-sense gun control. The national debt and budget deficits are again a question of great importance to the voters. But no such political courage exists to address it.
Anyway, the US Constitution does not permit any such direct democracy. That is not to say that we are powerless to fix government. However, in times likes these, I would like to actually vote to end the nonsense, open the government, and get the EPA and FTC back to work. If we could actually vote what to do with $5.7 billion, I think that there are several better priorities than a wall.

07/15/2018

Did you ever hear of a non-bias prosecutor?

If you have any interest in the investigation of the Russian interference in the 2016 election, then you must have heard some of the exchange between former prosecutor turned S. Carolina super conservative, tea party congressman, leader of the Benghazi hearings, Trey Gowdy, versus Peter Strzok, the FBI agent punching bag for Trump and his syncophants. Yes, Peter Strzok should have known better than to use an FBI phone to text anything other than, "meeting today 0700 hrs." He made a mistake. But, the mistake was allowing his personal thoughts and messages to Lisa Page, his girlfriend and also an FBI agent to be exposed publicly. Maintaining privacy would seem like an obvious necessity of housekeeping for any FBI agent, even for one's own personal safety. Neither Strzok nor Page appear to have noticed this error and stopped it. Now that the Trump army has poured over the obviously personal and private text messages of Strzok and his girlfriend for the sole purpose of discrediting Robert Mueller's investigation, the Republican Congress has wasted no time in airing the Congressional Hearing show featuring the majority Republic Oversight Committee. This was always going to be a tough sell for Peter Strzok. I give the guy credit for facing it valiantly. He tried to explain, tried to thread the needle, and made the point that he alone is not the prosecutor, his professional and personal life are separate, he had a brilliant 20-year career catching Russian spies. It was a little self-righteous and indignant. But, I think the part of the hearing that was even more startling to me was Trey Gowdy out-performing Strzok on the self-righteous indignation. Here's Trey Gowdy, the guy who ran the Benghazi hearings for two years resulting in nothing, and whose only purpose was to defeat Hillary Clinton, now "schooling" an FBI agent in having an "unprecedented level of animus" toward Trump. But, didn't Gowdy have an unprecedented level of animus toward Hillary and Obama as demonstrated for years with the endless attacks on Clinton who maybe, coulda, shoulda, sent in the cavalry or something to counter attack the terrorists. If ever there was an investigation infused with political bias, it was the Benghazi hearings. They even admitted it. But, Gowdy knows that a prosecutor has bias. He was, supposedly, a prosecutor. Did he look at all of his prosecutions with a God-like non-bias toward the accused, maintaining at all times strict dispassionate objectivity? You can't be a prosecutor unless you intend to put away the accused. Yes, you have very strong bias toward conviction. What Strzok's personal texts reveal is that he has very strong bias toward conviction of the accused--meaning he knows Trump is guilty. And who would be in the best position at the time to know of Trump's guilt than the FBI Russian spy hunter Peter Strzok? Strzok appears to have a great deal of information pointing toward the guilt of Trump and Trump's inner circle for the knowledge they had and the complicity in the Russian interference. Gowdy knows this, or should, better than anyone on the committee. But, he nevertheless got in line with the Trump attacks on the investigation and played a role in undermining Mueller's investigation. Gowdy should be ashamed of himself for attacking Strzok on the question of his bias. Of course Strzok has bias toward those who he believes are guilty. And Gowdy should have commended the FBI for this important investigation and echoed Strzok's points that no one person on the team is making decisions regarding investigation and indictments. Now, its up to Mueller to make his final report "Strzok-proof." The Congress needs to start acting like the separate branch of government it is and cease the attacks on the FBI and the Russian investigation.

06/09/2018

What is the point of the North Korean Summit?

Of course, I have not had the experience of international negotiation on the scale of the upcoming North Korean Summit. I have been involved in complex and very tense negotiations of many various litigated matters over the course of 34 years, and I have learned a thing or two about the dynamics of a mediation, the agendas, the personalities involved, the importance of leverage, and knowing your ultimate goal and serving your client's needs. I wish I were there in these pre-talks that supposedly have taken place or are taking place between representatives of the U.S. and the DPR. I am on the sidelines, and so, everything I write about is only derived from news and books on the subject.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that everything I hear or read about this upcoming Summit is about "ending" the Korean war and "ending" the North Korean nuclear program, or a de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula. I have heard very little about the brutal North Korean regime, and the human rights atrocities committed by Kim Jung Un and what the U.S. may have to say about that in the Summit. There are some recent articles though. See the NY Times article by Nicholas Kristoff 6/9/18.

Kim Jung Un is the dictator-in-chief, the supreme autocrat of one of the world's most horrific, oppressive prison-states that ever existed in modern times. It is not hard to find information about conditions in North Korea and its human rights abuses. (The 2014 United Nations Commission of Inquiry report is frequently cited.)

But, just to summarize what we know about the Kim regime, it commits systematic, widespread, and gross human rights violations including murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment of innocent families and children, r**e, starvation, witnessed executions of family members, and extensive brain-washing of its people.

If I were involved in the Summit, I would not under any circumstances shelve the human rights abuse issue and hope to discuss this another day.

The Kim agenda is to stay in power and to demonstrate its moral and political equality with the rest of the world by sitting down with the United States president. There will be nothing offered by Kim to change the regime or to cease the continued oppression of the people of North Korea. To deal with Kim, the U.S. must understand his agenda.

We simply cannot countenance the continued existence of the Kim regime unchanged. We must assert the moral superiority of the industrialized free world. The Summit is not the equivalent of the G7 and the U.S. cannot whitewash the human rights abuses and cower or appear to cower to the North Koreans because they have threatened to strike the region or the U.S. with nuclear weapons. We should assert that we are there to demonstrate to Kim that the U.S. and the free world insist on freedom for its people. The freedom to think, to speak, to travel, to learn, to work, to believe, to teach, to lead, to run a business. The prison-state must cease. I would like North Korea to know that we think Kim Jung Un is a human rights abuser that should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. But, we might be willing to permit him amnesty from such prosecution for political change. If North Korea expects sanctions to end and relations with the industrialized world to normalize, then they must be willing to make drastic political changes internally. These are the goals that must be achieved and this is what the rest of the world needs.

The question of denuclearization is critical. But, it follows the important political changes that are required first. If North Korea had an educated political class with freedom and power in that country then the desired change would occur and a nuclear weapons program would not be part of the country's agenda. The country would dismantle such military ambitions and instead build all the missing infrastructure a normal country needs to exist. That missing infrastructure includes, energy, agriculture, education, medical, transportation, financial, etc. If the North Korea people can be free and enjoy the benefits of the free modern world, the nuclear threat will end.

So, I'm not that certain that a discussion about denuclearization, in the absence of the real issues, will work.

10/27/2017

Freedman Law Firm wins appeal for his client in the California Court of Appeals 3rd Appellate District.

In an unpublished decision, the Freedman Law Firm won an appeal for his client the trustee in the matter Bergland v. Isch, C077965.
In this trust matter, Freedman Law Firm represents the successor trustee, Harry Bergland, of a trust which distributed the trust assets in equal shares to three children of the settlors. One of the children, Rudolf V. Isch, was named the trustee but was removed due to self-dealing and failing to account. Rudolf V. Isch, the removed trustee ultimately settled the claims against him but failed to pay the full amount of the settlement. The settlement called for a stipulated judgment which was entered by the court, and our client Harry Bergland, the successor trustee commenced enforcement proceedings to collect the judgment. Isch brought a motion to set aside the judgment and to otherwise seek claims such as set-off against the judgment. Our client prevailed against Isch in the Sacramento Superior Court, but Isch filed an appeal. The 3rd District Court of Appeals affirmed the Sacramento County Superior Court decision.

See the full decision at

10/04/2017

The mentally ill and their guns
The killing rampage of innocent people gathered for a country music festival in Las Vegas once again raises the gun-control debate raging in this country for decades. Here's a very short reminder of only several such recent gun attacks: Orlando nightclub shooting, San Bernardino shooting, Emanuel African Methodist Church shooting, South Carolina, Sandy Hook Elementary, Newton, Connecticut. The list is longer, but, these particular tragedies were horrific and heart-wrenching. Each time these gun disasters occur, the gun-control advocates argue for tighter restrictions on assault rifles, amount of ammunition, background checks, and now, the latest proposed restriction, no bump stock modifications. The gun regulation solution is a good one and admirable. But, in reality, the gun lobby has already won this debate. In fact, over the last decade, we now have less gun regulation, not more, more guns in circulation, more easy access to guns, and easy legal modifications. What is even more strange about guns in America is that only 30% of Americans own guns and there are about 300 million guns in America. That means that a group of about 100 million people in America (or less if you eliminate minors) own 300 million guns. The crazed shooter in Las Vegas had somewhere around 43 guns. This maniac was able to stockpile a weapons cache complete with ammunition and assault weapon modifications, all without anyone's notice, and all, apparently, perfectly legal. What is even more strange, to me anyway, is that he was able to pack some 23 guns, many of which were assault rifles, and clips of ammunition into dozens of suitcases and just stroll right into the Mandalay Bay without notice. I make court appearances in several counties very frequently. Every time I enter a court, I must go through a metal detector. I am usually carrying a small briefcase. But, I am required to remove my belt, my laptop and even raise my hands as I pass through the metal detector. This type of screening is required as the court setting is highly emotional to litigants and parties, and of course, there have been gun attacks in courts. So, my question is, why, in Las Vegas, a place where people are gambling, losing money, drinking, and partying all night, is there no metal detector in the hotels or casinos? When I hear on the news that the police and investigators state that this was just one of those things that we cannot prevent, I can't help but imagine the myriad ways that, yes, it could have been prevented. Or at least, we could have made a much better effort to prevent it. Let's face it, we live in a country where mentally ill people have large weapons caches and it is just a matter of time until they snap. The gun lobby and the rest of the country has armed our mentally ill citizens with the means to kill us. We cannot stop that from happening. The proposed gun restriction legislation is a losing argument. It is time to protect our innocent citizens from the armed mentally ill. If the gun lobby insists on arming such deranged individuals, then the rest of us need our governments to mandate metal detectors in private and public buildings including hotels, restaurants, churches, schools. In my opinion, if there are large open air venues, like outdoor concerts, stadiums, farmer markets, these must now be in-doors with metal detector screening to get in. Otherwise, such open air venues must be open to the public with a fair warning posted on very large signs visible to anyone entering that there is no protection from sudden gun attacks. This won't stop all gun attacks. Clearly, mentally ill people with guns will always try to find a way to kill innocent people. But, it is a start and perhaps with a strong message to the 70% of Americans that do not own guns, maybe they will lobby their government to restrict gun ownership.

09/21/2017

Back to the 50s. With North Korea threatening the south, as well as their regional neighbors and the United States with nuclear war, the world appears to be paralyzed with no options. Mostly, what we hear from our political leaders and the press is that we are in a conundrum. Sanctions have already been imposed and deftly avoided by the North Korean regime, more serious sanctions are proposed, military action is not off the table and perhaps now even nuclear annihilation of North Korea is an option. We also hear the same tired exasperation at the lack of assistance from China in the form of cutting off aid and economic trade with North Korea. But, the military option or nuclear annihilation of North Korea only punishes the North Korean people, and the Kim family has successfully punished them without our help for the last 66 years. Killing the North Korean people will have no affect on the Kim oligarchy. Such military action will also certainly result in unfathomable death of innocent people in the South and the destruction of Seoul. So, where are our world leaders today and where are the solutions to this global crisis? As a world, we have stood by for decades and observed the cruel suffering of the North Korean people with a shrug. The Kim regime maintains concentration camps where political prisoners are starved and tortured as well as their families including children. Even more startling, the Kim regime punishes the next three generations of political dissidents. It is absolutely no joke that this regime has the wherewithal to construct intercontinental ballistic missiles and hydrogen bombs, but has not been interested in basic agriculture, education, health care, and the welfare of its own people. The people of North Korea are not to blame, nor should they be punished. They should be rescued. Our approach over the last several decades to this menace of the Kim dictatorship has been wrong, and it has shown absolutely no positive results. Let's begin with rescuing the people. For starters, China needs to reverse its policy of returning escaped North Koreans to North Korea, where they will certainly be imprisoned, tortured and executed. China, which owes absolutely nothing to the Kim family or the North Korean nation, should welcome the refugees of North Korea, and in fact, aid in their escape. It is easy to cross the Yalu river. It is not the DMZ. Most North Koreans require a great deal of rehabilitation, and, even though they may wish to live in South Korea, ultimately, many would prefer to return to their home in North Korea, provided, of course, that North Korea is no longer a vast prison run by the Kims. The more North Koreans who make it out of North Korea, the more likely they will be rehabilitated, educated and gather the strength necessary to return and effect change in North Korea internally. This may sound like fantasy. But, the reality is that South Korea was not that much different from North Korea at the end of the war in 1953. Syngman Rhee was another autocrat who failed to permit the flourishing of democracy. However, with the education of many South Koreans in western countries like the United States, the knowledge imported to South Korea ultimately lead to a true democracy and growth of private industry in all sectors from technology to finance. This tiny half of a peninsula is the 4th largest economy in Asia and the 11th largest in the world. I was in Seoul about a year ago, and was impressed and amazed at the vibrancy and culture of the City. It was like being in a combination of Los Angeles, London, and New York. And yet, this amazing city is just a few hours drive away from Pyongyang, the polar opposite. Could North Korea change internally given the right conditions? Beside allowing North Koreans to escape, the world should stand ready to aid a rebuilding of North Korea. It will take a huge commitment of financial aid because virtually every element of a modern society is lacking, from infrastructure, to energy, to telecommunications, to finance. The United States should not be afraid to partner with China in this endeavor. We should put aside old ideological disputes from the 1950s and agree that a North Korea under any other leader and government is far better than the Kim regime. In fact, I'd be agreeable to allow China to annex North Korea. That may not be a great bargain for China. But, China has had enormous success with its development and modernization, despite its soft communism. China, with its 1.3 billion people, has become the second largest economy in the world, manufacturing just about everything we have in the west. I think China can easily absorb North Korea. China has feared the unification of North Korea with the south because it worries about a western country on its border. That notion, as absurd as it sounds, is still very much a part of China's policy. But, I think the only person who would oppose China's annexation is the Kim family. In any event, the policy should not be amped-up threats of nuclear war. The policy should be internal change brought on by the North Koreans with help from the rest of the world.

03/17/2016

There are only two parties

Can you imagine what might happen if we had no party politics in this country? As far as I know, the U.S. Constitution provides no provision for nominating a presidential candidate. The Constitution does provide for the election of the President. See Art. II Section 1. This system of electing a President at some point in our history was named the "electoral college." The concept was that electors are selected by the States and the number of electors for each State depends upon the number of congressional members the State may have. A total of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.

As far as I know, the political Parties, and not the Constitution, Federal law or State law control the nominating process. Once the party has a nominee, the general election is held and then State law controls the selection of the electors. But, interestingly, even the electors may be free to act as they choose and defy the popular vote of their State. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether the State can enforce State laws that penalize an elector who might cast an invalid vote.

But, with the rise of Trump, or perhaps the rise of any kind of renegade candidate for President, isn't it time that we examine how we go about electing a President.

It starts with the political Parties and the nominating process. This system is only protected by the First Amendment. Otherwise, we the people have blindly adhered to party politics since the beginning. You have to go back in time quite far to find a time when we had political parties other than Democrats and Republicans. The Whigs had their day in the early 19th Century. They were actually a type of oppositional party to the Democrats and had progressive ideas for the time. Lincoln was a fan. But, Party ideology shifts, the times change, and a political party is not the ideal vessel to hold all the various points of view, particularly in a very diverse Country.

Which brings me to my point; will the Republican Party do the right thing and reject Donald Trump even if he has the magic number of delegates by the time of the Republican convention? Of course that is within the power of the Republican Party. The convention is not a ceremonial telethon. Although, the party conventions devolved into these boring speech-a-thons after the McGovern Frasier Commission. In 1968, Chicago experienced riots at the Democratic convention. Why? Because the Democrats had the temerity to nominate Hubert Humphrey instead of the more anti Vietnam War candidate Eugene McCarthy. Humphrey had not entered a single primary, and McCarthy had, at least, competed in primaries. So, because of the Democratic convention in 1968, we now fear the right of the people to assemble and protest. The theory is that it is far more democratic to turn over the nominating process to the people, and let them decide who the party should select to be the nominee. But, we now know that the theory in practice is failing our Nation. We are experiencing a true insurgent candidate for President. Although his abilities to express himself are limited, we should pay attention to the few concepts that are blurted out in short marketing-style clips: On economics we apparently need tariffs, never mind the history of the great depression. On foreign affairs we apparently need more torture. Do I need to explain? On immigration we must deport 12 million people. Hopefully, they will ride on the Trump plane.

If the Democrats could not nominate Eugene McCarthy, why would the Republicans nominate Donald Trump? Does the Republican Party feel that bound by the 1968 McGovern Frasier Commission? I think we can risk a "Trump" hissy fit. Have a little courage at the convention and nominate a better candidate.

Or, alternatively, will some very brave Republican please stand up and run a Third Party candidacy for President? It must be someone with enough popularity to make a dent and prevent Trump from being elected President. Someone who is the opposite of Chris Christie. A principled Republican who will fall on his or her sword for the good of the Nation. Where is that person? I was actually thinking that Carly Fiorina would be the ideal third party candidate. Maybe it's not too late.

I would like to think that the final third alternative is that some very brave electors themselves refuse to vote for Trump, if he actually wins the general election.

09/05/2015

The Syrian Refugee Crisis: The tragedy of the Syrian refugee crisis is unfolding and on display in the evening news. After so many years of civil war in Syria with the outcome appearing more and more bleak, the ordinary people who want nothing more than to live in peace and raise their children, have given up and must flee now to survive. The rest of the world has sat on the sidelines during this Syrian war, with no clear solution. Talks between Putin, Bashar al Assad, and Obama have failed to yield any resolution to the conflict. U.S. military intervention is apparently off the table. U.S. military support for rebel groups is useless as there is no clear opposition to Assad or ISIS. And so, the people flee. The world again appears to be unprepared and indifferent to the crisis. Still, tens of thousands of people come looking for help and hoping to save their children. Why was the world so unprepared for this inevitable outcome? In Hungary, trains were stopped and refugees interned in refugee camps. People have taken to foot in an effort to reach Germany. The whole scenario is reminiscent of the exodus of the holocaust survivors from Europe as they tried to reach Palestine. And just like the holocaust survivors, the Syrian refugees will flee with their children in tow by any means available. The holocaust survivors built one of the greatest little countries in the world today. Today, Israel is really a testament to what a determined, indefatigable people can do despite the world's adversity to them. So, why not allow the Syrian refugees to emigrate to Israel? First, Israel is a short drive away and not a perilous journey crossing the Mediterranean. Second, Israel should be making a request to the "indifferent" countries of the world for foreign aid to assist the refugees and help them settle and assimilate. Third, Israel is fully capable of screening those people who may be tied to terrorist groups and thus will turn them away. Finally, Israel can and should absorb this new group of immigrants who would pledge allegiance to the country who saved them and their children from sure annihilation by Assad or ISIS. Israel would in the long term benefit from a loyal group of people who would defend Israel from the surrounding hostile groups of terrorist hell bent on Israel's destruction. When other countries turned their backs on the holocaust survivors, these survivor's founded a great nation. Now, when the world repeats its error and finds the Syrian refugees an undesirable group not worth accepting, Israel should open their doors and teach this group of people to assimilate, protect and defend Israel. 

01/24/2015

What will be the final verdict on deflate-gate? As more information and opinions on the psi of footballs starts to come out, the facts appear to demonstrate that a 1 or 2 psi less than the mandated 12.5 psi would have very little or no impact on passing and catching. The real challenge in rainy conditions is a wet ball, not a slightly deflated ball. But questions linger because controversy surrounds Bill Belichick as a penalized cheater in the spy-gate scandal where Belichick was hoping to learn the hand signals of opposing teams. Belichick was personally fined $500,000 for that. And he is now tarnished with a reputation as a guy who stretches the competitive edge to the breaking point. Even before deflate-gate, John Harbough complained of the Patriots offensive formation tactics used and the "ineligible" receiver announcement two seconds before the ball is snapped. I think Harbough has a point. Even if this is playing by the rules, do we really want to encourage professional sports teams to win games by sneaky tactics, and not by the virtue of athleticism? This is the same question we are now confronting in deflate-gate. Professional sports is only worth watching if the game is fair and credible. Otherwise, the sport devolves to the level of professional wrestling. So, even though Brady and the Patriots would have won the AFC Championship game against the Colts if they had to use a potato for a football, the fans deserve to know that the game is fair and no one is "gaming" the system. When we played street football, we had one football. Both sides had to deal with it. I think we instinctively know that the solution to the NFL's problem is that both teams need to be playing with the same footballs. Also, fine Belichick again because he is hurting the credibility of the game, and I'm a Bills fan, and it would just feel good.