Richard Hartzell's new case with woman who wants divorce

Legal Human Rights
21

I wonder why Ms. Hsia could only find one Chinese lawyer. There are many Asian legal associations in California:

napaba.org/napaba/showpage.a … filiatesca

In fact, there’s even a Southern California Taiwanese American Lawyers Association whose president is a woman.

So. CA. Taiwanese American Lawyers Association (CASCTALA)
Catherine Ken, President
Law Offices of Catherine Ken
805 W. Duarte Rd., Suite 104
Arcadia, CA 91007
Phone: (626) 821-8757
Fax: (626) 821-8753
E-mail: info@catherineken.com

Perhaps she didn’t look too hard???

22

Where were all you guys during the Glossika thing ?! I feel a port and cigars moment coming on. Oh. I haven’t got any port. Or cigars. Well, it’ll just have to be a Tesco bitter and Embassy Regal moment then.

23

Oh fuck, Hex, you’re coming over in a month or two, right? God, I would love just a pack or two of Embassy tipped (the red packet). Do they still have 'em?

24

[quote]Perhaps she didn’t look too hard???
[/quote]

Oh come on! This whole thing just smacks of a total load of old bollix (to coin a legalese term – sorry for those of you without a formal legal background).

I believe that she most certainly DID know about at least some of those lawyers, or whatever they’re called in the states – attorneys?

I further believe that she simply didn’t like the advice they gave her, so she decided to do a runner and throw her poor hard-done-by self on the mercy of the Taiwan press, knowing that they would lap up a story like this.

But maybe she’s right – maybe there really is an all-pervasive anti-Taiwan sentiment sweeping the halls of America’s court system.

25

Of course…why do you think I added the extra question marks?

They’ll lap up ANYTHING.

[quote=“sandman”]
But maybe she’s right – maybe there really is an all-pervasive anti-Taiwan sentiment sweeping the halls of America’s court system.[/quote]

It’s all a conspiracy… Oh, We pooooor Taiwanese! :unamused:

26

One more discrepancy…Ms. Hsia claims to have cancer and to be unable to afford treatment in the US. Well, she’s been a “military dependent” and as such should have been receiving free medical care. In addition, if divorced, she should receive certain benefits under the Uniform Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA).

[Moderator’s note: This information is incorrect. In order for Ms. Hsia-Jones to receive benefits under the USFSPA, her husband would have to have served in the Marines for a minimum of 20 years.]

27

Mr. Hartzell, I still would really like to see what you tend to place in your petition to the Federal Court and how you anticipate this case will be played out.

Just a couple of very quick questions that I would love to hear you take on:

First, how will you get federal juridiction in this matter? Assuming that you get jurisdiction, what is your goal? What is your anticipated claim? Will Ms. Hsia file Pro Se? Will you be drafting the complaint?

Second, assuming that it is that Taiwan courts should have jurisdiction over this matter, I think it has been asked above, how will she fare better here? Is her son entitled to Child Support under Taiwan Law? Is she entitled to Spousal Support?

What about the questions of visitation? Does this at all ring iffy to you regarding her intent to keep the child away from his father? Should the father have no visitation rights?

I really am curious about your anticipated stategy in this case.

OK one more question for the group…

I assume that because this child is entitled to US citizenship (and I bet my bottom dollar has already recieved his US Passport and Citizenship papers) Will the mother choose Taiwan over the United States of America? To that end I mean, will she want her cake and want to eat it too? I again would be willing to put my NT$ 1000 on the line that this kid will get sent to the States when he is in highschool and will not come back to Taiwan under his ROC passport until he is in his late 20’s. At which time, he will leave the island every 4 months (with his US Passport in hand) in order to avoid his military duty.

Any takers?

28

Mr. Hartzell, several posters have politely asked you to respond to their questions and comments. So far you have not, and, that is very dissapointing. Are you avoiding intellectual challenges? I will also ask again a question I posed in a different forum, which is, where are you licensed to practice law, if anywhere?

Taiwan has a law called the “Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements.” In other places this would be called something like the “conflict of laws rules.”

Article 19 of this law reads as follows:

The legal relation between the parents and children is decided by the law of the country of the father. If a child has no father or the father is a “chui-fu” the legal relation shall be decided by the law of the country of its mother; provided, that when a father has lost his nationality of the Republic of China and the mother and child retain their nationality of the Republic of China, the legal relation shall be decided by the law of the Republic of China.

I believe that this is still good law in Taiwan, though maybe some of the lawyers out there will know if its been superceded by subsequent legislation or overturned by court ruling. [Moderator’s note: This statement seems to indicate some gaps in your legal knowledge.]

If this is still good law, then the first sentence would appear to be on point in this case (rest of the paragraph would appear not to be applicable), unless a judge wants to ignore the law or overturn it. In Taiwan anything is possible.

29

From a military POV I’d like to clear up a few things:

  1. not all sergeants are 23-24 years old. In the US Army and Marine Corps, the ranks of E-5 to E-8 are all considered “sergeants” with E-8 being a “first sergeant” or “master sergeant.” The Air Force is similar. If her husband is a sergeant then he could be in his 40’s or even 50’s.

  2. The military doesn’t discourage marriage with foreign nationals. These kinds of marriages are common on bases in Germany, Korea and Japan. It’s not like it was 60 years ago.

  3. Whether her husband is an officer or enlisted is immaterial in regards to her healthcare. If he is still active duty, then she is still entitled to FREE, comprehensive healthcare under the Tricare health system because they are still legally married.

We all know that cancer treatment is really expensive and she’s turning down being treated for free in America. Does this make sense? I’d be willing to bet that she doesn’t have cancer at all.

30

You ever make the mistake of calling your “Top”, Sergeant? :slight_smile: I always referred to to them by their actual rank. Whether it be SSGT, SFC, or whatever. My problem with the various reports is they can’'t seem to figure out exactly what he is…hell, he might be the starting pitcher for the Seattle Mariners!
And although the military doesn’t forbid marriage to foreign nationals anymore, they still (sure as hell) don’t encourage it. I’ve got a buddy at Osan, South Korea going through all the paperwork right now (and his girlfriend has to go to somekind of American life and culture class).

31

Has our eagerly beagling Herr Hartzell switched sides by trying to get the local legal system to pronounce against, rather than for, a foreigner who apparently only wishes to assert his basic right of access to his child? Or has he been suckered by a young Chinese woman’s knee-buckling smiles and simpering pleas to take on something that he’s going to end up regretting enormously? Call Mr. Richard Hartzell to give testimony, please!

32

I have another question. How did this wind up in all three English newspapers on the same day? Hmmm …

33

Let me get this straight…many of you claim to be lawyers, and yet you expect somebody helping a person with a legal matter to comment on the details of the case on a public BBS forum?? Come ON, guys!

If you have a specific complaint to lodge with Mr. Hartzell, I would suggest that it is quite easy to get in touch with him via the Private Message function on this board. Having been the target of many “come on, answer what we’ve said” posts in the recent past, I certainly respect Mr. Hartzell’s decision NOT to get into this thread with you-all. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

I am not qualified to make a statement as to whether Mr. Hartzell “has his own agenda” as has been alleged. However, before you go throwing stones at him, why not ask yourself what you’ve contributed to the foreign community lately? I don’t recall seeing any of you at the Legislative Yuan meetings…

I would also like to suggest that, libel laws or not, it might be appropriate to refrain from what could easily be construed as personal attacks on this board. Perhaps you should contact the lady involved directly if you feel she is in such danger of poor representation or, more accurately, assistance?

Harummmph. :?

1 Like
34

Why? What has this to do with helping the foreign community? And in any case, why should that have any bearing on this?

Why shouldn’t we ask what’s going on? All we have is a half-story that’s been widely disseminated in the local media and which portrays the US judicial system in an extremely poor light. The woman herself is hardly being shy – at least about HER side of the story, despite the fact that its totally full of holes – and the local media is only too happy to print everything she says as gospel. I’d just like a fuller picture, that’s all.

Richard in the past has been only too happy to post here and in the press, at great length, about his work. How are we supposed to know that he’s suddenly become publicity-shy?

And who’s throwing stones, by the way? Unless you feel that saying he’s “pursuing his own agenda” constitutes stone-throwing, which I would find a little odd.

My feeling is that Hartzell performs a sterling service to the foreign community here as a high-profile gadfly, if you will. However, I also feel that his position and credibility will be considerably weakened if he finds himself on the wrong end of a case like this, which would have direct ramifications for the rest of us. Hence my (our?) concern.

I also have not asked him to respond here (although I realize others have, which is up to them) and I certainly don’t want to waste his time telephoning or PM-ing him. He has better things to do.
Its also a little difficult to discuss the issue, in which he is involved, on HIS forum, without his name coming up, wouldn’t you think? Or perhaps you think we shouldn’t be discussing it at all? Or is no-one allowed to ask Hartzell questions? He is the forum moderator, after all.

35

Experience a divorce yourself first-hand and then come back and talk to us.

And it has everything to do with the “foreign community” – either it’s idle curiosity on your parts, or else people are worrying that good ol’ Richard won’t be around to pitch for them anymore if heaven forfend he gets involved in something that’s not popular.

Of course you can ask what you like on the forum, whether Richard is a moderator or not. But I don’t see any cutting inquiries into, say, the Zanadou scandal, election vote-buying or any other items of recent interest…

36

What makes you think nobody here has experienced divorce? And why would one have to have experienced something in order to comment on it or form an opinion?

Anyway, my interest in this has nothing to do with divorce per se, and everything to do with crappy reporting and one-sided stories. And yes, its mostly idle curiosity. But doesn’t that cover almost everything on Segue that’s of any interest?

And why shouldn’t we be worried that “good ole Richard” won’t be around? I think that’s a very worrying thought indeed.

And as for Zanadau, etc., what’s your point? Are you telling me there are people posting here with inside information on that? If so, who? I would VERY much like to hear from them.

37

Why? What has this to do with helping the foreign community? And in any case, why should that have any bearing on this?

Why shouldn’t we ask what’s going on? All we have is a half-story that’s been widely disseminated in the local media and which portrays the US judicial system in an extremely poor light. The woman herself is hardly being shy – at least about HER side of the story, despite the fact that its totally full of holes – and the local media is only too happy to print everything she says as gospel. I’d just like a fuller picture, that’s all.

Richard in the past has been only too happy to post here and in the press, at great length, about his work. How are we supposed to know that he’s suddenly become publicity-shy?

And who’s throwing stones, by the way? Unless you feel that saying he’s “pursuing his own agenda” constitutes stone-throwing, which I would find a little odd.

My feeling is that Hartzell performs a sterling service to the foreign community here as a high-profile gadfly, if you will. However, I also feel that his position and credibility will be considerably weakened if he finds himself on the wrong end of a case like this, which would have direct ramifications for the rest of us. Hence my (our?) concern.

I also have not asked him to respond here (although I realize others have, which is up to them) and I certainly don’t want to waste his time telephoning or PM-ing him. He has better things to do.
Its also a little difficult to discuss the issue, in which he is involved, on HIS forum, without his name coming up, wouldn’t you think? Or perhaps you think we shouldn’t be discussing it at all? Or is no-one allowed to ask Hartzell questions? He is the forum moderator, after all.[/quote]

Very well said, Sandman. I fully agree with every word.

I’m almost as perplexed by Ironlady’s little outburst as I am by the case itself and the actions of some of its publicity-hungry participants.

And it is very, very normal for lawyers representing clients in well-publicised cases to address the media about why the case in question constitutes an important crusade that deserves public support. Why shouldn’t our saintly Richard Hartzell do that on this forum?

38

Outburst? Perhaps. But one gets tired of seeing the snide little adjectives attached to every post, especially using full names of people. Maybe if you’d experienced it a little more yourself, you might be a bit more sensitive to this kind of thing.

I still say, if you have a question for Richard directly, there are plenty of ways to contact him. And I’m 99% certain that no one would want to write an e-mail directly to him using little quips like “the saintly Richard” and so forth.

It’s a matter of taste and maturity.

It’s also not really a pleasant thing to see one’s name as a topic headline on a forum like this one. If people are talking about all aspects of the case, as has been protested, then why the need to put “Richard Hartzell” in the headline?

As for poor media reportage, well, we’re in the right place for it, right?

39

Ironlady, I think you have been misreading the substance and intent of the views expressed on this thread. It doesn’t seem to me that Formosa, who started the thread, intended to launch any kind of attack on Hartzell. Sharky and Tigerman, the two main contributors, certainly have not demonstrated any such intention either. (Don’t be misled by their predatory names!) They have engaged in a valid and interesting discussion of various relevant legal issues, including that of the status of the female protagonist’s legal representation. And the points made by other significant contributors such as Sandman have added colour without in any way detracting from the high tone of the thread. Those who have questioned Hartzell’s involvement in the case have done so largely because of their concern about the difficulties that he may encounter from getting into a legal quagmire and sinking in over his head. Their warnings to him, especially those from lawyers to a layman, have been friendly and well meaning.

I would have thought that a thread like this, with wise, knowledgeable and well-reasoned contributions from some of the forum’s best and most responsible posters, is exactly what most discerning people would wish to see on Segue. And the whole point of having the forum is so that issues like this can be discussed openly by anyone with an interest therein. Why on earth would it be better to keep the discussion hidden and private, conducted one to one privately with Richard Hartzell? Wouldn’t that defeat the whole purpose of having this forum? And would Richard Hartzell want to be bothered like that, having to individually answer queries from numerous different people? I’m sure not.

So much better to hold this discusson in open forum, and let Richard come in and comment if he so wishes or ignore it if he chooses to do so. He generally relishes having the chance to explain to everyone what he’s doing, so why should it be any different this time?

Finally, is there any reason why he should be upset at having his name referred to in this way? Surely not. He does not hide behind any pseudonym, but seems very glad to use his name openly and often. He wants and needs recognition, which can only serve to assist his cause of campaigning for better rights for Taiwan’s foreign residents. How could it be wrong or inappropriate for Formosa to put his name in the title of the thread or for others to refer to it freely when entering the debate?

40

Just speaking as a person who woke up one morning to find her name in the title of a thread: it wasn’t really one of my life’s ambitions, and it wasn’t particularly enjoyable. Just my NT$0.66 however.