To All Who Inhabit Wayne Smith's Legislative World Please Note: A Past Letter I Wrote. It is about Wayne Smith's Respresentation . . . of Wayne Smith.

Wayne's World View Narrows

I tried to have a "conversation" on Wednesday, April 11, 2001, with Rep. Wayne Smith, my Representative, regarding HB 105 (about Redistricting boundaries and the attendant need for open hearings).

But Wayne Smith hung up on me.

When he hung up on me, I was in the middle of the sentence that started, "Wayne, you work for me . . . "

Let me make this clear: Wayne and I disagree on many things. Which is why I did not vote for Wayne.

Wayne does not represent MY interests, has never represented MY interests, and has no interest in representing MY interests.

He made that clear on April 11 (2001). As he did on prior occasions.

In the past, when I presented Wayne with my house sale fraud and forgery documents, involving the reprimanded attorney, Francine Solomon (the one who shorted her client escrow account of $83,000 and still practices), Wayne suggested I hire yet another attorney to address it (I had to hire five attorneys to fight the fraud I now know existed but which was ignored by the Judges I had).

When I asked Wayne to sponsor the FLARPL law (Family Law Attorney Real Property Lien), a law California has, expressly put in place to protect divorcing homeowners against the opposing attorney applying the their legal fees (Solomon did that unbeknownst to me), Wayne said we had something "better," a similar response that the Center for Public Integrity also noted in Wayne's communications.

Wayne was right. "Better" for the attorney. Not for us.

For general informational purposes, there is NO law here to protect the divorced /divorcing spouse from the other side applying attorneys' liens that compromise homes' equity. Worse still, these attorney liens often result in forced-sales of homes at fire sale prices. I would say that is an important right to be protected.

Wayne handed me over to his legal assistant on that occasion. But I did not want a law lesson, only a bill sponsored. Everyone got into the act -- everyone that is, except Wayne Smith. He then ignored my request for a FLARPL law bill.

Wayne seems to be a busy man. He always seems to be in such a "rush" too -- some exigent demand appears to be continually looming on the horizon. For, if Wayne does not agree with you, he cuts the conversation off -- hastily -- or passes you on to someone else.

Reassuringly, I now know this is not personal. Why, just the other day someone else told almost the same story about Wayne's abrupt conversations.

So I ask, is this the kind of behavior we want or expect from our Representatives, a la Wayne's world view?

I was simply asking for open reapportionment hearings BEFORE maps for redistricting were to be drawn. Rep. Gilligan's bill, to which no one signed on, is being ignored.

Wayne said of HB 105 that he does not support it. Why? Because "we have what has always worked in the past," he said. Wayne, what "has worked in the past"? Continuing to be an incumbent?

Wayne, let me just say this: hanging up on your constituents, if that is what has or has not worked in the past, won't work here. And neither should ignoring HB 105 (about Redistricting boundaries and the attendant need for open hearings).

Your job, Wayne, is to submit/sponsor/ support bills OF, FOR, BY the PEOPLE.

That's me, Wayne. Just in case you did not know : YOU WORK FOR ME, Wayne.

Now I may not be China (the country who had recently used sanctions) but I can do something -- such as sending this letter around.

And, maybe, in the way of an apology, Wayne, you can help SPONSOR HB 105.

Thank you.

Wayne Smith's patient constituent,

Barbara Beeghley (who has since learned that we do have something better -- it's called "The Constitution for (not of) the United States of America")