Why the “Birther” Movement is Irrelevant: Gingrich, Romney, & Santorum will all do the same as Obama! Only Ron Paul stands out, and either they have or are trying to bury him.

In late July of 2009, Steve Colbert interviewed Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esq., in New York City on the Colbert report, and poked fun at her theory regarding Obama’s use of a deceased individual’s social security number, suggesting the use of this social security number (reassigned from the original owner’s name without leave of the Commissioner of Social Security) could mean that Obama was really a disguised “Connecticut Vampire” almost 110 years old.  At dinner after taping the interview, Orly and I agreed that Obama was almost surely a vampire, but whether an undead revenant or not, he was certainly not from Connecticut…  But of course, the truth is, it simply does not matter where Obama was from.  What matter’s is where he is and what he’s doing: Obama is carrying on with George W. Bush’s policies (which were also Clinton’s and Daddy Bush 41st’s policies, and sadly, sorrowfully, Ronald Reagan’s policies as well) of sinking the United States deeper and deeper into Soviet Socialist Communism.  I confess that’s a pretty sore indictment of the past 32 years of American Politics, but I also confess that I am pretty sore about it. The reason for this soreness is that my indictment actually extends back over what successive generations of my family have been fighting and dealing with directly or indirectly for the past 150 years of American Politics.  

The Centralized Statist (originally monarchist, later Socialist) descendants of Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln have added on increasingly serious counts of treason at intervals in 1913, 1916-19, and 1933-37, 1953-57, 1963-8, and 1971-4….(never mind 1992-3, 1995-1996, 2001-2003, 2007, 2011).  Quite simply, the United States Ship of State is sinking, and no salvage in Admiralty is likely, despite the wilder fantasies of some of my brethren in the so-called Patriot movement.

The “Birther” Movement, of which I was for six strange months in 2009 an extremely active member, misses the mark: the President of the United States is merely a figurehead. The President is no more the Constitutional Administrator of a small and limited Federal Government (on the model of the Country as it was for most of the 72 years from George Washington-James Buchanan) than the Queen of England is the de facto chief executive of England. But neither is the President actually the Dictator, Chairman, or Imam of the United States: the President of the United States acts and serves as  the mouthpiece for the Federal Reserve Banking System, which with the IRS and the Social Security System constitutes the “legislative branch” of the three part government.  The Federal Reserve (although it has both judicial and executive powers), effectively “makes the rules” for the rest of the government.  The IRS is the Executive Branch (policing compliance and conformity with unwritten laws) and the Social Security System exercises a quasi-judicial function of “dolling out welfare and benefits” to the population at large. 

All of this is  ”just fine” by Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, the first three winners of the Republican Presidential Primary System.  They are do nothing, know nothing stooges.  Only Ron Paul has an iota of integrity against this nightmare.

During the seven year period November 18, 1956 through August 24, 1963, Nikita Kruschchev repeatedly paraphrased Karl Marx in sayng, “We will Bury You” (to the West)(The actual quote from the Communist Manifesto of 1848 is: “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable“.

Now no one has actually quoted the line Nikita Kruschchev repeated so often to Paul.  In effect, the other three Republicans, acting as well as three expensive three-piece business-suit wearingCommunist Undertakers for Capitalism can possibly do, have agreed among themselves and told the Congressman from Texas, “We will bury you.”  And the mainstream media has joined shovels with the extremely well-funded Central Bank sponsored Proletariats in this regard.  

Now that South Carolina, once the most reliably conservative, anti-centralist state in the Union, has been manipulated to cast its lot for Gingrich…. Ron Paul’s supporters are very sounding very unhappy:

GINGRICH SUCCESS MEANS TEA PARTY SURRENDER

The Tea Party originally stood for one simple but important message: Stop Spending. For Tea Partiers, TARP was the litmus test and any Republican who supported it faced the wrath of the movement.

Tea Party support for Newt Gingrich is as mind-boggling as it is depressing. Gingrich stands for everything the Tea Party was against: TARP, bank bailouts, healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, you name it.

If the Tea Party abandons its “Stop Spending” message it becomes just another part of the Republican Party, the movement loses its original independence and simply morphs back into the GOP machine–something both right and left critics always said would happen. Sen. Lindsey Graham bragged in 2010 that the Tea Party would “die out” because it had “no governing vision.” I argued that as long as the Tea Party stood firmly against spending it would remain an indomitable force in American politics.

Is Graham now being proven right?

Ron Paul wants to cut $1 trillion his first year in office. Newt Gingrich calls Paul’s plan too extreme and a “non-starter.” The choice for any serious Tea Party member is clear.

But that it is not clear for many represents the first signs that the Tea Party might be waning. One need not necessarily support Ron Paul to be a Tea Partier. But supporting Newt Gingrich negates the entire point of even having a Tea Party.

American politics before the Tea Party was mostly a popularity contest. The Tea Party  was supposed to represent something more substantive. Gingrich is a good speaker which makes him popular. But the same is true of Barack Obama. The devilish aspects of charming candidates always lies in the details. This is especially true of Newt Gingrich.

The moment Tea Partiers decide they are no longer concerned with such details, they surrender their movement.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/21/gingrich-success-means-tea-party-surrender/

The mythology of the Imperial President, “King of the World” is deadly and all-pervasive.  It is also a very destructive charade. I started to write this piece a couple of nights ago when I first published Montgomery Blair Sibley’s plan to run as a write-in candidate for President in the District of Columbia so that he would have “candidate” standing to sue in Quo Warranto regarding the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama to run for reelection.  Because it is always more interesting to discuss what one might agree with a candidate about than what everyone would disagree about, I chose to wait, and so when first writing about Sibley, I addressed his (very sound and correct, if extravagant SOUNDING) proposal to increase the membership of the House of Representation from 435-10,000.  But today’s results in South Carolina (January 21, 2012), with “Hard Labor Prison Planet Advocate” Newt Gingrich coming in first ahead of “I am the People’s Republic of Massachusetts” Mitt Romney and “I’m a nearly braindead Neocon who supports the War on Terror and Arbitrary Arrest, but in addition I support Federal Censorship, Thought Police and Direct Federal Control over the Content of Your Children’s Biology Education but I support Israel Unquestioningly” Santorum was profoundly depressing.  Those primary results from the heart of Dixie, the very soul of nullificationist and secessionist  States Rights from Andrew Jackson’s Vice-President and later Senator John Caldwell Calhoun (1782-1850) right up through the death of the late Senator Strom Thurmond (1902-2003), made it imperative that I write and say this emphatically: THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES IS IRRELEVANT WINDOW DRESSING—IT IS A COVER, IT IS MERELY A MASQUE, ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE SO OBVIOUSLY SO AS THE GUY FAWKES’ MASK THAT SERVES AS THE INITIAL ICON OF THIS BLOG.  We need to spend MUCH less time thinking about who will be President and much MORE time thinking about who will be in the Congress and the Senate.  These offices and races are the HEART of the Constitutional, Democratic-Republican plan, and yet they are all but written off by radical activists such as Montgomery Blair Sibley who might actually have a shot at being elected in a local or State-wide race.  The media, of course, conspires in this—as if the President were really a God and the White House were really a Pharaoh (etymologically the word Pharaoh or “pr-aa” was a royal title meaning “God House” to the ancient Egyptians of the New Kingdom).

I would urge all who really want change to FORGET ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY and start thinking about how to restore GENUINE Constitutional Democratic-Republican government in the United States.

Larry Becraft (Alabama Constitutional & IRS Tax-Defense Attorney) on Promissory Notes & the dangers inherent in Tim Turner’s Republic Propagating Monetary Mythology as “Patriotic Education”

For years now I have battled with those who ought to be my closest allies as they sink deeper and deeper into a fantasy-world believing in certain “Patriot Myths” which cloud and block clear-thinking about the real monetary problems and crises facing the United States and the World.  Tim Turner and those who adhere to his “Republic” are not visionary Patriots so much as hallucinatory Patriots, swallowing one fantasy for “discharge of debt” after another.  The Constitution has the solution: “nothing but gold and silver”…. but until we get there, real Patriots have to walk the straight and narrow or Obama will use the NDAA to look all of us up forever and throw away the keys….without (a) probable cause, (b) charges, (c) trial, (d) appeal, (e) habeas corpus, in short, without any due process of law at all, without a prayer.

From: Larry Becraft [mailto:becraft@hiwaay.net]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:14 AM
To: nikihannevig@juno.com; Bob Hurt
Subject: Re: Fw: [Lawmen: 4553] Becraft on Tim Turner and Patriot Myth Mongers

Nikki,

Here is the way the monetary system works (and it is all credit).

A promissory note has at least these criteria: it contains (1) a promise to pay a specific amount of money, (2) at specific times, (3) usually with interest, and (4) it is signed by a maker, the debtor. Without these elements, a document is not a promissory note. If the debtor’s signature is not on the document, he is not liable. An indictment, a traffic ticket, a birth certificate and countless other documents are NOT promissory notes because they do not contain these elements. However, promoter/gurus in this movement have alleged and convinced the gullible that an indictment, a traffic ticket, a birth certificate and others ARE promissory notes. Do you realize how foolish these gullible people appear when they make these claims?

The creation of bank credit is easy to explain. When a party needing a loan goes to a bank, he delivers a signed promissory note to the bank promising to pay specific amounts of money, over time, at interest. In exchange (as the note states, “for value received”), the bank simply increases the deposits in the borrower’s bank account, thus creating credit. The borrower spends his deposits by issuing checks to other parties. All banks do is shift around the credit they create, and all bank deposits in this country originate via borrowing. Our “money” in this country is virtually all bank credit, which exists, if at all, as numbers.  It is all loaned into circulation.

The Fed Reserve Banks (FRBs) act as banks for their member banks. Member banks acquire assets (promissory notes and mortgages) via credit extensions, and those assets may be sold to the FRBs, which merely increase the seller bank’s reserves held at that FRB. Further, any or all FRBs can extend credit to Uncle Sam by buying his bonds, which is happening now. Uncle Sam gets a check (mere credit) from one or more banks and it spend those checks, which are deposited in local banks, and these checks increase their reserves at the FRBs. As the Fed admits, it and all banks work only with credit.

Since any bank gets assets by the mere extension of credit, Federal Reserve Notes (“FRNs”) are obtained the same way. FRBs obtain bonds of Uncle Sam by credit extensions. Those bonds are merely swapped for cash, FRNs.  A member bank simply draws down its reserves at a FRB to get cash, including clad coins.

Birth certificates play absolutely no role in the monetary system.  They are not promissory notes or securities, and have no commercial value. Birth certificates are simply records maintained regarding the babies that are born in a state, and they are used to prove that a certain party is a citizen rather than an alien. No market exists where birth certificates are bought and sold. If you think that a bank or any other financial institution or even govt agency buys birth certificates, then I will sell you mine for only a half million bux. What a bargain!!!!

Most of my website is devoted to the money issue. I invite you to study the following:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MONEYbrief.html

http://www.devvy.com/pdf/2006_October/Patman_Primer_on_Money.pdf

The credit power in this country would be harmed if the public really knew these simple facts about “money creation,” and for hundreds of years, that power has done whatever it can to conceal the method by which credit is created. But rather than teach people about what really happens, there are those who claim to be “patriots” who offer the lie that birth certificates are the foundation for this process. This only assist the credit power in preventing the people from knowing the truth.

And I hate those who lie. Am I supposed to stand idly by while a group of people deliberately lie to others and mislead them?

Larry

On 1/19/2012 2:41 PM, nikihannevig@juno.com wrote:

Hi Larry;

 When you perpetuate dissension by engaging in this type of factious rhetoric I feel grieved.  The same energy you used here may have been better spent informing the reader(s) as to what the actual collateral is that secures the value of the U.S.’s present form(s) of coin and currency.  I’d appreciate an addendum wherein you state what the collateral is that secures our nation’s coins and dollars.

 Thanks.

Niki

 ———- Original Message ———-

From: Caligiu2 <caligiu2@yahoo.com>
To: Niki <nikihannevig@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: [Lawmen: 4553] Becraft on Tim Turner and Patriot Myth Mongers
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:08:35 -0800 (PST)

 —– Forwarded Message —–

From: Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
To: lawmen@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:23 AM
Subject: [Lawmen: 4553] Becraft on Tim Turner and Patriot Myth Mongers

 From: Larry Becraft

Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:37 AM
To: Bob Hurt
Cc: Tom Cryer
Subject: Re: FW: Florida Republic Newsletter.htm

Bob, 

When I am in the office and simply working, I listen to Net radio, and at times, the Microeffect. One host, RJ, frequently has as a guest somebody from The Republic, and even recently that was Prez Tim Turner. Turner uses patriotism to attract people to his legal positions which are nothing but pure, unmitigated legal garbage. Having an undergrad degree in econ (with honors), I can assure you that birth certificates are not promissory notes, nor are they the basis for the credit monetary system we have in this country. Yet this and many other “legal arguments” are promoted by “The Republic.” 

It is my experience that when new people are attracted to the movement and join a particular organization, they start learning certain legal arguments promoted by that organization. I have seen people learn completely erroneous arguments, attempt to use them without success, and reap failure. After a while, these people realize that they have been subjected to lies and leave the movement, vowing never to be involved again. False arguments like that about birth certificates will never address the problems of the monetary system, and those who believe this argument will never succeed. My conclusion about those promoting false arguments is that they are not only liars, but they intend to divide the movement and cause harm.  This helps the govt. 

Turner is a chronic liar. When I first heard about him, he was lying about having filed “admiralty” liens in some bankruptcy case here in Bama and winning. It is true that he filed those liens, but it is a lie that he prevailed. Via Pacer, I learned that he was sanctioned about 10 times for filing those liens. But, that did not stop him because he ran around the country conducting seminars to teach others to file admiralty liens. 

It is an old, time-worn legal principle that when somebody misleads another to their detriment and causes that party harm and damage, a tort has been committed. The Republic was started by “Dr. Sam Kennedy” who lied to people about 1099-OID tax returns (with assistance from that freak Winston Shrout). After that crook was deposed, he was replaced by Turner. Since then, we have witnessed several followers of Turner who were indicted and convicted for filing admiralty liens. Ask Richard Ulloa what he thinks about Turner while he serves his 5 year sentence:

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111212/NEWS/111219948

 And I have asked people who know Kennedy for him to step forward and testify for those who have been indicted for filing 1099-OID tax returns, but he refuses to do so. I have no doubt that Turner would act the same way. Both he and Kennedy deliberately harmed people and they could care less. 

Those liars and conmen, Kennedy and Turner, built The Republic. Based on my years of experience in life, I had rather join the Taliban than to have anything to do with The Republic. 

Larry
  
On 1/16/2012 2:31 PM, Bob Hurt wrote:

From: Ron Van Dyke [mailto:lovebridge@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:38 PM
To: Hurt Bob
Subject: Florida Republic Newsletter.htm

Newsletter

Issue No. 2                          January 13, 2012

Our Florida Republic Elections

Dear Bob:

People from all over Florida gathered on December 10, 2011 at the Veterans Memorial Library in Saint Cloud to elect new officers to our Republic.

Here is a picture of those elected as Representatives.  From left to right: 1. Anthony White 2. Glenn Miller 3. Charles Nelson 4. William Doolin 5. Mark Weeks 6. Barbara Dunn 7. Kenneth Wrench 8. René Garcia, 9. Dan Graves, Speaker.

Here is our newest Senator, Bonnie Gautreau, being sworn in by Governor Michael Bishop. Our other Senator, Clyde Forbes, passed away a few weeks ago. We send condolences and blessings to his family. That position is available; however, no state meeting or election date has been set at this time.

Here’s a question for you: (the answer is at the bottom)
The role of those elected to public office is:
a. Public Administrator; b. Public servant; c. Authority/Ruler; d. Public enemy

Our Forefathers said…

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ~ John Adams

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~ Patrick Henry

These men knew the importance of a Republic then; and we are thankful now for the men and women that stepped forward to serve the people in reseating our Constitutional government.

Speaking of the Constitution, we also voted that the Florida Republic is operating under the Florida Constitution of 1838. We unanimously agreed to two major changes to that document: 1) Women have the right to vote (and, obviously, hold office. We have one Woman Senator and another Woman Representative); 2) Racial distinctions are eliminated (also obvious, since we have two Black and one Hispanic Representatives. We are all equal under our Creator. Each and everyone of us has a voice in our republic.

A Message from Our Governor

In this coming year I see a magnificent transformation that will happen. We will see each other’s happiness, not be blinded by the elitists that are causing misery around the globe.

The earth is abundant and can provide this abundance to everyone, if we all respect the laws of nature.

Because of you and many likeminded souls across the globe, we will have Our freedom returned: Freedom to learn, grow and share the vision of a peaceful planet, one without dictated wars on each other, man against man, country against country…. Our country has lost its way!

We were being led by corporate elites that have a hidden agenda. They are full of greed that
has poisoned their souls. They have led this world into slavery, envy, hate and battles against our brothers. We Need humanity, kindness and a peaceful soul; for if do not develop these characteristics, life itself will be violent and possibly lost forever.

The time of the corporate greed is coming to an end, because you took a stand and said, “NO
MORE!” The power they stole from the people, will be returned to the people! Freedom and
justice for all wiIl never perish.

We have that Love in our hearts that is a natural innate intelligence inside all. Hate is learned and unnatural. Only the unloved have this hate for humanity inside them. The Kingdom of God is within man – not one man, or a group of men – but in all men, all of us: We the People.
We the People have the power to make life free and beautiful again.

In the name of the Republic let’s use that power to reclaim that which was stolen from us.
Many blessings are upon us. Technologies will be revealed and can no longer be hidden.
Families should not have to struggle, as there is so much abundance.

We the People have this Power inside of us to see this, and so many more blessings restored to the people. These future blessings are upon us now. You have the power to see it happen.

Michael Clay Bishop

Michael Bishop, Governor 
Hal Smith, Lt. Governor
Ron Van Dyke, Secretary of State

Answer is (b) Public Servant

NOTE: If images do not appear, please click HERE.

 You received this because you have membership in the “Lawmen” Google Group.

Comment to group owner – reply to the message (only the owner posts messages).
See the archives, change options – visit http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen
Join / Subscribe – send email to Lawmen+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Resign / Unsubscribe- send email to Lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

 

On Robert E. Lee’s 205th Birthday January 19, 2012: “Our trusted self-government is fast becoming the jeer and laughing stock of the world”, R.I.P, General Lee!

http://leearchive.wlu.edu/papers/letters/transcripts-carter/a%20c005.html *(see especially bold emphasis sections of paragraph after mentioning the inauguration of Governor Bowie).

Sender: Robert E. Lee
Recipient: Annette Carter

[Lexington, Virginia] [28 March 1868]

I write to you in great alarm. I have just heard of Mildred’s engagement, and see nothing between you and the same fate. I beg that you will come on here immediately that I may endeavor to protect you from these voracious young men. Your father seems to be pointless in the matter and looks quietly on the abstraction of all his daughters. We hear from all quarters of the perfect happiness of Mary and of the absorbing love she has for my Cousin Ben, and now that Mildred has found her Adonis, I tremble for you. Tell your father that I see no safety for you but with me, and that he must send you up as soon as possible. Do not say as in your last letter that you “do not know when any of us will get to Lexington again.” You must come and spend the whole summer, and go with us wherever we go. I want to get to Goodwood, and to see you all so much, but you know I can go nowhere now. My only hope therefore is for you to come here. Agnes writes that she is going to see you soon. You must return with her, you sweet Annette, let me see you again. Traveller and Lucy are both ready for the road. I trust I will have many pleasant rides with you over the mountains. Your father will want to go to the W. Sulphur this summer and he must leave you here with us. When will Alice go to Annapolis?

I am so glad that Mr. Bowie was made Governor and was so pleased with his inaugural address. It was in good taste and good temper and expressed true principles. If the country is ever restored to proper Republican government, it must be through the several states. They must unite, not only for their protection, but for the destruction of this grand scheme of centralization of power in the hands of one branch of the government to the ruin of all others, and the annihilation of the Constitution, the liberty of the people and of the country. If the good and true men in each state will lay aside party and selfish inter[ests and continue] in that course which reason . . . may show as the only true [course in this] country to follow, all will [yet be saved.] If they do not, there will so [in my] opinion be an end of Republic[anism] on this continent. I have but [little] time to stay here, and therefore shall [be] little effected no matter how events turn, but I grieve posterity, for American principles and American liberty. Our trusted self government is fast becoming the jeer and laughing stock of the world.

We have had a hard winter in the mountains and this month has been particularly cold and uncomfortable, but the storm which has been raging all this week I believe is now at an end and there is a prospect of the return of the glorious sun which will soon make all things bright. Not withstanding the inclement Spring, the fields are green, the buds are shooting forth, the violets have appeared, and the songs of the birds are added to the thankfulness of man that Winter has passed. . . . [It] has been a quiet winter with us. . . . Mildred [who has kept] the domestic machine in [full] motion is in her usual indomitable condition. Her ad[ministra]tions to the students, cadets, professors and young men of Lexington I hope have been duly appreciated. I am sure she must have been a fountain of comfort to the young mothers and housekeepers who are anxiously studying the best way of rearing their children and administering their household. If they have gained no knowledge it has not been her fault. She has been somewhat exercised by a mass of feminine flesh in the form of Miss Mary Dixon this current month but she hopes to be relieved on the 1st of April and I hope so too. All unite with me in much love, but no one loves you Annette as much as your Cousin. . . .

R. E. Lee

When EVEN the WASHINGTON POST is questioning whether this is really “the land of the Free” anymore, we KNOW we’re in trouble….

For many years the Washington Post has been the media pillar of big government and the corporate-financial establishment in Washington….. NOW I’m REALLY worried, because the Washington Post has noticed that there’s a problem:


10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free

By Jonathan Turley, Published: January 13 WASHINGTON POST

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”

Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”

And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill,disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Now that Freedom has been Outlawed, only Outlaws will be Free (and yes, I’m one of them!) FREE THE CITIZENS OF PRISON PLANET!

Is a Felony Indictment a Shame?  A reason to deny voting or civil rights?  Or is it a Red Badge of Honor?  Remember that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, among others, for endorsing their firm belief in the Constitution of Limited Government, were both deprived the right to vote and their civil rights, and even the right to call themselves Citizens of the United States after the forced annexation and re-integration of the South after 1865.  

Now, in these days of the 21st century when arrest and detention without charges, trial, appeal, or habeas corpus have been authorized by Congress and signed by the President, much as they were in the period 1861-1865, I submit to you that we are ALL either criminals or members of the oppressive elite or (in the cases of 99% of the elite) BOTH!  It is time to recognize that freedom has been outlawed, and now only outlaws will be free, so being a criminal and being a Patriot have merged more closely and completely than at any time since 1776.  We must all risk the King’s Hangman and Gallows if we are ever to call ourselves “Free” again…..Damn the Establishment!  Damn the Government!  Bring it all down, now….. by voting for those who will free the citizens of Prison Planet.

A friend commented (on Facebook) after the Presidential Primary Debate held on Monday, January 16, 2012:

Santorum stands by his decision to restore felons right to vote – Santorum lost my vote!

A few comments were in order, I thought, and since this is a year in which I am running for office and talking about honesty and openness in government, it is a story which I cannot tell too often:

I am writing to you “off-screen” about your latest post on Facebook—about Santorum and whether felons should be allowed to vote. It’s a subject regarding which I have very strong feelings and if you’ll study my blog (http://charleslincoln3.com/about I think you’ll see why. You see, my Dear Tabitha, you have a convicted Felon among your Facebook friends. If you’re embarrassed by that fact and wish to “unfriend me”, I would perfectly understand, but you see, the law and morality are totally out of joint—in fact, they have nothing to do with each other, in fact, I would say that, up to a point, all Patriots have a DUTY to disobey the law. Again—if this makes you feel uncomfortable or sounds too radical for you, I will understand, but I hope not. Here is my “true confession” to you, gentle Tabitha: I was convicted of the heinous “felony” of misstating two digits out of my social-security number in an application for a non-interest bearing checking account. This was all part of a ploy to disbar me in Texas—I had become MUCH too inconvenient a person to be allowed to continue to practice law, but they knocked me down over and over again, in spite of that. They made up all sorts of other garbage that they put into a five count indictment back in December 1999, but it was of no avail—the Defense Attorney whom I ultimately hired burst out laughing when he read the indictment, it was so bad. But they wanted to get rid of me, I had an 7-8 year old son and was still (at that time) married to his mother, and she didn’t want her son’s father to face trial–and frankly, since it was all “Front Page” news in Austin back then, she wasn’t sure she could stand the publicity of trial, so I took a plea bargain (trade off: no jail-time at all, a trivial fine, but I would give up my license). Ayn Rand had predicted this state of affairs in the 1940s when she pointed out that soon, there would be enough crimes that any person, at any time, could be convicted of anything, and locked away. Of course, under NDAA now, they don’t have to go to that trouble. I would like to publish this reply on your front page but if it would embarrass you for everyone to know you had a Fiendish Felonious Friend on Facebook, I wouldn’t want to do that to you. But the simple truth is this: most people in prison, especially Federal Prison, are individuals you would like to know in your daily life, that you would be proud to introduce to your friends and neighbors at Sunday dinner. They are mostly non-conformists and dissenters of various kinds. They were targeted by people in power, either to increase the power of those who already had it, or the wealth of those who already had it. Most inmates in prison are a threat, yes, but NOT to you—they are threats to the government and the less than 1% of the power elite that controls our nation and the world. If you’d like to discuss this with me further, we could do so, you could write to me at lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com, and maybe we could even talk (my telephone number is 512-968-2500). I would urge you, whatever you do, to consider that the greatest criminals of our time are in charge of the United States Government, including the Courts, including the Courts of Florida even. Beware of the idea that there is any “justice” in the criminal justice system, and reflect on this question: in any application for any document, is it possible that you ever transposed two digits of your social security number or wrote down the wrong number, when everything else was right on the application? Is it possible you would have even done this while opening a new bank account? If you are positive you have never misstated your social security number, I would ask you—how CAN you be so sure? (That is the “felony” of which I was convicted…. I hope you will not judge me too harshly……

  • charleslincoln3.com

    I am writing this today from West Los Angeles, California, which has been, on and off, one of my primary homes since 1972. I went to High School in Hollywood in the early 70s. I dated and marri…
     **************************************************

    Let me know what you think and whether it would embarrass you to have this posted on your Facebook page…. People need to understand: During the 1930s and World War II, and ever since, an increasingly sinister and all-powerful, all-knowing Police State has been taking root in the United States. It is not a joke at all. We imprison a greater percentage of our population than any other nation on earth ever has (and that actually includes the Nazis and Stalinists—Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution in Mainland China slaughtered so many millions it’s pretty much incalculable–so Red China doesn’t really count). What your comment states about the racial distinction between prisoners—well, that’s just part of White American Hypocrisy in my opinion—I don’t want a multi-racial population, but I’m honest enough to say so. It simply isn’t true that blacks are inherently more criminal, except to the degree the poor, less educated, and less intelligent people usually are (but this applies to the poor, less educated, and less intelligent of the Anglo-Saxon, Irish, French, German, and all white nations as well—think of Dickens’ “Great Expectations” or how Australia (and South Carolina and Georgia and Texas) were all originally settled (as Penal Colonies). Part of my plan is to tear down the prison and welfare systems—they are part and parcel of the same socially oppressive “public health and welfare” program….

Mortgage Foreclosure and Eviction: the Destruction of Community and Individual Identity and Memory

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.”

Milan Kundera

A couple of days ago I learned (and wrote here) about the death of Stefan Frederick Cook, a dear friend but one with whom, frankly, I never got to spend enough time.  It’s particularly poignant when you make it to your fifties and the occasional death of a person your age can no longer be mourned as “he was so young.”  At 51 not quite making it to 52, well, Stefan Frederick Cook WAS way too young to die, but alas, neither one of us are exactly to be mourned in the same way as those who die in the full flower of their teens or twenties.  Stefan Frederick Cook was a hero whom I admired deeply, not only for his brilliant military career and renaissance world of personal achievements, abilities, special skills, and talents, which would be cause for awe in any man, but for the incident that brought us together—when he stood up to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States and said—”You are not legitimate, so I cannot serve you; my oath to support the Constitution is much more valuable to me than my career.”  Of course, his defiance of an Unconstitutional order to proceed to an Unconstitutional and Illegal War in illegally occupied Afghanistan—where the people know the face of terror intimately (and it is US)—did in fact cost Stefan Frederick Cook his military career.  But at least I was lucky enough to have known him, have photographs of him, printouts of his amazing curriculum vitae, handwritten notes and letters, and can treasure his memory.   

But the truth is that for many of the people I know in life, my “memory aids” are gone—in an illegal seizure of property that took place in November 2009 in Lago Vista, Texas.  Five generations of my own families archives, wiped out.   Five hundred years worth of antiques, art, books, fossils, maps, manuscripts, seashells members of my family and I had collected, wiped out.  A set of Teacups given to one of my ancestors by Martha Washington after the President’s death, original pieces collected by Michael Rockefeller in Western New Guinea before his untimely death.  Books and manuscripts by my most distinguished Academic Ancestor Hugo Meyer (author of Indogermanische Mythen and many other pioneering books in the late 19th century).  Correspondence with another of my ancestors who was a Lord Chancellor of England and Viceroy of India. Personal letters to ancestors of mine from the 18th century poet Friedrich Schiller, the 19th century artist Karl Bodmer, C.S. Lewis, Evelyn Waugh, and dozens of politicians.  Letters and manuscripts I collected while at Harvard, including from Alfred Marston Tozzer, Sylvanus Grisworld Morley and Alfred Vincent Kidder, pioneers of Maya archaeology, and of course, from lots of memorabilia from more recent living people as well (including my grandfather’s correspondence with such diverse individuals as his cousin Arthur de Carle Sowerby, a British missionary, naturalist, and literary force in Pre-War China and (of later date) with Dr. Wernher von Braun while at NASA, for instance).  And literally thousands and thousands more, even such odd items as one of my late Great aunts steaming hot love letters from the 1920s and 30s to the man who later became a preeminent South African physician and married one of Africa’s leading white female politicians). All that is the subject of a lawsuit in which I am represented by my Trustee Peyton Yates Freiman and Texas Attorney David A. Rogers.  But my case, of course, is not only not unique, it is typical of the massive destruction of private property going on all over the United States.

And just as surely as I believe that Stefan Frederick Cook’s awareness and memory of the Constitution, of his duty as an officer, and of his obligations to those whom he might command in the field, and to all America, were unique, I think that it is the same gemeinschaft of Barack Hussein Obama and those who brought him to power.  That is what relates to the quote from Milan Kundera above—they not only want to destroy private property and family, they want to destroy all our cultural heritage, all our links to our own and community past.  

To be human is to collect and it is to destroy this avarice for the collection of things, so innately and uniquely human, that the Communist-Socialist dehumanization of our world strives so doggedly.   Accumulation of memory through long-surviving family estates—so long the characteristic of the English Nobility, is everywhere under attack.

Another patriotic military man I have been privileged to know—whose birthday happens to be today is Robert Garvin Moore of Laurel Canyon and Studio City.  Owing to the same patterns of illegal seizure and destruction of private (personal) property in the process of an illegal foreclosure, also saw his entire military record dating back to West Point, and his entire family heritage wiped out.  Texas Attorney Andrea S. Atalay and her distinguished Cuban-American husband saw their estate library and manuscript collections wiped out in 2006, even before the worst of all this had actually begun.  It was a tragic loss to them, as it was a tragic loss to Robert Garvin Moore, his beautiful wife Teresa, and their children.   Such reliquaries of family, cultural activity and events, community, individual heritage, associations, friendships, alliances, and lineage are utterly irreplaceable.  I think back to my own loss of (among so many other things) a nearly complete run of Bulletins and Librettos from the Metropolitan Opera of New York from the 1890s-1980s, scattered along with more fragmentary “runs” from the operas of Chicago, San Francisco, New Orleans, London, Paris, Berlin and Milan.  I observe that the lawyers and the other representatives of the mortgage companies who do all this take particular glee in torturing people with the deprivation of their personal properties of memory and identity.  

It is enough to erase civilization in the manner of Farenheit 451, and require the birth, training, and enrollment of a real generation of “Book People” to try to remember anything at all, except that it is not the great books which we should have memorized—they will surely endure (most of them, anyhow).  No it is in the small things forgotten that we are bereft of the “flesh, heart and soul” (soma, psyche and pneuma in Greek) of our special, personalized heritage (ik olal bak in Maya).  At least in ancient times, the personal wreckage was at least normally discarded nearby, so that ruined mementos can be archaeologically associated with individual homes in well-run excavations such as those at Pompei or Carthage or Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, or even my little doctoral dissertation project of excacation around Platform Culub at Chichén Itzá in the 1980s.   But the middens of the modern world are, like the suburbs themselves, vast wastelands of “landfills”—and to there, supposedly, is most of our individual history and memory consigned—although I cannot imagine that the thieves who broke into my house in Lago Vista did not keep and sell some of the better stuff–how could they possibly be so brutishly stupid?

I know from another aspect of my experience that the war on identity and memory through the possession of personal property is real, intentional, and not just imaginary.  Through the arrogance of two U.S. District Court Judges in Texas, as many readers of this blog might know, I managed to spent one week in Federal Custody in August 2006 at the behest of Houston Judge Lynn Nettleton Hughes (who later assured me that he did not intend to accuse me of any wrongdoing whatsoever, “not even the mildest or most modest contempt of court,” he merely wanted to talk to me…..).  And then again I did a much longer 54 day stint (December 9, 2007-February 2, 2008) on account of the simply Abominable (I cannot bring myself to call her “Honorable” at this stage) Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi.  Lynn N. Hughes actually did want to talk to me, Janis Graham Jack didn’t….and got me out of her court as quickly as possible.  

During that longer 54 day visit to some of America’s darkest federally controlled and operated corners, I saw how they abuse the prisoners in thousands of ways.  As I’ve written for four years now on this blog—some of the best people I have ever known, and some of the smartest I have ever met outside of the Harvard and Yale Faculty Clubs or Dumbarton Oaks meetings….were also in Federal custody.  It’s enough to give one pause.  But one constant feature of prison life is: you must not accumulate any personal papers or belongings or other memorabilia—you just need to wipe yourself clean of all possessions—because you ARE a possession—you as a prisoner really DO belong to those who have the keys to your food, your exercise, your health, your fleeting access to sunlight and to your “society”—the other inmates who share your dark space, but who are permitted very little actual time to associate.  

And in the spirit of Huxley’s Brave New World, the confiscation of prisoner’s property (toothbrushes, vitamins, bandaids, notepaper, newsprint…anything and everything) breeds a kind of hunger for the commercial rewards and luxuries of the consumerist world.  When ketchup, mustard, and pepper are scarce pleasures, and must be acquired through prison “commissary”—well, you get the idea—you the prisoner are being conditioned to be a good law-abiding and very appreciative, and greedy, consumer when you get out.  One starves for nice things behind bars, even as one starves for pleasant thoughts or hopes.

And this, of course, is another unstated aspect of the mortgage foreclosure and eviction abuse: people hunger for the nice kind of place where they used to live.  They are willing to put up with almost any kind of deprivation of home or comfort in exchange for some nice space….for a little while….to call home.  They will pray to the GREAT EXPROPRIATOR to give them temporary access to property which has been expropriated from someone else—but after a while, we get to know it’s only temporary, like having a nice cell-mate you can get along with and talk to in prison….  We are all destined to be like moths and butterflies in the wind, blown around from cell-block to cell-block by those who rule our Prison Planet…. the overlords, the jailkeepers, the guards.  While we stay in anyone place, we will enjoy the bits of consumerist luxuries which are sold to us in such very small containers at such very high prices, knowing that it can all be taken away from us on whim, in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye…. and since Obama has signed the National Defense Authorization Act passed by the Senate last year with the astounding vote of 93-7, without EVEN a warrant being issued or charges being brought, without EVEN a whisper of probable cause that a crime was committed….  I for one will not rest until America has been restored.  If they kill me first or, worse, lock me up again and feed me nothing but tiny packages of ketchup from commissary, well…I will know, as I knew when I was arrested before, that I was the victim of injustice, and that I was arrested fighting for the Right.  If I can somehow break into politics—I swear that this mortgage foreclosure epidemic will stop and that private property will begin to be restored, however gradually, and that we will retrace our steps and begin to remember who we are—maybe we’ll even have massive excavations of some of the landfills to discover just how much of our nations memory and desire was swept away….buried, left for destroyed by the emissaries of Communism who have taken over our land…. God Damn them All—from Obama and Roberts and Summers and Bernanke on down through the hierarchy… Whether they appear to hail from the old (like Harvard) or the new (like Kenya), and whether they were appointed by a “Superconservative Republican President” (like Roberts) or were always Socialists (like Obama) or just “good upholders of the economy” (like Summers and Bernanke)….they all have the same goal: to destroy everyone’s private property except their own and to destroy the memory and heritage of us all so that we will have no conscience or means of argument based on our own personal, social, or cultural identity and heritage.

The Heart of the Welfare Debate: Q: If they take away government assistance, will people suffer? A: People are suffering now, and are going to suffer anyhow. Sarra Rohr, come home to those who care! (A personalized cameo of a Nation in Crisis)

Original Post
Sarra Rohr
Sarra Rohr 4:19pm Jan 15
I love Ron Paul but if he takes away the govt help (food stamps, housing, medicaid), a lot of us will be in serious trouble. Get us tons of jobs first. Then wean people off it. I’ve worked my entire life since 1989 and lost my job nov 2010. If it weren’t for foodstamps, my kid and I would be screwed. The other day I had to swallow my pride and apply for housing. 50 dollars a month rent if I don’t work and subsidized once I find work. Do you know how that feels? Do you? I hate it but if it wasn’t there, me and my kid would be dead. Or living a life of crime to survive. :(
Sarra Rohr
Sarra Rohr 4:22pm Jan 15
Just to add, I too dislike those generational welfare families. I dislike them because they gave us decent folk a horrible name and reputation. Like the moment you get on stamps or housing, you’re scum, useless eaters. How horrid. Work your entire life, get help from the govt and are a Useless Eater.I wish we had enough jobs to get everyone working and could do away with stamps etc. It would help the economy and debt so much. Makes ya think. They have a huge debt yet keep shipping jobs over seas. I think they planned this……..
Charles E. Lincoln 8:18pm Jan 15
Dear Sarra Rohr:
I don’t know anything about you except what you’ve written here. My heart has been bleeding for three hours since I first saw your letter. I feel compelled to answer and you may not like all of what I have to say, but I think it’s important.
First off, I am a Christian, and I subscribe to the notion that Jesus taught us that there is room at the table for everybody. More important than any other lesson he taught, I think it is that: every one of us who claims to have been washed by Baptism in His Blood owes a duty to you and to your son or daughter (I’m not sure which it is—I’ve never liked the word “kid”—sounds too much like a goat).
Imagine if all the world lived by the Gospels of Christ? Who in your own family, I wonder, claims to be a Christian but doesn’t offer you space in his or her home, at least for a while.
If you are anywhere in California, I invite you into my home for that very reason.
I haven’t got much space as it happens, but over Christmas I took in a lady and her cat who had been thrown out of their home. I’m hopelessly allergic to cats so that only lasted about two weeks, and frankly I nearly died, but I am just that kind of guy. I hated the idea of that harmless woman being alone on Christmas and New Year’s Eve, even though I hardly knew her (we had worked together very briefly on a project in 2009) and she and I had less than nothing in common (especially not her love of cats).
In my opinion, Ron Paul doesn’t go anywhere near far enough, but I do agree with you, that there should be a transitional period during which we abolish welfare of all kinds.
What I have seen here in Los Angeles is that there are two sides of Welfare: the poor house and the jail house, and people just keep bouncing back and forth between the two. I certainly don’t want to see that for you and your son or daughter, but I will tell you: this United States of America has made so many previously honest ways of earning a living illegal, or so heavily regulated that you have to be a millionaire to try, that crime is beginning to seem like the only “honest” way to live.
My solution to the crisis is this: we have to abolish BOTH sides of welfare—but above all we have to tear down the prison walls. People need to have the right to defend themselves and their homes, and not to depend on the police to do so. The police need to be scaled back to where they don’t cause more trouble for the people than the “ordinary” un-uniformed thieves. Many middle class people are fined and regulated to death by the police enforcement of petty offenses, traffic, zoning and the like.
I would ask you also to look at your family and your own situation: how many decisions did you make, have other people made, in knowing reliance on welfare? What decisions might you have made differently if that socialist “safety net” had not been there? Did the existence of that safety net cause you to break off relations you might have been able to maintain out of necessity? That was what people did in the “bad old days.”
And if you were abused by your parents or husband or your son or daughter’s father, did that abuse amount to slavery? A condition from which you could never, ever arise? Because ultimately, that’s the price we’re all paying for Welfare: a contract with the Socialist-Communist Devil where he gives us our minimum needs in exchange for our pledge of loyalty and fidelity to his unholy goals and purposes.
So I would ask you and every member of this group: is it better that we all be giving but poorer Christians or that we all be Socialist Slaves? We all need to give and take care of each other if we really believe in freedom, because the alternative is that we all enroll ourselves in the “Big House”—”Uncle Sam’s Plantation” as one writer from my sometime home of San Clemente in Orange County describes it.
Prison and Welfare go together—they are two sides of the same coin (and both of those sides say “Caesar”, so there’s no question about whom you are serving if you support “tough” jail sentences and welfare cutbacks, or vice versa—all the great “social-liberals” of our time are heavily invested in the so called “correctional-services” industry–notably Al Gore and Oprah Winfrey).
So I say let’s help each other. If you’re anywhere close to me I offer you a temporary shelter and a temporary job with my campaign, and if you’re nowhere near California I would call out to others in this group to help this young woman get on her feet and stay off welfare. We only got into this mess one step at a time and we can only get out of this mess one step at a time.
What say you all? Shall we try to practice what we preach a little bit here?
Sarra Rohr: I mean what I wrote from the bottom of my heart: if you and your son or daughter are anywhere in California or if California was in your travel plans, do feel free to make contact and we WILL find a temporary home and a campaign job for you (doesn’t pay much but you won’t be on welfare). You write eloquently about your situation and the conflicts it creates and I see from your Facebook that you’re an Artist….

Filings Fees/Legal Books/Legal Teaching (A Modest Proposal)

A Modest Proposal

          A Texas colleague, Daniel Louis Simon, who was recently sanctioned for working with me (>>”Charles Lincoln has spearheaded efforts to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional. He has enlisted the assistance of numerous pro se litigants, including Defendant Daniel Simon….”>> as Judge Walter S. Smith wrote in Waco on March 25, 2008) is constantly complaining to me about the high filing fees in various courts, but especially Federal.  (It is worth noting that, for Dan and me today, the minimum filing fee in Federal Court has been raised to $150,350.00—if this is not an “attainder” of rights I don’t know what would be—especially since I was neither summoned nor named as a party nor subpoenaed as a witness in Dan’s late case against the Attorney General—the notion of “actions in excess of jurisdiction” rings loudly in my head—and I know that good will ultimately triumph as I know that my redeemer liveth…).

          I disagree with him on this point, only because NOTHING in life is or, (in my view) OUGHT to be free, except perhaps the air, rain, and sunshine.  Since I’ve been involved in Federal Court litigation, the filing fees have gone up from $80 to $350, after a long rest at $125, and the quality of the Judges has notably gone down.  Even so, I’d say that of all the services provided by government, the THEORETICAL potential utility of filing a federal lawsuit is huge—multiple law clerks, interns, courtroom deputies, secretaries examine cases, and to have GOOD judges who carefully weigh evidence and consider the law (such as the two I worked for, a long, long time ago….Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit and Kenneth

L. Ryskamp of the Southern District of Florida) reviewing your case, whatever it is—even at $350.00 ($450 for appellate filings) is a bargain.  But the bad judges now unquestionably outnumber the good.  And the corrupt lawyers now unquestionably outnumber the honest ones.  If there are any left INSIDE the bar at all, I and all the lawyers I know who believe that judicial or any other governmental failure to follow the constitution is treason—they have all been disbarred…..we have all been disbarred.

So in essence, there’s absolutely NO POINT in hiring a licensed attorney anymore—unless you have nothing but money to burn.  Lawyers will (for the most part) coerce you into a settlement if you’re in a civil (especially a divorce or custody) case and into a plea bargain if you’re in a criminal case. 

The solution more-and-more people HOPE will work is going pro se.  But court rules (and, for that matter, the law itself) are (is) complicated and applied in an almost hopelessly arbitrary and capricious manner. 

So I modestly propose the following: the filing fee should be raised to $3,500.00 (never to exceed $5,000) for all cases filed by licensed attorneys (and held to their current rate $350/$450, never to exceed $500 for pro se litigants), but the proceeds from this increased filing fee for attorneys should be utilized to provide evening and weekend classes as well as weekday classes, to be available continuously on a year round basis, to all pro se litigants.

 

A pro se litigant should be allowed to meet any deadlines (e.g. a statute of limitations or other statutory bar to suit) by filing a “Notice of Complaint” [“or Notice of Answer”---if the pro se litigant is a defendant”] or similar document with the clerk, but the pro se litigant should then be allowed to delay the actual filing of his Complaint (or answer or 12(b)(6) Motion, whatever is necessary) for up to SIX MONTHS provided he attends law classes every week during this time period.

ATTORNEYS WHO WILL TEACH THESE PRO SE LAW CLASSES FOR FREE would be allowed the ordinary (current, pro se) filing fees for as long as they provide the services.  The concept of “sharing one’s knowledges, privileges, and education” and “noblesse oblige” should be appealing even to some members of the bar.  They want to act like nobility when it comes to wielding power?  They should show some genuine nobility of spirit, also—and not just through the pittance of “billable hours” allocated at some large law firms to “politically correct” charity causes…..

The pro se filing fee should include both a CD and a paper copy of the Federal Rules of Civil (or Criminal) procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and a COMPLETE CASE ANNOTATED copy of Title 28 U.S. Code on the Judiciary and Courts), and all persons served with Federal Lawsuits who cannot afford to hire an attorney, but who file a “Notice of Answer” and agree to participate in the pro se litigation classes should be provided with this same level of support (a CD and a paper copy of the same rules and statutes).

The courts cannot be trusted to protect the “little guy” under the present system and circumstances.  But freedom without equality of access to the Courts is almost unimaginable.  The filing fees we currently pay are quite adequate to cover the costs of the books and CDS proposed here. 

The additional fees or teaching required of lawyers would enable attorneys to raise their standing in the community, force them to treat “common people” (i.e. untitled non-attorneys or other “lesser nobility”) equally.  Such classes would facilitate communication and generally improve the quality of litigation in the courts.  I consider this a very modest reform proposal.

(Dan wrote me after I had originally published this post: “I still feel Pro Ses should not have to pay a penny…but I agree with all your other points.  The high fee for lawyers and those represented by lawyers…and the school/help for Pro Ses.”)  Ultimately, I think that the educational system in the United States needs to be reformed so that no one graduates High School/registers to vote without not merely basic literacy but LEGAL literacy and competence.  I understand the historical reasons why literacy tests were abolished in the United States 40-50 years ago, but I think it’s high time they were reinstated, and applied to elected officials as well (could George W. Bush have passed?????)

[Originally Published here on June 21, 2008, at 19:10 p.m., last edited June 24, 2008 at 5:46 am,---I must have been either in Palm Beach, Florida, or Cambridge, Massachusetts at the time, republished October 12, 2011 at 12:13 am]

The States Can Create Their Own Money—so can anyone who owns a bank!

       Paper money is, of course, NOT authorized by the United States Constitution, in fact, arguably, it is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 10 that ” No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts….”  The purpose of paper money is and has always been to create easy and quick credit for the government. Banks can do the same thing by “emitting credit” or “approving credit”—and all promissory notes accepted by National Banking Institutions under the definitions of 12 U.S.C. §1813(l) MUST treat approved promissory notes as “the equivalent of cash.”  In effect, any person who can approve credit formally can create money from thin air.  National Banking Associations do that, but a former associate of mine, the well-known Orange County Dentist Dr. Orly Taitz, was able to approve credit through her Dental Office, and upon accepting notes, was able to issue herself money.  She actually DID this in the case of Major Stefan Frederick Cook… who never came near her dental office….but sought Orly’s “legal” services…. and she had him apply for credit through her dental office.  She never, however, got him into a dental chair so far as I am aware….although he may have felt his teeth had all been extracted by the time his little whirlwind tour with her was over….  I have the greatest respect and regard for Major Stefan Frederick Cook, and I am sorry that Orly’s impetuosity (and my assistance  to her in acting impetuously) may have injured his amazing military career unnecessarily, but that is a different story for a different day: the point is that issuing credit under the national system, whether you are a Bank or a retailer or a retail provider of dental services or anything else: IS the creation of money from thin air.  Creating money from thin air facilitates instant gratification of the kinds and types of which both Henry Ford and Sigmund Freud definitely and enthusiastically approved, albeit for radically different reasons.  Aldous Huxley made the connexion between Ford and Freud’s attitude towards instant gratification in his masterpiece “Sci Fi Horror” book: Brave New World.

       “The Money Multiplier” effect is something that ever student of Freshman economics learns about and then forgets in later life as s/he goes through a normal American life-style creating money by signing credit card notes, mortgages, car loans, EACH of which is multiplied several times within a month or two at the maximum, thereby creating the oversupply of money which that same student of Freshman economics will doubtless hear of on the news, possibly during his middle age, as “inflation” measured by the “consumer price index.”  Gold and silver are not immune from inflation: during historical gold and silver rushes the value of these commodities has shrunk to unbelievably low levels in mining communities and areas where they are super-abundant.  Spain of the “Golden Age” (16th-17th centuries) is often said to have been crippled in comparison with Holland, Germany, and Great Britain by the inflationary effect of vast surplus gold derived from the post-Columbian conquests of Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia.  Why develop?  Why produce anything at all when you can stay drunk on easy gold and never have to work?

Why develop just and fair economic and political systems when you can decorate your churches with oceans of gold and then leave them in charge of regulating society and culture through well-funded courts of inquisition who are responsible to no one?  Money = power, power corrupts, and abundant money = absolute power which can corrupt absolutely.  These truisms are too well known to bear much discussion.

         “Formal” market economies have always depended upon an exchange rate based on some form of central commodities.  Before gold and silver the Ancient Romans and Germans used horses and cattle as currency (the word “pecuniary”, meaning, “of or relating to money” is derived from Latin “pecus”—preserved in Spanish words and phrases such as “Agropecuario”—which means “relating to commercial farms and ranches and similar products and services”).

         Among the ancient Aztec and Maya of Mexico, Cacao beans and cotton cloth were used as currency, (this was the sweetest economy in history, where money literally did “grow on trees” and could be made into chocolate at any time).  And in fact the Southern Americans of the Confederate States of America effectively tried (but failed) to use cotton as currency again in the 1860s, but were rebuffed by and ultimately lost their bid for independence as a result of the scorn heaped on them by gold-loving British and French bankers of the middle part of the 19th century.  Thus “Dixie” fell in large part because of its dependence on paper money such as the “Dix Dollars” (Ten Dollar–French language) bill issued by the antebellum Banque de Nouvelle Orleans which had given the region its nickname in the time leading up to secession in 1860-61.  Cowerie shells were famously used by certain pre-modern tribes in the Western Pacific.  The honest advantage of commodity based currencies—and their fatal flaw, from the standpoint of modern social-welfare economics—is that they are inevitably finite.

            No matter how easy it is to pan for gold, grow cotton, raise cattle, or cacao beans, or collect cowerie shells, it cannot be done instantaneously.  And for governments (like the U.S.) which want to build sophisticated nuclear missiles, launch satellites, sponsor vast educational programs which seem to lower the overall national levels of literacy and awareness, try through redistribution of the wealth to make “every man a king”, and generally realize Rumpelstiltskin’s dream of spinning straw into gold without actually doing the work of spinning even, paper money is the only “commodity” sufficiently malleable and manipulable to work.

         Ellen Brown’s article below focuses on how some independence could be achieved if the States were to challenge the Federal Reserve Banking system, but even so, the result would still be just more inflation and even greater currency instability.  If such instability could ultimately destroy the Federal Reserve system, of course, we should all be in favor of it.

BUT GOVERNOR, YOU CAN CREATE MONEY!

JUST FORM YOUR OWN BANK.

Ellen Brown, May 26th, 2009
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/but_governor.php

“I understand that these cuts are very painful and they affect real lives. This is the harsh reality and the reality that we face.Sacramento is not Washington – we cannot print our own money. We can only spend what we have.”
– Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quoted in Time, May 22, 2009

Christmas comes early, Governor. You CAN print your own money. Fiscally solvent North Dakota is doing it . . . and so can California. Now!!!

In a May 22 article in Time titled “Billions in the Red: Fiscal Reckoning in CA,” Juliet Williams reports that since California voters have now vetoed higher taxes and further state government borrowing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated that he intends to close the budget gap almost entirely through drastic spending cuts. The cutbacks could include laying off thousands of state workers and teachers, ending the state’s main welfare program for the poor, eliminating health coverage for about 1.5 million poor children, halting cash grants for about 77,000 college students, slashing money for state parks, and releasing thousands of prisoners before their sentences are finished. Schwarzenegger bemoaned the fact that the state could not print its own money but said it could only spend what it had.

But the state can create its own money. After all, banks do this every day. Certified, card-carrying bankers are allowed to do something nobody else can do: they can create “credit” with accounting entries on their books. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas explains on its website:

Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here’s how it works: Most of a bank’s loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank . . . holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times.”

President Obama has also acknowledged that banks create money, through what he calls the “multiplier effect.” In a speech at Georgetown Universityon April 14, he said:

“[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks – ‘where’s our bailout?,’ they ask – the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth.”

Money in a government-owned bank could give us the best of both worlds. We could have all the credit-generating advantages of private banks, without the baggage cluttering up the books of the Wall Street giants, including bad derivatives bets, unmarketable collateralized debt obligations, mark to market accounting issues, oversized CEO salaries and bonuses, and shareholders expecting a sizeable cut of the profits. A state could deposit its vast revenues in its own state-owned bank and proceed to fan them into 8 to 10 times their face value in loans. Not only would it have its own credit machine, but it would control the loan terms. The state could lend at ½% interest to itself and to municipal governments, rolling the loans over as needed until the revenues had been generated to pay them off. According to Professor Margrit Kennedy in her 1995 book Interest and Inflation-free Money, interest composes, on average, fully half the cost of every public project. Cutting costs by 50% could make currently-unsustainable projects such as low-cost housing, alternative energy development, and infrastructure construction not only sustainable but actually profitable for the government.

If all this seems too radical and unprecedented to venture into, consider that one state has had its own bank for 90 years; and it has not only escaped the credit crunch but is doing remarkably well . . . .

THE INNOVATIVE BANK OF NORTH DAKOTA

Only three of fifty states are now solvent, meaning they have the revenues to meet their state budgets; and one of them is North Dakota. It is an unlikely candidate for the distinction. It is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000 people, largely located in isolated farming communities afflicted with cold weather. Yet since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. The state not only has no funding issues, but this year it actually has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion, the largest it has ever had.

North Dakota boasts the only state-owned bank in the nation. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. The bank’s stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, which pays a competitive interest rate to the state treasurer. The state rather than the FDIC guarantees the bank’s deposits, which are plowed back into the state in the form of loans. The bank’s return on equity is about 25%, and it pays a hefty dividend to the state, which is expected to exceed $60 million this year. In the last decade, the BND has turned back a third of a trillion dollars to the state’s general fund, offsetting taxes. The former president of the BND is now the state’s governor.

The BND avoids rivalry with private banks by partnering with them. Most lending is originated by a local bank. The BND then comes in to participate in the loan, share risk, and buy down the interest rate. The BND provides a secondary market for real estate loans, which it buys from local banks. Its residential loan portfolio is now $500 billion to $600 billion. Guarantees are also provided for entrepreneurial startups, and the BND has ample money to lend to students (over 184,000 outstanding loans). It purchases municipal bonds from public institutions, and it backs loans made to new farmers at 1% interest. The BND also has a well-funded disaster loan program, which helps explain how Fargo, when struck by a disastrous flood recently, managed to avoid the devastation suffered by New Orleans in similar circumstances.

North Dakota has also managed to avoid the credit freeze, through the simple expedient of creating its own credit. It has led the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty. In California and other states, workers and factories are sitting idle because the private credit system has failed. An injection of new money from a system of publicly-owned banks on the model of the Bank of North Dakota could thaw the credit freeze and bring spring to the markets once again.

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden MedicineNature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health(co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.

_______________________________________________________
Disclaimer: This information is offered with the understanding that the provider is not offering financial, legal or accounting advice or tax guidance. It is for informational purposes only. It is not intended for anyone else’s information but your own. You are responsible for yourself and your own actions. If you act on what you do not understand and cannot support in law, the consequences are entirely yours. If you feel you have received this message in error or if you would like to be taken off of our Email list, please just let us know by clicking on REPLY and write REMOVE in the subject line and we will immediately honor your request.
_______________________________________________________

IF WE ALL STOP ACCEPTING HANDOUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT WE CAN BEGIN TO RECLAIM OUR COUNTRY!!

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Declaration of Independence and Our Constitution

The fourth of July is the day we remember the fragile, confused, chaotic origins of our country, still the envy of the world.  We are almost at the opposite side of the year now, one week ahead of January 4 rather than July 4, and in the same way, our Country is closer to the opposite of a nation dedicated to freedom.  During the past year I have visited Philadelphia 3 or 4 times and find it a very agreeable place.  My son is applying to the University of Pennsylvania and I honestly hadn’t ever thought so deeply about the city where this Republic was born ever before in my life.

As one who is frequently criticized as “crazy” or “mentally unstable” or worse on-line and elsewhere, I have found Philadelphia, and Independence Hall in particular, a pleasant place to sit and marvel and think about the collection of arrogant, egotistical, totally unrealistic and wildly overambitious provincials who met there, and not only defied by confronted head on their mother country—the most stable and well-developed Empire in all the world.  They did so out of their pure arrogance and devotion to insane principles, dreams, and ideals, and in doing so, because they were crazy, because they did not know that the task ahead of them was simply impossible, unimaginable, and their goals unreachable—because they had, in short, no common sense whatsoever, they (our Founding Fathers) changed the course of world history.

Today the Founders’ Patriotic Ideals are itemized on worksheets and therein targeted as “terroristic” by the FBI, a national police force created by the much transformed government which descends in a lineal, if not logical, fashion from that constitutional government which men who signed the declaration of independence feared might lead to “a new birth of tyranny” in the New World.  Apparently, even the CIA is now working domestically, as an internal police force working independently of the FBI.

The doctrine of the Anti-Federalists, their fears and “paranoias” are instructive to those of us who in these latter days face a monolithic government run by illegitimate representatives of corrupt interests.  But today is a day we should honor those who risked all and pledged their “lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor” to keep us free with the most important document in the history of the world.  Some day soon new leaders will emerge and give us our freedoms back, but right now, we live not in Jefferson’s dream and Madison’s ideal, but in their nightmare.  They say that the American Revolution was carried out by less than 10% of the population.  If  it only takes 11% of the population to make a dramitc shift in public awareness, one major place to start is in protecting our homes and our ways of life.

NOTE: if you need help saving your home from foreclosure, or if you have been foreclosed and are facing eviction, please go to www.charleslincoln.spiritualpatriot.com or email to admin@charleslincoln.spiritualpatriot.com or call Robert at 866-599-5557.  In particular if you are in California, and have any opinion about non-judicial foreclosure and eviction processes in California, please let us know all about it.  For the first time in my life, I am considering going directly into politics myself, and I would like to know whether anyone would like to help me out.

Peace be with you and with thy Spirit!  PAX VOBISCUM!

(In case it looks familiar, this is a revision of a post I originally published on July 4, 2009 @23:03).

What Uplifts Everyone without Degrading Anyone? Could it be Freedom?

My seventeen year-old son Charlie IV continues his new-found and somewhat all-consuming career of applying to colleges all over the U.S./English Speaking World.  We had talked about including Germany and France but so far he isn’t interested.  Today he was working on his application for the University of Chicago (where I received my J.D. degree, and where my mother studied and received several degrees back in the days of Chancellor Robert Maynard Hutchins).  In the spirit of the eccentric Hutchins College, once called the greatest collection of disturbed adolescents since the Children’s Crusade and alternatively described, with only mild exaggeration, as “A Baptist School where Atheist Professors teach Catholic Theology to Jewish Students”, the 2009 University of Chicago College Application posed the following question to Charlie as a subject for an original application essay.  I attach Charlie’s very interesting response to this challenge in full below, which Charlie ground out in just over two hours:

“Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust,” wrote the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” What is “human personality?” Is it obvious what uplifts and what degrades it? Can law be justified on the basis of it? We want to hear your thoughts on justice as it relates to this “human personality.”

IS ANY LAW THAT UPLIFTS HUMAN PERSONALITY REALLY JUST?  I don’t think so…

Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln, IV, (Friday November 13, 2009)

Life itself, especially life in elementary secondary school/High School, has often seemed a lot like jail to me.  Cinderblock walls and cement floors with cheap linoleum and cheaper carpets decorate unadorned square block shaped buildings two or three stories tall, and this seems to be the standard format of institutional life everywhere and these are where I have spent most of my waking hours, from age 5 going on 6 to 17 going on 18.

Sometimes I think I should have been “a pagan, suckled in a creed outworn,” or perhaps “a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas.”  But instead all I’ve ever been student, among many other students, just another brick in the wall.  But these are the meditations of prisoners everywhere, I think.

I certainly think I can understand how sitting in jail, in Birmingham, Alabama, or anywhere else, would make a person think a lot about what is uplifting and what is degrading.  Prisons are built to “uplift society” by suppressing crime, which can only be done by “degrading” the very essence of our society, the people who came to this land described by the phrases

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.”

(And in fact, yes I do promise that’s the last cheesy quotation from extremely well-known poems I will make in this letter of application—but it fits doesn’t it?  Isn’t it primarily the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched rufuse of so many teeming shores, and above all, the homeless, who crowd all the different kinds of American prisons?—If I need to elaborate on this, I can and will—without the poorest, most underemployed, and least educated of the whites, African Americans, Mexicans, Vietnamese and Chinese, the correctional services industry would simply NOT be the fastest growing industry in the United States, as any watcher of late-night television knows for certain from constant advertising.)

In my 17 years and four months on this planet, I have been trying to develop my own “human personality” in the face of constant limitations and challenges.  Words like “uplifting” and “degrading” are entirely subjective, entirely relative depending on one’s position in the world and on the planet.

But from any given position in relative time-space-and-social dimensions, it is definitely obvious what is uplifting or degrading—just as it is obvious what is “good” and “evil.”  “Uplifting good actions or things” are those aspects of life which we perceive as beneficial to us and “evil degrading actions or things” are those which we perceive as harmful to us.

And jail really is the focal point for degrading some people by putting them in an evil place so that others can feel safe, uplifted, and confident in their own superiority.  Jail is also the focus, one of the ends, of that which we so often refer to as the “justice” system.  “Justice” uplifts some by degrading others.  Criminal law is but one field where some human personalities (prosecutors/defense lawyers/judges) are consistently uplifted while most others are consistently degraded.

Think, for example, if thoughts of prison and criminal are too unbearably harsh, of the mortgage foreclosure crisis.  What is more degrading than to be evicted from one’s home?  What is more uplifting than to obtain financing for your  wonderful dream home, larger and more elaborate than what you ever dreamed you could possibly afford?  What is more degrading than to be turned down for credit?  What is more uplifting than to be awarded a million dollars credit based on “stated income” with no credit check?  All these actions, events, and phenomena are true stories constituting part and parcel of the financial crisis besetting America today.

Predatory lenders have made fortunes originating and then securitizing loans, which they, as “originators” know the “borrowers” could never pay back.  That’s how hundreds of thousands of “MacMansions” were build on Florida’s Gulf-Coast and California’s Inland Empire, in Collin County North of Dallas and in explosion after explosion of suburban or ex-urban development throughout the first decade of the third millennium after the alleged birth of someone who allegedly said, “lay up your treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was, as his birth-name suggested, in so many ways an old-timey Protestant preacher of “that Old Time Religion” who doubtless knew his Gospels extremely well, probably backwards and forwards, including Matthew 6:20 and Luke 12:33.  So, IS predatory lending evil?  It has led to a crisis, which threatens not only the economic but the socio-political stability of the modern world—because thief-like investment bankers invented derivative securities and abrogated the common law, and now gnaw away at the remnants of capitalism like moths or rusting humidity.  Truth is the greatest antioxidant (anti-rusting agent) in the world, but it lies far off, out of our grasp, as we grope like blind men along the walls, and hundreds of millions of people in starving Somalia and the Sudan in Africa, millions of sweatshop workers working for pennies a day in China and “slumdogs” who aspire to be “millionaires” in India still dream of living the uplifting good life which degrading evil credit can provide.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted African Americans to share in the riches of America, because that would be uplifting and therefore positive for them.  One wonders how Dr. King would feel today to know that black men in modern America are more likely to go to jail than to become home owners, even now (especially now?) under the Presidency of an African-American who wants to expand the circular abuses of credit and preserve the system created by mostly white investment bankers.

So economic justice exemplifies a large family of Hegelian opposites, which are so easily transformed into Marxist “contradictions inherent in all things”, the dialectic between which is the source of all social change.

Are there alternatives?  Are there JUST alternatives to systems which simultaneously degrade some people so that others can be uplifted?  Are there systems which maximize the good and minimize the evil?

I sometimes wonder whether the Constitution of the United States, with its separation of powers and its Bill of Rights, was not the world’s greatest experiment in such a system which might, if properly applied, have the potential to accentuate the positive and diminuate (I looked it up in Webster’s it is a real word!) the negative.

Federalism and the three part government are tools of separating powers which at least theoretically, if properly applied, limit the ability of any one individual or group of individuals to uplift himself (or themselves) into the positions of KINGS and ARISTOCRATS while degrading others into the positions of SERFS and PEONS.  I have some distant English cousins who are listed in both “Burke’s Peerage” and “Debrett’s Peerage” and have heraldic coats of arms issued them by the College of Arms.

It must be a great feeling to be a peer of the realm, even though you can’t automatically sit in the House of Lords anymore, but the U.S. Constitution forbids titles of nobility.  In other words, the U.S. Constitution forbids something that is really uplifting TO SOME PEOPLE precisely because it is inherently degrading to others, and such things as titles of nobility, coats of arms, and ranks of peerage are UNJUSTLY but surely such things as guarantee that “some animals are more equal than others”, just as prisons and mortgage lending do.  The Declaration of Independence says that this country is built on the proposition that all men are created equal, while another distant cousin of mine once wrote that even in the context of internal divisions, we should have “malice for none and charity for all.”

How could one ever be a peer and NOT have some form of malicious contempt for all those who do not?  You would always be tempted to think you must be superior if you hold a title to all people who don’t.  A peer could not possibly have equal “charity for all.”  There are definitely titles in American Culture which seem to exalt some people over others: “Doctor,” “Senator”, “the Honorable”, etc., as if the people who have these titles are (respectively) “more learned”, “older”, “more honorable” than anyone else. (The only American title I don’t understand at all is “Esquire”—what does that mean, that lawyers actually carry shields or subscribe to certain popular men’s magazines more than others?)

While the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution would seem to be one guarantor of real equality, but it is the Bill of Rights that really seems to guarantee that no one should be guaranteed uplifting human personality at the expense of others.  Justice under the Bill of Rights guarantees to all people the rights of the First Amendment, to speak and articulate one’s political and religious (or other) philosophies as one sees fit, and to guarantee to everyone the right to peaceably assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.

Yet there are movements in the United States which seem to suppress the right of the people to petition, or even to discuss the law—such movements as are the “integrated bar” movement in the legal profession, which seems to create a kind of quasi-nobility based on law or legal knowledge or admission to what was, historically, only a private club in America—the Bar Association.  Are lawyers really the only people who understand law well enough to “petition for redress of grievances” in America these days?

If they are, then perhaps the residual guarantor of freedom and equality in America, the Second Amendment, is the last real bastion of equality.  In Colonial Latin America, only “noble Indians” (i.e. Indians who were accepted as “superior” by Spanish Authorities) were allowed to carry firearms, and in fact even these “Indios Hidalgos” could only acquire the right to carry firearms by applying for a license.

In the United States of America, I believe that everyone should be allowed to carry firearms for the simple reason that, if the Maya and Aztec had had firearms and cannons in the 16th Century, they probably would never have been conquered and subjugated by the Spanish, and their nobility would have never been made subordinate to the Spanish.  It is degrading to be conquered although it is very uplifting to conquer.  The human personality of a Conqueror probably feels very good, literally “on top of the world.”  But such an uplift is possible only at the expense of degrading others, and that is why the real balance of power must be maintained by freedom of speech, backed up by the equal right to keep and bear arms.

Likewise, in all probability, black Africans would have been enslaved in much smaller numbers if they had possessed firearms, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, job in the 1960s, as well as his tenure in the Birmingham Jail, might have both been quite a bit less burdensome and onerous, because there’s nothing that uplifts every human personality so much as preserving the individual right to speak, when no one else’s right is accordingly diminished or degraded.  These are rights worth keeping and bearing arms to preserve.

John Donne’s Nocturne on St. Lucy’s Night (December 13, Old Style, Julian Calendar, Winter Solstice, off by 11 days in 1752)

As I sit here writing on a laptop I bought on or about June 23, 2009, now in a town (San Clemente) I had never visited before September 19, 2009, feeling every bit of my 49 years, 8 months, and 3 days old, (born when Eisenhower was still President in 1960) wondering whether my 17.3068 year old son Charlie (Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln, IV) will make it here for Christmas after all (due to conflicting college interview schedules), and looking at the timeless waves of the Pacific Ocean, I find myself pondering the passage of time, and now realize that December 12, the Feast of Virgin of Guadalupe is about to give way to December 13, St. Lucy’s Day, the great Saint’s Day feast of Palermo and all over Italy known as Santa Lucia, the patroness of the blind, and my late grandmother Helen Eugenie Lucy (Helen means “light” in Greek, “Lucy” is from Latin “Lux”—the Vulgate Latin Genesis reads, of the creation of the world, “Dixitque Deos Fiat Lux, et Lux Erat.” Helen Eugenie Lucy, she was a Latin Valedictorian at a now defunct school in New Orleans called “L’Ecole Royale” (she received a gold medal with the image of “Hypatia”) in a graduating class of 18 girls the year the United States entered “the Great War” (1917)—she raised me….her birthday was December 2…..she would have been 110 if she were still alive (she died in 2001, aged 101 and half).  But before the 11 day Calendar Correction of 1752 (when England and her colonies finally moved from the Julian Calendar first adopted in Rome in 46 B.C. to the Gregorian Calendar first adopted in Rome in 1582 A.D.), December 13 was the date of the Astronomical Winter Solstice….and Easter often fell in the last snows of winter….  There is no more beautiful poem on the passage of time and the seasons in the English language than

A NOCTURNAL UPON ST. LUCY’S DAY,
BEING THE SHORTEST DAY.

by John Donne

‘TIS the year’s midnight, and it is the day’s,
Lucy’s, who scarce seven hours herself unmasks ;
The sun is spent, and now his flasks
Send forth light squibs, no constant rays ;
The world’s whole sap is sunk ;
The general balm th’ hydroptic earth hath drunk,
Whither, as to the bed’s-feet, life is shrunk,
Dead and interr’d ; yet all these seem to laugh,
Compared with me, who am their epitaph.

Study me then, you who shall lovers be:

At the next world, that is, at the next spring ;
For I am every dead thing,
In whom Love wrought new alchemy.
For his art did express
A quintessence even from nothingness,
From dull privations, and lean emptiness ;
He ruin’d me, and I am re-begot
Of absence, darkness, death—things which are not.

All others, from all things, draw all that’s good,
Life, soul, form, spirit, whence they being have ;
I, by Love’s limbec, am the grave
Of all, that’s nothing. Oft a flood
Have we two wept, and so
Drown’d the whole world, us two ; oft did we grow,
To be two chaoses, when we did show
Care to aught else ; and often absences
Withdrew our souls, and made us carcasses.

But I am by her death—which word wrongs her—
Of the first nothing the elixir grown ;
Were I a man, that I were one
I needs must know ; I should prefer,
If I were any beast,
Some ends, some means ; yea plants, yea stones detest,
And love ; all, all some properties invest.
If I an ordinary nothing were,
As shadow, a light, and body must be here.

But I am none ; nor will my sun renew.
You lovers, for whose sake the lesser sun
At this time to the Goat is run
To fetch new lust, and give it you,
Enjoy your summer all,
Since she enjoys her long night’s festival.
Let me prepare towards her, and let me call
This hour her vigil, and her eve, since this
Both the year’s and the day’s deep midnight is.

You Can Stop Evictions! Call for a Civil Rights Removal Revolution! The Truth about California Non-Judicial Foreclosure is, it’s all based on LIES, LIES, and MORE LIES! There’s one simple reason: California Civil Code Section 2924 Protects the Liars!

NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v BANK OF AMERICA AURORA I DIAZ 12-10-09-BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER

NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v SILVERSTEIN CHRISTYNA LYNN GRAY 11-30-09-SILVERSTEIN

NOTICE OF NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v SILVERSTEIN CHRISTYNA LYNN GRAY 11-30-09-SILVERSTEIN

RN March Civil Cover Sheet v Silverstein 11-06-09

NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v SILVERSTEIN RENADA NADINE MARCH 11-06-09-SILVERSTEIN

Renada Nadine March Response to Order to Show Cause 12-01-09

12-07-2009–1st Amended Complaint Gray-Lincoln-March v Silverstein

The Honorable George Wu’s Order of 12/11/09, U.S.D.C., C.D.CA

Motion for Stay of Remand Pursuant to 28 USC Section 1447(d)

The truth is that you WILL be evicted from your home MERELY by the fact of being brought as a Defendant into any California Superior Court in any Unlawful Detainer Action (UDA) or Forcible Detainer Action filed after or on the basis of any non-judicial foreclosure carried out APPARENTLY under the letter of California Civil Code Section 2924, which is the greatest protection offered to thieves and liars since the U.S. Patriot Act amended the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to erode American Freedoms and destroy individual liberty in this country.

A Federal Judge in Los Angeles has just ruled (December 11, 2009) that Removing Defendants must identify “an explicit legislative enactment that will inevitably deny her [or his] rights.”  California Civil Code Section 2924 is an explicit legislative enactment that will inevitably deny YOUR rights also.  That same federal judge ruled that the Removing Defendant must allege that “it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state [] law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in state court.”  It can be CLEARLY PREDICTED by reason of the operative of a pervasive and explicit state law, namely California Civil Code Section 2924, that your rights will inevitably be denied (by liars speaking and writing nothing but lies) by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the California Superior Court system in the aftermath of a non-judicial “Liars Immunity” Non-Judicial Foreclosure.

If you would like further information or help, Tierra Limpia and Deo Vindice stand ready to help YOU make this Revolution Happen!  Call Robert J. Ponte at 860-599-5557 or Peyton Yates Freiman at 512-923-1889 or any of the telephone numbers listed on the pleadings, notices, and motions above.  We are busy fighting the dragons….please be persistent if you want to join our Civil Rights Removal Revolution against Wrongful Evictions following Wrongful Foreclosures in California.  Feel Free to leave your Comments or questions here below, also.

Merry Christmas to All!

Joy to the World, the Lord is Come, Let Earth Receive her King!”
“If there’s a day in history that I’m familiar with, without a doubt one day stands out December 25.”
It hardly matters whether you believe that Christ was born of a virgin or that he was the descendant of the House of David or whether you believe that he will come again in Glory to judge both the quick and the dead, or in the resurrection of the dead in their flesh and the life in the world to come.  The simple fact is that the symbolic value to which hundreds of millions of people attach and attribute to this day is indeed “the hope and fears of all the years.”  The hope that people have for a good and decent life, whether those hopes be articulated by white, black, brown, yellow or red people, are embodied in the preaching called “The Good News” of the Gospels.
The lessons taught by that certain Rabbi Yeshua, son of Joseph, brother of James, are among the greatest lessons ever taught, and I don’t see how anyone can possibly argue with the truth, beauty, and value of the words that came down to us in those four amazingly short books attributed to his friends Mattias, Marcos, Lucas, and Ioannis.
Yes, there is no day in history like December 25, even if the “historical” Jesus was more likely to have been born closer to March 25 (I like to think that the historical Christos and I have a few things in common, and so I can imagine that the historical Jesus shared “my sign” and I’m an Aries…..)
No more beautiful speech was ever given than the Sermon on the Mount, and I do not see how people of all faiths cannot follow those words of justice and wisdom.
This year I am not sending out any Christmas Cards or Greetings by regular or electronic post.
For the First Time in 7 years I am spending the entire Holidays with my own only born son Charlie, and between all the crises with Orly and the various mortgage cases, there’s just been no time.
But to all my family, my friends, acquaintances, and yes, even to my enemies and critics (including the commie-pinko-bastards on so many hateful sites who ridicule me and everything I do), I say,
“PEACE ON EARTH, GOOD WILL TOWARDS MEN” and advise them all
“To LOVE THE LORD THE GOD WITH ALL THY HEART AND ALL THY SPIRIT”
and likewise
“TO LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF”
—because on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets….
Yes, I would love my neighbors (and even my enemies and critics, which now include Dr. Orly Taitz) as myself, and by “love” I mean all that Jesus and St. Paul meant rendered in that Greek word “Agape”.    I tried to teach Orly this lesson all year, but it is particularly good to remember it at Christmastime,
it is good to remember that aside from Christ’s preaching in the Gospels, the greatest wisdom in the New Testament is found in St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not Love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all Faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not Love, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; Love envieth not; Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth Faith, Hope, and Love, these three; but the greatest of these is Love.

Completing the First 1% of the Third Millenium….

I remember New Year’s Eve, December 31, 1999 in New Orleans—what an amazing party it was.  My then 8 year old son rode on my shoulders as we were crushed among the crowds at Jackson Square.  I recall we had a really good view and nearly a perfect vantage point at one early point about an hour before midnight, but got distracted by something and then by midnight we were just in the square crushed by what seemed like millions, looking at the fireworks from the Riverwalk by the Old Jax Brewery.   Elena and I had discussed when deciding it was time to “get pregnant” with Charlie that it would be fun to have a child who would remember the transition between the 20th and the 21st century, and having Charlie in 1992 was almost the last chance to have such a child.  Charlie was born during Hurricane Andrew in 1992 on August 23, 1992, in Palm Beach, Florida.  It was an amazing event.  We were on the first page of the Palm Beach Post the next day—a beautiful picture of Elena holding Charlie with me on the telephone in the background.  We knew we were going to have a boy and it was a foregone conclusion he was going to be Charles Edward Lincoln IV, but we added the name “Andrew” as a second middle name, and among other oddities, the windows of St. Mary’s Hospital in West Palm Beach were all duck-taped with gigantic X-es, which on the horizontal hospital windows looked like transparent Scottish flags bearing St. Andrews’ Crosses.

This holiday vacation, as I mentioned before, is the first time since 2001-2002 that Charlie and I have been able to spend the entire Christmas and New Year’s holiday together.  The fact that we have done so (in California) as well as the fact that we spent the past two summers together in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a tribute to Elena K. Lincoln’s spirit and willingness to compromise and/or admit de facto defeat or mistake, in the face of her de jure victory in Court, which was the event or series of events which changed my life, and caused me to take the paths I have taken in life since 2002.

Yes, during the past decade, the first 1% of the Third Millenium, I dedicated my life in large part to attacking the Texas Family Code, a tradition which I continue now in Florida, and would like to begin in California.  The Texas Williamson County Family Court establishment was my first great confrontation with a major establishment.  The City of Lago Vista Police abuse cases in my hometown/backyard in 1997-98, which ultimately got me disbarred in the W.D. Texas and , were just a very mild warmup to what became a major anti-establishment civil rights and reform career.  Lago Vista Police Chief Frank Miller and his “prize” officer Bart Turek were my first major civil rights adversaries, but I did not hate them or even particularly dislike them.   They had just instituted and upheld a misguided and injurious police policy in Lago Vista.  The people I came to hate were those who destroyed my family and took my son away from me for during 2002-2007, with only a few respites.  I have dedicated my life to exposing the lies and the evil embodied by Williamson County Judge Michael P. Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, J. Randall Grimes, and Michael Davis, as well as their henchment such as the crew of psychologists including Don Jones.

But this moment, these two weeks with my son, overlooking the Pacific Ocean, with the low hills of Catalina Island in the background, is one of the sweetest moments of my life, and I thank God, and Elena for it.  I should note that I invited Elena here to share this moment not once but many times.  There’s enough sleeping space here for three to be in private rooms, as was proved when Peyton and Charlie were both here for Thanksgiving.  But Elena demurred, preferring to go to Cancun, ironically enough, since the Yucatan Peninsula was where Elena and I met in 1985.

Anyhow, to everyone out there, I wish a glorious and prosperous New Year 2010, and I hope that whatever happens to me, Charlie, and Elena, and to everyone else, that the next decade will be as full of emotional, psychological, and spiritual growth as the past decade has been for me.  In every defeat and setback I have found the inspiration to move forward and see deeper truths and meanings, and for such experiences I can only be thankful to all who gave me such opportunities, even if they meant me harm by doing so.  The absolute rock bottom low-point of this decade for me was clearly the death of my grandmother Helen in May 2001.  But not a day goes by that I do not recall fondly and given thanks for the century of life my grandmother enjoyed on earth and at all the time I shared with her and her husband, my grandfather Al, who predeceased her by 21 years in 1980.   The high points of the decade were all spent with my son, and none were higher than our days on Harvard Square and in California.

On this beautiful New Year’s Day looking West, I remember and give thanks to all my good friends and allies during the past ten years (whether we’re in contact to this day or not), in particular to my trustee, Peyton Yates Freiman, a more honest and truer soul does not exist!   I also recall my oldest friends Helen S. Carr (the only person not related to me by blood who has remembered every birthday, Christmas, and intercardinal solstice or equinox to me since the 1970s) and John K. Naland, but also to my newest best friends just made in 2009, Robert J. Ponte, Dennis & Milenne DeLeon, Renada Nadine March, and (irony of irony’s, because I first heard of her as an adversary) Lisa Liberi.  In this transitory life, in this “shake and bake” world we live in, there are many people who were once important to me whom I never see anymore, even if I have not forgotten them, but I hope that my new friends from 2009 will remain with me always.

No inventory of my most steadfast friends could ever be complete without “honorable mention” of Lisa Cook, my sister-in-law in Michigan, who talked to me and understood me and listened to me for years when to do so meant that her own husband’s family (my wife Elena’s relatives) would heap scorn upon her during “the war years” when Elena was calling me “Not Family, but Cancer in the House.”  Lisa was always there for me and I tried always to be there for her, even when nobody else was.  Charlie’s Brazilian Godmother Helir Arlotta from Palm Beach and Tarpon Springs, Florida, falls into this same category….  I don’t have Lisa’s new telephone number (I tried to reach her over the holidays) and Helir has vanished, but we do not and will not forget each other, I’m sure.

Throughout it all, the priests at St. Luke’s-on-the-Lake in Austin provided genuine friendship and support—and I will never forget them even though I might never spend much time in Austin again.  Father James P. Jameson, a fellow Harvardian, Father Philip May, and Father Mike Wyckoff were there for me (during the “war years” with Elena) when I had no one else to whom I could turn.  They are true Christians, true gentlemen, and truer friends than I ever deserved.  Father May was actually willing to meet with me and Charlie in secret in 2005, to provide “aid and comfort” like the Church Martyrs of old….

I remember more often that they will imagine possible the close relationship I had over three years of tumultuous conflict with my steadfast attorneys during the “War Years” (withe Elena of 2003-2006 Francis Wayne Williams Montenegro and Valorie Wells Davenport.  They worked mostly for free, certainly without any profit, and their dedication to my cause was incomparable, encapsulated in Francis Williams’ statement that he would support me even if threatened with a firing squad, and I believe he meant it at the moment, even though he and Valorie, once actually faced with an “offer they couldn’t refuse” by way of extortion or a “constructive bribe” from the Deputy Texas Attorney General James Carlton Todd, Mike Davis, J. Randall Grimes, and the obviously intimidated visiting Judge James F. Clawson (who replaced Jergins after the Federal suits), ultimately gave up the struggle rather than face sanctions.  Francis and Valorie also introduced me to two good people Corinne Irwin and Rod A. Dal Sasso.  I remember and pray for my late father Charles Edward, Jr., who supported my struggles until he could not stand to hear about them anymore.

I remember my friends in the Southern District of Texas early mortgage note battles: Dan Swank, Jacques S. Jaikaran, Mike Palma, Robert Bruce, and David A. Sibley (who despite some ironic vicissitudes, started off a friend and returned to friendly status) from 2006 and  Jon Drew Roland, my first trustee and closest friend and ally from 2004-2007.

Daniel Louis Simon of Liberty Hill joined my crusade against the Texas Family Courts and Code and has become a steadfast and probably last-long friend.  He holds the dubious distinction of having been sanctioned for following my lead against the Texas Family Courts and Code by Judge Walter Smith, who sanctioned Dan and me jointly and severally to the tune of $150,000.00 in March 2008 for the sole purpose of preventing us from continuing our crusade against the Texas Family Code in Federal Court.  His continued friendship and support is a great comfort to me, and I hope I can provide the same for him.

Between January 2005 and September 2007, I went through major ideological transformations in my life, realizing that the “normal” paths to reform were all but closed in the United States.   It was during these years that I also met and first had the privilege of meeting and working with Senator Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls and Kalispell, Montana.  Many friends, even on this ten year list, have already come and gone out of my life, but I hope Jerry will remain my friend for all the rest of the days we might both be living on earth.  He is the truest Patriot I know, one of the greatest constitutional scholars of the “Old School”, and one of the most honorable men on earth (in addition to being, as my son says, “the coolest guy I ever met”).

I remember my Florida friends and accomplices Nancy Jo Grant, Bob Hurt, Bill Trudelle, Pearl Lanier Bryan, and Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson.  Nancy is a hero who should be known to all Patriotic Americans.  Bob, Bill, & Pearl have provided me with so much support and courage.  Pearl is a warrior among warriors.  Kathy Garcia-Lawson is in so many ways my soulmate, with regard to our parallel paths crusading against (respectively, the Texas and Florida) Family Law and Domestic Relations Courts.  Kathy is such a paragon of the devoted, virtuous spouse committed to and still in love with her husband, even after five years since he left her, I can only stand in awe of her.  Kathy breathes new meaning into the words “family” and “until death do we part.”  Kathy’s funny, sassy, and spunky daughter Alexandra, and all of their friends whom I have met in Palm Beach Gardens, especially Claire and Rebecca.  I love Kathy, her character, and her mind, and hope that she and I will also forever be friends.  And yes, in connection with a person to whom Kathy introduced me, I even will toast on this day Orly Taitz whose affection and company “woke me up” in so many ways up through November 4, 2009—May she find peace and harmony and achieve freedom from want and freedom from fear sufficient that she might break free from the golden shackles that hold her prisoner in what may be a comfortable or even palatial prison.

And I would especially like to remember Vance Fecteau and Moshe Leichner, whom the Federal government continues to hold in prison, who were my closest friends during the worst 54 day period of my life, and who made even that extreme low moment a much brighter, more enlightened, and so more bearable moment.  I doubt that it will happen within the next decade, but I pray for a day when America and the rest of the world will be truly free again, when 1-2% of the population will no longer be incarcerated or on supervised release of some sort, when crimes will be established and measured only by their actual injury to others, so that no person will ever again be incarcerated merely to increase the arrest rates and the prison population so that large corporations owned by major politicians can make larger profits.  I can honestly say that all my experiences in the past decade have educated me and made me a better person and patriot.

To all Hate Mail Writers, a simple trio of messages

(1)  If you strike me down I will come back stronger than you can possibly imagine.  (I actually have a fairly good track record of doing this).

(2)  Go get a life for the New Year!  I have this feeling that 2010 is not going to be a year for hateful idiots of any political stripe.

(3)  I don’t know how to answer Hate Mail so I’m not going to bother—save your time and energy; I will not even honor your insults by responsive e-mails or messages here.

Today in History, January 8, 2010

Today in History — Friday, Jan. 8 (195th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans 1815, Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points 1919, Elvis Presley born 1935, Stephen Hawking born 1942, Amber Benson/Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

By The Associated Press (with annotations by CEL III)

Today is Friday, Jan. 8, the eighth day of 2010. Today, in my family, was always the final day of the Christmas Season, after Epiphany January 6, after my grandfather’s birthday on January 3.  There are 357 days left in the year, with only 350 shopping days left until Christmas!

Today’s Highlight in History:

On Jan. 8th, 1935, rock-’n’-roll legend Elvis Presley was born in Tupelo, Miss.; this is generally considered the greatest threat Southern American Civilization in general and Southern womanhood in since Samuel J. Tilden conceded the election of 1876 to Rutherford B. Hayes thus marking the end of Reconstruction.

On this date:

In 1798, the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was declared in effect by President John Adams nearly three years after its ratification by the states; it prohibited a citizen of one state from suing another state in federal court; the 11th Amendment is generally considered to have been a really bad idea.

In 1815, U.S. forces led by Gen. Andrew Jackson defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans — the closing engagement of the War of 1812.

In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson outlined his “Fourteen Points” for lasting peace after World War I. Mississippi became the first state to ratify the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition.

1932  ”Being born 300 years after Galileo’s death and taking up the Lucasian chair in mathematics 310 years after Newton, Stephen Hawking was numerologically well prepared for his successes and achievements”, said Sir Alec Broers, the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, in his introduction to the Stephen Hawking 60th Birthday symposium. The title of the day was The future of theoretical physics and cosmology, and an important part of that future, according to the Vice Chancellor, was due to Stephen himself.

In 1959, Charles de Gaulle was inaugurated as president of France’s Fifth Republic. In Cuba, Fidel Castro and his army arrived in Havana in triumph following the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “War on Poverty” in his State of the Union address.

In 1973, the Paris peace talks between the United States and North Vietnam resumed.

In 1976, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai died in Beijing.

In 1987, for the first time, the Dow Jones industrial average closed above 2,000, ending the day at 2,002.25; people who think this is important obviously do not understand the concept of inflation of fiat currencies or the fact that stock market speculation is no measure of economic productivity, but on the contrary is a symptom of a stagnate and failing economy.  Let it be remembered that, on Monday, October 19, during the fall of my first year in law school, which happened to be Fall Quarter 1987, the Stock Market fell 508 points in a single day (which was a bigger NUMERICAL crash than October 29, 1929, although with fewer broad economic implications), after falling several hundred points October 12-16 the previous week (declining respectively 95 points, 58 points, and 108 points on October 14, 15, and 16).

In 1989, 47 people were killed when a British Midland Boeing 737-400 carrying 126 people crashed in central England.

In 2003, a US Airways Express commuter plane crashed at the Charlotte, N.C., airport, killing all 21 people on board. A Turkish Airlines jet crashed in Turkey, killing 75 people.

Ten years ago: During a debate in Johnston, Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley accused Al Gore of trying to scare voters by misrepresenting his health care proposal; for his part, the vice president said he had not been hiding in a Washington bunker but campaigning on “the front lines in the fight for our future.”

Five years ago: An Army platoon sergeant who’d ordered his soldiers to throw Iraqis into the Tigris River was sentenced to six months in military prison; the jury in Fort Hood, Texas also reduced the rank of Army Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins by one grade.

One year ago: President-elect Barack Obama urged lawmakers to work with him “day and night, on weekends if necessary” to approve the largest taxpayer-funded stimulus ever. Obama named Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine the next Democratic National Committee chairman. The U.N. Security Council called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza by a 14-0 vote, with the United States abstaining. No. 1 Florida beat No. 2 Oklahoma 24-14 for the BCS national title. Cornelia Wallace, former wife of Alabama Gov. George Wallace, died in Sebring, Fla. at age 69.

Today’s Birthdays: Actor-comedian Larry Storch is 87. Actor Ron Moody is 86. Broadcast journalist Sander Vanocur is 82. CBS newsman Charles Osgood is 77. Singer Shirley Bassey is 73. Game show host Bob Eubanks is 72. Country-gospel singer Cristy Lane is 70. Rhythm-and-blues singer Anthony Gourdine (Little Anthony and the Imperials) is 69. Actress Yvette Mimieux is 68. Physicist Stephen Hawking is 68. Rock musician Robby Krieger (The Doors) is 64. Rock singer David Bowie is 63. Movie director John McTiernan is 59. Actress Harriet Sansom Harris is 55. Singer-songwriter Ron Sexsmith is 46. Actress Maria Pitillo is 45. Actress Michelle Forbes is 45. Singer R. Kelly is 43. Rock musician Jeff Abercrombie (Fuel) is 41. Actress Ami Dolenz is 41. Reggae singer Sean Paul is 37. Country singer Tift Merritt is 35. Actress-rock singer Jenny Lewis is 34. Actress Amber Benson is 33. Actor Scott Whyte is 32. Singer-songwriter Erin McCarley is 31. Actress Sarah Polley is 31. Actress Rachel Nichols is 30. Actress Gaby Hoffman is 28. Rock musician Disashi Lumumbo-Kasongo (Gym Class Heroes) is 27.

Thought for Today: “The devil is easy to identify. He appears when you’re terribly tired and makes a very reasonable request which you know you shouldn’t grant.” — Fiorello LaGuardia, mayor of New York City (1882-1947).

More on Systematic Abuses of Fundamental Due Process in Florida Foreclosure Courts

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO: 08-CA-050359              (Malcolm Doney CATALPA VACATE SJ)

Judge: Rosman Jay, B.

Century Bank FSB

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE M. DONEY

VALERIE J. DONEY, et al,

Defendants.

_______________________/

DEFENDANT GEORGE M. DONEY’S VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND TO CANCEL SALE OF THE PROPERTY ON JANUARY 7, 2010.

Comes now George Malcolm Doney (GMD) who having been sworn, deposes and says:-

All statements contained in this Affidavit are from my personal knowledge and are true and I make these statements under penalty of perjury.

Defendant, GEORGE M. DONEY, (GMD) pro se hereby files this verified motion to vacate foreclosure judgment and to cancel the sale of the property scheduled for January 7, 2010 pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) Fla. R. Civ. P., states:

  1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) provides in pertinent part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:… (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.

  1. Judge Thompson Ordered a Final Judgment Of Mortgage Foreclosure in the Rocket Docket Court on December 4, 2009.   This Judgment is in violation of both Fla.R.Civ.P 1.540 (b)(3) fraud and (4) the judgment is void.
  2. No Default Judgment has been issued by the Clerk, or the Court in pursuance of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500 (a) and following the closing down of Century Bank by the Office of Thrift Supervision on November 13, 2009 for, inter alia, abuses of the Federal Truth in Lending Acts and dangerous banking practices, after an unsuccessful attempt by Defendant George M. Doney to persuade Attorney McKay to cancel the Hearing for Summary Judgment scheduled for December 4, 2009 on the grounds that he could no longer represent the former Century Bank as though it were the Plaintiff in this Action, Defendants filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in the Court on November 17, 2009 as permitted by Fla.R.Civ.P 1.500(c). Defendants aver that this action immediately established that this was a contested case and was not appropriate for consideration by a Rocket Docket Court.
  3. Attorney McKay’s response was to file two further documents in the Court, a Notice of Re-Hearing [specifically requested to be in Courtroom 5H, known to him as the Rocket Docket Courtroom] in which he represented himself as Attorney for Plaintiff (the then non existent Century Bank) and a Motion to Substitute Plaintiff in which he represented himself as “counsel for non-party IberiaBank.”
  4. Attorney McKay also informed the Court that he would not personally be present at the Hearing but would be represented by local Attorney Goetz.
  5. Defendant George M. Doney (GMD) made two further attempts by email to persuade Attorney McKay to cancel the ex-parte arrangement he had made for this Hearing and specifically pointed out to him all the relevant facts as to why this Hearing should not proceed, including the inappropriateness of a Hearing in the Rocket Docket Court, previously described by Judge Thompson and recorded by Fort Myers Court Reporting on August 28, 2009, as “not a thinking Docket” [Exhibit A].
  6. Florida Statue 90.108 (2) states, “The report of a court reporter, when certified to by the court reporter as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima face a correct statement of such testimony and proceedings.  Defendants therefore aver that this is a correct statement and an admission by Judge Thompson that when he presides at Rocket Docket Hearings that he “is not required to think” and when read with his further statement, “I would simply continue the matter and let you all reset it before the assigned judge” and with his introductory statements made at the commencement of each such Court session to the effect that the assembled Defendants “do not have any legal defenses” is prima face evidence that a heavily contested case, in which no Default Judgment has been issued [Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500] supported by evidence in the form of “Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”  Fla. Sta. 90.202 (12) of the Evidence Code.”
  7. Attorney McKay ignored Defendant’s Answer, but filed a frivolous Avoidances To Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses on December 2, 2009 as counsel for what he knew at that time was no longer able to represent itself as a Plaintiff following its shuttering by its regulator, The Office of Thrift Supervision on November 13, 2009.   Also on December 2, 2009, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike [the non existent Plaintiff's] Motion to Substitute non-party IberiaBank and sought Summary Judgment in their favor and Sanctions.
  8. Upon receipt, examination and comprehension of a copy of Plaintiff’s Avoidances to their Affirmative Defenses, [delivered by US Mail on the afternoon of December 2, 2009 and postmarked 'Fort Myers' where Attorney James Goetz has his business address, but bearing the purported signature of Attorney Mckay, whose business address is in Sarasota] Defendants discovered further evidence and commenced preparation of a further Motion to Strike those frivolous Pleadings also, but was unable to finish that document until the morning of December 4, 2009, the day of the Hearing.
  9. That Motion contained a material Exhibit of 125 pages, being a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) document which was filed in the Court at 12.50 on December 4, 2009, just before the Hearing, with the intention of handing it up to the Judge at the commencement of the Hearing.   Judge Thompson’s actions prevented this evidence together with all the previous Motions, Affidavits and Exhibits filed in his Court ever being considered by him.
  10. Attorney McKay has violated the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, quoted irrelevant case law, made what he knew, or should have known were false statements in writing contained in papers he has filed in this and other actions in this Court, changed his story after seeing Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, but continued to leave his original deceptive submissions to this Court un-amended in other cases where the Defendants had not challenged those submissions, he has also violated the Florida Bar Conduct Rules, has acted in a manner towards Defendant GMD, both before and after the ‘Hearing’ on December 4, 2009 for which he has previously been sanctioned by the Florida Bar, [who were particularly concerned that he showed no remorse and continued to represent that he had not behaved improperly despite a unanimous decision by the Bar Exhibit B].
  11. Judge Thompson has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida, in the instant case [and GMD has witnessed at first hand angry and biased behavior by this same Judge on previous occasions, some of which are on the record in official Court Reports].  This Judge regularly violates Cannon 3A, B (4), (5), (7), (8), D (2) and E 1(a), full details of which are contained in the Affidavit of George Malcolm Doney which will be filed as Exhibit C, either at the time of filing this Motion, or as shortly thereafter as his limited time as a pro se litigant can be allocated for its final preparation.
  12. The Rocket Docket Court is where Judge Thompson regularly sits, churning through anything from 200 to 300 cases in each half-day session of his Court.
  13. Defendant GMD has regularly attended the Rocket Docket Court when he has prepared witness affidavits in support of defendants in foreclosure suits, and thus has personal knowledge of the modus operandi of the Rocket Docket Court that follows broadly the same procedure whether or not Judge Thompson is presiding.
  14. Immediately after Judge Thompson takes his seat on the bench he introduces the assembled defendants at their Summary Judgment Hearings to the reasons for the existence of the Court [being the need to cope with the huge volumes of foreclosures, without any explanation as to the legality or otherwise of such a Court] and to the procedures that they can expect when their case number is called.
  15. He gave that same introductory talk on the afternoon of December 4, 2009.  He attempted to prepare everyone who was appearing on that afternoon to accept that they do not have any legal defense by saying [as he did on this occasion] “only cases where Defendants have no legal defense are scheduled for Hearing in this Court after careful and detailed consideration.”  No explanation is given as to which person, group of persons, or entity engaged in “careful and detailed consideration” or made the decision that the particular defendants had “no legal defense” and could be identified as being responsible for placing their case into a Rocket Docket Court procedure, or what led such person or persons unknown, to conclude that “no legal defense” existed.
  16. Judge Thompson concluded this portion of his introduction as he always does in such sessions by stating “If anyone believes that they do have a legal defense they need to speak up.  His actions in the instant case and on other occasions referred to in Exhibit C belied those words.
  17. Defendants (GMD) and his wife Valerie J. Doney, (VJD) acting pro se, attended the Hearing and as detailed herein, had previously filed extensive pleadings in this case, most of which had been filed in good time to be available to Judge Thompson on the electronic record available to him at the Hearing and the date and time stamped copy of additional and pertinent evidence filed in the Court  just before the Hearing commenced which was brought by Defendants to the Court, that given the opportunity Defendants would have handed up to the Judge on the bench.
  18. What Judge Thompson’s Order improperly refers to as a Hearing lasted no more than two minutes, did not follow the format described in that document which was signed by Judge Thompson and was conducted in the presence of a Court Reporter, being Jackie Burrell, one of the owners of Von Ahn Associates Inc., provided by the Defendants at their expense.  A copy of the Court Report is at Exhibit D.
  19. Defendants regret to bring to the Court’s attention that despite the provisions of Florida Staute 90.108(2) this Court Report is inaccurate and aver that it is manifestly obvious to any reader of that report, even if the reader had not been present at the Hearing to draw that inescapable conclusion.
  20. This Court Report cannot be a true record of what transgressed at this Hearing as it opens with the words spoken by Judge Thompson addressed to GMD, “Did you just listen to what I said?”  Clearly there must have been something Defendant GMD said to have provoked such a response and the fact is that in front of a Courtroom full of witnesses GMD had read the opening words that he had previously drafted from a sheet of paper he was holding in his hand.(Exhibit E).
  21. Some of those words appear on the Court Report slotted in an obviously incorrect place right at the end of this non-Hearing, just prior to the aggravated battery by an armed Bailiff on Defendant GMD’s person, referred to hereinafter, and clearly did not reflect what actually transpired during the Hearing.  Only when an electronic copy of this document has lines 9 through 17 on page four of the transcript cut and pasted in front of line 1 on page three, does it make any sense as a cohesive transcript and also accurately reflect the sense of what was actually said and the order in which it was said by the three parties whose voices it purports to have recorded.
  22. In addition to the sworn testimony of Defendant GMD an Affidavit is also filed by Christian Meister, EXHIBIT F, and further Affidavits may be subsequently filed by another person or persons, who were in the Court and witnessed the events described in this Motion.
  23. However, in the event that the Court strictly upholds the provisions of Fla. Sta. 90.108 (2) despite the evidence now submitted, there is more than sufficient content in that Court Report to establish that the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure, signed by Judge Thompson is not an accurate and fair record of what actually transpired and to establish that the alleged violations contained hereinabove and in GMD’s Affidavit to be filed in the Court are accurate with regard to breaches by Judge Thompson, Attorneys Scott McKay and James Goetz of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida and/or of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Florida Bar, by both Judge and Attorneys in this case.
  24. In the case of Attorneys McKay and Goetz and especially in the case of McKay this conduct was not confined to the Courtroom as detailed in evidence filed in the Court and continued after the Hearing in inappropriate e-mails sent to Defendant GMD. [EXHIBIT G].
  25. Full details of what transpired subsequent to GMD receiving the transcript from Von Ahn between GMD and Jackie Burrell, who states that she is a part owner of Von Ahn are contained in the Affidavit at Exhibit C.
  26. The Court should also be aware that at the conclusion of Judge Thompson’s treatment of GMD and concurrent with the laying of an armed Bailiff’s hands upon GMD’s arm, a person known to me, Christian Meister, who was one of a large number of witnesses to these events [and who has now filed an Affidavit in this case] while sitting in the Courtroom, sprang to his feet and was shouting at Judge Thompson that as a Sheriff’s candidate he wanted him to know that he had never before witnessed such a miscarriage of justice and that he intended to make certain that the people of Lee County would learn of the corruption that was taking place in this Court.  Defendants played no part in what Christian Meister said that day, it had not been pre-planned and Defendants can only assume it to have occurred as a result of his genuine disgust at what he witnessed in Judge Thompson’s Rocket Docket Court.
  27. A sworn statement in support of this Motion from Defendant GMD is in course of preparation and will be submitted to this Court within the next week.    This statement, together with the Court Reporter’s  inaccurate transcript of what little proceedings took place evidence, inter alia, fraud upon the Court, lack of standing to continue this lawsuit, no subject matter jurisdiction, no Plaintiff, misrepresentations and changes of story by Attorneys McKay and Goetz, violations of law, violation of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(c), breaches of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including denial of equal access rights by Judge Thompson [in his capacity as a Rocket Docket Judge to an educated, law abiding, elderly, hearing impaired American pro se litigant], Ordering Summary Judgment, [not after a careful Judicial weighing of all the overwhelming evidence, as is stated in the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure] which bears a Clerk of the Court date stamp indicating that it was filed in the Court on the day of the ‘Hearing’ (a Friday) [despite the conflicting statement that it was recorded on 12/08/2009 at 8.34am the following Monday].
  28. Even the inaccurate Court Report demonstrates that all the evidence contained in Defendant’s Pleadings against frivolous pleadings from a non-existent Plaintiff in order to establish matters of law, fact, and/or equity, had been ignored and Judge Thompson elected instead to inflict upon both Defendants an unprovoked angry punishment [when the Court Proceedings evidence that VJD had not said a word during this ‘Hearing’ and that VJD is the spouse who invested substantial equity derived from her retirement funds into this property that was over appraised by the former Century Bank].
  29. The clearly intended harsh discipline and humiliation Judge Thompson inflicted upon both Defendants for the ‘crime’ committed by GMD for daring to ask permission as a Hearing Impaired Senior Citizen, in compliance with his basic Constitutional and legal rights to be allowed equal access as was and is always afforded to the non-Plaintiff’s counsel and finally causing two police officers of the three armed bailiffs in his Court to move towards Defendants with one of them coming through the swing door in the Court barrier and by laying hands on Defendant George M. Doney while shouting at him “The Judge has ruled”  causing an unnecessary aggravated battery of his elderly person, causing him to feel very unwell from the shock of such unprovoked treatment.
  30. Defendant, GMD also informs the Court that on knowledge and belief, Judge Thompson displayed a personal bias against him which should have brought about his Recusal based upon GMD’s prior appearances in his Court as a witness, when with the Judge’s permission he had explained in detail the extent of the void and fraudulent judgments that emanated from the Rocket Docket Court backed up by exhibits of multiple fraudulent documents filed in the Court by purported counsels to Plaintiffs.
  31. GMD is a regular observer of Judge Thompson, from his attendances at the Rocket Docket Court, sometimes as an observer, or when he has filed Witness Affidavits in that Court.  Due to the volume of cases processed there every day he has observed such outbursts of bias on many occasions, often showing his intolerance and anger against Defendants when they raise questions and objections. Some of those have been cases where GMD has personal knowledge of the facts of the case as a result of his investigations, compilation of evidence and preparation of Affidavits, which on one such occasion, just like the instant case, Judge Thompson refused to read.   Details are contained in GMD’s Affidavit to be filed in the Court when it is completed and which include GMD’s two presentations that Judge Thompson permitted him to make on the afternoon of April 24, 2009 during the consideration of a case in which he had filed an evidence Affidavit and numerous EXHIBITS which proved extensive fraud in that case and many others that demonstrated that this filing of fraudulent documents followed a pattern.
  32. Subsequently, despite an Order being issued for the case to be referred to the Assigned Judge it was not recorded in the Court Docket and the Plaintiff once again brought the case before Judge Thompson on July 14, 2009 when Judge Thompson permitted GMD to speak as a witness and displayed bias against a pro se litigant, this time in front of a Court Reporter.  Details will be provided in the forthcoming GMD Affidavit.
  33. GMD believes that pattern and others within his personal knowledge are sufficient to demonstrate Racketeering and the active involvement of foreclosure Mill Attorneys and others.
  34. In the instant case no Default had been entered in the Court, a procedurally correct Answer and Affirmative Defenses had been filed by Defendants as had Motions to Strike and for Summary Judgment to be entered in Defendants’ favor, Attorneys McKay and Goetz represented to the Court that the so-called Plaintiff, the former Century Bank was a bona fide Plaintiff despite having previously been shut down by its regulator, ‘The Office of Thrift Supervision,’ for inter alia, dangerous banking practices and Federal Truth in Lending Act violations, the original Complaint was defective, counsel had misrepresented the facts and claimed to still be representing their now defunct entity, while simultaneously claiming to represent non-party IberiaBank, making false, vague and hearsay statements in their Pleadings (in their capacities as counsels) about an alleged, but unsubstantiated arrangement they claimed the ‘Plaintiff’ had with the FDIC in order to falsely show Standing for that bank in this matter and which argument was wholly unsustainable by the facts displayed in the FDIC’s Purchase and Assumption Agreement with that bank, dated November 13, 2009.
  35. Commencing on November 16, 2009, GMD made one telephone call and sent three e-mails to Attorney McKay which were filed in the Court.  Details of this unsatisfactory telephone call and subsequent e-mails are contained in GMD’s Affidavit of Support to this Motion, but Defendants wish to draw the Court’s particular attention to the fact that Attorney McKay specifically asked for the Hearing [in his Re-Notice of Hearing to be held on December 4, 2009] to be held in Courtroom 5H, the Court most frequently used for the Rocket Docket Court and where Judge Thompson was presiding and not Judge Rosman who is the assigned Judge on this case.
  36. Defendants also state that Attorney McKay was repeatedly told that the Rocket Docket Court was not appropriate as this was a contested case and no Default had been issued, making Summary Judgment inappropriate.  Case Law will be supplied in the forthcoming GMD Affidavit to be filed in the Court.
  37. Judge Thompson signed the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure on December 4, 2009 and it was filed in the Court that same Friday afternoon, although it was not electronically recorded until the following Monday morning, December 8, 2009 at 8.34 AM.  It is obvious that with at least 200 cases to process that afternoon coupled with the fact that the instant case was the first he ‘heard’ that Judge Thompson simply placed his signature on a document prepared by Attorney McKay and/or Attorney Goetz and did not read the content of that document, [which seems to be verified in the Court report on line 19 of page 3 by the words addressed to Attorney Goetz, "Give me a Summary Judgment"], or alternatively, he was fully aware of its content and was prepared to knowingly place his signature on a document that by his own recorded admissions in the Court Report he knew to be a series of false statements.
  38. Had Judge Thompson actually read the document that he signed he would have known that his statement, “After…………… reviewing the pleadings and affidavits filed herein, and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court orders and finds as follows:” to be completely false, as by Judge Thompson’s own admission and recorded statement on lines 6 to 9 on page 3 of the Court Report he knew nothing about the case when GMD was seeking to approach the bench and prior to saying to Attorney Goetz, “Give me a Summary Judgment” did not review any of the Defendant’s pleadings and affidavits filed and did not conduct a hearing on the matter.
  39. It is therefore indisputable that at no time did Judge Thompson review anything prior to signing the Final Judgment in Foreclosure and by those admissions he has either deliberately, or negligently signed that Order in contravention of Canon 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct.
  40. In paragraph 1 he states “This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this action.”  The Judge knows that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist when the Plaintiff does not have a cause of action, or where the Plaintiff was an entity that has been forced to close its business for inter alia dangerous banking practices and violations of the Truth in Lending Act, or where intrinsic frauds or extrinsic frauds have been committed to mislead the Court into showing a Cause of Action where none exists.
  41. Paragraph 2 of this Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure signed by Judge Thompson, states “The allegations contained in the complaint have been proved by substantial and competent evidence.”  It further states that, “The equities of this action are with the plaintiff, and plaintiff is entitled to foreclose the mortgage on the real property at issue in this foreclosure bearing the following legal description…………………”
  42. Defendants aver that all three of these statements conflict with The Code of Judicial conduct for the State of Florida Canon 3A and B as detailed in Exhibit B.
  43. As repeatedly stated in this Motion, in previous Motions submitted to the Court and as stated  by Defendant GMD to Judge Thompson when he stated “the Plaintiff gets to speak first” there was no legitimate Plaintiff able to continue this action and the absent counsel Attorney McKay and the local counsel Goetz were both aware of that fact before they submitted their fraudulent documents to the Court and Goetz was testifying at the ‘Hearing’ and Attorney McKay had been repeatedly reminded of that same fact by GMD, once on the telephone and three times in e-mails commencing on November 16, 2009 immediately after he became aware that this entity no longer existed.
  44. GMD avers that not one shred of evidence that complies with the Florida Evidentiary Code Statute was submitted by Attorneys McKay and/or Goetz either before the ‘Hearing’ or during that ‘Hearing.’  Defendants however, do recognize that hearsay and deliberately inaccurate statements that purport to portray facts to the Court were contained in their written pleadings and in an Affidavit by a now former employee of Century Bank that was challenged as inadmissible hearsay in Defendant’s pleadings.
  45. In contrast, Defendants had submitted very substantial evidence that was in conformity with Fla. Stats. 90.202 (12) and (13), and as admitted by Judge Thompson were not even looked at and he could not therefore claim that the allegations of this ‘dead pretend plaintiff’ “had been proved by substantial and competent evidence.”  In fact evidence that was in compliance with the Evidentiary Code Statute and filed in the Court by the Defendants proved conclusively the opposite of what Judge Thompson’s Summary Judgment has claimed.
  46. As there was no plaintiff, the equities could not have been with it and it was not entitled to foreclose or to do anything in this Court.  It is also a fact that the only evidence submitted to the Court and the only Affidavits submitted to the Court emanated from the Defendants.  Therefore Judge Thompson’s statement that “The allegations contained in the complaint have been proved by substantial and competent evidence must be false on two counts.  First there was no evidence submitted by the pretend Plaintiff [other than inadmissible and/or hearsay statements contained in pleadings].
  47. Second, the only evidence that was filed in this action had been filed in the Court by the Defendants prior to the ‘Hearing’, including the full text of the Purchase and Assignment Agreement entered into with IberiaBank by the FDIC and which provides proof positive of the misleading and fraudulent pleadings put into Court by counsel for the pretend plaintiff, the former Century Bank.
  48. Further evidence was submitted to the Court that Defendant VJD had invested personal retirement funds in this property of close to $200,000.  Clearly the equities cannot be with the ‘dead bank’ and even if IberiaBank could have been legitimately substituted, which it could not as shown in the evidence for reasons of failure to comply with Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.260(c) and failure to fall within the provisions of the inappropriate case law submitted by counsel for the ‘plaintiff,’ Defendant’s evidence in the form of the FDIC’s published Purchase and Assumption Agreement with IberiaBank, that entity invested zero Dollars in any loan that was shown in their records as ‘in default’ and was previously owned or serviced by Century Bank.
  49. Further as previously submitted in evidence to the Court, the actual list of loans transferred has been redacted by the FDIC, and no proof that this loan was ever transferred to that Bank is currently available and therefore there is no evidence to support any of the misleading and broad statements made by Attorney McKay.
  50. Paragraph 3 of the Order signed by Judge Thompson states, “Plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage in this matter. Plaintiff’s mortgage is a valid lien on the property, and the mortgage is in default as alleged in this action.”  This is a further inaccurate statement which conflicts with paragraph 2 of the Complaint which states, “Plaintiff or it’s assigns [emphasis added] currently owns and holds the promissory note and mortgage being foreclosed, which clearly establishes that even when Century Bank was an existing entity it was unable to categorically make the statement that Judge Thompson now makes for it in its capacity as a ‘dead entity.’
  51. Defendants aver that the Equities are clearly and unarguably with Defendant VJD and that it appears that the sole objective of these fraudulent submissions is for IberiaBank for an investment of zero Dollars, underwritten by the FDIC against any loss, to get a free windfall to which it has absolutely no entitlement.  Judge Thompson, by multiple violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct and his allowing one of the Court Bailiffs to engage in aggravated battery of a Florida Senior Citizen has used the color of law for fraudulent purposes.
  52. Paragraph 4 of Judge Thompson’s Order states a total amount owing, including Attorney’s fees of $377,312.64.   This is a further unsubstantiated statement, whereas Defendants state that the ‘plaintiff’ does not exist, that on the date of the ‘Hearing’ it could not have verified what it claims was owing to it by virtue of the fact that it ceased to exist on November 13, 2010 and despite the frequent claims of Attorney McKay that he is in contact with their staff and employees since that date.
  53. Paragraph 5 of the Summary Judgment and Order states that the Attorney fee is reasonable.  This is a further violation of the Judicial Code.  If the submissions of the Attorneys were false and deliberately misleading [as clearly proven by Defendant's evidence filed in the Court] no amount of fees can be construed as reasonable for presenting false evidence to secure a Judgment.
  54. Paragraph 6 of the Order states that the Plaintiff has a lien to secure the payment of the aforesaid sums against the property.  Defendants, again aver that ‘no existing entity’ translates into ‘no existing Plaintiff’, which in turn translates into no lien.
  55. The rest of this void Judgment is concerned with the improper sale of this property set for January 7, 2010.  Defendants state, “This proposed sale of Real Property based upon a void Judgment, fraudulent pleadings and other documents submitted by Attorney McKay and Goetz on behalf of a non-existent Plaintiff, is an extension of the fraud contained in the Judgment and as such, places a cloud on the title of this property which means that the Court should not allow it to proceed and should immediately order a Stay of the Sale pending the resolution of this Motion.
  56. Defendants wish to draw to the attention of this Court that all the separate matters contained in this Verified Motion are of a very serious nature and that every statement contained therein is either backed by the Fla.R.Civ.P., by relevant case law, the Evidentiary Code Statutes, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and/or The Codes of Conduct governing Judges and Attorneys in the State of Florida.  Many of the specific issues contained in this Motion, in previous Motions or Pleadings that have been ignored by the Court, if proven have severe criminal implications in addition to the Civil Matters to which this Motion is addressed.
  57. The Court should also be aware that in all other cases that GMD has researched of a similar nature, both in Lee County and in other Florida Counties where Century Bank, IberiaBank and Attorney McKay and/or Attorney Goetz have been involved that the same fraudulent submissions have been made, evidencing that these misrepresentations are not just confined to the 20th Circuit.
  58. For the Court’s further information a copy of a letter sent by email to Attorney McKay today is at EXHIBIT H.

WHEREAS, Defendants George M. Doney and Valerie J. Doney move this Court to set a Hearing to vacate this void and fraudulent Judgment, immediately Order that this case be Dismissed with Prejudice and if legal fees are subsequently incurred the payment by the Attorney’s misrepresenting themselves as counsel for what they both knew to be a non existent entity, and sanctions against those Attorneys, Disciplinary action against Judge Thompson and an undertaking that he will never again be permitted to preside over any case in which either of the Defendants are parties, or any case where GMD has submitted witness statements in order to avoid any further bias or prejudice of the kind that Defendants have clearly evidenced that they have been subjected to in this case.

Defendants request a Hearing Date to vacate this void and fraudulent Judgment at the earliest possible convenient date for the parties and the Court and in view of the substantial evidence that is before this Court, but has been completely ignored, with the result that this Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure is both fraudulent and void within the meaning of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 (b) 3 and 4. In all the circumstances Judge Rosman as the Assigned Judge in this case is hereby requested to issue an emergency Order to Stay the Sale of the subject property, pending the Hearing to Vacate the Fraudulent and Void Judgment.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THE UNDERMENTIONED HEREBY CERTIFIES that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded, via e-mail on January 6, 2010 and by US Mail, to Scott D. McKay, Esq., McKay Law Firm P. A. , counsel for Plaintiff, 2055 Wood Street, Suite 120, Sarasota, Florida 34237 on this 5th day of January, 2010.

George M. Doney                     Valerie J. Doney

16211 Shenandoah Circle,

Fort Myers, Florida 33908

Phone 239 466 3627

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF LEE

PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority in and for the aforesaid County and State, on this the 6th day of January, 2010 within my jurisdiction, the within named GEORGE  M. DONEY, who acknowledged to me that he is the Affiant signing this document, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purpose and consideration therein expressed as his act and deed and in the capacity therein stated.  He is personally known to me and did take the oath.

WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid the _____day of _____________, _____.

Robert E. Lee’s Birthday (and Edgar Allen Poe’s)

Today is Tuesday, Jan. 19, the 19th day of 2010. There are 346 days left in the year.

Today’s Highlight in History:

On Jan. 19, 1960, the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America was signed by both countries in Washington, D.C. (Domestic opposition to the treaty led to the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi (nah-boo-soo- keh kee-shee)).

On this date:

In 1807, Confederate general Robert E. Lee was born in Westmoreland County, Va.; until sometime in the 1960s, or possibly even the early 1970s, January 19 was a holiday celebrated in Louisiana, Texas, Virginia and many other states formerly belonging to the Confederate States of America.  When I was a law clerk in West Palm Beach in 1992-1993, the people of Okechobee, Florida, and several other inland “Cracker” towns were famous for still celebrating the (by then unofficial) birthday of one of West Point’s finest graduates, who built the first levees along the Mississippi River and was instrumental in the founding of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  My good college friend John K. Naland, now of the U.S. State Department, had the honor of serving in the same U.S. Army First Company, First Division, First Army, of which Captain Robert E. Lee was once commander.  The college fraternity called “KA of the South” at Tulane when I was an undergraduate still had Full-Dress (Confederate Officer Grey) Uniformed Parades with their little sisters in southern belle costume on this day around the statute of General Lee, eternally facing north, at the center of Lee Circle on St. Charles in New Orleans, right around the block from Confederate Memorial Hall, where Jefferson Davis was laid to rest in 1893.  It is a great historical museum, and is now adjacent to both the Museum of Southern Art and the World War II (formerly D-Day) Museum.  And yes, my great great grandfather and his brothers all fought with General Lee at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and one of them (“Wolf”) was wounded and lay on the battle field for 3 days, until he was taken to a Northern P.O.W. hospital camp, where he was healed and ultimately released, in New York, where he got a job at the Bank of New York, and was then transferred back to New Orleans where he met and married an Acadienne (Cajun) girl of French and Native American (Tunica-Biloxi) descent.  His son (my great-grandfather Benjanmin) became a state Judge.  My grandmother Helen grew up in the most amazing cultural melange of Southern Confederate Nostalgic Patriotism, adoringly Francophone/Francophile  heritage, and Post-Reconstruction mixed racially prejudiced and ambiguously ethical and arrogant.  She inherited her grandfather’s blue eyes and pale skin along with her grandmother’s straight black and thick hair, and told stories about how she was afraid that she would be separated from her fair-haired sisters and ordered to the “back of the bus” or trains in the same state that required 1/8 African = 7/8 White “Octaroon” Homer Adolph Plessy to ride in the back of the St. Charles streetcar.  New Orleans up until about 1880 had known no such thing as de jure segregation, even though it had started up in other parts of the South after the War as the defeated whites tried to protect themselves and their heritage.  Such things are now called “invidious racism” when performed by whites, but cheered as justifiable and laudable “ethnic pride and heritage” by all other groups.

In 1809, author, poet and critic Edgar Allan Poe was born in Boston.

In 1853, Giuseppe Verdi’s opera “Il Trovatore” premiered in Rome.

In 1861, Georgia seceded from the Union.

In 1937, millionaire Howard Hughes set a transcontinental air record by flying his monoplane from Los Angeles to Newark, N.J., in seven hours, 28 minutes and 25 seconds.

In 1955, a presidential news conference was filmed for television for the first time, with the permission of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In 1966, Indira Gandhi was elected prime minister of India.

In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court; however, the nomination was defeated because of controversy over Carswell’s past racial views.

In 1980, retired Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas died in Washington, D.C. at age 81.

In 1990, Arthur J. Goldberg, former Supreme Court justice, labor secretary and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, was found dead in his Washington apartment at age 81.

Ten years ago: Michael Skakel (SKAY’-kul), a nephew of Robert F. Kennedy, was charged with bludgeoning to death 15-year-old Martha Moxley in Greenwich (GREH’-nich), Conn. in 1975, when he was also 15. (Skakel was later convicted, and is appealing.) A dormitory fire at Seton Hall University in New Jersey killed three people and injured 62. Former Italian Prime Minister Bettino Craxi died in Tunisia at age 65. Actress Hedy Lamarr was found dead in her Orlando, Fla. home; she was 85.

Five years ago: Previewing his second inauguration, President George W. Bush pledged to seek unity in a nation divided by political differences, saying, “I am eager and ready for the work ahead.” Condoleezza Rice won strong but not unanimous endorsement as secretary of state from a Senate panel. The American Cancer Society reported that cancer had passed heart disease as the top killer of Americans age 85 and younger. Former chairman and chief executive of Citicorp Walter B. Wriston died in New York at age 85.

One year ago: Russia and Ukraine signed a deal restoring natural gas shipments to Ukraine and paving the way for an end to the nearly two-week cutoff of most Russian gas to a freezing Europe.

Today’s Birthdays: Former U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar is 90. Actress Jean Stapleton is 87. Actor Fritz Weaver is 84. Actress Tippi Hedren is 80. Former PBS newsman Robert MacNeil is 79. Movie director Richard Lester is 78. Singer Phil Everly is 71. Actor-singer Michael Crawford is 68. Actress Shelley Fabares is 66. Country singer Dolly Parton is 64. ABC newswoman Ann Compton is 63. TV chef Paula Deen is 63. Rock singer Martha Davis is 59. Singer Dewey Bunnell (America) is 58. Actor Desi Arnaz Jr. is 57. Comedian Paul Rodriguez is 55. Conductor Sir Simon Rattle is 55. Actress Katey Sagal is 53. Reggae musician Mickey Virtue (UB40) is 53. Rock musician Jeff Pilson (Foreigner) is 52. Actor Paul McCrane is 49. Actor William Ragsdale is 49. Tennis player Stefan Edberg is 44. Rock singer Whitfield Crane (Ugly Kid Joe) is 42. Singer Trey Lorenz is 41. Actor Shawn Wayans is 39. Rock singer-musician John Wozniak (Marcy Playground) is 39. Actress Drea (DRAY-uh’) de Matteo is 38. Comedian-impression ist Frank Caliendo is 36. Actress Marsha Thomason is 34. Actress Jodie Sweetin is 28. Actor Logan Lerman is 18. Olympic gold medal gymnast Shawn Johnson is 18.

Thought for Today: “Any girl can be glamorous. All you have to do is stand still and look stupid.” — Hedy Lamarr, Austrian-American actress (1914-2000).

January 24, 2011: Boy Scouts-1908, Casablanca-1943, Churchill-1965, Ted Bundy-1989

Today in History — Monday, Jan. 24 (Stephanie Romanov/Lilah Morgan on Angel)

By The Associated Press

Today is Sunday, Jan. 24, the 24th day of 2010. There are 341 days left in the year.

Today’s Highlight in History:

On Jan. 24, 1848, James W. Marshall discovered a gold nugget at Sutter’s Mill in northern California, a discovery that led to the gold rush of ’49.   Now “All the Gold in California” has been outlawed as ordinary currency, so that somehow the Constitutional mandate that only gold and silver be used as tender for all debts, public and private, has been precisely turned on its head, yet no one seems to care.

On this date:

In 1742, Charles VII was elected Holy Roman Emperor during the War of the Austrian Succession.  The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling last year about this time, held that large corporations and millionaires will be entitled to spend all that they want on future “wars of succession” in the United States.

In 1908, the Boy Scouts movement began in England under the aegis of Robert Baden-Powell.   I was a Cub Scout who made it into Webelos, but never into a full Boy Scout.  My Charlie son started as a Bear (I had started as a wolf, the year before) but made it into full Boy Scout-hood and finally just before graduating High School (about this time last year) became a full-fledged Eagle Scout—so far as I know he is the first Eagle Scout in our family.  It is ironic to think of the conceptual relationship between Scouting and “Hitler Youth” and various communistic youth groups, as Baden-Powell’s own name seemed to transcend the Anglo-Germanic cultural and linguistic line.   The younger girl’s equivalent “Brownies” (pre-Girl Scouts, but allies in the famous cookie sales) are even in color coding reminiscent of the “Brown Shirts” of the 1920s and ’30s, and even more recently a commentator on Buffy the Vampire Slayer referred to the “Potential Slayers” in Season VII as “Brown Skirts”—in that Vampire Slayers exist to make war on a disfavored ethnic minority who hate and shun the Cross and are burned by Holy Water (and the general association is such that LA Jewish Weekly, in December of 2009, felt compelled to run a front page article, “Jews are not Vampires.”

In 1924, the Russian city of Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg) was renamed Leningrad in honor of the late revolutionary leader. (However, it has since been renamed St. Petersburg.)   No country on earth (except I suppose Germany between 1914-1989 and/or the American South from 1856-1976) has ever gone through anything like the 75 year convulsions and roller-coaster ride through political and economic systems that Russia experienced moving from Tzarist rule at the beginning of 1917 through the foundation and elaboration of Soviet Communism in the LEAST developed nations of Europe to the final collapse of that system by 1992.  Yes, 75 years that saw several levels of civilization wiped out and rebuilt over the corpses of millions.  Not as bad or brutal as the cultural revolution in China, the irony is that China is now generally seen as the more successfully capitalistic of the two countries that (when I was a kid) were emblematic of the struggle for world communism.  If had to be a Russian and could choose, I think I would have liked to have lived as an adult in the first quarter of the 20th century, because the hopes and aspirations of revolutionary communism were so noble, before the horrors of the Stalinist purges wiped out all illusions of communist decency.

Trotsky was the last decent communist, but he died at the hands of  Stalin’s agents in Mexico City during August of 1940, one year after the Stalin-Hitler Pact.  Trotsky had fled and finally settled in Mexico after being expelled from the Communist Party after Stalin’s rise to power.  As summarized in Wikipedia (as the entry existed at 9:00 pm on Monday, January 25, 2010)(I appreciate the commentator who pointed out that in my original version I had mistakenly given the year of Trotsky’s death as 1938—sorry folks, I do these things from memory and I wasn’t thinking—I wonder how many college students in the United States today know anything about Trotsky or the Socialist Internationals or for that matter, how many college students or other Americans can recall or imagine what Mexico City was like before it was choked by overpopulation and automotive pollution.

My grandparents visited regularly from the 1920s-1980s described it as one of the most climatically perfect spots on earth—until about the year I was born, unfortunately, so I never saw it that way either, although they continued to visit the opera there until the year after my grandfather died—they knew Placido Domingo when he was a student at the Conservatorio Nacional de la Musica in Polanco, Mexico City, in the 1950s and were instrumental in bringing him to Dallas, where he performed in the Dallas Civic Opera in 1961—they took me to New York when I was 8 for his Metropolitan Opera Debut…I later became a great fan of Domingo myself and think he has far outshown Pavrotti and Carreras throughout his career….especially in his performances of Wagnerian opera, of which, ironically enough, anti-Fascist Leon Trotsky was supposedly a great fan):

As the head of the Fourth International, Trotsky continued in exile to oppose the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and was eventually assassinated in Mexico by Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent. Trotsky’s ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term coined as early as 1905 by his opponents in order to separate it from Marxism. Trotsky’s ideas remain a major school of Marxist thought that is opposed to the theories of Stalinism. He was one of the few Soviet political figures who were never rehabilitated by the Soviet administration.

(But to return from this lengthy digression to the historical record for January 24….):

In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill concluded a wartime conference in Casablanca, Morocco.

In 1965, Winston Churchill died in London at age 90.

In 1978, a nuclear-powered Soviet satellite, Cosmos 954, plunged through Earth’s atmosphere and disintegrated, scattering radioactive debris over parts of northern Canada.

In 1985, the space shuttle Discovery was launched from Cape Canaveral on the first secret, all-military shuttle mission.

In 1987, gunmen in Lebanon kidnapped educators Alann Steen, Jesse Turner and Robert Polhill and Mitheleshwar Singh. (All were eventually released.)

In 1989, confessed serial killer Theodore Bundy was executed in Florida’s electric chair.   People like Ted Bundy definitely make capital punishment seem like an attractive option, but there is some irony that rare serial killers and their execution are such iconic events in the history of mankind, while the mass imprisonment of hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of other Americans hardly makes the news at all.  The Federal government can indict and convict almost anyone of almost anything, because the Federal prosecutors so closely control the grand juries and Federal Judges so closely control the petit juries that independent thought among jurors is probably rarer than death by drowning in showers….  Anglo-American juries were historically not so impotent, and all Americans should reflect on what can be done to restore the power of juries.

I have very little that’s good to say about the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but he does consistently favor restoration of power to juries.  Of course, he probably does so only because of a slavish dedication to popular and legislative choice and decisions that it is almost impossible to find a legislatively enacted statute which is so bad as to be found “unconstitutional” in Scalia’s eyes.

In 2003, Tom Ridge was sworn in as the first head of the new Department of Homeland Security.  The spirits of the Stalin’s NKVD and Himmler’s SS were present at this inauguration, and they applauded loudly.   Nothing should be higher on any Patriotic American’s list of national priorities than the abolition of Homeland Security and most of its components and powers, as well as the full and 100% repeal of the 2001 Patriot Act (as amended through this day) and its predecessor the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) which together have all but outlawed the Constitution, not only for the living, but I discovered today, even for the dead: corpses and other “human remains” entering the United States are controlled and regulated by Homeland Security and private parties cannot arrange such transportation—only government licensed funeral homes!  We live in a Maoist version of America—and this particular amendment to the Patriot Act and the powers of Homeland Security was only enacted 7 months ago, according to what they told me at “Delta Care” (the division of Delta/Northwest Airlines that is responsible for the “cargo” transportation of “human remains”…..).  As Ronald Reagan said, and as I always quote: “The most terrifying phrase in the English language is: ‘we’re from the government and we’re here to help you.’”  RUN do not walk when you hear any version of those who support such policies…..

Ten years ago: Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore posted victories in the Iowa caucuses.

Five years ago: Authorities in Iraq said Sami Mohammed Ali Said al-Jaaf, an al-Qaida lieutenant in custody, had confessed to masterminding most of the car bombings in Baghdad.

The United Nations broke with years of protocol and commemorated the 60-year anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps, directly linking its own founding with the end of the Holocaust in some of the strongest language ever.   This is, I think, a very real direct link.  It is not too much to say that the Nazi Holocaust is the foundation for modern Globalist “Religion.”  It is the credo and the sanctus of the modern political “eucharist” of Thanksgiving for Globalism and World Peace.    The U.N., of course, is the Agnus Dei (lamb of God) that taketh away the sins of the world by enforcing world uniformity and peace.    The Communist Chinese Government of Mao Tse Tung replaced the Free Chinese remnants of Chiang Kai-Shek on Taiwan in 1971 thanks to Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s efforts. Despite the nominal commitment of the United States in general and the Republican Party in particular to the defeat of world communism, the man who was then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations states as follows:

Ambassador George H. W. Bush: “Fellow Delegates, the issue is clearly marked now: inclusion or expulsion; impartiality or one-sided and arbitrary punishment. If this is not an important question, what is?”

Was George H.W. Bush a “sleeper” agent for the Communists?  His career and that of his son can be described in large part as the arc of the final triumph of Globalist Internationalism in the United States over the isolationist patriotism of Senator Barry Goldwater who proposed again in 1971 that the United States withdraw from the U.N. or at least cut all funding.   Nixon and Kissinger created and sponsored the political career and advancement of Ambassador George H.W. Bush.  Goldwater created and advanced the career of Governor Ronald Reagan, but when Reagan became President, it was the Nixon-Bush “moderate” approach which seemed to dominate the government, and prevent Ronald Reagan from keeping any part of his 1980 campaign promises to turn back the disastrous effects of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.   Richard Nixon had started out his political career as a virulent anti-communist but achieved his plaee in history by legitimizing Mao Tse-Tung and Chou En-Lai, the greatest criminal murders in world history, whose least effective and lowest henchmen make Ted Bundy look like one of Baden Powell’s Boy Scouts…. much (I feel certain, without knowing for sure) to the misery of Winston Churchill’s ghost…..accompanied by much spinning in the grave….

One year ago: Pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who safely landed a crippled US Airways jetliner in the Hudson River, received a hero’s homecoming in Danville, Calif. President Barack Obama met with his economic advisers after asking Americans to support his economic package as a way to better schools, lower electricity bills and health coverage for millions who lose insurance. Brazilian model Mariana Bridi, 20, died after contracting an infection that forced doctors to amputate her hands and feet.  Alissa Czisny won the women’s title at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships in Cleveland. Katie Stam of Indiana was crowned Miss America.

Today’s Birthdays: Actor Ernest Borgnine is 93.  I will always remember him as Quentin McHale in McHale’s Navy—always one of my favorites as the son of a Navy man and the grandson of another who made worldwide shipping safer and cleaner….

Actor Jerry Maren (“The Wizard of Oz”) is 91. Actor Marvin Kaplan (“Top Cat”) is 83. Cajun musician Doug Kershaw is 74. Singer-songwriter Ray Stevens is 71.

Singer-songwriter Neil Diamond is 69. Singer Aaron Neville is 69. Actor Michael Ontkean is 64. Actor Daniel Auteuil is 60. Country singer-songwriter Becky Hobbs is 60.

Comedian Yakov Smirnoff is 59. Bandleader-musician Jools Holland is 52. Actress Nastassja Kinski is 51.

Rhythm-and-blues singer Theo Peoples is 49. Country musician Keech Rainwater (Lonestar) is 47. HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan is 44. Comedian Phil LaMarr is 43.

Olympic gold medal gymnast Mary Lou Retton is 42.  I will never forget her performance and personality in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics if I live to be 120 years old….

Actress Stephanie Romanov (Lilah Morgan on Angel) is 41. Rhythm-and-blues singer Sleepy Brown (Society of Soul) is 40. Actor Matthew Lillard is 40.

Actress Merrilee McCommas is 39. Actor Ed Helms is 36. Actress Tatyana Ali is 31. Rock musician Mitchell Marlow (Filter) is 31. Actress Mischa Barton is 24.

Thought for Today: “God gives us relatives; thank God, we can choose our friends.” — Addison Mizner, American architect (1872-1933). It’s not necessarily the same thought, though it’s related, but my grandmother always used to say that the police really shouldn’t investigate or prosecute interfamily murders at all, “because if next of kin don’t know who deserves to live or die, nobody does.”  I think Oscar Wilde might have been sympathetic to this philosophical position…..

Death Came, as it must to all men, to Georges Kourembanas, my brother-in-law, age 51

I will say it again:

I have been an unworthy hypocrite to judge you; you and I were so much alike; you were always my brother; I shall miss you.

CEL III: Georges Kourembanas was a big man

He was a great body builder!

Georges in competition sometime in the mid-1980s

who loved his women, loved his dogs, loved his liquor and cigars, and was loved by all in turn.  He was strong and seemingly indestructible, but he just died at age 51.  How I resented him!  How I envied him!  How I hated him for his life of leisure and luxury living the last ten years of his life on Greek Islands in the Aegean and Cancun!  How I envied the fact that certain people loved and cared for him who could not love and would never care a fig for me!   How I wished that I were as physically strong as he was!   How I wished I had his life, and so, could any two males of the human species be less alike than me and my brother-in-law Georges, who died one week ago on Friday, January 22, 2010, at about 8-8:30 PM in Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, at his home with his mistress Lena who called him “Daddy”, even though knowing that he was beloved by his wife Lisa?

Last Saturday January 30, 2010, Georges Kourembanas was laid to rest beside his father, Panagiotis Kourembanas, a Greek Orthodox Priest, who also died young (at 54, in 1984) in Detroit, Michigan, though both father and son were born in Athens, Greece.  His family all surrounded and mourned him during this past week, although he had literally been an exile, shunned or ignored by all but his Anglo-American wife Lisa, who collapsed at the graveside, his mother, who after 37 years in the United States speaks less English than most foreign secondary school pupils immediately after flunking their first year exams in English, and his sisters, one of whom is my wife from whom I have been estranged for 8 continuous years now and my son, whom she and the system hid from me until he broke through the barricades and found me.

Not having any memory of the heartaches associated with Georges during 1990-1999, my 17 year old son Charlie was very sad about his uncle Georges, who died at age 51, just about two weeks after his birthday in fact, which was January 9—he was born in 1959, one year, three months and one day older than I am now.  He was healthy, at least considering everything, he was a body-builder (contestant representing Greece in the Mr. Universe pageant in 1983), who later became addicted to steroids and then to crack cocaine, which caused his family (including me) no end of trouble and grief.  But he was a good natured and happy guy. “I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”, said Shakespeares’ Mark Anthony, “the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones, so let it be with Caesar.”  In Georges’ case, it seems almost exactly the opposite (his family cried and forgave him all his sins), except that I plan here to write the good, the bad, the ugly, and try to put it all in the context of the world that I think made him who and what he was, and how he and I, as unlike as any two people could be, in so many ways have travelled along similar and parallel paths…rather lonely, difficult paths in fact….

You see, Georges and I both became, in very distinctive ways, victims of American injustice and oppression and the corruption of the American government in the “land of the free.”  We were both deprived of our rights.  We were both made to seem less that ordinary worthy citizens, and we suffered from these unconstitutional offenses against us, as did our country which inflicted these offenses…

First I should quote what my son Charlie, born August 23, 1992 under windows taped with St. Andrews Crosses at St. Mary’s Hospital “Birth Place” in Palm Beach, Florida, during the early landfall of Hurricane Andrews, wrote about his Uncle—(The Following Paragraphs are Charlie’s epitaph for his uncle):

CEL IV: To me, to my mother, to his own mother, and to his wife and friends, Georges Kourembanas was a Great Man, he lived a life that in some ways was extraordinary, eccentric, perhaps unenviable, but many, including some who never met him, would agree that there was something Great about his heart and soul as well as his body—his physical strength.  His mother was my maternal grandmother, Neonina (aka “Nina”) Kourembanas.

One of the dearest of all God’s Saints to me is Saint George.   I grew up reading my Father’s English stories of St. George and the Dragon under the white and red flag of England, but St. George was also the Patron Saint of my mother’s native Greece with its universally recognized blue and white flag, but also of Aragon, thus triangulating Europe (and my parents’ lives—my mother from Greece, my father of Anglo-American heritage, but they met in Mexico, speaking Spanish).   One of the few things my parents ever agreed on was to celebrate St. George’s Day on April 23, and we used to go to Saint George’s Church on St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans, where there were dragonslayer windows made and set by George Comfort Tiffany (damaged but not destroyed in Hurricane Katrina, 2005).

My Uncle Georges, had a traditional Orthodox Greek icon of Saint George in his room above his bed.  One of my earliest memories with Georges was in the 90s when I went to a Karate Tournament.  I won by tapping my opponents head, Georges remembered that very well and reminded it to me many times; I imagine he was proud as he himself was a boxer who won “golden gloves” in several tournaments (he told me this when I was in Cancun during the summer of 2007).

If I were to describe my uncle Georges in one word it would be that which he told me ran in our blood, Spartan.

Beside mere physical ability strength Georges was one of the kindest men I have ever met, he would often tell me that he loved me with all his heart, and “Charlie I have a big heart.”

Together while spending the summer with Georges in Cancun during July and August of 2007 he decided to train me in body building for he was one of best bodybuilders in the world. During the 80s he was awarded Mr. Michigan three times consequently he went to Greece and became Mr. Greece then in the Mr Universe competition which he won 8th place at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Georges Kourembanas was born in the Kingdom of Greece, son of an Orthodox Priest who married a model, so an unlikely start for a champion body builder. His Mother and Father immigrated to the United States in 1970 foreseeing the downfall of the Dictatorship of Papadoupoulous, and meeting up with George’s maternal Uncle John Samohin and George’s maternal Grandmother in Detroit, bringing both of Georges’ young sister, my mother Elena, with them (my aunt Alex was born in Detroit in 1973).

In the summer of 1974, after Georges had already started working out at the original PowerHouse Gym on Woodward St. in Detroit,  Georges went to Greece to visit with his parents and little sister Elena; there he witnessed the commotion in the streets of Athens during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

By 1980 Georges won “golden gloves” in boxing, having already won 1977 Teen Mr. Highlands 4th Place, and several other teen bodybuilding awards.  After graduating from High School George went to Wayne State University in Detroit. In 1981 Georges won Mr. Michigan, then in 1982 he was awarded Mr. Michigan Most Muscular, and then in 1983 he won 1st place Tall Mr. Michigan.

Since Georges was born in Greece, and could was not eligible to compete for the American title Mr. USA, so he went back to Greece to become Mr. Greece and to represent Greece in the 1984 Mr. Universe tournament in Las Vegas at Caesar’s Palace, where he took eighth place.

In 1984 Georges and his family suffered the loss of his Father, Panagiotis (aka “Peter”) Kourembanas; who was a Greek Orthodox Priest and fell of a heart attack while delivering the Good Friday Sermon in Toronto, Canada (Detroit and Toronto form part of the same Orthodox Diocese, or at least they did back then).

Georges by this time had already come to be known as ‘The Greek’ in many parts of Detroit. He met his future wife Lisa Ann Cook in 1983/4.  She was a beauty queen and a body builder herself—they were quite a striking couple.

Like so many athletes, I’m afraid that my uncle succumbed to the temptation of “enhancement” drugs, i.e., steroids, and unfortunately for him this led to other kinds of “substance abuse” with consequences I think my father will write more about below.  Drugs are apparently sold on credit—but since repossession of collateral to users is rarely an option, collection techniques tend to be significantly more than dunning letters followed by notices of default and acceleration.

In connection with one deal gone bad, Georges was shot on Valentine’s Day, February 14, 1990, in the head through the ear, a bullet that he would carry with him to his death, and while still conscious he protected himself, left the area in his 1987 Camaro, and instead of going to the hospital right away he drove, with blood squirting out of head, to Lisa under the impression that he was going to die. When Lisa saw him she convinced him to go to the hospital where he spent about a week not knowing wheather he would survive or not. By the Grace/Protection of God Georges said he survived.

Georges was shot again in Austin on Christmas morning 1990—he carried some of the bullets he got on those two occasions to his grave, but God had other plans for him than to die a victim of crime.  Instead, Georges died a victim of injustice, American injustice, and that’s where my father is going to take over and write the rest of this.  I can say very little more, except that my whole family have cried every night since he died, and I have lost one of my best friends, one of the few people who remained loyal both to my Father and Mother (along with his wife Lisa) during their long divorce and fighting.

CEL III: I confess that there was a time when I felt my brother in law was a terrible burden, an imposition, a weight sinking my life which I could not bear.  I blamed my wife and mother-in-law for what I called their “Co-Dependence” on Georges during his steroid abuse and crack-cocaine addiction years.  Today as we all remember him, I will try to forget the bitterness that I once felt—the unjust accusations I once made that he was the breaking factor in my marriage to Elena—because it was obviously our fault and no one else’s—oh well, perhaps some fault can be laid at the doors of “the system”, some of its judicial officers and agents, and particularly one false and treacherous Hungarian archaeologist ex-friend of mine, perhaps they were to blame also, but not Georges—Georges was true blue—flawed but stained if by anything then only with his own blood, and his own human frailty—yes, frailty, for all that he was strong enough to tear phonebooks apart.

Most of the substances which constitute modern illegal drugs have been known to man since the dawn of time….at least since the beginning of civilization. Some modern drugs, like “LSD” the favorite of so many young people in the 1960s-70s, and “Crack”–the synthetic form of Cocaine which became popular in the 1980s, and to which Georges eventually became addicted, are artificial, but clearly the need for mind-numbing intoxicants and poisons is one of the “discontents” of civilization to which Sigmund Freud so often referred.

In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a substance called “Soma” was rationed out to all people liberally—without any of the side effects of alcohol or other drugs.  The importance of drugs to the 19th century British Empire is epitomized by the “Opium Wars” which forced drugs on an isolationist China.  The importance of drugs to the 20th century American Empire is punctuated by the events of 1919, during which year the United States acquired the patent for Heroin and Bayer Aspirin from Germany as part of the Treaty of Versailles, at the same time that the United States passed the 18th Amendment imposing the Prohibition so definitive of the 1920s, and the origins of both organized crime and the earliest formation of a Federal Police State in the United States of America.  There are those who say that William Randolph Hearst was responsible for making George Washington’s favorite crop—Cannabis Sativa illegal in the 1930s to protect his own interest in synthetic fiber ropes, but the true beneficiaries of the suppression of marijuana were each and every police department and above all the FBI, DEA, and ATF organs of the Federal government, which grew and maximized their power with every new “commercial” regulation of drugs in violation of the constitutional liberties of the people.

Psychoactive or narcotic drugs have been used throughout history, and alcohol is still used without prescription to this day.  So I have asked myself, since I was a small child, how is it that opium aristocratically inspired so many poets and other historical figures from Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius to Cardinal Richlieu, as well as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Charles Dickens, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Edgar Allen Poe only to become an abomination forbidden by law in modern times….all over the Americas and Europe….

The reason to me is obvious: government cannot thrive except by forbidding and monopolizing that which people crave.  The earliest example of this in the history of the United States is the play of righteous emotions similar to those I confessed, at the start of this post, to feel about my brother-in-law Georges: envy and resentment of what others have.  The War Between the States in the years 1861-1865 was about many things, but one of them was the envy and resentment of the Northern Whites who prided themselves on hard work and self-sacrifice against the more indulgent, hedonistic, and languid slave-owners of the Southern white world.

The 13th Amendment forbade slavery or involuntary servitude, “except as a punishment for crime”—and from the day of Lee’s surrender at Appomattox until the present day, the prison population of the United States of America has grown until it is the largest in the world (relative to the population of the country as a whole) and the absolute number of incarcerated, paroled and otherwise judicially restrained black people now exceeds the number of African-American slaves in 1860 (and the number of white prisoners, parolees, and probationers exceeds the entire population of the American Colonies in 1776).

Three years before the secession of South Carolina on December 20 1860 through the secession of Texas on February 1, 1861, the United States Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Taney, handed down a significant decision in a case called Scott v. Sanford (1857) which decided, among many other things, that one state could not declare to be illegal a form of property which was legal in others, as a matter of comity, due process of law, and many other reasons.  The “due process” reasoning of Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in “the Dred Scott” case is still worth reading, although the memory of the 19th century’s most deadly and devastating war, three constitutional amendments, and many generations of civil rights litigation have otherwised tarnished the memory of the only U.S. Supreme Court case which can ever be said to have had an effect more disastrous than the Judgment of Paris….

So the thirteenth amendment abolished slavery or involuntary servitude EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME, and all of a sudden, the U.S. Criminal Codes started to expand exponentially—because civilized society will apparently not exist without slaves.  Having abolished one species of private property by war and constitutional amendment, the United States Government in the 20th Century started to regulate all manner of commerce and private property, which caused much unhappy spinning in the graves of the Founding Fathers.  Worst of all, the 1920s saw the triumph of the First Prohibition, in which the constitution was amended to forbid the sale of alcohol.  Having proved to be the worst experiment in the moralistic legislative history of the human race, Prohibition of Alcoholic Liquors was repealed in December  of 1933, but it was almost immediately replaced by utterly unconstitutional restraints on drugs such as cannabis sativa, cocaine, opium, and all their derivatives.  The “commerce clause” justification for the federal regulation of drugs is a farce, one of the cruelest hoaxes ever played on a free people, but to explain why no American Patriot would ever suggest that George Washington should have ploughed under his profitable “rope” crop would just be to go too far astray from this story, which is still about my brother-in-law, Georges Kourembanas.

The bottom line, to my mind, is that Government wanted to expand its power, and Government DID expand its power, by controlling what people have always naturally desired and craved: narcotic and psychoactive drugs.  The “War on Drugs”, since the phrase was coined by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller in an attempt to fill the prisons of his state and build more, but especially since this “War” was adopted by Richard Nixon whose advisors told him not merely to make “detente” with Communist China, but also to start emulating its policies of mass incarceration, has operated as one of the largest slavery-cum-corporate welfare programs in the history of the world.  Vast numbers of unemployed youths, skillful middle-aged businessmen, and entrepreneurs of every kind have, since about 1966, been swept into prison through coerced plea agreements engineered by a cabal of licensed attorneys and the judges who love and control them together with the corporate franchises which fund all of them, and between 1-2% of the American population is now locked into slavery from which escape is much less likely, and emancipation much more stringently regulated, than Antebellum slavery ever was in the South.

Computers mean that tracking of “escaped slaves” is much more certain and recapture much more likely than it ever was in the days of the “underground railroad”—and of course, all middle class whites, Northern and Southern, Eastern and Western, rejoice in the burgeoning population of the prisons until they or their relatives end up in the trap—at which time it’s just “too bad, so sad” that the privileged middle class population never learned that “none can be free until all are free.”

White America loves the “war on drugs” and the explosion of prison population which has accompanied it.  African and Hispanic Americans can be disproportionately incarcerated for the most trivial crimes, and the most uppity and enterprising white people are likewise incarcerated or threatened with incarceration whenever they get to “uppity” and/or “big for their britches”—unless of course, they are part of the truly immunized elite inner circle.  Entrepreneurial spirit and individual initiative rot in prisons—but corporate values flourished and corporate subservience is instilled in prison, in case you missed the lessons or ignored them in U.S. Elementary-High School (or for that matter in British schools whether portrayed by Dickens or in Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”).  Every indication is that President Barack Hussein Obama fully intends to crush every relic of American freedom that exists, and enforce a rigid conformity to his plans by ever expanding the powers of government through Homeland Security and more and more prisons, private and/or public. Guantanamo will eventually be closed, of course, and replaced by prisons inside the U.S. where indefinite detention without trial will be permitted and the Writ of Habeas Corpus lost forever.

But this is the unjust world reality which trapped and destroyed Georges Kourembanas during the years 1990-2000 and, more than any other single factor, caused his death in exile, however luxurious, in Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico on January 22, 2010.

You see, Georges, as noted above, was not born in the United States.  He was accepted and respected as an American in Michigan for years, as so many immigrants have been.  But Georges never gave up his Greek passport—he was content with a “Green Card” (as was his sister, my wife, throughout our marriage—although since our separation she has apparently gotten a Blue American Passport and given up her Democratia Hellinika-E.C. Diabaterio which I always thought was so neat….).  Well, at the very least, she’s voting now…..I’m not quite sure about all that….but I digress…

Georges Kourembanas was (unsurprisingly) arrested several times during his years “under the influence.”  In this he differed little from another fellow named George who just happened to be governor of Texas in 1999.  Aside from the natural class-based consequences of having an Orthodox Priest rather than a U.N. Ambassador and CIA Director for a Father, Georges Kourembanas’ life was little less accomplished than George W. Bush’s.  But as George W. Bush was riding on the modern American prison-based slave-ocracy and its attendant envies and corruptions, Georges Kourembanas was arrested and the government of his adopted land sought his deportation.   There is no “exile” for American citizens who misbehave, but there is deportation for legal residents who do the same or less.  Literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS bordering on MILLIONS of Hispanics are imprisoned throughout the United States for nothing much more than job hunting and maybe then getting drunk (and stopped) on a Saturday night.

I have often said that if Mexico were to imprison rowdy Americans in Cancun, Acapulco, and Mazatlan at the same rate that Mexicans are rounded up in the United States, that the United States would invade Mexico and bring about the North American Union immediately, without further delay or debate.  I also think to myself that there is no real contradiction between building a big prison-like unescapable/uncrossable fence along the Mexican border and proposed a North American Union, because the corporate powers of the United States would like nothing better than to convert Mexico into one gigantic prison-labor camp from which workers could be employed or removed as market conditions should necessitate.  If the politicians of Mexico had any pride….things would be different, but they are mostly former employees of American Corporations such as Coca-Cola, so it hardly matters.

“Moral Turpitude” is what makes people like Georges Kourembanas deportable.  ”Moral Turpitude” is a concept as amorphous as “original sin” which Immigration Courts use to send “undesirables” back from whence they came.  Was Georges Kourembanas less desirable than George W. Bush?  In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans around the world at least from Iraq-to Afghanistan, there is really no comparison or competition at all.  Georges Kourembanas as a man who loves his women, loves, his dogs, and loved his liquor, and never hurt anyone.  ”No one died when Clinton lied” was one of my favorite Bush-era bumper-stickers.

Georges family—my in-laws—took good care of him at the same time that they shunned me as my marriage to his sister resolved itself into a dew.  Care packages and love and visits flowed from Austin to Athens during the early 2000s after Georges took “voluntary departure” instead of deportation—he could have contested deportation but he would have stayed in jail for God knows how long while he did, and he was never convicted of anything which the Greek authorities thought worthy of note.  After a year or so in Athens Georges eventually settled in a Lemon grove amid olive and fig trees on a little island in the Aegean.  He lived there with Lena his mistress while his wife Lisa and his mother and sister and even my son visited him de temps en temps.

I am sure he was lonely and bored living there in a fruit orchard, but his family took care of him, so he never had to work, and I did envy him his existence no end.  I lived along during the years 2002-2007, but I talked to Georges’ American wife Lisa—sometimes almost daily, sometimes only once a week, recently (especially since I left Texas in 2007) not quite so often.  But Georges and Lisa talked to me and helped me keep up with news about my son when the truly criminal state domestic relations courts of Williamson County, Texas, took my son away from me.  So I got to know Georges better and talked to him more often by telephone during those years than I ever had when he lived in the United States.  And yes, Georges was a very kind, good, and big-hearted man, and he always assured me that my son loved me and missed me—and he was obviously telling me the truth.

His wife Lisa?  Well, I have often written that Georges and Lisa were like Tristan and Isolde—always separated, always longing for each other.  Lisa was the ideal loyal and patient wife, in every way tolerant of Georges and his needs (including his need for a permanent female companion on the other side of the Atlantic).  In spite of the situational peculiarities, I think that they really did love each other on an epic, Wagnerian level which few can understand.  Lisa supported Georges, assisted occasionally by my wife Elena and her mother Nina, not so much by any of the other Greek relatives on this side of the Atlantic, except possibly for Tia Maria whom I only met a few times at her home in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York City.  Lisa, like Georges, had a huge heart, great compassion and almost boundless love, at the same time that she became physically weak due to breast-implant poisoning caused by Dow Pharmaceauticals.  She was as much a victim of the American Corporate love-hate affair with drugs, in that sense, as Georges himself.  But Lisa was my true and steadfast friend and through her love for Georges I came to care for my brother-in-law more than I ever dreamed I could have.  My wife Elena always resents the fact that Lisa (alone among my in-laws) supported me in my quest for custody of my son, and she sometimes quotes hatefully and sarcastically how I called Lisa my “Rock of Gibraltar”, but I stand by my evaluation.  I know of no one truer and more loyal and steadfast than Lisa Ann Cook, and Georges was the luckiest man alive to have the love and generous acceptance and tolerance and support of such a wonderful woman, who never judged others but always tried to understand why those who inflicted harm on her might have done so.   In this, she was the truest of true Christians.

So Georges was strong, likable if not downright lovable, and yet he was caught up in currents of history which rendered his life difficult, a struggle, almost impossible.  He was “a man without a country”—never quite American enough to give up his Greek passport while he was living here throughout the nearly thirty years from 1970-1999.  Georges Kourembanas was a three-time “Mr. Michigan” (different awards) who represented Greece in the “Mr. Universe” competition in Las Vegas, Nevada.  He was determined to be a morally turpitudinous undesirable by the same government which created first the demand for drugs and then the war against drugs as a means of maximizing governmental power and control over the population at large.

Was America made any safer or more morally upstanding by deporting my brother-in-law?  No, definitely not—America became poorer and probably more dangerous—indeed, almost certainly more dangerous, because every person removed against his will is another person whose destroyed life is a feather-in-the cap of brutal authoritarianism in America.

Several members of my family-in-law feel so very sad and guilty that they did not do more for Georges during his lifetime.  My main suggestion that may have improved his life was that he relocated from Greece to Cancun, and was closer to his family during the last several years of his life as a consequence.  I made this suggestion because almost as completely as the United States as George’s adopted homeland, Mexico era durante muchos anos mi segunda Patria, aun mas que Inglaterra—Mexico was the land of more of my young adulthood life, dreams and ambitions than any other, and I figured that George could benefit from the amazing Caribbean winds and waters of Northern Quintana Roo.   I had intended to spend at least half of time with Georges in Cancun (en mi Mexico lindo y querido), but for several reasons that never happened.  I am happy to say that my son Charlie, whose first trips outside the U.S. were to Yucatan and Quintana Roo Mexico as a baby, toddler, and elementary schoolboy, was able to spend one summer with George in 2007—even though the purpose at that time was to make sure that Charlie spent as little time in contact with me as humanly possible….

One of the reasons, of course, that I was lacking in funds to spend half of my time in Mexico during the first decade of the Third Millenium Anno Domini was the troubles I had during these same years with the same American government which oppressed my brother—yes, in that he was not just my brother in law, but my brother.   I too had to struggle with charges of ridiculously trivial criminality (I never did drugs—at least I have never done them as a mature adult—that wasn’t my problem—I had plenty of others—when I was indicted (coincidentally in December 1999, shortly after Georges took his involuntary departure) my pre-trial release officer finally stopped giving me the degrading urine tests because they were just pointless).

I too had to struggle with questions of moral turpitude and the significance of such charges for my professional life.  I had had such a fine education and opportunities unparalleled in most people’s lives.  I was very lucky.  But in 1997 I had stood up to the system and sued my local police department for not one but 7-9 instances of police brutality, corruption, and civil rights violations.  And at that point, all-of-a-sudden, my previously essentially dull and blameless life became “morally turpitudinous” and I became in the eyes of many critics an “incompetent attorney.”

So if Georges Kourembanas can hear me—if he had a coin for the Ferryman Charon and has thus crossed the River Styx—or if he is standing somewhere in the upper levels of limbo or purgatory, I hope he will hear my apology for my hypocrisy in criticizing him, in thinking myself superior to him, in believing that my education was in any way superior to his physical strength and good heart (even though his physical heart finally gave out on him, much too soon).  I apologize to him that I could introduce him to the Quintana Roo and Yucatan and Mexico and Belize that I know and love, because I think it would have made his last few years so much better than just hanging around the beach and hotel zone of Cancun.  He and I were both victims of some of the very same authoritarian and repressive forces in the United States in Texas which reached their political apogee in the years after 1993-6.  He and I were both victims of the streamlining and mass production of criminal prosecutions in the United States which all have, as Ayn Rand predicted so many years ago, the sole purpose of rendering us all “criminals” just waiting to be arrested here “in the land of the free” or any of the formerly freedom-loving countries of Europe or the Americas.

Georges and I are also victims of some of the same personal and familial situations.  Now in his epitaph I will not speculate here on what any members of his family could have done for him that they did not, because all I know for sure is that they loved him more than me, so very much more, in spite of all his flaws, and since he was blood, I suppose I can forgive them that.   But in the midst of all that I think he was ten times blessed to have Lisa as his wife and lifetime companion and supporter.   The bottom line is that our two lives, so different, as that of my late brother-in-law and my own, were actually parallel in terms of the circumstances of our “exile” from society.  I still envy him for all the love he enjoyed, and up to a point, I even envy him his early death in Mexico.  Sometimes I wish that I had died, when I had the chance, ten years ago in Egypt.  But I apparently had a purpose to live, and for that reason I do continue to live, and breath, and fight, and remember the pointless injuries done to Georges, my brother-in-law, my brother-in-suffering, and my brother-in-the sometimes loneliness of exile.

Two years ago, today, on Groundhog Day 2008—I emerged from a Black Hole!

I want to thank Bill Trudelle, Nancy Jo Grant, Jerry O’Neil, Peyton Yates Freiman, Bob Hurt, and my son Charlie who have all been so steadfast since the occasions, transactions, and occurrences giving rise to this web-blog transpired.   The 54 days preceding the last two years were among the roughest and strangest of my life.  They have changed my thinking about life and will continue to govern my thoughts until the day I die.  While in Federal Custody I saw a great deal of injustice and met very few if any people I feared or disliked.  The most frightening person (by appearance) was Vance Fecteau the day he and I were arrested in Los Angeles.  He looked AWFUL and I’m not quite sure why.  He turned out to be one of the nicest people I have ever met.  Vance Fecteau and Moshe Leichner were so completely and totally selfless and devoted to sharing in circumstances which would make most people selfish and bitter.  Although it is almost impossible to maintain contact with people “on the inside” when you’re “out”—especially when you’re working hard to rebuild a life—I have never forgotten and will never forget those two amazing men—MDC Los Angeles and the Grady County Jail.  I think ALL AMERICANS need to spend a few days in Jail—just to understand how evil and inhuman incarceration really is.  We all need to know and make friends with FELONS so that we will realize how trivial the criminal laws of this country is.   The men with whom I dined at MDC Los Angeles were among the highest calibre and most interesting group of people I have met in one place outside of the Harvard Faculty Club, Chicago’s Hutchinson Common, and the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C..  The world is upside down, time is out of joint—and cursed spite that I was born to set it right!   The United States needs to open the doors to its prisons and tear them down, or else convert them into hotels or high security storage—for objects, not people.   NONE CAN BE FREE UNTIL ALL ARE FREE!

To Judge Janice Graham Jack and Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas I say: “thank you for the privilege of seeing my country’s Heart of Darkness.”    I hope that the opening of the jails in the United States will happen and be celebrated like Bastille Day in France, with much the same symbolism and jubilation.  I pray every day for a revolution in this country—a revolution through the ballot box and the legislatures—so that only impure blood will stain the land of these United States (in the spirit and words of “La Marseilleise”).

I give thanks on Groundhog Day for my present freedom and enlightenment about reality which came to me in the bowels of the Federal System, being kept in caches dragged around like a lame dog in iron chains for 54 days for some Texas Judge’s amusement and the satisfaction of her power.  I will never forget those days.  I will never forget those people.  I will never forget that America incarcerates millions of its own people, and of the people of neighboring countries who came here only, like my ancestors, looking for a better life.   It is the welfare system that draws them all here—the notion that government can save everyone from harm and protect everyone from injury.  But if the price of governmental welfare and security is a nation of jails and prisons, I say let us all take our chances and all the risks that come from breathing free air!  Let us all dismantle our police departments and throw away all their high-tech Patriot-act funded surveillance gear.  Let us go back to a time where we are each our own and our brother’s keepers.  Let us live as free women and men and punish ONLY those who would take our liberties from us.  Let us teach our children to love and not to fear, to nurture and not depend on their fellows, their brothers and sisters, who are in need.   Let us all take our lives in our own hands and banish thoughts of fear and the degradation that has come to us from building bigger and “better” (meaning more secure, less “escapable”) prisons.

NONE CAN BE FREE UNTIL ALL ARE FREE!

Oh Cursed Spite, that ever I was born to set it right…..(To run or not to run, that was the question)….

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous commie-pinko pundits, critics, and general lowlife lowbrows,
Or to take arms against the sea of troubles which they and their ilk have created,
And by opposing (at least attempt) to end them (or at least curtail their influence and power…).
****************************************************************************************************
“Everybody knows that the system’s rotten: old black Joe’s still a pickin’ cotton for your ribbons and bows, as everybody knows.” (Leonard Cohen);
Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, Ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht.”
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
So this is where I am in life.  I am going to be 50 years old in April (time is definitely out of joint).  I have no significant accomplishments to speak of except a Ph.D. dissertation I wrote at Harvard which was accepted for publication but, because I wanted to polish it up and update it, never got published and as of the present time is so totally out of date that it is no longer publishable.  I have had dozens of ideas for books which I never wrote more than an outline for.

Oh, I also got a J.D. from the University of Chicago and worked with and for a couple of Federal Judges as a Judicial Extern and Judicial Law Clerk, but I never could stand the billable hours routine at law firms or, for that matter, even the 9-5 routine at a normal job.  I wanted to be on my own.  And so I was for a few years in Texas, “on my own” as an attorney-and-counsellor-at law, but apparently even that was too much normative conformity for me—because the moment I started taking some interesting and “righteous” civil rights cases, as opposed to mere commercial litigation, real estate, and bankruptcy, I found myself under attack and then, within 3 years, forced “to resign in lieu of discipline” after having been convicted of the heinous felony of mis-stating two digits of my social security number on an otherwise complete and correct application to open a non-interest bearing checking account at Wells Fargo.

Harvard didn’t want me back at that point (2000) although I went, stayed a couple of months at the Faculty Club on Quincy near the Fogg Art Museum, did some privately sponsored research, and asked.  Things had changed.  A return to academics was just not in the cards for me.  Again, the problem of being significantly more of a “maverick” than Sarah Palin ever dreamed of being in her worst nightmares (a Palinesque big wink wouldn’t look so good over my bloodshot eyes tonight, and to think SHE’S four years younger than I am…).

Listlessly, after nearly dying on Zamalek Island in Cairo, Egypt after a common mugging/head injury sustained on November 30, 2000, I returned to Texas for no particularly good reason except I had a wife and 8 year old son waiting for me there.  I had gotten divorced from my wife once in February 1999 but was already back together with her—reunited, oddly enough, by the mere fact of being indicted on preposterous charges in December 1999—she was a real hero to me at that point in my life.

But that didn’t last long and in less than a year-and-a-half after surviving attempted murder in Egypt my wife and I were on very bad terms again.  Things had seemed OK for a while.  I had done a little teaching at Austin Community College (I was driving from Cedar Park to the Pinnacle Campus to teach a section in History on September 11, 2001—only listening to Wagnerian Opera and not the radio I was puzzled when I got on the elevator and everyone was in worried/panic mode).

In July 2002, my wife and I broke up again, what I didn’t know was that it was going to be for the last time.  We haven’t been back together since.  Initially I had custody of our son Charlie, but it was at that point that my real odyssey, and what I have concluded was my real purpose in life, really began.   I am who I am today because of Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th Judicial District Court in and for Williamson County, Texas.  I had for a long time seen evidence and suspected that Texas Family Court judges disregarded both the Texas and United States Constitutions, but it was only when I learned the customs, practices, and policies of Judge Michael Jergins and his acolytes J. Randall Grimes, Laurie J. Nowlin, and Michael P. Davis, and started getting in touch with other parents/family court victims, especially one Rhonde Malmquist nee Moe, that I realized that I was, in Georgetown, Williamson County, at the epicenter of something much bigger than the stupid police brutality and callous treatment of personal liberty and property intertests which I had encountered in Lago Vista.  If the Lago Vista police were like highly localized tornados going through people’s houses occasionally, the Family Law Courts in Williamson County, and by extension the entire Family Court system in Texas, as a stagnate hurricane sitting in place with a radius 200-500 miles in every direction emanating from the Attorney General’s (Greg Abbott’s) offices in Austin.  Texas is a big place, and the wealth redistributing-family destroying Texas Family Court was an enterprise engaged in and affecting interstate commerce which constituted the biggest “racket” I had ever seen.  And so I dedicated my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to fighting the Constitutional perversions which are the Family Code and Family Court system of Texas.

To make a long story short, that occupied almost all my time and energy from July 2002-April 2006.  I made some great temporary alliances during that time which should have lasted longer.  But the simple truth is that by May 2006 it was all over.  There was nothing more that I could or wanted to try to do.  And my son was starting to show some signs of breaking away without judicial assistance, although the final breakthrough didn’t really happen until August 2007, by which time I had already decided to leave Texas, where I basically had been stripped of all my civil rights in January 2006, even before Judge Walter Smith’s order of March 2008 banning me even from ever filing in the Texas Federal Courts again—I was already living in Florida by then, after a few exciting incidents which I have described in the “about” section of this blog….http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/about. Oh yes, and during these same years I had also met and gotten to know and admire one Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil, who has dedicated his life to fighting the state-sponsored monopoly over the practice of law.  Jerry has become one of my models in life.  I admire him more every time I look at his work, his persistence, and see him continue on.  For me, Jerry O’Neil “veritate gladiator arena publicae unus est”  (He is a true [professional] swordsman in the public arena) and I think I should be more like him: turning my own bad experiences into a crusade to make the world a better place.  He is somehow at the same time ethical, practical, and politically successful by setting modest goals.  I only question why he has set his goals QUITE so modestly, because I think he could be at least as great a force in the United States today as Ron Paul if he were to TAKE the national stage.

So now here I am, half a century old and dedicating my life to fighting yet another major fight on behalf of the underdogs of the world: a fight against mortgage foreclosure nationwide.   I have some cases right now that are more promising than before.   I have in these past 13 years since the 4th of July, 1997, parade in front of my former office on Dawn Drive in Lago Vista learned so much about the corruption of the court system, the government generally, and above all the monetary system and economy, that I wonder how I have ever avoided going into politics—not to serve the system as it exists but to scrap it.

On the one hand, if I run for public office, I will suffer much more of the same kind of garbage slander and attacks that I have experienced since first becoming involved with a certain Moldavan-born, Israeli-educated, Orange County Dentist named Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esquire.  I wish I had never met her, except that I never would have come to live since September 2009 by the beach in San Clemente if it hadn’t been for her, and San Clemente, California is one of the most beautiful and satisfying places on earth—and God only knows I’ve lived and traveled all over the United States, the Americas, and Europe and the adjacent the Mediterranean areas of Asia and Africa.  The only other possible advantage of having met Dr. Taitz last year is that perhaps I had my little retarded “sex scandal” episode before I was running for office, rather than after or during the process…..

If I can arrange it, I will always call San Clemente home from now on, and never live far from the Pacific beach again.  Oddly enough, this was my dream when I was in High School at the Hollywood Professional School (aka Hollywood Conservatory of Music & the Arts)—to live by the Pacific beach—except back then it was to live in Malibu—which is now way too crowded and expensive and the traffic much too heavy.  But San Clemente is like a combination of the Santa Monica and Malibu of 35-40 years ago: just urbane enough to have lots of good restaurants and shops all within walking distance of the water, with a fine view of Santa Catalina Island offshore.  In short, I have found my Shangri-La, and have lived there listening to the waves longer than most people dare to dream of doing.  Yes, I owe it all to the combined efforts of Orly Taitz and Steven D. Silverstein: her witless, naive, almost childlike incompetence, and his vicious and intentionally and expressly sharklike corruption and thievery.

During the past six months, also, however, I have realized that the California system of non-judicial foreclosure is an almost insuperable barrier to the security of home-ownership and private property.  In essence, California has already outlawed private property.  A combination of inflationary economics, an irresistable socio-cultural pressure always to expand and consume more and more and more, and a lack of attachment to place or fundamental respect for the concepts of home, family place, privacy, and real, long-term ownership, have all conspired to make California residences temporary and the California economy largely nomadic or transitory.   And the corporate infrastructure supports the socio-political superstructures of the courts and legal profession and financial institutions which are dedicated to wiping the family, private property, and all other remnants of the bourgeois state OFF THE MAP.

One common feature in the corruption of the Family Code and Court system in Texas, Florida, and California, and the mortgage finance customs and practices everywhere in the United States it seems, is that Federal economic and monetary policies can be found as the driving forces underlying any statutory or customary scheme of business practices or social policies.  The boundary between state and federal has become blurred.

My first thought was to run for Governor of California (“Terminator” and nominal Republican but de-facto socialist Arnold Schwarzenegger has presided over the most complete economic collapse of any state together with its government since the Great Depression of the 1930s—an unworthy heir to Governor Ronald Reagan he has proved to be indeed…..).  But it was pointed out to me that there is a five year residency requirement, and that at least one state, North Dakota, had previously, in 1937, removed by judicial mandate a governor who was elected in spite of his lack of five years residence.  This was the case of Thomas Moodie, elected in 1934-5.  State of North Dakota v Thomas H Moodie 1937

Since my association with Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, Esquire was predicated in part on misguided personal emotions and in part on a shared distaste for the current de facto President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and since our outward expression of dissatisfaction for Obama was our complaint that he was not a “natural born” American citizen and hence not constitutionally qualified to serve as President—given all these circumstances I have decided it would be best not to run for governor and risk becoming a historical footnote on the order of Thomas H. Moodie.  I know nothing about Moodie but I doubt he was anything like Obama, who is every bit as American as King Kong but not half so honest nor articulate nor generally sympathetic and likeable….and in the implementation of national policies is much clumsier (perhaps one should say “clunkier”) and much more destructive….  Obama was elected for one and only one reason: the Country couldn’t stand another minute under Bush or anyone who looked even remotely like him, which, ironically enough, John McCain, whom Bush had politically though not physically assassinated in 2000, looked significantly more like Bush than Obama, and Sarah Palin, rightly or wrongly, seemed extraordinary only in that she MIGHT have constituted an intellectual step DOWN from George W…..if that’s possible…. which it really and truly might not be….

But in any event, it does seem that although I am constitutionally disqualified for running for California Governor because I have not resided there continuously for five years, I AM eligible to run for and yes, even to serve as a United States Senator.

If I were to run, I know I would stand little or no chance of winning.  I will not be able to raise millions in campaign funds, or at least I cannot see how I would or even could, and California is the most populous state in the Union.

Yet on the other hand, I might be a good candidate.  Californians pride themselves on being trendsetters for the nation, always ahead and iconoclastic, at the same time as they set up the icons that everyone else follows.  California is ethnically diverse and I’m rather distinctively WASPY, but I was confirmed at All Saints Church in Beverly Hills, which is a good place to be a certified WASP if ever there was one.  I’m also a WASP who speaks Spanish fluently, having lived and worked on and off in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Colombia, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere in Latin America on and off for the 15 years I was involved in archaeology (1976-1991).  And even in my “fall” from establishmentarian grace I think I might have something real to offer Californians:  California has the highest prison population in the United States, one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (per capita/population wide) and it has to stop.

I spent most of my 54 days in Federal Custody at MDC Los Angeles, and so I became acquainted with the evils of the Federal and State prisons in modern times.  I have often said I am grateful, even thankful, for that experience, for that journey into America’s own Heart of Darkness, and it changed my life forever.  Never again will I believe that this is a truly fair, free, or just country, or that the mass incarceration of over 1% of the adult population is anything but a catastrophic indictment of what used to be called SERIOUSLY (and not just in our National Anthem) “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”  Only a cowardly nation of quivering slaves would incarcerate so many for so little reason.  The largest single group (by raw number of persons) in Federal custody is composed of Hispanics on various sorts of immigration crimes.   This is a scandal, because everywhere Hispanics are enthusiastically employed without regard to legal status.  HYPOCRISY!  Yet so many of my fellow whites are scornful and fearful of people “with a record.”  I regard all the legal insults which have been leveled against me as “red badges of courage” and I would like to educate my fellow whites, and improve the self-image and esteem of those groups hit harder with prison and penal sanctions generally.

So why should I NOT run for Governor in this diverse state of California, and tell the oppressed classes that I am one of them, and that I would like to lead them all out of the present authoritarian disaster into a better world.  It might be that some sort of political empowerment through separation would be necessary to give blocks of power back to the hispanic and black people of America.  I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, but in effect, socio-cultural policies of “diversity” and “social integration” amount either to voluntary or enforced loss of identity for everyone.  If “Black is Beautiful”, maybe black should stay black and empowerment of groups will strengthen identities and senses of worth and well-being.  One of my many pet peeves against Barack Obama is that he was elected in large part as the first “black” President, but in form, function, and effect he is about as “black” as his running mate Joe Biden or his Secretary of State and former adversary Hillary Clinton—Obama’s Kenyan heritage and possibly de jure Kenyan citizenship being the only really “African” thing about this graduate of Columbia and Harvard who taught at the University of Chicago and speaks with no accent of any kind.

But in addition, I have become aware of so many problems in Federal Welfare and Social Security Law which have become the guiding lights of socially targeted wealth-redistribution and family destabilization programs in America. The mortgage finance and family code/court disasters I mentioned above all trace their origins back to Federal Law regarding monetary finance and social security.

So should I run for Senate?  I am thinking hard about it.  In one sense I would rather be governor, but there’s basically noplace where I have been a steady resident for the past five years: Texas, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Montana, Louisiana and British Columbia—in about that order too—each of these places has a claim on my recent residence/citizenship Identity.  During the past year it’s ONLY been Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, and California (OK, one weekend in Montana….hardly counts, oh, almost forgot, a couple of weeks in Connecticut, a couple of days in Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York City, and Georgia).  The past few months in San Clemente have been very pleasant—I COULD settle down there, even though I haven’t quite done so yet….

If I were to run for office, my platform would run something like this which I wrote up while thinking about running for Governor, before I realized the residence requirement barriers….):

Platform Planks for Constitutional Reform:

Part I: Judicial Reform: ALL JUDGES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OFFICERS TO BE BOUND BY AND LIABLE TO THE PEOPLE FOR VIOLATIONS OF OR INFRINGEMENTS UPON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SEVERAL STATES

(1)            Constitutional Courts:          All judicial decisions concerning the life, liberty, or property of individuals shall be made only by juries of 12 persons, all of whom, before being impaneled as jurors, shall prove that they are literate and able to pass an examination on the Constitution, laws, and history of the United States and one state.

(2)            Constitutional Juries:         All judicial decisions concerning the validity of laws or governmental actions of any kind shall be supported by jury findings concerning matters of fact in support of or against the laws.

(3)            Constitutional Judges:         No judge nor any other court officer shall ever enjoy immunity from the law for any action aside from rendering or enforcing decisions necessary to decide cases properly submitted to and decided by juries; this is the proper application of “absolute” judicial immunity—it is “absolute” only when reconciled by a judge as conforming with the constitution and laws being applied and the judge’s opinion shall be the measure of his conformity.

(4)            Constitutional Executives:          No prosecuting attorney or any other executive officer shall enjoy any immunity from any action aside from reasonably applying or enforcing the law of the land according to the Constitution of the United States and to the law of the state in which they are employed; this is the proper application of “qualified” executive immunity—it is qualified by a jury’s assessment of reasonable compliance with the Constitution and laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

PART II: Government control over private commerce, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS IS PARAMOUNT—

MONOPOLES & LICENSES FOREVER FORBIDDEN FOR ALL REASONS

(5)            No state or federal government shall license or grant a monopoly concerning any kind of human activity or behavior except for the enactment and modification of laws, enforceable in the courts of any individual state or the Federal Union.

(6)            Marriage, Law, and the ability of the people to defend themselves against all enemies, including the government: In particular, all licenses or state monopolistic practices concerning marriage, speech or expression concerning the law, sometimes known as “the practice of law”, and or restricting or limiting the private ownership of firearms, weapons, and personal property of any kind (including alcohol and drugs) are abolished and shall not be resuscitated under the guise of “regulation” or “public welfare prohibition” for any reason (but personal liability for the sale or prescription of harmful drugs shall forever be unlimited).

(7)            The States and Federal government may make laws reasonably regulating any species of human activity not constituting a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so long as no license or de facto monopoly is implied or created, and such laws reasonably regulating human activities are enforceable ONLY in the constitutional courts of the land—and no administrative courts without juries shall ever be erected or maintained by any state or the Federal government.

(8)            Fundamental rights include freedom of speech and of religion, broadly defined, the ownership of land and things as private property, free from government rents, including all manner of private expressive or associative conduct within the home or family.

(9)            No person shall be deprived of life or physical liberty for any activity concerning commerce, but all failures, frauds, deceits, and trickery shall be punishable according to sentences imposed by juries under the guidance of constitutional judges, and these offenses of failure, fraud, deceits, and trickery may result in debts extending to and collectible from a perpetrator’s family and associates which limit an individual’s associative, expressive, or economic liberty or commercial activities, including the right to own or acquire property except on behalf of victims of failures, frauds, deceits, and trickery, and may also result in banishment from a community and exile from the jurisdiction of a state or the Federal union.

(10)        Juries may also impose sentences of corporal or capital punishment or deprivation of physical liberty where commensurate with the offenses committed.

(11)        Prior to trial, persons accused of any sort of wrongdoing may be reasonably restrained in their physical liberty to preserve the jurisdiction of the courts, but such restraint shall be subject to the supervision of citizen juries empanelled to supervise all prisons and jails and systems of physical restraint.

(12)        Corporate and professional immunity of every kind is abolished.  The commercial and business advantages of pooling wealth or talent shall never again be allowed to interfere, as a matter of state or federal law, with the power of juries to find or assess individual responsibility against corporate owners, operators, directors, or employees, according to the facts as juries shall hear and decide them under the guidance of constitutional judges.

PART III:  WATER, AIR, and THE ENVIRONMENT—

THE COMMONS OR THINGS BELONGING TO ALL OR NO ONE

(13)        Water, Air, and other things in the environment, including animals or plants which have not been tamed, captured or reduced to domestication by humans, shall be called “the commons”, “the common wealth” and shall be understood as things belonging either to everyone or no one, and state and federal governments shall have the power to protect the commons according to the traditions of Anglo-Saxon or Roman law, according to the selection made in each state or the Federal government.

(14)        The damming of rivers (other than partial diversions of waterways for agricultural irrigation of arid lands), and the monopolization of acquifers or subterranean waters not exactly congruent with surface ownership of the land, shall be forbidden as a violation of the rights of all people; all now extant governmentally operated dams should be dismantled.

(15)        The ocean and large navigable lakes may sometimes be dammed to create more land, but such dams must be authorized by constitutionally enacted laws by the Federal or State legislatures.  Private persons may then acquire such reclaimed property from the government.  Otherwise, the ocean floor and bed of navigable lakes shall not be privately owned, but pollution or destruction of either shall be an offense against all people.

(16)        The private ownership of the surface waters of navigable rivers and lakes connected to navigable rivers and the ocean is abolished and shall be forever be forbidden.

(17)        Any claim to the private ownership of air is null and void.

(18)        Any and all pollution of the air or water shall be actionable by all injured parties in court without limitation to time of injury or amount of damages.

(19)        The government may engage, as may private persons, in industrially polluting activities such the operating and/or launching of motor vehicles, aircraft, and rockets, but individual liability for injury shall attach to any individually responsible governmental officers or employees, except that any otherwise responsible governmental officer or employee who can show that he was acting reasonably pursuant to a lawful legislative or judicial mandate shall be fully indemnified for his liability by the government for any assessment of liability by a constitutional jury or judge.

(20)        Governments shall not tax or otherwise attempt to redistribute income or property equally among the people, except with regard to the aforementioned restrictions on private ownership of air or water.

A slightly shorter summary came after thinking a little bit more about the “slings and arrows” I had mentioned before:

The degree to which I’ve been abused, attacked, and generally “jabbed” on a half-dozen various lefty-comsymp websites during the past year has hardened my resolve—this Country, and California in particular, is run by socialists.  Some of the laws they have passed, and policies they have instituted are truly reprehensible.   I have no idea how old California Civil Code Section 2924 is, but the entire California non-judicial foreclosure system authorizes theft of property under color of law, glorifying senseless destruction of homes and families and increasing economic instability as a matter of official state economic and judicial policy.   The worst anything can say about me is that I’m crazy and demented—even on the lunatic fringe perhaps—but nobody can call me an idiotic socialist… not without my fighting back anyhow…..

In MY version of America—there would be a restoration of all laws guaranteeing the security and stability of the home and of the family structure, of freedom to work and be productive and to compete, free of monopolistic licenses administered by the nation-state and state-corporate government for the benefit of their cronies only.   In general, state control over the economy and private life will be rolled back to a bare minimum, but this will be counterbalanced in favor of the individual by much stronger juries and more honest and independent judges.  Lawyers and litigants will never again be dependent for their livelihood on currying favor with or making campaign contributions to judges.  If there is to be a bar, it will be a voluntary private organization, like a Church or a labor union, and will impose private sanctions based upon the will of its members, not on the whim of modern day kings who wear black rather than red and ermine robes.   No one will ever again be compelled to be a member of any organization in order to have a job or hire people to work in one.  Everyone will be free to compete in every profession.  Each individual will shoulder more risk, but also more responsibility to learn and evaluate, because the state will no longer provide “welfare benefits” of authorizing its agents and supporters as the only competent individuals.  To the degree possible, the family will be free to be the core unit of the economy again, and no family will be forcibly broken up in the name of incredibly vague standards like “best interests of the child” administered by “Departments of Children and Families” (that’s the Florida name—I happen to be writing this from Florida)—as if Children and Families were the wards of the State, and existed ONLY by grace of the sovereign will….

If it is crazy, demented, and luny to think that the Family Courts, Banking system and the attorneys who support them in California and elsewhere in this Country are hopelessly corrupt and opposed to every core American value from initiative to pride in ownership, from “credit” based on productivity rather than normative conformity, then I am proud to be called a crazy, demented, lunatic in California.

The resistance which Steven D. Silverstein has mounted to my litigation against foreclosures and evictions in Orange County has convinced me that the laws of the State of California are the worst in the nation with regard to property ownership and financial foreclosures.

As in NO other state in the Union (except those like Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon which slavishly copy California Law), California law protects LIAR and CHEATS.

This has to stop: the immunity of liars whose lies are perfected by attorneys like Silverstein MUST be stopped.  The transformation of California from a state owned by the people to a state owned by international Banking Interests has to stop.

The degree to which economic activity in California is regulated in favor of big business is appalling and astonishing….every activity imaginable staggers the mind.  There are laws for everything in this state.

The reason I would like to run for Governor in this state is to use the Governorship, or much more likely, merely the candidacy for the Governorship, to serve as the “last refuge of free speech” to preach against the monopolistic power of government and the banking conglomerates acting in collusion.

There is nothing worse than the collusion of the banking and financial industries with the attorneys of the state of California and, not coincidentally, the judges of the California Superior Courts and the State Bar of California.

I look forward to hearing from you all…even if it’s only to tell me again how crazy I am for considering this.  I feel, in fact, that it is absolutely essential to have a literal and figurative platform from which to attack the banks and their “servicers” and the attorneys who support their activities, a platform from which I cannot be removed by judges and court bailiffs who deem me “out of order” or “in contempt of court” for failure to obey incompetent and improper, and wholly unconstitutional, judicial orders.

As Noted, I’ll be working on my campaign platform and candidate statement this week, but the basic elements, the key points that I would like to advance, will be as follows:

(1)      FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVATE PROPERTY: Restore the sanctity of private property by limiting governmental (including both state, county, and local police and judicial) power to seize private property for private gain, as is the fundamental reality of mortgage foreclosure and eviction law in this state today.

(2)      COMMON LAW OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACT TO BE SECURED AND GUARANTEED AGAINST STATE INTERFERENCE or PRIVATE ABROGATION AND DISREGARD:  All obligations obtained by contract shall be governed by privity of contract and the common law. All statutory provisions (such as California Civil Code 2924) which abrogate or interfere with the HONEST application of common law (which exalting the status of liars and thieves of every kind) should be deemed unconstitutional interference with the obligations of contract and should be stricken from the books either by judicial declaration or legislative fiat, or else the Governor should refuse to enforce or allow any state executive power, including county sheriffs, to enforce the provisions of this law.

(3)      STATE LICENSES & MONOPOLIES, INCLUDING THE MONOPOLY ON STATE VIOLENCE AND FORCE, AND ALL OFFICIAL IMMUNITIES, SHALL BE OPENED UP TO POPULAR REVIEW:  All state issued licenses, patents, and monopolies shall be reviewed for potential abolition by repeal or through judicial declaratory, or else the Governor should refuse to enforce or allow any state agency or executive power to enforce licensing provisions more than 180 days after the next governor takes office until a complete review has been committed and, in the interim, all state funding for the State Bar of California shall be impounded.  All statutes immunizing attorneys and judges from suit for any reason except the mere advocacy of legal positions or rendition of such legal decisions and opinions as are actually required to decide the core elements of cases and controversies over which a court has jurisdiction shall be removed and abolished by judicial declaration, legislative fiat, or executive refusal to uphold any such immunity.

(4)      FREEDOM OF CONTRACT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE THE SUPREME VALUES OF THE STATE AND PEOPLE (ALL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCE and SUBSIDIES TO BUSINESS TO BE ABOLISHED):  All state restrictions on business and commerce, except those necessary to prevent the contamination of the environment by hazardous chemicals or industrial pollutants, shall immediately be suspended and subjected to review, but all defenses and limitations on liability for damages for personal injury shall be lifted in the courts of California, so that the ability of the people to defend themselves, rather than to seek governmental protection, shall be maximized.  The state as a corporate welfare organization shall cease to exist.  This Governor will approve no new contracts with any privately owned or corporate contractor who has done business with the state during the past eight years.

(5)      (ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO RETAIN SPECIAL STATUS): The environmental interests of the people of state of California shall be reevaluated according to the Ancient Anglo-Saxon theory of “the commons” and the Ancient Roman theories of res nullius and terra nullius. That which no person has captured may be protected by the state, but all things which have been reduced to private property shall be deemed as protectable ONLY as private property, and no expropriation of property shall be made by executive order implementing any state or federal law.

(6)      The official languages of California will be English and Spanish bilingually equal, on the Canadian model; programs shall be implemented for testing prospective voters on law and constitutional competence which will require a familiarity and knowledge of the law superior to any test now required for naturalization of foreign citizens.  No person shall be allowed to vote who cannot pass a written multiple choice test at least 180 questions long on the constitution and laws of the United States and California with a score of at least 120 or better out of 180.

(7)      All inmates in the prisons and mental health hospitals in California will be released except those convicted of murder, forcible rape, or assault; all persons incarcerated for financial crimes or drug crimes will be released pending evaluation of their ability to pay indemnity to their victims within a system of state supervised parole; the goal of eliminating post-trial incarceration will be explored in favor of options including corporal punishment (whipping or branding) and financial restitution for all injuries “every crime will sound in tort”).

(8)      The governor will refuse all attempts to enforce the United States Patriot Act or “Real ID” Act in the State of California.

(9)      The governor will propose to the legislature various provisions nullifying the unconstitutional laws enacted and adopted during the past thirty years by the federal government of the United States.  There will be a presumption of validity afforded to any law over 30 years old, except for all laws relating to the banking and financial industries, “the war on drugs”, and the collection of internal revenues.

I have set up a new e-mail: lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com, and I invite anyone who cares to do so to write me there about whether they think I should run or not.  I am tending, right now, to think that I should run as an “independent” for Senator in the November Race.  California law (quite unfairly I think) seems to forbid anyone who loses in the Partisan primary elections from running as an Independent in the General Elections—but it’s not possible to challenge every single unfair or unreasonable law on every subject all of the time—I should know because I sometimes seem to try to do just that… Humans have just passed too many such laws…. for too long….and most people like their lack of reason…. So would I have a chance of getting my message across?  I already KNOW that I have at best a dismal chance of actually winning any statewide election, but I’m probably going to try….and I just need some “popular reaction and guidance”.  My son Charlie is wildly in favor of my running, but he’s only 17 and a half this month—he’ll be old enough to vote in November….. Most of my friends have said “yes I should”, most of my consultation clients ask if I’ll still have time to work with them if I run (yes I will….), and so far only one friend has said absolutely not, although a few haven’t answered/addressed the point at all.   Lucas D. Smith may have jumped the gun by saying it was a sure thing, but I’m definitely considering whether I was meant to be Prince Hamlet or not…Oh Cursed Spite….I think I might just have been born to set it right….or die trying…..

King Solomon would approve this decision: nobody won, but justice was done!

Dr. Orly Taitz’ undistinguished (disgraceful, dishonest, and extremely informal and undignified) attack on her former “greatest admirer” Charles Edward Lincoln resulted in a January 12 hearing in U.S. District (Magistrate Judge Lurana Snow’s) Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which lasted five hours running into “overtime.”  This dull proceeding was attended by several witnesses, several lawyers including top-notch Philadelphia attorney Philip J. Berg for Lincoln, and an audience of two (possibly homeless but definitely unemployed) paid bloggers.  After the hearing, Lisa Ostella produced an affidavit on Lincoln’s behalf which basically demolished both of the two shreds of credibility that Orly Taitz had ever had in her life.  And, ironically, both Lincoln and Ostella had formerly been both fans AND close working associates of Dr. Taitz in her quest for small-time radio-talk show interviews nationwide.

Nothing else of any note happened that day or after.  Judge Lurana Snow “split the baby” and denied sanctions while simultaneously denying any clear vindication to the injured parties, or any punishment to the lying party.  Nobody “won”, but a calm version of justice prevailed, and the case-in-chief will go forward, thanks to Judge Dimitrouleas’ order of last Friday that U.S. Bank should answer the 4 out of 7 remaining counts of Plaintiffs’ original Complaint.  On PACER:

The following transaction was entered on 2/9/2010 at 2:08 PM EST and filed on 2/9/2010

Case Name: Rivernider et al v. U.S. Bank National Association
Case Number: 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Filer:
Document Number: 58 Lurana Snow Denies Sanctions February 9 2010

Docket Text:
ORDER, no sanctions will be imposed by the court on the plaintiffs or Dr. Taitz, and the parties and witnesses shall pay their own attorney’s fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow on 2/9/2010. (cqs)

The Problem of Endorsed Mortgage Notes…..

If a Florida mortgage note is endorsed “in blank” (without definite payee) how can it EVER be collected as a debt?  It is like a blank check left on the counter at Starbucks…. it is there for anyone to cash.  This is becoming a recurring theme in Florida mortgage note cases….  Here is the latest Complaint to surface in Florida…..KAGL v SUNTRUST MORTGAGE & JEFFREY P LAWSON COMPLAINT FILED FEBRUARY 12 2010 WPB ; See the endorsed note here: May 23 2003 Lawson Mortgage Suntrust Note ; and the Mortgage Contract Mortgage Suntrust Contract (All Benefit to the Mortgagee, All Costs to the Mortgagor! The standard mortgage contract used across the United States today is NOT a bilateral loan contract at all—in fact there is NOT mutuality of consideration or detriment on both sides).  Finally, is marriage a key element of the consideration and/or condition precedent for the issuance of title insurance?  If not, what is the meaning and significance of this “Affidavit of Continuous Marriage:” Affidavit of Continuous Marriage-Lawson May 23 2003.

There is no doubt about it, the analysis of commercial paper in Florida presented by Judge Walt Logan of the 6th Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, in August 2005 when he dismissed 20 MERS mortgage suits at once has never been excelled as an accurate analysis of the problem. It does not matter that Logan’s order was reversed, essentially as stating too absolute a rule against MERS, by the 2nd DCA in 2007 after a hearing in August 2006: Logan’s analysis is SUPERB and in NO WAY changed, altered, affected, or questioned by the technical remand so as not to foreclose MERS forever….Judge Logan’s August 2005 Order on MERS (Pinellas County)

*********************************************************************************************************

All of the Banks are “in this business” together, both big and small, and yet Barbara Boxer’s proposal is to help the BANKS (It says so on her website):

http://blog.barbaraboxer.com/?p=712:

Last week, President Obama made headlines when he went to Baltimore to address the House Republican caucus and field their questions. He visited the other side of the aisle Wednesday in a similar format, addressing Senate Democrats and fielding eight questions. Senator Boxer was able to ask the President about helping small banks by redirecting TARP funds. In line with a bill sponsored by Senators Boxer and Merkley, Obama proposed redirecting TARP funds to community banks during his State of the Union address.

As the OC Register reported:

“California is hurting,” Boxer said. “They really want to see a fighting spirit in us.”

Boxer suggested to Obama that he use TARP money for the bank proposal – either money the big banks that got bailed out have paid back or unused TARP funds. Doing it that way, she believes, would be more immediate than waiting for legislation to pass, if it could.

“I do think it’s better to do that through legislation than an executive order,”; Obama said. “TARP was a congressionally-created structure with some fairly stringent guidelines in terms of how we are supposed to approach it.”

The Senate has increased its focus recently on ways to help improve community lending and aid small businesses in job creation. Senator Boxer has been a leading advocate for new job creation and lending programs. More needs to be done, and Senator Boxer remains as committed as ever to ensuring that help reaches California communities instead of getting caught up in Wall Street.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Mardi Gras 2010: Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson Continues her Challenge to the Florida Family Code and Court System!

Happy Mardi Gras!  It is a day of reversal, a day to turn the world upside down.  And that is Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s purpose: to turn the modern world of marriage and divorce upside down, to get the state out of the home, not only the bedroom but also the kitchen, the dining room, the TV room, and the backyard, thus restoring both individual liberty and individual responsibility.  There will be full and genuine liberty and equality in the world with the legal reforms Kathy envisions: the state will neither compel the licensing nor the dissolution of any marriage or child custody arrangement, except to the extent of enforcing written contracts..  In fact, the state will be banned from doing so, and therefore limited in its power to license any kind of conduct which constitutes a fundamental right (e.g. marriage) and privacy (the arrangement of the family’s affairs) was intended by the framers of the First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.   Judge Richard L. Oftedal had set a final trial (without jury) in Kathy’s case for Friday, February 26, 2010, with all dutiful and compliant Domestic Relations’ litigants falsified but nonetheless self-incriminating evidence due to be created and filed in the court by today, Mardi Gras, February 16, 2010. Order setting trial Feb. 26, 2009.  But Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is kind of like Xena, Warrior Princess, when it comes to fighting against the Florida Family Courts.  KAGL Objections to Order Setting Trial February 26 2010.  This follows Judge Oftedal’s dismissal Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s February 8, 2010, Order Denying Motion on Leave to Intervene of the latest effort by the Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to Intervene. 1-230 Florida (KAGL) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE .DOC IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.  Why is a constitutional answer and objection not just as much the subject of a lawsuit as the originally framed relief? Why is the Petitioner alone, in a dissolution case, given full rights to due process of law? Or is he?  Does not the chain that binds a slave to his master equally tether the master to the slave? These issues were addressed in the Notices of Intervention filed by 42 of Kathy’s supporters (including the author of this blog).  Notice of Intervention after Marra’s Dismissal re Younger-Final and Filed

Postscript on February 25, 2010: Judge Oftedal gave a snort of in the form of an Order: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Judge Richard L. Oftedal, Friday February 19 2010) which simply ignored everything Kathy had filed as if it were a bag of sand emptied out on the Sahara or Mojave….the Order does not mention Kathy’s Objections at all, although they are duly recorded on the Palm Beach County Clerk’s Docket Report.  Kathy filed a combined Notice of Appeal of the Order Denying Intervention and the Order to Show Cause pursuant to Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.  Notice of Appeal of Denial of Intervention.  Judge Oftedal is unwilling to hear Kathy’s constitutional challenges and all related issues raised by her or the intervenors, apparently. I think his refusal even to HEAR or allow full briefing of the issues MIGHT just get the attention of the Fourth District Court of Appeals.  Kathy also filed a separate response to his Order to Show Cause, also on February 25, 2010. Response to Order to Show Cause Filed February 25, 2010 in Palm Beach, FL .  Extremism in Defense of Liberty is no vice.  Moderation in Resistance to Tyranny is no virtue.  Reserving the right to refuse to obey orders against one’s conscience is the essence of freedom, the essence of American Democracy, and the one last hope for the world.  The ability to say “NO” or to refuse blind obedience is the most sacred freedom we have.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is reserving this right to say “no”, to refuse to acquiesce in the system.  I applaud her dedication to principle.  Everyone should.  ”None can be free until all are free.”

Does it take a thief, or just a convicted Felon, to tell you who are the real criminals running this country?

Jim Traficant, Out of Jail, Running for Congress Again

POSTED:

12/30/09
Jim Traficant, the weave-wearing, bold talking, convicted felon and former congressman who once called Congress “a big whore house,” told a Youngstown, Ohio, business group Tuesday that he wants his old job back and will run for it in 2010.

According to the Youngstown Business Journal, Traficant declared to 35 members of the local Biz Society, “I’m going to run for Congress somewhere.” He said he has not decided which Ohio district he’ll run in, nor which political party he would affiliate with, but the former Democrat did say he has nominating petitions in three congressional districts.

Traficant had hinted several months ago that he was considering a run for Congress during an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball. On his agenda if he were re-elected, he told Matthews: Addressing the trade deficit (“Our trade deficit is $700-plus billion dollars. Beam me up!”), creating jobs, repealing the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to levy an income tax, and reforming the Internal Revenue Service (“I want to get the IRS and kick them in the crotch real good.”)

At the time, Traficant slammed the House leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, saying, “I’ve never seen such weak leadership in my life.” He added that Congress is “a big whore house” that “needs to start taking care of America.”

In addition to his run for Congress, Traficant said a libertarian group has called on him to run for president. “I told them I think you’re all getting high smoking dope, and you know what they told me?” he said. “To the contrary, you have a following.” He said he would speak at an event held by the group in February, “unless the government says I can’t travel.”

Traficant was expelled from Congress in 2002 after being convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion. He was released from federal prison in April and has since insisted he was “not guilty in any way.” On Tuesday, he promised to get revenge on the witnesses against him and the government agents whom he said had coerced their testimony. “I want to get these suckers!” Traficant said. “You are being addressed by a very bitter guy.”

Jim Traficant: ‘I’m going to run’

Former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) says he is “going to run” for Congress once again in 2010.

The colorful former congressman from Youngstown was released from federal prison in September after serving a 7-year stint on corruption charges.

Traficant made the announcement in front of roughly 30 members of the Youngstown Biz Society during a speech to the group in a local restaurant, according to the Business Journal Daily.

The former congressman did not say whether he would run for his old seat — currently occupied by Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, a former aide to Traficant — saying only, “I’m going to run for Congress somewhere.”

Traficant also said he has committed to speaking at a February event in Washington sponsored by the American Free Press, though he is not sure if the terms of his parole will allow him to travel.

The invitation, Traficant said, is part of an effort to encourage him to run for president.

“There’s a group out of Washington, and in several cities around the country, that want to bring back the old Reform Party, combine it with the tea party and bring the Libertarians in and everybody, and they want me to run as an independent for president,” Traficant said.

“I told them I think you’re all getting high smoking dope. And you know what they told me? They said, ‘to the contrary, you have a base following in all 48 contiguous states,’” he said. “So I’m going to address a group down there Feb. 13, unless the government says I can’t travel. And if they do that, we’ll hold it in Cleveland.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31066.html#ixzz0fxGwT3hn

Is Diversity Dangerous? Is Globalism Hazardous to the future of Darwinian Fitness? Is the West’s Embrace of Diversity the final death sentence for diversity both in the west and elsewhere? Is Diversity Just one big Globalist Plot to end World History and Natural Evolution? Probably so, probably so….

Is Maintenance of Cultural and Genetic Diversity Critical to the Future of the Human Race?  What is the best road to achieving such maintenance?  By globalism and homogenization or by a policy of “good fences make good neighbors” and “vive la difference?”

Accuracy in Media published the article reproduced below almost 9 years ago.  These are not QUITE my views, honestly, because what I believe about diversity runs more like this: Diversity is the fountainhead of evolutionary strength, but it requires the maintenance of voluntary isolation and the freedom to be different, even to cultivate differences, to let those differences flourish, and for each individual to choose the boundaries he wants to impose on his or her own life.  In other words, I believe that homogenization thwarts the evolutionary purpose of allowing small pools of cultural or genetic diversity to crystalize and formulate (cultural) or accumulate (physically) distinctive characteristics and patterns of adaptation which can then compete.  Most evolutionary experiments (both of the genetic/phenotypic/physical and cultural/learned/psychological & linguistic varieties) are failures but some are successes—and if everybody in the world is just subjected to this one big “shake and bake” formula of one-world global mixing and diversification for the purpose of atomizing and isolating individual differences so that they can achieve neither genetic nor social dominance, even locally, then this destroys the very raw material of evolution and change, and diversity is a terribly dangerous thing.  The French, as always, have a phrase that encapsulates my belief about diversity: “vive la difference!”—but “La Difference” and only flourish where there are cultural and physical boundaries which create cultural and genetic isolation.  Globalism is the death of both history and evolution, and I do not favor the acceleration of these deaths.  Globalism by merger of all the diversities of the planet’s great cultural and genetic diversity will only result in a monotonous hamburger-helper world where everyone looks basically alike, listens to the same music, watches the same dumb and dumber TV, buys the same fast foods from the same chains and drinks the same sodas (we’re almost there right now, right?).  ”Good fences make good neighbors” and they also permit the survival of cultural and genetic diversity.

Diversity Can Be Dangerous

MEDIA MONITOR  |  BY REED IRVINE AND CLIFF KINCAID  |  JULY 30, 2001

. . . it estimates whites will fall below 50% and become America’s largest minority.

America is rapidly becoming a more racially diverse nation. Whites fell from 80% of our population in 1980 to 69% last year. The percentage of Hispanics, who may be of any race, nearly doubled. They overtook the blacks, who made only a modest gain to 12.3% of the total. Asians, Pacific islanders and native Americans made a big gain, rising to over nine percent of the total population. Whites made the largest gain numerically, but in percentage terms they were the only group whose percentage of the total fell, and it was a large fall— 11 percentage points.

The Census Bureau sees these trends continuing through the year 2060, when it estimates whites will fall below 50% and become America’s largest minority. It predicts that nearly all of the erosion of the white majority will be the result of a big increase in the number of Hispanics, Asians, Pacific islanders and native Americans. If the predictions it made five years ago are any indicator, the bureau is underestimating the increase in the Hispanic and Asians populations. The predictions of what last year’s census would show were far short of the actual increases for those two groups.

Many people, including President Bush, believe that more diversity will actually strengthen and improve our nation. The administration is proposing legalizing some three million illegal immigrants from Mexico. If that is done, the flow of illegal immigrants will no doubt increase, speeding the day the white majority will vanish.

It is true that we have had great success in absorbing immigrants and converting most of them into good Americans. But the success of the melting pot in the past is no guarantee that it will succeed in the future. Diversity is great up to a point, but when the minorities expand in number and power and there is no majority capable of maintaining law and order, government of the people, by the people and for the people may well perish from this part of the earth.

Diversity of language, customs and culture tends to divide, not unite. We have had two serious race riots in Seattle and Cincinnati this year. England has experienced an outbreak of race riots in the Midlands in recent months, clashes between whites and immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh that lasted for days and left behind great property damage and seething anger. In California Mexican immigrants who have risen to positions of power openly talk about the reconquest of the territory Mexico lost in the Mexican-American war.

If America ceases to be a majority white nation, it may not remain one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. In Africa, millions of blacks have been butchered by other blacks. In the Balkans white Christians and Muslims are at each other’s throats. In Sri Lanka the Sinhalese and Tamils have been fighting a bitter war for decades.

We worry about global warming, a threat based on an unproven theory. America’s white majority is shrinking rapidly, and we blithely encourage more and more immigrants, hastening its elimination, and giving no thought to the possible consequences.

Reed Irvine is the former Chairman of Accuracy In Media and Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report.

What do these labels or statements really tell you about a person? S/he’s a “Convict” and a “Felon?” S/he’s “Disbarred?” S/he’s been “Sanctioned” or S/he’s a “Conservative?” or “Democrat?” or “Republican?” or “Libertarian” or “Liberal?” or “Constitutionalist?” or [OH NO!] “Birther?” In my case, I suggest they all add up to “Conflict-Tried and Litigation-Proven American Patriot!” or “Realist who knows just how rotten the system really is and knows it from the inside.”

I am, as many readers of this blog will know, a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney who has been severely sanctioned for spearheading a crusade to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional.  But just start with “Felon” and “disbarred”: Isn’t that a frightening pair of labels?  I must really be a seriously bad guy, don’t you think?  Or is it worse to think that between 1-3% of the United States population either is or has been incarcerated, or on probation or on parole or otherwise severely constrained in the exercise of their personal liberty?  And many of them stigmatized FOR LIFE as “convicted felons?” I only care because I know these labels will be used against me.  A “Felon” in the usual sense of the word, is someone found guilty of a crime which COULD have carried more than a year sentence.  Of course, as the reader of this blog knows, my favorite “Felon” is and remains a lady named Nancy Jo Grant from Arcadia, Florida, sentenced to 15 years probation (and actually held for six months in County Jail in 2008), who is a “convict” because she was “convicted” of the unauthorized practice of law—for maintaining a prison ministry passing out information to inmates telling them about the Florida and Federal guarantees of “Speedy Trial” and how they were entitled to immediate release if they had not been tried within a certain statutory time frame.  Oh, she was really terrifying, Nancy Jo Grant at the height of her activity—she threatened positively dozens of prison guard jobs if she had succeeded in getting all of the prisoners released to whom she passed out truthful and undeniably accurate information.

Similarly—”Disbarred” means that you were once a licensed attorney but your fellow attorneys and judges found you rocked the boat just once or twice (or in my case about forty thousand times) too often and so they had to get rid of you “for the integrity of the system”—because anyone who advocates change and seeks to break down barriers and build up individual freedom cannot possibly be a “man of integrity” with “due respect for the legal system.”  I thought being “disbarred” was significantly worse than being a “convicted felon” until I met former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore this past week in Atlanta—here was a man who, because of his own spiritual devotion and dedication to freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment was forcibly removed by judicial action from his very high office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama—not for any JUDICIAL action he took, mind you, but for daring to advocate a central place for the Ten Commandments—recognized jointly, severally, and equally by each of the leading monotheistic religions in the world (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)—as the foundation of all law.  If I suffered some mild indignities by being disbarred, Chief Justice Moore suffered worse by being dis-benched (the word “debenched” looks and sounds too much like “debauched” and the only “debauchery” in Justice Moore’s story is the intellectual and moral debauchery of those who removed him from office, and while “dethroned” is probably a historically more accurate term for the removal of judges from their large chairs perched atop daises above the heads of their “subjects”—I think much too highly of Chief Justice Moore to put him in the same category with most of the judges I know—those I have personally worked for and/or studied under all excepted from this general characterization, criticism….or damnation.  I do feel that the general damnation, criticism, or characterization of judges as monarchical petty-tyrants is warranted for most of the modern judiciary….especially but not limited to Texas Judges Federal and States James R. Nowlin, Sam Sparks, Michael Jergins, James R. Clawson, Jeanne Meurer, Lynn N. Hughes, Janis Graham Jack.

And no, I don’t have any respect for judges who hide behind the shield of “absolute judicial immunity” and lawyers who hide their gross incompetence and/or corrupt character and policy purposes behind the shield of the most illegitimate state-sponsored monopoly in the world: the state sponsored monopoly on free speech and advocacy in the courts, the one context where speech might actually have a PROFOUND AND DIRECT IMPACT on individual people’s lives and the future course of history at the same time, simultaneously.  Let people speak freely EVERYWHERE, but not in Court: oh “heaven forfend” that we should enjoy the blessings of liberty to speak freely in court.  You see, no matter how unjust a prosecution is, no matter how unconstitutional or unwarranted a criminal statute might be, no matter how utterly devoid of due process of law a judicial process in a civil or criminal case might be, the judges and prosecutors all have absolute judicial (or prosecutorial) immunity—or at least they claim they do.  Of course, I have repeatedly argued and continue to argue that the 1996 Amendments to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 actually codified the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Pulliam v. Allen which they purported to overrule, and reduced the threshold for piercing judicial immunity from “actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction” (a nearly impossible standard to overcome—in that any lawfully seated judge obviously has SOME jurisdiction to do SOMETHING, even if it’s just issue reprimands….) to “actions taken clearly in excess of jurisdiction” which might be a relative or objective standard, which at least theoretically, in front of SOME judges and juries COULD be breached….or crossed, or whatever it is you need to do to get past a threshold of judicial (or prosecutorial) immunity….

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984) and the 1996 amendments to 42 U.S.C. §§1983/1988.  The common body of language consists in (1) the use of the phrase “conduct clearly in excess of jurisdiction” with regard to attorneys’ fees and damages and (2) the principle that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in his or her judicial capacity:

Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law’s rejection of a rule of judicial immunity from prospective relief.  We have never had a rule of absolute judicial immunity from prospective relief, and there is no evidence that the absence of that immunity has had a chilling effect on judicial independence.

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. at 537, 104 S.Ct. at 1978.

Congress enacted §1983 and its predecessor….to provide an independent avenue for protection of federal constitutional rights.  The remedy was considered necessary because “state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights…..(every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that judges would be liable under §1983).

Id.,  466 U.S. at 541, 104 S.Ct. 1980.

As it happens, I didn’t do a single second in jail or even handcuffs for my felony.  It was just a Federal Judge’s way of ruining my life—or trying to—because on August 31, 2000, the day I gave up my law license in Texas, I can tell you that I HAD NOT EVEN BEGUN TO FIGHT.  It was only meeting a State Court Judge, Michael Jergins of Williamson County, and all his corrupt cronies, that really turned me into a man who would dedicate the rest of his life to fighting for (I don’t care HOW corny it sounds): TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY.  As a matter of fact, I consider these labels (“Felon” and “Disbarred” and “Sanctioned”) as “Red badges of courage” which I earned by hard work in the fight against a corrupt judiciary and an even more corrupt and unconstitutionally monopolized legal profession.  I have learned a lot of hard lessons, in particular, and if I have gained knowledge of anything that I think is important or special, it’s what I learned about the United States’ Heart of Darkness during those 54 days December 8, 2007-February 2, 2008: we do NOT live in a good country, or a free country, or a just country.

I consider these labels proof that I mattered enough to pose a danger to someone, although not necessarily for the “crimes” I was alleged to have convicted.   My “felony” was the misstatement of two digits in my social security number in an application for a non-interest-bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank in an otherwise complete and correct application to open a non-interest bearing checking account in November 1996.  ”BRANDED”!  ”LABELLED FOR LIFE AS A DANGEROUS UNDESIRABLE IN SOCIETY.”  Oh, by the way, Wells Fargo Bank never noticed the problem, nor did anyone else since the accounts were non-interest bearing, and although the account application was filled out in my own hand, the original was lost, so tampering with the numbers on the original by erasure or white out or whatever was never excluded as a possibility.  Try as my Texas persecutors and their emulators elsewhere might (while trying to impose “reciprocal discipline”, they cannot make this more than it is.  Recently some on-line critics of mine has dug all this up and tried to make something of it, but they couldn’t even settle for the reality that only two numbers of my social security number were misstated, they had to exaggerate it to three, and thereby illegally and improperly published my social security number—except that they published it INCORRECTLY so as to try to make the charges against me worse than they were, BY ONE DIGIT!  Idiots and pathetic fools at that.  I forgive them for they have absolutely no idea what they’re doing or saying or (probably) even why.

A United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas (James R. Nowlin) got me in his gunsights over the civil rights cases and in essence hired my former housekeeper in open court to testify against me (my housekeeper Marcelina was seemingly a very sweet, kind, and good North-Mexican-born lady with very poor linguistic skills in English who did not even sign the original complaint proffered against me under her name).  Either she or someone in her family made up some gibberish or the Lago Vista police officers who wanted to get rid of my seven suits against them in 1997-1998 made up some gibberish and Judge James R. Nowlin officially ordered an investigation of me by the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, and the “Admissions Committee” of the Western District of Texas—which was entirely Judicially appointed).  To say that Judge Nowlin ordered them to crucify me would of course be an exaggeration—he merely ordered them to try to find some, in fact ANY colorable grounds to disbar me—and so they did.

So, since I was indicted on December 7, 1999, I have developed a very new and comprehensive perspective on what this label “FELON” means.  Because in my case I say it means almost NOTHING, except that my wife Elena did not want me to risk going to trial in Federal Court after, during my judicial clerkships and externships, I had told her that roughly one person per year walks out of any Judge’s Federal Court free after receiving a Federal indictment—and that’s only if the government has such a weak case that congress has to amend the law to make it possible to indict more people.

I never “did any time” on my felony indictment, but as readers of this blog also know, I did do first one week and then 54 days in 2006-2008 for various bogus judicial orders approximating charges of “contempt for failure to appear”—both in cases wherein I had and continue to severely (and I think very accurately) question and challenge the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the court.  But still, some ignorant folks think that just the fact that you’ve done time in jail means you’re a dangerous person.

What I found out in jail, frankly, was that most people incarcerated don’t belong there.  I have said of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles that the “convicted felons” with whom I shared most of December 2007 and early January 2008 were a more distinguished group of people than I’ve met anywhere outside of the Harvard Faculty Club, Boston’s Tavern Club, or the Washington D.C. Cosmos Club (and in fact there’re some overlapping members in all FOUR groups….and I was NOT the only one….but we won’t go into that too much).  I still deeply regret the horrible fate of my fellow detainees Moshe Leichner and Vance Fecteau, who will remain in my mind among the finest people I have ever met in my life, intellectually, emotionally, ethically, and spiritually.  Those who can hold their heads high while serving not only time but their fellow inmates in prison are noble men indeed.  Moshe Leicher was one of those people who remind us that Jesus Christ and all his Apostles were Jews, and Jesus himself and several apostles also socially condemned and “convicted felons,” whose real offenses were to challenge the powers that be and perhaps succeed a little too much in doing so.   I only wish that I could achieve the moral stature of some of those wrongfully and purposelessly incarcerated people I have known in jail, deprived of life, liberty, and property by this sadly perverted but still dream-filled country in which we live.  Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of hardworking Mexican and other Latin American born nationals rot in American prisons.  If similar numbers of unemployed American tourists were arrested for their drunken pecadillos in Cancun, Acapulco, Cabo San Lucas, or Mazatlan, I daresay that the United States would demand an invasion of Mexico to free them.  And yet Mexico sits by silently and does nothing for its unjustly imprisoned masses in U.S. Custody.

So I am a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney, and at age 50 I am trying to decide what to do with the rest of my life, and I look at two other labels: Democrat and Republican.  Now mind you, there are plenty of prominent Democrats and Republicans who have also become convicted felons and worn the same orange pajamas or jumpsuits that I wore for 54 days at MDC Los Angeles, the Oklahoma City Transfer Center (one of the bleakest spots on earth) and other places.   But what is a Democrat and what is a Republican?

So much could be written about that question—so much always is.  ”Democrat” usually implies “Liberal” and “Republican” usually implies “conservative,” but I recently found this wonderful website: http://www.democraticreformparty.com on which I find Barack Obama criticized as a socialist with slightly dictatorial leanings who likes to be called a “leader.”  I remember Democratic Senator Samuel James Ervin of North Carolina and Republican Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, both veterans of the Senate Watergate Committee of 1973-1974, and how they and Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona ended up on the same side of many issues, among them that Richard Nixon should resign.  (I always had a soft-spot for Howard Baker because, like my Dad, he was a navy man in World War II, and like me, he was a graduate of the undergraduate College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane University in New Orleans; much more imposing and inspiring, Senator Sam Ervin, who as I did later, spent his graduate years at Harvard, was constantly quoting Shakespeare and the Bible, and in his manner of doing so seemed to me, when I was ages 13-14, to be the most eloquent and well-educated man alive).

There are not many senators of the calibre of those three (Ervin, Baker, & Goldwater) around today.  As a matter of fact, aside from another Democrat, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, I cannot think of any.  Goldwater’s great claim to political success, of course, was that in losing the 1964 Presidential Election, he nevertheless cracked open the “Solid South” and opened the door to Republicans taking over large parts of the “Southern White” element of the Southern White-Northern Labor Coalition which together elected every Democratic President from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt through John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson (despite Johnson’s loss of the “Deepest South” to Goldwater in Fact).  (At the Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta February 25-26, 2010, I did have the pleasure of meeting yet another large group of conservative democrats who have organized under the label “Liberty-Democrats” at http://www.newlibertydemocrats.com, who recognize that the most repressive terms in American politics, aside from “liberal” and “welfare” is “progressive”—my son Charlie says that he and I are both “Victorian Liberals”, really fairly extreme….).

The issue that has troubled America the most from approximately 1619 onwards is the issue of race.  The Democratic Party was once “Solid” in the South because it supported first the maintenance of slavery and then of segregation, and to atone for its sins became the party that elected the First Half-Black Man (formal racial label “Mulatto”) President, Barack Obama, who also happens to be the First President Elected who, by all traditional standards of evidence, is probably NOT an American citizen, and is therefore a fraud and a usurper and generally a disgrace to this country, quite apart from the fact that he’s a raving socialist who wants this country to turn into something that can only be described as “distinctly unAmerican.”  (OH, because I believe this little scandalous scenario, I must also bear to suffer another insulting label: I am also called a “Birther”, and all the “Pro-Obama, anti-Birthers” and some of the “Birthers” rejoice in criticizing me because of those other “labels” I bear, which may or may not really mean anything, but sure can hurt a guy’s employment prospects sometimes….I mean really).  But you see, by contrast with the Democrats, the Republican Party was created to free the slaves, it’s first President won power while advocating that slaves should all be returned to Africa but achieved at least their nominal freedom but only to the effect of enslaving or at least impoverishing the Southern Whites, and now the Republican Party is the best haven for scared White Suburbanites and blacks who wish they were White Suburbanites or at least wouldn’t mind if their son or daughter married one….except that most of the scared White Suburbanites are really quite comfortable with the idea of millions of blacks in chains—so long as they’re called CONVICTED FELONS AND KEPT SAFELY AWAY FROM SOCIETY).

If I had any political power or influence I would instigate a reform of the United States Criminal Code.  There are just too many crimes on the books.  Everyone is a criminal RIGHT NOW whether they know it or not.  How many of you can be sure that you never wrote down your social security number incorrectly? How many of you can be sure that you never made any of hundreds if not thousands of indictable errors in filling out your tax returns or other government forms?  As Ayn Rand wrote many years ago that the proliferation of crimes in the criminal codes of the Western nations meant that all of us would eventually be subject to arrest at any time at the whim of the government.  That is basically how I became a convicted felon, you see: United States District Judge James R. Nowlin did not like or appreciate the fact that I was bringing civil rights lawsuits on behalf of white suburbanites who did not wish to be subject to unlawful arrest in the white suburbs, and this is just not what the civil rights laws or movement was supposed to be about.  Civil Rights Reforms in the 1950s and 1960s were just meant and supposed to be a meaningless and temporary concession or series of temporary concessions to keep African-Americans from turning Communist during the Cold War, and once the Cold War was over, all pretenses concerning the Federal Government’s interest in Civil Rights or Equality or any of that garbage could be pretty much summarily dropped, and the Government never wanted those laws to apply to White People anyhow, or so the U.S. Judges so often tell us.

Another thing I would do if I were ever elected to public office is I would reinvigorate the Civil Rights Laws and make them truly Colorblind, even as I would also allow all ethic groups in this country their own rights to separate development and self-determination to the degree that this were feasible after all the “shake and bake” years of enforced “diversity” in the schools and neighborhoods and workplaces.  We have a “shake and bake” globalist President and he’s not the least little bit interested in helping black men and women stay in their homes or get houses or avoid foreclosure or be economically independent so that they can avoid spending their lives in prison.  NO, Barack Obama shows no sign of caring that African Americans are many times more likely to end up in jail than they are to end up owning their own homes.   Nor does he show any sign of wanting to curtail the abuses, infringements, and abridgements of civil rights effected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, and every other vile product of his miserable predecessors the totally Globalist, Freed0m Suppressing, Bush-Clinton-and-Bush Administrations (Democrats and Republicans merged into one during those years, if they hadn’t already under Reagan, the great conservative hope who not only saved Roosevelt’s New Deal but also Johnson’s Great Society—and expanded them both while utilizing all the worst elements of the Military-Industrial Complex about which Dwight Eisenhower had warned us).

If I had elective office or any political power, I would try to emphasize that the greatest difference is not between what the parties stand for today, but what they stand for today and stood for at various and sundry times in the past.  As a Democrat, I would try to resuscitate the honor of Samuel James Ervin and Howard Baker in the tradition of James W. Davis and Alfred Emanuel Smith.   As a Republican, I would say that Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor Ronald W. Reagan represent the best of the modern party tradition of individual freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government, but that President Ronald W. Reagan was nothing less than a catastrophe for the country.

Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta

http://pledge.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/10th-amendment-pledge-state.pdf

I heartily endorse and take this pledge as an essential part of my campaign and indeed, my political philosophy.

Thursday and Friday of this week I am attending the Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, at which, for the first time in public (this blog/website not counting!) I announced that I am running for Barbara Boxer’s Seat in the Senate in California.  Senator Barbara Boxer is a hard core establishmentarian Democrat of the modern “socialist” tradition, and if there is any hope of ever restoring the United States of America to its status as “the land of the free and the home of the brave”, the word “Democrat” has to mean something other than “socialist.”  There was some discussion on Thursday night about the meaning of the words “Democratic” and “Republican” and “Federalist.”  ”Federalism” of course lies at the heart of the Tenth Amendment debate.  ”Federal Revenue Sharing” is close to 100% of what State governments spend these days.  ”Demokratia”, meaning in Greek “rule by the people,” is contrasted with “Res publicae” which is simply Latin for “Common Wealth.”   In terms of ancient history, which is kind of a hobby of mine I guess, being a former archaeologist, the two words are not competing terms.  A Commonwealth (Republic) could be a Democracy or a Monarchy or an Oligarchy.   The United States at the present time is best described, in my opinion, as a Plutocratic Oligarchy (an elite ruled nation whose elite is defined solely by monetary wealth rather than productivity or education or anything else).  Plato in his book “The Laws” opined that an Oligarchy was the worst of all possible forms of government, because it was less susceptible to change and reform once it had “gone bad.”

Note to All Idiots who Care about Convictions for “Crimes of Strict Liability”

There is an evil little dweeb on some websites who hides behind the screen-name “nolu chan“.  It’s hard to know whether it’s worthwhile calling such a non-entity out.  He appears to be a paid blogger without a sufficient number of assignments, because he devotes WAY more time to me than a rational person would do.  So I guess he’s kind of like a wormy cyber-stalker.  And everything he writes about me has just enough grains of sandy truth that I probably couldn’t get MUCH if I sued him for damages, and I’m sure he’s not the sort of person who has the courage to face me one-on-one (either in debate or otherwise) because if he did, he’d surely reveal his name and real identity.  But he seems to think, in his own twisted little way, that he wins points (with whom I have no idea, maybe his cracked mirror?) for attacking me and quoting at length all the rotten tomatoes that were thrown at me by various state bars in the effort to destroy my life—which actually MADE my life what it is today—a crusade to neutralize the power of stupid, slavery-loving liberals like nolu chan. He has devoted a lot of space to my year 2000 conviction for misstating my social security number—and he thinks that he’s really clever.  In particular, he thinks he understand the truth when he clearly hasn’t got a clue and wouldn’t know the truth if it were a rabid raccoon who bit his foot off.  As a matter of fact, truth is a LOT like a rabid raccoon to these people—it won’t stop menacing them and it looks at them with bright red eyes and it won’t die when they try to shoot it with their little bee-bee guns…. I don’t actually intend to disclose my true social security number, but if Nolu is quoting them correctly then apparently the Supreme Court of Florida got the details totally wrong when they decided that they had to imitate the injustices done to me in Texas by repeating them in Florida.  There’s a post by some apparently unemployed idiots on a website which is probably (appears to be, anyhow) populated by “paid-to-blog” writers who have posted about me at url: http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=17177.  People like this disgust me beyond my capacity for belief, but it is worth noting that they are ALL WRONG and that if they are correctly quoting the Florida Supreme Court referee who imposed “reciprocal discipline” upon me by disbarring me in Florida because of my resignation in Texas, then they are even less attentive to details than I would have believed possible.  Convicting anyone s/he wants to convict of a felony without proof of criminal intent or criminal motive or wrongful benefit or profit, by threat of ruinous and lopsided, prosecution is “the bread and butter” of the Modern Federal Prosecutor.   They want to impose sentences of “life” for every crime, including crimes of “strict liability” such as the misstatement FOR ANY REASON of a social security number (including “no imaginable reason at all”).  The basic offense of which I was actually convicted was incredibly trivial (mis-stating two digits of a social security number, OR even three, when nobody was harmed or deceived by the error, if it was my error at all—no original documents available for inspection at any time, of course….), but since they’re making noise about it, they should at least know that my true social security number does not appear below at all, so they are perpetuating not only falsehoods about me but also OFFICIAL falsehoods about me—and it’s ancient history now so WHO CARES? I don’t—if you do, well then, just hope that you never had a dyslexic or forgetful moment in your life (if the charges against me were true) and hope that nobody ever decides to crucify you for an error of the most trivial kind and that, if they can’t find one, decide to MAKE ONE UP to get rid of you, because they need a pretext and you’ve just become too TROUBLESOME to some tyrannical Federal Judge who hates freedom more than he hates life and wants to eliminate both scourges from the Planet as soon as possible, so long as he can convince himself that he is still holding his office “during good behavior.”   For “people” who consider themselves liberal or fair to the underdog, I would just like to point out that, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, ten years ago is a VERY long time…..and what people might or might not have done ten years ago is pretty much IRRELEVANT whether you believe in the virtue of a law license which can be taken away from someone like me and still possessed by someone like the prosecutors who charged me…. well, you’re not very “liberal” or “fair to the underdogs” of our society, in my humble opinion…..

The point of my essay is that laws such as that of which I was convicted (42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B)) are written so as to entrap or permit prosecution of as many people as possible and to “tar and feather” decent folks who stand up to the system with the label of “felons”.  The point of “the people” who write on “the people’s forum” is apparently that they really relish the idea of being able to prosecute “people” like me (who disagree with them) for the most minute and insignificant transgressions, and they hope that the American people will be similarly small-minded (which in my nearly 50 years of life experience, they are not).  I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I hope that the “people” who write “the people’s forum” will realize that “the people” of the United States need to see most Federal Criminal Laws repealed if they want a nation and its young people to respect the integrity of law and concepts such as crime and punishment for really injurious actions…..

As for his social security number, I guess Chuck will have to take it up with the court.

From the   Report of the Referee in the Supreme Court of Florida, a PUBLIC RECORD, at 6:

Respondent hand wrote 484-17-0047, while his correct number is 467-17-0027.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2002/1401-1600/02-1538_ans.pdf

From the   ANSWER BRIEF in the Supreme Court of Florida, a PUBLIC RECORD, at 7:

Respondent hand wrote 484-17-0047, while his correct number is 467-17-0027.

This is a publicly available court document, available on-line directly from the Florida Supreme Court, at the link shown. Anyone can verify that I have provided the numbers as they appear on two court documents.

484-17-0047

467-17-0027

“Cash for Keys” is one of the Top Scams Coast-to-Coast: Shoot them when they ask!

“Cash for keys” aids home borrowers, investors
reuters

From Reuters (forwarded by Lucas D. Smith)

Real estate signs are seen in the front yards of houses for sale in this file photo taken in Maricopa, Arizona, May 27, 2009. REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files Real estate signs are seen in the front yards of houses for sale in this file photo taken in Maricopa, Arizona, May 27, 2009. REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files
On Friday March 12, 2010, 2:21 pm EST

By Al Yoon – Analysis
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Jon Daurio, chief executive officer of mortgage investor Kondaur Capital Corp., recently offered a $4,000 check to Barry Culver for the deed to his Bryan, Ohio house.
With the exchange, and a pay-off to a second-lien holder, Culver was freed of $120,000 in crushing mortgage debt on the house, said Daurio, who had bought the right to cut the deal when he purchased the mortgage months earlier. The house, after repairs, is now on the market for $47,500.
“It got me out of a bind,” said Culver, a former Kmart employee who has since relocated near his in-laws in Tennessee where job prospects are better. “I got a little cash out of it and was able to pay off other stuff I owed.”
Such ‘cash-for-keys’ offers are common for Orange, California-based Kondaur, one of the largest players in the business of buying and resolving distressed loans for profit. The business is growing more popular, with volumes of loans for sale at their highest since the founding of Kondaur in July 2007, said Daurio, a veteran of the subprime lending industry.
At DebtX, a Boston-based loan exchange, the number of bidders on pools of loans is up 25 percent since last quarter.
DEALS ARE INCREASING
Owners of bad loans are increasingly making deals with borrowers to avoid a foreclosure, which tends to reduce returns for investors and place a black mark on the homeowner’s credit. Lawmakers and regulators are becoming more accepting of these solutions even though they mean the borrower loses the home.
The trend comes after more than two years of loan modification programs and foreclosure moratoriums that have produced mixed results, with many homeowners ineligible or defaulting again.
Where a modification isn’t feasible, the U.S. Treasury in April will begin paying borrowers who agree to a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or short sale, where a home is sold for less than outstanding debt. Unlike most modifications, those actions erase excess debt and reset home values, solving the problem of underwater loans that are a top cause of defaults.
U.S. modification efforts to date have been “tragic” in delaying housing and economic recovery, Daurio said.
“All you are doing is delaying depreciation of the houses,” Daurio said. “You are not preventing it by keeping people in a house that they can’t afford.”
More than 11 million properties with mortgages are “underwater,” according to First American CoreLogic. Efforts to expand use of principal forgiveness haven’t caught on.
DELAYING THE INEVITABLE
Foreclosures have been stalled on more than 1 million bad loans since the U.S. Home Affordable Modification Program was announced a year ago, resulting in higher costs and losses to investors, according Moody’s Investors Service.
This is delaying an inevitable clearing of the housing market that is needed for a lasting rebound, analysts said. A pent-up “shadow inventory” from failed modification efforts could destabilize the market in 2010, they worry.
“You are preventing the orderly transfer of a home from those that can’t afford it to those that can afford it,” said Rod Dubitsky, a global structured finance specialist at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California.
The ability to customize loan workouts and earn potentially huge profits are enticing investors to the market, where loans are commonly sold at 40 cents to 60 cents per dollar of principal. Discounts give investors more room to work with borrowers than banks working to mitigate their loss, said Kingsley Greenland, chief executive officer at DebtX.
Investors generally look for a quick workout since it costs them to carry the loan or the property, said Jeff Freud, founder of LoanMarket.net, in Irvine, California.
Distressed whole loans are just a slice of the total mortgage market, however. Many loans are tied up in securities, and banks now with adequate reserves are arranging deed-in-lieu and short sale agreements themselves.
Mountains of cash chasing a limited field of loans has buoyed prices, but that is reducing opportunity for funds, said Louis Lucido, a principal at Los Angeles-based DoubleLine. But that could change if the Federal Deposit Insurance Co. more rapidly unwinds the assets of its failed banks, he said.
New entrants to the market tend to be small investors, who hold less than 100 loans at any one time, analysts said.
Among a pool of loans acquired by Dean Engle, a real estate investor in San Francisco who teaches others how to get a start in the business, was a foreclosed home in Greenwood, Missouri. It was still occupied by the former owner, who had no money to find a new place to live.
Engle told Ellen Brewood, a local agent to offer the former owner $5,000 to move out, and avoid a lengthy eviction. The house was vacated within five days. After 15 days on the market, it had offers above the $139,000 asking price.
“He wouldn’t believe it, that investors wanted to pay him,” Brewood said of the former owner.
(Reporting by Al Yoon; Editing by Kenneth Barry)

Sic Transit Gloria Orly!

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/03/16/1052709/appeals-court-upholds-20000-in.html?story_link=email_msg

(Thanks to Guy Riemenschneider for sending this Columbus, Georgia article in to me!  Sanctions of this order are nothing to be proud of—they are oppressive and incompatible with the right of the People to Petition for Redress of Grieavances.  Georgia Middle District U.S. District Judge Clay Land, like Florida Middle District Judge Richard A. Lazzara, is something of an anti-constitutional traitor, as Orly wrote he was.  And yes, this use of the word “traitor” is justified by reference to Cohens v. Virginia, 1820:

As the United States Supreme Court has held, refusal to consider constitutional questions is tantamount to treason to the constitution:

“It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S.C. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257, 291, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).

Still, in general Orly exercised at every stage of this and ever other case the most appalling bad judgment and lack of strategic good sense—at least from my perspective she always insisted on doing almost exactly the diametric opposite of whatever I advised or suggested or whispered to her by way of an idea.  And yet still again, I am sad for Orly.  She has made herself into very much the Clown Princess of attorneys and patriots everywhere, and the cruel caricatures of her hurt me, even though I see their point.  Things just did not have to be this way, not, that is, unless Orly REALLY wanted them to be that way, and although it shames me more than I can say to even admit I might have been an actor in such a farce, part of me believes that Phil J. Berg, Lisa Liberi, and Lisa Ostella MUST be right in their private suspicions that Orly and her “husband” Yosef are really just a pair of possibly Mainland-Chinese paid and sponsored communist sleeper agents who were activated to destroy the anti-Obama, pro-constitutional eligibility movement.  I never saw any direct evidence while I was working with Orly, except to notice that her accent in English is much more like a Chinese accent than a real Russian accent, but, accents are so variable.  And then, there was the issue that except for opposing Obama, Orly was no kind of real conservative, had no ideology to speak of at all except for liking Israel and disliking Muslims.  Judge Clay Land is no hero to the American Judiciary or the First Amendment, although he was in his own way 20 times fairer to Orly than Judge Richard A. Lazzara.  Only Judge David O. Carter gave Orly’s case a fair chance—and she managed to shoot herself and her clients directly in the foot even there—because if there was and is one judge who is NOT a traitor to the Constitution or fairness, it is Judge David O. Carter, who remains, in my esteem, one of the best judges on the bench today).

Tuesday, Mar. 16, 2010

Appeals court upholds $20,000 in sanctions against birther movement attorney Orly Taitz

Birther movement attorney has insisted she won’t pay sanctions levied by Judge Land

By ALAN RIQUELMY - ariquelmy@ledger-enquirer.com

California attorney and “birther” proponent Orly Taitz must pay $20,000 in sanctions, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

In the two-page decision, the appeals court states that after considering Taitz’ arguments, “we find them unpersuasive and therefore affirm the district court’s sanctions judgment.”

Taitz’ appeal stems from a suit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, who argued in September that Barack Obama’s presidency wasn’t legitimate and that she shouldn’t be deployed. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land dismissed that suit Sept. 16, telling Taitz that she could face sanctions if she ever again filed a “frivolous” suit in his court. Taitz then filed a motion for emergency stay, and Land gave her two weeks to explain why he shouldn’t sanction her $10,000.

On the deadline, Taitz, who no longer represented the captain, responded with a motion to recuse Land from the case and a request to extend her deadline. Land denied the motions and sanctioned her $20,000. He later ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to collect.

Taitz appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. She has said that she has no intention of paying.

Rhodes’ complaint was the second filed in federal court in Columbus by Taitz. The first was that of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, who in July also argued that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t serve as commander in chief. Land dismissed the suit on July 16, saying the Judicial Branch of government shouldn’t “inject itself into purely ‘political disputes’ and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.”

Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, who represented the government in the case, claimed Cook’s suit was “moot” because the Army had already told Cook he didn’t have to deploy, so the relief he sought was granted.

Cook appealed in September to the appeals court based in Atlanta.

The appeals court dismissed the appeal on Nov. 17, citing Cook’s failure to file a brief and record excerpts.

hiwaves wrote on 03/16/2010 10:11:36 PM:

Regardless of the premise for her lawsuit, the sanctions are outrageous. No judge in his right mind would sanction an attorney $10,000 for bringing a lawsuit, or $10,000 for filing a Motion to Stay. 

Sanctions of this kind create a “chilling effect” which may cause another lawyer to not file a perfectly legitimate lawsuit for fear of being sanctioned, or cause an attorney to not fully represent his client for fear of being sanctioned. Hence, excessive sanctions are discouraged.

A reasonable sanction might be $500 or $1500 in a case like this and that is why Taitz moved to have the judge recuse himself. The judge displays a personal bias when he orders sanctions like this. 

The judge would have been smart to recuse himself or at least reassign the case to another judge to avoid the appearance of bias. Seems the judge ruled out of vanity, “I can sanction you and therefore I will”.

rmasser04 wrote on 03/16/2010 10:37:44 PM:

Thanks, hiwaves, for a logical and well thought out explanation and insight into the judicial system’s thought process. Good points.
I concur with georgiapeaches in wondering how much more the president will spend defending the legitimacy of his birthplace. He is president and will remain so whether it is right or not, but remember ‘where there is smoke there is fire

Read more: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/03/16/1052709/appeals-court-upholds-20000-in.html?story_link=email_msg#ixzz0iPn9tUHj

Quick update—the status of my shoestring Senatorial campaign…

Well, there’s something to be said about the relationship between time, money, and organization, but this is neither the time or the place.  The Reader’s Digest version is that Friday (March 12, 2010), in one rather poorly organized and utterly unfunded day of collecting signatures had enough signatures, my devoted supporters and assistants Renada Nadine March and Aurora Diaz had collected enough signed nomination forms from California voters to submit my candidate papers.  Also, Renada confirmed that I was finally a California registered to vote (finally!) making me an eligible resident rather than a mere tourist/visitor.

So here’s what happened: we had the filing fee, and Renada was at the Orange County Elections office, but it turned out that they would not accept signatures of registered voters from Los Angeles or Riverside Counties in Orange County, and so our registration process fell short of what was needed to get us on the ballot, because we had only 46 Orange County Nominating Voters instead of 65, even though with L.A. and Riverside County registrants we had overshot 65 quite enough to make sure that if there were any invalid signatures, it would not matter.  So, as things stand at the moment, I am NOT officially ON THE BALLOT for the June 8, 2010 Democratic Primary…..I can still run as a “Write-In” and I may file suit about the incredible irrationality (in this day and age) of having each county tabulate such a small required number of registrants when the technology exists to verify voter eligibility statewide, and it’s all part of one system….. I also have the option of filing suit concerning the requirement that one cannot run as an Independent except by having NO party affiliation prior to October 1, 2009.  My goal is to run against Barbara Boxer, and I will continue to pursue that goal.  Any thoughts from any quarter would be MOST welcome.  I have registered at this stage but do not have an F.E.C. identification number, so I’m not sure what my status is as far as campaign contributions or the applicability of Federal Election law to me….  ANY advice on that point would also be helpful—so in short, we’re not off to the most swimming start, but such things have never discouraged me in the past….and I won’t give up now….. Have any write-in candidates ever won a statewide election in California?  I doubt it…..

Some Austrian thoughts for Americans Analyzing the first day after the passage of National Health Care Plan

Words cannot describe my COMPLETE lack of Surprise that Obamacare, National Health Care, passed.  It was Hillary Clinton’s priority in 1992-95, 18-15 years ago, and look where she is now?  The Oligarchy has imposed Collectivism on an unwilling Majority, certain, like Barbara Boxer, that the members of the Elite know so much better than the ignorant masses how to govern themselves than the people could possibly do themselves.  Individual Freedom, Individual Autonomy, the importance of the individual itself—all of these are obstacles.  Individualism must give way to acquiescence in the greater good, as if the “greater good” were not the sum total of individual well-being.  I say, as I so often have said in this blog, “Cry, the Beloved Country.”  We are on a path of self-destruction and ruination. 162 years after the Communist Manifesto, Barack Obama is President, Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State.  Cass Sunstein is a Czar….

National Health Care is the logical outcome and conclusion of the process that began with Social Security, and it is no more mandatory, coercive, or invasive of private liberty than the Social Security “tax”—universally forced purchase of a rather modest retirement pension which the government periodically loots and which has never been managed by true fiduciary standards at all.  Rather than talk about the wretched details, I would prefer to contemplate the radical roots of the problem: the replacement of Classical Liberalism with Socialism, which is no kind of “liberalism” at all.   The full article is quite long and I only intend to give a taste here.  The balance can be read at: http://mises.org/daily/4113, but (even though my current attempt to run as a candidate against Barbara Boxer has stumbled and doesn’t seem to be getting off the ground very well) I will continue my candidacy for U.S. Senator from California (realistic target date 2012 against Feinstein?) and I will work in support of a plan of Classical Economic Liberalism, in fact for “Capitalism and Freedom” to borrow the title of Milton Friedman’s book, and I hope that we will eventually escape from the wreckage that IS the Obamanation of today.

Austrian Economics and Classical Liberalism

Mises Daily: Thursday, March 04, 2010 by 

I. Introduction

Classical liberalism — which we shall call here simply liberalism — is based on the conception of civil society as, by and large, self-regulating when its members are free to act within very wide bounds of their individual rights. Among these the right to private property, including freedom of contract and free disposition of one’s own labor, is given a very high priority. Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum (Raico 1992, 1994).

Austrian economics is the name given to the school, or strand, of economic theory that began with Carl Menger (Kirzner 1987; Hayek 1968), and it has often been linked — both by adherents and opponents — to the liberal doctrine. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the connections that exist, or have been held to exist, between Austrian economics and liberalism.

II. Austrian Economics and Wertfreiheit

Writers have sometimes freely referred to “the Austrian ethical position” (Shand 1984, p. 221) and the “moral and ethical stance” of the Austrian economists (Reekie 1984, p. 176), denoting a position with strong (liberal) implications for politics. At first glance, this is surprising, since Austrian economists have been at pains to affirm the Wertfreiheit (value neutrality) of their theory, and thus its conformity to Weberian strictures on the character of scientific theories (Kirzner 1992b). Ludwig von Mises, for instance (1949, p. 881), stated that, “economics is apolitical or nonpolitical … it is perfectly neutral with regard to judgments of value, as it refers always to means and never to the choice of ultimate ends.”

That said, however, the fact is that all of the major figures in the development of Austrian economics habitually took positions on policy issues that they held to be somehow grounded in their economic doctrines. Mises, for instance, is widely recognized as probably the premier liberal thinker of the 20th century. In his magnum opus, Human Action (1949), he shed light on the connection between value-free economics and liberal politics:

While praxeology, and therefore economics too, uses the terms happiness and removal of uneasiness in a purely formal sense, liberalism attaches to them a concrete meaning. It presupposes that people prefer life to death, health to sickness, nourishment to starvation, abundance to poverty. It teaches man how to act in accordance with these valuations.… The liberals do not assert that men ought to strive after the goals mentioned above. What they maintain is that the immense majority prefer [them]. (p. 154)

According to Mises, economics teaches the means necessary for the promotion of the values most people endorse. Those means comprise, basically, preservation of a free-market economy. Thus, the economist per se passes no value judgments, including political value judgments. He only proposes hypothetical imperatives (if you wish to achieve A, and B is the necessary means for the achievement of A, then do B) (Rothbard 1962, volume 2, pp. 880–881, 1976b). A question that will concern us is whether the division between Austrian theory and liberal principles is as surgically clean-cut as this seems to suggest.

III. Methodological Individualism

Methodological individualism has been a keystone of Austrian economics since the publication of the first Austrian work, Menger’s Principles, in 1871. As Menger wrote in his Investigations,

The nation as such is not a large subject that has needs, that works, practices economy, and consumes.… Thus the phenomena of “national economy” … are, rather, the results of all the innumerable individual economic efforts in the nation … [and] must also be theoretically interpreted in this light.… Whoever wants to understand theoretically the phenomena of “national economy” … must for this reason attempt to go back to their trueelements, to the singular economies in the nation, and to investigate the laws by which the former are built up from the latter. (Menger 1985, p. 93, emphasis in original)

Methodological individualism was endorsed by the other leaders of Austrianism, to the point where Fritz Machlup (1981) could list it as the first of “the most typical requirements for a true adherent of the Austrian school.”

Perhaps because of the connotations of the noun, Austrians have stressed that what is at issue ismethodological individualism. Israel Kirzner (1987, p. 148) cites Machlup’s criteria of Austrianism, including methodological individualism as the first. He warns parenthetically, however, that this is “not to be confused with political or ideological individualism;” it refers merely “to the claim that economic phenomena are to be explained by going back to the actions of individuals.”

Lawrence H. White (1990, p. 356), too, seems to wish to distance methodological individualism from any hint of politics. White criticizes Max Alter for alluding to a “political” battle in this connection, commenting, “in fact the phrase methodological individualism was coined precisely to distinguish it from other varieties of individualism, including the political variety.”

But the interesting question is not whether the characteristic method of the Austrian School isidentical with individualism in the political sense (usually more or less a synonym for liberalism). Obviously, it is not. The question is whether the method itself has any political implications.

It is certainly possible for someone to adopt methodological individualism and not endorse liberalism (Boehm 1985, pp. 252–253). Jon Elster, for instance, is able to insist on the necessity of methodological individualism in the social sciences, while continuing to view himself as a Marxist (Elster 1985, pp. 4–8). Yet it is significant that Elster dismisses certain claims of Marx on the grounds of their inconsistency with methodological individualism.

In general, it seems clear that the Austrian approach in methodology tends to preclude holistic ideologies that happen also to be incompatible with liberalism, such as classical Marxism and certain varieties of racism and hypernationalism. To this extent, then, it is not simplymethodological individualism.

Political factors played a role in the debate over Austrian methodology from the start. The very fact that “nation” and “state,” understood as holistic entities, were not primaries in his system set Menger apart from important currents of economic thought in the German-speaking world of his time. Indeed, it was on the basis of Menger’s methodology that Gustav Schmoller, leader of the German Historical School, instantly politicized the whole debate. In his review of Menger’sInvestigations, Schmoller accused Menger of adhering to Manchestertum (laissez-faire), since his abstract and “atomistic” method might better be called “the Manchesterist-individualist” method (Schmoller 1883, p. 241).

Friedrich von Wieser (1923), himself one of the founders of the Austrian School, introduced a curious political note in discussing the origins of Austrianism. Wieser recalled how, as young economists, both he and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk had been struck by the contradiction in classical economics:

While the chief accusation that was raised at the time against the classical economists in Germany concerned their [political] individualism, we found that they had become unfaithful to their individualistic creed from the start. As true individualists they would have had to explain the economy from the meaning of the individuals engaged in economic activity who were joined together in the economy. (p. 87)

Many decades later, Hayek, in a sense, concurred with Schmoller and Wieser. The central idea of his most extensive work on methodology, The Counter-Revolution of Science, is precisely the historical and theoretical connections between the denial of methodological individualism and the growth of socialism. Hayek (1955) assails “methodological collectivism,” with

its tendency to treat wholes like “society” or the “economy,” “capitalism” … or a particular “industry” or “class” or “country” as definitely given objects about which we can discover laws by observing their behavior as wholes.… The naive view which regards the complexes which history studies as given wholes naturally leads to the belief that their observation can reveal “laws” of the development of these wholes. (pp. 53, 73)

The supposed discovery of such laws has resulted in the construction of philosophies of history on which major socialist projects have been erected — Marxism, of course, but particularly Saint-Simonianism, the system Hayek dissects in his book. The Saint-Simonians were practitioners par excellence of scientism, the illegitimate application to the study of society of the methods of the natural sciences.

And it is scientism — the negation of methodological individualism — that, according to Hayek, “through its popularizers has done more to create the present trend towards socialism than all the conflicts between economic interests”(Hayek 1955, pp. 100–101). By the same token, political opponents of liberalism, in criticizing Hayek in this area, have assumed that his methodological individualism was closely connected with his political philosophy.

Marxist critics have made a further point regarding Austrian methodology. In their view, it stunts our understanding of social reality. According to Ronald Meek (1972), marginalism — including Austrian economics — took refuge in a schema centering on the psychology of isolated, atomistic individuals, thus (unconsciously) diverting attention from the crucial questions of political economythat had been the focus of classical economics (including Marxism). As a result, “real-life” issues, such as the division of the social product among competing classes — “those great problems of capitalist reality which worried the man in the street” (1972, p. 505) — have been systematically ignored.

This Marxist criticism would seem to be misguided, however. The abstracting approach of Austrianism pertains — necessarily — to its theory. Many Austrians, it may be conceded, have neglected to apply their theory to the understanding of concrete, “real-life” issues. That this failing is not intrinsic to Austrian economics, however, is shown by the fact that at least one well-known Austrian economist, Murray N. Rothbard, has devoted himself not only to “pure economics,” but also to highly important questions of political economy, both on a theoretical level and in specific historical contexts (e.g., Rothbard 1963, 1970; on methodological individualism, see Rothbard 1979).

IV. Subjectivism

Austrian economics begins with and constantly emphasizes the action of the individual human being (Mises 1949, pp. 11–29; Rothbard 1962, pp. 1–8). According to Lachmann (1978), for the Austrian School,

the thought design, the economic calculation or economic plan of the individual, always stands in the foreground of theoretical interest.… The significance of the Austrian school in the history of ideas perhaps finds its most pregnant expression in the statement that here, man as an actor stands at the center of economic events (p. 47, 51).[9]

Give me Liberty or Give me Death—March 23, 1775 to March 23, 2010—the more things change, the more things stay the same…..

(my thanks and appreciation to Kaatcya for reminding me that today was the day)

I encourage everyone to read the immortal words of one of America’s patriotic greats during the founding of the union of these United States of America and make that determination to come true.  I would urge everyone to read these words day in and day out as our country is being taken over by the left.  On the same day Obamacare is signed into law by a likely illegally sitting president, 14 states have filed suit against this nation killing legislation, including one with a Democratic Party attorney general (Louisiana).  Of course, in the days of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Smith, and even later (Strom Thurmond in 1948-64, Theodore Bilbo, George Wallace, John Stennis, Sam Ervin, and Robert Byrd, the Democratic party stood above all for limited government, State’s Rights, but all that was, as they say, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far away…when I was young(er).  More states may come and probably will and they will be increasingly bipartisan.  The shots have been fired and the alarms sounded.  Of course, Obamacare does not differ in any significant way from the program Hillary Clinton proposed and pushed for in 1993-1995, and there is no doubt that Obamacare is not significantly MORE repugnant to the Constitution than Social Security, the IRS, the Federal Reserve Bank, or fully 98.9% of the entire United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations Currently in effect.

235 years ago on this date, Patrick Henry spoke the following life-and-world-changing historic words at the Anglican (Established Colonial Church of England, now Episcopal) Church of St. John in Richmond, VA (ironically enough, the same city where the first suit against Obamacare was filed today). And though the events and individuals are different, the bondage and effects are just the same, if not much worse, today.

    No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

    They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable-and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

I testify to everyone receiving this e-mail that I will refuse under compulsion to buy any insurance plan I am forced to purchase and that I will refuse to pay any penalties for failure to comply with however Obamacare is defined.  I will go to prison before I pay any penalty and even then I will not pay.  I will doubly make that commitment since I have no firm proof that the putative president that signed this law was qualified to do so as a natural born U.S. citizen under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, not to mention that this law violates the 10th & 14th Amendments of our Constitution.

March 23rd, 1775 & March 23rd, 2010 were days of infamy in America.  We must march to overturn the tyranny being imposed upon us Americans, even if it costs us our lives – and who knows, it way well do so.

I make this additional commitment to you, my brothers and sisters, as our Founding Fathers did in preparation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

  • And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Glenn Beck and the start of Easter Week

Today March 27, 2010, I attended Glenn Beck’s “American Revival” meeting in Orlando—and close to an old-fashioned “Revival” meeting it was—complete with two singings of “Amazing Grace”, a few tiresome confessionals (worst by Glenn) and one actual (security officer assisted) “healing.”

I don’t know what to thing of Glenn Beck and his followers: basically a very mixed bag.

One of my closest collaborating colleagues says that Glenn Beck is a “Monster”—-I don’t quite get that, unless you consider self-absorbed windyness a form of monstrosity (and even if you do, I’ve run into and heard MUCH worse).   I would not rate him as interesting an opinionated speaker as Alexander Woollcott, so good a news reporter or story-teller or moral editorialist as Paul Harvey or anywhere close to a speaker as inspiring as Ronald Reagan.  Still, he’s definitely a unique phenomenon in the United States of America today.

So I went to see the man in person today for the first time in my life at the University of Central Florida Arena in Orlando today.   Glenn Beck is nowhere the stature or determination of Judge Andrew Napolitano who also appeared, along with David Barton and David Buckner at a kind of “soft-core conservative pop culture symposium” today.  It wasn’t anywhere nearly as interesting or intense as the Tenth Amendment Summit I attended exactly one month in Atlanta, but it was 200 times better attended—around 8,000-10,000 people in attendance (and massive traffic jams around UCF) in Orlando compared to 400-500 at the Atlanta Airport Hilton.   I cannot help but think that both meetings are symbolic of the radical resurgence of constitutional thought in America.  The Tenth Amendment Center is based in Los Angeles, Judge Napolitano is from New Jersey—both meetings were in two of the original Seven States of the Old Southern Confederacy—how is it going to help me realize a state right democratic resurgence in California?

Some conservatives are devoted watchers of Glenn Beck.  I am not.  I don’t feel he has anything to teach me. (Judge Andrew Napolitano is actually fairly “hard core” and he does much to teach, as do some of the other participants, notably David Barton on the history of religion during the Revolutionary and Constitutionally formative among the founding fathers—a perennially controversial topic).

I know that Glenn Beck opposes two of the political theories/causes/movements to which I adhere and subscribe firmly: (1) to presume the constitutional ineligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama until he proves us wrong—because the time he may count on the “presumption of innocence” is now long gone, (2) the 911 Truth movement—which is probably (in the long run, more important than the “birther” movement to which it is regularly linked—it matters little, in reality, where Barack Husseim Obama was born, except that if he was born anywhere in the U.S. or the World other than the United States, or if he doesn’t in fact know where he was born, then he’s a gigantic liar and fraud—and as with so many things, such as the importance of Monica Lewinsky or Britney Spears, the Americans are the only people on earth who, by majority vote anyhow, believe the “official U.S. Government story” either of the 9-11 terrorist attacks or Barack Huseein Obama’s constitutional eligibility).

So why does Glenn Beck refuse to entertain discussion on Barack Obama’s birthplace and any detailed inquiry into questions such as “How did WTC7 Fall?” and “Why was there no aeroplane debris around the Pentagon?”  And “what a coincidence that the U.S. Air Force was engaged in conceptually related exercises on 9-11-2001, but still failed to react to the real thing in time to take any preventive action?”  Or, “why has both the press and the government been so completely closed behind stone-walls on this topic?”

A new acquaintance who teaches Constitutional Law in South Florida may have the answer: Glenn Beck is an “operative” moderate, a uniquely conservative voice in mainstream media whose purpose is nonetheless to preserve the IRS, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the general Title 42 Social Security and Public Welfare Program which has almost totally merged the state and Federal governments (as a matter of administrative law, hidden behind a facade of judicial separation in the publicly accessible courts).   The most important issue facing any country is whether its highest governmental leaders are willing to murder them for their own (the leaders’ own) advancement.  ”False flag” terrorism is hardly a new concept, but 9-11, if an example, would certainly the most heinous, outrageous example in world history.   If 9-11 truthers are correct, and I think there are, then there is little point in negotiating with the present government of the United States, and the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama was born in Mombasa or Honolulu simply pales by comparison, because the administration of Barack Hussein Obama has not sought to indict or even investigate any high officials of the Bush Administration.

But tomorrow is Palm Sunday—the day of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  I have been reading all of John Dominic Crossan’s books I can get my hand on since hearing this brilliant Irish-American scholar speak at Bethesda-by-the-Sea in Palm Beach, Florida last month.  I was born on Palm Sunday, 1960, and my son was born in Palm Beach and baptized at Bethesda-by-the-Sea.  He’s off camping this weekend and his mother my estranged Elena is worried because he isn’t calling from camp…but he’s closer to 18 now than 17, and so close to freedom and adulthood…but still treated as half-swan, half-goose, the boy whom we used to call “Little Charlie” (or “Little Hurricane” born on the eve of Hurricane Andrew in 1992)….and how do you tell mothers not to worry about their babies?

Imagine the First Easter week, for instance.  John Dominic Crossan has written extensively about the Gospel story of Jesus’ last week, which happened to have been, at least in 1960, my first….

Mary’s somewhat prodigal son comes back to the Capital City after preaching in the countryside, and he rides a donkey (that’s kind of like running in the primary election as a write-in candidate, isn’t it, when your troops couldn’t organize your ballot ready application in time…).  Glenn Beck spoke a great deal about religion and salvation generally, but not so much about Jesus on the Eve of Holy Week…..  So Mary (whatever became of St. Joseph? and was James really Jesus’ brother????) has to watch the events of Holy Week unfold, right through a “summary judgment trial, capias, and execution” on Friday.  A mother watching her eccentric, much beloved, wildly popular but even more wildly misunderstood, son break into the Temple, scatter the money-changers (without even filing a complaint with the SEC or Comptroller of the Currency?  It was always doomed…..as is the world), generally challenge authority (my mother certainly couldn’t tolerate any of my activities, mild though they were back then…and not even close to Messianic…), and finally make everyone furious and be betrayed, arrested, condemned, and crucified—possibly the cruelest and most unusual form of capital punishment known—even when compared with such juicy methods as “boiling in oil”—which by comparison could not have taken long, compared with publicly bleeding to death while in effect standing up, very slowly….bleeding each drop of blood with each breath).   Jesus suffered, as have so many victims of injustice.

Where was any mention of America’s prison population in the middle-class Glenn Beck love-fest today?   With all the comparisons to the era of the founding fathers, 1774-1803, where was the comparison made that the imprisoned population of America today is now greater than the total population of America at that time or at either of the first two censuses.   Where was any mention of the lies and deceits that permeate the government?

Basically, the economist, David Bruckner, at today’s Orlando conclave clearly accepted the basic tenets of Keynsian Monetarism and Public Welfare Socialism in the United States, even as he quibbled with whether the national health care system just approved by contract was financial viable or not—let’s face it, EVERYTHING is financially viable when you can print up the money, so long as the people can still use Federal Reserve Notes at Walgreen’s, Walmart, CVS, Publix, HEB, Winn-Dixie, Vons’, Randall’s, Star Market, etc..

Jesus’ approach to the money changers in the Temple was much more radical—he just drove them out, “just said no” as it were.  And of monetary policy, his most famous statement was clearly valid until this day: “render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.”

Palm Sunday March 28, 2010 (Today in History): Three Mile Island (1979); Andrew Jackson Censured for Removing Deposits of the Bank of the United States (1834); Premier of Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph des Willens” (1935),

Today is Palm Sunday, March 28, the 87th day of 2010. There are 278
days left in the year.

Today’s Highlight in History:
On March 28, 1979, America’s worst commercial nuclear accident
occurred inside the Unit 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island plant
near Middletown, Pa.

On this date:
In 1834, the U.S. Senate voted to censure President Andrew Jackson
for the removal of federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.
In 1854, during the Crimean War, Britain and France declared war on
Russia.
In 1898, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruled
that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrants was a
U.S. citizen.
In 1930, the names of the Turkish cities of Constantinople and Angora
were changed to Istanbul and Ankara.
In 1935, the notorious Nazi propaganda film “Triumph des
Willens” (Triumph of the Will), directed by Leni Riefenstahl,
premiered in Berlin with Adolf Hitler present.
In 1939, the Spanish Civil War effectively ended as Madrid fell to
the forces of Francisco Franco.
In 1941, novelist and critic Virginia Woolf drowned herself in Lewes,
England.
In 1942, during World War II, British naval forces raided the Nazi-
occupied French port of St. Nazaire in Operation Chariot.
In 1969, the 34th president of the United States, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, died in Washington, D.C., at age 78.
In 1994, absurdist playwright Eugene Ionesco died in Paris at age 84.

Ten years ago: In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court, in Florida
v. J.L., sharply curtailed police power in relying on anonymous tips
to stop and search people.
Five years ago: The Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death
penalty in a rape-and-murder case because five of the jurors had
consulted the Bible and quoted Scripture during deliberations. (The
U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider reinstating the death sentence
of Robert Harlan, who ended up being resentenced to life in prison
for the murder of cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney.) A major
earthquake off the west coast of Indonesia killed some 1,300 people.
One year ago: Fears in Fargo, N.D. of a catastrophic flood eased with
word that the surging Red River had crested at lower-than-expected
levels. Nearly 4,000 cities and towns in 88 countries switched off
nonessential lights for Earth Hour to highlight the threat of climate
change. Thousands of people marched through European cities to demand
jobs, economic justice and environmental accountability. Shuttle
Discovery and its crew of seven returned to Earth, ending a 13-day
voyage to install a pair of solar wings on the international space
station.

Today’s Birthdays: Former White House national security adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZBIG’-nyef breh-ZHIN’-skee) is 82. Country
musician Charlie McCoy is 69. Movie director Mike Newell is 68.
Actress Conchata Ferrell is 67. Actor Ken Howard is 66. Actress
Dianne Wiest (weest) is 62. Country singer Reba McEntire is 55.
Olympic gold-medal gymnast Bart Conner is 52. Rapper Salt (Salt-N-
Pepa) is 44. Actress Tracey Needham is 43. Actor Max Perlich is 42.
Movie director Brett Ratner is 41. Country singer Rodney Atkins is
41. Actor Vince Vaughn is 40. Rapper Mr. Cheeks (Lost Boyz) is 39.
Actor Ken L. is 37. Rock musician Dave Keuning is 34. Actress Annie
Wersching is 33. Actress Julia Stiles is 29. Singer Lady Gaga is 24.

Thought for Today: “Guess, if you can, and choose, if you dare.” —
Pierre Corneille (kawr-NAY’), French dramatist and poet (1606-1684).

Saturday, March 27, 2010: Glenn Beck in Orlando “American Revival” Day….; 1513: Ponce de Leon “Discovers” Florida; 1625: Charles I accedes to thrones of England and Scotland; 1794: Congress establishes permanent US Navy; 1964: Alaska Earthquake and Tsunamis

Today in History — Saturday, March 27

The Associated Press

Today is Saturday, March 27, the 86th day of 2010. There are 279 days
left in the year.

Today’s Highlight in History:
On March 27, 1977, 583 people were killed when a KLM Boeing 747,
attempting to take off, crashed into a Pan Am 747 on the Canary
Island of Tenerife (ten-uh-REEF’).

On this date:
In 1513, Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon (hwahn pahns duh LEE’-
ohn) sighted present-day Florida.
In 1625, Charles I acceded to the English throne upon the death of
James I.
In 1794, Congress approved “An Act to provide a Naval Armament” of
six armed ships.
In 1836, the first Mormon temple was dedicated, in Kirtland, Ohio.
In 1884, the first telephone line between Boston and New York was
inaugurated.
In 1945, during World War II, General Dwight D. Eisenhower told
reporters in Paris that German defenses on the Western Front had been
broken.
In 1958, Nikita Khrushchev became Soviet premier in addition to First
Secretary of the Communist Party.
In 1964, Alaska was hit by a powerful earthquake and tsunamis that
killed about 130 people.
In 1980, 123 workers died when a North Sea floating oil field
platform, the Alexander Kielland, capsized during a storm.
In 1990, the U.S. began test broadcasts of TV Marti to Cuba, which
promptly jammed the signal.

Ten years ago: The Supreme Court decided the federal government could
deny food stamps and other welfare benefits to people who live
permanently in the United States but who are not citizens.
DaimlerChrysler AG announced it would buy 34 percent of Japan’s
Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
Five years ago: Pope John Paul II delivered an Easter Sunday blessing
to tens of thousands of people in St. Peter’s Square, but the ailing
pontiff was unable to speak and managed only to greet the saddened
crowd with a sign of the cross. In a live Internet interview with the
Rev. Jesse Jackson, Michael Jackson declared himself “completely
innocent” of child molestation charges, and said he was the victim of
a conspiracy.
One year ago: President Barack Obama launched a fresh effort to
defeat al-Qaida terrorists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, ordering
in 4,000 more troops. A suicide bomber blew up a packed mosque near
the Afghan border, killing at least 48 people. The rising Red River
broke a 112-year record and threatened the dikes fortifying Fargo,
N.D. The main suspect in the Phoenix Serial Shooter attacks, Dale
Hausner, was sentenced to death for six murders that had put the city
on edge for nearly two years. Mutual fund pioneer Jack Dreyfus died
in New York at age 95. Former NBC News economics reporter Irving R.
Levine died in Washington at age 86.

Today’s Birthdays: Former newspaper columnist Anthony Lewis is 83.
Dance company director Arthur Mitchell is 76. Actor Julian Glover is
75. Actor Jerry Lacy is 74. Actor Austin Pendleton is 70. Actor
Michael York is 68. Rock musician Tony Banks (Genesis) is 60. Actress
Maria Schneider is 58. Rock musician Andrew Farriss (INXS) is 51.
Jazz musician Dave Koz (kahz) is 47. Movie director Quentin Tarantino
is 47. Rock musician Derrick McKenzie (Jamiroquai) is 46. Rock
musician Johnny April (Staind) is 45. Actress Talisa Soto is 43.
Actress Pauley Perrette is 41. Singer Mariah Carey is 40. Rock
musician Brendan Hill (Blues Traveler) is 40. Actress Elizabeth
Mitchell is 40. Actor Nathan Fillion is 39. Hip-hop singer Fergie
(Black Eyed Peas) is 35. Actress Megan Hilty is 29. Actress Emily Ann
Lloyd is 26. Actress Brenda Song (TV: “The Suite Life of Zack and
Cody”) is 22. Actress Taylor Atelian is 15.

Thought for Today: “A sheltered life can be a daring life as well.
For all serious daring starts from within.” — Eudora Welty, American
author (1909-2001).

An Ex-Post Facto Law at the Heart of Florida’s Statutes authorizing Homeowner’s Association Assessments and Fees: § 720.3085. Payment for assessments; lien claims

It is rare indeed when a state legislature does anything quite so bizarre as to enact a blatantly unconstitutional statute on such rare grounds as a “bill of attainder”, a “bill of pains and penalties” and/or an “Ex Post Facto Law”, but the Florida Legislature appears to have done just that.  As my distinguished colleague and brilliant Texas constitutional counsel David A. Rogers wrote when I sent him a copy of Florida Statute 720.3085,

“Of course, as you know, the prohibitions on EPF in the non-criminal context are less than they are in the criminal context (where they are pretty much absolute), but I think this manages to be both an EPF law and a “taking without compensation” in violation of the 5th Amendment.”

§ 720.3085.  Payment for assessments; lien claims

(1) When authorized by the governing documents, the association has a lien on each parcel to secure the payment of assessments and other amounts provided for by this section. Except as otherwise set forth in this section, the lien is effective from and shall relate back to the date on which the original declaration of the community was recorded. However, as to first mortgages of record, the lien is effective from and after recording of a claim of lien in the public records of the county in which the parcel is located. This subsection does not bestow upon any lien, mortgage, or certified judgment of record on July 1, 2008, including the lien for unpaid assessments created in this section, a priority that, by law, the lien, mortgage, or judgment did not have before July 1, 2008.

John Wolfgram thoughtfully shared his analysis:

1. Liens do not create foreclosure powers.  They create a right of payment that must be honored before or at the time of selling the property.

2.  I think that the last sentence prevents it from being an ex post facto law. Assuming the effective date of the statute was July 1, 2008, on its face it does not allow any lien to be effective under this statute before that date.

3.  It does say when the governing document had to be in effect by the words “when authorized by the governing documents”.  To the extent that they are not in effect, the governing documents do not authorize anything.

4.  I don’t understand about a lien being imposed ten years after purchase.  That would seem to create a statute of limitations problem.  The lien must be for a currently viable debt governed by the originally filed documents.

Wolf

With deep gratitude to John Wolfgram for his input, I do not think that the last sentence on priority saves the provision from being an Ex-Post Facto status at all.   Nor do I think that John is right about the lack of true retroactive effect.  F.S. 720.3085 is clearly both intended to be retroactive (creating the ex-post facto effect) and is so being applied by Florida Lawyers (no test cases yet in Court, according to Lexis, which I assume is infallible on this point…).

The law articulated here certainly doesn’t go on to say anything about “when authorized by the governing documents AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE or original acquisition of entry in the property…”  That might save the provision from ex-post facto effect.

And, just as a side note: is this or is this NOT one of the highest quasi-governmental interest rates you’ve ever seen anywhere?  OK, 18% on a Citibank MasterCard or VISA or even American Express “Sign & Travel” or “Optima” Card I can understand, but 18% on a Homeowners’ Assessment that has not even been reduced to Judgment?   What interpretation can anyone place on this other than to say that the Florida Legislature really is trying to outlaw private property.

I think this is the real thing, a real constitutional outrage, and since every constitutionalist should be interested in Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder…or legislative bills of pains and penalties.

And thanks to Bill Trudelle of Tampa who commented, “I think it is an excellent catch.”  Also thanks to Bill for providing the citation to the Florida Supreme Court’s White Egret describing Homeowners’ Associations as “Little Democracies” (i.e. quasi-governmental entities exercising governmental power unconstitutionally as no government could do): White Egret V Franklin-Florida SCT-1979

Attached, finally, is the full text of Pearl Lanier Bryan’s comprehensive demand letter submitted today on this very point: Pearl Lanier Bryan to Patrick T Hinckley March 28, 2010.

Will Florida be infected and destroyed by the cancer of non-judicial foreclosure?

My Gratitude to Deborah Focht of Sarasota for providing this important information.  Deborah (aka “American Reply”) is another one of Florida’s Great Lady Warriors who fight against creeping Socialist dictatorship in America.  And let there be no doubt, although the state of California has the worst laws on non-judicial foreclosure, non-judicial foreclosure EVERYWHERE is unconstitutional (1) as an impairment of the rights of contract for existing contracts, (2) an abridgment of the common law freedom of contract on which this nation was founded and flourished for about 150-190 years (any relic traces of real economic freedom pretty much ended, for the economy as a whole, about during the middle of the Johnson Administration at the absolute latest), (3) a legislatively engineered taking of property for public purposes (those purposes being the maximization of governmental power against the citizen, and the diminution of individual freedom and stability to maintain and reserve power against the state) without due process of law, (4) a complete abrogation of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the key to universal corporate-governmental co-ownership of property.  It is because of non-judicial foreclosure that I decided to enter politics (too late, too disorganized, and too underfunded to accomplish much in 2010, most probably, but I consider my present WRITE-IN CANDIDACY against Barbara Boxer as just the first step in running against Feinstein in 2012—-and I will have a much better organization by then).
Freitag, den 9. April 2010, 20:46:07 UhrHomeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act HB 1523 – STOP the Madnes!!!! bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original
Von:
“AmericanReply@gmx.com” <americanreply@gmx.com>

Zu Kontakten hinzufügen

An: Undisclosed recipents <americanreply@gmx.com>
18 Dateien  Alle herunterladen
4376.jpg (16KB); emailyourrepresentative.png (4KB); photobutton.png (3KB); 4372.jpg (35KB); 4457.jpg (35KB); 4267.jpg (15KB); 4272.jpg (13KB); 4289.jpg (7KB); 4449.jpg (39KB); 4387.jpg (43KB);4263.jpg (38KB); 4385.jpg (11KB); 4433.jpg (37KB); 4287.jpg (15KB); 4386.jpg (13KB); 4396.jpg (37KB); 4367.jpg (14KB); 4443.jpg (60KB)




HB 1523 – Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act – STOP the Madness of Nonjudicial Foreclosure

Published April 9, 2010 CorruptionFannie MaeForeclosure FraudMERSMortgage Fraudbankruptcycdocdsforeclosurefreddie macmortgage electronic registration systemsecurities fraudLeave a Comment
Tags: 4closurefraudAdam M. FettermanAudrey Gibsonbank fraudCarl J. DominoCivil Justice & Courts Policy CommitteeconspiracycriminalDoug HolderEduardo “Eddy” GonzalezEric Eisnaugle,Florida Bankers AssociationforeclosureForeclosure Fraudhb 1523hb1523Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery ActJames W. “Jim” WaldmanJr.Julio RobainaKevin C. AmblerLuis R. Garcia,Michael B. “Mike” WeinsteinnonjudicialPerry E. Thurstonproduce the noteRobert C. “Rob” SchenckSandra “Sandy” AdamsTom GradyWilliam D. Snyderwrongful foreclosure

SPREAD THE WORD!

The bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original. It is being voted on by the Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee on Monday April 12, 2010

READ BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY HERE AND CONTACT THE REPRESENTATIVES BELOW IMMEDIATELY BY PHONE AND EMAIL PROVIDED BELOW.

The Florida Bankers Association, like a coven of evil banking wizardshopes to commit an act of sorcery by conjuring up three letters “NON” to be placed in front of the word “Judicial” in Regards to Florida’s Foreclosure Process.

In this bill they propose changing the Florida law which currently requires foreclosures to be adjudicated through the courts to a new law which would allow foreclosures to bypass the judicial system altogether to become a NON Judicial foreclosure state.

Why? Perhaps the gravy train has foreseen a few obstacles on the track ahead (legally strong foreclosure defenses, educated judges, wiser populace, state mandated mediation requirements). These Florida Bankers may be trying to ease their way on the path of least resistance to confiscate more homes and more wealth from both the homeowners and the investors who funded these loans.

Or could it be the Florida Supreme Courts new Rules?

First, rule 1.110(b) is amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. The primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded “lost note” counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suitsbrought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.

OR MAYBE ASSET BACKED SECURITIZATION MEANS NO NOTE?

Regardless of the statements above, this bill could be devastating to the millions of Floridians facing foreclosures caused bybanks selling loans connived to a well planned default, bundling the bad debt, and betting against it to ensure a win for the banks and foreclosure for homeowners.

As it stands now, these aggressive, unprofessional foreclosure mills and their Plaintiff clients are still filing fabricated documents by the millions without any respect for the integrity of our official public records or the laws of evidence set by the judiciary system even after they were sanctioned by Judge Olson for these same issues. If this is how foreclosures are rammed throughwhen we have a glimmer of hope of judicial protection, imagine the steamroller effect which will potentially ensue if this bill is passed, the flood gates thrown open, and the judicial dike washed away.

So we ask the following, shall Florida:

  • Join the 37 states which allow non-judicial foreclosures to proceed without any protections whatsoever for the homeowner?
  • Allow the Bankers to smother the judicial branch as they have the executive and legislative branches?
  • Disrespect the serious efforts of the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Foreclosures and the Honorable Chief Justice Peggy Quince’s order mandating mediation for all homesteaded properties in foreclosure?
  • Ignore the contagion of Stockholm Syndrome that has infected most of our local, state, and national politician sycophants who bow with obeisance as the bankers confiscate millions of constituents’ homes?
  • Cost shift the $1,900 foreclosure lawsuit filing fee from the foreclosing entity to the financially stressed, perhaps newly unemployed Floridian family trying to defend their home?
  • Transfer the burden of proof in a foreclosure action from the foreclosing bank which has great difficulty producing authentic, genuine evidence showing its right to foreclose, to the homeowner who has subsistence survival worries?
  • Banish pro se litigants and clients of foreclosure defense attorneys from the halls of justice, allowing entry to only those who have the funds to pay the “cover charge”?
  • Allow to go unopposed the fabricated mortgage assignments, dubious indorsed notes, unauthorized property transfers, and deeply clouded property titles?
  • Trust as altruistic the professed motives of the same bankers who charge egregious credit card interest rates, overdraft and late fees, place holds on deposits, and reward themselves with billions in bonuses while crushing their customers under the weight of usurious loans?
  • Eradicate the right of due process granted by the U.S. Constitution:
    • Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
    • Right to be present at the trial
    • Right to an impartial jury
    • Right to be heard in one’s own defense

The Bankers have taken our jobs, our savings, our 401Ks, our education funds, our public safety nets, the equity in our property, our municipality revenue source, our access to credit, and our credit scores. Florida being a deficiency state, we may lose our home to foreclosure and end up with a garnished paycheck for the deficiency.  Second mortgage holders are freezing bank accounts to get their piece of the action. Now that we have almost nothing left, will we also abdicate to these Florida Bankers our Constitutional rights?

GENERAL BILL by Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Policy Committee and Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee and Grady (CO-SPONSORS) Domino; Eisnaugle; O’Toole

Homeowner Relief: Creates “Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act”; provides general provisions for nonjudicial foreclosures; provides criteria for notice & knowledge; provides for transactions creating security interest; provides for time of foreclosure; provides procedures, requirements, & limitations before foreclosure; specifies right to foreclose; requires notice of default; provides right to cure; provides requirements for notice of foreclosure; provides for meeting & meeting requirements to object to foreclosure; provides period of limitation for foreclosure; provides for judicial supervision of foreclosure; provides for right to redeem collateral; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on foreclosures by auction, negotiated sale, & appraisal; provides for rights after foreclosure; provides for application of proceeds, transfer of title, actions for damages or to set aside foreclosure, possession after foreclosure, judgments for deficiencies, & determinations of amounts of deficiency; provides for effect of good faith by debtor; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on discontinuation of foreclosure; provides for uniformity of application & construction; specifies relation to Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act.

Effective Date: July 1, 2010

Substitiuded bill

Committee Substitute 2

Start Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 1:00 PM

End Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 3:15 PM
Location : 404 HOB
Duration : 2.25

Members of the  Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee that will be voting on this bill are listed here along with their email address and phone numbers.

Call them all then click the links and email each and every one of them

ABOUT THE HORROR STORIES OF A NON JUDICIAL STATE ,

TELL THEM ABOUT ALL OF THE FRAUD THAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN THE COURTS,

and tell them to vote NO on HB 1523

Representative William D. Snyder
District 82
Email Representative Snyder
View  Photo Album
PHONE

772-221-4904

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Stuart
Occupation:
Career Law Enforcement, Retired
Child(ren):
David, John, Laura
Education:
Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., Criminal Justice, 1976; FBI Academy, University of Virginia, 1999; Florida Gulf Coast University
Born:
September 6, 1952, New York City, NY
Moved to Florida:
1954
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Representative Doug Holder
District 70
Email Representative Holder
View  Photo Album
PHONE

941-918-4028

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Sarasota
Occupation:
Real Estate Broker
Spouse:
Shannon Holder
Child(ren):
Channing, Chase
Education:
Middle Tennessee State University, B.S., Political Science, 1990, Former Student Body President, President of Associated Student Body
Born:
December 7, 1966, Marietta, GA
Moved to Florida:
1997
Religious Affiliation:
Episcopal
Recreational Interest:
cooking, family, golf, hunting, music, skiing, tennis, travel
Representative Adam M. Fetterman
District 81
Email Representative Fetterman
View  Photo Album
PHONE

772-873-6500

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Port St. Lucie
Occupation:
Attorney/General Counsel
Spouse:
Mindi J. Fetterman, of Arlington Heights, Illinois
Child(ren):
Noah Louis Fetterman
Education:
Brandeis University, B.A., Anthropology, 1988-1992; Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Lacrosse Club; University of Miami School of Law, J.D., 1995-1998; Editor-in-Chief, University of Miami Business Law Journal; National Mock Trial Team
Born:
October 16, 1970, New Rochelle, NY
Moved to Florida:
1973
Religious Affiliation:
Jewish
Recreational Interest:
camping, canoeing, cycling, surfing
Representative Sandra ”Sandy” Adams
District 33
Email Representative Adams
View  Photo Album
PHONE

407-977-4020

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Orlando
Occupation:
Law Enforcement
Spouse:
John H. Adams, Sr., of Waukegan, Illinois
Child(ren):
John Jr., Sonya, Kathryn
Education:
Columbia College, B.A., Criminal Justice Administration, 2000
Born:
December 14, 1956, Wyandotte, MI
Military:
United States Air Force
Moved to Florida:
1964
Religious Affiliation:
Episcopal
Recreational Interest:
travel
Representative Kevin C. Ambler
District 47
Email Representative Ambler
View  Photo Album
PHONE

813-558-1333

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Tampa
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Mindy Hanopole, of New Jersey
Child(ren):
Jason, Jami
Education:
Cornell University, B.A., 1983, Cornell Interfraternity Council, Judicial Administrator, AFROTC, Phi Alpha Omega Fraternity, President; Southwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1986, Moot Court Honors Board of Advisors
Born:
March 10, 1961, Los Angeles, CA
Military:
U.S. Air Force Reserve, Major, 1991-2005; U.S. Air Force 1986-1991; U.S. Air Force Reserve, Outstanding Judge Advocate of the Year 1991
Recreational Interest:
sailing, skiing, tennis, travel
Representative Carl J. Domino
District 83

Email Representative Domino
View  Photo Album
PHONE

561-625-5176

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jupiter
Occupation:
Investment Manager
Spouse:
Sharon Domino, of Miami
Child(ren):
Mason Carl, Reagan Deeann
Education:
Florida State University, B.S., Accounting, 1966, Student government, Dean’s List, intramural sports, elected to Gold Key and Omicron Delta Kappa; Harvard Business School, M.B.A., 1972, Finance Club, First Year Honors
Born:
April 15, 1944, Quantico, VA
Moved to Florida:
1958
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
golf, reading, spectator sports, tennis
Representative Eric Eisnaugle
District 40

Email Representative Eisnaugle
View  Photo Album
PHONE

407-893-3141

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Orlando
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Carrie Eisnaugle, of Minnesota
Education:
Florida Southern College, B.S., 1996-2000; Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D., 2000-2003
Born:
February 6, 1977, Arcadia, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Representative Luis R. Garcia, Jr.
District 107

Email Representative Garcia
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-325-2501

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Miami Beach
Occupation:
Retired Miami Beach Fire Chief
Child(ren):
Luis Rene, Jorge Luis, Alejandro Luis
Grandchild(ren):
Nicolas Luis, Tomas Alexander
Education:
National Fire Academy, Executive Fire Officer, 1997; Miami-Dade Community College, A.S., EMS Management, 1990; Paramedic Certification, 1977; Emergency Medical Technician, 1974
Born:
December 8, 1945, Marianao, Cuba
Moved to Florida:
1960
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
history, sports
Representative Audrey Gibson
District 15

Email Representative Gibson
View  Photo Album
PHONE

904-353-2180

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jacksonville
Occupation:
Public Relations and Legal Liaison
Education:
Florida Community College, A.A., 1976; Florida State University, B.S., Criminology, 1978
Born:
March 15
Religious Affiliation:
A.M.E.
Recreational Interest:
formula racing, horseback riding, music, sporting events (football, basketball), theatre, weight training
Representative Eduardo ”Eddy” Gonzalez
District 102

Email Representative Gonzalez
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-364-3066

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Hialeah
Occupation:
CAC Florida Medical Center; Business Development Leader
Spouse:
Barbara “Barbie” Gonzalez, of Hialeah
Child(ren):
Evan Mathew, Ethan Angel, Sianna Nicole
Education:
Miami-Dade College, Business Management and Administration, 1992
Born:
November 9, 1969, Cardenas, Matanzas, Cuba
Moved to Florida:
1971
Religious Affiliation:
Roman Catholic
Recreational Interest:
boating, football, softball, swimmin
Representative Tom Grady
District 76

Email Representative Grady
View  Photo Album
PHONE

239-417-6200

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Naples
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Ann Grady, of Gainesville, Florida
Child(ren):
Lauren, Ryan
Education:
Florida State University, B.S., Finance, summa cum laude, 1979; Alpha Lambda Delta Honor Society, Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, Editor of College Republican newsletter; Duke University, Juris Doctor with distinction, 1982
Born:
May 14, 1958, Fairview Park, OH
History:
Legislative Page for the House, 1972; House Intern, 1978-1979; R.W. “Mac” Grady, father, Rockledge City Council, 1962-1965, Mayor of Rockledge, 1966-1976
Moved to Florida:
1958
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Recreational Interest:
boating, cars, reading, SCUBA, skiing
Representative Julio Robaina
District 117

Email Representative Robaina
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-442-6868

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Miami
Occupation:
AT&T Employee
Education:
Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., 1983
Born:
September 1, 1961, Miami, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
camping, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, SCUBA diving
Representative Robert C.  ”Rob” Schenck
District 44

Email Representative Schenck
View  Photo Album
PHONE

352-688-5005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Spring Hill
Spouse:
Megan Schenck, of Muncie, IN
Child(ren):
Micheal, Isabella
Education:
Pasco-Hernando Community College, A.A., 1995; University of Central Florida, B.S., 1998
Born:
July 8, 1975, Somerville, NJ
Moved to Florida:
1980
Religious Affiliation:
Methodist
Representative Perry E. Thurston, Jr.
District 93

Email Representative Thurston
View  Photo Album
PHONE

954-762-3743

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Plantation
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Dawn Board, of Cleveland, Ohio
Child(ren):
Alison Thurston, Perry E. Thurston III
Education:
Morehouse College, B.A., Finance, 1982; University of Miami, J.D., 1987
Born:
January 30, 1961, Pompano, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Baptist
Recreational Interest:
basketball, football, tennis
Representative James  W.  ”Jim” Waldman
District 95

Email Representative Waldman
View  Photo Album
PHONE

954-956-5600

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Coconut Creek
Occupation:
Attorney; General Counsel, Keiser University
Child(ren):
Jacquelyn, Steven
Education:
University of Connecticut, transferred, 1978; University of Florida, B.S.B.A., Finance, 1980; Nova University Law School, J.D., 1985
Born:
March 21, 1958, Washington, DC
Moved to Florida:
1977
Religious Affiliation:
Jewish
Recreational Interest:
golf, scuba diving, skiin
Representative Michael B. ”Mike” Weinstein
District 19

Email Representative Weinstein
View  Photo Album
PHONE

904-213-3005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jacksonville
Occupation:
Prosecutor
Spouse:
Sara Weinstein, of Florham Park, New Jersey
Child(ren):
Scott, Daryl, Danielle
Grandchild(ren):
Logan, Stryder, Mills
Education:
Hartwick College, New York, B.A., Political Science, basketball and baseball teams; California State University, Long Beach, M.S., Criminal Justice Administration; Florida State University, A.B.D., Criminology; University of Florida, J.D.
Born:
February 6, 1949, Livingston, NJ
Moved to Florida:
1975
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Recreational Interest:
boxing, golf, physical training, working out

Election season is coming up.   We are watching.

Together, we have the power of our collective voices and votes. The Bankers have thrown down the gauntlet. Let’s accept their declaration of war and fight back.

Again, enough is enough.

Contact your representatives today…

URGENT ALERT: FLORIDA RESIDENTS FACED WITH FORECLOSURE ONLY!

If you have been served with a Foreclosure Suit in Florida that

does NOT comply with 1.110(b), you should immediately file a

Motion to Dismiss. Quote Rule 1.110(b) in your motion! This

information was current as of 12:31 PM on April 16, 2010.  We have

received information that the major foreclosure-mill law-firms in

Florida are ignoring this new rule wholesale, statewide.  Rule 1.110

(b) is attached here:

Fl__R__Civ__Pro__1_110

See also: MORTGAGE JUSTICE HOUSE LETTER

Rethinking the American Dream (CNN): is renting government owned foreclosed property the real future?

The bailout will permit the government sponsored gang of “Banksters” to keep control of all foreclosed property and rent it out to “we the people.”  Obamacare will provide mandatory health insurance, and if you don’t buy it, they will insure you go to jail.

So here, in brief summary, is the new America: (1) we rent and do not own our living places, (2) the government will provide food, shelter, and medicine from cradle to grave, (3) you can go to jail if you do not agree to participate in governmentally socialized medicine, (4) you must carry “real ID” at all times to move around the country and to prove your welfare compliance and the exact address your current government-sponsored housing, (5) you will not be allowed to own guns or express yourself in any way, shape, or form without governmental scrutiny.  Is this Freedom? God Bless America!

Renting: The new American dream?

By Paul R. La Monica, editor at large, CNNMoney.com

Apr 15th, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The American dream of home ownership has turned out to be the American nightmare for those who could never really afford a home in the first place.

Many borrowers are now in deep trouble as home prices have plummeted and the payments on bubble-era adjustable rate mortgages have shot up. Foreclosures are still continuing at an alarming pace.
rent or buy?

If the so-called Great Recession has taught us anything, it’s that buying a house is not a divine right. It’s a privilege to be earned only after you’ve saved up a nice chunk of cash for a down payment and are in a healthy enough financial position to keep making those monthly mortgage payments.

MORE AT CNNMONEY.COM

So for many consumers, renting is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. That’s worth keeping in mind now that some experts think home prices are close to bottoming and fixed mortgage rates are still fairly low.

Sure, we’ve all been taught that buying real estate is the smartest thing you can do in order to build wealth. That’s probably still true for the long haul.

But like with any investment, you should only make a purchase if you can afford the near-term hit that comes from doling out all that money now. Plus, you have to be able to stomach the possibility that the value of the house may actually fall over a short period.

And guess what? It seems many people are in fact coming to the realization that, for now at least, it makes more sense to rent instead of buy.

Jerry Davis, senior vice president of property operations for UDR (UDR), a Denver-basedreal estate investment trust (REIT) that owns and manages apartments, said that before the housing market collapsed, about 25% of the company’s renters that moved out of apartments did so because they were buying a home.

Now, only about 12% are moving out to purchase a home, and in some of the harder hit real estate markets, such as California, Davis said that fewer than 10% of movers are buying a house of their own.

“Even though prices have come down, you’re not seeing a big exodus of renters to buy homes,” Davis said. “Buying a house used to be the way to get rich, but people are afraid to jump back in.”

In addition, banks also appear to have learned lessons from the housing crash. Many remain reluctant to give mortgages to even the most credit-worthy consumers.

“It was Shakespeare who wrote that when home prices are declining, neither a borrower nor a lender be,” joked Edward Leamer, chief economist for the Ceridian-UCLA Pulse of Commerce Index and professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management.

Simply put, many consumers just aren’t buying the notion that the economy is getting better. For many, the stock market rally does not make their daily lives any easier. Consumers are more interested in the job market improving than the Dow or S&P 500 hitting highs.

“This is a frugal recovery. People are more reluctant to buy homes as they would in a normal recovery,” Leamer said. “If you don’t have a job or are worrying about your job, you’re not going to buy a home. That’s the ultimate statement of optimism about the future.”

Add that up and it’s reasonable to expect a rental boom that could last for some time. That’s not lost on Wall Street. Shares of UDR, for example, are up 20% this year.

Other apartment REITs have also surged this year and an analyst at RBC Capital Markets upgraded UDR, BRE Properties (BRE), Camden Properties Trust (CPT) and Apartment Investment and Management (AIV) last week, citing their growth potential.

Thomas Toomey, CEO of UDR, said that favorable demographics will also probably drive more people to rent than buy. He pointed to the increasing number of retiring Baby Boomers who may look to downgrade from bigger houses to apartments.

He also said that record-high college enrollment levels are a boon for UDR and other apartment owners. Most recent college graduates, particularly those finding work in cities, are not in a position to buy a home.

Toomey added that cities are also interested in building more apartments closer to where people work for environmental reasons.

“So if you look toward the future, it’s not just demographics and people making a conscious decision of whether they can afford a home that will lead to more renters. Cities want more apartments for younger and older generations,” he said.

Of course, that’s exactly what you’d expect the head of a company that owns apartments to say. But I also agree with him. And I’m curious to hear what you think.

2010 has 110 Days Down, 255 to go: April 20 in History: 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba Failed; Trial-by-Battle upheld in 1818; Robert E. Lee Resigned U.S. Army 1861; Modern Bob Marley-Inspired? Pot Parties in US; Siege of Boston 1775; Columbine Colorado High School Shootings 1989; Jacques Cartier discovered Canada 1534; Adolf Hitler born in 1889; what if?

Events (all from Wikipedia)—April 20—How did Hitler’s Birthday end up as National Smoke Weed day in the U.S.?  Ah, the mysteries of life.

Historical “What if” of the day: if Virginia hadn’t seceded, Robert E. Lee might have commanded the northern forces against a much reduced Confederate States of America….and Slavery would almost certainly NOT have been abolished anywhere…. and the 1871 Civil Rights Act certainly would never have been enacted….so there never would have been the modern 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action in vindication of civil rights—yes, the world would have been a very different place….

1303 – The University of Rome La Sapienza is instituted by Pope Boniface VIII.

1453 – The last naval battle in Byzantine history occurs, as three Genoese galleys escorting a Byzantine transport fight their way through the huge Ottoman blockade fleet and into the Golden Horn.

1534Jacques Cartier begins the voyage during which he discovers Canada and Labrador.

1535 – The Sun Dog phenomenon observed over Stockholm and depicted in the famous painting “Vädersolstavlan

1653Oliver Cromwell dissolves the Rump Parliament.

1657Admiral Robert Blake destroys a Spanish silver fleet under heavy fire at Santa Cruz de Tenerife.

1657 – Freedom of religion is granted to the Jews of New Amsterdam (later New York City).

1689 – The former King James II of England, now deposed, lays siege to Derry.

1775American Revolutionary War: the Siege of Boston begins, following the battles at Lexington and Concord.

1792France declares war on Austria, the beginning of French Revolutionary Wars.

1809 – Two Austrian army corps in Bavaria are defeated by a First French Empire army led by Napoleon I of France at the Battle of Abensberg on the second day of a four day campaign which ended in a French victory.

1810 – The Governor of Caracas declares independence from Spain.

1818 – The case of Ashford v Thornton was concluded, with Abraham Thornton allowed to go free rather than face a retrial for murder, after his demand for trial by battle was upheld.

1828René Caillié becomes the first non-Muslim to enter Timbouctou.

1836U.S. Congress passes an act creating the Wisconsin Territory.

1861American Civil War: Robert E. Lee resigns his commission in the United States Army in order to command the forces of the state of Virginia.

1862Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard complete the first pasteurization tests.

1871 – The Civil Rights Act of 1871 becomes law.

1884Pope Leo XIII publishes the encyclical Humanum Genus.

1902Pierre and Marie Curie refine radium chloride.

1908 – Opening day of competition of the New South Wales Rugby League.

1912 – Opening day for baseball stadiums Tiger Stadium in Detroit, Michigan, and Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts.

1914 – Forty-five men, women, and children die in the Ludlow Massacre during a Colorado coal-miner’s strike.

1916 – The Chicago Cubs play their first game at Weeghman Park (currently Wrigley Field), defeating the Cincinnati Reds 7-6 in 11 innings

1918Manfred von Richthofen, aka The Red Baron, shoots down his 79th and 80th victims marking his final victories before his death the following day.

1926Western Electric and Warner Bros. announce Vitaphone, a process to add sound to film.

1939Billie Holiday records the first Civil Rights song “Strange Fruit“.

1945World War II: US troops capture Leipzig, Germany, only to later cede the city to the Soviet Union.

1945 – World War II: Fuehrerbunker: Adolf Hitler makes his last trip to the surface to award Iron Crosses to boy soldiers of the Hitler Youth.

1961 – Failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion of US-backed troops against Cuba.

1964BBC Two launches with the power cut because of the fire at Battersea Power Station.

1968English politician Enoch Powell makes his controversial Rivers of Blood speech.

1972Apollo 16 landed on the moon commanded by John Young.

1978Korean Air Flight 902 is shot down by Soviets.

1980 – Climax of Berber Spring in Algeria as hundreds of Berber political activists are arrested.

1984 – The Good Friday Massacre, an extremely violent ice hockey playoff game, is played in Montreal, Canada.

1985ATF raid on The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord compound in northern Arkansas.

1986 – Pianist Vladimir Horowitz performs in his native Russia for the first time in 61 years.

1986 – Professional basketball player Michael Jordan sets all-time record for points in an NBA playoff game with 63 against the Boston Celtics.

1998German terrorist group Red Army Faction announces their dissolution after 28 years.

1999Columbine High School massacre: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold kill 13 people and injure 24 others before committing suicide at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, Colorado.

2007Johnson Space Center Shooting: A man with a handgun barricades himself in NASA‘s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas before killing a male hostage and himself.

2008Danica Patrick wins the Indy Japan 300 becoming the first female driver in history to win an Indy car race.

[edit]

Births

571Muhammad, (traditional date) Prophet and founder of Islam (d. 632)

702Jafar Sadiq, Shi’a Imam and Muslim scholar (d. 765)

1494Johannes Agricola, German Protestant reformer (d. 1566)

1586Saint Rose of Lima, Peruvian saint (d. 1617)

1633Emperor Go-Komyo of Japan (d. 1654)

1646Charles Plumier, French botanist (d. 1704)

1650William Bedloe, English informer (d. 1680)

1668Yuri Troubetzkoy, Governor of Belgorod (d. 1739)

1718David Brainerd, American missionary (d. 1747)

1723Cornelius Harnett, American Continental Congress delegate (d. 1781)

1727Comte de Mercy-Argenteau, Belgian-born Austrian diplomat (d. 1794)

1745Philippe Pinel, French physician (d. 1826)

1808Napoleon III of France, Emperor of the French (d. 1873)

1818Heinrich Göbel, German-born inventor (d. 1893)

1826Dinah Craik, English author (d. 1887)

1850Daniel Chester French, American sculptor (d. 1931)

1851Young Tom Morris, Scottish golfer (d. 1875)

1870Maulvi Abdul Haq, Pakistani scholar (d. 1961)

1871Sydney Chapman, British economist and civil servant (d. 1951)

1879Paul Poiret, French couturier (d. 1944)

1882Holland Smith, U.S. General (d. 1967)

1884Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (d. 1966)

1889Albert Jean Amateau, Turkish-born businessman and activist (d. 1996)

1889 – Adolf Hitler, German Nazi dictator (d. 1945)

1890Maurice Duplessis, premier of Quebec (d. 1959)

1893Harold Lloyd, American actor (d. 1971)

1893 – Edna Parker, American supercentenarian (d. 2008)

1893 – Joan Miró, Spanish painter (d. 1983)

1895Emile Christian, American musician (d. 1973)

1896Wop May, Canadian aviator (d. 1952)

1896 – Henry de Montherlant, French writer (d. 1972)

1904Bruce Cabot, American actor (d. 1972)

1904 – George Stibitz, American scientist (d. 1995)

1907Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier, Haitian president (d. 1971)

1908Lionel Hampton, American musician (d. 2002)

1914Betty Lou Gerson, American actress (d. 1999)

1915Joseph Wolpe, South African–born psychotherapist (d. 1997)

1918Edward L. Beach, Jr., American naval officer, author (d. 2002)

1918 – Kai Siegbahn, Swedish physicist, Nobel Prize laureate (d. 2007)

1919Richard Hillary, Australian pilot and author (d. 1943)

1920John Paul Stevens, American jurist

1920 – Ronald Speirs, WWII Veteran (d. 2007)

1921Janine Sutto, French-Canadian actress

1923Mother Angelica, American nun and broadcaster

1923 – Tito Puente, American musician (d. 2000)

1924Leslie Phillips, English actor

1924 – Nina Foch, Dutch-born American actress (d. 2008)

1925Ernie Stautner, German-born American football player (d. 2006)

1927Phil Hill, American race car driver (d. 2008)

1927 – Karl Alexander Müller, Swiss physicist, Nobel Prize laureate

1928Johnny Gavin, Irish footballer (d. 2007)

1928 – Gerald S. Hawkins, English astronomer (d. 2003)

1931John Eccles, 2nd Viscount Eccles, British businessman and peer

1936Pat Roberts, American politician

1937Antonios Kounadis, Greek discus thrower

1937 – George Takei, American actor

1939Peter S. Beagle, American author

1939 – Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway

1939 – Johnny Tillotson, American singer

1941Ryan O’Neal, American actor

1942Arto Paasilinna, Finnish writer

1943John Eliot Gardiner, English conductor

1943 – Edie Sedgwick, American actress (d. 1971)

1945Michael Brandon, American actor

1945 – Steve Spurrier, American football player and coach

1946Julien Poulin, French Canadian actor

1946 – Gordon Smiley, American racecar driver (d. 1982)

1946 – Mel Winkler, American voice actor

1947Björn Skifs, Swedish singer (Blue Swede)

1947 – Ken Scott, English record producer and recording engineer

1947 – Andrew Tobias, American journalist and author

1947 – David Leland, British actor, director and screenwriter

1948Craig Frost, American musician (Grand Funk & Bob Seger)

1948 – Gregory Itzin, American actor

1948 – Rémy Trudel, French Canadian politician

1949Massimo D’Alema, 76th Prime Minister of Italy

1949 – Veronica Cartwright, American actress

1949 – Toller Cranston, Canadian figure skater and artist

1949 – Jessica Lange, American actress

1950Steve Erickson, American novelist

1950 – Aleksandr Lebed, Russian general and politician (d. 2002)

1950 – Chandra Babu Naidu, Indian politician

1951Luther Vandross, American singer (d. 2005)

1952Božidar Maljković, Serbian basketball coach

1953Sebastian Faulks, British novelist

1954Gilles Lupien, French-Canadian ice hockey player

1955Don Pettit, American Astronaut and Inventor

1956Beatrice Ask, Swedish politician

1957Geraint Wyn Davies, Welsh-born Canadian actor

1958Viacheslav Fetisov, Russian ice hockey player

1959Clint Howard, American actor

1961Don Mattingly, American baseball player

1961 – Konstantin Lavronenko, Russian actor

1961 – Barry Smolin, American radio host, writer, and musician

1961Ralph Cirella, American radio personality

1962Henry Joseph Nasiff Jr. (AKA: Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf), American radio personality (d. 2001)

1963Maurício Gugelmin, Brazilian racing driver

1963 – Aubrey de Grey, British biomedical gerontologist

1964Crispin Glover, American actor

1964 – Andy Serkis, English actor

1964 – Rosalynn Sumners, American figure skater

1965Kostas Hatzidakis, Greek politician

1965 – Adrian Fernández, Mexican racing driver

1965 – April March, American musician

1966David Chalmers, Australian philosopher

1967Raymond van Barneveld, Dutch darts player

1967 – Mike Portnoy, American drummer (Dream Theater)

1967 – Lara Jill Miller, American actress

1968J. D. Roth, American game show host and television personality

1970Shemar Moore, American actor

1970 – Adriano Moraes, Brazilian rodeo performer

1971Tina Cousins, English singer

1971 – Carla Geurts, Dutch swimmer

1971 – Allan Houston, American basketball player

1972Carmen Electra, American actress

1972 – Le Huynh Đuc, Vietnamese footballer

1972 – Željko Joksimović, Serbian singer, songwriter and producer

1972 – Stephen Marley, Jamaican musician

1973Geoff Lloyd, British radio presenter

1976Shay Given, Irish footballer

1976 – Joey Lawrence, American actor

1976 – Chris Mason, Canadian ice hockey goaltender

1977Johnny “The Bull” Stamboli, professional wrestler

1978Mirei Kuroda, Japanese gravure idol

1979Quinn Weng, Taiwanese singer (Seraphim)

1979Nathan Marquardt, American Mixed Martial Artist

1980Jasmin Wagner, German singer

1980 – Chris Duffy, American baseball player

1981Matus Valent, male fitness model

1983Danny Granger, American basketball player

1983 – Terrence J, American television host

1983 – Joanne King, Irish/English Actress

1983 – Miranda Kerr, Australian supermodel

1984Tyson Griffin, American mixed martial artist

1985Greg Lutzka, American Skateboarder

1986Cameron Duncan, New Zealand director (d. 2003)

1987John Patrick Amedori, American actor

[edit]

Deaths

1176Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, English soldier (b. 1130)

1314Pope Clement V (b. 1264)

1521Zhengde, Emperor of China (b. 1491)

1534Elizabeth Barton, English nun (executed)

1558Johannes Bugenhagen, German reformer (b. 1485)

1643Christoph Demantius, German composer (b. 1567)

1703Lancelot Addison, English royal chaplain (b. 1632)

1765Abigail Williams, American accuser in the Salem witch trials (b. 1674)

1769Pontiac, Chief of the Ottawa

1831John Abernethy, English surgeon (b. 1764)

1873William Tite, English architect (b. 1798)

1874Alexander H. Bailey, American politician (b. 1817)

1887Muhammad Sharif Pasha, Egyptian statesman (b. 1826)

1899Joseph Wolf, German artist (b. 1820)

1912Bram Stoker, Irish author (b. 1847)

1918Karl Ferdinand Braun, German physicist, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1850)

1929Prince Albert Wilhelm Heinrich of Prussia (b. 1862)

1932Giuseppe Peano, Italian mathematician (b. 1858)

1945Erwin Bumke, German jurist (b. 1874)

1947 – King Christian X of Denmark (b. 1870)

1951Ivanoe Bonomi, Prime Minister of Italy (b. 1873)

1964Eddie Dyer, American baseball player (b. 1899)

1977Sepp Herberger, German football coach (b. 1897)

1982Archibald MacLeish, American poet and Librarian of Congress (b. 1892)

1984Hristo Prodanov, Bulgarian mountaineer (b. 1943)

1986Sibte Hassan, Pakistani activist, journalist and writer (b. 1916)

1989Doru Davidovici, Romanian writer and fighter pilot (b. 1945)

1991Steve Marriott, British singer and songwriter (Humble Pie) (b. 1947)

1991 – Don Siegel, American film director (b. 1912)

1993Cantinflas, Mexican comedian and actor (b. 1911)

1994Jean Carmet, French actor (b. 1920)

1996Christopher Robin Milne, son of A.A. Milne (b. 1920)

1999Rick Rude, American professional wrestler (b. 1958)

1999 – Señor Wences, Spanish ventriloquist and comedian (b. 1896)

1999 – Eric David Harris, perpetrator of the Columbine High massacre (b. 1981)

1999 – Dylan Klebold, perpetrator of the Columbine High massacre (b. 1981)

1999 – Cassie Bernall, Columbine High School massacre victim (b. 1981)

1999 – Rachel Joy Scott, Columbine High School massacre victim (b. 1981)

2001Giuseppe Sinopoli, Italian conductor and composer (b. 1946)

2002Alan Dale, American singer (b. 1925)

2003Ruth Hale, American playwright and actress (b. 1908)

2003 – Daijiro Kato, Japanese motorcycle racer (b. 1976)

2003 – Bernard Katz, German-born biophysicist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (b. 1911)

2005Fumio Niwa, Japanese novelist (b. 1904)

2005 – Zygfryd Blaut, Polish football player (b. 1943)

2006Anna Svidersky (b. 1988)

2007Andrew Hill, American jazz composer and pianist (b. 1931)

2007 – Michael Fu Tieshan, Chinese bishop (b. 1931).

2007 – Fred Fish, a computer programmer on the GNU Debugger and “Fish disks” (b. 1952)

2008VL Mike, American rapper (b. 1976)

2008 – Monica Lovinescu, Romanian essayist, literary critic and journalist (b. 1923)

2009Beata Asimakopoulou, Greek actress (b. 1932)

[edit]

Holidays and observances

4/20, a counterculture holiday, where people gather to celebrate and consume cannabis.

Christian Feast Day

Agnes of Montepulciano

Blessed Oda of Brabant

Theotimus

L. Ron Hubbard Exhibition Day (Church of Scientology)

Ridván begins at sunset (Bahá’í Faith)

Thought for St. George’s Day (April 23): Slay the Dragons of International Banking!

La Marseillaise was composed 218 years ago, first published and sung on April 24, 1792: It remains the greatest and most stirring of all revolutionary songs and the most popular worldwide, so Vive La France! (It is a historical note of no small irony that while there never would have been a July 14 in France without July 4 in the United States, July 4, 1776 probably never would have amounted to a hill of beans without the enthusiastic support of the same King Louis who was overthrown in the Revolution which started on July 14, 1789)

Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle, 1792

Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Contre nous de la tyrannie
| : L’étendard sanglant est levé : |
Entendez vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras,
égorger vos fils, vos compagnes
Aux armes citoyens! Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons, marchons,
Qu’un sang impur abreuve nos sillons.2. Que veut cette horde d’esclaves
De traîtres, de Rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves,
| : Ces fers dès longtemps préparés? : |
Français! pour nous, ah! quel outrage!
Quels transports il doit exciter!
C’est nous qu’on ose méditer
De rendre à I ‘antique esclavage!

3. Quoi! des cohortes étrangères
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers!
Quoi! ces phalanges mercenaires
| : Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers : |
Grand Dieu! par des mains enchaînées
Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient!
De viIs despotes deviendraient
Les maîtres de nos destinées!

4. Tremblez, tyrans! et vous, perfides,
L’opprobe de tous les partis,
Tremblez! vos projets parricides
| : Vont enfin recevoir leur prix.: |
Tout est soldat pour vous combattre,
S’ils tombent, nos jeunes héros,
La terre en produit de nouveaux
Contre vous tout prêts à se battre.5. Français! en guerriers magnanimes
Portez ou retenez vos coups.
Epargnez ces tristes victimes
| : A regret s’armant contre nous. : |
Mais le despote sanguinaire,
Mais les complices de Bouillé,
Tous ces tigres qui sans pitié
Déchirent le sein de leur mère.

6. Nous entrerons dans la carrière,
Quand nos aînés n’y seront plus
Nous y trouverons leur poussière
| : Et les traces de leurs vertus. : |
Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre
Que de partager leur cercueil,
Nous aurons le sublime orgueil
De les venger ou de les suivre.

7. Amour sacré de la Patrie
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs!
Liberté, Liberté chérie!
| : Combats avec tes défenseurs. : |
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents,
Que tes ennemis expirant
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!


It became the great rallying call of the French Revolution and was given its current name after it was sung on the streets of Paris by troops from Marseille. An internationally respected symbol of freedom and human rights, La Marseillaise is musically one of the most sophisticated of the national anthems; it has been quoted and adapted by a number of composers, including Tchaikovsky in his 1812 Overture.


From: Guy Fawkes Tuesday, April 27, 2010, Tampa, Florida

The indignity of the Tampa Florida Federal Court House*

Guy Fawkes <theprotester@hotmail.com>  (This particular Guy Fawkes, author of this article, is a close personal friend who actually does live in Tampa, Florida, but apparently doesn’t go to Federal Court there or anywhere else very often, because he was surprised…. I make this point only to explain/clarify that “TheProtester@hotmail.com” is not now and never was nor is likely ever to be the same person as on the masthead of this website, or the author of the website/bog “Tierra Limpia by Charles Lincoln” or any of the producers, directors, actors, actresses, or supporting staff of the movie “V-for-Vendetta”, a brilliant movie which serves as a very poignant metaphoric simile interpreting and illustrating the truth about 9/11, in the United States, and the first decade of the Third Millenium in the Anglo-American World, generally.”

April 26, 2010 I had the great displeasure of visiting the Federal Court house in down town Tampa Florida. I was asked to drop off some time sensitive legal docs for someone out of the jurisdiction. I was greeted nicely by security personnel outside the building, like the typical sheep I entered and for some reason I decided to surrender my four amendment right not to be unreasonably searched, by passing through a metal detector, providing my photo ID and submitting my wallet to be x-rayed. My belt set off the detector and an overweight African woman asked me to raise my hands, instead I opted to wait for my wallet to come out of the machine before continuing to surrender my right to be left alone by the government. There was no one behind me and it took but 3 seconds to retrieve my wallet, when I was confronted with a hostel tone, “Sir put your arms up arms up”. Quite puzzled by the federal security person demeanor I stood their as she waived her wand and again yelled “put your arms up”, (I did not realize I had to take the full pose of our savior on the cross in order to gain access to the Federal Clerk). Being quit annoyed at the discourteous demeanor I finally replied, “my arms were up but I do not consent to your search I have committed no crime and not given you any probable cause to search me”. At that time this female grabbed the bottom of my shirt and pulled while sticking her wand up my shirt and said, “ If you come into this building you are going to be searched,” I then told this officer “do not touch me, you have no right to touch me, and I do not want you touching me”. At this point both this female officer and a male counter part started to berate me, and told me if I had a problem there is a phone number on the wall. My only response was, this is all unnecessary you people are just rude, you have nothing else to do but be rude. This occurred April 27, 2010 at 9:50am.

When did we all just give in and give up? A favorite quote of mine is “Tyranny only expands to the point of ones resistance”. Probably more appropriate “They who surrender liberty for security deserve neither”. Why do we allow our Government SERVANTS to treat us like sheep with no rights? Why are there no lawsuits to stop the same behavior that was rule illegal when entering a football stadium? If we don’t resist now, when? And when is it too late?

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?

Let’s find ONE in the state of California—ONE WITNESS who has WON…..as 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 charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com, or else to Renada Nadine March at renadajewel@gmail.com, 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: http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/

(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?

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.

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
406-892-7602
oneil@centurytel.net

LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATE JERRY O’NEIL WINS LANDMARK COURT CASE

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.”

What are Deo Vindice and Tierra Limpia all about?

No one should ever lose their home.  The banks, their trustees, attorneys, and servicers are engaged in a great criminal scheme to take all your private property for themselves.  They have no legitimate claim to your home, either by legal title or investment equity.  Even the New York Times just yesterday acknowledged that there is no shame in staying in your home and fighting for it against the “Banksters” (Bank-owning Gangsters, as Malcolm Doney calls them).

The California Superior Courts and California Statutes are all stacked against you—the private homeowner, in ways that infringe upon and violate your rights under the common law, the U.S. Constitution, and offend both common sense and sound economic policy.  These are difficult and troubling times but if you are willing to stand by your home to defend the life into which you’ve invested so much blood, toil, sweat, and tears, we can help you.

It doesn’t matter whether you’ve never missed a payment but are sweating to keep up, or whether you’re two years in default and are facing eviction after a non-judicial foreclosure sale last week.  We can and will show you how you can defend yourself, or you can let us manage your property and fight to preserve your estate for you.  We are not lawyers, but we are fighters and advocates.

We fight for unimpaired enforcement of your contractual rights against the lawyers and courts of California (the worst in the United States); we fight for clean (quiet) title to your property, unimpaired by the crooked manipulations of banks, their trustees, attorneys, and servicers; we fight for the integrity of the home and family and for private property as the bulwark of freedom and the American Way of Life.

We advocate the abolition of securitized mortgages, because they impair the legitimate operation and obligations of contract and destroy individual rights in private property.  We advocate the abolition of false-money credit based on real estate as the basis of the American monetary system.  We advocate the Constitutional restoration of the Common Law of property ownership and lending.

We will help you save your home, keep your family safe, and build a better America.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III,

ICH BIN DER GEIST DER STEHTS VERNEINT!

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

In case of emergency call Peyton Yates Freiman

at 512-461-8192 and/or Renada Nadine March

at 949-748-0398

Rites de Passage: High School Graduation in Austin, Texas, May 29, 2010

Harmony Science Academy is a “Charter School” with several branches, including one in Austin.  According to Wikipedia: “Charter schools are primary or secondary schools in the United States that receive public money (and like other schools, may also receive private donations) but are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school’s charter.[1] Charter schools are opened and attended by choice.[2] While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition.” (June 5, 2010).

My son was born on August 23, 1992, during the onset of Hurricane Andrew in Palm Beach, Florida, so he had just completed 17 years and 9 months of life on Sunday May 23, 2010.  The following Saturday he graduated High School at Harmony Science Academy with a National Honor Society cowl/hood/ribbon around his neck with about 30 other students.  I was there, like many other proud and happy parents.  My son had survived a rather strange childhood fraught with weird traumas of which his mother and I were the primary, material and efficient, causes, although I would submit perhaps neither of us were the formal and final causes—because those higher levels of causation are to be found outside us and in the socio-political structure of our society.

Rites de Passage shape us, and many people hold that graduating from High School is the key rite of American life (as evidenced in the hundreds or thousands of movies, TV shows, and books—and ranging in each category from the good, to the bad, to the truly awful—-which focus on the difficulty or angst of adolescence and high school).

But adults have a role in the rites de passage of their children, also.  My son wanted me to be there for his graduation and so I was.  What was peculiar was that this was the first event at Harmony Science Academy which I had ever attended (and Graduation Commencement wasn’t actually “at” Harmony Science Academy, but at a Marriot Hotel in Round Rock about 12 miles north of the actual school in one of those large expandable or dividable conference rooms that most modern hotels have these days).

Yes, I was there, with Charlie’s mother Elena and Greek Grandmother Nina, but I had never met any of Charlie’s fellow students before.  Charlie had started Harmony Science Academy in Sixth Grade, and on the damnable advice or directions of Williamson County Guardian ad Litem Laurie J. Nowlin I was never “officially” told about Charlie’s enrollment—although the officers of Cedar Park Middle School had informed me immediately, much to their credit.  I had sought Laurie J. Nowlin out to act as an attorney ad litem for Charlie after his mother and I separated in Late July/August 2002.  Laurie J. Nowlin had immediately affirmed to me that Charlie wanted to live with me and that his feelings on the subject were fairly intense.   Money may have passed hands between Elena and Laurie—I’ll never know—there was evidence to that effect but of course bribery is an awfully ugly word (even when most relevant statutes of limitation have long since run).

But the simple truth is that Charlie, with whom I had been best friends up until age 10, as well as a reasonably good father, was not only placed against his express wishes and fears in his mother’s custody by Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th Judicial District of Williamson County, but was completely isolated from me for two full years (Memorial Day, May 2003-June 5, 2005), and I was excluded from his school life at Harmony Science  Academy until his graduation day (except for a couple of e-mail communications with an English teacher sometime in 2006-2007, and occasionally Charlie let me see his report cards and help with homework, especially in 2008-2010).   Judge Michael Jergins and his acolytes Laurie J. Nowlin, James Randall Grimes, and Michael P. Davis had an amazingly brutal custom, practice, and policy of determining, against both men and women, that the unchallenged truthful exercise of freedom of speech regarding basic questions of happiness and conditions of living between a father and son constituted “felony child abuse” (yes, those were Judge Jergins’ words).   Judge Jergins routinely included “prior restraints” on speech in all of his domestic relations orders, and had jailed at least one woman, Rhonda Moe, for 90 days for discussions with her son.  The licensing of speech, expression, petition, and associative activities which existed in England and her colonies prior to the Revolution was banned in the Early Republic, but has gradually crept back in under different guises and forms.  Nebraska_Press_Association_v_Stuart_1976 (Before any judicial prior restraints can be imposed on First Amendment activities, certain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law must be made, and of course, neither Judge Jergins nor any other family law judge in Texas ever bothers with these constitutional requirements). See also  Gregg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, and James Carlton Todd, a Texas Deputy Attorney General, defended Jergins vigorously in litigation that I filed and pushed forward from 2003-2008.

Anyhow, Harmony Science Academy was a perfect place, in so many ways, in and from which to watch the destruction of the American Way of Life, Constitutional Democracy and World Culture in general as exemplified by Charlie’s life, Judge Michael Jergins, and Laurie J. Nowlin.

Now, to start off with, Charlie is half-Greek, on his mother’s side, and the Greeks historically live in enmity with the Turks, who conquered Greece and the Greek-ruled Byzantine Empire in the 15th century, almost reaching the gates of Vienna in the mid-16th century.  So, the first irony about Charlie attending Harmony Science Academy was that this Charter School was run by Turks.  (How so many Turks ever arrived in Austin, Texas, is quite beyond me, but many of them seem to have immigrated to the U.S. during the massive influx of South Asians that seems to have been a special Bush-Clinton project of the late 1980s-1990s, which brought Indians and Pakistanis into ownership or management of most motels and gasoline stations nationwide, cf. e.g. Patels’ Motels and Dhando, which traces the origins to about 1973 and the end of the India-Pakistan war over Bangladesh).   I always applauded French Presidents Giscard d’Estaing and Nicolas Sarkozy for opposing Turkish membership in the E.U., even as I recall driving along the highways of Serbia and Macedonia (and before that Yugoslavia) and Bulgaria, packed with Turks migrating by bus, car, and truck to guest-worker status in Austria and Germany.  These Turkish legal immigrants into Central Europe far outnumber the Ottoman warriors of the 14th-17th centuries who tried to conquer Europe by force (and did in fact dominate Southeastern Europe until the late 19th century).

At Charlie’s Harmony Science Academy graduation, there were two costumed ethnic dances: one Turkish and one Mexican.  The entire graduation was translated (either by immediate live translators or on screen by written texts) into Spanish as a “second but very nearly equal” language.  I speak Spanish fluently myself, and am not exactly opposed to bilingualism, but I couldn’t help but think of the contrast with my own high school ceremonies 36 years ago in California, where all the music was American and the language was uniformly English.

Harmony Science Academy was one of the most diverse and heterogenous groups of students I have ever seen.  Harmony Science Academy IS the Brave New World, much more than even horribly, artificially, self-conscious modern Harvard where Charlie and I had hung out for the past two summers.

What is the connection between Judge Michael Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, and Harmony Science Academy is formal and final causes of the socio-cultural and political configuration of the world today?   All are aiming at one single goal: the destruction of traditional Anglo-Saxon and European culture in the United States.  Anglo-Saxons make very uncooperative slaves, serfs, and servants of large corporate-governmental enterprises, I think, and for that reason their culture must be diluted.  The National Anthem can be sung, but it must not be sung in a proud defiant style, as a kind of cross between a Church-militant hymn (like “Onward Christian Soldiers” or “Come Labor On”) and a straight out war song, but in a soft, toned-down, mellow-yellow “pop” style with no strident defiance of anything.  In this connection I will never forget when Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 and Queen Elizabeth Winced as “God Save the Queen” was likewise reorchestrated as a “pop” tune rather than a nationalist hymn as Blair announced his Brave New World “Cool Britannia” mode of government, kicked the hereditary lords out of the upper house of Parliament, and generally transformed the original Anglo-Saxon nation of the world into a colonized outpost of all the former “Imperial” Colonies’ immigrants.

The socio-cultural and political functions and roles of tradition, family and ethnic-folk-identities, and cultural continuity cannot be maintained when the state in effect pressures families to break up through the Family Court system, and especially when the court system, unsatisfied with merely breaking up families, also seeks to suppress free speech within the family.

In the name of “the General Welfare” and of Title 42 of the U.S. Code in particular, all aspects of child-rearing, Education, Family, Freedom of Speech, and the conduct of litigation are all essentially First Amendment protected activities, and yet all, in essence, are now controlled and licensed by the state.  Such licensing is contrary to the root purpose and history of the First Amendment, and Americans must stand up and assert their rights in opposition to the governmental takeover of private life.   Charter Schools are designed to insert more creativity and diversity into the American educational system, and Harmony Science Academy, at least with regard to some aspects of education, certainly seems to have produced an “above average” set of students.  I cannot say that the vision of the American present or future I saw at my son’s graduation was reassuring to me.  We live in a very insecure country where the governmentally inspired and fostered separate but related fears of self-government and expression of personal identity are related to the suffering many students have experienced as a result of their parents’ divorce and custody proceedings.

Charlie had wanted to follow his Dad and other family members to Harvard, but it was not meant to be.  Only one student at Harmony Science Academy in Austin made it into an Ivy League College at all, a girl named Ashley who was admitted to Colombia.  In one of the awful ironies of graduation day, Elena was concerned because Harmony Science Academy had sent out a warning that the Williamson County Courts had ordered Ashley’s mother to stay away from graduation—apparently Ashley’s mother had offended some one of the Brave New World’s norms, and would be arrested on the spot if she showed up to her daughter’s high school graduation.   Charlie, Elena, and I have somehow transcended the threat of governmental intervention in our lives, but the damage was already done, 2002-2009.  I never had any participation in my son’s middle or high school life except occasionally helping him with homework projects.

When we were first breaking up in April-July 2002, my wife Elena never said anything more hurtful and vicious than, “We are not a family, there is only cancer in this house” (although she said it in Greek, “Oxi Hycogenia eki, Karkinos in sto ‘ospiti.”  Elena was right, of course, our lives were infected by a kind of social cancer, but the cancer that ultimately ate Charlie’s teenage years was the cancer of governmental engineering trying to break up all families and isolate individuals not just from their relatives but from their heritage by this strange religion of global merger and fusion of all cultures and way of life into one great cultural amalgam or “shake and bake” world of uniform people with uniform lives, uniformly disposed to move the global-corporate-and-governmental entities forward.   I am now exhausted after this week of assessing and realizing all that has happened, of trying my best to be sociable and friendly with Elena and her mother Nina who inflicted so much misery on my life and Charlie’s over the past ten-fifteen years, and yet now seem anxious, at the least, to enjoy a “peaceful co-existence.”   We are currently shaping our lives without state assistance, but the scars left by state-mandated “welfare services” run deep indeed.

To challenge what Cass Sunstein (back in my University of Chicago Law days) used to call the “command and control” aspects of regulatory government and the administrative procedures which have, to a large extent, extinguished our constitution, must be among the top priorities of all Patriotic Americans.  The provisions of  U.S. Code Title 42 have all but supplanted every one of the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and merged state and federal government in one rather hellish enterprise.  Charter Schools have special tax status as do contributions to their support.  They are part of the weird merger of state-federal-and-corporate functions which has become the key Hallmark of modern American life.  Harmony Science Academy is both a microcosm of this process, and emblematic of the injury suffered by my family in particular, and inflicted on the American population and citizenry in general.  Harmony Science Academy did not destroy my son’s mind or life.  Charlie will now go to a fine college, St. John’s in Annapolis, Maryland, which is libertarian and traditional in spirit, refuses to be “rated” by Newsweek etc. “St. John’s College | News & Publications | Press Releases |” This college continues the “Great Books” tradition of classical education, eschewing textbooks of all kinds, and encouraging students to think and study for themselves.  I am very much hoping that St. John’s is in fact NOT completely infected by and absorbed into the Brave New World…..

Support the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles, California!

From Tenth Amendment Center

Tenth Amendment Center June 16 at 12:22pm Report

“As we move closer to the 4 year anniversary of the Tenth Amendment Center on June 25th, we’re getting ready to announce a tour with big name speakers, putting together a weekly radio show, upgrading and redesigning our website, adding a store for shirts mugs and more – and….more!

We need your help to get this all off the ground – yeah, it’s a request for some funding! If you support our work, please help us raise the $2000 we need right now.

Make a donation online today:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/

We operate an extremely efficient organization and don’t require tens of thousands of dollars for building space, for printed mailers and the like. The two dozen activists and volunteers that make up our core team work from our homes, our offices, our phones – and dedicate our personal time to make this growing 10th Amendment movement a reality.

We don’t need much on this request, but we do need your help, so please make a donation of $25, $50, $100 – or even just five bucks – today!

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/

Thank you for your support…

In liberty,”

Michael Boldin

Founder, Tenth Amendment Center

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

Tenth Amendment Center| Donate

“Help keep this website stay active and growing with a one-time contribution.”

Racial Inequality and Irrational Preferences in Application and Enforcement of Certain Key, Historic, Civil Rights Laws

28 U.S.C. Section 1443 states as follows:

“Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.”

On its face, this statute is color-blind, makes no reference to race, and is absolute.  In practical application, the Federal Courts have rendered this statute all but nugatory.  Anyone who wishes to exercise civil rights removal in the United States today must be prepared to fight to overturn one of the oddest relics of Jim Crow segregation imaginable: Civil Rights actions are still, in large part, said to be available only to cure RACIAL discrimination, and all other kinds of civil rights abuse are largely left immune, literally immunized, and untouched by the Constitution, unlimited by any constraints imposed by fundamental rights or human dignity.

Litigants interested in denials of equal access to the courts and denial of due process, or the existence of statutory economic classes, must ask the courts to analyze the 44 year old judicial construction and application of Civil Rights Removal (28 U.S.C. §§1443(1), 1447(d)) by application of the “strict scrutiny” test applicable all race-based schemes (even those called “benign”) and give that statute the full breadth and strength implicit in the plain language enacted by Congress.  28 U.S.C. §1443(1), a statute tracing its history back more than a hundred and thirty five years, as written, adopted, and codified by Congress into the positive law of the United States, ought to be one of the most powerful engines of civil rights enforcement under the constitution.  The language of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) is inclusive, rather than exclusive, but it was given an unbelievably narrow construction by the United States Supreme Court in 1966, from which the court has never retreated.  I would submit, and urge all others to argue as well, whether pro se or assisted by counsel, that the racially unequal application of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) is an affront to all recent U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence since Regents of the UC v. Bakke in 1978City of Richmond v. Croson in 1989, and Adarand v. Pena in 1995.

It is also time for the courts to allow removal so that all defendants in, for example, California eviction (U.D., unlawful detainer) cases following non-judicial foreclosures, will be able to put on evidence (as apparently ONLY the Defendants in Rachel v. Georgia have ever been allowed to do, and that in 1966) showing that all the non-racial or racially neutral criteria imposed on the invocation of 28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and 1447(d) by the U.S. Supreme Court in Greenwood v. Peacock and Georgia v. Rachel do in fact apply to all proceedings, in that these statutes, not quite uniquely, but with discriminatory intent and effect creating disparate classes of litigants more draconian than most, are designed to obliterate the following fundamental Constitutional freedoms: (1) freedom from statutes impairing the obligations of contract, (2) freedom to petition for redress of grievances, (3) freedom from deprivation of private property for public use without just compensation, (4) freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, (5) the right to jury trial in all cases where the matter in controversy exceeds $25.00.

So great is the weight of state statutes forbidding any contest against non-judicial foreclosure prior to effecting an illegal taking of property under color of law that even freedom of speech itself is suppressed.

Litigants in non-judicial foreclosure and forcible eviction cases should be prepared to appeal many a U.S. District Court’s denial of their right to present evidence showing (1) that the outcome of all non-judicial foreclosures and all Forcible Eviction cases following the same is uniformly fixed and predetermined, simultaneously by California statutes, court rules and practices having the force or effect of law relating to non-judicial foreclosure and post-foreclosure eviction, as well as other official customs, practices, and policies of the state of California relating to foreclosure and eviction, and having the force and effect of written law, (2) that the statutes fixing and predetermining these non-judicial and judicial outcomes constitute an infringement of the rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom of contract under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (if construed in a racially neutral manner), (3) that the statutes, court rules, and state customs, practices, and policies relating to non-judicial deprivation of property uniformly deny due process of law and give unbridled and hence unconstitutional discretion to arbitrary and capricious judicial decisions which all tend uniformly to the suppression of constitutional rights to private contractual formation and equality of access to the Courts, ownership of private property, and individual freedom to offer and give evidence under both 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982.

Likewise, the statutory racial language of 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982 themselves must be subjected to strict scrutiny and this court should order it stricken, because there can be no compelling governmental interest in maintaining that:

Section 1981:

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,”

and

Section 1982:

“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”

When the consequence of these laws being so written, in archaic, Reconstruction-era, Race-Related concerns, is to allow states to create, and to allow the Courts to uphold and enforce non-racial categories of disfavored persons, such as Respondents in forcible eviction and unlawful detainer cases, who must always lose, there is a great need for removal to Federal Court to preserve these liberties, and racial discrimination in the enforcement of civil rights is counter to all legitimate purposes of government.  When people are reduced to conditions of involuntary servitude by private economic manipulation and judicial strategems implemented in a matter subservient to those private special interests, the people are reduced to slavery.  It matters little that this is done by the stroke of judge’s and lawyers’ pens and word processors rather by than forcible capture and de jure enslavement, the philosophy of equality and the existence of a free society are equally imperiled.

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s Second Appeal of Remand: Civil Rights Laws should be Race-Neutral and Colorblind

July 2 2010 KAGL INITIAL BRIEF ROMAN PAGES 07-02-10

07-02-10_Appellant’s Opening Brief_KAGL_2nd

Appellant’s Opening Brief Cover Sheet July 2 2010

03-10-2010 KAGL SECOND NOTICE OF REMOVAL 28 USC 1443(1)

Civil Rights Removal should be permissible whenever State Law absolutely precludes the possibility that the Defendant will win on the core issue at stake in the suit. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has simply raised the undeniable truth that it is impossible, in the State of Florida, for a Respondent, once served with a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, to stop the dissolution of marriage. This is called “No Fault” divorce, but it is actually “strict liability” for divorce—the rule is, or would appear to be: if you are once married, you must become divorced immediately or else you are to be condemned as an anti-social pariah.

April 29 2010 Judge Oftedal’s Final Judgment of Dissolution

It is completely obvious that the policy of breaking down the American Family is the most important in all State and Federal Government. That is the conclusion one has to reach by reviewing the Lawson v. Lawson litigation and the dispositions entered by Florida State Circuit Judge Oftedal and U.S. District Judge Marra’s against Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

It’s amazing to think of a default being entered under circumstances wherein Kathy had so vigorously opposed this process every step of the way. It was as if Oftedal had to silence her or lose all his “credibility” as a good Florida Circuit Court Judge: “Who will rid me of this Troublesome Woman?” Someone must have said? (Cf. “Murder in the Cathedral” by T.S. Eliot).

2-24-2010 Notice of Appeal of Two Oftedal Orders per Florida 9-130

Kathy filed two Notices of Appeal of Non-Final Orders pursuant to Fla. App. Rule 9-130. The question is whether the express language of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9-130 renders Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s Final Judgment, entered April 29, 2010, null and void? Will the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals uphold the plain letter of the law, or will it weasel around and find that Kathy’s constitutional challenge to the basic Florida Marital and Dissolution Statutes was so “obstructionist” as to justify Judge Oftedal’s actions in ignoring the plain letter of the law. Since when is “obstructionism” based on constitutional arguments an evil thing? Is it that the Constitution has become hazardous to our Government’s feelings of absolute control over the population, so that Constitutionalists must all be eliminated and/or severely repressed/suppressed/ or just ridiculed and belittled until they become psychologically depressed? If the Courts, State and Federal, can apply just enough “pressure” on all people like Kathy who assert their rights, maybe there won’t be any people like Kathy anymore, and the Courts can act as arbitrarily and capriciously as they want in the name of “public health and welfare” and the “best interests of the child.”

Marra’s April 19 2010 Order Denying Kathy Garcia-Lawson’s Rule 59(e)

Divorce is much more important than Marriage. State disposition of martial rules is much more important the private contract or private arrangements regarding private life. And above all, the State’s complete usurpation of power over marriage and child-rearing is NOT communistic, NOT even socialist, and is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOT AN EFFECTIVE ESTABLISHMENT OF SECULAR-HUMANIST RELIGION BY THE POWER OF THE STATE UNDER THE GUISE OF THE STATE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE.

KAGL Objections to Order Setting Trial February 26 2010

Since when is vigorous assertion of constitutional rights so offensive to a court that a Judge dares to strike all such assertive pleadings and enter a default against the party asserting constitutional rights to be heard and complain about the way the system works? Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has spent the past five years challenging the Florida state statutory scheme, as well as the judicial customs, practices, and policies implementing this legislative panorama. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson contends that it is wrong, it is a violation of the American spirit, of the American dream of liberty and freedom, that the State and Federal government have ganged up to force and require that all individuals and family depend for their personal relations and family life, which lie at the heart of every person’s “pursuit of happiness”, on the arbitrary and capricious whims of state judges. Only with the abolition of State Family Court systems, of all State and Federal interference with domestic relations, can real freedom be restored in the United States of America, or in any of the countries of the world which have copied our extremely bad example…..or the bad examples that we copied (such as, truly but surprisingly, the old, now defunct and collapsed, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

April 13 2010 KAGAL Rule 59(e) Motion for REVOCATION OF REMAND.doc- Kathy’s draft

Was it Manifest Error to Ignore the Plain, Racially Neutral, Statutory Language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443? Or was it Manifest Error for the Supreme Court of the United States to construe 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 Civil Rights Removal so as to judicially insert or apply race-based criteria or classification schemes to race-neutral statutory language, especially when this was done during the “Civil Rights Movement” which was supposedly removing racial divisions as motivating factors, or factors of competition or oppression, among the people of the United States? Or could it be that Population-wide-Equal Civil Rights were not the real concern of the United States Supreme Court?

ORIGINS, SUPPRESSION, AND DESTINY OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN STATE

The autonomy of the Family and Private Property, the freedom of the individual and his closest worldly associates to arrange all of their affairs free from governmental interference, is the foundation for Capitalism and the Democratic-Republican State.  No issues are more important today than to restrict the overweening power of the Family and Probate Courts, which are responsible for more day-to-day infringements upon the rights and liberties of the vast majority of the people than the penal system, however horrible and corrupt, will ever be.  The greatest deception is that the government exercises power through the Family and Probate Courts for the benefit and promotion of welfare.  The reality is that Federal regulations enacted or promulgated pursuant to the Federal Power of Public Health and Welfare, Title 42, is the most egregious and oppressive intrusion into private life in the history of the world.

Civil Rights Laws may have evolved in the context of racial conflict, within the context of United States history, but until the Civil Rights laws are enforced in a race-neutral and colorblind manner, the status and concept of Civil Rights in the United States will remain hopelessly perverted.

Three Unsung Ladies of Liberty

Three  Unsung Ladies of Liberty whose projects and work need more attention:

Brooke Kelley

http://www.SimplySeekingFreedom.com/

Janet Phelan

http://www.janetphelan.com/

http://elder-abuse-cyberray.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-conservatorshipsguardianships-are.html

Nancy Jo Grant

http://floridajail4judges.org/

http://floridajail4judges.org/news.html

I went to a rather unreconstructed grade school in my early years (John S. Armstrong Elementary School in Highland Park, Texas 75205 grades 1-5).   I say it was “unreconstructed” because I had my first dramatic role there in First Grade as Mary’s husband “Joseph” in the school Nativity Play and yes, every day began with school prayer (even though this was in the time of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Madeleine Murray O’Hare) blasted over the school loudspeakers and moments of prayer (both silent and spoken) were common throughout the day—and to the best of my knowledge, it never hurt anybody, and I recall even a Jewish student, Louis Fine, who participated in that same First Grade Nativity Play.

The Song: “Lovely Lady of Liberty”

But we also had a series of patriotic songs we sang, in music class, some of which appear to have vanished from memory, and I would like to see whether anyone else ever sang, or remembers this particular song: not because it is particularly good or even particularly inspirational, but because it has stuck in my head all these long 40 + years and if my imagination made it up I should copyright it (but I’m sure SOMEONE out there must remember it also, because I’m sure I didn’t just dream it—and yet I googled the lyrics and come up with absolutely nothing):

“Lovely Lady of Liberty, here’s to You!

To the One that We’ll Always be Faithful and True!

Though you’re only a statue for Thee, we’ll die.

Lovely Lady of Liberty, here’s to You!

Goddess of Light, Goddess of Might, Facing the Sea!

Send out the Word, Let it be Heard, This Land is Free!

We dedicate our way of life to thy Memory;

That your light may shine on, throughout Eternity

Oh, We Will Always have freedom and Honor too.

Lovely Lady of Liberty Here’s too You!

I look at that song and it sounds like it must have started out as a World War I (“Great War”) Soldier’s drinking song written by officers or government officials designed to incite Patriotic fervor, because it has certain obscure or not-so-obscure but very “old fashioned” (non-”Brave New World” style) allusions to alcoholic toasts, rampant marital infidelity, and violent warlike feelings which hardly seem like elementary school music to go with school prayers.  But I do recall the school music teacher, Miss Biancci (We’re talking a solid forty years ago here, but I’m fairly sure that was her name), was a very conservative and patriotic lady who seemed to like to introduce us to all kinds of soupy romantic Italian popular tunes and Opera, which may or may not have been particularly well suited to even a fairly elite Texas elementary audience.  If ANYONE, from John S. Armstrong Elementary in Highland Park (Dallas County) Texas or anywhere else can remember this song or find it on-line, please advise me.  I would like to find a picture of Miss Biancci (or Bianchi?) if anyone has one dating back to the years 1967-1971.  It was a long, long, time ago, in a galaxy far away.

Constitutional Attorney Needed to Challenge Non-Judicial Foreclosure & Eviction Law in California

POSITION OPEN TO ANY LAWYER INTERESTED IN OR WILLING TO CHALLENGE THE ESTABLISHMENT ON A “HOT BUTTON” RACE ISSUE!

RENADA NADINE MARCH, JOSEPH & ANA COHEN, & AURORA I. DIAZ, SPONSORED BY THE CHARLES LINCOLN FOR TIERRA LIMPIA TRUST and DEO VINDICE FOUNDATION, SEEK CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY TO CHALLENGE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY U.S. JUDICIARY IN APPLICATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.

Specifically, we need a Constitutional Lawyer with experience and/or interest in state-federal jurisdictional comity to represent defendants (possible class action) who filed civil rights removal to federal court;  we specifically need immediate representation on the question of the Court’s judicially fashioned racially discriminatory scheme in application and enforcement of civil rights laws (“all race based schemes should be subject to strict scrutiny, even those called” benign which were instituted by the U.S. Supreme Court).

A hearing is set for July 19, 2010, but new and qualified counsel could probably get a continuance.  However, the arguments are really extremely simple: Judge David O. Carter has ordered Defendant Renada Nadine March to explain why her removal of a forcible detainer case from California Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California should not be remanded for failure to comply with a judicially mandated program of racial discrimination in the application of certain federal statutes, to wit 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443 and 1447, which are facially colorblind and contain broad, racially neutral language regarding their intended purpose and application.  The express purpose is to ensure that defendants who are condemned by an express statement of state law to lose, so that all cases are fixed, whether facially or as applied, can remove the prosecutions against them to the U.S. District Court to raise defenses which are unavailable to them, as a practical matter of law or local customs and policies having the force of law, in state Court.  It is beyond reasonable doubt that California Superior Courts presiding over forcible eviction/unlawful detainer prosecutions following non-judicial foreclosures are such “one way streets” in which each and every Defendant’s federally secured rights are designed to be denied by the mere fact of bringing the Defendant to trial in state court—swiftly and efficiently.  Defendants Joseph & Ana Cohen and Aurora I. Diaz are directly interested in the outcome of this issue because they have removed their own forcible eviction/unlawful detainer cases from California Superior Court to U.S. District Court.

We are now seeking an attorney who is either well-versed in, passionately interested in, or at the very least willing to become well-versed in and passionately interested in the question whether “strict scrutiny” should apply to a judicially shaped policy which turns a statute which is colorblind and racially neutral on its face into an instrument of so-called “benign” (i.e. pro minority, mostly pro-African American) Discrimination by denying equal access to removal for serious violations of civil rights which are not explicitly racial in nature or context.

Simply summarized, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 is directly violated by the California Legislative-Judicial two step program of non-judicial foreclosure followed by judicial evictions devoid of due process or any normal or realistic possibility for ordinary defendants to win.  California non-judicial foreclosure is effectively insulated from most common law contract-based challenges under under California Civil Code 2924 et seq. both on its face as enacted by the California Legislature and as applied by the Superior Courts of the State of California.

California non-judicial foreclosure is followed by California Superior Court judicial evictions which are carefully designed and expressly limited to obliterate all the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a): “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property” and 1981(b) “For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.”   The total effect and combined result of this language is or ought to be that the common law of contract and property is insulated from legislative or judicial impairment: 1981(c) “The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.”  That contractual rights are related to property rights is obvious from 1981, but confirmed by 1982, which enforces equality “to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”

Freedom of Contract and the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to the security of property from invasion or seizure by the government or private properties acting under governmental authority or delegation depended in the Reconstruction era on state adherence to the common law, and in essence, they still do.

We also take the position that the references to “white citizens” in 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982 is as archaic and out of place, and as subject to analysis under strict scrutiny requiring excision from the U.S. Code like any other irrational and racially discriminatory provisions of any law which does not serve a legitimate and compelling governmental objective.

Our position is that there should be no racial discrimination in the application of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443 and 1447, and that this legal argument is so plain and simple that any attorney licensed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California should be capable of presenting this case.  The main difficulty is a willingness to challenge the race-based scheme mandated by plain Supreme Court precedent (from 1966-1975) which is directly contrary to and contradictory of the Bakke through Bollinger jurisprudence on equal protection from 1978-2003 and which is “good law” at the present time.

The mortgage foreclosure and eviction crisis currently sweeping the United States in general, and California in particular, goes to the heart of a basic question: are common law concepts such as privity of contract, holder in due course standing, and legal capacity or formation as an entity, so essential to constitutional definitions of private property and freedom of contract that any state statute which abrogates or infringes upon these rights, for example, by creating by statute (such as exists in California) a two step non-judicial foreclosure procedure followed by a predetermined one-way judicial eviction policy, may be said to be a statute unconstitutionally impairing the obligations of contract?

Note from Charles Lincoln:  Founder of Tierra Limpia Trust and Deo Vindice Foundation.  As any regular reader of this blog knows, in addition to holding a Master’s and Doctoral degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, wherein I wrote a dissertation entitled, “Ethnicity and Social Organization,” I am a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School who does not currently possess a valid license to appear on behalf of others in the state courts of California, Florida, or Texas where I was once licensed.  There are those both on-line and in the State Bar Organizations who think that the historical context of my disbarment is unimportant, and that one need only look at the formal charges against me to determine that I should not be taken seriously.  Naturally, I disagree and submit that historical context is everything: I was disbarred as a result of charges and an indictment handed down for one purpose and one purpose only: to silence me and to prevent the effective prosecution of my civil rights cases on behalf of non-minority victims of police brutality and systematic policies of violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights in Texas.  In short, all of the events leading to my indictment and disbarment were the direct result of my having stood up for the principle that Civil Rights Law is for everybody, including the white majority, and not just for minorities.  I think that the “powers that be” in Texas in the 1990s who later took national office in the elections of 2000 and all their supporters at every level are deeply threatened, indeed offended, by the idea that all Americans should have civil rights.  As long as Civil Rights are only available to minorities, the concept of “discrimination” can be used to create divisions among the people and to enhance the power of transcendent government and its corporate conglomerate allies.  A nation in which civil rights applied to everyone would, from the standpoint of our national government, and most of its partisans and political officers, seem simply ungovernable.  It is my position that “none can be free until all are free” and that a civil rights policy which enhances the rights of any minority while denying the same rights and access to the courts to the majority is unworthy of the name of American Constitutional government.

Please Call Renada Nadine March at 949-586-4020 or 949-276-1970 (renada.march@gmail.com) or Kathleen Waller (727) 277-9352; propertyrightsadvocate@yahoo.com; if you are an attorney interested in representing Renada Nadine March, and possibly Joseph & Ana Cohen and Aurora I. Diaz as well.

No Lawyer Came Forward, so Renada is Buffy—”One Girl in all the World” against the Forces of Darkness (or, at least in Orange County)

I suppose that Renada is now that “one girl in all the world”, like Buffy Ann Summers fighting the Forces of Darkness in Orange County; so that would make me her “watcher” Rupert Giles.  Like Buffy & Giles, our activities are subversive to the “powers that be” and exist outside of the normal realm of law or procedure, because the “powers that be” simply do not recognize the existence of Vampires like Larry Rothman and Steven D. Silverstein.
FAY E. MARCH07-19-2010_RNM_FEM_Supplemental Opposition to Remand 10-cv-00516

RENADA NADINE MARCH

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Tel: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN (ORANGE COUNTY) DIVISION

MEGLODON FINANCIAL, LLC,                           CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

PLAINTIFF,                                                  8:10-cv-00516-DOC-E

versus

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER FEDERAL CODES OF EVIDENCE 901, 902, 1002, AND 803.6,   IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT

RENADA NADINE MARCH,

And FAY E. MARCH (Intervener)

Defendants.

_______________________/

To the Honorable United States District Judge, DAVID O. CARTER:

Comes now Defendants Renada Nadine March and her elderly mother Fay E. March with recently discovered facts circumstances and documentary evidence in support of Debtor’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s  Motion  to Remand To State Court .

1)   Defendants Renada Nadine March and Fay E. March Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to remand to State Court on the basis of new facts and evidence and points of law as set forth below. 

2)   Defendants removed to Federal Court for one reason and one reason only:

[IN ALL UNLAWFUL DETAINER/FORCIBLE EVICTION CASES BROUGHT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOLLOWING A NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE]: “it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 800, 828, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 1812, 16 L.Ed.2d 1957 (1966)(citing Georgia v. Rachel; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303.”

3)   This Court, in its Minute Order (Document 16) Rendered on June 4, 2010, has authorized supplemental briefing: “the Court will hear legal argument as to why the civil rights removal statute should not be construed as requiring the violation of rights in terms of racial equity.”

4)   The civil rights removal statute should not be construed as requiring the violation of rights in terms of racially equality because, FIRST, such a requirement of what can only be called “racial discrimination” does not exist within the text of the statute.

5)   The United States Supreme Court has developed a race-based scheme for the enforcement of 28 U.S.C. §§1443 & 1447(d) which is consistent with the statutory language of 42 U.S.C. §1981, 1982, but NOT with the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. §§1443 & 1447(d).

6)   Justice O’Connor, in Richmond v. Croson, in 1989, wrote that strict scrutiny must apply to all race-based schemes, even those called “benign”.

7)   Application of “strict scrutiny” to any governmental law, program, statute, or policy means that, in order to sustain the questioned law, program, statute, or policy, the Court must find by a preponderance of the credible evidence that after careful consideration of alternatives, the law, program, statute, or policy is the least restrictive means, the most narrowly tailored discriminatory infringement upon fundamental right to “equal protection under the law”, to achieve a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL OBJECTIVE (Compelling objective = legitimate + lots of other positive value judgments concerning the policy, program, or statutory scheme).

8)   In sum, the law after Croson (confirmed by Adarand v. Pena as covering federal as well as state programs, laws, and policies) is this: all race-based schemes must be subjected to strict scrutiny, such that unless the Court can find a compelling objective and a tight means-end fit, this Court must strike down the offending law, program, statute, or policy as an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment.

9)   Defendants submit that, given the absolutely racially neutral, totally colorblind language of 28 U.S.C. §§1443 & 1447(d), there is no possibility that a system of race-based discrimination in the application of this statute serves any compelling governmental purpose.

10)                  Obviously, the Court’s race-based scheme is “benign” in the sense that it is not oppressive to racial minorities, but it is completely irrational and discriminatory against the majority, and does not match the broad inclusive language of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1), but this does not mean that the scheme serves any compelling governmental purpose or is legitimate.

11)                  Much less can this judicial custom, practice, or policy in the racially discriminatory application of Civil Rights Removal be deemed the “least restrictive” or “most narrowly tailored” means to achieving any legitimate governmental purpose.

12)                  If the purpose of the racially discriminatory enforcement of the

13)                  The Civil Rights Crisis of the 1950s-1960s was not greater than the mortgage crisist facing America today.  As a matter of fact, the American Crisis today is MUCH WORSE—and does indeed cross all racial, sexual, and class boundaries: the mortgage crisis goes to the very heart of the rights to enjoy life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

14)                  The question this Court must resolve is whether a judicially crafted construction or policy of statutory interpretation, formulated in the years 1966-1975 prior to the decision and reformulation of the Court’s “strict scrutiny” doctrine relating to equal protection as articulated in the line of cases running from Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 1978, to Richmond v. Croson, 1989, Adarand v. Pena, 1995, and Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003, must equally be struck down as “reverse discrimination.”

15)                  If Judges don’t follow the law then who will?

16)                  If the Judiciary cannot apply to its own older doctrines those which are newer, if Judicial decisions such as Greenwood v. Peacock, Rachel v. Georgia, and Johnson v. Mississippi are held to be immune from strict scrutiny analysis, then there is truly no integrity to the Common Constitutional law of the land, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, whatsoever.

17)                  This Court stated on June 4, 2010, that the inquiry whether race-based criteria should apply to Civil Rights Removal was not fact-intensive.  Defendants March & March agree: strict scrutiny requires that the judicial construction or policy of race-based Civil Rights Removal last articulated by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Mississippi (1975) can and must be struck down, plainly and simply, as a matter of law.

18)                  But Civil Rights Removal itself, as described by the non-racial elements of removal analyzed in Greenwood v. Peacock and Johnson v. Mississippi, are legitimate and must be analyzed in relationship to the facts and statistics about the conduct of Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction cases in Orange County, and California generally?

19)                  Does the state statutory scheme, taken as a whole, allow for any defenses once the charge of Unlawful Detainer is brought?  In essence, this is one of those “rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state ” that the answer is NO, Defendants in California Superior Court do not have any readily available statutory defenses once the charge of Unlawful Detainer/plea for Forcible Eviction is brought: they cannot EVEN challenge the standing of a Plaintiff to bring the suit.

20)                  As Silverstein & Rothman repeatedly have reiterated: so long as the Plaintiff has made all the proper allegations, California Superior Courts will not allow any trial of the facts properly alleged—the mere proper (or even the nearly proper) ALLEGATION of standing to evict following a non-judicial foreclosure inevitably leads to eviction, the Defendant “does not have a Chinaman’s chance”, to use an archaic racially charged-metaphor.

21)                  This terrible metaphor reflected, and definitely indicated the existence of a custom, practice, or policy of malignant, non-benign, discrimination which had its origins in the early United States legal history of the State of California.  The phrase dates to the period when Chinese laborers were brought in to the West in the late 1860s and 1870s, after the Abolition of Black Chattel Slavery in the South, when the Chinese “coolies” were treated without respect and without rights, when they had no access to the Courts, or to any form of Justice, when persons or Oriental origin were, quite frankly, uniformly treated like defendants in Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction cases in California in 2010.

22)                  The court must consider the constitutional nature of the defendants claims to right of to Due Process of law and their right to a fair and impartial hearing are better suited to Federal Court, than State of California superior Court where ownership and title issues are considered as a moot point and Homeowners are customarily and BY Statutory LAW, classified and treated as ordinary renters,  contractually defaulting tenants who have failed to pay rent.

23)                  Additionally the Court should take under consideration that the Defendants in this case are not representing themselves In Pro Per not by choice!   But rather in desperation, due to lack of the financial wherewithal to retain counsel to protect their constitutional rights to their home and principal dwelling place and consideration of their claims of being unlawfully stripped of their home equity and also consider that the defendant  may be victims of an unlawful conveyance of their title who have  been wrongfully and intentionally taken advantage of by the plaintiffs and their commercial lending business partners and their professional corporate attorneys.

24)                  The characteristic of a defrauded and economically disadvantaged State of California Homeowner, is one that the Court must conclude represents ; like gender, race, and religion a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose judicially differential and biased treatment.

25)                  Defendants submit the question is not WHETHER Due Process of law will be denied, in their exact circumstances, circumstances, as a direct and proximate result of a pervasive state statutory scheme, but rather, Defendants contend that the FACTS WILL SHOW that ion all cases a meaningful hearing WILL BE denied, not in some but in 99.99% of the cases.

26)                  It is no solution to say that a writ of scire facias or other hopelessly obscure non-statutory defenses may be available.

27)                  For most defendants, who will appear in Pro Per, their situation is this: they are victims of predatory mortgage lending fraud and have, by the actions of their “creditors” been deprived of any and all the financial wherewithal to retain the services of an attorney.

28)                  The court should also take into consideration that a great number of the defendants in Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction cases, ALSO sustained  harm  as a result of plaintiff’s direct misrepresentations and  wrongful acts of deceptive lending practiced by unscrupulous sub-prime commercial lenders and their banking/investment partners who now wrongfully claim the right of possession to these defendants home and principal dwelling place.

29)                  In its order of  July 6, 2010, the Court expressed sympathy for Plaintiff’s Counsel for having “been required to appear in this Court five times for hearings on this matter” (July 6, 2010, Document 26).

30)                  How much greater is the onus on the present Defendants, Renada Nadine and Fay E. March who, unlike Plaintiff’s counsel are not otherwise employed or paid to appear in Court, but who are threatened with homelessness following an illegal foreclosure by way of a judicial process in California Superior Court which will not hear their defenses, not even allow a trial on the question of ownership or standing, because California statutory schemes, although “non-racial” create IRREBUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS, even more ironclad than the aforementioned “lack of a Chinaman’s chance” and worse and more certain than that African-American males in the South would be lynched on charges of having sex with a white woman.

31)                  Where is the Clarence Darrow or Atticus Finch needed to defend California defendants here and now?

32)                  Defendants Renada and Fay March suffered severe personal injuries and have been undergoing continual sedation by pain-killers since their one and only car was totaled on July 5, 2010.  They have been forced to seek medical attention and have been unable to seek legal counsel.

33)                  Plaintiff Fay E. March, a senior citizen in her ninth decade of life, was so badly injured in this crash that she developed fluid in and around her lungs and this condition required special testing and attention, in addition to the fact that both of these single women have been living with constant pain and the disorientation of post-traumatic shock for all of the past two weeks.

34)                  These Defendants are simply lacking in full mental or physical capacity to defend themselves at the present time, and they ask this Court to use its broad discretion to appoint counsel for them.  Counsel would be appointed for even the most minor criminal charge, and yet Forcible Eviction/Unlawful Detainer cannot be commuted to “probation” or “deferred adjudication.”

35)                  Defendants pray for justice and equity, and for a hearing to give their evidence.

36)                  The Court should consider that the In Pro Per  defendants in spite of having tired every avenue and having  done their due diligence have been financially unable to secure the services of an attorney to help the defendants avail themselves of their rightful legal remedies of due process of law, as guaranteed by the American Constitution, to defend themselves against suspected crimes of title fraud and mortgage lending abuse as evidenced below, that may have been committed by an unscrupulous corporate investor, for the purpose of stealing the defendants rightful equity.

37)                  The court is under a duty to examine the Pro Se pleading to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory.” Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975), quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1971).

38)                  On or about Friday July 16, as supported by the Declaration of Defendant Fay E. March filed herewith in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion  to Remand To State Court, Defendants  Renada Nadine March and Fay E. March  the Defendants  in this action were provided with a Preliminary Report and Declaration of forensic investigator and document analyst  Charles J. Koppa indicating that certain documents have been recently discovered indicating that the subject property title was not duly perfected by the prior beneficiary and  therefore leading the Defendants to  discover and believe  that the purported October 9th, 2009 Trust Deed Sale  of the subject property by beneficiary may be subject to judicial scrutiny as unqualified and due to suspected  fraudulent activity by the prior beneficiary may be determined to be VOID .

39)                  On or about Friday July 16, As supported by the Declaration of Defendant  Fay E. March  filed herewith  in support of Defendant’s  Opposition to Plaintiff’s  Motion  to Remand To State Court, Defendants  Ranada Nadine March and Fay E. March  were provided with an initial  results of a  indicating that Defendants  Ranada Nadine March and Fay E. March   may be victims of  criminal mortgage lending fraud,  as a result of  an on-going  research by  investigator  Catherine Bryan Ibarra  of  Kokopelli Community Workshop  Fraud Research Project (hereinafter in this document referred to as, KCWFR)  who  actively liaisons with   homeowners who are suspected of being  victims of mortgage lending fraud for the purpose of reporting their findings to the  National FBI Financial Institution Fraud Unit, The Federal Trade Commission, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. KCWFR  has investigated,  uncovered  and reported  more than 1,000  incidences of Mortgage Lending Fraud against multiple commercial lenders and investors,  ranging from  irregularly reported and recoded documents  to violations  of  commercial lending law and  in other cases mortgage servicing fraud violations, commercial financial elder abuse, unwarranted foreclosures and common violations of Trust Deed Sale Laws and Procedures.

40)                  Defendants Renada and Fay March respectfully request that the Court take under judicial consideration of the declarations filed herewith, see Exhibit A by Forensic Foreclosure Auditor and Expert Investigator, Charles J. Koppa, and Defendants Renada and Fay March see Exhibit B, and deny plaintiffs Motion for Remand to State court for 90 days until professional mortgage fraud investigators can complete their investigation and provide testimony to this Court.

41)                  Defendants ask that this Court accept a further Supplement to this case AFTER July 19, 2010, to more fully address and analyze the questions presented by Bankruptcy Removal under 28 U.S.C. §§1334 and 1452, although the same basic issues of fairness and equity do apply: in that the State Courts will neither hear nor allow challenges to the legitimacy or standing of evictions or non-judicial foreclosures.

WHEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND EVIDENCE Defendants Fay E. March and Renada Nadine March pray that this Court, grant an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand to State Court .

Respectfully submitted,

July 19, 2010

By:__________________________________

RENADA NADINE MARCH, Pro se/in propia persona

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

And by:___________________________________

FAY E. MARCH, Pro se/in propia persona

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-276-1970

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I the undersigned Defendant do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of this SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER FEDERAL CODES OF EVIDENCE 901, 902, 1002, and 803.6, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT. upon Plaintiff’s Counsel by way of  E-Mail on July 19th, 2010, approximately ______ pm  at: tocollect@aol.com, and delivered to Larry Rothman attorney for Steven D. Silverstein, and to Steven D. Silverstein individually, to:

LARRY ROTHMAN

Larry Rothman & Associates

(Counsel for Steven D. Silverstein)

City Plaza—1 City Boulevard West, Suite 850

Orange, California 92868

E-Mail: tocollect@aol.com

Facsimile: (714) 363-0229

And to

Steven D. Silverstein, Attorney-at-Law

(as counsel for Meglodon Financial, LLC)

sdevictions@hotmail.com

Silverstein Eviction Law

14351 Redhill Ave., Suite #G

Tustin, CA 92780

FACSIMILE: 714-832-7781

Served by the Defendant and Respectfully Submitted to the Court,

Monday, July 19th, 2010

By:______________________________

RENADA NADINE MARCH,

Removing pro se/in pro per

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

EXHIBIT A:

Declaration of Charles J. Koppa

EXHIBIT B:

Declaration of Fay E. March

See “We Will Not be Silenced” by Gigi Gaston: “A Documentary About Voter Fraud in the Democratic Presidential Primary 2008″

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/director.htm

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/index.htm

We are Americans, not angry liberals.

As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were granted us by our forefathers, who wrote documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “We the people” expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected. However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama Campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

“We Will Not Be Silenced” is about the people who fight back by simply telling their stories: Teachers, professors, civil rights activists, lawyers, janitors, physicists, ophthalmologists, accountants, mathematicians, retirees – all bound together by their love of America and Democracy. They will tell us their experiences and how they feel betrayed by their own party. They will discuss how their party has disenfranchised them and how, when they saw and reported multiple instances of fraud, everyone turned a blind eye. Rather than support and protect the voices and votes of its loyal members, the DNC chose to sweep this under the rug by looking the other way, or using ceremony and quasi-investigations to assuage angry voters. It is our opinion there never before has been such a “dirty” campaign; the campaign that has broken the hearts and spirits of American voters, who once believed in the Democractic voting system.

We are not angry liberals; we are disappointed Democrats, who love our country and feel the DNC needs to stand for truth, care about its voter base and stop committing actions worse than what we only thought possible of the worst Republicans. The DNC and the Obama Campaign need to be held accountable for the catastrophe of the 2008 Democratic Primary. We must right their wrongs…after all, this is America, the Land of the Free, where every American has the right to a fair, honest voting process, and to have his or her vote counted…

We Will Not Be Silenced


With three screenplays sold to major companies and a fourth, “Madame Lupescu,”optioned by Imagine Entertainment, screenwriter/director Gigi Gaston is now well on her way to becoming one of the most sought after writer/filmmakers in the business. Last year she directed her first feature, The Cream Will Rise, a dark, surprising documentary about controversial singer/songwriter Sophie B. Hawkins, which has been screened at film festivals around the country receiving excellent reviews. This led to Gaston’s directing her first music video — Olivia Newton John’s updated version of her hit song “I Honestly Love You.” When Gaston was sixteen, director George Cukor, a family friend, encouraged her to pursue an acting career; she was never able to commit to acting because she already knew she wanted to write and direct. However, as a teenager she did pursue a career as an Olympic athlete, becoming a champion jump rider, and later used this experience as the basis for her first screenplay. After teaching herself the fundamentals of writing from Syd Field’s book “Screenplay,” Gaston wrote“Like A Lady,” in 1988, in between jumping events. This autobiographical story is about a tomboy Olympic athlete, who asks a drag-queen to teach her how to “act like a lady.”

Gaston will executive produce Mockingbird, her adaptation of Walter Tevis’s science-fiction novel about a love triangle in a drug-ridden future, which Oscar-winner Steve Tisch will produce. Unreliably Yours, a wild comedy which has been sold to Initial Entertainment, shows the other side of Gaston’s sensibility: it’s about a wife and mistress who hate each other, but join forces to sabotage the man they share when he goes on a trip to Mexico with their new “replacement.”

If Frank Capra’s films sharpened Gaston’s sense of screen comedy when she was growing up, her heart belonged to historical epics like Dr. Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia and Greta Garbo’s Queen Christina. Madame Lupescu, which she first brought to Ron Howard’s Imagine Entertainment, is her first opportunity to write a story which draws on her fascination with historical subject matter. A drama set in Romania between 1900 and 1940, Madame Lupescu tells the story of crown Prince Carol II of Romania – monarch in an anti-Semitic country – who abdicated his trhone for the love of Magda Lupesco, a Jewish commoner. This summer Gaston will travel to Romania to extensively research this project.

A native of Greenwich, Connecticut, Gaston began her athletic career when she began riding at age three. She moved to Los Angeles with her family five years later, and in 1976 became the youngest rider to win an Olympic competition at the Washington International Horse Show. A top contender for the U.S. Olympic team in 1980, she spent years training during winter sessions for the event, but suffered disappointment when President Carter announced that the U.S. would boycott the Games in 1980. After winning every top award an amateur jumper can win, Gaston retired in 1983, but made a “comeback” appearance at the L.A. Forum in 1989, emerging as a ranked champion in every division.

What is the practice of law? Is there any federal law restricting pro se litigants from helping each other?

“Neither statutory nor judicial definitions offer clear guidelines as to what constitutes the practice of law or the unauthorized practice of law. All too frequently, the definitions are so broad as to be meaningless and amount to little more than the statement that “the practice of law” is merely whatever lawyers do or are traditionally understood to do. The definition of the practice of law is established by law and varies from one jurisdiction to another. Whatever the definition, limiting the practice of law to members of the bar protects the public against rendition of legal services by unqualified persons.”

Comment 2 to Rule Texas Rule 5.05 “Texas Legal Ethics”: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/tx/narr/TX_NARR_5.HTM

Compare and consider Nancy Grant’s story (previously described  and featured on this Blog): at http://www.caught.net/prose/upl.htm#grant
but also generally  http://www.caught.net/prose/upl.htm and especially:  http://www.caught.net/prose/upl.htm#case

For me, from my lifetime perspective, and experience with others, the “practice of law” consists of “thinking, talking, and writing about the law” on a regular basis whether you are coming at it from an anthropological, behavioral, Chomskyite, criminological, cultural, dialectic, educational, evolutionary, financial, geographic, hermeneutic, historical, ideological, jurisprudential, Keynesian-economic, Kinseyan sexual studies, linguistic, Malthusian, Marxist, materialistic, morally relativistic, mortgage-finance, mystical, normative, nomological, ordinary daily experiential, personal,  philophical, quantum-mechanical, quasi-intellectual/quasi-pop cultural, radical republican, real-estate-related, revolutionary, royalist, sociological, teleological, theological, urban-rural continuum, vicariously curious, Weberian, world-order, xenophobic, or zoological perspective (or any other alphabet-soup of adjectives).

In daily life, the “practice of law” seems to involve certain very private activities which may be easily shared, either privately or publicly:

(1) the study of law, (2) the sharing of one individual’s study of the law with another, (3) the development of legal theories to apply to practical situations, (4) the utilization of legal knowledge and theory in actual, live controversies in actual, live courts, (5) the dialogue concerning the law between (a) interested parties, (b) disinterested but educated citizens, and (c) the courts.  It has been for many years, and continues to be, my position that any attempt to impose a state monopoly on the exercise of fundamental rights is a violation of the First Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth, and that to claim “Parker Doctrine” exemption for any range of human activities as broadly and indeed vaguely and imprecisely defined as the “practice of law” is itself an infringement on the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

In Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969) the Supreme Court generally approved the practice of “jailhouse lawyers” or “inmate writ preparers.”  Johnson v. Avery 393 US 483 89 SCt 747 21 LEd2d 718 (1969).  It is incomprehensible why the logic used to approve mutual assistance for legal research and drafting among inmates would not allow unlicensed, untrained lay persons outside of prison walls to help each other also.   The “traditional, closed-shop attitude is clearly out of place in the modern world where claims pile high and much of the work of tracing and pursuing them requires the patience and wisdom of a layman rather than the legal skills of a member of the bar.”  Justice William O. Douglas, concurring, 383 U.S. at 492.  ”If poverty lawyers are overworked, some of the work can be delegated to sub-professionals.”  Another way of analyzing this is that where there is a right of some to receive assistance, there must be the right of others to provide it.  A person with a 100% knowledge of the law probably does not exist, in any law firm or court anywhere, and if such a person exists, he is probably God-like and generally inaccessible.  Most lawyers probably have what could be described as a 20-30% knowledge of the law, and the ability to research and learn more in any specific circumstances.  But a person with a 10-15% knowledge of the law can almost certainly provide assistance to a person with 0-5% knowledge of the law, and there is simply no reason why such relationships should not be officially allowed to exist, since common sense tells us that people of good will do indeed help each other without asking anyone else’s permission.  Nor should the government be in the business of regulating such mutual assistance under the First Amendment’s “freedom to peaceably assemble” and “freedom to petition for redress of grievances” among other rights, including the residual “unenumerated” rights of the people enshrined in the Ninth Amendment.

So, at most, how much of “the practice of law” can or should be licensed?  The Supreme Court has often held that no fundamental right can ever be constrained by a license, or “prior restraint” on what can or cannot be said or done, with regard to the exercise of any fundamental right.  Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition for Redress of Grievances are an inventory of Fundamental rights commonly thought of as “First Amendment” rights.  What part of “practice of law” is covered under the First Amendment?  I submit that 100% of the First Amendment is so covered.

I continue to receive hatemail from stupid people paid to act stupid concerning exactly this point, and I want to quote an example I received on July 20, 2010:

“Hi Charles. Thanks for the update. As always Charles Lincoln III dosier forwarded to Larry Rothman at Larry Rothman and Associates along with a cover letter explaining who is really writing Renada’s filings. Of course in this case I’m pretty sure he (or at least his clients) are well aware of who is really trying to practice law without a licence. Can I just say it is great that you love to write so much into your filings. When people are succinct it can be difficult to identify the true author of filings in different jurisdictions. But of course with you Charles there is no such problem. One particularly easy one (of many) was numbered paragraph 3. Yes Charles you’ve used that before in some of Orly’s filings. I’m not telling you where though but of course I’ve told Mr Rothman and provided him with all the examples that us politijabbers have thus far uncovered. Somehow I think the honorable David Carter is probably going to remember Orly Taitz and maybe even your role in the rubbish brought to his Court Room previously. Even if he doesn’t I’m pretty sure with the help of our dossier that Mr Rothman will be refreshing his memory. Best of luck winning this one loser.”

The signature on this spam was “Mary Loo”—and oh I’m SO SURE that’s her real name!

It’s good to know that even the most evil, low-down, dirty dogs among us still have some friends who’re willing to help them, isn’t it?  The author of this curious piece of terroristic prose goes by the name the British give to their private sanitary facilities, but his or her true name is quite unknown, to me anyhow.  I feel great pity for him/her on the whole, that s/he has nothing better to do in life than to assist the scum of the earth whom Renada Nadine March and I are fighting for our very right to live and breathe with dignity.

Of course, the first question is: who is so concerned with assisting a soulless monster like Rothman to defend an inhuman predator like Silverstein when such scum of the earth are praying on essentially defenseless single women (a mother and daughter) among many others?  Renada and I have been working together since October and I strongly hope and expect we will work together for a lot longer.  Who would care about our alliance attempting to hold onto property in the environment of this modern mortgage crisis?

Well, it would be, I suppose, one of those who despicable creatures who profit and make their livelihood from the constitutionally illegitimate monopoly on the practice of law, i.e., a licensed attorney, one of those whose only claim to legal ability is conformity with chain-gang operating judges.  Second, it would have to be a person who agrees with the status quo on mortgage foreclosures, who believes that the Courts SHOULD lock out all dissent and should FREEZE the law exactly where it is, which is in the pockets of certain financial industry elites and their “retinue of retainers” including licensed attorneys, who know that their sole salvation is to be soulless advocates for the Banks and the Government who are now conspiring, through the coordinate efforts of the Federal Reserve monetary system, the welfare system, and the federal income tax system, to abolish private property, to destroy the family, and to turn the bourgeois state into a “dictatorship of the proletariat” operated by the elite-intelligentsia whom Marx-Lenin-Stalin-and-Mao always envisioned would be sitting at the top of the “classless” social pyramid.

I want to make things very easy for Mrs. British-Slang-for-Potty as she tries to assist Larry Rothman and Steven D. Silverstein: OF COURSE I work closely with Renada Nadine March, just as I have worked closely together with many pro se litigants and attorneys throughout the years.  I believe in absolute freedom of association and do not support the existence of titles of nobility (such as “esquire”) as pre-requisites to providing advice or counsel in the law.

I recognize that there are state laws regulating such matters although they are of extremely dubious constitutionality, as I have argued on many occasions in many cases from Texas to Montana.   Among my closest friends is Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil who has spent his entire professional life fighting the illegitimate bar monopoly.  With Jerry I worked out a corollary which someday I hope to test in litigation: The so-called “Parker-Doctrine” State-Action Exception to the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust laws stops with Footnote 4 of U.S.A. v. Carolene Products: wherever any state action tends to infringe on enumerated rights (i.e. those set forth in the Bill of Rights), the Parker-Doctrine State Action Exception does not and cannot apply under the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine construing the same.

To the great credit of the Federal Courts, there is no FEDERAL doctrine of unauthorized practice of law and in fact, most Federal cases to touch on the subject hold that pro se litigants SHOULD and MUST be allowed to help each other.  I am very proud of my work with Renada Nadine March in California, just as I am proud of my work with Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson in Florida and with Jerry O’Neil in Montana.  I am also (and even) proud of the time I spent working together with Jon Drew Roland on this topic in Texas, even though my friendship with him, which I had expected to last a lifetime, most unfortunately, passed by the wayside when, working together, we won a case much too fast and easily (in 2007) for the beneficiary’s comfort.  (Jon has since attacked me in public and I have to defend myself against him for all his lies and ongoing defamation [lawsuits have been filed] but I know that, deep down inside, he and I agree on just about everything important, especially with regard to liberating the practice of law from the “bars” against its “free exercise.”)

And to the great credit of Judge David O. Carter, Larry Rothman has already tried to raise with him the bugbear of unauthorized practice against me and Renada—and Renada tries to helps others as I have tried to help her—and Judge Carter has deemed this a state issue and refused to allow Rothman any latitude to harass us.  Of course Judge Carter avoids the hard constitutional issues whenever he can, and so on Friday July 23, 2010, Carter remanded Renada’s case to Superior Court—where Silverstein already had a hearing set for the following Monday, July 26, 2010.  Carter’s primary reason for remanding the case this time was that Fay E. March, Renada Nadine March’s mother, had filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the Superior Court (Unlawful Detainer) proceedings on which the Superior Court had not yet ruled.  On Monday, July 26, 2010, when the case was remanded, a Judge in Newport Beach who took over from Judge Cory Cramin after his recusal conferred and agreed (privately, in chambers) with Silverstein and denied Fay March’s Motion for Leave to Intervene, despite the fact that EVERY Complaint for Forcible Detainer names at least five “John & Jane Doe” parties.

TO ANYONE, including Mrs. British-Slang-for-Toilet (who wrote the above-quoted hatemail), I say this: YES, OH YES, I am proud to tell you that I have written a great deal for Renada Nadine March, Jerry O’Neil, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, and Jon Drew Roland (and many, many others) in Federal Court.  Show me ANY law that forbids or penalizes my doing so?  Investigate me ALL you want because I believe that I have a fundamental right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow pro se litigants in Federal Court and utilize so much of my knowledge and brain as may be useful to them.

I do not know or understand the Byzantine California Codes & Rules of Civil Procedure very well and I would greatly prefer to avoid the California Superior Courts like the plague, but I’ll do what I can to help people like Renada avoid and defeat manifest injustice.  With somewhat less trepidaiton, because the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are simpler, more direct, and more resemble the Federal Rules, I would still prefer to avoid the Florida Circuit Courts but I have helped Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and everyone I can in every possible way.   Texas, actually, has some of the best and fairest rules of civil procedure, but I am, of course, banned from direct pro se litigation in the State Courts of Texas because of my activism in favor of the constitution and against the Brave New World of—also First Amendment infringing—Family Courts.   But I have not lost the rights to assign my OWN rights just yet–although I’m sure there’s a committee of freedom-stabbers or anti-Constitutional-jabbers working on it somewhere.

All the injuries I have suffered to my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor from Judges Michael Jergins, James Clawson, and Walter Smith are wounds I bear with pride: they are my “red badges of courage” which I will wear to the grave knowing that I fight a worthy fight: for the right of all citizens of a free society to analyze the law, share their analytical insights with others, subject not to licensing but to the free marketplace of ideas, to speak concerning all grievances and other issues of a legal and/or political nature, to ask what is the difference between law and politics: where is the boundary between them?  and for all those with a 10% knowledge of the law to assist those with a 5% knowledge of the law.  Mutual assistance or “symbiosis” should be at the foundation of civilized society.

Yet however much people who like to stab patriots and jabber with each other about politics on the web dream of suppressing the human soul and all vestiges of freedom, in this dawning era of the elite-dominated and financial-industry-controlled dictatorship of the proletariat in America, I think we who love freedom and cling to every last remnant we have will ultimately prevail.

We will ultimately wipe all state attempts to monopolize fundamental rights off the map, and we will restore to each individual a measure of freedom and dignity that will revitalize our nation, regenerate initiative and innovation, and will wipe socialism from the map in all forms except that advocated by Jesus Christ: namely that we, each of us, love one another and care for each other with food, clothing, and housing, and that we do unto others only as we would wish done unto ourselves.

Freedom of Choice for Individuals will lead to Maximizing those GOOD choices of charity and mutual assistance on which a moral society is and must be build.  But socialism, by coercing the morality of sharing, is not one iota more effective than fundamentalist religious insistence on chastity before marriage.   In fact, socialism is worse, because redistribution of wealth for purposes of welfare is theft, whereas other forms of religious coercion reflect merely self-righteously obnoxious “busybody” arrogance.

Every individual must be free to determine and govern his own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and this cannot be done where education in, knowledge of, and ability to speak out or advise others concerning the “law” adopted in a democratic society is monopolistically limited to certain groups.  So, Mrs. British-Slang-Term-for-Toilet, I suggest you “get a life” and go try to oppress someone who might be scared of you.  You just inspire me to stand proud and tall for what I do.  And so I thank you, I thank you very much.

How Judge Cory Cramin Recused himself from Renada’s Case in Orange County, California

CCP 170-6 Peremptory Challenge or Demand to Remove Judge Corey Cramin for Cause RNM 7-26-10

RENADA NADINE MARCH

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Tel: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

DEFENDANTS IN PRO PER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ORANGE COUNTY – LAGUNA HILLS

\Harbor Justice Center, 23141 Moulton Parkway, Laguna Hills, CA 92653

MEGLODON FINANCIAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RENADA NADINE MARCH,

Defendant,

And

FAY E. MARCH

(Intervener formerly named in

Complaint as Defendant John Doe or Jane Roe)

Defendant.

Case No.  30-2009-00312382-CL-UD-HLH

MOTION AND DEMAND FOR REMOVAL OF HONORABLE JUDGE

CORY CRAMIN ON EITHER PEREMPTORY BIAS OR FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP

§170.6 OR OTHERWISE FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP §§170.1-5 DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242

HON: Corey Cramin

DATE:  JULY 26, 2010

TIME: 9:30 AM

DEPT: LH04

COME NOW THE Defendants RENADA NADINE MARCH and Defendant in Intervention (formerly named only as a “Jane Doe” Defendant) FAY E. MARCH with this Motion and Demand for Removal of the Honorable Judge Corey Cramin on either peremptory bias grounds pursuant to California Civil Code §170.6 or otherwise “for cause” pursuant to California Civil Code §§170.1-170.5.

California Civil Code §170.6 states in part:

(a) (1) No judge, court commissioner, or referee of any superior court of the State of California shall try any civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that thejudge or court commissioner is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.

(2) Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement under oath that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending or to whom it is assigned is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of the party or attorney so that the party or attorney cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee.

Defendant Renada Nadine March (and her mother Fay E. March)  charge and would show that that on and after March 4, 2010, under color of law, Honorable Judge Cory Cramin sought to deprive the March Defendants of their liberty and property interests in 7 Bluebird Lane contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.  In so doing the Honorable Judge Cory Cramin acted with malicious intent to favor Plaintiff Meglodon Financial, LLC, and/or its attorney Steven D. Silverstein by unlawful exercise of jurisdiction after properly noticed and served removal by the Defendant Renada Nadine March to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern (Santa Ana) Division. Eviction from her residence during March would have rendered Intervenor Fay E. March homeless, and because of her advanced age would have put her at risk of loss of life, and therefore Judge Cory Cramin’s conduct, together with that of Steven D. Silverstein, possibly by agreement or conspiracy between these two parties in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, constituted an attempt to kill Defendant Fay E. March within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §242, quoted below.

To wit, after having been properly served with Notice of Removal, Judge Cory Cramin entered an order of final judgment and issued a writ of possession in favor of Meglodon Financial, LLC, at the behest and request of Plaintiff’s attorney Steven D. Silverstein, utilizing documents prepared by Silverstein, who had also been served with the Notice of Removal and was fully are of its legal significance under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Defendants Renada Nadine March and her mother Fay E. March further charge and would show that this conduct on Judge Cory Cramin’s part constituted, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear, direct, intentional, knowing, and premeditated violation of 18 U.S.C. §242, which states as follows:

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Here set forth in Laguna Hills Harbor Justice Court, State of California, in County of Orange, and cause of PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE PURSUANT TO CCP 170.6 or DEMAND FOR REMOVAL PURSUANT TO CCP §§170.1-5 for Judge Cramin’s violations of 18 U.S.C. §242 (and possible conspiracy with Meglodon Financial LLC and Silverstein in violation of

18 U.S.C. §241):

Renada Nadine March, being duly sworn, declares under penalty of perjury, deposes and says that she is a party to the the present action, Meglodon Financial LLC v. March, in which she is a Defendant, alongside her other of advanced years, Fay E. March.   On March 4th, 2010 the Judge, Cory Cramin, purported to exercise his authority in which he violated jurisdiction acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. That Cory Cramin the judge, before whom the hearing aforesaid action is pending is prejudiced against the party or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that she cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

26th day of July, 2010.

(officer of the Clerk administering oath)

Signature of Clerk/Notary:________________________________

My Business Address is:_______________________________

My Commission Expires:______________________________

Respectfully submitted,

Monday, July 26, 2010

By:___________________________________

RENADA NADINE MARCH,                                         Pro se/in propia persona

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-748-0396

PROOF OF SERVICE

I the undersigned ______________________ do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing:

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CCP § 170.6 or DEMAND FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CCP §§170.1-170.5

on and delivered the same to:

Steven D. Silverstein, Attorney-at-Law

sdevictions@hotmail.com

Silverstein Eviction Law

14351 Redhill Ave., Suite #G

Tustin, CA 92780

FACSIMILE: 714-832-7781

Served by the Defendant and Respectfully Submitted to the Court,

Monday, July 26, 2010

By:  RENADA NADINE MARCH

While she was successful in removing Judge Corey Cramin,Renada failed to recuse Judge Margaret Anderson who noticed that her request for recusal was not verified as required by CCP 170-3—so don’t forget to verify your CCP Rule 170 Motions, regardless of whether you’re going for peremptory disqualification or recusal.  Of course, I’ll never forget how the Texas Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas once sanctioned me and my at that time quite heroic civil rights attorney Francis W. Williams-Montenegro in 2003 for failure to verify a Motion to Recuse under the Texas Rules, when in fact both he and I had separately verified the Motion to Recuse one of Texas’ and Williamson County’s worst, Judge Michael Jergins.  (I say “at that time” quite heroic only because Frances could not withstand the pressure of ten-time more severe threatened sanctions in 2006, and succumbed to pressure from Texas A.G. Greg Abbott when the sanctions against him, as an attorney, were suspended as a “constructive bribe” provided Frances never represent me in any future litigation, which he did not).  We had also attached evidence in support of the recusal as Exhibits to the Motion which the Third Court of Appeals said was missing.  All the court’s sequential and compound “errors” were spectacularly documented and published at 114 S.W.3D 724 (Texas 3rd DCA 2003).  Courts DO tend to see whatever they want to see.

Happy Birthday Agent Smith! (from Philadelphia Independent Media Center)

by Janet Claire Phelan | 07.25.2010 July 7, 2010

Today is the birthday of someone you have probably never heard of. The name he goes by—Jack Smith—is as humdrum and unremarkable as is his stated profession—a color corrector at a digital imaging company in Los Angeles, IMAGIC. Smith lives in a two story condo on a quiet street in W. Hollywood at 7911 W. Norton. It is an attractive, older Spanish-type building. At last report, he was driving an older Taurus. But Smith is hardly your everyday techie. Smith is in reality an agent for one of the alphabet soup intelligence agencies and his job at IMAGIC, which according to a Department of Defense source, handles DOD projects, is only one of his professions. He also sets people up to be killed. I was first approached by Jack Smith back in October of 2000, when he answered my personal ad which ran in the LA Weekly. I was forty eight, divorced and looking for something really special. What I didn’t expect was for a killer to show up on my doorstep. On the surface, Smith seemed to fit the bill. Forty-six, smart as a whip, and though certainly not drop dead gorgeous, he still possessed a certain confident charisma. And, as he said in his response, he enjoyed many of the things I did—theatre, ballet, left wing politics—and lo and behold! Came from the same Anglo-Jewish mix as I did. The fact that Smith was tailoring his response to my profile never occurred to me. Yes, I was a journalist but I was on disability, wasn’t working at that time and had not been involved in political reporting up to that point. I was a threat to no one. Yes, my father, James Phelan, who died in 1997, was a prominent investigative reporter who had been a thorn in the side of the establishment for decades. But what did that have to do with me? I was slow in getting back to Smith and didn’t call him until February of 2001. In the meantime, something strange had happened. Driving home late one night I was broadsided by a Volvo, which took off from the scene, leaving me and my car smashed up in an intersection. A Good Samaritan called the police, who rushed to the scene……and left. I had gone into the windshield and told the responding officers that I was too injured to get out of the car. They took my license, went back to the squad car to confer lengthily and then told me that this must have been my fault and took off into the night, leaving me injured and without aid. I was shocked. Only two blocks from my home, I somehow managed to stumble back to my apartment and collapse. That night, I had a dream—that an earthquake had hit me. My second floor apartment had sunk below ground and I was barely able to get out alive. In the dream, I knew that my mother’s home had also been hit. Upon awakening, nearly delirious with what was to be diagnosed later as a concussion, I actually called my mother in Riverside County to see if she was all right. And then, realizing the extent of my injuries, I called a friend who took me to the Emergency Room where I was diagnosed with the concussion. It was a couple of months later that I decided to call Smith. I was still pretty wobbly from the accident but –hey, he sounded nice and I was up for something besides sitting on my rear end waiting for my concussed brains to come back to life. We arranged to have dinner and I met him at a Thai restaurant in East Long Beach. In all honesty, I didn’t find him very interesting. He went on and on about Sudanese politics and I just didn’t feel any connection at all. But then he kept calling. I turned him down on a couple of offers— including to go to a party hosted by someone working for CNN…. that sounded up my alley but I wasn’t eager to spend more time with Jack. But he kept on calling. Eventually, we hooked up again. He dropped the politically astute persona, played classical guitar for me and showed me his collection of photographs. He really was quite gifted, I thought. I began to reassess my original perception of him. To make a long story shorter, I moved in with Jack Smith at his Norton street condo in the summer of 2001. Peculiarly, my landlady had started insisting I move out soon after Jack and I started seeing each other seriously. I couldn’t figure it out. I hadn’t caused any problems but she was leaning on me pretty heavily. I looked and looked and –once again, peculiarly—couldn’t get a bite on another place. Jack and I were getting along famously at that point, so I broached the topic of my moving in for awhile. He was quite agreeable. What happened to my life and to my mother’s life from that point on belongs in the annals of James Bond meets The Bates Motel. But first, I must provide a bit of history here. My mother, Dr. Amalie Phelan, had been residing in Temecula since my parents moved there in 1990. When they moved from Long Beach, my sister, Judith Phelan, moved with them. Judith had had a breakdown of sorts back in Long Beach and had moved back in with Mom and Dad to recover. She never left. She and my father were at loggerheads for most of that time—Judith was very bright and seemed to think that the world—or my parents—owed her the life she had dreamed of having. Two husbands had left her and while she had an LCSW in Psychiatric Social Work, she was unable to hold a job after her breakdown. She didn’t accommodate well to living with my parents nor did she accommodate well to living on a disability allowance. She wanted to get her hair done every week, she wanted brand new clothes from Talbot`s and became increasingly demanding. When Dad passed away of lung cancer in 1997, Judith started stealing from us. She began a check fraud scam, not to be discovered until years later, whereby she would ask Mom for “checks for Janet.” She would then take the checks, forge my endorsement on them, and deposit them into her own Wells Fargo account. How Wells Fargo allowed her to do this is unclear to me, but the evidence is available online. Go to elderabusehelp.org and click on the Open Letter from Janet Phelan. The checks are deep in the documentation attached to the report. At this writing, Judith resides in Oakland. It is clear now that Smith first approached Judith and gained her cooperation, possibly by holding over her head the threat of prosecution for her extensive stealing. And possibly not. Judith had become very bitter and resentful of me over the years, and given the chance to make out like a bandit and have her sister and mother out of the way might very well have appealed to her. So Smith started working me. The fact that money was hemorrhaging out of the accounts had not escaped my attention. Smith urged me to find someone to help out. He ended up steering me into the offices of attorney J. David Horspool, who introduced us to the infamous probate murderer Melodie Scott. Like lambs trotting into the slaughterhouse, we obediently took their direction and on December 2, 2001, my mother signed a nomination for conservatorship, overriding the will and trust and naming Scott as her conservator of person and estate. I have written much about what happened to my mother at the hands of Melodie Scott. If you go to http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/JanetPhelan/ you can scroll down to the section entitled ¨The Assault on Dr. Amalie Phelan by the State.¨ What I have not disclosed prior to this is Smith’s part in all this—what this federal agent did to my vulnerable mother and to me. Instigated by Agent Jack Smith, my mother nearly died at the hands of Melodie Scott and my sister, Judith Phelan and Scott aide Linda Garcia in June of 2002. After I rushed Mom to the hospital where emergency surgery was performed and her life was saved, I called my “boyfriend.” He rushed to Temecula. I had already filed the police report but Smith tried to persuade me to leave behind the evidence, the full undispensed pill bottles–months of cardiac medicine never provided my mother, a heart patient. Mom was never allowed to return home. Restraining Orders were levied against me by Melodie Scott and my attention increasingly focussed on the welfare of my mother, now virtually disappeared. Smith’s behavior began to take an increasingly sinister turn. I discovered that he was in nearly constant covert contact with Melodie Scott. I had become suspicious of Smith after a series of phone calls–over twenty in three weeks– came in from Melodie Scott. Although the caller hung up on me when I answered the phone, I had *69′ed the calls to find them coming directly from her. Something was very wrong. The man I loved was in constant contact, it appeared, with my nemesis. I left Smith in October of 2002. He had become increasingly irrational and threatening and on one occasion physically assaultive. I had confronted him about the phone calls from Scott and his response was denial and threats. I packed up and fled. I filed a police report about Smith’s assault. The police showed up and arrested him. Then they let him go. When I went to retrieve the report, things got stranger. The report, it appears, had no bearing on what I told the police actually happened. Gone was the death threat and gone was the assault. My report, according to the West Hollywood police, was about an argument over a cell phone. The police were adamant and refused to correct the report and prosecute Smith. Smith was “arraigned” and all charges were dropped. A couple of months later, I was looking through some notebooks which I had retrieved from the condo on Norton when I left him. Among them was a notebook belonging to him, which I somehow ended up with. Inside were notes concerning some of his movements on a day in August of 2002, about two months before the breakup. He had dutifully noted a meeting with the very Assistant District Attorney who dropped the charges against him as well as with the head of the W. Hollywood police department, Lt. Goldman. He was apparently greasing the way for his exoneration of charges against him when he became violent and assaulted me. In retrospect, it is clear that the decision had been made to get me away from Smith and to “take care of me” when I was alone. I left Smith and went to live alone in a small house in Long Beach. Almost immediately, I became the subject of a series of breakins, robberies and worse. My documents concerning the plight of my mother started disappearing out of my desk, as did expensive jewelery. My assets and documents were being stolen. And on several occasions, consuming opened food from my fridge necessitated a trip to the emergency room. The police started showing up nearly every day, barging in and making wild accusations. I began to appeal to the system for help. I filed reports with the Mayor of Long Beach, Beverly O´Neill, whom I had interviewed for a story I had written not too long before all this happened. I also contacted Juanita Millender-McDonald, the Long Beach District Attorney’s office, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Boxer and others. My pleas for help went ignored. In late fall my home started to burn down as I slept. I awoke in time and called the Fire department. On another occasion, I came home from a two-day trip to Riverside where I was attempting to get help for my mother to find drugs– little pink pills– strewn all over my floor. While in the process of my cleaning up the mess, the cops showed up, banging on the door and demanding entry. Inside, behind pulled curtains, I froze. When I did not answer the door they left. And on January 3, 2003, after a series of nightmarish incidents, I walked into the Long Beach Police Department around 10 p.m. In desperation, I appealed to them for help. I was met in the lobby by an Officer Loren Dawson, who cuffed me and put me in his squad car. He informed me that this was my final ride. Some negotiation went on between us as to how I was going to die. We agreed on a drug overdose. He was dead set on murder and I was terrified and didn’t want any more pain. He took me to a small room which is underneath Harbor General Hospital. It is akin to a cell, with a barred and enclosed room and an anteroom. There were five or six other people there, awaiting us. I asked several of them if they were police officers and they replied affirmatively. Dawson said he was operating under “Protection of the President” and the intended lethal dose was administered by another man, Asian or Filipino, in his thirties, about five foot seven. I collapsed like a sawdust doll. When I woke up several days later, I was in a Long Beach hospital on a heart monitor. They apparently got the dose wrong. I am not going to regale those reading this with how difficult things have been for me since then. I have found myself a magnet now for federally-funded assassins and wannabees, including Ted Gunderson, David Moreno, Tim White and others. I have survived chemical assassination attempts, I have been shot at, stabbed, poisoned and more. Mom died in May of 2004, following a complicated set -up which should have resulted in a false arrest/another chance for the police to finish the mssion. I have developed a keen sense of impending attack now and was able to make a detour around the scheme. Mom, who had been sequestered away as a virtual prisoner in a private home in Loma Linda, died within a few days, a victim of circumstances which wreak of murder. I was not informed she was dead until weeks after she was buried. I did ultimately have a private investigator research Jack Smith. It appears Jack Smith never existed before around 1990. He apparently dropped out of the sky into that condo on Norton. The PI could find no prior addresses or financial or work records and reported back to me that my ex-boyfriend did indeed fit the profile of a spook. In addition, the PI dug up some hefty financial transactions which were time-linked to the attacks on Mom and me, and which appeared to be pay-offs for Smith. I was living with Jack Smith on September 11, 2001. He was asleep when the phone rang and I picked it up. An anonymous voice said, “Tell Jack they hit the World Trade Center.” I woke him up and he shot out of bed and ran downstairs. Together, we watched the events of that dark day unfold. It only took me about twenty minutes to get suspicious that something was amiss with the reporting of the WTC attacks. I remember turning to him and saying, “Something is wrong here. The Bin Laden bio (which had just flashed up on the screen, as the media attempted to dupe us into accepting the false perpetrator) was canned, Jack.” I remember him looking at me, saying nothing. All day he sat in front of the television set with a funny kind of half smile. Looking back, I can see there were so many clues. I write this now from Merida, in the Yucatan. I left the US in 2008, after more entrapment and aggression by the police. I do not believe it safe for me to return to my country. After what happened to Mom and me at the hands of Smith and his ilk , I made a decision to dedicate my life and my work to reporting on what faces us, as a nation which has been hijacked by eugenicists who prey on our innocence and trust in the American dream—“liberty and justice for all.” It is a sham and a lie. We need to set aside our erroneous beliefs and fearlessly face reality. We have been duped. Our hopes and dreams, the promise of America, will not serve to protect us in the face of the duplicity, double dealing and face it—murderous intent of those who have taken over our country. I have worked to the best of my ability to expose the probate murders, the water weapon, the attacks on other whistlebowers, the degradation of the legal system and more. Along the way, I hosted radio shows on RBN and Liberty News Radio, and worked for a stint as a reporter at The American’s Bulletin. Today is the birthday of the man who opened my eyes by trying to destroy me. While I am grateful for the opportunity to serve the truth, I remain horrified that the USA is using taxpayer dollars to fund ruthless men like Smith, whose sole purpose seems to be to lure innocent citizens to their death. Due to my unwillingness to draw even more attention to myself coupled with the personal trauma associated with the circumstances detailed herein, I have up until now largely refrained from disclosing the above. In an effort to reveal the truth about our country, I have decided it is time to bring to light these personal and painful facts. But isn’t it funny how things work out—if this were indeed a preemptive strike, Smith only created what he was attempting to stop. God works in mysterious ways. Janet Phelan Merida, MX

“Dying of Money: Lessons of the Great German and American Inflations” offered on Ebay now at a starting bid of $699

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7909432/The-Death-of-Paper-Money.html

The Death of Paper Money

As they prepare for holiday reading in Tuscany, City bankers are buying up rare copies of an obscure book on the mechanics of Weimar inflation published in 1974.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 7:05PM BST 25 Jul 2010

Ebay is offering a well-thumbed volume of “Dying of Money: Lessons of the Great German and American Inflations” at a starting bid of $699 (shipping free.. thanks a lot).

The crucial passage comes in Chapter 17 entitled “Velocity”. Each big inflation — whether the early 1920s in Germany, or the Korean and Vietnam wars in the US — starts with a passive expansion of the quantity money. This sits inert for a surprisingly long time. Asset prices may go up, but latent price inflation is disguised. The effect is much like lighter fuel on a camp fire before the match is struck.

People’s willingness to hold money can change suddenly for a “psychological and spontaneous reason” , causing a spike in the velocity of money. It can occur at lightning speed, over a few weeks. The shift invariably catches economists by surprise. They wait too long to drain the excess money.

“Velocity took an almost right-angle turn upward in the summer of 1922,” said Mr O Parsson. Reichsbank officials were baffled. They could not fathom why the German people had started to behave differently almost two years after the bank had already boosted the money supply. He contends that public patience snapped abruptly once people lost trust and began to “smell a government rat”.

Some might smile at the Bank of England “surprise” at the recent the jump in Brtiish inflation. Across the Atlantic, Fed critics say the rise in the US monetary base from $871bn to $2,024bn in just two years is an incendiary pyre that will ignite as soon as US money velocity returns to normal.

Morgan Stanley expects bond carnage as this catches up with the Fed, predicting that yields on US Treasuries will rocket to 5.5pc. This has not happened so far. 10-year yields have fallen below 3pc, and M2 velocity has remained at historic lows of 1.72.

As a signed-up member of the deflation camp, I think the Bank and the Fed are right to keep their nerve and delay the withdrawal of stimulus — though that case is easier to make in the US where core inflation has dropped to the lowest since the mid 1960s. But fact that O Parsson’s book is suddenly in demand in elite banking circles is itself a sign of the sort of behavioral change that can become self-fulfilling.

As it happens, another book from the 1970s entitled “When Money Dies: the Nightmare of The Weimar Hyper-Inflation” has just been reprinted. Written by former Tory MEP Adam Fergusson — endorsed by Warren Buffett as a must-read — it is a vivid account drawn from the diaries of those who lived through the turmoil in Germany, Austria, and Hungary as the empires were broken up.

Near civil war between town and country was a pervasive feature of this break-down in social order. Large mobs of half-starved and vindictive townsmen descended on villages to seize food from farmers accused of hoarding. The diary of one young woman described the scene at her cousin’s farm.

“In the cart I saw three slaughtered pigs. The cowshed was drenched in blood. One cow had been slaughtered where it stood and the meat torn from its bones. The monsters had slit the udder of the finest milch cow, so that she had to be put out of her misery immediately. In the granary, a rag soaked with petrol was still smouldering to show what these beasts had intended,” she wrote.

Grand pianos became a currency or sorts as pauperized members of the civil service elites traded the symbols of their old status for a sack of potatoes and a side of bacon. There is a harrowing moment when each middle-class families first starts to undertand that its gilt-edged securities and War Loan will never recover.Irreversible ruin lies ahead. Elderly couples gassed themselves in their apartments.

Foreigners with dollars, pounds, Swiss francs, or Czech crowns lived in opulence. They were hated. ”Times made us cynical. Everybody saw an enemy in everybody else,” said Erna von Pustau, daughter of a Hamburg fish merchant.

Great numbers of people failed to see it coming. “My relations and friends were stupid. They didn’t understand what inflation meant. Our solicitors were no better. My mother’s bank manager gave her appalling advice,” said one well-connected woman.

“You used to see the appearance of their flats gradually changing. One remembered where there used to be a picture or a carpet, or a secretaire. Eventually their rooms would be almost empty. Some of them begged — not in the streets — but by making casual visits. One knew too well what they had come for.”

Corruption became rampant. People were stripped of their coat and shoes at knife-point on the street. The winners were those who — by luck or design — had borrowed heavily from banks to buy hard assets, or industrial conglomerates that had issued debentures. There was a great transfer of wealth from saver to debtor, though the Reichstag later passed a law linking old contracts to the gold price. Creditors clawed back something.

A conspiracy theory took root that the inflation was a Jewish plot to ruin Germany. The currency became known as “Judefetzen” (Jew- confetti), hinting at the chain of events that would lead to Kristallnacht a decade later.

While the Weimar tale is a timeless study of social disintegration, it cannot shed much light on events today. The final trigger for the 1923 collapse was the French occupation of the Ruhr, which ripped a great chunk out of German industry and set off mass resistance.

Lloyd George suspected that the French were trying to precipitate the disintegration of Germany by sponsoring a break-away Rhineland state (as indeed they were). For a brief moment rebels set up a separatist government in Dusseldorf. With poetic justice, the crisis recoiled against Paris and destroyed the franc.

The Carthaginian peace of Versailles had by then poisoned everything. It was a patriotic duty not to pay taxes that would be sequestered for reparation payments to the enemy. Influenced by the Bolsheviks, Germany had become a Communist cauldron. partakists tried to take Berlin. Worker `soviets’ proliferated. Dockers and shipworkers occupied police stations and set up barricades in Hamburg. Communist Red Centuries fought deadly street battles with right-wing militia.

Nostalgics plotted the restoration of Bavaria’s Wittelsbach monarchy and the old currency, the gold-backed thaler. The Bremen Senate issued its own notes tied to gold. Others issued currencies linked to the price of rye.

This is not a picture of America, or Britain, or Europe in 2010. But we should be careful of embracing the opposite and overly-reassuring assumption that this is a mild replay of Japan’s Lost Decade, that is to say a slow and largely benign slide into deflation as debt deleveraging exerts its discipline.

Japan was the world’s biggest external creditor when the Nikkei bubble burst twenty years ago. It had a private savings rate of 15pc of GDP. The Japanese people have gradually cut this rate to 2pc, cushioning the effects of the long slump. The Anglo-Saxons have no such cushion.

There is a clear temptation for the West to extricate itself from the errors of the Greenspan asset bubble, the Brown credit bubble, and the EMU sovereign bubble by stealth default through inflation. But that is a danger for later years. First we have the deflation shock of lives. Then — and only then — will central banks go to far and risk losing control over their printing experiment as velocity takes off. One problem at a time please.

I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.

“Inception”: of Freud, Ford, and Fraud

I had to go back to see “Inception” for a third time to learn the script a little bit better and understand the Freudian overtones better. Freud wrote of “Civilization and its Discontents” and in so doing he sought to destroy or at least undermine Western civilization. Austrian Psychologist Sigmund Freud was all about “instant gratification” but so was his American contemporary Henry Ford.

Within the language and metaphor of the “Inception” script, Freud was the architect of the abolition of civilization through instant gratification of dreams but Henry Ford was the engineer who implemented the first great program of dream fulfillment for the masses: mass production of automobiles, which became the true religion of the 20th century. The Movie “Inception” kind of brings it all together, showing that the architecture of Freudian dream-time can lead to the reality of Ford through the modern equivalent of the money of a modern (Japanese) ersatz “Rockefeller” specializing in energy monopolization and implemented by subconscious manipulation which can only be called Fraud by dream creation “from the inception.”  The whole movie is, then, a metaphor for the revolutionary thinking of the 20th century: dreams can and should be manipulated and changed by subconscious subliminal suggestion, so that sons will not follow their fathers’s dreams, and society will be characterized by impermanence and instability.

Architecture is the eternal metaphor (in civilization) for dreams and ideology.  Designing buildings that last forever was the dream of our forefathers in the United States in Europe.  The ancient Indo-European “Epic” Dream was the dream of immortality.  The Freudian dream is to remake one’s reality instantly in order to achieve instant gratification, and that is the modern 20th-21st century dream.

This movie, “Inception” touches on so many things, I think its analysis will take up a great deal of time.  It all goes back to Plato and Book VII of the Republic, specifically the “Parable of the Cave” to which I so often allude and make reference, and which supports some of the greatest of all literary images in history and modern times: from Calderon de la Barca’s play Life is a Dream (“La Vida es Sueno”) and its rough contemporary Don Quixote de la Mancha all the way to modern masterpieces of science fiction from Total Recall and The Matrix right up through this present Inception.

All traditional or “normal” dreams, according to the movie, like all great Epics, start in medias res—”Vix e conspectu Siculae telluris in altum vela dabant laeti et spumas salis aere ruebant….”  How on EARTH did Aeneas get from Troy to Sicily?  We don’t get back to Aenas’ Father Anchises until Book Six of the Aeneid, when Anchises tells him about the Principio of all things….and that is true mythology.   “Inception” is the process of planting that seed which changes everything else in life, whether that dream inception is the seed: “that the world that we live in is not real” placed by Leonard DeCaprio in his late wife Molly or the seed: “that your father does not want you to follow in his footsteps” which changes lives and accordingly, the world.

Put these two seeds together and you have a pretty good conception of what could be called the twin Pillars of religion of the modern world: there is no absolute truth, no reality, so we should create our own according to our needs and whatever will supply our most immediate and pressing quest for self-gratification.  To believe this way is to “dream cathedrals and cities that never were” (I may be misquoting the movie here, but that was the idea) and to replace verifiable realities with subjective realities.

Architecture is the perfect metaphor because the creation of architecture, from the very dawn of civilization, defines civilization.  The oldest of the “Seven Wonders of the World” (as recognized in Ancient Times) were the Great Pyramids of Giza in Egypt: the were dedicated to the immortality of the Pharaohs. Throughout Egyptian history, the concept of immortality was popularized and democratized, until even domestic cats were mummified in Greco-Roman times along with crocodiles…..  the translation of immortality as a unique product available only to kings into something that could be mass produced took 3000 years in Egyptian history—but it is a process that is repeated now with almost every single product introduced into the market anywhere.

All architecture starts off as a dream.  Modern architecture is designed, like the World Trade Center and most other modern buildings, to be brought down easily and neatly by controlled demolition, where one computer-controlled explosion after another causes a building to “pancake” neatly into its own foundation or “footprint”.  So both Modern “Bauhaus” architecture and post-modern architecture is designed, like everything in the modern world, to be “disposable”—like dreams, like the subconscious—it can all be remade and reshaped.

If reality and even the subconscious can be so readily remade, what role is there for “truth” of any kind?  Is “fraud” even a viable concept anymore?  Since all reality is invented and there is no “truth”, then there can certainly be no true “law” or “economic reality.”  And here we finally meet back up with the primary topics I deal with on these pages: of the illusion of economic and monetary practices and reality and the enforcement of those practices and the forcible maintenance of that “reality” by law in the Courts of Justice.  If people BELIEVE that paying their mortgages is an equitable debt or thing to do, then they will pay their mortgages.  If people BELIEVE that the Courts no longer follow the Constitution or the Common Law, then they will no longer respect either the Courts or the Constitution or the Common Law as institutions or documents of integrity.

And here is this other key aspect of manipulable reality: repeating a statement, especially when the repetition passes from person to person, makes the repetition SEEM true, more credible, and hence the VERSION of reality supported more SUBCONSCIOUSLY viable.  Agents of one viewpoint or another repeat that viewpoint and therefore try to convince others to repeat “their side of the story.”

In summary, then, from Plato’s “Republic”,  to this 2010 mega-hit movie “Inception”—two of the great questions facing philosophers and psychologists are, “what is real?” and “How do we know what is real?”  Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which addresses that question, and the Freudian psychoanalytic dimensions of the movie “Inception” raise important questions about political and economic philosophy: to paraphrase a question posed in the movie: “what business [or political] strategy does NOT begin as an emotion?”

For me, the most valuable message of “Inception”, could be this: BEWARE of the Freudian analyses which lead us to demand self-gratification and yet at the same time BEWARE of the illusions we have which appear to change as we are manipulated by the subconscious messages of repetition and broadcast.  Let us all think deeply on the several versions of reality with which modern life inevitably presents us, and let us be discriminating and judgmental in our evaluations.  Perhaps the values of our fathers and forefathers were good: perhaps the question to build lasting things is BETTER than the quest for instant gratification.  Perhaps the quest for enduring truths and long-living realities, for structures of the longue duree, in history, is more important than ever allowing other people to invade our dreams and change our values and minds.

Is District Court Federal Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331 Unconstitutional in regard to District Court Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of State Statutes? (Further Evidence that a Little Knowledge can be a Dangerous Thing)

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Explosive-new-evidence-shows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal

Oh, with all due respects to our learned Canadian student of jurisprudence at the Conservative Examiner, if only it were that easy, to assert that “no suits against the constitutionality of state statutes in U.S. District Court, only the Supreme Court,” well, if it were THAT easy, things in this country would definitely be different. This is what’s known, I think, as an example of how “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”  There are MANY problems with the Arizona lawsuit, which I happened to be studying precisely because I am interested in the “state of the art” of how to litigate against the constitutionality of state statutes, but failure to bring this case in the United States Supreme Court is NOT one of those problems.
28 U.S.C. Section 1331 would seem to be a pretty much irrefutable basis for jurisdiction, unless 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 itself is unconstitutional, and I’m guessing that would be the subject of a separate lawsuit, and to outlaw “Federal Question” jurisdiction in the Federal Courts would probably be deemed frivolous quicker than you can say, “Rule 11.”
So application of Federal Question jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause seems appropriate.  If not, maybe the State of Arizona should simply be dismissed as a party, and the Arizona A.G. and Governor left in. (Compare “Ex Parte Young“….where the State is immune from suit under the 11th Amendment, State Officers must take responsibility….the 11th Amendment doesn’t cover Federal-State lawsuits, and neither does the 14th, but there have been literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lawsuits during MY lifetime alone questioning the constitutionality of various statutes, many millions during Jon Roland’s life (lol!), and I’ve never heard this argument raised before).
So the First Answer is that the Congressional award to the U.S. District Courts of “Federal Question Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331″ has never been seriously questioned before, in the entire history of our government and court system.
The Federal Civil Cover sheet that we have to fill out every time we file a lawsuit has a box I’ve checked at least several times: Under Part IV. “Nature of Suit” (Place an “X” in One Box Only) over at the right hand side there is a category called “Other Statutes” and the very last item entry on that right hand column underneath “400 State Reapportionment”, “410 Antitrust”, “430 Banks and Banking”, “450 Commerce”, “460 Deportation” (hmmmm…. that’s interesting), “470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” (everyone’s favorite?  If not, it’s mine)….way down at the bottom of the list under “893 Environmental Matters”, “895 Freedom of Information Act”, and “900 Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice”, is “950 Constitutionality of State Statutes.”  Obviously, somebody in the clerk’s office thinks that U.S. Courts have jurisdiction—in EVERY clerk’s office in EVERY district, that is.
So no, I think the answer is more prosaic: in this case, the State of Arizona is not REALLY a party; no penalties are sought against the state, no fines to be imposed, no diminution in the state boundaries.  (Seems as though every few years there are boundary disputes under the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court between California and Arizona over the Colorado River or some change in the course of the Mississippi or Ohio).
Under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a State Attorney General (and/or Governor) are entitled to NOTICE of a lawsuit involving the Constitutionality of a state statute, if they are not named as parties.
That’s the second answer—and it is somewhat surprising that the attorneys for Arizona have not asked for the State to be dismissed as a party.”
“Prospective relief is always relief, even against parties otherwise immune from suit” would be the third answer.
When I first saw this article, I almost cried because it seems like, my whole life all I have seen is one after another state statutes being stricken down and replaced by forceful fiat and Federal welfare-related coercion and “revenue sharing” bribery into “from the top” conformity with Federal Law, so that there really is no such thing as independent state law anywhere, anymore, except for a few weak protests in Montana, Arizona, and a few other Western states (including California’s and other Pacific States’ stand on Medical Marijuana).  I grew up in a combined DAR-SCV-UDC family where the 10th Amendment was a frequent and well-known topic of dinnertime conversation, and if it had been possible to wipe out the Warren Court’s programmatic intrusion into reshaping state law by such a simple expedient, it would have been done back then, because Old Fashioned Southerners pretty much limited their reading to the Holy Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, and the Constitution (with a very few forays into Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, or other such “radicals”).
As an aside, it is one of the ironies of Federal “top down” uniformity that the judiciary and police remain protected, up to a point, by a certain perverted doctrine of “states rights” which permits the judiciary and police to advance Federal programs even faster than state legislatures are willing or can be paid to do…….
The basic premise of the argument is specious: the mere mention of a state in a case regarding the Constitutionality of a state statute under the national charter has never invalidated lower court jurisdiction, even before the adoption of the 11th Amendment in the case ofChisolm v. Georgia (1793)(which was a state action or inaction case, default on a contract, rather than a statutory review case) or after the adoption of the 11th Amendment in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) which was clearly focused on a state statutory scheme to tax the Bank of the United States.  My favorite quote from John Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch has always been “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”  Sorry!  But if it didn’t occur to the Supreme Court in either 1793 nor 1819, when signatories to the Constitution of 1787 were still alive and quite active, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 almost certainly, beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be used to invalidate lower court jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state statutes. (FWIW, which is perhaps not much, Australia’s Federal Courts followed McCulloch at the inception of the Australian Federal form of government, in one of the earliest constitutional cases to reach the Australian Supreme Court).
History is a pain; historical fact and experience all too often, like gravity, really “gets us down and keeps us down”, when we’d all rather be flying……
From my perspective, there are much more recent historical cases when the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court WOULD have been raised if it COULD have been raised……
I imagine that we all have our own special litigation heroes in this group.  One of my special heroes is John W. Davis of West Virginia, the 14th United States Solicitor General and the 6th United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom, who argued over 140 cases before the United States Supreme Court, including one of the most stunning judicial rebukes ever delivered to a sitting President of the United States (prior to Nixon in relation to Watergate, anyhow) namely: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., v. Sawyer in May of 1952.
Representing the Steel industry, and protesting President Truman’s seizure of the nation’s steel plants, Davis stated that “Truman’s acts were an usurpation of power without parallel in American history.”  In a 93 minute oration worthy of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Davis was asked only one question by the justices—this may have been the last such uninterrupted oral argument in U.S. history.  I have cited Youngstown repeatedly over the past two years as the forgotten precedent for overturning 100% of Obama’s socialistic seizures and interventions in national industries from finance to automobiles to real estate
Two years after winning Youngstown, we can be fairly certain that if the defense existed, which our Canadian colleague suggests, John W. Davis would surely have raised the simple and straightforward Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 objection to the mass of cases he faced again in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953-54.  Obviously, NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall knew all about Ex Parte Young and knew that it was better not actually to NAME the states as defendants when attacking the constitutionality either of state action or state statutes.
Indeed, if John W. Davis did not raise this jurisdiction defense when arguing on behalf of the State of South Carolina against integration in Brown v. Board of Education’s basically forgotten companion case Briggs v. Elliot, and if neither 1922 Harvard Law graduate Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, effective chairman of the Southern Resistance’ “Brain Trust” of distinguished constitutional lawyers, nor any other Senator or Congressman in the signing the “Southern Manifesto” of 1956 ever raised that objection to the Warren Court’s program in the Senate, I think it is safe to say that the objection is a hopeless one to raise now.  There was never a stronger constitutionalist and “States Rights” movement in the 20th century than Senators Harry F. Byrd, Price Daniel, Sam Ervin, Walter George, John Stennis, Strom Thurmond, and all the rest of the Southern intelligensia who joined together in that fight, even so politically incorrect as their position now seems to most.  These Senators were not unthinking racist bigots (one of John W. Davis’ earlier Supreme Court cases invalidated the Oklahoma “Grandfather Clause” which had all but disenfranchised all Oklahoma blacks, most of whom had the unusual distinction of being the last slaves legally held in the United States, in that it was not initially clearly established that the 13th Amendment applied to the “removed” Southern Five Civilized Tribes who by 1865 were all living in Oklahoma, with their slaves.
Rather, men like Texas’ Price Daniel, North Carolina’s Sam Ervin and John W. Davis were all  constitutional civil libertarians who opposed the break down of privacy and civil rights which “liberals” like Kennedy and Johnson pushed for—Ervin was particularly famous for his opposition to “No Knock” police break-ins during the 1960s and ’70s.
If these genuine “giants among men” who “didn’t like what Earl Warren did to the Constitution” couldn’t find such a simple objection to the litigation that swept the Old South out of existence, it seems unlikely that Arizona will have an easy time objecting to anything other than the inclusion of its name as a party to the Government’s suit.

(1) What is it with Austria? (2) Ladies of Liberty: Addendum, Jane Burgermeister, Austrian Activist Faces Psychiatric Commitment, Guardianship (Loss of Civil Liberties and Independence) and Confinement—for what? For her ACTIVISM!

Last month I published a list of my three favorite “Ladies of Liberty” on this blog.  I had apparently missed a very important personage, JANE BURGERMEISTER, who is about to be subjected to a fate worse than death: personal disappearance into a bureaucratic labyrinth of PSYCHOLOGICAL MIND CONTROL, GOVERNMENTAL SUPERVISION AND DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY & PERSONALITY, AND THE MENTAL TORTURE OF BEING A PERFECTLY NORMAL, FEISTY AND INDEPENDENT PERSON, WHO MAY WELL BE DECLARED INSANE/INCOMPETENT AND RENDERED A NON-PERSON—SHE SHOULD FLEE AUSTRIA!!!!!  And any decent country should give her asylum:

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdJh64Odlw8

This is a quote from a video published on Youtube July 21 2010:

http://www.janeburgermeister.org/

Jane Bürgermeister and other critical bloggers in and around Austria are being targeted, declared insane and stripped of their civil rights. As the cases pile up, a pattern of corruption and systematic persecution emerges. But Jane Bürgermeister, who has been a major force in educating the world about the dangers of the H1N1 vaccine, will not give up that easy. Ultimately, the power lies in our hands, as the past has shown. Stay tuned for updates.

“On August 12th, I am supposed to appear before a court as part of a process to strip me of all my civic rights on the spurious grounds I am a crazy conspiracy theorist and am damaging my estate.
Clearly, this is an attempt by elements in the Austrian government to silence me, a critic of the swine flu vaccine, who has managed to make use of the internet to spread information on the false swine flu pandemic and vaccine suppressed by the mainstream media, but which is now the subject of inquiries at PACE and in parliaments.”
– Jane Bürgermeister (July 13th, 2010)’

Jane Bürgermeister – Bloggers Persecuted & Declared Insane to

Silence Dissent – Vienna 07/18/2010

WeAreChangeAustria 42 videos 
Austria has always been my very favorite destination on the European Continent.  From the time of my first visit when I was 9 years old, I thought that the Hotel Sacher and Bristol Hotel Wein were the most magical spots on earth.  But Austria has become a frighteningly repressive place in recent years.  I only became aware of this fact with the November 11, 2005, arrest and imprisonment of David Irving, one of the most respected and prolific historians of World War II, from his “Destruction of Dresden” to “Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich.”   This noted historian was charged by state prosecutors in Styria with the thinking and speaking crime of “trivialising the Holocaust”.    David Irving’s application for bail was denied on the grounds that he would flee or repeat the offense, and so he remained in jail awaiting his trial.  On 20 February 2006 David Irving pleaded guilty to the charge of “trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust“.  He spent almost all of 2006, until December, in Austrian prison and was then banned from the country on December 21, 2006.   How can it be that this most delightful country, the home of Sigmund Freud, of Johann & Richard Strauss, and of F.A. von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and other founders of the libertarian Austrian School of Economics, could have turned so repressive?

Every sane parent knows that suppressing a child’s questions or curiosity about sex, drugs, or rap music will only enhance that child’s interest in such things, and systematic repression will lead to obsession on the child’s part.  (This is precisely why in my teenage days it was well known that while there were some brainy and beautiful girls at non-sectarian schools such as the one I attended, all the really easy “nymphos” were to be found at All Girl Catholic schools.)  So if you happen to think that the standard history of the Holocaust is correct and requires no correction, you should just continue and deepen your own research to prove you are right.  You should not persecute and denigrate the likes of David Irving.  And if you believe that there is no danger to the Swine Flu vaccine, you need to allow Jane Burgermeister to say her peace, and then tear her argument apart.  But let Jane Burgermeister speak and publish freely and let David Irving do the same!  Austria has made a martyr of sorts out of David Irving—because if one man can be jailed for thought and speech crimes, all men can be, and if Jane Burgermeister is crazy for all her articulately expressed concerns about public health, then thousands and millions of us should likewise be jailed—and ironically enough, in the words given to Victor Lazlo in “Casablanca“: “From every corner of Europe, thousands will rise up to take their place, even Nazis can’t kill that fast.”  (As delightful as Austria is, it suffers in the minds of many from having been the birthplace of that certain German Chancellor from 1933-1945 who made David Irving’s career, and sharpened and sensitized the world to the possibility of a government-sponsored chemical program of extermination, such as Jane Burgermeister fears).
Austria needs to experience a New Birth of Freedom!  A new respect for the intellectual ferment and artistic and creative fervor for which Vienna has for at least the past three hundred years been so rightly famous.  For the meantime, if Jane Burgermeister can make it out of Austria, I’m sure she will find a welcome place here “in the Freedom of the Americas”—which is still greater than the lack of freedom in Austria, apparently, although it is not what it used to be….

Notes on Nitwits who are Nothing but Little Snakes for Hire

On Aug 3, 2010, at 3:06 AM, “Bob Hurt” <bob@bobhurt.com> wrote:

Charles, I had not read any of your history – just never bothered googling you.  But this Nolu Chan seems to love exposing some of your past, and obviously he likes making it ugly.  What did you do to piss this person off?

Yuk.  You must spend a little time explaining all that stuff.

Frankly, I think you should hire a couple of young buck / hot chick attorneys fresh out of school and set them onto the project and tell them they have to earn their keep.  You could get Kathleen to sell services and memberships.  She’d do well at it.

Just some thoughts on this muggy morn.

And I haven’t heard further from Gen or Manny or Charleston.

<image001.jpg> Bob Hurt • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511

Donate to my Law Scholarship fund • Learn to litigate with Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to Law Newsletter • Visit the Archive and Download FREE

Build a financial destiny with GetZooks! • Save fuel with this invention

Get 3+Gigabytes of SpiderOak online backup space for your data files – FREE!

Dear Bob:

You know the reality: as Simon & Garfunkel used to sing: “Everywhere I go, I get slandered, libeled.  I hear words I never heard in the Bible” (And see pictures of demons neither Elijah, Daniel, Isaiah, nor Jeremiah ever dreamt about….)

Nolu Chan is an Obot.  By “Obot” I mean a paid-by-the hour, specially recruited from some half-way house, semi-literate supporter of Obama who is apparently so short on real work or anything constructive to do in life that all he does is dedicate his life to supporting by mass produced verbal trash the very worst and most illegitimate President in U.S. History.  (Note that I state this in the comparative, not as an absolute—the last several Presidents, especially the Bushes, were each the second and third worse Presidents, respectively, and in the execution of their office were serious illegitimate disgraces to our Constitution and Heritage, who probably should be tried for treasonous activities starting pre-dating their Presidencies and continuing until the present day).

But as for Nolu Chan’s enthusiasm for attacking me and trying to make mountains out of mole hills: ALL of this is related to my working with Orly last year.   Do I wish I had never met her?  Yes.  Will I ever be allowed to forget her?  No.  And yet in spite of her absurdity, incompetence, and possibly derangement, she was right, because Obama IS only President of our country by the darkest and most sinister of frauds. Philip J. Berg is neither absurd, incompetent, nor deranged, but Orly got the limelight and basically destroyed the movement.  Her website is now becoming boring and I’d imagine that soon the poor old gal will be forgotten, but I will have to do some major penitence to ever get from under the shadow of my association with her….  But Orly played directly and perfectly into the hands of the likes of Nolu Chan—and much to my discredit, I worked side-by-side with her, for five whole months last year—even though she really never took any significant advice from me….much to the continued damnation of her own causes…..

Anyhow, Nolu Chan is a perverted nightmare, and even portrays himself as one of the 20th century’s most perverted nightmares by invoking the Rocky Horror Picture Show… It is so completely appropriate for Charleston to be associating himself with this sort of deceitful, misleading trash.  I had given him the benefit of the doubt, largely because I know what characterization at the hands of the like Nolu Chan is really like… but really and truly, I regret that you think it is necessary that I waste even a few pixels responding or reacting to this sickening stuff….  It upset me for a long time, until I met some of the relevant characters at Magistrate Judge Lurana Snow’s hearing in January, and they admitted that they were paid for their time to do this kind of blogging….. PAID FOR IT!  Who on earth would pay so to debase the currency of the written word?

Anyhow, I have no idea who Nolu Chan is, aside from being sure that he is one of the very scum of the earth, but certainly none of his stuff amounts to a bag of rancid rotten beans except to the most fatally bored and mindless among us.  Nolu Chan’s activities are related to those of one Obot newsgroup called Politijab and another called “the People’s Forum” (I’d love to write the Obots Obits, but I guess we have to wait for a while) and there are a few others like them, although Politijab is the only one whose negative obsession seems equivalent in scale to Nolu Chan’s: using the techniques advocated by propagandists and terrorists throughout time, they have exalted gossip to an artform in lieu of political assassination by bullet.  They achieve this by some downright lies, but mistly twisted perversions of the truth by mispleading implication.  And no I NOT going to dignify any of this psychopathic garbage by spending a lot of time defending myself or tryong to explaining his stupidity.  The story of my housekeeper Marcelina who lived two blocks from the Lago Vista Police Station and allowed her name to by used in a typewritten but unsigned statement in English (she’s effectively monolingual in Spanish) prepared by Lago Vista Police Lieutenant Reyes which ultimately led to my indictment is a story of how to twist the truth beyond recognition and then blow it out of proportion beyond the realm of physics.  It is the story of Federal Judicial Corruption and transgression of the separation of powers by an Austin Federal Judge named James R. Nowlin who will go down in my books at least as possibly the greatest robed psychopath in Texas history—although the competition for that title of distinction also.  I have addressed some of this material on my blog.

What these people do is hope that, by repetition, they will give words and stories, however false, more power than they ever had or deserve.  Have we discussed this recently?  How repeating a libel or slander OVER and OVER again makes it seem true?  How being silent about the truth makes it appear to be a forgotten deception, a false lie, a wrongful or worthless justification?

But I will say of Nolu Chan anyone who uses the image of Dr. Frank N. Furter from Rocky Horror Picture Show as a model for medical or scientific investigation, suggesting proctological examination for prurient sexual delight, is by that very self-definition a murderous psychopathic pervert whose ethics derive from another planet (and that planet is called “Transsexual Transylvania” rather than “Krypton” BTW).   So, my evaluation of Nolu Chan and everything that he does is that he is an evil representative of the Brave New World and it is comforting for me to know that my critic chooses for himself a name which is meaningless in English or any other language i know but could be roughly translated in Latin as Nolu = “I do no want” or “nothing” and “Chan” in Maya as either “liitle” or “snake.”

“The Holocaust became the new Western religion”—

I had come to this exact same conclusion by 1998-1999, during the David Irving Libel Suit against Deborah Lipstadt.  In particular, I concluded and formed the very strong and precise opinion “the Holocaust” had become the basis of the religion of the New World Order of the United Nations, just as the Trojan War was the religion of Ancient Greece, the Punic, Gallic, and Civil Wars the Religion of Pre-Christian Rome, the Crusades the Religion of Mediaeval Europe, Charles the Martyr became the chief subject of Episcopal Sermons during the years 1660-1789, and lastly, just as the “Civil” War of 1861-65 became the “Constitutional” Religion of the United States after 1865-1877.  I never at that time would have dared to articulate or publish this conclusion, especially since in 1998-1999 I was under direct assault for my own involvement in “revisionist civil rights” activism in Texas, asserting that the Civil Rights Laws of the United States applied equally to White people as to people of color, which campaign ultimately led to my disbarment.  I am now happy and grateful to see and share that Gilad Atzmon, a Jewish artist and Historian from Israel, living in Great Britain, has now finally published this precise statement!  It is quite gratifying to see that even a Jew who questions the Global state religion of the Holocaust is accused of Anti-Semitism!   It is quite gratifying to see that even a Jew who questions the Global World-State religion of the Holocaust is accused of Anti-Semitism!  What will happen if Gilad visits Austria?  Will he be arrested and charged with the same crimes as David Irving?  Will he be put on trial and imprisoned?  Or will he be declared mentally unsound and threatened with psychiatric confinement and threatened with “attainder” of his civil rights for life, just as Jane Burgermeister is facing in Austria this month?  In certain sectors they call me stupid or insane?  Is there any reason why YOU are not eligible for similar treatment?  If you support animal rights?  If you oppose Obama-care?  If you either oppose OR support one hypothesis or another about climate change and global warming?  Only a country which guarantees freedom of thought and expression and debate is truly free…..God Bless Gilad Atzmon, Jane Burgermeister, David Irving, Janet Claire Phelan, Nancy Jo Grant, and everyone like them who dare to speak out against “established truth” in history or science!

Truth, History and Integrity by Gilad Atzmon

Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 2:02PM
Gilad Atzmon

Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as “genocide.” The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision.  It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.

The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”

How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.

The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past.  For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method.  Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality,  truthfulness or  correspondence rules with any given vision of reality. It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective,  the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.

Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”

However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.

This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and  oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.

When I was Young

When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.  I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.

When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.

When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

It Doesn’t make sense

It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:

If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all  I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate “ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).

I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.

As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust  became the new Western religion.  Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.

*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.

Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/).

See website for complete article licensing information.

The Triumph of Will—A Personal Note

This summer has been absolutely amazing for me and my very small family.  Frankly, we did what most would have thought impossible.  We spent a peaceful summer together, interacting with each other every day, spending time together (Father, Mother, and 17 year old son) almost every day.  There was no conflict worth talking about, no lawyers, no serious tension, only a family living together, at least during the daylight and most of the evening hours, going out to dinner and movies and shopping, tending to medical issues both routine (our son’s wisdom teeth) and extraordinary (a scare over kidney abnormalities, which turned out to be pretty much nothing.

For anyone who knows us, or anything about my wife Elena, my son’s and my own history (Charlie was born on August 23, 1992, in Palm Beach, Florida DURING Hurricane Andrew), he or she would know what an amazing thing this terribly ordinary summer really was for us.  PEACE, DETENTE, GETTING TOGETHER, being as near to a family as three people can be whose lives for many years, but especially in some intense episodes during 1995-1998 and again in 2002-2006, was totally dominated by fighting and conflict, lawyers and motions, constitutional issues and above all, separation and tension.

I can only call this a Triumph of Will for me and Charlie because I am not sure how much Elena wanted it, although her mother (Charlie’s maternal Grandmother) Nina seems to like and enjoy it a lot.   It does not appear that Elena and I will ever be back together “as a couple” or anything.  But that is only because of where we sleep and what we do or do not do behind closed doors, which is absolutely nothing.  To our son and the outside world, we appear as a family, planning his first year in college, at St. John’s in Annapolis, Maryland, a school I had considered attending nearly 40 years ago, but turned down in favor of Tulane University in New Orleans.

It has taken me and Charlie four or five years to break down the barriers which the evil Domestic relations system of Texas created in 2002-2005,which I made the subject of several federal lawsuits, and which I still intend to make into a lifetime career for reform.  But my wife has turned to me again for assistance and support.  She has eschewed the lecherous Hungarian scab who has been waiting in the wings all these years for our marriage to finally die.  I asked her not to take money from him anymore, and she has not.  Rather, we have been planning our son’s present and future together.

It is gratifying in the extreme, because I know that my son and I have both wanted this kind of peace and “detente” (one cannot call it an alliance or true reunification, because it is not, but it has been like Nixon’s trip to China, compared to the “cold war” of our divorce and custody battles, which sometimes exploded “hot”, just like the cold war between Communism and the West 1945-1990, which shaped both my childhood in London & Dallas and my wife’s childhood in Athens & Detroit, and every place in between).

These have been years of struggle over identity and ideology, religion and politics, and the right way to raise a young man.  I am happy to say that our son Charlie IV is by far the most intellectually accomplished, cosmopolitan, and well-rounded of any of his peers.  He is an expert in history and several languages, and yet has excelled in science and music.  And now Charlie will attend a college, St. John’s in Annapolis, Founded in 1696 as “King William’s”, that my mother had suggested to me as the greatest remnant of the Mediaeval and Renaissance Education she received at the University of Chicago under Chancellor Robert Maynard Hutchins.  He has a full scholarship (we will pay for his books and insurance, and travel expenses, which all in all add up to plenty, but his first year tuition and housing are covered, and not by loans either).

Somehow, this summer, we buried all our tensions and just worked towards the future.  All three of us talked about Nietszche and Freud, education and class hierarchy, competing political theories, about drugs and other problems facing Charlie and every other American youngster.  We neither reminisced nor recriminated about the past.  It was almost as if the past 15 years had not happened.  Whenever subjects came up which would have inevitably led to discussions, we simply eschewed those subjects.  It was marvelous.

We all see only through a glass darkly, and none of us has the gift of prophecy, but somehow I think we three of the Lincoln Family (Four with Grandma Nina Kourembanas) achieved something of that forgiving, tolerant love which St. Paul defined in 1st Corinthians 13:1.  And we did so IN SPITE of all governmental, legal, and social pressure to the contrary.  Yes indeed, our collective wills to have peace in and among ourselves, at least for this little while when Charlie is about to turn 18 and pass over from childhood to adulthood, have triumphed over all the experts and social planners and sociologists from the Brave New World think tanks who told us all what to do, and whom I particularly chose to ignore.  Just as in First Corinthians, there is Love, but it is neither as simple and earthly as the “Eros” that brought us together as young people and created our son, nor was it as complex and unearthly as the transcendent love of God known as “Agape”, but perhaps THROUGH the power of Agape-motivated human will, Elena and I have achieved, and presented to Charlie the possibility, for himself and for all the futrue that even former enemies could be “brothers and sisters in Christ”, in the love and peace of friends.  It is “OK” for former lovers, former enemies, former litigants, for a long time separated but never quite completely divorced, to settle on an identity of “Philios” (brotherly love).

Of all the Gospels, St. John’s focuses least on the life of Christ and most on the Holy Spirit.  And somehow, although I was Baptized at a Church called St. Thomas in NYC, attended children’s classes at All Saints in London, sang in the Choir at Incarnation & St. Michael’s in Dallas, and was confirmed at All Saints in Beverly Hills (after confirmation classes at St. Thomas in W. Hollywood), and Elena and I were married at what I always called “The Church of Santa Claus” (Hagios Nikolaos) in Athens, “St. John’s” has always been in the background, even aside from my mother’s nostalgia about the resurrection of Mediaeval Learning celebrated at Hutchins’ Chicago in the 1930s and 40s.  When I had first met Elena in 1985, I tried in vain to impress her with my recitation of the Gospel of St. John from memory in the Koine dialect of Biblical Greek.  She said my pronunciation resembled not any Greek she had ever heard in the least, but she recognized it when I wrote it down.  (I had one prizes in High School for my recitation….).   More recently I’ve been involved in some terribly trying times in St. Johns County, Florida, and at the start of my archaeological career, my first study of archaeological ceramics concerned White Mountain Redware and St. John’s Polychrome from the Zuni and Northern Anasazi regions of New Mexico and Arizona during the Chaco and Mesa Verde periods (Pueblo II and III).

Does Rule 27 Permit the Examination of Public Officials’ Publicly Recorded Conflicts of Interest Prior to Filing Suit?

Janet Claire Phelan and I were on the air (American Freedom Radio) at 2:00 Pacific Time on Thursday (August 19, 2010) to discuss our project to start depositions of judges, under Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   Judges have absolute or nearly absolute immunity from suit for their judicial decision-making, now matter how bad or objectionable it is on many levels.  But do Judges have the right to keep secret their economic transactional history which could lead to violations of or infringements upon the intangible right of the people to honest services from public officials.  If you connect to the link below, you will need to fast forward to the second hour of the link to hear us (Janet Claire Phelan and Charles Edward Lincoln) summarizing our thoughts in a one hour segment. We are now doing serious fundraising for this project. You can go to Janet Phelan’s website, www.janetphelan.com, to donate via pay pal.  They money you donate will cover the costs of preparing and filing Rule 27 Petitions, attending hearings in Southern California, and then either conducting the depositions (with court reporters and videographers) or appealing the denial of our Petitions for Depositions “to perpetuate testimony” to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Intel-Hub-32k-081910.mp3
We need your support to accomplish this. Thanks so much,

Janet Phelan

Aurora I. Diaz & David Wynn Miller & David Rodearmal v. Hillary Rodham Clinton

SECOND NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v BANK OF AMERICA AURORA I DIAZ 08-18-10-BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER

None can ever be free until all are free.  Let me repeat that: NO ONE will ever be truly free until EVERYONE is free.  We do NOT have the right, under the constitution, to judge anyone as crazy or deprive them of freedom because of eccentricity or non-normative behavior, so long as such behavior is not physically injurious without the consent of the “victim.”  Where the object of any action, the “victim” consents to non-physical injury, the freedom to act must not be impaired or impeded in any way.

The use of linguistic, grammatical, lexical, semantic, semiotic, or syntactic, ambiguity in law is routine, but Bill and now Hillary Clinton seem to have perfected this stratagem as an art form.  Why should others, including the famous, infamous, notable, or notorious David Wynn Miller, not have the right to do the same?

AUGUST 2, 2010: NEW CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

  1. The Orange County Superior Court (The Honorable [Commissioner] Glen Mondo, West Judicial Center at Westminster California) reconvened and in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§241-242, infringed Aurora I. Diaz’ rights to due process and equal protection of laws in the following ways and means, by its minute order and oral pronouncements:
  2. Aurora I. Diaz informed the California Superior Court that she had retained counsel, although she had proceeded pro se in the past.
  3. The Commissioner of the California Superior Court informed Defendant that she would not be allowed
  4. In fact, exercising her rights under the First Amendment (Right to Petition, Freedom of Assembly), the Seventh, and the Ninth Amendment, Aurora I. Diaz had in fact retained as David Wynn Miller as her counsel and linguistic expert on the interpretation of contractual and statutory language at a trial-by-jury.
  5. Aurora I. Diaz paid the counsel of her choice $3,000.00 cash for representation in this and another case relating to two houses and he was available to return from Australia to represent her in this case during the same week as trial, but later in the week.
  6. The right to counsel of choice, under U.S. Supreme Court holdings, has never been limited only to licensed attorneys, especially for economically and situationally disadvantaged people.  See, e.g. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969)(See Exhibit H).

THE DEFENDANT’S NEED FOR LINGUISTIC COUNSEL FOR LEGAL DEFENSE

  1. A Defendant in an unlawful detainer case is at a severe disadvantage due to the structure of the laws of the State of California, which make it almost impossible, perhaps completely impossible, to raise an effective defense under normal circumstances.
  2. In fact, most licensed attorneys in the State of California will not represent a Defendant in an unlawful detainer case because no effective defense is possible.
  3. David Wynn Miller is known around the world for his theory of quantum language analysis of legal documents and texts.
  4. Defendant Aurora I. Diaz is a not a native speaker of English and believes that David Wynn Miller’s approach posits a worthy analysis of this state’s laws and applications of contractual obligations and procedures under deeds of trust.
  5. The Defendant asserts that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counsel and advocate.
  6. The Defendant asserts that the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counselor and advocate.
  7. The Defendant finally asserts that 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982 guarantee her the equal right with all other citizens and lawful residents of the United States to make and enforce contracts (according to her linguistic understanding) and to institute and maintain legal proceedings (including the presentation of linguistic analysis and evidence) for the vindication of her rights.
  8. David Wynn Miller is a controversial scholar and advocate of linguistic analysis is not favored by all commentators.
  9. However, it has long been held, as an axiom of First Amendment law that, although the government may disagree with every word one man or another speaks or rights, it is the duty of all who uphold the Constitution to defend to the death each man’s right to speak or write his opinions and conclusions freely.
  10. David Wynn Miller has devoted his life to the linguistic analysis of the law and the deconstruction of legal texts, which, to the average native-born speaker of English, are all but totally incomprehensible.
  11. David Wynn Miller’s theory of grammar and Syntax may not be the same as Noam Chomsky’s theory or that of non-Chomskyites such as Joseph Harold Greenberg, but the fact that his theories may not be taught in all departments of Semiotics or Linguistics does not mean that this Defendant should not have the right to fully take advantage of his advice and teachings and the application of his analytical theorems to the language of law in this case.
  12. It is even incomprehensible why “counsel” in a case such as the present case, so heavily dependent on the analysis and decipherment of dense legal texts, should be limited to “legal” counselors rather than “linguistic” counselors.
  13. Defendant Aurora I. Diaz would point out that even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sought the assistance of and representation by Linguists and grammatical analysts in cases pending during the past year, see for example Rodearmal v. Clinton, in the United States District Court Case 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR     Document 29      Filed 08/27/2009     Page 1 of 29.  See Exhibit E: Linguistics in Law Amici Curiae Linguists

CALIFORNIA COURTS DENY RIGHT TO COUNSEL & JURY TRIAL & FALSELY IMPUTE AND ATTRIBUTE WAIVER TO DEFENDANT

  1. The California Superior Court refused to accommodate Aurora I. Diaz’ reasonable and modest request.
  2. At the same time, the California Superior Court in Westminster set this case for a NON-JURY trial on August 23, 2010, despite the fact that the Plaintiff had properly demanded a trial-by-jury on November 12, 2009, and again on December 7, 2010, all prior to her first removal to the United States District Court on December 10, 2010 (Exhibit F).
  3. Finally, in the minute order entered on August 2, 2010, Commissioner Mondo also stated that Defendant had “waived her right to notice” of the trial.  At no point was Defendant Aurora I. Diaz aware of having waived any rights, and in fact, the Judge did not engage in any colloquy or verbal exchange of any kind with the Defendant to inquire whether she realized that she was waiving any rights or what the consequence of these waivers might be.
  4. The entry of a “waiver” on an order without even inquiring of a Defendant whether she agreed or not to a waiver is an unconscionable act of oppression in derogation of this Defendant’s fundamental constitutional and human rights.
  5. In sum, Commissioner Mondo refused to respect the Defendant’s right to be represented by counsel, refused to schedule final trial so that Defendant’s counsel could be present, refused to schedule a trial-by-jury, and also forcibly deprived Defendant of other rights by falsely entering a “waiver of rights” on the part of Aurora I. Diaz, when no such waiver of rights ever took place.
  6. With regard to Civil Rights Removal due to denial of equal protection of laws, Defendant’s Notice of Removal is proper and timely because the Court’s order of August 2, 2010, was entered less than 30 days prior to the removal of this case, and is accordingly proper within the meaning of and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and 1446(b), which states:

a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title [28 USCS § 1332] more than 1 year after commencement of the action.

  1. Furthermore, Defendant submits that racially blind civil rights removal should be properly applied and allowed to the protection of disadvantaged classes which are denied equal protection and due process of law in Orange County, California (and the state of California generally) under color of California statutory law enforced, interpreted, and applied by the Superior Courts of Orange County include (1) a racially defined class (Hispanic residents of California), (2) a sex defined class (single female), and (3) a class defined by economic litigation (of defendants of wrongful eviction actions predicated on their status as victims of wrongful foreclosure) whose members are each denied and cannot enforce in the courts of Orange County, California.

An Open Letter to California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

FROM: Charles Edward Lincoln 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6, Austin, Texas 78705; Renada Nadine March; Daniel Christian Mack; Richard Mendez; Joseph Cohen; 7 Bluebird Lane; Aliso Viejo, California 92656; Tel: 949-742-0436; E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com; Plaintiffs pro se, in propia persona SACV09-1072 DOC Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint HRG 09-20-2010

Date: August 26, 2010; Thursday

CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010

TO:  Mr. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr.; Office of the Attorney General; 1300 “I” Street; Sacramento, CA 95814-2919; Phone: (916) 445-9555; Office of the Attorney General; 455 Golden Gate, Suite 11000; San Francisco, CA 94102-7004; Phone: (415) 703-5500; Office of the Attorney General; 300 South Spring Street; Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230; Phone: (213) 897-2000

Dear Mr. Brown:

We are pro se litigants in the enclosed case, 09-cv-01072-DOC (08-20-2010-2nd-Amended-Complaint-(DOCarter)), with the Second Amended Complaint we recently lodged in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, before the Honorable David O. Carter in Santa Ana.

We are providing you with notice of our lawsuit, as we are required to do by Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that we are challenging the Constitutionality of certain California and Federal State statutes relating to the ownership of property and enforcement of contracts (and preservation of common law defenses to contracts) as a civil right protected by the United States Constitution.

We note that you have recently sanctioned a California attorney, Michael Roth, according to your own website, because:

After collecting up-front fees, Roth filed lawsuits on behalf of homeowners, pushing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1979&

We are deeply disturbed by the message you are sending out because we firmly adhere to what you call a “novel legal argument” because it is in every way sound.  In fact, allowing and enforcing this position will help preserve the family, restore confidence in the financial system, potentially keep millions of Americans independent and off the welfare rolls, and preserve the American dream of homeownership for those who worked hardest to achieve it.

Traditional common law rights, protected by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as by 42 U.S.C. §1981-1982, required proof of “holder in due course” standing and regular “privity of contract” before contracts relating to the sale of   land, homes, and other real estate could be enforced by foreclosure.

We demand the enforcement and protection of these our constitutional rights: that the State of California shall neither enact nor enforce any laws constituting an impairment nor abridgement of the rights of contract, or the right to keep and own property, that no law shall be made or enforced which grants privileges or immunities to any one social or economic class of individuals to the unequal disadvantage of other citizens (such as attorneys vs. non-attorneys) and that the common law shall be preserved except when expressly repealed and abridged, and not merely by implications constituting a taking of rights without due process of law.

We claim that all such processes have occurred and continue to occur in California, as the direct and proximate and therefore legal result of state-enacted and state forced laws or programs, practices, and policies having the force or effect of law.

Accordingly, we ask you to join our lawsuit and assist us in seeking to have California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., relating to non-judicial foreclosure, and §1714.10 relating to attorney’s conditional immunity from liability for participating in civil conspiracies to defraud, declared unconstitutional, along with §1946 and Code of Civil Procedure §§1161-1162, relating to unlawful detainer or forcible eviction lawsuits following non-judicial foreclosures.

We ask to meet with you personally concerning this lawsuit and that you make this lawsuit and its content the very highest priority of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California.

We are all and each one of us

Yours very truly and respectfully,

_________________________________________

Charles Edward Lincoln, III; Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice; 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6; Austin, Texas 78705; Telephone: (512) 968-2500; lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com

_________________________________________

Renada Nadine March; 7 Bluebird Lane; Aliso Viejo, California 92656; Tel: 949-742-0436; E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

_________________________________________

Daniel Christian Mack 1-949-689-7188

_________________________________________

Richard Mendez

_________________________________________

Joseph A. Cohen (949) 300-1870; (949) 212-8221

COPIES OF LETTER, NOTICE OF LAWSUIT, AND REQUEST FOR WAIVE OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS WERE ALSO SENT TO:

DEBORAH S. BOWEN; CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE; (To Waive Notice on Behalf of the State of California); 1500 11th Street; Sacramento, CA 95814

ARNOLD A. SCHWARZENEGGER; GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Los Angeles Office; 300 South Spring Street; Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013

Three weeks later, on September 15, 2010, it is aggravating to point out that neither did Edmund G. Brown nor the Office of the Attorney General substantively respond nor execute the Waiver of Service of Summons as requested.  However, on September 08, 2010, some clerk or underling in the “Public Inquiry” Department named K. Savona was tagged with writing a “non-response” letter as follows: 09-08-2010 K Savona Response to CEL Letter to Edmund G Brown

THE SUN ALSO RISES AND THE SUN SETS, AND HURRIES BACK TO WHERE IT RISES: These are generally accepted facts, but how can you convince a judge or jury in court?

In law, there are two kinds of witnesses: expert witnesses and “fact” witnesses.  A fact witness is someone who personally, with his own senses, “saw” the accident with his own eyes, or “heard” the violent threatening language or “smelled” the poison before it was administered to the victim, who tasted the quality of a sample of the vintage wine before it was stolen, or touched the gun left at the crime scene and felt it still hot.

An “expert” witness is someone whose education and specialization permits him or her to draw inferences and/or render opinions which will “help” the Judge and/or Jury to decide the case: how much would the real estate have been worth in the absence of the fraudulent misrepresentations?  Is the painting a genuine “Matisse” or “Renoir” or is it a fake?  How long would the victim have lived but for the airline crash and how much income would he or she have produced for her family and/or corporation?  What was a fair market value for the stock absent insider trading the day before a public disclosure leads to bankruptcy?

In law, the words “proof” and “persuasion” can be used almost synonymously.

The beginning of a civil lawsuit is called, appropriately enough, a “pleading”.  In a Plaintiff’s COMPLAINT or “Initial Petition”, an injured party PLEADS for permission to present and prove his case to a jury.  The Complaint will be judged by the “legal sufficiency” of the “alleged” (but not proven) facts said to constitute an injury or “cause of action” for injunction or declaratory judgment.  For a Past Injury, the remedy usually sought is monetary damages.  For future injury, where no injury has happened at all yet, the remedy usually sought is an INJUNCTION to prevent the injury.  For doubtful or unclear, debatable injury, a plaintiff might seek a “Declaratory Judgment” that such and such conduct or events DID or WILL constitute an injury, so that the plaintiff can THEN sue for damages or an injunction.  Civil Rights suits often take the nature of “declaratory judgment” actions that a law or policy should be DECLARED inconsistent with the constitution.

The Plaintiff, the person bringing the complaint, first has the “Burden of Pleading” (i.e. STATING AND OUTLINING THE FACTS IN A PLAUSIBLE STORY).  Once a judge finds that a plaintiff has sufficiently PLED a Plausible story which might entitle that Plaintiff to some sort of relief, Legal Damages = Money, Equitable Damages = An order of Injunction, stopping or commanding certain actions be taken, or Declaratory Judgment, the Judge then requires the Plaintiff to present evidence sufficient to PROVE his allegations of fact.

PROOF means PERSUASION in law.  A fact in law is usually a verbal statement.  Physical or Visual evidence can come into court, but it must be brought by a person who can describe and analyse the physical evidence and explain it to the judge or jury.  The murder weapon never walks into court alone: someone has to bring it, and the person bringing it must tell a story which plausibly connects the gun to someone’s death; there must be narrative, a commentary, a report.

Legal proof would clearly frustrate Eliza Doolittle from Shaw’s Pygmalion or “My Fair Lady” in which Eliza sings:

“Words words words I’m so sick of words; I get words all day through first from him now can you, is that all you blighters can do?  Don’t talk of stars, burning above, if you’re in love: SHOW ME!  Tell me no dreams, filled with desire, if you’re on fire: SHOW ME!”

Demonstrative evidence has almost no place in law or legal proof at all, although a few instances can be imagined, but even the demonstration must be described, usually by experts, in words.

The “proof” in law is not formulaic.  There are quite simply no “a-square + b-square = c-square” formulas in law.  And if mathematical formulas are used, they have to come into court by way of expert testimony.  You’d better have Pythagorus on retainer if you want to introduce his theorem for any reason……or maybe one of his students or followers.

Ultimately, in law, “proof” is achieved by getting the Judge or the Jury to agree with one or the other of a minimum of two competing arguments or explanations regarding the existence or meaning of any fact.

In a typical civil case, a judge or jury must merely conclude that it is “more likely than not” that any given fact or inference from a fact or series of facts is true.  This is called “proof by a preponderance of the evidence” and is sometimes said to equate with 51% probability.  A VERY narrow margin of proof indeed.  In certain civil cases, family law and probate law especially, “clear and convincing” evidence is said to be required, although what that ends up meaning is sometimes quite mysterious.  ”Clear and convincing” evidence is said to amount to something like 60-67% probability, maybe even 75% that a given fact or factual scenario is true or false.

In criminal law, a higher standard of proof, called “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” is supposed to be used, but even the Supreme Court has trouble explaining what this means.  ”Beyond Reasonable Doubt” is said to be a “visceral” (i.e. gut level, almost physical) commitment or “conviction” that a certain fact is true.  I suppose that is why the end of a criminal case in which a Defendant is found guilty is called a “conviction.”  The jury must be convinced, i.e. have a strong conviction, that the Defendant should be “convicted” of a serious crime which will have much more serious consequences for the Defendant’s life than merely having to pay cash damages for an injury or to stop doing something or be compelled to do something.

The use of vague and imprecise language such as “visceral conviction” and “a deep-seated feeling” that one fact or set of facts is true and another false shows the degree to which “proof” in law is ultimately dependent upon EMOTIONS and “Swaying” the fact-finder one way or another.  Both Judges and Juries are counseled to “look into the witnesses eyes” and therein discern whether a witness is “credible” or not.

In short, Law, on which so many things in our lives so absolutely depend, is not rocket science.  There are no formulas, there are no easy answers, there are always two sides: “proof” in court is all about emotionally persuading or convincing other people, one jury and up to 12 jurors plus 2 alternates, that your view of the facts is correct and your opponents’ view is wrong.  Anyone who disputes the value of emotion in law or legal proof has simply never been to court at all.  The jury looks at the parties and looks “up” to the judge for advice and guidance.  The Judge looks “down” at the jury and the parties and the witnesses.  The Judge “instructs” the jury on the legal guidelines by which to interpret facts.  Cases are most often overturned based on the ways in which Judges treat or fail to treat certain facts.  But Judges and Juries perceive what lawyers, parties, and witnesses project through non-verbal semiotics things which are neither facts nor matters of proof in any scientific sense.

So, it is not unfair to say that “legal proof” is essentially socially or politically determined IN ALL CASES, and so “legal proof” must be approached as emotionally and passionately as political persuasion or social interaction.  A judge or jury exposed only to “facts” devoid of emotion will rapidly fall asleep and be unable to make any decision at all.

“Legal Proof or Persuasion”, then, must be understood as much more a matter of social-psychology, then, and of culturally determined cognition and perception, together with linguistically analyzable argumentative syntax, grammar, semantics, and semiotics, organized in something close to ritually (i.e. dramatically) structured and hierarchical formats, than as “proof” by formula or equation in the scientific or mathematical sense.  By extension, “law” is much more social metaphysics than atomic physics.

Parallel Gospel Readings for Sunday, September 5, 2010—Luke 14:25 & Matthew 10:34—What is really valuable in life?

It is not reasonable to be a Christian or a Jew and expect “Peace”.   While the relationship between “Peace”, “Love”, and “Salvation” on the one hand and “Duty to Suffer, Sacrifice, Suffer Alienation from Others, and Bear Your Own Cross” is perhaps the critical dichotomy or pair of contrasting opposites in the recorded teachings of Jesus, nobody has ever satisfactorily proposed a moral resolution or reconciliation between these passages with the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes.  How can it possibly be that Christ says, “Blessed are the Peacemakers” on the one hand and “Think not that I came to bring peace but a sword” on the other?   (The Reverend Barry Taylor’s sermon on this day at All Saints BH did not resolve this question, but it is excellent and well-worth listening to:  http://www.allsaintsbh.org/services/sermons/BT1039.mp3

I, for my part, believe that fear of war, and desire for peace, are for the most part psychological swindles designed to make people into slaves.  There is no more attractive nor pernicious dream than the dream of peace that lulls us into accepting chains on our arms and manacles on our legs.  There is, quite simply, no peace in Slavery, only repressed hatred and animosity and a most indisputably unChristian desire for retaliation.

Father John Dominick Crossan has done more than any modern theologian in his attempts at an accurate “historical sociology” of the Early Church to reconcile the master-servant relationship with what he calls the “commensalism” inherent in Christian feasting (i.e.: “everyone is equal at Christ’s table, and must be respected as such, regardless of origin or prior condition of servitude.”

In the modern world, we are practically faced with the choice of fighting as Christ told us to fight or accepting the blessings of peace he promised us if we didn’t: which is it?   Should we accept the “peace” of homelessness and foreclosure offered us by the international banking system?  Or should we respectfully decline to turn the other cheek and fight back like the post-Christian Zealots and “Sicarii” who died at Masada?

And yes, in the land of the free, millions are now facing the choice whether to FIGHT FOR THEIR HOMES and property, or walk away in obedient peace, allowing the Banks and their agents to foreclose on the American Dream.  Good Christians will and should fight for their homes and their families’ stability as if their own personal salvation depended on this fight—and not without reason: Jesus Christ recognized that without hearth and home, without bread and wine, there is no genuine peace, no genuine salvation.

LUKE 14: 25

The Cost of Being a Disciple

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him,30saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’

31“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 10:34 (KJV):

32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

40He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

41He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

42And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

(or, in the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION):

32“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[e]

37“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”

A Constitutional Complaint against California Non-Judicial Foreclosure & Eviction Laws

Here is the latest production: a complaint which only addresses questions of statutory or systemic constitutionality at the heart of the fight over the California mortgage & eviction crisis, and the relationship between Civil Rights Laws and California Non-Judicial Foreclosure and Forcible Eviction Laws.  It was filed today in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge King with case number CV10-6688 GHK (RCx).  09-08-2010 Harrison Hoyman & Hoyman & Lincoln Complaint.  This case is now the Los Angeles County Companion to the Second Amended Complaint in 09-cv-01072-DOC lodged with Judge David O. Carter.  On Thursday, Thomas Harrison, Joan & Jennifer Hoyman filed their Notice of Removal from state to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1443(1).  09-09-2010 Harrison Hoyman & Hoyman Notice-of-Civil-Rights-Removal-.  Finally, a Notice of Notice of Removal was filed on Friday in California Superior Court in and for the Glendale Divison of Los Angeles County.  09-10-2010 Defendants’ Notice of NOTICE OF REMOVAL from GLENDALE.   Anyone considering removal might want to look at the case law citations included in the Notice of Notice of Removal.  Apparently, many California Superior Court Judges are unfamiliar with the laws and procedures surrounding removal, and reports from the frontlines in San Diego County on Monday, September 13, 2010, suggest that orally asserting and citing case law and statutory law to the Superior Court judges has much more effect than merely filing the documents: so always be prepared to ARGUE ORALLY everything (EVERYTHING) that you have filed in writing.  We are still anxious to publish EVERYONE’S California Unlawful Detainer Horror Stories as well as success stories.  We would like to make a list of the worst judges in California who care more about abolishing private property and eviscerating families than about due process of law.   The vast majority of Superior Court judges in the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction in California appear to care only about their seemingly mandatory duty to create a homeless population dependent upon governmental welfare.   These same California Superior Court judges of limited jurisdiction consider it somehow beyond their jurisdiction or against their state job descriptions to allow defendants to assert common law contractual rights as defenses to foreclosure or eviction.  These same judges would rather create chaos, misery, and instability in the population than to use their power and jurisdiction to build (or protect) a stable world safe for free and independent children and adults, who value the interests of mortgage servicers and foreclosure agents at the expense of equal protection of the law and equal access to the courts.  California Superior Court Judges, in short, need to be educated regarding equal protection of the law being available to ALL Citizens under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982, as well as under the “freedom from impairment of contractual obligations” provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, together with the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Amendments, all incorporated to and made applicable against State Infringements and Abuses by the Fourteenth Amendment.

State Court Unlawful Detainer Defendants should also keep in mind the unqualified language of

California Civil Code Section 1171:

Whenever an issue of fact is presented by the pleadings, it must be tried by a jury, unless such jury be waived as in other

cases. The jury shall be formed in the same manner as other trial

juries in an action of the same jurisdictional classification in the

Court in which the action is pending.

September 11, by Janet Claire Phelan

The morning the planes
Struck the tall buildings
A door opened up in the sky
Darkness came streaming down
Thick, tarry and as immutable as death
It entered the soul of a country
And poisoned the light

The dark thing came in
Through every door
Every window
Every crack and fissure
The dark thing came in
Through our eyes
As we watched our TV sets
It took root
An alien, dispassionate night
Smashing hope
Smashing love
Smashing faith

In order to save our freedom
We gave up our freedom
To keep the light burning
We turned out the light

The dark thing
is in the morning edition
The dark thing
is in church and synagogue
It is in our pots of coffee

The dark thing
is in our water lines

There is a pall over America
We march off to work
We march back home
We march to our slumber
We march like the damned

In Manhattan
In Los Angeles
Two tiny lgihts still shine:

“Wake up, America!
Come home, America!”

But the dark thing has spoken:

“Turn off the lights, America
So that darkness can reign
Turn off the lights, America
Let the killing begin.”

Last Updated (Saturday, 21 August 2010 11:19)

in the belly of the beast, by janet claire phelan, september 14, 2010

i am clinging to

the soft underbelly of America

as she lumbers toward her doom

i am holding on

for dear life

as my host deconstructs herself

and i swing and sway

like a papoose or a deer-tick

as America, sweet America

slouches towards Bethlehem

“dying to be born.”

once upon a time

i was a girl in a pink dress

then a teenager in bluejeans

a poet wanna -be at Berkeley

and a young wife, straining against the bit

as i broke free

carving out a solo path

history has engraved

its mark on my flesh

lines around my eyes

streaks of gray in my hair

the indelible memories

of too many assassinations

and too many betrayals

too much poison

under the bridge

but i still cannot see any further

than tomorrow morning

when i will die

to be born again

in the belly of the beast

my fate/your fate/our fate

as a people

as a race of earthlings

all bound up together

in this monster

this America

as she lumbers down the runway

and packs her load

into the cockpit

as the collective gasp

of six billion souls

flies up

in the last

the very last

pink poison

cloud

janet phelan–

What shall we do for death? By Edna St. Vincent Millay—related by Janet C. Phelan

I shall die,

but that is all that

I shall do for Death.

I hear him leading his

horse out of the stall;

I hear the clatter on the barn floor.

He is in haste; he has business in Cuba,

business in the Balkans,

many calls to make this morning.

But I will not hold the bridle while he cinches the girth.

And he may mount by himself:

I will not give him a leg up.

Though he flick my shoulders with his whip,

I will not tell him which way the fox ran.

With his hoof on my breast, I will not tell him

where the black boy hides in the swamp.

I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death;

I am not on his pay-roll.

I will not tell him the wherebout of my friends

nor of my enemies either.

Though he promise me much,

I will not map him the route to any man’s door.

Am I a spy in the land of the living, that I should

deliver men to Death?

Brother, the passwords and the plans of our city are

safe with me;

never through me

Shall you be overcome.

Edna St. Vincent Millay

On Serving God and Mammon (Gospel of Luke 16): Parable of Fiduciary Duty

The highest standard of care known to the law is the “fiduciary duty of loyalty”, i.e. “trusteeship” and Stewardship.  There is no powerful legal bond that can bind people in a contract that a contract by which one person assumes to manage or care for the property of another as a fiduciary.   So many things can be accomplished through trusteeship: one person can step into the shoes of another and do things that that the “grantor” of trust either cannot or does not wish to do.  So today, September 19, 2010, on the last Sunday of the Summer, it was timely and appropriate to hear the Reverend Mary Haddad at All Saints address the story of Bernie Madoff in jail…. http://www.allsaintsbh.org/services/sermons/MH1040.mp3 People entrusted their money to Madoff and and now Bernie has been convicted of using his awesome power as a fiduciary for so many to do something that his “grantors” could not and did not wish to do: he made himself rich beyond belief (to the tune of ca. $67 Billion?) and then got himself indicted and sentenced to several lifetimes in Federal custody.  The Reverend Haddad said of Madoff what so many others have said: that he was guilty of the largest Ponzi scheme in history, or at least U.S. History.

With no motive or purpose to defend Madoff or his career, I respectfully demur to the accusation that he was guilty of “the largest Ponzi scheme in history.”  Far more accurate are the words of Attorney Michael Pines and Forensic Mortgage Auditor Malcolm Doney in describing the massive fraud of securitization in those words.

I take this as a good occasion to share Attorney Michael Pines’ complaint filed June 15, 2010 Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action (at the beginning of summer, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California) against my own “favorite” world-class criminal: Steven D. Silverstein (together with his associates Carol Unruh and Larry Rothman), among many other similar predatory and land-roving carnivorous sharks in the credit collection business in California.  CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010 *See especially June 15, 2010 Complaint at Page 3/34, Lines 9-10 “the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the US.”

Even more specific, however, is the strange story of the “Deed of Trust” and its role in Non-Judicial Foreclosures in California and elsewhere throughout the United States, especially the Western States where Non-Judicial Foreclosure is almost the universal norm.  The “Deed of Trust” would seem, at first glance, to create a trust with two equal beneficiaries: the mortgage grantor and his creditor (fka, in common law parlance, now effectively fictitious, and extremely misleading: “borrower and lender”).  In reality, however, the Trustee of a Deed of Trust under non-judicial foreclosure statutes never carries out the sole act which he could actually (and legitimately) perform for both parties: he never holds the note and title until such time as the note is paid in full or a legitimate foreclosure is held.  Truthfully, Trustees exist, in non-judicial states, to disguise the fact that they never do this because notes are sold upon closing or issuance (or, actually, before: upon credit approval—which is in reality the process of placing a transaction in a certain “tranche“, which means finding an initial “buyer” for a note characterized by a certain profile of real estate category [home/condo/duplex/triplex + square footage] real estate value x credit applicant’s credit score x credit applicant’s income x location [neighborhood character]).   The trustee, then, in the non-judicial foreclosure state, is a servant of Mammon (NIV “Wealth”) and the attorneys who assist the Trustee (Silverstein and many if not most of the defendants in Michael T. Pines’ lawsuit) are engaged in a most unholy campaign of deception, fraud, and theft.

According to Malcolm Doney, a major Florida advocate and forensic auditor, (see e.g. MORTGAGE JUSTICE HOUSE LETTER), it is a specific combination of Federal Tax laws which created the incentives for mortgage foreclosure and securitization.   The Income Tax and Estate (Inheritance) Tax were among the original goals of Communism as articulated by Marx in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 and later in Das Kapital and almost all of his major works.  What is remarkable is the degree to which the Corporate Elite of the world has gravitated towards maximizing their own power through implementation of Communist strategies in the “reform” or restructuring of the Capitalist economy.

What is so remarkable about Christianity is that it stands for mutual assistance and community sharing of food and all other resources, but on a voluntary basis as an aspect and element of the love of God (which Jesus would undoubtedly have told any non-believer means, quite simply, “the love of all that which is good and positive and beneficial to human beings,” whether or not he would try to convince that non-believer that human beings are those whom God created in his own image—I strongly suspect that if he had met any modern-style atheists, Jesus would have been equally unperturbed by the come back, “you mean God is the image that humans created of themselves”—he would have told some parable whose essential message would have read: “and your point is—what exactly?  that man idealizes all that is good in himself, calling that good ‘God’, and therefore worships himself and only thinks he worships God?   Or is the problem that God is unworthy of worship because He resembles Man, except that no man is as good as the ideal which man has created of God for himself to aspire to or emulate something better?   Or is the problem that  Man cannot know God except through his own experience and that experience by definition cannot include the experience of God?  Jesus was above all such sophistry, and whether we believe he was born of a virgin or not, his superiority of moral reason is sufficient cause to call him “God.”)

The point of not worshipping God and Mammon is that the worship of “God” is the assumption of a fiduciary duty towards all one’s fellow men and women, and of building up “treasures in heaven” by which we mean (as I think Jesus meant) “the ideal of “Peace on Earth and Goodwill Towards Men,” and the First and Greatest Commandment: Loving the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and Spirit, and the Second being like unto it: Loving thy Neighbor as thyself (which inevitably means sharing your food and your table and your clothes with him, as well as your house if he loses his)”, whereas the worship of “Mammon” is the worship of wealth, in the sense of accumulating it for the benefit of oneself alone, and of excluding all others from “the feast.”

Everyone who fights injustice in a realistic and practical manner (i.e. taking into account the material realities of the world), will ultimately, undoubtedly, be accused at one point or another of doing so for selfish reasons, so that even the wars we wage are struggles of fiduciary duty—handling the interests of others as we would handle our own, vs. handling the interests of others for our own benefit.   None of us can exist in the world without a series of material shells for our soul: we all need our bodies which must be fed and clothes, and homes in which to “store” our bodies even once they are fed and clothed, and cities and towns or at least some land on which to locate our homes.  Jesus suggested we share all of these things, but he fought and opposed the ” redistributionist” taxing authorities of his days, and the hypocrites among his people who worked with the Conquering Romans to “redistribute” their wealth back to Rome,

Yet on the one hand, here in Luke 16, Jesus tells us you cannot serve both God and Mammon, and yet elsewhere, he instructs us to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (i.e. money) and unto God that which is God’s.”   Such passages, on their face, seem almost as contradictory as those I discussed two weeks ago regarding “blessed are the peacemakers” vs. “I come not to bring peace but a sword” and to set everyone against everyone else.

I suppose the best compromise is that we should all seek to be good Stewards (i.e. Trustees) for each other, but that every trustee must be certain that he is physically capable of executing his office and duties of trust, by accumulating all the material wherewithal necessary to achieve these goals.  Virtue without realistic reason is impractical, but considering practical necessity only, without virtuous reasons, is evil.  The Macchiavellian world of Bernie Madoff and Silverstein considers only practical reason.

But according to Reverend Mary Haddad in her “last Sunday of Summer” sermon on Sunday, September 19, she discussed a report in New York Magazine that, in jail, Bernie Madoff, ironically enough, was “free at last” now that he was in jail. http://nymag.com/news/crimelaw/66468/

By this is meant by “free at last” in this article is that Bernie Madoff in jail now can be a friend, a fiduciary to other prisoners, a bit philosophical and open, and not bound or tied to the tangled web of lies and deceit he had used his freedom to create.  Bernie Madoff can now do unto others as he would have them do unto him.  Unlike the gang of con-artists at the end of “The Producers” (aka “Springtime for Hitler“), Bernie Madoff apparently cannot continue his life of crime “inside”—he is free of all that now.   As one who has experienced federal prison in very small doses, I do not recommend it for anyone’s health, and I certainly do not think that the huge number of Americans incarcerated today is healthy for the nation as a whole.  But perhaps, for Madoff, it is helping his selfish (i.e. criminal) self to die, so that he may one day be born to eternal life, or at least into a world where he will love his neighbor as himself, and not worship Mammon, whether or not he worships God.

Luke 16  (King James Version)

1And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

2And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

4I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

5So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?

6And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.

7Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.

8And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

9And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

10He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

11If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

12And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?

13No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Luke 16 (New International Version)

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager

1Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

3“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’

5“So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

6” ‘Eight hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,’ he replied.
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.’

7“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
” ‘A thousand bushels
[b] of wheat,’ he replied.
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’

8“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

10“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

13“No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

Footnotes:

  1. Luke 16:6 Greek one hundred batous (probably about 3 kiloliters)
  2. Luke 16:7 Greek one hundred korous (probably about 35 kiloliters)

It is the Autumnal Equinox and the First Day of Fall.

Greetings and salutations to all as the days grow shorter and cooler.

Democracy and Laissez-Faire: A New York Case Study (Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., von Mises Daily)

Democracy and Laissez-Faire: A New York Case Study

Mises Daily: Monday, September 20, 2010 by Arthur A. Ekirch Jr.

Charles E. Lincoln Likes This! [Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1977.]

Well back in its history, in the late 1830s, New York State was spending and lending money lavishly. By the early 1840s, the rapidly mounting debt had occasioned a severe financial crisis. To avert the imminent possibility of bankruptcy and default, the state legislature in 1842 passed what was known as “the stop and tax law,” a levy of one mill on each dollar of taxable property. The new revenue helped the state meet its most pressing obligations.

But, even more importantly in terms of the future, New York decided to take steps to prevent another such fiscal disaster. Ambitious projects for internal improvements — mostly canal construction and loans for railroad building — were cut back or abandoned unless there was a reasonable expectation that they could be funded from tolls or taxation. And the legislature also issued a call for a constitutional convention.

The new constitution adopted in 1846 placed strict limits on the state’s ability to borrow money. Thus the people of New York found the answer in an old-fashioned program of reduced spending and new taxes. What is surprising, however, is that such policies had the popular support of the most democratic and liberal elements in the state.

To understand the unusual sequence of events that culminated in the New York State Constitution of 1846, one must go back in history to the Jacksonian era and the political struggles between the Democrats and the Whigs. In New York the Jacksonian Democrats included a wide-ranging constituency of radical workingmen, Irish immigrants, farmers, intellectuals, and representatives of the new, rising business or small-capitalist class. The preponderance of the older, landed aristocracy and wealthier classes, together with the most English or Anglo-Saxon elements in the population, gravitated toward the Whig Party.

The Whigs, united nationally by their opposition to Andrew Jackson’s presidency, were the ideological heirs in New York State of DeWitt Clinton, five-time governor and the father of the Erie Canal. Like Clinton, the Whigs supported the generous use of state funds for internal improvements as well as for various cultural, humanitarian, and educational endeavors. The Whigs’ belief in positive government and social reform reflected their paternalistic conception of politics and economics.[1]

Quite different were the ideas of the Democrats, who, in contrast to their Whig opponents, stood for a strict construction of the US Constitution, limiting the governing power to its least essentials. Both nationally and in New York State, the Jacksonian Democrats adhered to the Jeffersonian agrarian maxim that the least government is the best government.

In New York the leader of the Democratic Party was Martin Van Buren, head of the famed Albany Regency, which controlled the state governmental machinery through most of the 1830s and 1840s. The most radical Democrats, known as Locofocos, were somewhat to the left of Van Buren and the Regency. They included an interesting collection of intellectuals and politicians who espoused a negative, antistatist democracy.

As against the paternalistic philosophy of the Whigs, the Locofoco Democrats stressed complete laissez-faire in government-business relations. For example, the introduction in 1837 to the first issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review, organ of the more radical Democrats, defined the party’s belief in democratic republicanism and majority rule. But the editors added:

The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly on the industry and property of the community. Such power must be perpetually liable to the most pernicious abuse, from the natural imperfection, both in wisdom of judgment and purity of purpose, of all human legislation, exposed constantly to the pressure of partial interests; interests which, at the same time that they are essentially selfish and tyrannical, are ever vigilant, persevering, and subtle in all the arts of deception and corruption.[2]

Most forthright of the radical Democrats was William Leggett, a Locofoco colleague in the 1830s of such New York Democratic writers as James Fenimore Cooper, William Cullen Bryant, Theodore Sedgwick, and Parke Godwin. Leggett coupled adherence to the Jeffersonian natural-rights philosophy with demands for the equal right to property, not its abolition. Governments had no warrant to interfere with individual pursuits by offering financial advantages to any particular class or industry. Specially chartered banks, including the Bank of the United States, were a favorite target of Leggett’s scorn. “Let the banks perish,” he wrote. “Now is the time for the complete emancipation of trade from legislative thralldom.”[3]

“Let the banks perish. … Now is the time for the complete emancipation of trade from legislative thralldom.”

William Leggett (1801–1839)

As a part of their general laissez-faire philosophy and opposition to Whig paternalism, the Democrats were also dubious of those social and humanitarian reform movements that infringed upon individual liberty and private property. Thus they were hostile to the abolitionists even though this meant ignoring the question of freedom for the black slave. Imprisonment for debt attracted little attention from either Democrats or workingmen until public interest in the matter became too strong to be ignored. The workingmen’s parties were, however, in a peculiar position because wage earners wanted preferential creditor status through a mechanics’ lien law.

Even public schools had difficulty winning Democratic support, because their expense involved heavier taxation. Charity schools and use of the Lancastrian system[4] of pupil tutors instead won Democratic favor. A system of statewide public education would also interfere with parents’ control over their children and might undermine religious freedom.[5]

In Washington, Andrew Jackson, the Democrats’ hero, enjoyed an uneasy and controversial presidency. His years in office from 1829 to 1837 formed an era in which easy credit, cheap land, and internal improvements all contributed to an inflationary prosperity. At the same time, Jackson’s own inclinations tended toward the limitations on federal spending favored by his friend and political adviser Van Buren.

As governor of New York in 1828, Van Buren had secured passage of the Safety Fund System to safeguard the banks and assure the state of a source of credit and wealth to go along with the Erie Canal.[6] The state-chartered New York banks cast doubt on the need for the federal United States Bank, while the state-constructed Erie Canal rebuked the western states’ clamor for federal aid for their own internal improvements. Moreover, the Jeffersonian principle of states’ rights and opposition to federal centralized power, espoused by Van Buren and the New York Locofoco Democrats, was also able to gain national success by Jackson’s Bank of the United States and Maysville Road vetoes.[7]

In 1836 the United States for the only time in its history was without a national debt; a year later the federal government was briefly in a position to distribute its surplus revenues to the states. But the Jacksonians, despite the president’s efforts to moderate or level out the economic boom, were unable to ward off its financial aftermath in the Panic of 1837. Van Buren, Jackson’s successor in the White House, fell a political victim to the Panic, and in New York in 1838 the Democrats were overturned by the Whigs who elected William H. Seward as governor.[8]

Governor Seward, it should be noted, was an admirer of DeWitt Clinton, who had earlier helped inaugurate the transportation revolution in New York. Upon completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, he had urged further state expenditures for new canals, turnpikes, and eventually railroads, as well as a generous policy of chartering banks and insurance companies. Now, in 1840, the Whigs under Governor Seward called for the appropriation of $4 million for ten years to build additional canals and railroads.[9] Henceforth dubbed “the forty million dollar party,” the Whigs to their misfortune had ignored the adverse effects of the Panic of 1837 on the state’s declining credit.

Alarmed critics warned that the cost of public works would soon increase the state debt to as much as $75 million, with annual interest charges of $4.5 million. Already by 1842, when the Democrats regained control of the legislature and passed the stop-and-tax law, the state debt, which five years earlier amounted to $7 million, had grown to $27 million, and state bonds were unmarketable even at a discount of 20 percent. Instead of continuing to spend money for internal improvements, the Democrats, at a cost of $40 million in principal and interest, proposed to extinguish the state debt in 20 years. As a result of such conservative fiscal policies, within two months of the stop-and-tax law the state’s 7 percent bonds sold at par, while 5 percent bonds reached that level in 15 months.[10]

By the 1840s national opinion in regard to state aid for internal improvements was undergoing a change. The former public enthusiasm for heavy state expenditures had run its course. Some of the new states in the West were in default on their bonds. State initiative and responsibility had been necessary earlier for such ambitious undertakings as the Erie Canal, but after the return of prosperity in the 1840s, private capital, just beginning to be accumulated by American manufacturing and industry, was available for investment.

Railroads were now becoming the most important means of transportation, but railroads with their special rolling stock could not be considered public in the same sense as a canal, a river, or a turnpike. Although railroad builders frequently turned to the states to help raise the large amounts of capital they required, most of their funds in New York came from individual savings and from credit extended by American banks. Accordingly, while there was little foreign investment in, or municipal aid for, New York State railroads until after the Civil War, the New York Central by 1853 had 2,331 stockholders.[11]

The decline of public aid and intervention in economic enterprise was most marked in some of the eastern states where the old colonial concept of the commonwealth fell victim to a surge of antigovernment feeling. Although various economic and social groups continued to desire political intervention in behalf of their own self-interests, the fear of more state taxes and increasing state indebtedness blocked heavy public expenditures throughout the 1840s.

Instead of continuing to take a positive, direct role in the economy, the state granted its economic powers to private banks and stock companies. For example, the Free Banking Act passed by New York in 1838 abolished the old system requiring special legislation for each bank charter and in effect introduced competition into banking. Under general incorporation laws, state charters were now granted to all manner of enterprises that, in pursuing their own private ends, were largely freed of the public responsibility associated with governmental agencies and the earlier semiprivate corporation. Democratic reluctance to continue the specially chartered corporation for a favored few had dispersed the privilege of incorporation among many stockholders and had separated it from responsibility to the state.[12]

Legislation for free banking and general incorporation laws accordingly had the support not only of the business community but also of those opposed to all governmental aid and protection for selected enterprises. Locofoco Democrats and workingmen united in the crusade against economic monopoly and special privilege, although labor sometimes identified its own true interest with that of the whole community. In any case, the state was usually too weak in an administrative sense to either enforce its own definition of the public interest, or to give its full support to various private or special-interest groups. Thus laissez-faire and the cry of equal rights for all and special privileges for none was a more appealing political philosophy in the 1830s and 1840s than any Whiggish notions of a paternalistic and expensive government.[13]

It was in response to these views that the Democrats pushed ahead with their plans for drafting a new state constitution. William C. Bouck, the conservative or Hunker Democratic successor to Seward as governor in 1843 and 1844, favored a moderate course on internal improvements despite the Democrats’ stop-and-tax law of 1842. But when Silas Wright, a close friend of Van Buren and the staunchest disciple of Jeffersonian agrarian democracy in New York State, was put forward for the nomination of governor, Bouck and the conservative Hunker faction had to retreat.

“Democracy in the eyes of its later adherents has become synonymous with power, preferably such power as may be exercised by a strong executive in the name of people.”

Wright in his first annual governor’s message in January 1845 praised the stop-and-tax law for restoring the state’s credit. Three-fifths of the state’s debt charged to the general fund, he pointed out, had been incurred by unwise loans to railroads that had proved unable to pay their obligations. Wright also announced that he favored calling a constitutional convention.[14]

In a series of articles analyzing the progress of constitutional reform, which appeared at this time in the Democratic Review, John Bigelow, one of the party’s intellectuals, listed some of the changes that he believed New York and other states should adopt. These included a provision that “the state should have no power to contract debts, or loan its credit, except in case of war, invasion, or insurrection.”

In the matter of a general incorporation law, Bigelow urged, “the members of such Corporations, (not excepting those established for education or charity) should be individually liable for the debts, liabilities, and acts of such Corporation, and for the consequences resulting therefrom.” Furthermore, “all laws or regulations interfering with the liberty of trade or industry (such as license and inspection laws) should be abolished, and their enactment for the future prohibited.” Bigelow added as miscellaneous proposals the abolishment of the death penalty and permission for women to control their own property after marriage.[15]

The New York Constitutional Convention, which met in the summer of 1846, completed its labors in time for the voters to approve its handiwork that same year. Although the antistatist views of such Jeffersonian Democrats as Bigelow and Wright were subject to some modification and compromise, the New York Constitution of 1846 embodied the laissez-faire position better than any document in the state’s history:

Only after all debts were paid through a sinking fund could the state appropriate any surplus for canal improvements and extensions not already mandated by law. Corporations, including banks, were to be chartered under general laws rather than by special act. Stockholders were made liable to the amount of their shares for all debts and liabilities contracted by their banks. As an epitaph to the anti-rent wars that had reached a climax in 1846, the Constitution abolished all feudal tenures and perpetual leases.

Male suffrage was made universal except for negroes, who had to possess an estate of the value of $250, unless the people in a referendum on the question voted otherwise.[16] This curious and illiberal provision, which was approved by the voters, retained the clause in the 1821 Constitution in which the property qualification was removed for whites but not for blacks. The negro vote, traditionally cast in favor of the old Federalist slave-owning class, had continued to be exercised on behalf of Clinton and then the Whigs. Though never a large vote, it was opposed by the Democrats chiefly because of labor’s influence.[17]

In a retrospective article on constitutional government in the Democratic Review, Bigelow reiterated his libertarian views with the warning that

A great source of inequality in the conditions of men in respect of wealth and comfort arises from the action of law. Too much government has a direct tendency to aid one man or one set of men in the “pursuit of happiness,” and in the “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,” if not at the expense of the rest, at least without rendering them the like assistance.[18]

Unfortunately the Jacksonians, despite their defeat of the Bank of the United States, had not been able to slow the growth of wealth and inequality in New York and some of the larger cities in the East in the era before the Civil War. But their more radical laissez-faire views, as embodied in the stop-and-tax law and 1846 Constitution, disenchanted the wealthier business class that moved more than ever into the Whig Party. Work on the Erie Canal, which the Democrats had stopped in 1842, was resumed in 1847. Moreover, until 1850 railroads had to pay canal tolls to protect the state’s vested interested in “Clinton’s ditch.” After that, canal tolls were reduced to provide competition to the growing volume of traffic carried by the railroads.[19]

$23 $20

Historians of a later generation have grown accustomed to interpreting democracy and liberalism in terms of the modern welfare state. The negative democracy of the New York Democrats of the 1840s accordingly wins little contemporary approval. Democracy in the eyes of its later adherents has become synonymous with power, preferably such power as may be exercised by a strong executive in the name of people. Some historians even question whether the negative state can be democratic and reason that laissez-faire must automatically favor an aristocracy of wealth.[20]

But what passes for the welfare state today rewards most of all its largest investors in the military-industrial complex. Beneficiaries of the welfare-warfare state’s largesse would be horrified by a return to the spirit of the 1840s or to any consistent, across-the-board application of laissez-faire. Meanwhile, New York’s Constitution of 1846 remains an interesting, though passing, example of the enactment of Jeffersonian antistatism into fundamental law.

Arthur A. Ekirch Jr. (1915–2000) was a leading scholar of American intellectual history and professor emeritus of history at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany. Ekirch was a prolific author, writing 10 books, dozens of articles, and more than 100 book reviews. The Decline of American Liberalism, his favorite and a History Book Club selection, argued that the idea of freedom began to wane in the United States with the American Revolution, thanks to the development of nationalism and, later, a mass production economy. See Arthur A. Ekirch Jr.’s article archives.

This article is excerpted from “Democracy and Laissez Faire: The New York State Constitution of 1846,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1977, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 319–323.

Comment on the blog.

You can subscribe to future articles by Arthur A. Ekirch Jr. via this RSS feed.

Notes

[1] Useful general interpretations include Dixon Ryan Fox, The Decline of Aristocracy in the Politics of New York, 1801–1840, ed. Robert V. Remini (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965 [1919]); Edward Pessen, Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1968); and Glyndon G. Van Deusen, “Aspects of Whig Thought in the Jacksonian Period,” American Historical Review, vol. 63 (January 1958), pp. 305–22.

[2]Introduction,” United States Magazine and Democratic Review, vol. 1 (October 1837), p. 6.

[3] On Leggett, see his A Collection of the Political Writings, ed. Theodore Sedgwick, Jr. (2 vols.; New York: Taylor & Dodd, 1840); and the studies by Richard Hofstadter, “William Leggett: Spokesman of Jacksonian Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 58 (December 1943), pp. 581–594; Marvin Meyers, The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957), chap. 9; and Edward K. Spann, Ideals & Politics: New York Intellectuals and Liberal Democracy, 1820–1880 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972).

[4] Editor’s Note: An educational system created by Joseph Lancaster (1778–1838), an English Quaker.

[5] Herbert Ershkowitz and William G. Shade, “Consensus or Conflict? Political Behavior in the State Legislatures during the Jacksonian Era,” Journal of American History, vol. 58 (December 1971), pp. 591-621, reinforces the view of the age of Jackson as essentially laissez-faire. See also Peter J. Coleman, Debtors and Creditors in America: Insolvency, Imprisonment for Debt, and Bankruptcy, 1607–1900 (Madison, WI: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1974).

[6] Editor’s Note: This was the only notable act of Van Buren’s governorship, which lasted 64 days. Inaugurated on January 1, 1829, Van Buren resigned on March 5 to become Jackson’s secretary of state.

[7] New York and van Buren’s influence on Washington and Jackson is discussed in Bray Hammond, Books and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 352.

[8] Editor’s Note: The New York Whigs were partly descended from the Anti-Masonic Party. Seward previously served in the New York legislature as an Anti-Masonic senator. Seward later became a prominent leader of the Republican Party.

[9] Editor’s Note: Seward never lost his appetite for spending money on “internal improvements.” As secretary of state in the 1860s, Seward paid Russia $7.2 million for what we now call Alaska.

[10] Charles Z. Lincoln, The Constitutional History of New York (5 vols.; Rochester, NY: Lawyers Co-Operative, 1906), vol. 2, pp. 76, 81–84, 91ff., 165; and Stewart Mitchell, Horatio Seymour of New York (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 53.

[11] Fox, Decline of Aristocracy, pp. 405–408; Carter Goodrich, “The Revulsion Against Internal Improvements,” Journal of Economic History, vol. 10 (November 1950), pp. 145–169; and Harry H. Pierce, Railroads of New York: A Study of Government Aid, 1826–1875 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), pp. 8, 16.

[12] Oscar and Mary Flug Handlin, Commonwealth: A Study of the Role of Government in the American Economy (1st pub. 1947; rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap-Harvard University Press, 1969), pp. 106ff., 160–161, 191.

[13] Compare Walter Hugins, Jacksonian Democracy and the Working Class: A Study of the New York Workingmen’s Movement, 1829–1837 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1960) and Douglas T. Miller, Jacksonian Aristocracy: Class and Democracy in New York (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967).

[14] John A. Garraty, Silas Wright (New York: Columbia University Press, 1949), pp. 292, 335.

[15]The History of Constitutional Reform in the United States,” United States Magazine and Democratic Review, vol. 18 (June 1846), pp. 408–412, 420.

[16] N.Y. Const. of 1846 art. I, § 12; art. II, § 1; art. VII, §§ 1–3; art. VIII, §§ 1, 4, 7.

[17] Fox, Decline of Aristocracy, p. 269.

[18]Constitutional Governments,” United States Magazine and Democratic Review, vol. 20 (March 1847), p. 202.

[19] Edward Pessen, Riches, Class, and Power before the Civil War (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1973); Fran Otto Gatell, “Money and Party in Jacksonian America: A Quantitative Look at New York City’s Men of Quality,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 82 (January 1967), pp. 235–252; Don C. Sowers, The Financial History of New York State from 1789 to 1912 (New York: Columbia University Studies, 1914), pp. 75, 85, 87.

[20] See, e.g., Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston: Little Brown, 1945), pp. 512–514, 519–521; and Lee Benson, The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 220ff.

On Judge Bolton in Arizona, District Court Jurisdiction to hear Constitutional Challenges to State Laws, and other Jurisprudential and American Historical Puzzlements.,

Oh, with all due respects to our Canadian student of jurisprudence (quoted herein below from the Canadian Free Press and “Publius Huldah”): if only it were that easy, “no suits against the constitutionality of state statutes in U.S. District Court, only the Supreme Court,” well, if it were THAT easy, things in this country would definitely be different. This is what’s known, I think, as an example of how “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”  There are MANY problems with the Arizona lawsuit, which I happened to be studying precisely because I am interested in the “state of the art” of how to litigate against the constitutionality of state statutes, but failure to bring this case in the United States Supreme Court is NOT one of those problems.  United States v. Arizona (Complaint re: State Immigration Law)

28 U.S.C. Section 1331 would seem to be a pretty much irrefutable basis for jurisdiction, unless 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 itself is unconstitutional, and I’m guessing that would be the subject of a separate lawsuit, and to outlaw “Federal Question” jurisdiction in the Federal Courts would probably be deemed frivolous quicker than you can say, “Rule 11.”

So application of Federal Question jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause seems appropriate.  If not, maybe the State of Arizona should simply be dismissed as a party, and the Arizona A.G. and Governor left in. (Compare “Ex Parte Young“….where the State is immune from suit under the 11th Amendment, State Officers must take responsibility….the 11th Amendment doesn’t cover Federal-State lawsuits, and neither does the 14th, but there have been literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lawsuits during MY lifetime alone questioning the constitutionality of various statutes, many millions during Jon Roland’s life (lol!), and I’ve never heard this argument raised before).

So the First Answer is that the Congressional award to the U.S. District Courts of “Federal Question Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331″ has never been seriously questioned before, in the entire history of our government and court system.

The Federal Civil Cover sheet that we have to fill out every time we file a lawsuit has a box I’ve checked at least several times: Under Part IV. “Nature of Suit” (Place an “X” in One Box Only) over at the right hand side there is a category called “Other Statutes” and the very last item entry on that right hand column underneath “400 State Reapportionment”, “410 Antitrust”, “430 Banks and Banking”, “450 Commerce”, “460 Deportation” (hmmmm…. that’s interesting), “470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” (everyone’s favorite?  If not, it’s mine)….way down at the bottom of the list under “893 Environmental Matters”, “895 Freedom of Information Act”, and “900 Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice”, is “950 Constitutionality of State Statutes.”  Obviously, somebody in the clerk’s office thinks that U.S. Courts have jurisdiction. See also: Civil Cover Sheet United States v. Arizona

So no, I think the answer is more prosaic: in this case, the State of Arizona is not REALLY a party; no penalties are sought against the state, no fines to be imposed, no diminution in the state boundaries.  (Seems as though every few years there are boundary disputes under the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court between California and Arizona over the Colorado River or some change in the course of the Mississippi or Ohio).

Under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a State Attorney General (and/or Governor) are entitled to NOTICE of a lawsuit involving the Constitutionality of a state statute, if they are not named as parties.

That’s the second answer—and it is somewhat surprising that the attorneys for Arizona have not asked for the State to be dismissed as a party.”

“Prospective relief is always relief, even against parties otherwise immune from suit” would be the third answer.

When I first saw this article, I almost cried because it seems like, my whole life all I have seen is one after another state statutes being stricken down (and I grew up in a combined DAR-SCV-UDC family where the 10th Amendment was a frequent and well-known topic of dinnertime conversation).

The basic premise of the argument is specious: the mere mention of a state in a case regarding the Constitutionality of a state statute under the national charter has never invalidated lower court jurisdiction, even before the adoption of the 11th Amendment in the case of Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)(which was a state action or inaction case, default on a contract, rather than a statutory review case) or after the adoption of the 11th Amendment in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) which was clearly focused on a state statutory scheme to tax the Bank of the United States.  My favorite quote from John Marshall’s opinion in this case was “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”  Sorry!  But if it didn’t occur to the Supreme Court in either 1793 nor 1819, when signatories to the Constitution of 1787 were still alive and quite active, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 almost certainly, beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be used to invalidate lower court jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state statutes.

History is a pain, it often, like gravity, really “gets us down and keeps us down”, when we’d rather be flying……

From my perspective, there are much more recent historical cases when the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court WOULD have been raised if it COULD have been raised……

I imagine that we all have our own special litigation heroes in this group. One of my special heroes is John W. Davis of West Virginia, the 14th United States Solicitor General and the 6th United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom, who argued over 140 cases before the United States Supreme Court, including one of the most stunning judicial rebukes ever delivered to a sitting President of the United States (prior to Nixon in relation to Watergate, anyhow): namely Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., v. Sawyer in May of 1952.  Representing the Steel industry, and protesting President Truman’s seizure of the nation’s steel plants, Davis stated that “Truman’s acts were an usurpation of power without parallel in American history.”  In a 93 minute oration worthy of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Davis was asked only one question by the justices—this may have been the last such uninterrupted oral argument in U.S. history.  I have cited Youngstown repeatedly over the past two years as the forgotten precedent for overturning 100% of Obama’s socialistic seizures and interventions in national industries from finance to automobiles to real estate

Two years after winning Youngstown, we can be fairly certain that if the defense existed, which our Canadian colleague suggests, John W. Davis would surely have raised the simple and straightforward Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 objection to the mass of cases he faced again in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953-54.  Obviously, NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall knew all about Ex Parte Young and knew that it was better not actually to NAME the states as defendants when attacking the constitutionality either of state action or state statutes.

Indeed, if John W. Davis did not raise this jurisdiction defense when arguing on behalf of the State of South Carolina against integration in Brown v. Board of Education’s basically forgotten companion case Briggs v. Elliot, and if neither Harvard Law graduate Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina nor any other Senator or Congressman in signing the “Southern Manifesto” of 1956 ever raised that objection to the Warren Court’s program in the Senate, I think it is safe to say that the objection is a hopeless one to raise now.  There was never a stronger constitutionalist and “States Rights” movement in the 20th century than Senators Harry F. Byrd, Price Daniel, Sam Ervin, Walter George, John Stennis, Strom Thurmond, and all the rest who joined together in that fight.  They were not unthinking racist bigots, but civil libertarians who opposed the break down of privacy and civil rights which “liberals” like Kennedy and Johnson pushed for—Ervin was particularly famous for his opposition to “No Knock” police break-ins during the 1960s and ’70s.

If these men who “didn’t like what Earl Warren did to the Constitution” couldn’t find such a simple objection to the litigation that swept the Old South out of existence, it seems unlikely that Arizona will have an easy time objecting to anything other than the inclusion of its name as a party to the Government’s suit.

Charles E. Lincoln, III Tierra Limpia Tel: 512.968.2500

Deo Vindice “God be with you,and with thy spirit!”

Von: Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org>
An: Liberty-List@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: Samstag, den 31. Juli 2010, 23:39:38 Uhr
Betreff: Fw: Judge Susan Bolton has no jurisdiction in ruling on AZ Law

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Explosive-new-evidence-shows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press.  Her argument states in part,

“Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

“Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.”

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled.  As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco , to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously.  The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words:  ”No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.

– 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Lawsters” group.
To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.

The Complete Canadian Free Press Article follows:

Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

By Publius Huldah Thursday, July 29, 2010

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is – you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, 
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her 
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you

See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”?  THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

….the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”…(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped – by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 – of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty – it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors – Go for it! PH

Publius Huldah Most recent columns

Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA.  She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).  
Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.  She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution.

Publius can be reached at: Publiushuldah@twlakes.net

Ninety-Days Until Christmas—A story about a Heroic Girl and Her Ponies—Give Now to Support her Freedom!

I have no idea how many regular readers of this blog there may be (if any!) but I hope there are at least a few who will read and hear this plea for a little bit of Christmas Giving on this 90th day before Christmas 2010.  However, Anyone who IS a regular reader of this blog will know of my intense admiration and affection for Nancy Jo Grant, a 60-something grandmother, resident of Arcadia (De Soto County) Florida, at the north end of the Everglades and just northwest of Lake Okechobee (on a more-or-less straight line between Sarasota and Stuart/Palm Beach Gardens Florida).

Nancy Jo Grant is a true American Patriot and Heroine, an Anti-Establishmentarian afraid of absolutely nothing, former Christian Missionary to Honduras and the Florida Prison System, still the embattled President of JAIL-for-Judges in Florida and several time Christian Party Candidate for Governor. Owing to a preposterously unjust August 2007 trial and conviction for “Unauthorized Practice of Law” (applied to and characterizing her Prison Missionary Work), Nancy now desperately needs to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging her 15 year probation sentence (12 years left!, or 11 years and 4 months, something like that).   Because of the 1996 AEDPA (Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) and misnamed 2001 “Patriot Act”, Habeas Corpus has now been all but obliterated the formerly rich jurisprudence in support of relief from wrongful conviction for all but non-existent crimes such as that of which Nancy was convicted (without a single victim EVER complaining…. in fact, everyone who has ever commented, including all who testified at her month-long trial, PRAISED her inspirational work with Florida’s most hated, wretched, and despised and socially ostracized prisoners).

I just talked to Nancy tonight for the first time in a long time and she wants to sell some of her Shetland Ponies to raise funds to pay for filing a Habeas Corpus proceeding—under the new AEDPA “reform” laws [enacted by Newt Gingerich and other members of the "Contract on America" Congress----which set the stage and pave the way for 9/11 and the abuses of the Soviet-Maoist NIGHTMARE decade that has followed], Nancy gets exactly ONE post-conviction shot at this which must be filed AFTER exhausting her Florida State Remedies AT THE LATEST by the end of this year).

Nancy is thinking of selling her beloved ponies at local auction in Arcadia.  I hate to see her do it—anyone who has ever known an equestrian lady knows that a girl and her ponies should never be parted….  But if they must be sold, they should be sold to sympathetic supporters who will cherish the opportunity to have helped one of America’s premier “Ladies of Liberty” by purchasing one of her prized possessions.

I think Nancy could do MUCH, MUCH better by selling them on-line or to people who might buy to support her.  I know a little something about keeping horses—I have seen Nancy’s ranch, her ponies, and I have seen Nancy caring for and grooming her beloved Shetlands, and I know that this is a terrible thing for her to have to do.  So Will you help out?  Will you buy one or two of her ponies yourself or else put Nancy in touch with someone who might be willing to support a truly Patriotic Lady who has been the victim of massive injustice in Florida.

Except for the time when she was a Missionary in Honduras, Nancy has lived in Arcadia all her life and is just….not very worldly or aggressive and she really has nobody helping her—and I am so far away and have no place to put any ponies myself—although if I did, I would definitely buy some.

I want to help Nancy obtain her liberty from this RIDICULOUS conviction, but there is no simple way—her conviction was “per curiam” affirmed by the Florida District Court of Appeals just last year.  NO OPINION means NO DISCRETIONARY REVIEW in the Florida Supreme Court.   Habeas Corpus is her ONLY hope.  Accordingly, Nancy’s Petitions need to be both OUTSTANDING and prepared quickly.  She has really delayed too long already in getting going on them.  I’m going to put up something on my website/blog.  My son Charlie is in Maryland and maybe there are some good DelMarVa equine establishments near St. John’s College, but you guys are RIGHT THERE and so close….I hope you know someone who raises Shetlands or would even just be willing to talk to Nancy….she’s a wonderful lady…and if you call me, Peyton, or Bob Hurt at the numbers below, we’ll put you in touch.

Peyton’s parents live on a ranch way out in the lower Hill Country in Texas and although they don’t raise horses they may know some people who do.

We just need to find some fans of Nancy who’d like to help her out.  Everyone SHOULD be Nancy’s friend:  She’s a sweet, kind, and gentle Southern Lady and country grandmother, a self-less Christian Missionary to the Damned, a friend to all the friendless, hated, rejected, and despised people in society.  And yet she’s serving a probated sentence longer than some people get for vehicular homicide, even second or third degree murder….

Here is a website I found just by googling “Shetland Ponies for Sale.”

http://www.equinenow.com/shetlandpony.htm

If you’d be willing to call Nancy and help her out with this project, please call me or Peyton at the numbers below, or else call Bob Hurt at 727-669-5511.

It’s 90 days until Christmas—but this can work so many ways—if you know someone who loves Shetland ponies, or would like to give one as a gift, if you love Shetlands, or if you love horses in general and love freedom and liberty and can appreciate and admire this woman who has essentially given her entire life to other people, and now has to sell some of her prized possessions—well, the ideal would be if you could just give her the money to hire a top-notch lawyer and try to put together a team to beat this one—but if not, buy one of her ponies on an early Christmas Plan—it is the Christian thing to do!

(And as any readers of this blog know—as I know–that some of the most generous and “Christian” people I have met in my life are Jewish—in the two months before Nancy was arrested in Florida I was for 54 days including Christmas 2007 and New Years 2008 as YOUR GUEST, i.e., the guest of you, the American taxpayers, at several Federal Institutions in California, Oklahoma, and Texas on equally [or if logically possible even more] spurious charges as or than those lodged against Nancy Jo Grant.  During that dark and dreary time time, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, there was a older Jewish fellow by the name of Moshe Leichner who was like a cross between Santa Claus and Jesus Christ to his fellow-prisoners.  I examined this man’s case file in some depth and feel sure that he was innocent of the charges which had brought him into Federal Custody for 20 years.  Moshe is still in prison.  Moshe Leichner v USA et EDCV09-6 SFW (CW) and 09-cv-6 Moshe Leichner v USA Docket Report as of 9-25-2010.  Later back among the living, I was privileged to meet a Dr. Dennis de Leon, M.D., of South Pasadena, a man of slightly confusing nationality and ethnicity but claiming a Jewish identity, who like Moshe is among the kindest, gentlest, most generous, and wonderful “Christian” in the sense that he behaves with the same regard and care for his fellow human beings as a certain post-Old Testmanent “Rabbi” named  Yeshua/Yesu/Joshua or Jesus instructed us all to behave.  When I think of the antagonism that some people would assume between supporting Nancy Jo Grant, a southern Lady who founded her own “Christian” party to fight against the Hypocrites and False Judges our time, with supporting Jewish inmates in Federal Custody and admiring Jewish Doctors in Los Angeles County, I am moved to remember that Jesus and all his followers described in his “Gospels” of Good News for Modern Man were Jewish, so that all Christians are, at their core, Jews whether they call themselves that or not, while many Jews are in fact good Christians who follow the teachings of the Rabbi and the Gospels, whether they think of themselves that way or not…  In all these senses, too, Nancy Jo Grant is a Christian, and like Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, whose Crucified Epitaph “King of the Jews,” was as politically sarcastic as the charge of Unauthorized Practice of Law leveled against Nancy, Nancy fights against the Hypocrites and Liars who claim to follow the law but do so only for their own enrichment and glorification.)

But in any event, I digress: the point of this Post is—Please buy a Country Girl’s ponies, one or more, to Help Nancy Jo Grant fight for freedom!  Back in the Political Arena, back out of probation where she can again speak freely—Nancy will be back fighting for YOU, the American people.  She simply can’t help it, it seems to be in her very core nature.  The powers that be want us all to be scared and afraid of their false monopolies on virtue and the right to speak for ourselves and others.  Helping to free Nancy Jo Grant will be a great way of aligning yourself, this year and this Christmas, with one of the truest heroines of our time….

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com

Telephone: 512-968-2500

In case of emergency call Peyton Yates Freiman (Texas)

at 512-461-8192

The Yucatan Goes Dark: The AP reported on Sunday, September 26, 2010, that “The remnants of Tropical Storm Matthew drenched parts of Central America and southern Mexico on Sunday, a day after it weakened to a tropical depression.” Janet Claire Phelan reported from somewhere North of the 20th Parallel:

And it rains like this

and I go scampering in the half light

up calle 78

with a quick left

on calle 41

sloshing down a couple of flooded blocks

wide open/ without overhang or shelter

from what is now clearly a deluge

unlocking the gate and up the stairs

into what approximates

my dwelling

my casa

my place of residence

though I have not bothered to learn

its actual street address

and it is dry inside

and a small black cat

watches intently

as I pull off soaked shirt

jeans

and I am so relieved!

Nearly ecstatic

as the power goes down

block by block

blinking off in a jigsaw succession

obedient to the grid

and the city goes dark

and I am overjoyed!

lighting the candles

I bought last week

for your birthday (I always

celebrated you twice a year,

once on yours and again

on mine, because didn’t we

both have a fundamental part

in getting me out of your belly

and into what we call, here,

Life)

and I am almost besides myself

upstairs as my ersatz expat

lodging flickers and glows

a globe of candlelight in the expanding darkness

which is now storming up the coast

Chuburna, Chelem, Progreso, Chicxulub,

Uymitun

as town after town goes dark

rendered to speechlessness, sightlessness

silence

as the storm gathers

in force and intention

spreading out from its center

its ancient, irrevocable seed

and I am free! Dancing

and laughing and spinning and singing

for there is nothing I can do

all research modalities stutter and stall

no emails to be sent

no phone calls to be made

and the utter weight of my commission

falls away

at last

ii

The eyes of the small black cat

glow with alien knowledge

He knows what I

with more intricate wiring

could not

although it is encoded in our DNA

it is written in our breath

we just could not know quite

when

Some of us heard the call

and have risen

out of our deepest slumber

to answer

and thus assume this

the unbearable weight

iii

Through the night

the small black cat and I

keep our vigil

Through the night/

we continue to keep

our vigil

~~Janet Phelan

Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico, June 27, 2010, by Janet Phelan

As I stepped down off the bus at the entrance to Chichen Itza, the sky unfurled an apron of rain.  It has rained every afternoon at least for the last week, when I landed in the Yucatan.  I paid my entrance fee and pushed through the turnstile into a veritable Disneyland of culture-seekers and pirates, hawking plastic jaguars on key chains and fluorescent long-dead ceramic gods, ripe for hanging from a rear view mirror.

There was majesty here once, but it is obscured now, folded back into itself, dormant and cocooned. The stones will not speak.  The sheer weight of decades of the curious filing past with Nikons and fair-headed children in tow has not diminished the indignity of having withstood the onslaught of European colonization. Better to have crumbled into undecipherable dust than to endure the daily parade of vacationers.

An instructional tablet announces that the bas relief stonework depicts jaguars and warriors eating hearts.  My mind leaps across thousands of miles to your unmarked graveside, where you were quickly and furtively stuffed in the ground before I could discover that you had died. The dreams had already started–you being eaten alive, you being dissected with a geneticist´s antiseptic curiosity and swabbed onto slides for categorizing and filing away.  When it actually happened, I should have been prepared. Standing in the rain now, I wonder–again–if they devoured your heart.

Is that the secret? That the old invocations, the subterranean channel running darkly through history, has never been obliterated, only fancied up to appear contemporary and respectable?  Flesh-eaters and graverobbers roam the courthouses of our democratic societies, while those sitting in the courtroom pews are only suckered in to their eventual dismemberment by dapper dark sutis with briefcases and polysyllabic lingo.

I´m trampling on some kind of artifact of some kind of state of suspended metaphysic.  The man in the coat room told me that the secrets were destroyed by the conquistadores, that there is nothing left of the sacraments. The Mayans were experimenting with time and dimensions and all that we have left, he said, are a pile of stones and the prophecies, unfurling now in relentless succession.

I walk through the Colonnade, my hand lingering on the stones.  It is the only way I know to say I was here, I walked through these places, I saw clearly and without fear the impetus and direction of intended impact and I cried out a warning and I was helpless to change it, any of it and I left behind a few moist molecules in the cracks between the rocks before I walked out into the deluge and was gone forever.

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: but on that stage, are courtroom dramas sometimes pre-scripted to produce results and/or social effects? Do these scripts negate due process of law? A Northern California Example.

In the eight years since AAMES Vice-President Deborah S. Gershon in Los Angeles explained to me that AAMES loans could not be modified because they did not belong to AAMES…. strike that, in the 17 years since I first participated in the preparation of an SEC-acceptable registration statement for an MBO (Mortgage Backed Obligation, actually a Mortgage Bundled-Bond, in that case) IPO on Wall Street at Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, I have been almost obsessed with trying to understand and undo the evil caused by securitized mortgages.  It’s a lonely obsession, like so many of my interests: from Wagnerian Opera, Gilbert & Sullivan’s operettas, Tom Lehrer’s and Weird Al Yankovich’s “comic pop-cultural folklore”, to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European Language, Culture, and Mythology, the calibration of the Maya and Christian calendars by and through archaeological stratigraphy and ceramic seriation, the comparative structural analysis of dual, tripartite, and quadripartite forms of religious and social organization, and then over to the comparative American graveyard organization and iconography of Colonial New England and the South, especially New Orleans, the detailed history of the Oracle at Delphi, the best approximation of Moses’ route through the Sinai Peninsula in Exodus. But of all my interests and obsessions, only securitized mortgages have become not merely a national but a worldwide crisis and obsession as well.   Since my happy days as a young (or at least a much younger) judicial extern clerk for Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit, Los Angeles) and later a judicial law clerk for Kenneth L. Ryskamp (Southern District of Florida, Miami & West Palm Beach), on the opposite coasts of America, since those days when I believed that Federal judges all worked late hours into the morning with their clerks sifting through pleadings and motions and agonized over the proper disposition of cases, never “pre-judged” anything, and that federal judges in particular were basically among the hardest working and most honorable members of society at large, never mind the much maligned legal profession, I have learned a lot and become very cynical.

Sadly, I have to say that I repeatedly, and with increasing frequency, see evidence that at least some federal judges either manipulate or fix cases, and that the putatively adversarial attorneys may sometimes participate in this process.   I have neither the time nor the energy to review all the cases where I have suspected this, except that I saw the process directly for the first time in September 1997 in Austin, Texas, when I saw Judge James R. Nowlin take charge of a case (ALL sides), primarily for the purpose of attacking and ultimately destroying me (well, actually, my “ordinary” legal career: which by ending that very ordinary phase of my life began the “extraordinary” phase in which I have been living ever since).  But I’ve seen some evidence of staging and restructuring cases many times since, though no one has ever been quite as outrageously blatant about it as Judge James R. Nowlin of the Western District of Texas (that was one for the Guinness Book of World Records), until perhaps right now, September 2010, in the Northern District of California.

A couple of weeks ago, I became aware that a respected an experienced attorney by the name of Michael Pines had filed a truly extraordinary lawsuit against the foreclosure and eviction consequences against the securitization of mortgages, and in particular against one marvelously slimy fellow by the name of Steven D. Silverstein who operates a rather vicious shark tank out of Tustin, Orange County, California.  Michael Pines’ complaint was, frankly, music to my ears: as eloquent as Wagner while as socially apt, “right on the mark” and stinging as the comedies of Gilbert & Sullivan, or the satires of Tom Lehrer and “Weird Al.”  Everything that Michael Pines said was true, or at least reflected MY version of truth and reality to a very reassuring degree: Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action

Finally, a non-disbarred, currently licensed attorney with community respectability, standing had become so thoroughly acquainted with the truth as even to go record as giving CLE Courses to other lawyers on the topic, see e.g.: http://www.free-press-release.com/news-securitization-in-litigation-workshop-6hrs-mcle-michael-t-pines-esq-certified-forensic-loan-auditors-llc- 1268337159.html

Surely a lawyer like this knows at least as much as a pathetic disbarred attorney such as myself would know.  Inception of a major lawsuit, especially a class action, means that you must design your litigation according to a very careful strategy, frame issues to match your defendants, and you must thoroughly research every topic prior to launching litigation.  Above all, before you file your complaint, you must anticipate vigorous and violent opposition—especially if you’re suing other lawyers, but even if you’re “ONLY” suing certain major banks and loan servicing companies in the largest financial industry in the WORLD in a state (California) whose, by itself, would rank right after that of France and just above Italy’s if California were a separate and independent nation, apart from the rest of the US.  Anyone who goes into Federal Court knows that the first thing to expect is the ALMOST inevitable 12(b)(6) Motion.  Few and far between are the cases where anyone just files an “answer” in Federal Court, when Federal judges, even the good ones, LOVE to throw out cases without allowing a jury trial if they possibly can, because all Federal judges are “judged” and rated by their “case statistics” which rewards a LOW case load (which requires less work) than a HIGH case load (conscientious management of which would require MUCH more work).   Congress has built in some VERY perverse incentives for Federal Judges but that is, as they say, a “Political Question” which we need not address here.

SO how can it be that Michael T. Pines, a distinguished lawyer known for speaking on this topic, had not filed (by September 2010) even a single answer to the motions to dismiss his complaint filed in June, 2010?  CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010 Michael T. Pines did the almost unthinkable: he filed and served a major, complex lawsuit in his special field of expertise and advocacy and then, faced with the totally predictable barrage of motions to dismiss and for sanctions, never filed any responses and finally, on September 21, 2010, VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED HIS CASE.  09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.  The Notice provides no explanation whatsoever why Plaintiffs’ Counsel so utterly and completely failed to file any response or contest to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but only lamely “advised the court:”

2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.

3. Many new party defendants need to be added.

4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this

case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,

New York, and Seattle.

5. In an attempt to further conceal their wrongful conduct, with the exception of a

few defendants, no demand for defense was made to insurance carriers and

plaintiffs wish to make sure this occurs.

6. If the case is re-filed in this court, this action will be brought to the attention of

the court so it can be reassigned here if the court desires such.

Steven D. Silverstein’s lawyer Larry Rothman responded  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report in a more mild-mannered and civilized way than I would have thought possible, because Larry Rothman is nothing if not a fairly consistent shark in the tradition of his client (and mentor?) Silverstein—and yet Rothman pounced on 09-22-2010 THE VERY DAY AFTER Michael T. Pines’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and demanded that jurisdiction to impose sanctions be retained.  Judge Seeborg of the Northern District could do nothing other than comply with Rothman’s request: 09-27-2010—10-2622 McComas order re pending motions—Rule 11 Sanctions Remain.

This story is clearly not yet “over”—it remains to be seen what Judge Seeborg will do about the motions for sanctions and the administration or implementation of Rothman’s California “anti-Slapp” motion in Federal Court.  (The idea that Silverstein’s use of the California Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction [solely to eviscerate the rights and lives of hundreds of thousands of Californians] could be protected against a “Suit to Limit Access to Public Process” [a "SLAPP" is usually conceived of as a harassing lawsuit designed for no purpose except to silence environmentalists or civil rights advocates, or historic or coastal neighborhood preservations---NOT as a vehicle to insulate criminals like Silverstein from very meritorious lawsuits] is beyond preposterous and downright offensive.   I believe and have submitted in two lawsuits of my own that California Anti-SLAPP legislation is the “mother of all First Amendment Constitutional Violations”—even more reprehensible for its vagueness and obviously realized potential for overbreadth than the “Vexatious Litigant” index which I can only imagine Silverstein would like to have me registered on).

It also remains to be seen whether Michael T. Pines actually WILL refile his class action against Silverstein and his cronies and seriously litigate the Complaint once he DOES file it again.

In the meantime, Michael T. Pines has voluntarily dismissed his very fine complaint without even attempting to defend it.  And I have never seen anything this suspicious in my life, except for Judge Nowlin’s conduct towards me in September 1997 [footnote/sidebar: it was a civil case, but Judge Nowlin appointed a very expensive downtown Austin lawyer, a former law clerk of his, to represent the crook I was suing as Defendant, who was proceeding pro se ---when I say "crook" I mean Donald Richmond was a forger, an interstate racketeer in real estate before it was even fashionable, and we had the certificate from the North Dakota Secretary of State confirming that he had forged a notary seal---and then he arranged to have me fired as counsel for the Plaintiff by strong-arming my housekeeper into giving outrageously and obviously false testimony against me, and on that occasion expressed his gratitude in open Court, on the record, to her and anyone else who would assist him in procuring evidence leading to my disbarment.....]

I submit that this all looks just a little bit too STAGED to me.   Even if it were true, as Michael T. Pines so weakly claims that:

1. Counsel is working with several agencies including the State Of California to

coordinate proceedings against named defendants and others (and criminal proceedings in other states).

2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.

3. Many new party defendants need to be added.

4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this

case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,

New York, and Seattle.

These facts SIMPLY do not excuse Michael T. Pines failure even to defend himself for filing the Complaint in any way, shape or form.  (Aside from submitting the Complaint, Pines had submitted a TRO and motion for reconsideration of denial of TRO, and no other substantive papers in the case WHATSOEVER).

And frankly, all of it would be pretty inconclusive and not nearly so suspicious if it were not for the judgment obtained in the California Attorney General’s case against a certain Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles in August of this year.   I wrote a critical letter to the Attorney General immediately after learning of the Mitchell Roth judgment, saying that I did not believe that the Attorney General had acted in the best interests of the people of California in attacking Mitchell Roth’s abortive crusade against non-judicial foreclosures and evictions.  CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010.  I feared then and still fear that the end result as far as the public is concerned will be that everyone who pushes the “securitized note” issue, as a defense to wrongful foreclosure and the evictions that follow therefrom will be lumped with “the scammers” and the filers of frivolous lawsuits, such as Roth and, I’m going to predict, Michael T. Pines.  I note in the attorney general’s summary of Roth’s conduct the disturbing sentence: “Roth filed lawsuits on behalf of homeowners, pushing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.” Isn’t THIS suit, by the Attorney General of the State of California, the ultimate “SLAPP” in the face to the movement of which I am apart, the advocacy in which I believe and have fought ever since it effectively cost me my high-paying, high-prestige job at the (they claim) oldest lawfirm in the United States (allegedly traceable back to a law office founded in lower Manhattan near the battery in 1792).

However, even more suspicious and odd, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown had made precisely the same claim against Mitchell Roth as the demonstrable reasons for the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case in the NDCA: “Once the lawsuit was filed, Roth did next to nothing to advance the case and often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines or appear at court hearings.”http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1979

Honestly, it just doesn’t get much more suspiciously coincidental than this: on or about August 12, 2010, the Attorney General enters into a consent judgment with Mitchell Roth preventing Mitchell Roth from “pushing” his novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it”—Mitchell Roth’s alleged “M.O.” was to file lawsuits and then never do anything else about it.

Slightly over a month later, on or about September 21, 2010, Michael T. Pines, supposedly one of the leading advocates AGAINST SECURITIZED MORTGAGES, voluntarily dismisses his very strong complaint against wrongful foreclosures, after having identified the issues correctly, named all the right defendants, after initiating a lawsuit and never filing any other papers or attempting even taking steps towards the serious prosecution of the lawsuit, (i.e. (without ever answering the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or defending his complaint in any way) .  (Perhaps it is significant that Pines’ Complaint named too many plaintiffs and defendents to be practically combined into a single suit, especially one seeking class certification, where “identity of injury and identity of nature of causation of injury” must be proven, but that’s a quibble about strategy).

Two nearly identical case histories, flawed legal strategies, associated with the same legal issue, both leading to potential legal sanctions or stigmatization of the very meritorious legal issues involved in attacking the securitization of home mortgages as the direct and proximate and therefore legal cause of the present mortgage foreclosure crisis.

The end result of both the stories of Mitchell Roth and Michael T. Pines’ case histories, as of Tuesday, September 28, 2010, is that two “seasoned” lawyers in the State of California who wanted to push that self-same “Novel Argument” about securitization leading to unenforceability of mortgages have both bit the dust without adequately developing or examining the legal theories or factual evidence which could be marshaled in favor and support of either Roth’s Complaint or Pines’ Complaint.  This is going to lead to a lot of “See, I told you so” comments which those trying to dissuade homeowners from fighting foreclosure on this issue will now be able to use.   Litigation on the scale of the Pines’ now voluntarily dismissed complaint or (I assume, without ever having looked at an example) Roth’s Complaint supposedly filed (???) 2,000 times without a single genuine litigation is expensive and difficult, and scares away even many serious people, but that is because it must be fought against all odds against such tough enemies—the international banking & finance industry, its attorneys, and its servicers.

In other words, I charge, without any inside knowledge, that Mitchell Roth’s cases and Michael Pines’ case were both staged, fraudulent situations specifically staged to discredit and destroy the causes which I so passionately support: the abolition of securitized mortgages and the modification of the foreclosure and eviction laws in the state of California and elsewhere, especially in those Western U.S.A. states which tend to slavishly copy California Codes, by inertia and gravity, as physical factors relating to size and proximity, rather than virtue or success of theoretical arguments.

And that, therein, is the biggest problem.  In almost all pro se complaints, the systems-loyal state and federal judges all have an easy time throwing out the desperate homeowners who demand to see the note or ask how their property can be taken from them by a party who appears to have no relationship to them or their original mortgage application and promissory note whatsoever.

The continuing lack of argument and exposition of evidence and theories is perhaps the most devastating consequence of the Mitchell Roth judgment and the Michael T. Pines’ voluntary dismissal (with continued exposure to punitive sanctions under both Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ABSURD California “Anti-SLAPP” Motion filed by Rothman for Silverstein).

“Due Process” never occurs on stage.  It is true that the language used to describe and explain legal “representation” and thespian performance is sometimes eerily similar:  the lawyer “acts on behalf” of another by “representing him” as accurately as possible in his “presentation” to the Court.   An actor, like an attorney in court, is to be judged on the “quality” or “accuracy” of his representation of both the character and the “original intent” of the author of the movie, the play, the book (before being made into a movie or play), or of the statutory and constitutional provisions underlying the lawsuit brought to be “put on” in Court—under the best of circumstances to a small, non-paying, poorly paid, “captive” audience of 12, and more often, to an even smaller audience of one judge, one or two bailiffs or courtroom deputies, and one-or-two law clerks.

Meaningful argument, substantial dialogue or “Due Process” on stage is impossible, except of course in completely “ad libbed” dramas (where no preset script is to be followed), because all the arguments and outcomes are normally predetermined (“Shear Madness” is a notable exception).

What aggravates so many Americans who get caught up in one or more aspects or elements of the litigation system in this country is how “pre-set” and “pre-determined” the outcome of all proceedings seems to be.  There is no room for open or free argument or debate—there is no “due process” for the free development of ideas or evidence—there are rote formulas and outcomes which in some courts seem totally fixed—the opposite of freedom.

In Florida for several years now I’ve been working intermittently with Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson on the question of why every divorce litigation must end in a divorce.   Why are there not multiple, possible outcomes, as unique as the individuals and families involved?  Why can one not question the “pre-fixed” outcome that all divorce proceedings must end in a divorce?   There is no such thing as a “not guilty” verdict.  As Kathy and others have said—every marriage is doomed once it goes to court—there are no pardons and no hung juries, every marriage must die.

Likewise, in California Unlawful Detainer Courts—the outcome is even more fixed.  In divorce court, there is at least some diversity of outcome with regard to who gets the house and who gets the house, the shares of Bristol-Myers-Squibb, the kids, the dog, the parakeet, and all those ancient plates inherited from one spouse’s great aunt who collected Royal Doulton (but whose eyesight was so bad in her old age that every set is hopelessly mismatched in the China cabinet).

In Unlawful Detainer Court, as in California non-judicial foreclosure, there is no diversity of outcome, and Judges have been known to tell defendants out right that only one outcome is possible—the homeowner must lose and be evicted.  Contractual defenses are not allowed.  Defects in property title are not allowed.  Violations of due process and allegations of fraud are not allowed—or if a good humored judge allows these arguments, the Plaintiff still wins, anyhow.

Accordingly, “due process”, has become meaningless in many American Courts: there is a “prix-fixe” menu of “notice and opportunity” whereby you have notice of some dire event—either your marriage is about to be torn apart or your home is about to be sold (and possession delivered) to the Mainland Chinese and/or Saudi Arabian investors who’ve been stalking your neighborhood or both.

“Due process” is ordinarily defined as “meaningful notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard” but even those qualifying words are extravagant compared to what’s really given in most American Courts of limited and/or specialized jurisdiction (i.e. Divorce/Family/Domestic Relations Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction/Municipal Courts/Justice of the Peace Courts specializing in evictions/foreclosures).   The State of Florida is setting up special “foreclosure courts” just to speed the destruction of private property in that state along at a merry pace.

But then there are the real problems—where the Courts are of unlimited jurisdiction, like the Northern District of California—but a “show” is apparently planned and put on to discredit an idea.   A case is made up and then litigated in such a way that one side must lose.  It is exactly like fixing a boxing match or a baseball game so that the “gamblers” and “bookies” will be happy, or make money, or both.

When lawyers participate in the fixing of cases, they betray their clients and themselves, but they also betray the concept of due process and the constitutional meaning of the courts as a part of government.

When judges participate in the fixing of cases, well, it’s just too horrifying for words.

Did any of these happen either in the Mitchell Roth case in Los Angeles or the Michael Pines case in the Northern District of California?   Similar fact patterns, similar outcomes, identical legal-factual subject matter relating to the effect of securitized mortgages.

I think that “due process” should be redefined as meaningful dialogue concerning all facts and issues.  The Judges would be primarily responsible for enforcing the Court as an arena for such discussions.   Last year I was involved in an unfortunate case of ill-repute in Orange County wherein I worked with a lawyer who brought some very controversial claims of great national interest, and that lawyer then intentionally sabotaged her own claims on several levels by rushing the process, and then by ignoring it once she had a chance to get into court.  The judge granted this particular lawyer an extraordinary opportunity to correct some past mistakes, the attorney made more.  The judge then wrote an opinion outlining everything that this attorney needed to do to make her case and claims stronger, and the lawyer called the judge a traitor on the internet.  It was all just tragic and disgusting, because this one particular judge really DOES get that “meaningful dialogue” is at the heart of due process.  ”Due process” is simply not satisfied by summary executions where the doomed defendant has a few words to say by way of complaint before his head is lopped off or he is thrown bodily out of his house.

The world goes faster and faster, and it is time to slow some things down.  Legal process, for instance, should NEVER be streamlined.  It should ALWAYS be slow and deliberate and give adequate opportunity for thought, reflection, and debate both on legal theories and evidence.   Above all, there must be no fixed or pre-determined outcomes.

I hope that Michael Pines did not intentionally “throw” his case by failing to answer the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but I’d say it looks very suspicious.  I hope that there is nothing more than great  and random coincidence between the allegations made (and established by a consent judgment) against Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles and the obvious conduct of Michael Pines’ case in the Northern District of California.

Full and open debate and exposition of evidence is absolutely critical both to resolving important issues facing the country and for the future of the free rights and enforceability of contract and the maintenance of the right to keep and own private property.  In other words, due process, by which I mean “well-developed and meaningful dialogue” (i.e. dialectical reasoning and process) in the evaluation of petitions for redress of grievance concerning impairments of the rights to enforce and maintain obligations of contract, for the benefits of acquiring and maintaining ownership of private property, and the presentation of these arguments to juries, is key to the future of the United States of America, and there is some evidence that such dialectical debate and the adversarial process itself is being regularly subverted in these United States as we teeter on the verge of a major transformation in our country, as one economy, the “capitalist mode of production” gasps for air and tries to survive against creeping socialism and collectivism which deeply threatens our way of life.

In Plato’s Republic, Book VII, men are chained to a wall and never see the sunlight, and they believe that their shadowy reflections in the torchlight is the only reality of life, because they either never knew or have forgotten the sun and how the world looks by day.  We in America are chained in our caves by lack of due process in court, lack of full debate on important aspects of our lives, such as WHERE and HOW we live.  The judicial courts need to be a radiant source of light for all people to see evidence and theories concerning what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false, especially in the economy, especially in regard to the essential elements of life, such as food and shelter.

Beth Din/Beit Din, Sharia Law in the Western World, and American Tribal Courts

Sometimes it is truly appalling to me how little I, or most people I know, really know about the country we live in or how people other than our immediate acquaintances actually carry on their social and cultural traditions.  For example, just this week I discovered and learned that there are active Jewish Courts in the United States and the UK called “Beth Din” or “Beit Din”.  These are exclusively Jewish Courts that grant divorces, settle contract disputes, and answer questions of ethnic identity according to Jewish Law.  I think everyone should know about Beth Din and perhaps imitate and emulate their good example of setting up courts of consensual jurisdiction to maintain and reaffirm ethnic identity:

http://www.bethdin.org/docs/PDF2-Rules_and_Procedures.pdf http://joi.org/qa/conv_rec.shtml

I find the concept of Courts of Ethnic Identity and cultural heritage preservation exciting, refreshing, and worth of emulation.

In my work since May 2008 with Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson in Florida, see e.g. 07-02-10_Appellant’s Opening Brief_KAGL_2nd and April 13 2010 KAGAL Rule 59(e) Motion for REVOCATION OF REMAND.doc- Kathy’s draft, we worked hard to try to develop a coherent theory of how constitutional civil rights, including free exercise and self-determination, moral and religious integrity, and a single-result-driven judicial system could coexist.  We opted for challenging the single-result-driven judicial system (the single result in question being that ALL petitions for divorce MUST end in dissolution and splitting the nuclear family, and that within that framework, MAXIMUM division and redistribution of wealth was a desirable end, although one with slightly more flexibility in the shape and contours of outcome than the no fault divorce final solution to the curse of family life and commitment).

One topic Kathy and I briefly discussed but never achieved any coherence on was the idea that a Catholic marriage should be governed by Catholic rules regarding separation, annulment, and divorce, and that all Churches which sanctify marriage should bear independent and inalienable responsibility to judge, regulate, and if necessary supervise dissolution their creations.

All we concluded by way of constitutional argument in this direction was that the modern American Secular Humanist State should NOT substitute its OWN judgment and impose its OWN solution for ALL marriages, however created.  We were aware that Catholic Canonical Law had traditionally governed the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of Catholic marriages (e.g. through a series of Church laws of long-standing modified or interpreted by Papal Encyclicals such as De Castī Connūbiī (Latin: “of chaste wedlock”) published in 1930 by Pope Pius XI, but it appeared that the Catholic Church had long since abandoned or abrogated its role in the “real world” regulation of marriage.

As an Episcopalian/heir of the Church of England, I was aware that the Church of England for a long time had governed and decided matters relating to marriage, baptism, legitimacy, and succession (inheritance) in England and even the American colonies.  Ecclesiastical Courts had exclusive jurisdiction over Anglo-American divorce until 1670, and after that the House of Lords (which included “Lords Spiritual” as well as “Lords Temporal” and until the past couple of years functioned as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) shared ultimate jurisdiction to grant divorces in an ever widening circle of cases.  In the United States (first as English Colonies and then Independent), these functions were gradually transferred to secular authorities, with the creation of completely non-ecclesiastical divorce courts in England in 1857.  Some propose that modern “free” divorce originated in Holland (and the Dutch Colony of New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island), and this fact MAY be related to the fact that the Netherlands was a refuge for Spanish Jews fleeing the Inquisition—which after 1492 had abolished all traces of Independent Jewish or Moorish/Islamic cultural traditions in the Combined Kingdoms of Castile & Aragon.

But now, there are proposals both in England and elsewhere in Europe that Islamic/Sharia law could and should co-exist with English Common Law or European Civil Law.  Such an innovation would decidedly BREAK the monopoly of the state on the administration of marriage and divorce laws.

While neither Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson nor I are much in favor of the hopelessly misogynistic Islamic laws regarding the status and control of women, any crack in the monolithic block by which the State has supplanted ALL Churches in the administration of marriage and family life is at least facially consistent with our proposals.

I for my part have long maintained that marriage and the construction of the family and its internal organization and the transmission of ideology from parent-to-child, from one-generation to another, lies at the very heart of First Amendment and Ninth Amendment rights protected by the Constitution, so that NO state-licensing of marriage or administration of divorce should EVER be allowed.  Individuals should be free to make their own moral and religious choices. PERIOD, with no qualifications aside from direct violations of criminal law (i.e. no religion in a civilized society can authorize systematic murder or theft [e.g. Aztec human sacrifice or cultic "thuggee" practices]).  I would go so far as to say that questions such as “gay marriage” and “polygamy” are also questions of religious freedom so that Unitarians could preside over gay marriage and Mormons could reinstitute polygamy, although both practices have, in recent historical memory, been classified as criminal.

The ethnic diversity of the United States is now such that Mexican customs such as “rapto”.  As Reported in the National Examiner on April 24, 2010: “The crime of kidnapping a woman for the purpose of marriage against her will, often raping her in the process, or “rapto,” as it is known in Mexico, is actually considered by Mexican authorities to be a minor crime and rarely prosecuted. A Mexican legislator has even called the practice “romantic.”  Along with a tidal wave of illegal aliens, this medieval practice has now made its way to the U.S.“ http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/illegal-aliens-now-committing-rapto-the-united-states

I first encountered “rapto“, ironically enough, in 1999 while researching Mexican Domestic Relations law regarding the question of relative and absolute nullity of certain marriages under Mexican Law.  A marvelous Mexican Judge J. Apolonio Betancourt Ruiz of Durango, Durango, who just happens to share my birthdate (April 10) and exact age, helped me through this morass of Mexican jurisprudence (“Judicial Theses” as court opinions of binding precedent are called in Mexican law) and gave me “rapto” as the perfect example of a “relative nullity” in Mexican Martial law which is curable and by no means absolute: a girl captured and kidnapped by “rapto” must be set free after a certain time, and given the choice whether to stay or go.  If she chooses to stay with her captor, then the “relative nullity” of a marriage by “rapto” is cured and the marriage so initiated becomes absolutely valid, whether or not formalized by a civil or religious ceremony, and may be entered on the “registro civil” subject to the same laws of support and separation as any other Mexican Civil Law marriage.  So I ask, should Hispanic sectors of Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Houston be allowed to have their own local courts of voluntary jurisdiction in which “rapto” will be judged and evaluated by Mexican laws and traditions?

Because indeed, this is a modern problem but “Mediaeval” (as used in the National Examiner above) is the proper word for “rapto”.   It is an ancient Indo-European custom well-remembered in such currently still-popular works as Richard Wagner’s “Der Ring des Niebelungen” (e.g.: the marriage of Hunding and Sieglinda was holy and sacred to Fricka in Die Walkure, while Gunther’s capture of Brunhilde with an amnesiac Siegfried’s help at least seemed morally acceptable to the Gibichungs in Goetterdaemerung.  And of course, kidnapping for the purpose of marriage lies both at the root of the most ancient and revered epics in Western European history and literature, namely the capture and kidnapping of Helen as the cause of the Trojan War in Homer’s Iliad, and ultimately, albeit indirectly, of Odysseus’ travels in the Odyssey, and as the foundation story of Rome (the Rape [here "Rape" meant "Rapto"] of the Sabine Women by Romulus’ inexplicably all-male cadre of Latins).   A kind of Rapto is even recognized in the Hebrew Bible, specifically Deuteronomy 21:

Marrying a Captive Woman

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”

I have no idea whether the Beth Din/Beit Din Courts of the modern Jewish “Diaspora” recognize such rules of “rapto” for modern warfare.  The question inevitably will be raised whether the 72 virgins allegedly to be awarded to heroic Islamic warriors who die during the Jihad, which category of heroes apparently includes some called and criminally stigmatized by some narrow-minded Westerners as “terrorists”, are voluntarily placed at the service of the fallen or whether they too are collected by an Islamic version of “rapto.”

Should cultural differences like the legal treatment of “rape” vs. “rapto” in Latin vs. Anglo-American culture be allowed and tolerated in the name of diversity?   The example of the Jewish Beth Din/Beit Din Courts strongly suggests that in a pluralistic society, parallel court systems can be a refuge for both freedom and order, in that individuals could choose their social peers and “lifestyles”, but each element of diversity (Jewish, Islamic, Mexican, whatever) would still have its own norms and values and rules of internal conformity.  Whether different legal traditions can coexist within a single country is a challenge to the concept of “nationalism” of course, but THE TRUE TOLERANCE OF DIVERSITY CAN ONLY EXIST WITH THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL ENFORCEMENT OF AT LEAST SOME DEGREE OF SEGREGATION.

There must be separate communities.  It is inconceivable that diversity could be construed to mean, in the United States for example, that Jewish girls could lawfully be kidnapped according to traditions of “Rapto” by Mexican suitors, and that both cultural traditions would be treated equally by the American Secular Courts.  But this is much like the result of “one marital law fits all” that the Secular Humanist State (Federal and State Governments) seeks to impose by saying that neither the state nor any church should prevent or prohibit gay marriage.  So, could diversity be construed to mean in America that the state will back out of marriage and domestic life all together, but will serve to maintain a pluralistic order based on a criminal law which is “tweaked” or modified in different areas to serve different local communities?  Obviously, this would mean that certain forms of maiming and torture would be permitted and not criminally penalized in those areas where Sharia law was allowed to predominate, but it is only fair that people who “opt into” Sharia law can only do so for themselves and their children, and not for anyone else’s.

Another strange but troubling corner where the boundary between criminal law and religious freedom has emerged is animal sacrifice in relationship both to Islamic practice and “witchcraft.”   Voodoo sacrifice of chickens may seem like a minor issue, but larger sacrificial animals present a greater SPCA concern.

Way back in the 1970s when I was an undergraduate in what was then and probably still is the most culturally pluralistic city of the Old South, I recall a controversial incident in the married student housing at Tulane University in New Orleans where some Saudi Arabian Muslims had occasion to sacrifice a goat and then dispose of the remains.  Witchcraft was once criminally penalized everywhere, but it is now popularized in movies and television and every aspect of “popular culture.”

A couple of years ago, in 2007, I had occasion to inquire about the status of belief in occult and paranormal practices in my own Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, in Austin, Texas.  I went to the rector of the beautiful St. Luke’s-on-the-Lake and asked him how the modern Church resolved such questions and his reaction was distinctly non-modern-sounding but very interesting.  ”Father Mike” told me that in the case of serious allegations of witchcraft or demonic possession, he was required by Church law to inform the Bishop of Texas (seated in Houston) who would then be required to call a special “Court of Inquisition” to evaluate the situation.  Well, “Courts of Inquisition” sound kind of ominous and archaic—but why should they?  The Continental Courts of Europe under the Civil Law operate mostly as “Courts of Inquisition” in the sense that the continental judges engage actively in fact finding (i.e. “inquiry”) rather than leaving the assembly of facts and legal arguments entirely up to the adversaries/litigants in each case, whether civil or criminal.   Why should not more “Religious Courts of Inquiry” exist to investigate the moral demeanor or conformity of their members?   No one in a free society would ever be compelled to join a Church, but if they choose to do so, why should a Church not be empowered to enforce its own norms?

It is well known, as of October 7, 2010, that the attractive young woman who happens to be a Republican Candidate for Governor of Delaware once admitted on television to having dabbled in Satanic Witchcraft.  The reaction to this news in our supposedly pluralistic, diversity-admiring society is puzzling.  No one congratulates or praises this candidate for having explored religious or philosophical options, to obtain a wider perspective on the human experience.  But neither does anyone really condemn her.  I have heard no serious invocations of Leviticus, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” from any quarters—and after all, Christy O’Donnell is ad most a FORMER witch…. but would life be better or worse if there were standing “Religious Courts of Inquiry” which had the informational resources to investigate her actions and involvement?   I wonder whether the modern Eur-American Jewish Beth Din/Beit Din has the power to investigate a modern “Witch of Endor” or similar experiments in necromancy.

Freedom and Individual choice are maximized where power is diffused among the largest possible number of interest groups and institutions, both governmental and non-governmental, and the competition of such groups may well maximize both freedom and responsibility by “cultural selection” analogous to “natural selection” in the theory of evolution.

Why should there NOT be English Courts for English people?  Why should Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, Rastafarians, and Atheists not all set up Courts to maintain the differences that make us who we are?  There USED to be ecclesiastical courts in England which handled questions of divorce, legitimacy, and succession?  Were the English people worse off for them?  I think not.  Obviously Jewish people appreciate the value of maintaining their heritage and ethnic identity, and so no matter how mixed up the rest of us get, there will always be at least this much diversity: Jews and Non-Jews.  Will all the rest of us be under Sharia Law?  I rather hope not—I suggest we work hard to maintain TRUE diversity inherent in our distinct and separate Anglo-American, German, Irish, French, Italian, Greek, Danish, Dutch, Polish, and Russian heritages…..

As I have repeatedly pontificated, the only way to maintain true diversity is by maintaining separation between groups.  Integration—the “shake and bake” society of Hamburger Helper and Scrambled Egg culture and politics that paved the way to the Obama Presidency OBLITERATES all the unique and distinctive features of different cultures.  IT IS APPALLINGLY ILLOGICAL to say on the one hand that “diversity is vital” and at the same time insist that everyone accept everyone else’s values and ways of behavior and “compromise” whenever there are disputes or conflicts as a result.  For example, either we accept Sharia law or we maintain our own traditions of common law under the constitution.  It is hard to see how the United States or United Kingdom or anywhere else could allow BOTH traditions to co-exist UNLESS there is absolute social segregation between the adherents of the Anglo-American tradition on the one hand and the Islamic tradition on the other.  The Jews would appear to have taken steps to segregate themselves from other socio-cultural traditions in the Anglo-American world, and perhaps their success is worthy of praise and “imitation as the sincerest form of flattery.”

Pluralistic Courts for a Pluralistic society would definitely preserve genuine cultural diversity by allowing individual ethnic groups to maintain their own laws, traditions, and value systems.

This was, perhaps, the original purpose of the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, and of “States’ Rights” generally, and the continuing purpose of allowing Native American (“Indian”) Tribal Courts under Title 25 of the United States Code.  One of the appalling aspects of marital and domestic relations law today is how the Federal Government has been commanding, co-opting and coercing local compliance with national norms and goals of individual alienation, family disintegration, and wealth redistribution, so that there is almost NO real diversity between the domestic and marital laws of the states or even of the Indian Tribes protected by Title 25.

The Federal Government, largely through its exercise of power under the rubric of “Public Health and Welfare” has instituted and enforced mandatory interstate covenants and norms of cooperation on child custody, parental rights to visitation and obligations of support, and of barriers to and limitations on travel and residence. The upshot of the modern “homogenizing” domestic relations laws is that no one can escape from anyone, ever, and yet no one has to stay with anyone, ever.  The family based on moral or religious commitment and “love” is by legislative fiat enforcing secular-humanist government-sponsored socio-cultural norms as dead as a doornail, at the same that welfare–wealth redistribution by equal if seemingly inconsistent governmental-regulatory command and control systems are becoming increasingly inescapable.  Individual choice, individual decisions, even free will to be “good” or “evil”: “responsible”, or “irresponsible” is being slowly but surely abolished in the Brave New World of “Corporate Regulatory Socialism” in which the soul is dead or at least anesthetized at the same time that accumulation of worldly goods is constantly penalized and prevented—except as to the government, which increasingly controls all property and worldly wealth, and punishes even the mention of the soul or supernatural.

Historically, it was (and remains) logical that French-Acadians in Louisiana should have a different legal tradition from English-Puritans of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and that these English-Puritans should have different tradition from the “Cavalier” Anglo-Elites of Tidewater Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, which in turn would differ from the Hill Country and “Backwoods” cultures of Western Virginia & North Carolina on into Kentucky & Tennessee.

Why is the Federal Government’s Public Health & Welfare Policy enshrined in Title 42 wiping out ALL local variations in Family and Domestic Relations laws?  Why is “homogeneity” and behavior conformity consistently enforced in a society constantly proclaiming the value of “diversity”?

There is no rational answer, and frankly, it should stop.  Autonomy and self-governance should be returned to the States, the Indian Tribes, and all Ethnic Groups which wish to maintain their own traditional values and integrity by maintenance of their own separate customs and legal traditions.  The safety value, the protection for diversity has to be separation, and a return to segregation of groups where all traditions really are “separate but equal.”

Biological diversity is the raw material upon which all physical evolution acts, and cultural diversity provides the elements which shape cultural evolution.  In that the future is unforeseeable, all or at least MOST traditions deserve a fair chance, an equal opportunity to survive.

I think we can all agree and allow that Aztec style-mass human sacrifice and Hindu Thuggee practices really have NO promising future in the world AT ALL—these traditions and all which involve human slaughter can safely be cast upon the rubbish heap of history.  But with regard to related questions such as abortion or rapto, perhaps state-by-state, tribe-by-tribe, religion-by-religion diversity should be allowed.

“Rapto” has a long tradition in European (and other) traditions of the world.  But so does death by stoning for adulterers (as made famous recently in the Islamic Republic of Iran).   My point is simply that we cannot have it ALL ways: we cannot value both freedom to follow your heart and “core” traditions AND try to celebrate diversity through homogenization.  These things are just hopelessly contradictory.

The existence of Jewish Beth Din/Beit Din courts as courts of voluntary jurisdiction seems to me to offer a model upon which the rest of American and European Society can build in the process of accommodating and reinforcing real cultural diversity: take the state out of private life, and make the state a guardian only of boundaries, so that one group does not oppress another, even while each group sets its own distinctive standards for what constitutes oppression and what constitutes freedom.

Geography of Economic Decline—Equally Divided between the Bush & Obama years

http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geographyofarecession.htmlIf you weren’t scared about the national economic decline until today—watch the light in the United States “go out” as county-by-county reaches more than 10% unemployment in a steady sinking progression month-by-month as the Unemployment rates increase nationwide.  The government and Wall Street gamblers cannot cook the books or recalculate the categories of what it means to be “employed” and “unemployed” fast enough.  The Decline started immediately after the “midterm elections” in W’s second inglorious term, but it didn’t become a catastrophic depression until Obama was facing his own midterm debacle—-which just can’t come soon enough or be anywhere nearly sufficiently radical really to change anything.  Obama is just a “burnt toast” colored version of George W. Bush.  Obama is no friend of the poor, the common man, or of the disadvantaged, never mind of the middle class or anyone interested in being genuinely productive.  Obama is just George W. Bush’s effectively logical, and quite possibly hand-picked, successor-in-socialism assigned with the task of sinking the United States faster than the Titanic on that infamous day in April 1912, just shy of a hundred years ago.

http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geographyofarecession.html

Nina Hagen’s Ave Maria, Nana Mouskouri, and Lilli Marlene….and thoughts on the soul and spirit just a few weeks before “All Hallows” Night and the Feast of All Saints

Late at night (actually early in the morning) on Columbus Day 2010 and though I am too feverish to work, I find I cannot sleep and want to listen to words I have not heard in many moons.  Two of the most enchanting female voices to emerge from popular culture in modern continental Europe are Nina Hagen and Nana Mouskouri.  I listened no fewer than five times to Nina Hagen’s versions of Ave Maria (best reproduced at: #mce_temp_url#
v=Tex1zD9Kq9s&feature=related

Bringing Greek-Born Nana Mouskouri and German Nina Hagen together to remember Marlene Dietrich is a complex thought that transcends the nature and identity of das ewig weibliche over past 80 years like the amazing conversations of my youth that I never get to have anymore with my late grandmother Helen and my mother Alice….  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tZJnFGs3tE&feature=related

Their combined personalities and heavenly voices reminded me of the question I asked of Canon Noble Owings from whom I took my pre-confirmation classes at St. Thomas-the-Apostle in Hollywood, back a long-long time ago, in a galaxy far away: “Is the soul male or female?”  Linguistically, “La Alma” and “Die Selle” are feminine, in Spanish and German at least, but “El Espirito” and “Der Geist” are masculine.   I stopped at St. Thomas the other day and it is still a beautiful Church, though Hollywood seems off the beaten path these days.   My son Charlie (Freshman at St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland) had written me a letter asking me about my views concerning the soul to which I responded exactly one month ago today (and it seems more appropriate to publish this now that we’re approach “All Saints Day”, “All Souls Day” and of course “All Hallows Eve” (Which three days were effectively Celtic New Year’s Day aka Samhain):

Sent: Sun, 12 September, 2010 2:03:08

Subject: Re: Questions I need answered from my Parents

Dear Charlie:

I am finally getting around to writing an answer to your query on Thursday night about souls and essences.  I wonder whether you still need to talk about the soul—you haven’t mentioned this project again.  It is almost midnight on September 11, going into September 12, 2010: it is exactly 11:57:57p.m. as I start to write this.  It will soon be “the witching hour” of midnight.

My views are this: the “soul” is the some total of all those unique characteristics of our existence that make us human, or that make humans distinctive.  So for me, “the soul” = “human essence”, at the very least, but that is much too simple, both linguistically and philosophically.

In my “signature line” on this account I have the “signature statement” of a famous incarnation of “the Devil”, the “soul or essence of evil”, the character “Mephistopheles” in Goethe’s Faust, who has been one of my favorite characters in all of drama and literature since I was about 9 or 10.  Right after Robin Hood. Right after Batman. Right after Paladin.  In my “signature line” on the other rocketmail account, it says, “May God be with you and with thy Spirit”—that is the “Peace” exchanged at Church, in the language of the Old Episcopal (Church of England) Book of Common Prayer (the same language that dates back to the birth of the Church in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I—whose Parliament first authorized a single “Book of Common Prayer”). So it seems that the concept of spirit, soul, or essence must be important to my own psychology.

But what do these words mean to me?

“Spirit” derives, as I always point out, from Latin “spirare” which means “to breathe.” From this word we get so many words (perspire, expire, respirator, etc.) but also one of my favorites, among the most tortured words in the English language: to conspire, to make (or enter into) a conspiracy.  ”Con” derives from Latin “cum” and the Spanish “con” means the same thing, namely “with.”  So, “to conspire” is for two people to “breathe together.”  So it can truthfully be said that all social behavior, all social action, is the result of or concomitant with “conspiracy.”  And yet “conspiracy theorists” have such a bad reputation.  In essence, every contract, including an agreement to marry or have children, is a true “conspiracy.”  I repeat: all SOCIAL action is conspiracy, all POLITICAL action, all economic or religious action performed by more than one person acting in concert with another.

But is a “spirit” uniquely human?  That is to say, is social behavior uniquely human?  No, it is merely uniquely “mammalian” to describe social behavior as “breathing together.”  Wolves and their prey (deer, elk, etc.) are all social animals who live and move, “breathing together.”  Coatimundis and raccoons to greater or lesser degrees are all social animals, as are almost every species of our nearest relatives, the non-human primates, but especially the most humanoid of all the apes: the Chimpanzees and among them most particularly the Bonobos or “pygmy Chimps”, whose rowdy, sexually promiscuous lives are said to be the non-human creatures most like “primitive” or ancestral (fossil) men.

Even as to the notion of “spirit” or “soul” as equivalent to emotion, no one who has ever looked into a non-human mammals eyes will doubt the reality of non-human spirit and emotion—and hence soul?  Dogs do not lick us and ask for pats or scratches behind the ear for merely physical reasons: it is perfectly obvious that animals both breathe together socially and have spirits—animals like wolves also hunt stealthily together, “conspiring” together in all the most sinister senses of the word “conspiracy” in our language to take the lives of other creatures—to make plans and develop techniques to use deer, sheep, goats, cattle, elk, or caribou—to use them for food (“in a callous and premeditated manner, i.e. with malice aforethought).  Group hunting among social carnivores cannot be seen as merely the result of genetic instinct.

Outside the mammalian range, the movie “March of the Penguins” has a scene where a parent bird cries over its lost chick who collapsed into the snow.  The narrator comments, and the viewer cannot doubt, that this bird is expressing sadness and loss in the most soulful manner—so do birds too have spirits or souls?

Among ancient peoples, from the Aztec and Maya to the Proto-Indo-Europeans, there is strong linguistic and semiotic evidence that birds were considered to be the souls of the departed among humans.  It is hard not to see a relic of such symbolism in Edgar Allen Poe’s Raven “Only this and nothing more….Quoth the Raven, Nevermore.”  Poe’s “Raven” may ultimately be derived from his Anglo-Saxon background and a faint “racial” memory of Wotan/Odin/Weden—the one-eyed God of the Germanic people’s—identified with the Planet “Mercury” whose bird was the Raven (And even Greek Mercury’s Helmet was Wings—and is associated with Prometheus, whose punishment by birds is also indicative of eternal life after death being “for the birds”—see J.W. Goethe’s Prometheus, also).  Wotan’s castle was Valhalla, the Hall of the Worthy Dead, where the birdlike Valkyrie took the souls of the heroes (“helden“) slain on the battlefield.  The association of birds with souls may have something to do with the physical observation of birds as scavengers of the dead, and the notion that you “are what you eat.”  (I.e.: birds eat the dead and hence become one with the dead).

But the association of birds and the spirits of the ordinary dead from human society appears more plainly explicit in Dante’s Second Ring of Hell, where the souls of lovers lost to lust are blown by the winds, living eternally as birds tossed about by the wind (Canto 5).

Birds at the crossroads were seen as ghosts in purgatory (restless souls whose final destination was unsure) in both Aztec and Babylonian demonology, and they walk alongside the monsters of the cross-roads, who are (again both in Mesoamerica and Mesopotamia) mythologically associated with the 584 day spiraling heliacal ascension and descent of the planet Venus.

So there are so many concepts of the soul and spirit and “essence” of humanity which cannot and do not and will not match—as many words for “soul” almost, in Western languages alone, as for “money”—or as (famously) for “snow” among the Esquimaux of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland.

Now, as you certainly recall, we spent a long time watching Buffy and Angel all through different phases of your childhood, and during the years of our separation, I spent a lot of time at Buffy Conferences in Nashville, Atlanta, and Greensboro, North Carolina.  Part of my fascination with Whedon’s work has to do with his conception (and depiction) of the “soul” as conscious reflection—”guilt” on the one hand, but “sense of worth” and “value” on the other.  I think that Whedon’s conception is actually the quintessentially “English”, especially “Episcopalian/Church of England” notion of the soul, and it is one reason why I have questioned Joss Whedon (even to his face) whether he is really an atheist or not.  His understanding and representation of the soul, and of the differentiation between “soulful” and “soulless” beings is (to me at least) so rich and so complex that it defies imagination that he could not believe in the soul—and if he believes in the soul, how could he not then believe in God (and his opposite number) also?

I have been writing now for almost an hour and I feel like I have “only begun to write” about the topic of soul and essence, but I am tired.  If you want more, I’ll continue later.  I’ll also bounce the idea around to Freiman and some other folks, maybe ask someone at All Saints tomorrow (later today) what they think.

Parsing the Song of Mary—an idiosyncratic childhood memory of mine:

One of my earliest and sweetest childhood memories of my mother, so often (and much more consistently) a terribly ambiguous person in my life, teaching me to memorize the “Magnificat” when I was four or five before I hardly knew any other prayers—she said that once I understood how Mary was the mother of Jesus, I would understand Salvation and open the door to everlasting life.

My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in the strength of my Salvation.

“For He hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden, yet behold from henceforth: all generations shall call me blessed. For in His might He hath exalted me, and Holy is His name. He sheweth His mercy to all that fear Him, from generation to generation, and by the strength of His arm He hath shattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. And He hath put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted them of mean estate.  He hath filled the hungry with good things, while the rich he hath sent empty away.  And He hath holpen His servant Israel, remembering always His mercy, as He spake to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed forever.”

My mother outlined it for me with the highlighted “s” words of the first sentence and all of the “m” words, plus that critical phrase, “in the imagination of their hearts”.  I remember it now thinking, wondering, what is the English language distinction between “soul” and “spirit” in this “Little Song of Mary”? (“Canticle of Mary”, “Le Chanson de Marie“).

I don’t know whether to use + or = as a connecting sign here, but using my mother’s system of parsing the poetry, for whatever it’s worth, even if it was just something she made up to teach me—it has stuck with me for over 45 years now—and the sentences seem to be broken down this way, at least in English, and it would be interesting for you to try to do this with the Greek….

“My soul” = “magnify” = “my spirit” = “strength” = “my salvation.”

“me” = “might” = “me” = “name”.

“mercy” = “Him” = “arm” = “in the imagination of their hearts.”

“mighty” = “them of mean estate” = “empty”

“remembering” = “mercy” = “Abraham”

So that first sentence seems to give us a notion of spirit and soul equating with “magnification”, “strength” and “salvation.”

Yes, it’s hard to believe that this is the same mother of mine….. who has voluntarily been absent from your life and mine…. for a very long time now.   She regularly took me down (like Christopher Robin) to see the guard changing at Buckingham Palace, but also to know St. James and Westminster and the Tower of London and the Houses of Parliament.  She showed me Big Ben, India House, South Africa and Canada Houses on Trafalgar Square, and introduced me to maps and atlases (showed me how to identify the ever shrinking number of “Pink Bits” even while Aunt Mildred was in Rhodesia giving aid & comfort to Ian Smith) and taught me at an early age how to compare one text of the same story to another, and in so doing gave me all my early Robin Hood books and songs…. and taught me so well that at age 5 (she said) I was already able to comment on what appeared to be historical and mythological in the tales of Sherwood forest…. So her contribution to my soul was not to be underestimated…

Oh well, anyhow—as Sunnydale’s Mayor Wilkins said, “a soul is as slippery as a greased weasel”—and you’ll remember enough about ferrets in New Orleans to realize that a greased weasel would be slippery indeed….but also very flexible and fun and playful….and capable of biting…..but do you remember how bright their little eyes are, and could you ever doubt that ferrets’ breath is just as much “spirit” as ours?

And do you, by any chance, remember when your very ancient Greek great-grandmother died, how someone there, because you were so young, asked you whether you understood what had happened: that “the breath has left her?”

Which brings up a whole new line of thoughts about soul, spirit, and essence—the Greek words (in a Dumezilian trifunctional set) Pneuma, Psyche, and Soma….”Breath, Soul (Heart?), and Body.” Greek words in a Dumezilian/Indo-European triad, except not so terribly Indo-European because the Yucatec Maya poetically use the same triad: Ik, Olal, Bak (Spirit = Wind; Olal = Heart/essence/core; Bak = “meat/bone/body”).  I have often thought that the Greek/Indo-European Pneuma, psyche, and soma were simply recycled by Sigmund Freud as “Super-Ego”, “Ego”, and “Id.”  Certainly Spirit, Heart, and Body correspond with the top three of the Ancient Vedic Castes: Brahmans, Ksatrya, and Vaisya, as well as with Roman Sacerdotes, Equites/Milites, and Plebs (Priests, Cavalry/Soldiers/Warriors, and Commoners), the French Ancien Regime’s “First Estate = Priesthood”, “Second Estate = Nobility”, “Third Estate = Bourgeois” (these were the houses of “Parliament” in pre-Revolutionary France—the House of Lords in England combined both “Lords Temporal” and “Lords Spiritual” of the first two Dumezilian functions), and the Natchez Indians (as recorded by the French in Early 18th Century Louisiana and Mississippi) three exogamous noble classes of “Suns”, “Serpents”, and “Honored People” (below whom were “Les Puants” or “the Stinkards”—compare the Hindu/Vedic “Untouchables”).  Even the American Constitution preserves (enshrines) this trifunctional trichotomy by setting up a three-part government divided between a Congress (which deals with taxation & public welfare and represents the “body” of the people), a Presidency which commands the army—-whose first occupant (under the 1787 Constitution, anyhow) was called “First in War, First in Peace, and First in the HEARTS of his Countrymen”), and a Judiciary which is the heir of the Sacred Kingship and Priesthood of Ancient Indo-European Society and whose “judicial” role of decisionmaking really does closely resemble, both in actual function and procedure, the “magical mumblings” of ancient Shamans and priests—and I do not even really mean this as a criticism—it’s just that sometimes it takes a certain “magic” to resolve the disputes which arise in society, even under the best of circumstances—and this is what GOOD judges endeavor to do, just like the first “Judges” of the Israelites whom Moses appointed to settle the disputes of the dozen (or more) original tribes…..

I can tell I’m getting incoherent and rambling here, so I’ll just mention one more thought:  While you were still “en ventre ta mere”your mother showed her mother (your Greek grandmother Nina) her colour sonograms from St. Joseph’s Hospital at 2900 North Lake Shore Drive (St. Joseph’s was right between Diversey and North Commonwealth, directly across the street from where we used to live—and where you began life’s journey….right at the north end of Chicago’s Lincoln Park and right by Diversey Harbor) and your mother looked at the picture of your heart and described you as “psychula” for the very first time: a tiny soul/heart.

It would perhaps be unpoetic to end up with the thought that, as your great-grandfather used to recite from his bachelor’s thesis on the topic of “ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny”—that that notion of life too, of the beating heart, is also shared between humans and animals….even little ferrets…..

And now I have been writing for two hours, because it’s 1:57:17 AM as I quit writing.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com

In case of emergency call Peyton Yates Freiman (Texas)

at 512-461-8192 or by e-mail at freimanthird@gmail.com

How exactly did the Patriot Act Outlaw Sudafed? Our Racketeering Government knows no boundaries or limits to its corruption

All Laws Have Teeth

Mises Daily: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 by ; http://mises.org/daily/4775

It’s been five years since the feds took aim at nasal decongestant. Under George Bush, a normal part of everyday civilized life became a criminal act, namely the over-the-counter purchase of Sudafed and many other products containing pseudoephedrine. You can get it now, but it is seriously rationed. You have to present your driver’s license and no one without one may purchase it. The limits on quantities you are permitted to purchase fall far below the recommended dosage, and buyers rarely know when they are buying too much.

The rationing and criminalization of this product appeared as part of the Patriot Act. The replacement drug phenylephrine is far less effective on noses but more effective in Washington: the company that makes it, Boehringer Ingelheim, spent $1.6 million lobbying Washington in 2006 (the latest data) and the same amount the year before. The makers of the drug everyone actually wants are diffuse and spread all over China. Pseudoephedrine was targeted in the name of the drug war because apparently you can use it to make methamphetamine. Since the near ban, there are indications that production of the drug has gone up, mostly due to smuggling in Mexico. Even a quick google demonstrates that the gray market is thriving.

I’ve written with sympathy toward those who have been caught in the legal tangles; many buyers are not actually doing anything wrong. Anyone who attempts to buy it is treated like a criminal and one never knows for sure when one is buying more than the legal limit. In several cases I’ve highlighted, people have bought without the intent to manufacture drugs but were ensnared in any case. In other cases, people have been asked to buy for friends who may or may not have been plotting to make meth. Still other cases involve shady figures with criminal records and suspicious associations who are thereby discredited and hounded by police and judges.

In my view, every person who is ensnared deserves to be defended. Their rights are being violated. One lady in my own community faces 20 years in jail solely for buying 4 boxes in a 12-day period. News reports suggest that she is a bad person for many other reasons, and, for that reason, there has been little public sympathy for her — in the same way that people under alcohol prohibition were snagged on alcohol grounds even though the motivation for getting them was different (could be taxes or something else).

Something as serious as laws and jails should be used for punishment of those who infringe on person and property, not for self-medicating. If this lady is bad, she should be punished for things she did wrong, not for some trumped-up reason.

In any case, as with all stupid laws like this, the innocent are eventually harmed. It’s strange how most people are willing to give the police and the courts the benefit of the doubt, and pretend as if the system somehow knows something that we do not know. Anyone hauled off to jail probably deserved what is coming to him, even if we don’t know the specifics. People should do a better job at staying out of harm’s way, of being beyond reproach. Don’t play with fire and you won’t get burned — this is how people tend to think of these cases.

They are blaming the victim. Somehow I suspect that the same sentiments were pervasive even in the worst totalitarian states. By the time people wake up to the reality that the law and the law enforcers are the problem, it is too late.

Just this morning the following email arrived:

In doing some internet research, I came across your article “Free the Clogged Nose-25” and I want to thank you for showing me that I’m no where near alone in my way of thinking and that the current situation that my husband and I find ourselves in is most certainly not uncommon. You see, we have 3 teenage children still living at home. In April of this year, their ages were 17, 16 and 15. Both my husband and I, along with our 3 teenagers suffer from terrible seasonal allergies and we have tried every over the counter medicine available as well as a few prescription meds. The only one that offers us any relief is Sudafed or the generic equivalent.

So, as you already know, my husband and I are the only ones in our family who can buy Sudafed. I will and have been the first to admit that in order to keep enough of the medicine for all of us, both my husband and I made purchases from more than one drug store. I knew we were exceeding our allotted amount but I also knew that the code of Alabama stated that purchasing over the allowed 6 grams per month was only unlawful “with intent to manufacture.” So, since we had no intent to manufacture anything, I didn’t see it as we were breaking the law.

In March of this year, local news media released word that a law was passed that would create a statewide database for all businesses selling pseudoephedrine so that customers could not bypass the limit by going from one pharmacy to another. That was the extent of the press release related to that new law. About the middle of May, my husband and I learned the hard way that they had conveniently left out a very important part of that new law when announcing it to the public. Apparently, “with intent to manufacture” had been dropped from the Alabama law regarding pseudoephedrine purchases. I’m sure you can easily guess the rest of the story. He and I were arrested for “buy/sale precursor chemicals” which on the first offense is a Class C Misdemeanor. My husband is a USMC veteran so he has a criminal record (bar fights, etc.) but never any drug charges. I have never had so much as a speeding ticket and I’m a criminal justice major in college.

Even after explaining the situation to the judge and pointing out that we are law-abiding citizens just trying to offer some comfort to our kids during allergy season, the judge still found us guilty. We have appealed that decision and will go back to court in December. We cannot hope to beat this with just the truth because obviously the truth doesn’t matter, so I am going to pray that “mistake of law” will get us a not-guilty verdict this time around … or I’m going to have to find a new major!

At the time we were arrested, our oldest daughter (not living at home) was a 4.0 GPA college student majoring in forensic investigation, our middle daughter was just days away from graduating historian of her high-school senior class after already having lettered in softball and volleyball and serving as secretary in the Beta club, our youngest daughter was finishing her 10th-grade year and an A–B student who had just days before made the color guard drill team for the fall, and our son was finishing his 8th grade year, an A–B student and hard working Junior Varsity and Varsity football player. We are very very proud of our kids and hate the fact that they have had to endure any negative associations that have come from our arrest. They are so resilient, though! They know that we weren’t actually doing anything wrong so they hold their heads up high and keep going.

As I suspected, these cases are not isolated. Thanks to Google News, we can learn of many such tragic cases. So far as we know, the majority of cases of arrest involve innocent people trying to unclog their noses. But even if only one in ten cases involve injustice, that is plenty of reason to repeal the law. I don’t favor laws against consuming or producing meth, but, if those laws are retained, then it’s the taking or making of meth that should be punished, not actions that merely seem vaguely associated with illegal activities.

In the end, this isn’t about drug use or production. It is about special interests. It is about the use of fear and coercion and the expansion of state power. It is about human rights and liberty. Should we care about these things? Yes, if we care about saving civilization from its enemy, the state.

Jeffrey Tucker is the editor of Mises.org and author of Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo. Send him mail. See Jeffrey A. Tucker’s article archives.

Comment on the blog.

 

The Three Faces of October 12 and all that follows: Thanksgiving & Remembrance, Epic Discovery, and Racial Origins

One way of looking at October 12 is that it celebrates beginnings, the “inception” of everything: October 12, 1492, Columbus’ arrival on Watling/San Salvador Island in the Bahamas was “inception” of the colonization and conquest of North and South America—the beginnings of the modern world, in short.  October 12 as “Thanksgiving Day” marks the end of summer and the inception of winter, as a bountiful harvest is taken into storage.  October 12 in the United States is basically the beginning of the series of Fall holidays that culminates with Christmas and New Years—there is some celebration of food and heritage, but mostly a mindless obsession with American Football.  October 12 in Mexico reflects back a bit to Columbus, but is really about the events of 29 years later, when Tenochtitlan & Tlatelolco, the greatest centers of Aztec Civilization, finally fell to Hernan Cortes and became the center of the Empire of the New Spain, as it happened this lasted for exactly 300 years, until August 1821 when the last Spanish Viceroy (as it happened, a liberal Irishman named Don Juan O’Donoju e O’Rian) surrendered Viceregal Power to Agustin Iturbide and a new albeit short-lived Mexican Empire.

In Canada, October 12, is called “Thanksgiving Day.”  I suppose historically it was actually modeled on or parallel to the American Thanksgiving because it is a harvest festival, celebrated (five-six weeks earlier owing to the shorter growing season at high latitutdes).  In rural areas like Fort MacLeod in Alberta (birthplace of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), which I once visited around this time of year, the majority population Anglo-Canadians celebrate by bringing pumpkins and squash and corn up to the Anglican (Church of England/Episcopal) Church altars on Sunday in rural small-town Churches whose walls commemorate with plaques the locally-born fallen heroes of Great Britain’s many wars in which Canadians served alongside millions of other good subjects of the Imperial Crown—while it was still imperial.   Canada hardly existed before Victoria became Empress of India and the country has observed fairly strict neutrality since George VI gave up the Crown of India, but still lost 500 men in Korea and 152 in Afghanistan, having entirely avoided involvement in Vietnam and only allowing “advisors” in Iraq.   But the profusion of poppies on November 11 and the crowded pews at the Cathedral of New Westminster confirm Canadian cultural memory and identity with the United Kingdom and her Wars of 1867-1947 in an incomparable manner: really, no cultural observance in the United States commemorates any historical event or matter of Anglo-American memory and identity the way that Canada celebrates the paired autumnal holidays October 12 and November 11 every year.  These holidays are genuinely meaningful to a large proportion of the Canadian people, and even in cosmopolitan hubs such as Vancouver, the crimson poppies are everywhere and Members of Parliament really do go make their rounds to local Churches to remember the heroes of a world which, for all practical purposes, has vanished. As a descendant of Anglo-Saxon society, I always find this season in Canada to be both emotionally satisfying and intellectually rewarding as food for memory and identity, but somewhat discouraging as it has so little to say about the future.

By contrast, Columbus Day in the United States is almost a bad joke.  Why yes, the same fall colors are used in store decorations as in Canada, and in fact, the banks and federal courts do all close, but the holiday is generally so completely forgotten that everyone goes to the banks regardless, having forgotten that it’s a holiday at all.  And any association between Columbus Day and Thanksgiving is lost far out of proportion to the days and weeks of difference between November 11 and the final Thursday in November.   And hardly anybody in the United States Remembers Veterans Day, November 11 at all…. No one wears poppies except for maybe a dozen or so British and Canadian tourists.  And recently, both Columbus Day and Thanksgiving have come under criticism in some bilious quarters for celebrating the extermination of the American Indian.  American amnesia and lack of identity is almost as complete on these days as is Canadian memory and identity.   It is, and has been throughout my life, a kind of embarrassment to belong to this American culture which possesses so little self-awareness, either of its history or its presence or its future.

So go south of the Rio Grande, south of Tucson, south of Calexico and San Diego, and we come to the third original member of NAFTA, the third country occupying the Continent of North America—the third component of some future “North American Union” which some folks believe was already agreed to, planned and is slowly being imposed by a secret agreement signed in Waco, Texas while no one else was looking.  Mexico’s October 12 is really a matter of governmental propaganda, ruling elite ideology, and has no deep-seated resonance in popular culture.  There is no “Thanksgiving” in Mexico, nor any Armistice Day or Veterans Day celebrated on November 11 because Mexico never really participated in either World War until the very last days when it was obvious which side was winning.  But the reverse side of the coin of the racial tensions underlying critical studies of Thanksgiving  and Columbus day in the US is celebrated in Mexico—where October 12 is “Dia de la Raza.”  Most folks from outside Mexico would have no idea what race this could possibly be: but it is the “Meztizo” Race.  Ironically there was a “Metis” race in Canada, a mixture of French and Indian—exactly analogous to (and at least on the French side partly homologous with) the Creoles, Acadians, or “Cajuns” in Louisiana, from whom I am at least in some part descended though my maternal grandmother Helen who raised me—but while the “Metis” had political importance for a while in the 19th century, in essence they were never sufficiently numerous really to shape the cultural heritage of North America north of the 49th parallel….

But the Mestizo Race of Mexico is in fact the majority race.   Pure white creoles (mostly of Spanish descent) can be found, amounting perhaps to 5%-10% of the population, generously defined, while in some areas culturally, linguistically, and racially isolated populations of Maya, Zapotec, Aztec (Nahuatl) and Mixtec peoples, heirs to the great pre-Hispanic civilizations of Mesoamerica, can still be found, but even in Yucatan and Chiapas, where the Maya population is strongest, the “pure” native American population nowhere exceeds 50% by more than a very few points.  In some quarters, the struggle to develop a cultural identity for the “Mestizo” Race of Mexico has been associated with the so-called Tlatelolco movement, which was brutally repressed by the (Creole, pure white) President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz in 1968 and his equally creole-white Secretary of the Interior Luis Echeverria Alvarez (who succeeded Diaz Ordaz as President in 1970, and later gained international fame for denouncing Israel as imperialist, Zionism as Racism, and permitting the Palestinian Liberation Organization to open a quasi-consular diplomatic mission in Mexico City).

The “suburb” or barrio of Tlatelolco was the last holdout of Aztec resistance to the Spanish Conquest in Mexico City in 1521.  The “race” celebrated by October 12 in Mexico, and enshrined in the Texas & California based Mexican-American political party called “La Raza Unida” (“Volkische Einheit”—”the United Race”), is the Meztizo Race, described as born at Tlatelolco in a commemorative plaque which is as much an intended rewriting of history as it could ever be considered true:

“On the 13th of August in 1521, heroically defended by [Last Aztec Emperor] Cuauhtemoc, Tlatelolco fell to the power of Hernan Cortes.   This was neither a triumph nor a defeat, but the painful birth of the Mixed Race which is the Mexico of Today.”

So in Canada, the days of October 12-November 11 each year are dedicated to nostalgic reminiscences of the glorious British Past.  In the United States, Columbus Day-Thanksgiving is the Fall Holiday-Pre-Christmas shopping season, ending in an orgiastic feast at the end of November in which American football is better remembered than Squanto or Massasoit or that first poor harvest at Plymouth Plantation which preceded the political organization Anglo-Canada and the British Empire by about 247 years.  The American people have little memory or even historical interest in anything.  They are/We are a nation of congenital analgesiacs assisted through all unwanted incursions of memory by drugs and booze and TV news sufficient to wipe the consciousness of a Plato or Socrates clean to a blank slate.   In Mexico there is at least some reconciliation of the Epic Discovery of Columbus and the imperialism of Hernan Cortes and others, which within a mere 30 years of 1492 had erased from the map and all but obliterated one of the greatest and most distinctive empires of all history—that of the Tenochca-Mexica, from the annals of history with the reality of racial and cultural mixture.

Tlatelolco is today identified to tourists as the Plaza of the Three Cultures—because there are the Aztec ruins side-by-side with a magnificent Spanish-Colonial Monastery at which Spanish and Nahuatl elites and intellectuals debated the relative virtues of their histories and gods for the first 30-50 years after the Conquest, and finally there are skyscrapers of the modern city of Mexico.   The government of Mexico is to be applauded for its attempt to reconstruct a valid ideological vision which recognizes the accomplishments of all three cultures, and which endeavors to maintain both memory and desire in the hearts of its people. The reality of modern Mexico is actually a fairly gruesome concatenation of memory and conflicting desires for wealth, identity, and acceptance.  One may well ask: Is the Mexican model of Tlatelolco the world of the future?

New Book on 9/11/01: Susan Lindauer, “Extreme Prejudice”

http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/extreme-prejudice-by-susan-lindauer/

 

ExtremePrejudice

The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

What if the government decided to invent a great lie to sell a disastrous war and a questionable anti-terrorism policy? What would happen to the Assets who know the truth?

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government’s lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of “black budget” betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging, EXTREME PREJUDICE reveals one Asset’s desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq. EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq’s contributions to the 9/11 investigation. For the first time, it discloses the existence of a comprehensive peace framework before the War, which would have accomplished all major U.S. objectives in Baghdad without a single casualty. A true life spy thriller that goes inside the Iraqi Embassy and prison on a Texas military base, EXTREME PREJUDICE reveals the depths of deception by leaders in Washington and London to promote a questionable image of their successful anti-terrorism policy, and the shocking brutality used to suppress the truth of their failures from the American people and the world community.

Above all, EXTREME PREJUDICE  offers a critical examination from the defendant’s chair of the Patriot Act’s assault on the most cherished Constitutional rights in a Court of law, when liberty and freedom to dissent from government policy are the highest stakes.

“Susan Lindauer deserves unreserved admiration for this brave and moving account of her steadfast refusal to crumble under the shameful abuses to which she was subjected. She has provided us with an overdue exposure of the depths to which governments are all too prepared to descend to prevent disclosure of their dishonesty and malfeasance, her knowledge having been gained through bitter personal experience.” –Robert Black, Q.C., Scottish architect of the Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist

“Unfolds like a suspense thriller from deep within the struggle for global sanity, at the hands of those perpetrating dark secrecy. Lindauer reveals faces of our national truth few Americans imagine. Chilling, heartbreaking, horrifying and hopeful, EXTREME PREJUDICE offers a depth of historical insight critical to transforming our future. Pay attention.” –Janice Matthews, Director, 911Truth.org

 

SEND THEM A MESSAGE: Vote for Diane Beall Templin for California Attorney General—for the rights of all Middle Class American Homeowners!

http://templin4attorneygeneral.blogspot.com/

Diane Beall Templin has agreed to represent me as lead Plaintiff in 09-cv-01072-DOC-E in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern (Santa Ana) Division 10-26-2010 Document 55 Ex-Parte Application to Substitute Attorney Diane Beall 09-cv-01072-DOC.  It is going to be a big project, but if we can win even part of it, it will change the course of United States and even World (“Global”) financial history forever.  Nothing could be more important or worthy of the “Send them a Message” heritage of the late Governor George Corley Wallace to whose American Independent Party Diane Beall Templin is now a modern heir.  Governor Wallace and General Curtis E. LeMay were the last Third Party Candidates ever to carry any states or electoral votes.   Wallace took the entire Deep South away from Nixon in 1968, only four years after Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater (Radical Southern Democrat Wallace’s Radical Republican Soulmate in so many ways) broke the “Solid South” away from the Democratic Party to which it had adhered loyally for over a hundred years.   When Gov. Wallace ran for President back inside the Democratic Party in 1972, his threat was so great as potentially to deprive Nixon of his second term.

So, it was that on May 15, 1972, the decade of United States Political Assassinations by “lone gunmen” that began in November 1963 with the Dallas, Texas, assassination of the last “Representative Money” (“Silver-Certificate”) President (John Fitzgerald Kennedy) and his replacement with that master of Fiat Currency—”Tax & Spend through Inflation to Support Global Warfare and World Government”—Lyndon Baines Johnson ended with the Laurel, Maryland, near fatal assassination of the Governor of Alabama.

I persuaded Diane Beall (fka Templin) to represent me in this case on a single argument: there is NO solution to the California Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis that does not include the declaration of unconstitutionality of California Civil Code Sections 2924-2924l, together with the abolition of special Unlawful Detainer proceedings in the Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction.

Support our Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of California Home Seizures: Help us Change in California Foreclosure and Eviction Law

I am asking everyone who possibly can to send in contributions to help us pay for and staff the litigation of case number 09-cv-01072-DOC in Orange County  (filed originally as Lincoln v. Silverstein, now styled Lincoln v. California) and related cases all around the state.

If we are successful in our litigation, the ripple effect outwards will generate reverse earthquake: ruined homes will be resurrected and restored to their rightful owners, foreign investors and speculators (including the International Bankers) will be dispossessed of their American colonial acquisitions and holdings and required to pay damages to the families that were dispossessed.

So, we are now engaged in a great struggle, at least five co-Plaintiffs, one attorney and I are, to test whether the vile corrupt and unHoly mixture of substances consisting of bad law, color of law, and downright evil law,  created by California Non-Judicial Foreclosure and post-Foreclosure Eviction Statutes and the Judicial customs, practices, and procedures having the force of allow arising therefrom, can successfully be poured out (in U.S. District Court before Judge David O. Carter into a constitutional crucible where this mixture’s origins, integrity, and purity can be weighed and found wanting.  We will then seek to pour this base metalic garbage from the same crucible by asking Judge Carter to declare and adjudge all of these statutes, and the California Courts of Limited Jurisdiction which arose from them, onto the putrid slag heap of history—right alongside slavery and Soviet Communism, where all such vile things belong.

The road is going to be long and weary—and very expensive.  I am writing today to ask everyone in the United States to contribute whatever they can to support our campaign.   If we win in California on even half our issues, the reverberations will be felt and heard around the financial centers and smoky back rooms of banker’s and lawyers’ clubs everywhere in the world.

Your contributions of time, money, or material (computers, printers or printer supplies, or even up to date law books or sharable subscriptions to Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis), or special contributions some might be able to make such expert witness testimony concerning accounting, banking and financial practices, or securitization) will be invaluable in changing the face of the American economy and business world.

Please send in contributions (checks or money orders with memorandum or cover letter indicating “Lincoln v. California, 09-cv-01072″) to the following address:

Charles Lincoln Trust for Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice Foundation, Peyton Yates Freiman, Trustee, 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6, Austin, Texas 78705.  (Telephone 512-461-8192).

The first priority will be to support our new Attorney, Diane Beall, who is herself in foreclosure in California, and to build her team of legal assistants (including but not limited to some of the Plaintiffs) to fight this war and win it!

“Tierra Limpia” means the clean or pure land; Deo Vindice, a term rich in American historical connotation, is the motto “By God Vindicated” which has a strong implication (in Latin or Roman Law) that the rights to be vindicated are those relating to land and home: “Land is the only thing in the world that amounts to anything, for ‘Tis the only thing in this world that lasts, ‘Tis the only thing worth working for, worth fighting for — worth dying for“ as a crotchety old Irishman named Gerald Patrick O’Hara once told his daughter Katie Scarlett.  For indeed, in Classical Roman Times, the “Vindicatio” was the ultimate form of warfare by litigation, meant to try title to land and other key measures of wealth and the means of production from ancient times until the present.

It happens that today, October 29, is my mother’s birthday, and so in her honor, and she was a little girl during the London blitz, when so many homes were lost, and so many families uprooted, I am starting this campaign to raise funds to restore lost and destroyed homes for the benefit of lost and destroyed families—even though these are the victims not of the German Wehrmacht but of a corrupt global financial system with significantly less heart and less soul than even the Nazis.  Mothers are symbolic of homes and I think my mother, when she reads this, will know why I dedicate to her the struggle to disempower the Banks and destroy their psychological grip on our minds which convinces so many that families should be destroyed in the name of individual security and dependence upon the government.  I remember watching the 1968 and 1972 elections with my mother (and her parents) on Television.  And I remember when she took me to meet Cardinal Mindzenty, the hero of Anti-Communist resistance in Hungary and I remember one of her friends named Lilly, who had been imprisoned by the Communists in a Gulag.   I remember watching with my family the resignation of Richard Nixon and Ford’s pardon a month later.  In short, we shared many of the formative events which led me to where I am right now, where we, as a country, are at this very moment.

There is NO REMEDY BUT RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY REFORM except, perhaps, for REAL REVOLUTION

There is no remedy for the foreclosure and eviction crisis except repeal of the underlying laws which permitted it, in fact, which COMMAND the Courts to proceed as they do.   Most judges, especially in California, are not so much corrupt as they are bound to blindly follow and carry out the letter of truly corrupt law.   They act like automatons, and it may seem that they have neither heart nor soul, but if the job of California judges is to follow the law—then please take note everybody: the law directs that YOU (THE HOMEOWNER) MUST LOSE!   You must be evicted and made homeless.  THAT is the law.

Too many well-meaning and well-intentioned people are floundering around trying to find trivial remedies “at the margins” when the only real cure is to recognize that the SYSTEM ITSELF IS UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY ROTTEN and to remove the root causes of it.  Change is not easy—it was a campaign slogan two years ago, and look where it has gotten us?

If it is not perfectly obvious by now, it needs to be said: Candidate Barack Obama’s promises of reform and “change” were illusory.  President Barack Obama, endorsed earlier today by his predecessor George W. Bush as more impressive than John McCain, is the most stalwart “status quo” President in recent history.  Obama has no policies to speak at all of except those which were exacerbations of policies initiated either by George W. Bush or, in a few cases, tracing their ancestry back to the Presidency of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingerich’s “Contract on America.”  In short, Obama, as I have written before on these pages, appears to have been hand-selected by George W. Bush as the man most readily able to continue Bush’s disastrous policies PRECISELY because Obama, at least at the level of “skin deep” perceptions, “looked like the candidate most different from George W. Bush.”  In short, Obama was a fraud—he was, is, and shall remain nothing but part of the carefully orchestrated dismantling and destruction of America—by and through the means of the dismantling and destruction of the Family, Private Property, and the Bourgeois Constitutional State of which the first two institutions are the rock-solid foundation.

To illustrate the Fraud of Obama’s Promise of Change: the Writ of Habeas Corpus in America was in 2008 already all but extinct—extinguished by Congress and the President over the valiant but ultimately futile resistance of the Supreme Court, and Obama has done nothing, not even to speak, on behalf of any resurrection or strengthening of the writ, or of dismantling the massive prison infrastructure.  Even Judicial sycophants to every arbitrary and capricious legislative malice such as Justice Antonin Scalia found Congress’ attacks on the “Great Writ” appalling, but to no avail.  President Barack Obama has not lifted a finger to free prisoners in “Planet Prison” America, not even by his dishwater judicial appointments.   In another example, Obama has shown himself no friend of the environment, allowing plans for oil drilling to continue on the Northwesternmost and Southeasternmost frontiers of the United States, despite the catastrophic oil leakage which poisoned the Gulf last summer.

Finally, the reality of “endless two-front war” in Afghanistan and Iraq has continued unabated under Obama.  Who could have imagined that two years after his election this would be so?  Certainly, Obama’s supporters must be hiding their heads in shame and despair by now.   He continues to expand the power of the imperial presidency to a degree that would have put Lyndon B. Johnson or Richard M. Nixon to shame.   His arrogant closed door policies, lack of opennes, and guardianship of secrecy is reminiscent of the Nixon era, without the elegant dismantling of world-wide conflicts—but their intensification.

Above all, President Barack Obama has shown himself utterly beholden to the financial interests of international banking which created him and sustain him.   The mortgage foreclosure crisis has deepened, even as symptomatic ailments such as mass production “robosigning” of mortgages are unveiled—and uncomprehendingly presented to the press by a media and journalistic profession which is either blind or lavishly enslaved by their corporate-financial patrons of international banking moving towards international socialism.

So many of my friends are crying out for “REMEDY” in the face of the mortgage foreclosure and eviction crisis.  I am writing to tell you all that there is no remedy for urioshol/urticaria-hives in hand-pruning or finger-trimming of a vine of poison ivy.  There is no remedy for malignant melanoma in scratching your skin.

And there is NO REMEDY for the massive epidemic of foreclosures and evictions in this Country except REVOLUTIONARY LEGAL REFORM by (1) outlawing the securitization of mortgages, (2) outlawing non-judicial foreclosure where it exists, (3) eliminating statutes and judicial rules providing for “short cut” or “fast track” (often called “Rocket Docket”) summary eviction and foreclosure proceedings in “judicial foreclosure” states.

The way to achieve this is by enforcing the commercial codes, for example the excellent California Commercial Code, and not allowing the Civil Code or Code of Civil Procedure to overrule it!  Judicial codes should concern MERELY procedure and should abridge no substantive rights at all.   Large portions of the California Civil Code are simply inconsistent and incompatible with the just enforcement of the Commercial Code, and render California  a “law optional” state, effectively lawless and without laws.

I would urge everyone to STOP paying money to all the madmen who go around preaching non-judicial remedies such as commercial or administrative process.  These are all doomed to failure.

Get behind me—support me and my attorney Diane Beall in asking for a complete revolutionary reform of the legal system in California and related (mostly Western, Ninth and Tenth Circuit States) and restoring full due process enforcement of the common law of contracts and commercial codes in California and throughout the United States.   Really and truly, there is NO REMEDY BUT REAL REVOLUTIONARY (LEGAL) REFORM, except perhaps for a REAL (ARMED AND VIOLENT) REVOLUTION.

I propose that revolutionary legal reform remains possible in the Courts.  Some judges do still value both the constitution and common law.  Enough Judges to give us some hope.  Ultimately we will have to go ourselves or send our representatives to Washington to reform the Federal Securities and Tax laws which served to underwrite the entire process of securitized mortgages which led to mass-produced robo-signing and rocket dockets around the country.

All else is Vanity, my friends, all else is vanity—in this season of All Saints, we must realize that there can be neither freedom nor peace nor real economic stability unless we the people are willing to stand up and fight for it, pledging our lives, our fortunes, and sacred honor to the restoration of common law and constitutional rule which are the sole legitimate foundation of American Society, built as it is on the work and prosperity of the “bourgeois” middle class.

Tinkering here and there with problems like robo-signing or other symptomatic manifestations of the “disease” of expropriation-by-solicited-debt which can be revealed in “forensic mortgage fraud audits” as effective as whistling into a hurricane or throwing an ice cube into the ocean.

SO STOP WASTING YOUR TIME AND MONEY—all ye who are heavy laden and seek rest!  Like the Saints of Old, we must pick up our crosses and swords and be prepared for a long fight for real reform.  It is the only reality.  DO NOT TREAT THE SYMPTOMS—TREAT THE DISEASE—THE DISEASE IS THE LACK OF INTEGRITY OF THE LAW, which is most clearly manifested by the utter and complete corruption of non-judicial foreclosure law in the State of California—let us all work together to a common end, because only in the common end of legal reform will the Courts be ALLOWED to restore our property.

Oh, and it wouldn’t hurt to have voted out Barbara Boxer and NOT to have elected Jerry Brown—because those two are on the wrong side of absolutely every issue in which we are involved…..

Luke 21: 1=19, on the Second Sunday after All Saints Day, 25th Sunday of Trinity

1And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

3And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

4For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

5And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,

6As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

8And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

9But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

10Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

12But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.

13And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

17And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.

18But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

19In your patience possess ye your souls.

On Sunday morning before Church, Elena said to me as if it were a dream, and it probably was, might well have been a dream since Elena Kourembana Lincoln, remains in Texas, with no intention of coming to California, “So do a lot of people still really hate you?”  It was apropos of absolutely nothing, except the Gospel and the Reverend Barry Taylor’s sermon.  http://www.allsaintsbh.org/services/sermons/BT1049.mp3

The truth of course is that I do occasionally realize that I am indeed hated by people whom I have never met and who have left their indelibly hateful tracks all around various random spots around the internet.  I am happy to say that, so far as I know, I am not very widely hated (if at all) for what I am doing now (fighting for legal reform relating to mortgage foreclosure and eviction law and procedure in California) so much as for what I have done in the past, namely siding with Dr. Orly Taitz in her poorly designed and much more poorly executed litigation to question the President’s Constitutional Eligibility to serve in the White House.

I apologize to all the Patriots of the United States and anticommunists of the world that I had only enough influence on Orly to format streamline her pleadings to the point that the would actually be filed and not merely blocked by the Clerk for unrecognizable format or other basic problems. She never once allowed me to influence her basic reckless strategy or wanton ideological rampage against the rules, the law, and the facts.

If Obama were indeed born in Mombasa, he has in large part Orly to thank for the fact that no Court would ever look into the fact.  With more time and more diligence, I think it would have been possible to frame an actionable case—but Orly had no patience for such things.  I apologize to all of Orly’s supporters who believed in her that I could not make her listen to anything about law or legal procedure.  I think she really wanted to lose.  I really do.  She did not want to think or examine or analyze.  Like the Goddess Inanna’s raging Bull of Heaven, Orly wanted to crash into the judicial china shops of Uruk and Sumer  (U.S.?) and so she was gored, not once but several times.   I apologize that it seems, in retrospect, that I was only an enabler of a disaster and could never take charge to modify or mitigate it—of course, she WAS the licensed attorney as between us, and so HERS was by law required to be the final decision, wasn’t it?  Most of my foreign, non-American born or resident, friends shake their heads and marvel at the stupidity of the American people in electing such a shallow figurehead (ok, that applied and still applies equally to George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama—two peas in a pod, as it were) and, as it were, adorning the White House with a mere postage stamp for change when only change of the most Radical and Fundamental nature could ever serve to save this country from doom.

But the irrational hatred of people who stand for the Establishment is, in essence, what Christ tells the very first Saints, the original 12 Apostles, to expect and tolerate throughout their lives.  (see also the Reverend Gabri Ferrer’s November 7 “All Saints”):Sermon: http://www.allsaintsbh.org/services/sermons/GF1048.mp3

The Companion Old Testament Reading on November 14th was Isaiah 65:

Isaiah 65

1I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

2I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

3A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;

4Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;

5Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

6Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,

7Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

8Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants’ sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

9And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

10And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me.

11But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.

12Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

13Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:

14Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.

15And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:

16That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

19And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

21And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.

22They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

23They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.

24And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.

25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

It is ultimately the Hope of Justice at the end that keeps us going.  I can only hope that the little snakes who write venomous nonsense about me and my life and my work on the internet will end up “biting the dust” as it were, and being tossed like the carcasses of unwanted vermin on the rubbish heap of history, but I also realize that, like Christ’s followers throughout time, I, along with many hundreds of thousands of others, may face betrayal, judgment, persecution, and death at the hands and in the Courts of this nation for the sake of that ultimate truth and that final justice.

As my mother taught me from a very early age, Isaiah is the book of the Old Testament that most perfectly prophesies the coming of Christ in the New Testament, not because of anything more specific than this precise metaphor: that to those who have endured much suffering and persecution will final peace and victory be granted.   And as my mother’s father, my grandfather, taught me from that same early age, life is a constant journey through the jungle with a machete, cutting, and cutting and cutting and the wild vegetation that always grows back so quickly—the chaos that will not yield to our desires or needs for a straight path.  My mother showed me how to read the Book and my Grandparents taught me the virtues of persistence, and at this time of year all of us sang together what to me is the greatest of all the hymns of our Church, the Church Militant, SINE NOMINE, 1982 Hymnal 287:

1. For all the saints who from their labors rest,
        Who Thee by faith before the world confess,
        Thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest,
        Alleluia! Alleluia!

        2. Thou wast their Rock, their Fortress, and their Might;
        Thou, Lord, their Captain in the well-fought fight;
        Thou, in the darkness drear, their one true Light.
        Alleluia! Alleluia!

        3. Oh, may Thy soldiers, faithful, true and bold,
        Fight as the saints who nobly fought of old
        And win with them the victor's crown of gold.
        Alleluia! Alleluia!

        4. O blest communion, fellowship divine,
        We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
        Yet all are one in Thee, for all are Thine.
        Alleluia! Alleluia!

        5. And when the fight is fierce, the warfare long,
        Steals on the ear the distant triumph song,
        And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong.
        Alleluia! Alleluia!

        6. But, lo, there breaks a yet more glorious day;
        The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
        The King of Glory passes on His way.
        Alleluia! Alleluia!

        7. From earth's wide bounds, from ocean's farthest coast,
        Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
        Singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
        Alleluia! Alleluia!

        8. The golden evening brightens in the west;
        Soon, soon, to faithful warriors cometh rest.
        Sweet is the calm of Paradise the blest.
        Alleluia! Alleluia!


November 30, 2010: Scotland’s Patron Saint’s Day (and my son’s) is the Feast of St. Andrew, Founder of the Church in Byzantium, Martyred in Patras, a true fisher of men….

Readers of this blog will know that my son is named Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln, IV, born on August 23 at St. Mary’s Hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, while the headwinds of Hurricane Andrew were blowing into South Florida.  Luckily for us, up at 223 Atlantic in Palm Beach, Hurricane Andrew was just a severe wind and thunderstorm, hardly noticeable.  But I noticed that all the windows of St. Mary’s Hospital were carefully duck-taped with the Cross of St. Andrew.  As of November 30, Charlie this afternoon observed that the decade that is about to end on December 31, 2010, is his first full calendrical “decade” of life—a strange and interesting and somewhat eerie thought, because my first full calendrical “decade” was January 1, 1961-December 31, 1970….

I have always loved the Cross of St. Andrew, for memories of the beautiful and romantic poetry, history and culture of Scotland (Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, MacBeth, Mary Queen of Scots, James I & VII, Robbie Burns, Sir Walter Scott), and of lost causes—from Bonnie Prince Charlie (for whom Drambuie Liquor was invented during the ’45, which might have driven the Hanoverians out of England, had the man who might have been Charles Edward Stuart III of England not turned back, inexplicably, after reaching Derby in England) to South Carolina and Secession and the Bonnie Blue Flag that Bears a Single Star,  for the Confederate Flags which emblazoned thirteen stars onto that Cross, thus incorporating it in a manner much more elaborate than did the flags of the Southern States of Alabama and, NOT coincidentally, Florida.  Together with last Sunday (November 28) the first Sunday in Advent, today is more or less where the Church Year begins, at least insofar as the Calendar of Saints is Concerned.

To say that the Cross of Saint Andrews for me, as for Millions of Americans and Christians (and many non-Christian or even syncretic pagans who worship the progression of the seasons and honor the division of the world into four quarters) throughout the world, mixes memory and desire like few other symbols is a major understatement.  But rather than try to write anything new about St. Andrew’s Day myself, I just want to quote from an article, almost ten years old, on Lew Rockwell.Com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman44.html):

St. Andrew’s Cross

by David Dieteman

Joseph Stromberg rightly points out that the media prefers to refer to the St. Andrew’s Cross on the Confederate battle flag as a letter X.

Of course, it is not a letter X. It is a cross — in particular, the St. Andrew’s Cross. In vexillology (the study of flags), the technical term for such a cross is a saltire.  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (I don’t have the OED on hand; sorry) defines a saltire as: noun, singular:

  1. heraldry: an ordinary consisting of a cross formed by a bend dexter and a bend sinister crossing in the center of the field.
  2. an X-shaped cross: esp. Saint Andrew’s Cross.

The term derives from the Middle English and Middle French words for an X-shaped animal barricade that people could jump over. Presumably, the animals could jump over the middle of the X as well, but it never occurred to them to do so.   Webster’s, by the way, provides an additional definition of a saltire: adj.: shaped like an X.

So perhaps there is nothing sinister going on in the mantra that the Confederate flag is an “X,” but given that the mere reference to “an X” is an incomplete history of flags featuring the St. Andrew’s Cross, and given the larger cultural climate of hatred of all things Christian, I smell a rat.

This is of particular concern to me, as I am a Roman Catholic and a parishioner at, well, wouldn’t you know it — St. Andrew’s.

In the church, there is a statue of St. Andrew himself, holding a big X in his hands. Why? He lived far too long ago to have been a Spike Lee fan or a follower of Malcolm X.  The reason he is holding the X is that it is not an X — it is a cross. Saint Andrew, you see, was crucified on an X-shaped cross.

The St. Andrew’s Cross is not unique to the Confederate battle flag. The reason that the CSA put the St. Andrew’s Cross on its flag is the Scottish heritage of the South.

The Scottish national flag (left), you see, is the St. Andrew’s Cross in white on a field of blue.

(This is to be distinguished from the Scottish government flag (right), the flag of the Scottish monarchy, which features a red lion on a field of yellow.)

A similar situation to the Scottish situation is found in many nations, such as Germany, whose government flag has an eagle in the center of the red, black and gold banner, as does Austria (similar eagle issues).

Joseph Stromberg has brought to my attention the fact that, where the St. Andrew’s Cross is concerned, in South Africa, the Transvaal (South African Republic, or ZAR) flag from 1874-75 (left), known as the Burger flag, descended from the Voortrekker flag of 1836-40 (right).   For those who do not read Afrikaans, Stromberg has provided a translation: “This [Burger flag] is a revised form of the Voortrekker flag. T. F. Burgers, as President of the South African Republic, tried to replace the Transvaal Vierkleur with this flag. From 1875, however, the Vierkleur was the official flag of the ZAR. The Burger flag was however sometimes hoisted next to the Vierkleur in Burgers’s time, and was usually known as the President’s flag.”  (Much like those pesky Mississippians, the South Africans did not want a replacement flag.)

But back to St. Andrew and his cross.

Saint Andrew is also the patron saint of Russia. Unsurprisingly, then, the ensign of the Russian Imperial Navy which flew during the reign of the Czars (left), as well as the Russian Imperial Navy Jack (at right) both feature the St. Andrew’s Cross.

And let’s not forget the flags of Alabama (left) and Florida. (right).

A variant also appears on the Spanish Cross (the Cross of Burgundy, flown from 1516 to 1556 by Charles I of Spain), (below) although I am not sure of any connection. However, since this flag was flown by Cortez in his conquest of Mexico, it is perhaps on the endangered banners list as well.

Given the recent media hysteria over Johnny Hart’s “B.C.” cartoon, and the general media ridicule of all things Christian, is it any wonder that the Confederate battle flag is hated?

The Confederate battle flag (left), by the way, is square.

The navy jack (or ensign, which was carried by some ground troups, as noted by AnyFlags.com) (right) is a rectangle.

The Left certainly hates the Confederate flag because it is “the flag of a stateless nation” that, despite its military surrender, has never surrendered its spirit.

Perhaps the Left also despises the St. Andrew’s Cross because of Andrew’s very name — it means “manly” in Greek. Post-modern, relativist western civilization simply cannot abide the concept of manliness.

April 21, 2001

Mr. Dieteman is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

When Worlds Collide: the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Tepeyac, December 12

Some people call her “the Empress of the Americas” although to my mind, the only person who really could have had that title might have been the Empress Carlotta (1840-1927).   A French and Hapsburg-ruled Mexico, to my mind, would not have been such a horrible thing.  In fact, it might have been better than Mexico under the Porfiriato (1870-1910), and at the worst, it could not have been any worse.  The purpose of the French Intervention was to implement precisely the same policies as were eventually adopted by President Porfirio Diaz: to encourage massive foreign investment in and business dealings with Mexico.  A long-term French-Hapsburg monarchy might have increased the educational level and provided greater protections to the indigenous peoples, ironically enough.

But December 12 is a day of national patriotism as well as religious fervor in Mexico, not a day to be nostalgic over failure to integrate Mexico more closely with Europe (Porfirio’s Mexico City was called “the Paris of the Americas”, and the architectural and urban planning relics of that era, including the Paseo de la Reforma, Avenida Insurgentes, and the Bosque de Chapultepec all fully justify such comparisons, as do the adjacent Zona Rosa and Lomas suburbs of the city).

And what a miracle of cultural and religious syncretism is that on the Hill of Tonantzin (“Our Mother” in Aztec/Nahuatl) an Indian Peasant Juan Diego found a Tilda embossed with the image of the Virgin standing atop a crescent moon, after having met a young girl in the same spot several days earlier.

I recently wrote on the questions of the identity of the Mexican “Raza de Tlatelolco” (around October 12) and the significance of the Plaza de Tres Culturas at the site of the some of the worst riots of 1968, anywhere in the world, which took place in that barrio, and which ultimately elevated the creole white Luis Echeverria to the Presidency—one of a long line of creole white Presidents of Mexico under both the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution (oxymoron though that be) and the Party of National Action (whose main actions have been to revitalize foreign investment and domination in Mexico, much in the failed tradition of Maximilian & Carlotta, on the one-hand, and extremely successful tradition of Porfirio Diaz on the other.

Porfirio Diaz is alleged to have said, “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.”  If he actually said such a thing, he was an insightful profit due great respect.

From 1531, when Juan Diego first encountered the Virgin whose identity is celebrated on this Sunday, 12th of December, 2010, coincidentally the two-hundredth anniversary of Miguel de Hidalgo’s “Grito de Dolores” which took the emblem of the Virgin of Guadalupe as his battle flag in rebellion against Spain, until the present time, all that is Mexico or ever can be is encapsulated in the conundrum (or several conundra) of Tepeyac: (1) Christianity as heir or replacement of the Aztec Religion, with which Sir James G. Frazer recognized it (Christianity) had so very much in common, as did many of the early Spanish writers, (2) the role of the Native American peoples in shaping the identity and culture of Mexico, especially the Aztec, the Zapotec, and Maya, (3) the Supremacy of the Mexican model of cultural integration over all others in the Americas, and the degree to which the Mexican model, through immigration, is becoming dominant in the United States, especially California-through-Texas, but in fact throughout North America.

Demographics is a cruelly Darwinian science, and so long as Anglo-American and Euro-American women generally eschew reproduction while it is embraced by women of all other races/cultures/ethnicities, and languages, the Darwinian future and fitness of the Virgin of Guadalupe, and all she represents, looks significantly brighter, and the world order and socio-cultural ecumene embodied in the old Harvard Anthem, “By these festival rights from the age that has passed to the age that is waiting before…..til the seed of the Pilgrims is gone”, may in fact be reaching the end of its conceptually useful life, because soon the seed of the pilgrims will in fact be gone, as well as those who came not long after, including the early settlers of Higham, Massachusetts such as one Samuel Lincoln, who arrived in 1637 to join several Thomas Lincolns in that same town…

The French Opera at Bourbon and Toulouse, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 (or “dialectic process engendered by the contradictions inherent in all things is the prime mover of cultural and political change and evolution”)

For one who was raised on heavy doses of opera, and with a great reverence for the heritage, history, and traditions of the American South, Louisiana, and in particular of New Orleans, I do not know how it never registered with me before last week that the first opera house in the United States opened in New Orleans on December 1, 1859, in an impressive neo-Classical structure which stood for exactly sixty years at the corner of Bourbon and Toulouse in the Vieux Carre (French Quarter) of New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 (http://www.neworleansonline.com/neworleans/arts/operano.html)

The site is now occupied by the Ramada Inn on Bourbon, Ramada being a distinctly “LMC” hotel chain, and this particular Ramada caters to the alcohol-soused and unwashed masses who parade up and down Bourbon Street in a nearly continuous year round nightly ritual re-enactment of the ancient and Mediaeval “Wild Hunt” of Northern, Western and Central Europe.

Opera is, or at least Opera was for about 250-300 years, an elite marker of the very height of European artistic achievement in music and theatre.  From the time of Henry Purcell to Giaccomo Puccini, it was the standard to which all other art forms aspired—or which comedians ridiculed as symbolic of what was wrong with the elite (e.g. W.S. Gilbert).

As an art form Opera is now semi-fossilized—for my part I cannot accept the legitimacy of contemporary works such as the “Ghosts of Versailles” or “Nixon in China” as “real” opera, nor do I see these efforts as having much longevity or legitimacy—and so the mainstay of the Metropolitan Opera in New York and Covent Garden in London remains the repertoire of 18th, 19th, and very early 20th century opera by Mozart, Donizetti, Meyerbeer, Verdi, Bizet, and Puccini, with the ten gesamtkunstwerken of Richard Wagner enjoying a perpetual “special status”, the elite of operas even among opera-goers.

Bourbon Street today is….a hedonistic extravaganza of booze and sex at its most vulgar.  The gangs there during this Christmas-to-New Years’ Holiday are mostly white, aged 16-40 (I’m definitely one of the older codgers on the scene).  The men are dressed moderate casually while the women tend do be casually to-only slightly sexy, better-dressed in a kind of trashy, “party” sense.   Young girls are the center of attention.  Just as if it were Mardi Gras people stand on balconies and toss beads.  And on New Year’s Eve and the night before, the feeling has been very raucous.  Across the street from the site of the French Opera House of 1859-1919, the bar opposite the Ramada Inn on Bourbon was playing, at 3:45 am—cranked up to highest volume—”Bad Romance” by Lady Gaga.   Many operas were in fact really bad romances, but the connection and parallel pretty much ends there.  The claim of sex-traders everywhere is that their work is Erotic Art, but Bourbon Street’s domination by the purest pornography is epitomized by the several “Larry Flynt/Hustler/Barely Legal” clubs in a three block stretch.  Yankee lumpenproletariats from Portland to Peoria to Pittsburgh, Poughkeepsie, and Providence converge on Bourbon Street attracting just a sufficient number of really attractive girls to make the place an enjoyable walk for people-watching. Southern rednecks of the recovering Southern Baptist variety keep alive the twisted memory of the South with Confederate Battle Flag bandanas, grossly juxtaposed to the large minority of African-American performers and tourists (who come from both the North and South in neither greater or lesser style and “class” than their white counterparts).

In short, Bourbon Street today, and so far as my memory of it goes back (early 1970s), has been a nightmare of the worst of modern thoughtless self-indulgent LMC America.  While the small space permits the “Wild Hunt” Ritual—(hunt for beer and flashing….flesh I guess)—in a manner unparalleled anywhere, Bourbon Street’s complete moral corruption at leasts equals Las Vegas and Atlantic City.  The drunkenness, debauchery, and generally lecherous is economically parasitic and exploitative in the extreme, but it is cheaper than Las Vegas or Atlantic City. The nature of discounted debauchery reminds me of Richard Blaine’s comment in Casablanca that he had no problem with parasites, what he objected to was a cut rate one.

In short, and my own mild hypocrisy here can only shine forth as clearly as it is true—Bourbon Street offers lowbrow people a lot of genuinely lowbrow fun—at least if you can tolerate a lot of gross behavior framed by beautiful old wrought iron balconies and Spanish, French, and 19th Century American architecture.

Despite Bourbon Street, New Orleans remains one of the cultural centers of the world for at least one very active and vital art form and that is cooking and cuisine.  The food of New Orleans is incomparable: Antoine’s, Court of Two Sister’s, Tujague’s, Emeril’s Delmonico and Commander’s Palace are only among the oldest and most recognizable names in restaurants in the United States.  At least some of the lumpenproletariats who enjoy Bourbon Street at its worst apparently also can appreciate really good food.  ”Oysters Rockefeller” was a dish specially prepared at Antoine’s originally for the richest man in the world, but $12-$18 will get you a dozen and that’s roughly the same as lunch at Denny’s….

But this was the site of the first opera house in the United States, apparently without any dispute (the oldest opera house in continuous operation may well be be the Bardavon 1869 Opera house in, of all places, Poughkeepsie, New York, but it doesn’t save Poughkeepsie from inclusion in the “sources of great unwashed Americans” list above. (see, e.g.,  http://hauntedneworleanstours.com/frenchoperahouse/).

The real purpose of this essay is to ask a single question: what caused the transformation of the corner of Bourbon and Toulouse from one of the centers of elite-European culture in the Americas, in 1859, to something akin to the sewer of the American soul in 2010?

My answer is that the transformation was wrought by the War of 1861-1865, known to partisans of the winning side as the “American Civil War” (although there are no analogies whatsoever to the English Civil War of the Roundheads vs. Cavaliers, aside from the explicit stylistic comparisons of the two sides), and to traditional partisans of the losing side as “the War Between the States.”  Just technically, I think the “War Between the States” is more historically descriptive of what happened, and also of the Constitutional Consequences which followed, which were of the triumph of the National Federal government over the individual states.

What was the real purpose of this War of 1861-1865?  Up to a point I think the purpose, as well as the result, as precisely the transformation of Bourbon Street. New Orleans in 1860 was poised to become one of the great cultural centers of the world, comparable to Paris or Vienna in every sense, including the existence of an hereditary aristocracy.

As the opening bars of Gone with the Wind play, the textual narrative Title Reads: “There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind.”

The puritans of the North could not tolerate a peaceful co-existence with the civilization they saw emerging in the deep Southern States, from at least New Orleans to Charleston, South Carolina.   They were envious, and I remain of the opinion that the war of 1861-1865 was the single most direct and enduring American outgrowths of the transformations of public consciousness engendered by the publication of Marx & Engels “Communist Manifesto” in 1848.

The principal demands of the Manifesto have all been met although some are only now in our time being perfected.  As accurately summarized in Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto) the Manifesto Demanded:

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

To a greater-or-lesser degree, we live in the world shaped and created by the Communist Manifesto.  The American South, in particular New Orleans, reflected a completely alternative path in which private property, inheritance, and decentralized credit would have dominated.

The final abolition of private property and inheritance in America is now taking place with governmental support in the current mortgage foreclosure crisis.  It is against that national policy of finally implementing the first demand of the communist manifesto that I have dedicated my life.

I have spent the Christmas and New Years’ Holiday in New Orleans this year at an historic hotel one half-block “Lakeside” of Bourbon Street (driving directions in New Orleans, a crescent-shaped city which curves along a major bend in the Mississippi River are traditionally not given as “north-south-east-west” but as “Riverside, Lakeside, Uptown and Downtown” with the Mississippi River, Lake Pontchartrain, Audubon Park-Tulane University, and the French Quarter and/or Faubourg Marigny beyond Esplanade as the defining “cardinal points” of the city).  I love New Orleans—I love the humid air, the sensuous (Francophile?) appreciation of life, and the beauty and unique style of the old quarter.  But I hate what Americans have done with Bourbon Street.   I hate the class-flattening approach to sex and booze and money.

I now know also that what I love most in music was born in America on Bourbon Street, which now resounds with the trashiest of the trashy repertoires of degenerate popular music.   Even real Jazz, the only completely home-grown, indigenous “American” musical genre, is rarely heard above the din on Bourbon Street, which is ironic because, in 1919 when the original French Opera House burned, Jazz was being born on Bourbon Street and its French-Quarter environs, soon to explode into the American mainstream during the “roaring 20s”.

George Washington died in 1799.   According to the sources cited, the first performance of an opera in the Americas took place in New Orleans two years before that.  Sixty years later, the French Opera House was erected in New Orleans, destined to last exactly 60 years.  1859 was the end of an amazing decade in history unlike any other when (as Jacques Barzun pointed out in his marvelous historical essay “Darwin, Marx, and Wagner“ published in 1941 and in print ever since) the concepts of history, evolution, economics, and art were rapidly being transformed.  1919 was the year of the treaty of Versailles after World War I.  These 60 years in which the New Orleans Opera house stood at Bourbon and Toulouse were the years in which Marx’ ideas took the world in one direction while Wagner’s ideas took the world in the completely opposite direction, with Darwin planted squarely in the middle. I was originally due to graduate Tulane University sixty years later in 1979 (but because I took off a year to work in Honduras at the ancient Maya ruins of Copan, I ended up graduating in 1980).  Those sixty years (1919-1979) saw the final eradication of all vestiges of the Old South which had survived the war, and the transformation of Bourbon Street into the Sex and Booze pot it is today.

As astounding as it seems to me, more than 30 years (half another cycle of 60 years) have now passed since my graduation from college, and to the degree that there is any change, it is only in the further degradation of Bourbon Street by the invasion of Larry Flynt and Hustler into the “Brave New World” mentality of modern America—Pornography and trumped Eros, classless communism has all-but-completely replaced stratification based on education and cultural awareness, and private property is now all-but-a-thing of the past.

Civil Rights Removal: A SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Readers of this blog know of my long-standing fraternal affection for and ideological and spiritual collegiality with Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410.  Kathy suffered terribly this year when after 5 years of valiant and courageous resistance, she was at last unable to prevent the entry of a devastating (and for many reasons completely illegal and improper) final judgment of dissolution of marriage on April 29, 2010.   In this Order, Judge Richard L. Oftedal sought to criticize and punish Kathy for standing up to the system and objecting to it.  Kathy’s Final Judgment Oftedal 4-29-2010.  People like Judge Oftedal really dislike people like Kathy (and me) who stand in the way of the fully perfected implementation of the “Brave New World” Envisioned by Aldous Huxley in 1930 and largely incorporated as the “New World Order” being born before our very eyes.

Whether, like Kathy and I are, you are horrified by or quite entranced by the fluidity, instability, and impermanence of human relationships, human rights, and the complete and utter corruption of the institutions of government entrusted to protect and promote both, it is a reality that the most sacred of all contracts, the contract of marriage, into which most people would ever dream of entering is guaranteed to be breachable by the government with little or no “per se” penalty.  If there is an estate, much of it will be confiscated by the lawyers, and the rest of it will be divided and slaughtered like Solomon’s baby (if the true mother had not intervened—because in the modern scenario the mother may well WANT the baby to die….that, too, is a constant background feature of modern life—the abortion meat-grinder).

What emerged as a particularly important issue in Kathy’s case, however, was at best tangentially related to the institution of marriage.  That issue was: does any judicial procedure whose outcome is absolutely assured or guaranteed, even as to the one single repetitive but common issue uniting all such procedures, qualify as a fair procedure?  Specifically, since divorce is not expressly and overtly guaranteed by law: does a judicial process which grants it automatically as if it were expressly and overtly guaranteed, as a result of an overwhelming state-wide custom, practice, or policy having the force and effect of law, violate equal protection of the law?  The classes of persons involved are determined only at the time of the initiation of judicial proceedings: petitioners for dissolution must always win their petition for dissolution.  Respondents (like Kathy) to a petition for dissolution must always lose.

As it happens, there is at least one Supreme Court case which seems to say that automatic resolution in favor of one party, any outcome determinative law or custom having the force of law, is unconstitutional.  That case is Greenwood v. Peacock (1966).  Greenwood v Peacock 1966

I worked with Kathy for a long time on trying to get the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to accept Kathy’s removal of her dissolution proceedings on Civil Rights Grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1443(1). We sought reconsideration of the Order of Remand pursuant to the unique provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(d). April 13 2010 KAGAL Rule 59(e) Motion for REVOCATION OF REMAND.doc- Kathy’s draft Judge Kenneth A. Marra would not accept it, although he did finally acknowledge that Civil Rights Removal was an express congressional exception to the “Well-Pled Complaint” rule that the grounds for removal must plainly appear on the face of any complaint for the case to be removable.  Document 9 Denying Rule 59(e) KAM KAGL

The key issue in Civil Rights Removal is a judicially formulated interpretation, functioning as a custom, practice, or policy having the force and effect of law, which prevents most courts from allowing removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1443(1) is that it is an affirmative action program: available to minorities only, and available to them only where specifically anti-minority (racially oppressive) state legislation is specifically overridden by affirmative federal legislation. Needless to say, the number of cases fitting this particular paradigm can be counted, well, on the thumb and forefinger of one hand, because that is precisely the number of civil rights removals the Supreme Court has ever allowed to stand.  Rachel v Georgia 1966 Rachel held that where a specific Federal statute (the Civil Rights Act of 1964) guaranteed equal access to restaurants for persons of all races specifically overrode Georgia “Jim Crow” law mandating segregation of the races, removal of Georgia state prosecutions for trespass against black diners would be permitted under 28 U.S.C. Section 1443(1).

What the judicial policy of affirmative action means is that what SHOULD be a powerful tool for correcting abuses in state courts is all but useless.  The language of 28 USC 1443 as enacted by Congress neither mentions race nor color nor any aspect of black-white minority-majority tensions in America, but the Supreme Court has construed the statute so as to mean absolutely nothing to anyone for going on 44 years now.

I suggested to Kathy and Kathy agreed that the Supreme Court’s construction of Civil Rights Removal is nothing but a blatant affirmative action program, a positive form of racial discrimination in favor of a racial minority or racial minorities generally which cannot pass the “Strict Scrutiny” test formulated for all equal protections and fundamental rights issues by the Supreme Court in the late 1970s and consistently applied ever since.  Quite simply: rendering 28 U.S.C. Section 1443(1) nugatory by imposing a racial gloss on racially neutral language is neither the simplest nor most narrowly tailored route to achieving or maintaining any compelling governmental goal or purpose.  In fact, no governmental purpose (aside from limiting the number of cases removed from state to federal court—hardly a “compelling” governmental purpose in any sense of the term) has ever even been mentioned.

So, following Marra’s orders, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ignored Kathy’s appeal and summarily affirmed Marra’s Order of Remand, without even MENTIONING the question of strict scrutiny for all race-based schemes even those called “benign.”  10-12369 Lawson v Lawson 201012369 10-06-2010

I think the most amazing aspect of the Eleventh Circuit’s Order was its complete refusal to address our strict scrutiny attack on the Judicial Policy of Implementing or Constructing the BROAD, ALL-INCLUSIVE language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 as an extremely narrow racial affirmative action program which really serves no one, black, white, yellow, brown, red, or completely indeterminate.   The normal Supreme Court rule is that courts must give full force and effect to EVERY WORD of any congressionally enacted statute.  Here, completely reversing that norm, the Supreme Court ruled that courts must not give effect to any words in the statute at all, but only to the Supreme Court’s gloss on the statute.  In essence, what the Supreme Court admitted in its 28 USC 1443 jurisprudence was this: the Civil Rights movement and reform of the 1950s and 1960s was really great for keeping African-Americans out of the clutches of communist infiltrators in the United States, who had gained so much of a foothold in the Black community (north and south) during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, but once we had obviously won the Cold War, it was perfectly reasonable to forget about Civil Rights for any other segment of the population because, well, if Federal Courts had to police the several State’s compliance with equal protection and due process, two terribly undesirable things would happen: (1) Federal Judges would have to work really hard, because lots of cases would be removed from state court, and (2) Civil Rights might actually be upheld as applying to all people, regardless of race, creed, or color, and to allow everyone, even white people, to assert civil rights would just, really, radically, and perhaps definitively limit the power of government—and the Warren and Burger Courts certainly had NO interest in limiting the power of the Central Government (or, really, any other government for that matter—the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts really have not been significantly better—Justice Scalia has always amazed me for his jurisprudence of, “a democratically elected legislature cannot enact an unconstitutional statute unless I really don’t like it.”

So, to complete this little essay, I offer you now Kathy’s SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit.  01-04-11 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Final CRR-KAGL This is a single issue petition focusing on the scope of Civil Rights Removal and the question of whether the original Congressional language adopted by the Democratically elected legislature OR the judicial construction, gloss, and interpretation imposed by the Supreme Court in 1966-1975 should prevail despite the fact that the Supreme Court in so doing designated Civil Rights Removal as a positively discriminating affirmative action program which is irrational in that it benefits almost nobody and renders Congress’ statutory language completely nugatory.

I for my part am interested in Civil Rights Removal because of my involvement in another field of American law whose outcome is almost as uniformly determined as dissolution of marriage/divorce cases: namely, judicial foreclosure and eviction and judicial eviction following non-judicial foreclosure.   Many homeowners have attempted to use Civil Rights Removal only to be told that if the state statutes apply equally to blacks, whites, hispanics, and all other racial groups, Civil Rights Removal is not available no matter how many non-racially defined civil rights and fundamental constitutional guarantees are violated.  Kathy and I would welcome any and all commentary on this Petition, to be sure. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Edward Villanueva of San Diego who has underwritten the continued litigation of this and many other issues, and to the newest member of Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice, S. P.,  who ably assisted in the preparation and editing of the Petition under rather astounding circumstances and short notice while I was otherwise incapacitated.

January 9, 2011—Thoughts on Private Property vs. Communism/Communal Ownership as the Battle of New Orleans day marks end of Christmas and the New Year has begun in earnest

Yesterday (January 8, 2011) was the 196th Anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans, fought in 1815.  The Battle of New Orleans is extremely important in the history of the United States of America because it is the only battle of the War of 1812 which the Americans won.  It is extremely unimportant in world history except insofar as it launched the political career of Andrew Jackson and crystalized the legend of the (already nearly legendary) Pirate Captain Jean Lafitte, whose career spanned from France to Barataria Bay and Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Galveston, Texas, to Tzilam Bravo, Yucatan, Mexico, where there is a monument to him (as well as the marvelous [German Refugee owned] Bungalow Hotel Capitan Lafitte south of Cancun—one of my favorite resorts in the entire world).

But the War of 1812 was an unmitigated catastrophe for the United States, and might well have ended the country’s history all together.  Washington, D.C., was not only captured and burned but briefly occupied by the British Troops. How the Fall of the Capital City and Capitol buildings to the former rulers of the land, did not spell the end of the not even 38 year old nascent Federal republic can be answered in one word: Napoleon.

The British army and navy were so tied up during the years 1812-1814 trying to dethrone the Corsican Emperor of the French who also wanted to be Emperor of  Europe that they really just couldn’t be bothered to invest the time and energy it was going to take to discipline the rowdy colonials in America.

In any case, just before the British occupied the White House, First Lady Dolly Madison had the foresight (did she know the British were going to burn the entire city?) to cut a famous picture of George Washington out of its frame and take it off somewhere safe.  Dolly Madison might otherwise be forgotten to history, so this was her great moment, but so far as the War of 1812 goes, it was just a disaster, and didn’t reflect too well on the stability of the young nation known as the USA.

The British won all the significant conflicts “on the land and on the sea” and it was just pure preoccupation with Napoleon that led them to make peace in November of 1814—which leads us to the funniest part of the great American Victory in New Orleans—it was won two months after the war was over…. But you see, since the war had been so terrible for the Americans, they were terribly happy about Colonel Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British, led by General Edward Michael Pakenham (Brother in Law of Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, who is most celebrated in history for a battle he won in a muddy field in Belgium, known by the appropriately grody name of “Waterloo”—which coincidentally was the end or “Waterloo” for Napoleon Bonaparte himself—so had the war of 1812 gone on any longer—America MIGHT have been lost…)

Anyhow—my Nachitoches, Louisiana-born and New Orleans educated grandmother Helen always made sure we celebrated Battle of New Orleans day—it was kind of the last day of the Christmas holidays—2 days after the Feast of the Epiphany, 5 days after her husband’s (my grandfather’s, the head of the household’s) birthday, and a week after New Year’s.

Since Elena and her mother and Charlie and I had celebrated Christmas at Tujague’s Restaurant (Founded 1856), and I did very little after December 25 to celebrate any of the twelve days of Christmas, not even 12th night or epiphany, and only went to see fireworks by the artillery in front of Jackson Square on New Year’s Eve, I decided to celebrate the Battle of New Orleans Day there, albeit sadly alone and without Elena and Charlie—and it was great again…. their spicy Briskette between dishes is one of the most distinctive things they’ve got… but everything there is wonderful. According to one of the many family legends about him, my grandmother’s father “Judge Benny” in New Orleans (once of the Louisiana Supreme Court and a mentor of a young lawyer named Huey Pierce Long, but who died the year I was born) told stories about Tujague’s at the turn of the LAST century—when they didn’t charge for food but had oysters piled up and only charged for liquor…. And so the late Autumn—Winter Solstice Holidays ended and yesterday *January 9, 2011* was indeed a dull dreary day in New Orleans—rainy and as wintery as it gets around here.  Worst of all, Charlie got on an aeroplane and flew back to drab, dreadful Baltimore, from whence he returned to dull but not quite so drab and dreadful Annapolis to begin his second term as a Freshman at St. John’s College—but he loves that little red-brick colonial college and town—and the classical education in language and philosophy he is getting there, so he’s happy.

I suppose the holidays of the end of the year really begin with Halloween, then All Saints then All Souls, then Guy Fawkes November 5 & Veterans’ Day/Remembrance Day/November 11, then Thanksgiving, then St. Andrews’ Day and Christ the King, then Advent with its Wreathes and multi-windowed, day-by-day Advent Calendars followed by December 25, St. Stephens’ Day, St. Johns’ Day, Holy Innocents, and the remainder of the Twelve Days of Christmas—-and for us as a family it all ended with this strange celebration of Battle of New Orleans Day—the battle that the Americans won that decided nothing because the war was over (*but I always used to wonder, what if the British HAD captured New Orleans? well, the food here probably wouldn’t have been nearly so good for one thing).

So anyhow, the Battle of New Orleans was a key event in U.S. history along only one axis or dimension: this was the battle that more than anything else launched Andrew Jackson of Tennessee towards the Presidency (he was the first President from “the West”, in his case Tennessee).  Jackson’s rise and the associated socio-cultural and political processes doomed (1) the Bank of the United States, whose demise was a good thing, and (2) the Five Civilized Tribes of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians, which was a very bad thing, but very important in the history of the U.S. and the Southern States in particular.   Because of his role in the Battle of New Orleans and as Seventh President, Andrew Jackson presides over the main square of New Orleans in front of St. Louis Cathedral, with an inscription on the pedestal “The Union must and shall be preserved” which he not only never said but never would have said (it was inscribed there by the occupying Yankee General—”Butler the Beast,” after New Orleans’ somewhat cowardly if rationally self-preservative surrender during 1862—the first full year of the War Between the States).  Jackson was a dedicated “states rights” democrat—a true Jacksonian in fact—and that is why, among other things, he dismantled the Bank of the United States in an effort to decentralize credit.

But the removal of the Southern Civilized Tribes was a different and very sad story.  Much shame and no glory to Jackson on that account.  But oddly enough it was just as symbolic and representative of the transformative economic debates and struggles of the 19th Century as the Bank itself. The truth about the Cherokee of Georgia, in particular, was that they were almost completely acculturated.  They had been agriculturalists for a thousand years before the arrival of the white man and lived in essentially stone-age/palaeo-technological urban centers like Etowah not one iota less sophisticated than most of the templed sites of Mexico—excluding only the Maya and Zapotec who exceeded the others by their public literacy, albeit elaborately naturalistic hieroglyphs which were ornate, baroque, and cumbersome, even compared to Egyptian hieroglyphs, never mind cuneiform or alphabetic writing…. But the Cherokee under Anglo-influence even developed their own alphabet in the 19th century for legal and literary purposes.

So just how acculturated were the Cherokee?  More than 60% of the lowland Cherokee population in Georgia had converted to Christianity by 1810, their chiefs lived in large neo-classical “Plantation” homes—and the Cherokee people held, per capita, as many African slaves as white people did and employed them in exactly the same way—slavery having been a long-standing tradition among all the Five Southern Civilized Tribes.  The Cherokee had instituted Anglo-style courts and jury-trials and newspapers and schools and churches. There was only one regard in which the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole refused to acculturate to the Anglo-American ways—and it turned out this was fatal.  Despite heavy intermarriage and adoption of Western customs of dress and commerce (in movable property and goods), the Cherokee refused to adopt private property.

This feature of North American aboriginal land tenure—primitive communism—and this feature alone of the Anglo-Cherokee lifestyle meant that the two cultures could not exist in Georgia, nor the Choctaw in Mississippi nor the Creek in Alabama.  This was a classic example of the Marxist confrontation between two dialectically opposed “modes of production”, and “primitive communism” and private property regimes simply are incompatible, apparently—they cannot peacefully coexist within the same society. In terms of cultural evolution, it may be interesting to note that the Maya, the most advanced and literate of all Native American cultures, had a strong tradition of private property—and litigated legal disputes over land that continued from pre-Hispanic times through and beyond the Spanish colonial period.

And so it was (and still is) that the private property holding and accustomed Yucatec Maya and Aztec of Mexico survived in much greater numbers than their illiterate and “communistic” North American cousins—despite so many other symbolic and structural similarities between the political, economic, and cultural manifestations between North and Middle America.

Nowhere in North America did population grow as large as in Mexico, but Alabama and Mississippi had even higher density and more elaborate and deep historical roots for the civilized tribes than Georgia—though even Hernando de Soto was overwhelmed with the riches of the Natives of Georgia when he arrived in the 1540s—but Moundville in Alabama is considered one of the most elaborate of pre-Hispanic urban centers in North America.  And the dozens of elaborate mounded Mississippian sites from Natchez and Vicksburg to Winterville and the Yazoo Basin and  Teoc in Carroll County, ancestral Plantation (and Indian mound site) home of the family of Senator John McCain, at which later place I have had the privilege of participating in Harvard-Lower Mississippi Survey archaeological research all attest to a widespread sophisticated culture which was worthy of more place in world history than Ancient Native Mississippian society has retained, in large part thanks to Andrew Jackson.

Still, as the last Christmas season vanishes and the New Year begins in earnest, and I renew my own war to preserve the private property “mode of production” from the creeping modern communism of today’s centralized banks, I look back on the history of the Battle of New Orleans and impetus it gave to the Seventh President’s career with a mixture of awe and sad wonder: the Cherokee had every right to remain in Georgia and it was a crime to deprive them of THEIR property rights.  The Choctaw homelands of Mississippi and the Creeks of Alabama the same.  Why could the white settlers NOT have worked out a compromise between private property ownership on Anglo lands and communal ownership within the Indian Nations—as they were called, and as they rightfully were?  Or would the compromise have been one of extensions of credit by which the Cherokee would have been further assimilated into Anglo society, but not removed by force, and would this credit economy, if centralized by a Bank of the United States (such as the Federal Reserve ultimately became?) not have ultimately led to a general imposition of communal land tenure such as that towards which the United States appears to be tending at the present time….communal except owned not by Indian tribes controlled by friendly chiefs, but by far off bank bureaucrats who work together with the government…..

Janus—January—Ganesha—REL & MLK—Liminality and Transition in Modern Holidays

As Jadis, the White Witch/Queen of Eternal Winter in Narnia once said, “A door from the world of men; I have heard of such things; this may wreck all”.  Clive Staples Lewis, “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”

If there ever were a god who personifies the door from or to the world of men, or any other portal, it would be the Roman god Janus, the two-faced deity who looked forward and backward through time and space.   Janus was among the most ancient of the distinctively Roman gods, one of my earliest girlfriends/ crushes in life was named “Jana”—Janus’ female counterpart and closer cognate to the Hindu Ganesha-Jayanti.   Ganesha is the elephant-god whose “pachydermal” strength and size permit him to remove all obstacles from the way—like an elephant charging through the forest (or anything else, I guess).  Janus personified and presided over the obstacles themselves—especially barriers, passages, and doorways in particular.

As through the barriers of time we fly on our annual travels to and from the dimensions of one year to another, we pass each year through the month of “January” named for this particular god of most apparently ancient and revered antiquity in the Indo-Germanische Ur-sprach und Ur-Gesselschaft as they (the proto-Indo-European language and society) might have existed in some vague yet certain to have been real at one time Indo-Arisches Ur-Heimatland.

New Year’s Eve-to-New Year’s Day is the generally recognized boundary or liminal moment between one year and the next, but I would suggest that the joint celebration of General Robert E. Lee’s birthday together with Reverend Martin Luther King’s birthday this coming Monday January 17, 2011, is a much more profoundly liminal, Janus-like moment—Robert Edward Lee’s birthday (January 19, 1807) looking backwards towards the Old Confederacy, and the Old Constitutional Federal Union from which it sprang, and Martin Luther King’s Birthday (January 15, 1929) which (at this point in time also looks back) albeit on the Post-Robert E. Lee South of Reconstruction and Jim Crow more than on the early Republic.

I grew up taught to love and revere General Robert E. Lee as the brilliant military commander under whom my ancestors fought in 1861-1865.   And although I’m sure that MLK and I would have disagreed on many particular questions of policy, I cannot help but feel deep and profound awe when I re-read Reverend Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham Jail, to which I can personally relate so many times more than his “I have a Dream” speech which is by far the best known of his speeches.   I do believe that Martin Luther King was a man after Jesus Christ’s own heart—the heart of a revolutionary bludgeon against legal tyranny and hypocrisy on the part of a self-centered elite.  But I see so much of myself in Robert E. Lee’s life, internal conflicts, and career that I cannot help but feel closer to the Confederate leader—even though my life, frankly, is more that of a civilly or uncivilly disobedient activist.   Does it have anything to do with my status as a white man, son of the South?  Of course it does.  And it tortures my mind and conscience, because I realize the contradiction—-Lee was a product of the Establishment who remained an instrument of the establishment.  MLK was a product of the underclass who always remained an instrument of the underclass struggling for some measure of equality.  I am a product of the establishment and child of upper class (read “rich”) family who, having lost it all or most of it all to what he perceives as serious injustice and governmental-corporate malfeasance has dedicated his own life to the assisting struggles of the underclass, of all underdogs, and of the disenfranchised.

When recently in Baltimore I went to several of the Thurgood Marshall exhibits scattered around Thurgood Marshall’s home city and was similarly moved by the struggles of the First African-American Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  I do not think he was a good lawyer, and he was frankly an abysmal justice—but he was definitely in the right place at the right time, and his struggle for freedom is much like mine.  The airport between Baltimore & Washington, located closer to Annapolis where my son studies at St. John’s college than anywhere else, has one of these exhibits and in fact the BWI Airport is called the “Thurgood Marshall” International Airport.  Strange that there is no airport named after John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801-1835, even though this Justice Marshall is justly credited with forming and shaping the modern Anglo-American tradition of constitutional jurisprudence in the United States.  John Marshall was former and shaper to the same degree that Thurgood Marshall was formed and shaped by the times in which he lived, and was an effective and competent participant in those times and events.

When checking out how the transition in my lifetime had occurred between the mid-January celebration of Robert E. Lee’s Birthday and the Mid-January celebration of Martin Luther King’s Birthday, I was more than mildly surprised to learn that Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi all jointly designated the Third Monday in January as Robert E. Lee day AND Martin Luther King Day.   In Florida, January 19, is still Robert E. Lee Day, but not a paid holiday, so nobody gets an extra day off, while in Virginia the day is jointly Robert E. Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s birthday.  I’ll bet there are a lot of racially segregated parties this weekend with very few crossover members attending both.

In a very real sense, that is too bad I guess—in the spirit of Janus and Ganesha, the lives of both Robert E. Lee and Martin Luther King represented (and up to a point, constituted) the ritual re-enactment of boundaries.  One of the great boundaries that Robert E. Lee had to cross in his life was the boundary between the blue and the grey.  He was a graduate of West Point and up to a point the founder of the effective U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  He built up the levees around St. Louis—a kind of boundary maintenance between dry land and riverbeds—and he retained his U.S. Army commission until the secession of the State of Virginia, to which he felt a primary loyalty traditional in those early days of the Federal Republic.  He believed he was a Virginian more than an American, so he respected the boundary between the State and Federal government more than most of us can imagine possible in this modern era.

For Martin Luther King, the primary boundary was one of color, between black and white, of all the symbolically and physically cordoned spaces which separated black and white in the buses, trains, schools, parks, restaurants, and movie theaters of the Southern United States and many other parts of the country as well.  (In the Northern part of the United States, where de jure segregation was less rigid, de fact segregation by residential areas was much stronger.  As former California Senator (and Japanese-American linguistic/semanticist) S.I. Hayakawa once explained it to us when he addressed my high school in 1973, “Southern Whites don’t care how close the Black man gets so long as he doesn’t get too high; the Northern Whites don’t care how high the Black man gets so long as he doesn’t get too close.”

So Robert E. Lee’s life was all about boundary maintenance, and Martin Luther King’s life was all about boundary destruction.  Some say that Robert E. Lee’s strategy for fighting for Southern Independence in 1861-65 was hampered by his excessive respect for boundaries: when the Northern will and organization was low during the two earlier years of the war, Lee several times stood back in Northern Virginia and failed to invade Maryland and seize Washington D.C.  By the time Lee finally decided to cross the boundary and go—I’ve never quite understood why—into Southern Pennsylvania (did he expect an uprising of the Pennsylvania-Dutch/German Amish in favor of the Confederacy? probably not….for Lee was a very smart and well-educated man) it was too late.  The Northern Armies had become stronger and better organized and even if Lee had won Gettysburg, he could not have realistically conquered Pennsylvania—so as I say, I’ve always wondered why he bothered at all—it’s as if he was afraid frontally to attack Washington—too close to the “boundary” of his own home in Arlington perhaps?  If so, his respect for boundaries really did “cost him the farm” for Arlington was seized and made forfeit.

In my world, as I’ve said so often before, I am interested in boundaries, albeit in very different ways.  With regard to the law—I want to crash the remaining boundaries between Black and White in regard to the enforcement of Civil Rights—I think that the idea that Civil Rights Law is primarily a welfare program for racial minorities is just AWFUL—both un-American and Anti-American—and it is wholly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has been preaching about affirmative action and racial categories in the law since at least 1978.  I would love to see the Civil Rights Laws completely removed from their Public Welfare location in Title 42 and moved perhaps to Titles 4, 5, or 28, or perhaps entirely into Title 18.  It is evil to associate constitutional rights with Welfare programs in my opinion: equally evil to using access to civil rights laws to maintain racial conflict and competition in the U.S.

Which is not to say that there should not be competition between the races, or even some degree of separation.  Readers of this blog will also recall that I am a constant critic of the failed doctrines of “diversity” which suggest that everyone should mingle and mix and get together and physically as well as culturally obliterate all the boundaries between different cultural, economic, ethnic, occupational, racial, and social groups.   I submit that the real appreciation and maintenance of diversity, and all the socio-economic an cultural (as well as physical) evolutionary and competitive-stimulus benefits which real diversity provides—mandates that we encourage and foster the ability of the people to test out alternative ways of life and see which ways work better for different people—and to watch these ways of life compete for the betterment of each cultural, economic, ethnic, occupational, racial, and social group.  Why should we NOT want a diversity of ideas fomented by separate but parallel development?  Why would we, how could we, really want a world characterized by bland homogeneity in which everyone shops at Walmart and CVS, the Gap, Starbucks, and maybe a MAXIMUM of a dozen other name-brand stores throughout the world.  Such drab uniformity to me as a nightmare, but also an inevitable consequence of promoting “diversity” meaning “shake-and-bake-hamburger helper-mixed-powdered just add water world global society.”

In conclusion the Mississippi proclamation of the joint holiday we celebrate this weekend seems to me worth quoting, even if it is last year’s proclamation which I just found  (Martin Luther King’s & Robert E. Lee’s Birthday):

Martin Luther King’s Birthday
Robert E. Lee’s Birthday

Print Holiday Notice

TO THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI: WHEREAS, the Legislature has designated the third Monday in January as the day for the observance of the birthdays of ROBERT E. LEE and DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., and under the provisions of Section 3-3-7, Mississippi Code of 1972, is a legal holiday in the State of Mississippi; 

THEREFORE, all officers and employees of the State of Mississippi are authorized and empowered, at the discretion of the executive head of the department or agency, to close their respective offices in observance of the holiday on

MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2010 GIVEN under my hand and seal of office at Jackson, Mississippi, this the 4th day of January, 2010.


C. DELBERT HOSEMANN, JR.
SECRETARY OF STATE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

The King’s Speech—January 17, 2011—Prytania Theatre, New Orleans 70115

The personal tragedy of an individual of marginal importance in history can be quite moving.  King George VI was not one of the mover’s and shakers of the 20th century, although he sat on England’s throne during World War II and was the last to wear the Crown of Emperor of India created for his great-grandmother Victoria a bare 67 years before his reign.  This movie shows Prince Bertie/King George VI: in perhaps the truest light, not only was he not one of the century’s (or even two decades’) movers and shakers, he manifests himself most sympathetically as one who was profoundly moven and shaken by the events of his time, in spite of his high rank and title.

The Duke of York’s personal tragedy was a speech impediment which so moved the people of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and all the other English-speaking dominions that it is engraved on the minds of anyone who lived in that era (even Americans) if they were at all aware of England’s role in the world war.  Colin Firth captures the King’s stuttering as a result of childhood abuse and the film encapsulates it rather well for what it was really symbolic of—the hesitant stuttering of the British Empire as it muddled on through its last decade of existence.

Throughout my youth my conservative parents and grandparents (all Americans born in either Louisiana or Texas, but excessively enthusiastic Anglophiles) drilled into my head that Edward VIII had betrayed his heritage and his empire by marrying the heiress Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson from Baltimore.  That aspect of the tragedy is covered in this movie which also tacitly concerns how Princess Elizabeth became so popular, and ultimately queen.

For the first time made public (at least to my mind) is that Prince Bertie (George VI) spent years trying to overcome his speech impediment by and through the loyal services of a Harley Street (City of Westminster) Australian-born speech therapist (who actually lacked any formal medical credentials) named Lionel Logue who very sympathetically put up with the King’s (also to me heretofore unknown) arrogant bad temper.   Lionel Logue saw George VI as a friend, which (again reflecting the personal tragedy) apparently no one else did see.

It has been one of the most interesting points of hypothetical speculation about 20th century history to wonder what would have happened if King Edward VIII had aggressively “taken charge” in 1936 and insisted on marrying Wallis Warfield Simpson in the face of the Prime Minister’s opposition.  Would it perhaps have saved the British Empire if the monarch had been stronger and taken a bold modern step?  As one who watched the fairytale marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana blossom and then decay into a nasty modern divorce of simply sleazy series of episodes involving reference by HRH Charles of Wales to tampons and Diana ultimately dying in Paris in the company of the son of a slimy Arab purchaser of the quintessentially English Harrod’s Department store probably as a result of reckless driving by a drunken chauffeur—I think England could have benefitted from the much more minor scandal of Prince David (Edward VIII) insisting on marrying whomsoever he pleased, even if she were not royal, was a commoner in fact, from one of the (former) colonies, and twice divorced.  Such a revolt against religious strictures relating to marriage has at least as distinguished an English history as Henry VIII (It could have been said that “VIII is the number for royal marriage revolt—Henry VIII to Edward VIII”). (Or alternatively “VIII is the number for revolting royal marriages…”).

But the simple truth is that Edward VIII eschewed his education and birthright, became Duke of Windsor, flirted with Nazis and Naziism, and generally was an embarrassment to England and the Empire, living in self-imposed exile and (all but social) obscurity until his death in Paris in 1972.

The movie is wonderful “history lite” with one of the worst likenesses I’ve ever seen of Winston Churchill playing the Lord of the Admiralty and World War II PM.  All the characters are charming and unoffensive, even Wallis Warfield Simpson, and the sidebar references to Hitler and the War are as innocuous as those old newsreels of the Fuhrer speaking to the assembled hundreds of thousands in Nuremberg could possibly be.  There is even a cameo appearance of the actual 1937 Coronation itself embedded in the movie.  I think my grandmother and grandfather would have poked lots of holes in the historical fabric just because “they were there” and knew about so much of the historical context, and they would complain bitterly about the action of the movie ending on September 3, 1939, at the beginning of World War II rather than showing the harsher wartime reality of the stuttering King’s reign.

But it was good to be back at the old Prytania Theatre near Jefferson in Uptown New Orleans close to Audubon Park and Tulane, and to feel that history lives on in one form or another.  The really important point here is to preserve the memory of the last decade of the British Empire in all its stuttering, hesitating reality as embodied by its unwilling, stuttering, hesitating King, who loved his daughters and endearingly describes himself to the little princesses Margaret and Elizabeth as a Penguin who transforms into a gigantic Albatross (go figure?) early on in the movie.

The Dark Sexual Meta-Politics of the “Black Swan”

Once again availing myself of the pleasure of New Orleans’ Prytania Theatre, I saw Darren Aronofsky’s “Black Swan” for the first time last night (opening night at the Prytania….pre-Oscar run I suppose). The line between the dreamworld and the real world is blurred—readers of this blog may have noticed that this is my favorite movie and dramatic theme and subject line, from Plato’s Cave (Republic Book VII) through Calderon de la Barca’s “La Vida es Sueno” to Lewis Carroll “through the looking-glass”, C.S. Lewis’ Narnia through the Wardrobe and the Lake between the worlds, Matrix, and Total Recall.  Black Swan follows in this tradition as a dark movie with very little light.  I confess that as of the writing of this I haven’t read any other reviews of it so the thoughts here are my own, untethered by other critical thoughts. The subtitle of this movie could be either: “After many seasons dies the swan” or “The Tragic Ritual of Divine Kingship: succession and passion, murder and sacrifice, among the heirs of Pavlova.”

Arguably my alma-mater’s most beautiful and talented alumna ever, at least of anyone whom I ever chanced to encounter at Lamont, the Fogg, Sackler, Tozzer, Peabody, or Agassiz at any time during any of my many and varied Cantabrigian years, Natalie Portman plays Nina Sayers, an aspiring ballerina in a City never expressly identified as New York, but where the blazes else could it be?  with a company never expressly identified as the New York City Ballet, but what other ballet troop uses Lincoln Center as its symbolic and practical home base?

Natalie’s character Nina seems to be a victim attacked and probably doomed from every angle.  The tension from the beginning seems to be: who is Lena’s evil Wizard? Her sharply ambitious mother Erica Sayers (played flawlessly by Barbara Hershey as a kind of evil twin to “Leave it to Beaver’s” mother—there are a lot of light/dark pairings in this movie—but that’s not really one of them) with her increasingly piercing eyes and comments?  The potentially and historically predatory Ballet Director Thomas Leroy with his aggressive, but apparently (possibly?) merely heuristic sexual aggression??  Or the obvious competitor, another more relaxed, laid back and highly sexual balerina Lily?

In other words, this movie invokes every major cliche of sexual politics in the modern world.  It is beautifully filmed and focused in alternating light and shadows and quite simply could not have been completed with any other actress, because I cannot think of any other young actress whom I personally (or the world) could stand to look at from every possible angle up close….  But it is impossible to get bored with Natalie Portman’s face, even when her expressions are ambiguous-to-inscrutable.  As it turns out, the incomprehensible nature of Natalie’s character Nina turns out to be no mistake, but the essence of the story.

I have long been extremely suspicious of sexual politics as an explanatory device for human failure and self-destructive tendencies.   I am most suspicious of stories of sexual harassment and sexual predation against younger females by male superiors and supervisors.  Up to a point, I think that such hierarchy is fairly natural and normal in the world.  But refreshingly, in this movie at least, the “outward and visible signs” of Director Tom Leroy’s sexually aggressive moves towards Nina are entirely instructional—as a Director, and only as a director, Tom wants Lena to put more passion into her dancing, and he feels she cannot do this unless she “feels” sexual desire more deeply herself.  Beside a couple of kisses, which seem just to end up as demonstrative professorial exercises trying to awaken something inside of Nina, nothing happens between them.  Director Tom simultaneously abjectly fails and even more abjectly succeeds, to no good end.   The line in St. Francis’ prayer “only in dying are we born to eternal life” comes to mind.

The elder “Dying Swan” Beth MacIntyre (it is insinuated without being articulated) was once Director Vincent’s lover.  But what does this mean or matter?  Nina longs to be like her.  Nina even steals Beth lipstick and other objects, but later guiltily returns them. Within the portrayal of Swan Lake, and the Ballet–she is the former star—back to Lake Nemi she is the only Priest, awaiting the new arrival of the next Rex (Regina?) Nemorensis.

Nina’s mother figure is likewise ambiguous.  Erica Sayers is domineering but kind, commanding but caring.  She claims to have sacrificed herself and her own ballet career.  She is an obsessive painter but above all she has invested her maternal and creative energies in her daughter Nina.  Erica restrains and represses Nina and does not want her to achieve the passionate release which Tom considers necessary to Nina’s apotheosis into a “Diva” of the Ballet.

Most intriguingly: Lily—Lily and Nina are a pair most reminiscent of Faith and Buffy in the Season III of Joss Whedon’s TV Series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003). Faith was Buffy’s dark, sexual, rule-breaking and authority disrespecting “instinct rather than training-based” twin slayer.   The nightclub dance seen prior to Nina’s final “seduction” could be clipped and merged, almost seamlessly, with the parallel nightclub dance scene in Season III of BtVS called “Bad Girls” where Buffy and Faith go wild (or, rather where Faith tempts and draws Buffy into the wild scene for a while, and almost into Faith’s plunge towards the Dark Side).

The context of the story of Lena Thayer is the competition for the leading role in Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake” with all its magic and romantic intrigue made real in the modern City and Ballet company.   Lily, like Tom, tries to awaken lust and a sense of looseness in Nina, and her success parallels Tom, with equal ambiguity.

Ultimately, the story reveals Nina as her own black swan, her own shadow in the mirror, her own crowning achievement and tragic undoing in denouemente.

The Metapolitical message here is that yes, Freud was right that we are all screwed up in the head by our sexuality, but no, we can’t escape the consequences of our choices of our other actions.  None of us can see clearly, we see only through a glass, darkly, because we think, act, and speak only as children.  Also consistently Freudian is the message that sexual repression is the root of all evil.  What can we do but laugh and cry at the insistent repetition of these assertions throughout the world?

If there is a “moral” it must be that we all must engage in self-discovery, but that there is no necessary triumph or salvation through self-mutilation and death, even when it helps us achieve amazing goals which otherwise we could not have realized.  Our dreams reflect our dark side—our dreams shape our dark side—but without a proper control of light and shadow, we can neither see who we really are no who we ever should be, nor do what we should, nor know what we need to know without fully encountering our dark shadow selves—and this is why Freudian Psychology is eternally inferior to that of Carl Gustav Jung.

Notes Towards a Seminar on Civil Rights in 2011

I would like to take this Seminar Around the Country but I would need sponsors and venues…  Anyone willing or able to Sponsor or offer a venue should contact me or Peyton Yates Freiman at 512-968-2415 (or if voicemail is full or phones otherwise down), write to Peyton at freimanthird@gmail.com or to me at charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com.  I think Bob Hurt may be trying to organize a first presentation in Clearwater: bob@bobhurt.com, (727) 669-5511.  I would like to present this coast-to-coast!

“Civil Rights in the 21st Century: To Whom do the Rights Belong? Who is Entitled to Remedy?”

RACE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: STRICT SCRUTINY: THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM

FROM DRED SCOTT TO GRUTTER v. BOLINGER—Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, Richmond v. Croson, & Aldarand v. Pena

A HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS OF SILENCE 1857-1977

An Introduction to the 13th and 14th Amendment:

Justice Taney decided Scott v. Sanford correctly in 1857—so correctly it took three constitutional amendments to overturn it.

13th Amendment: Involuntary Servitude and the origin of the American “Prison Planet”.

14th Amendment: “Persons” and Citizenship redefined (myth and jurisprudential reality

14th Amendment: Due Process

14th Amendment: Equal Protection

14th Amendment and the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights

14th Amendment: Privileges & Immunities—how to resucitate

14th Amendment: Implementing Statutes:

42 U.S.C. Section 1981—-Equal Access to the Courts (to protect the rights to make and enforce contracts)

42 U.S.C. Section 1982—-Equal Rights to Own Property

42 U.S.C. Section 1983—-Civil Rights Action

42 U.S.C. Section 1985—-Affirmative Action or General Rights (see also Sections 1981-1982)

42 U.S.C. Section 1986—-the Duty to Prevent Civil Rights Injury

42 U.S.C. Section 1988(a)—Incorporation of the Common Law into the Constitution to create remedies

15th Amendment: The Right to Vote and Political Participation

The Relationship Between the State and Federal Judiciaries

(A) Civil Rights Removal

Rachel v. Georgia (1966)

Greenwood v. Peacock (1966)

Johnson v. Mississippi (1975)

(B) Civil Rights Injunctions

Dombrowski v. Pfister (1965)—Sidebar: Jim Garrison and the JFK Story

Younger v. Harris (1971)—California—why is this a DOCTRINE and Dombrowski forgotten?

Mitchum v. Foster (1972)—Florida—why is this the Final Element of the Trilogy….

(C) Federal Civil Rights in the State Courts

Texas & Montana

Florida

California

Massachusetts, Michigan, & New Jersey

(1) Application of Civil Rights Law to Mortgage Challenges and Credit generally

(2) Application of Civil Rights Law to Florida Mortgage Foreclosure Procedures & Customs

(3) Application of Civil Rights Law to California Mortgage Foreclosure Procedures & Customs

(4) Application of Civil Rights Law to Massachusetts & New Jersey Foreclosure Procedures & Customs

 

(5) The Interface of Family Law and Constitutional Law: State Licensed Marriage

(6) The Interface of Family Law and Constitutional Law: Raising and Caring for Children Children

(7) The Interface of Family Law and Constitutional Law: Religious Freedom and Establishment

(8) The Interface of Family Law and Constitutional Law: Dissolution Procedures

(9) The Interface of Family Law and Constitutional Law: Post-Dissolution State Involvement in the Family

(10) Full Circle—Family Law and Involuntary Servitude: How to Resuscitate Chief Justice Taney’s Due Process of Law without repealing the 13th Amendment and with only minor modifications to the 14th….

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

New Orleans: Solstice through Imbolc/Candlemas/St. Brigit’s Day (December 21, 2010-February 2, 2011)

Five and a half years after Katrina, New Orleans is still definitely one of the greatest cities on earth.  I have spent just over six weeks here, reconnecting with my college years and youth and generally recovering some physical health and sanity that the past two years had left ragged.  I highly recommend New Orleans as a therapeutic destination for anyone who can merely observe, and not participate too much, at least in the drinking side of life.  If I had not given up “real” drinking 27 years ago, coming to New Orleans would have been suicidal.  If liquor is your weakness, this is a hellish place to avoid.  If you love architectural beauty and soft southern humid air that’s cool in wintertime, this is heaven.

Of course, exactly three years ago the road of my life had taken me straight into the blackest, lifeless, and driest of all modern hells: into the temporary custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for 54 days (December 9, 2007-February 2, 2008).  U.S District Judge Janis Graham Jack basically provided me a government paid forced-educational journey into this country’s real heart of darkness, and I will never forget it or cease to marvel at the things I learned in those dark and dank places where society’s refuse is stored.  That such places exist in the land of the free is a horrible disgrace to our constitution and heritage.  That conscientious Americans are willing to work as custodians to destroy the lives and freedom of others is still nightmarish to me.

New Orleans—what is her place in all this?  In New Orleans, there is real freedom, because no one really cares what anyone else does, but there are still cops and prisons.  The Sheriff of Orleans Parish used to be one of the feared enemies of Civil Rights in America, but these days the repression is more in the curtailment of the city’s “joie de vivre.”  In New Orleans, Walmart closes at 10:00 p.m. and opens at 7:00 a.m.  The wonderful Trolley-Stop Restaurant on St. Charles, which used to be open 24/7, is now only open at night on weekends. The City has been repressed, but it is still New Orleans.  Around that Walmart on Tchoupitoulas, new subsidized housing projects have gone up—and they are handsome and well-designed and attractive, unlike the dismal government “projects” of the 1960s & ’70s. Rumors have it that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have something to do with some of the renewal and construction around here.  I haven’t investigated enough to be sure.  The City is still a thriving haven of sin and debauchery—I suppose that will never change.  The night clerk at the Olivier House Hotel I’ve been staying at, who brought a space heater up to my room on this Cold Candlemas Eve (St. Brigit’s Eve?  Imbolc-Night—90 days since Halloween and Samhain marked the last of the Celtic Calendar’s great feasts), was wearing a Sweatshirt from the Salem, Massachusetts Coroner’s Office commemorating Halloween 2010—she attended the Witch’s Ball at the Hawthorne Hotel exactly 93 days ago tonight.  Apparently there is a lot of idea cross-fertilization, involvement between the tourist industries of New Orleans for winter/Mardi Gras and Salem for Halloween.

But there are not two more dissimilar states in the Union than Louisiana and Massachusetts, historically, culturally, and in terms of both past and present politics.  Over time, Massachusetts has softened and become much less sternly puritanical, of course, just as Louisiana has cleaned up its act (somewhat at least) since the days of Governor Edwin Edwards (“Vote for the Crook, it’s Important”) and many of his predecessors including the fabled Huey and Earl Long administrations, punctuated by legendary oddities like the governorship of “You Are My Sunshine” Composer Governor Jimmie H. Davis… on the one hand and Sam Houston Jones on the other.

New Orleans, Louisiana, the home of so many American legends.  It is a place of unsurpassed beauty in its 19th century architecture mixed with the “evergreen” live oak trees and flower season that never ends.  I still have no easy explanation for how the same life that took me to the Federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles in December 2007 brought me here to New Orleans in December 2010 for roughly the same amount of time.  I learned a great deal in both places but there’s no doubt about where the food was better—I have sampled enough good eateries in the pursuit of at least my mental if not physical health to write a miniature guidebook now—but not without the assistance of Miss Lila Harrington whose services as a tour guide, even to a city I thought I knew well, have been so very much appreciated.

On the physical side I think that New Orleans (like much of Florida I suppose) is a very good place for the weak to build cardiac health because it is so completely flat.  Long and interesting walks in the Garden District and Uptown Audubon-Park-Tulane University areas are actually unparalleled for architectural touring anywhere in Florida.  I cannot say enough how much I love this town or its “laissez faire” attitude towards life.  The New Years Fireworks by the River were awesome.  Tujague’s, the Court of Two Sisters, and Commander’s Palace continue an amazing culinary tradition.  I thought Emeril’s Delmonico fairly outrageously overpriced, although the quality of the food was excellent.  Unfortunately I was introduced to Delmonico some three decades ago by my Uncle Milton who knew the two old ladies who ran the place from the 1940s through the 1970s.  It was then much more like Tujague’s and Court of Two Sisters (still are today) in the sense of being wonderful food and wonderful value for a reasonable price.  Commander’s Palace is well-balanced, more expensive but excellent.  Emeril’s Delmonico, subsidized I suppose by his years of building a television audience, was the only cautionary tale I could offer.  There are many new and less famous but still wonderful restaurants, of which Domenico’s at the Roosevelt and its Magazine Street small twin deserve very honorable mention.  For non-Creole/Non-Acadienne cuisine, Suko Thai—also on Magazine Street, was probably the most surprising discovery of the trip, although Sake and Biblos on Magazine also deserve honorable mention.

I will miss this town when I return to the City of Angels.  I will miss its soft humid air and languid lifestyle.  But I will relish the return to a place where smoking is really almost completely taboo and everywhere frowned upon, and where the rhythm of existence is not quite so very much governed by the continuous quest for alcohol which seems to rule an extraordinary proportion of the population.  For a man who seriously hasn’t touched real booze in years, New Orleans culture of smoking and alcohol is its one major detraction.

Nine Historical Vignettes for February 3, 2011: (1) Kosciusko’s Bridges 1781, (2) Hampton Roads Conference 1865, (3) Declaration of War against Germany 1917, (4) Death of Woodrow Wilson 1924, (5) Arrest of Karl Fuchs 1950, (6) Publication by Jacques Cousteau 1953, (7) Death of Buddy Holly 1959, (8) Landing of LUNIK 9 on the Moon 1966, (9) Alberto Gonzalez Confirmed as Attorney General 2005

What follows are nine moments in the history of the United States or Western Europe which relate to and lead up to the formation of the world as we know it.  All of these events happened on February 3, of one year or another.  THEY SAY THAT AMERICANS, FOR THE MOST PART, ARE the most HISTORICALLY ILLITERATE people in the world.  WHILE TEACHING AT AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN 2001-2003, ONE OF MY STUDENTS ASKED ME HOW I EVER CAME TO KNOW SO MUCH HISTORY—HOW LONG HAD IT TAKEN ME—I ANSWERED HIM I HAD BEEN STUDYING HISTORY MY WHOLE LIFE, AND THAT DISCOURAGED HIM, AND HE SAID, “SO NONE OF THE REST OF US REALLY HAVE A CHANCE”.  I RESPONDED THAT, NO, HISTORY WAS SOMETHING ONE COULD LEARN IN THE QUIET MOMENTS OF RELAXATION BETWEEN WORK, SLEEP, EATING, AND PLAY.  THAT HISTORY WAS LIKE CROSS-WORD PUZZLES OR VIDEO-GAMES—EASY AND RELAXING TO TAKE NOTES AND STUDY LINES OF HISTORY VERY CASUALLY—THIS I SINCERELY BELIEVE, AND TO THAT END, I HAVE COLLECTED 9 HISTORICAL VIGNETTES FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2011.
Today in History — Tuesday, Feb. 3 (52 Years Ago/The Day the Music Died, 87 years ago, the day Woodrow Wilson Died, 6 years ago, the day the decency of the Office of U.S. Attorney General Died)

Historical Vignette # (1)    On the evening of February 3, 1781, during the final year of the American War of Independence (“Revolutionary War” implies social change, and since the War of 1775-1781—peace resolved by the Treaty of Paris in 1783—with the United States Congress meeting in the dull & dreary Maryland Capital of Annapolis), American General Nathanael Greene and his troops successfully cross the Yadkin River to evade General Charles Cornwallis. The crossing followed consecutive Patriot losses at the Catawba River and at Tarrant’s Tavern, as well as heavy rainfall on February 1, which Greene feared would soon make the river impassable.

Although contradictory evidence exists, it is likely that the efforts of Polish engineer and military advisor Thaddeus Kosciusko made the crossing possible. Kosciusko had made a canoe expedition up the Catawba and Pedee Rivers, assessing Greene’s options, in December 1780. He then built a fleet of flat-bottomed boats for General Greene to use as a means of transporting his men across the water without having to waste time on manual portage, which would have involved soldiers removing the boats from the water and carrying them on their shoulders over land. The boats could be loaded into the Southern Army’s wagons for transport between river crossings. Kosciusko’s study of the rivers also allowed Greene to accurately predict the two-day interval between a heavy rainfall and rising river water.

Greene had ordered the Kosciusko-designed boats to be waiting for his men at the Yadkin. Thus, despite the flood of refugees clogging North Carolina’s roads in a desperate rush to leave before notoriously cruel British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton arrived, Greene was able to move his troops to the river and cross it. Although Cornwallis caught the tail-end of the Patriot crossing and shelled Greene’s camp on the far side of the river on February 4, he was not able to cause major damage or disruption.

Greene’s timing was impeccable–Cornwallis was unable to ford the quickly rising Yadkin behind him. Instead, Cornwallis was forced to march his men to the aptly named Shallow Ford and did not finish crossing the Yadkin until the morning of the February 7, by which time Greene and the Southern Army had a two-day lead in the race towards the Dan River and safety in Patriot-held Virginia.

Historical Vignette #(2) During the Final Year of the War Between the States (“Civil War” being as much a misnomer as “Revolutionary War”—the English Civil War of 1644-1649 was a truly “Civil War” between classes and religious groups within the same society, but it is only by a long post-war process that the full class, constitutional, economic, and socio-political implications of the American War of 1861-65  were resolved) President Lincoln met on February 3, 1865 at Hampton Roads with a delegation of Confederate officials to discuss a possible peace agreement. Lincoln refuses to grant the delegation any concessions, and the president departs for the north.

New York Tribune editor and abolitionist Horace Greeley provided the impetus for the conference when he contacted Francis Blair, a Maryland aristocrat and presidential adviser. Greeley suggested that Blair was the “right man” to open discussions with the Confederates to end the war. Blair sought permission from Lincoln to meet with Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and he did so twice in January 1865. Blair suggested to Davis that an armistice be forged and the two sides turn their attention to removing the French-supported regime of Maximilian in Mexico. This plan would help cool tensions between North and South by providing a common enemy, he believed.

Meanwhile, the situation was becoming progressively worse for the Confederates in the winter of 1864 and 1865. In January, Union troops captured Fort Fisher and effectively closed Wilmington, North Carolina, the last major port open to blockade runners. Davis conferred with his vice president, Alexander Stephens, and Stephens recommended that a peace commission be appointed to explore a possible armistice. Davis sent Stephens and two others to meet with Lincoln at Hampton Roads, Virginia.

The meeting convened on February 3. Stephens asked if there was any way to stop the war and Lincoln replied that the only way was “for those who were resisting the laws of the Union to cease that resistance.” The delegation underestimated Lincoln’s resolve to make the end of slavery a necessary condition for any peace. The president also insisted on immediate reunification and the laying down of Confederate arms before anything else was discussed. In short, the Union was in such an advantageous position that Lincoln did not need to concede any issues to the Confederates. Robert M.T. Hunter, one of the delegation, commented that Lincoln was offering little except the unconditional surrender of the South.

After less than five hours, the conference ended and the delegation left with no concessions. The war continued for more than two months.

Historical Vignette #(3) On the 3rd day of February, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson speaks for two hours before a historic session of Congress to announce that the United States is breaking diplomatic relations with Germany.

Due to the reintroduction of the German navy’s policy of unlimited submarine warfare, announced two days earlier by Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollwegg, Wilson announced that his government had no choice but to cut all diplomatic ties with Germany in order to uphold the honor and dignity of the United States. Though he maintained that We do not desire any hostile conflict with the German government, Wilson nevertheless cautioned that war would follow if Germany followed through on its threat to sink American ships without warning.

Later that day, Count von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the U.S., received a note written by Secretary of State Robert Lansing stating that The President has directed me to announce to your Excellency that all diplomatic relations between the United States and the German empire are severed, and that the American Ambassador at Berlin will be immediately withdrawn, and in accordance with such announcement to deliver to your Excellency your passports. Bernstorff was guaranteed safe passage out of the country, but was ordered to leave Washington immediately. Also in the wake of Wilson’s speech, all German cruisers docked in the United States were seized and the government formally demanded that all American prisoners being held in Germany be released at once.

On the same day, a German U-boat sunk the American cargo ship Housatonic off the Scilly Islands, just southwest of Britain. A British ship rescued the ship’s crew, but its entire cargo of grain was lost.

In Berlin that night, before learning of the president’s speech, German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann told U.S. Ambassador James J. Gerard that Everything will be alright. America will do nothing, for President Wilson is for peace and nothing else. Everything will go on as before. He was proved wrong the following morning, as news arrived of the break in relations between America and Germany, a decisive step towards U.S. entry into the First World War.

Historical Vignette #(4) *CLOSELY RELATED TO #(3):  On February 3, 1924, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, died.  Woodrow Wilson was the first Southerner elected President of the United States since 1856, and the first Southerner to hold the title of President within the territory of what is now the United States since Jefferson Davis, and the only Ph.D. and Academic ever to be elected President (he was previously President of Princeton University in New Jersey).  Wilson died in Washington, D.C., at the age of 67, 7 years after the declaration of War on Germany that effectively ended American Isolation in the New World and launched the country, unwillingly and unnecessarily, as a world power forever.

Wilson was also the President who presided over the “ratification” of the 16th Amendment and implementation of Income Tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the 17th Amendment to the United States which effectively abolished the power of the States in Federal Government forever.  OK, his administration also saw the extension of the voting Franchise to Women and many other “progressive” acts, but on the whole, Wilson effectively crystalized the implementation of the foundations of Corporate-Socialist government in the United States of America.  It was all very tragic.

But in 1912, Governor Wilson of New Jersey was elected president in a landslide Democratic victory over Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and Progressive Party (“Bull-Moose”) candidate (and formerly Wildly-Popular President) Theodore Roosevelt. The focal point of President Wilson’s first term in office was the outbreak of World War I and his efforts to find a peaceful end to the conflict while maintaining U.S. neutrality. In 1916, he was narrowly reelected president at the end of a close race against Charles Evans Hughes, his Republican challenger.

In 1917, the renewal of German submarine warfare against neutral American ships, and the “Zimmerman Note,” which revealed a secret alliance proposal by Germany to Mexico, forced Wilson to push for America’s entry into the war.

At the war’s end, President Wilson traveled to France, where he headed the American delegation to the peace conference seeking an official end to the conflict. At Versailles, Wilson was the only Allied leader who foresaw the future difficulty that might arise from forcing punitive peace terms on an economically ruined Germany. He also successfully advocated the creation of the League of Nations as a means of maintaining peace in the postwar world. In November 1920, President Wilson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at Versailles.

In the autumn of 1919, while campaigning in the United States to win approval for the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations, Wilson suffered a severe stroke that paralyzed his left side and caused significant brain damage. This illness likely contributed to Wilson’s uncharacteristic failure to reach a compromise with the American opponents to the European agreements, and in November the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations.

During his last year in office, there is evidence that Wilson’s second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, may have served as acting president for the debilitated and bed-ridden president who often communicated through her. In March 1921, Wilson’s term expired, and he retired with his wife to Washington, D.C., where he lived until his death on February 3, 1924. Two days later, he was buried in Washington’s National Cathedral, the first president to be laid to rest in the nation’s capital.

Historical Vignette #(5) On February 3, 1950, Klaus Fuchs, a German-born British scientist who helped developed the atomic bomb, was arrested in Great Britain for passing top-secret information about the bomb to the Soviet Union. The arrest of Fuchs led authorities to several other individuals involved in a spy ring, culminating with the arrest of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and their subsequent execution.

Fuchs and his family fled Germany in 1933 to avoid Nazi persecution and came to Great Britain, where Fuchs earned his doctorate in physics. During World War II, British authorities were aware of the leftist leanings of both Fuchs and his father. However, Fuchs was eventually invited to participate in the British program to develop an atomic bomb (the project named “Tube Alloys”) because of his expertise. At some point after the project began, Soviet agents contacted Fuchs and he began to pass information about British progress to them. Late in 1943, Fuchs was among a group of British scientists brought to America to work on the Manhattan Project, the U.S. program to develop an atomic bomb. Fuchs continued his clandestine meetings with Soviet agents. When the war ended, Fuchs returned to Great Britain and continued his work on the British atomic bomb project.

Fuchs’ arrest in 1950 came after a routine security check of Fuchs’ father, who had moved to communist East Germany in 1949. While the check was underway, British authorities received information from the American Federal Bureau of Investigation that decoded Soviet messages in their possession indicated Fuchs was a Russian spy. On February 3, officers from Scotland Yard arrested Fuchs and charged him with violating the Official Secrets Act. Fuchs eventually admitted his role and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. His sentence was later reduced, and he was released in 1959 and spent his remaining years living with his father in East Germany.

Fuchs’ capture set off a chain of arrests. Harry Gold, whom Fuchs implicated as the middleman between himself and Soviet agents, was arrested in the United States. Gold thereupon informed on David Greenglass, one of Fuchs’ co-workers on the Manhattan Project. After his apprehension, Greenglass implicated his sister-in-law and her husband, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. They were arrested in New York in July 1950, found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage, and executed at Sing Sing Prison in June 1953.

And Now for Something Completely Different #1, Cross-tabbed as Historical Vignette #(6)   On February 3, 1953, French oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau publishes his most famous and lasting work, The Silent World.

Born in Saint-Andre-de-Cubzac, France, in 1910, Cousteau was trained at the Brest Naval School. While serving in the French navy, he began his underwater explorations, filming shipwrecks and the underwater world of the Mediterranean Sea through a glass bowl. At the time, the only available system for underwater breathing involved a diver being tethered to the surface, and Cousteau sought to develop a self-contained device.

In 1943, with the aid of engineer Emile Gagnan, he designed the Aqua-Lung, the world’s first self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (scuba). With the Aqua-Lung, the largely unexplored world lying beneath the ocean surface was open to Cousteau as never before. He developed underwater cameras and photography and was employed by the French navy to explore navy shipwrecks. In his free time, he explored ancient wrecks and studied underwater sea life.

In 1948, he published his first work, Through 18 Meters of Water, and in 1950 Lord Guinness, a British patron, bought him an old British minesweeper to use for his explorations. Cousteau converted the ship into an oceanographic vessel and christened it the Calypso. In 1953, he published The Silent World, written with Frederic Dumas, and began work on a film version of the book with film director Louis Malle. Three years later,The Silent World was released to world acclaim. The film, which revealed to the public the hidden universe of tropical fish, whales, and walruses, won Best Documentary at the Academy Awards and the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

With the success of the film, Cousteau retired from the navy to devote himself to oceanography. He welcomed geologists, archaeologists, zoologists, environmentalists, and other scientists aboard the Calypso and led numerous excursions to the world’s great bodies of water, from the Red Sea to the Amazon River. He headed the Conshelf Saturation Dive Program, in which men lived and worked for extended time periods at considerable depths along the continental shelves.

His many books include The Living Sea (1963), Three Adventures: Galapagos, Titicaca, the Blue Holes (1973), and Jacques Cousteau: The Ocean World (1985). He also produced several more award-winning films and scores of television documentaries about the ocean, making him a household name. He saw firsthand the damage done to the marine ecosystems by humans and was an outspoken and persuasive environmentalist. Cousteau died in 1997.

HISTORICAL SUB-VIGNETTE: As a personal note, when I was a Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1992 (Ryskamp was, without doubt, one of the most completely decent, distinguished and honorable men I have ever known, as well as one of the most dedicated and hardworking Judges), I had the occasion to participate in and prepare jury instructions and other papers relating to the trial for drug trafficking of a Cousteau apprentice and protege, Michael Wludarszcik, an East German who had earned fame in 1971 or thereabouts by jumping the Berlin Wall and running through a hale of bullets to “Freedom” in the West. In 1989-1990, I had had occasion to participate in the dismantling of that wall, and so I felt a special kinship to Wludarszcik.  Michael Wludarszcik was a sailor, merchant marine, oceanography, and underwater archaeologist who worked closely with Cousteau on several expeditions.  He was also an expert welder, and was accused of having welded several tanks or containers full of marijuana and other contraband and bringing it across the Caribbean into the United States.  He was a handsome, young, good-looking rugged man and had a beautiful wife and infant child who sat, the wife often sobbing, the baby well-behaved and quiet, throughout the trial.  Wludarczsik was found guilty and sentenced under the then current sentencing guidelines to 20 years, although Judge Ryskamp commented on what a terrible loss was this man and his life to society and science, even as he pronounced sentence.  Wludarczsik’s case awakened in my mind a passionate hatred of the war on drugs, which was only repeatedly reinforced throughout the remainder of my clerkship.  I had been disgusted by some drug defendants, the corrupt cops and the slimy drug dealers and all the double-crossing informants, but Michael Wludarczsik was a man whom I would have been honored to know, and his “acts of piracy” involved providing substances which almost all of my friends and colleagues in academia and social circles generally used, enjoyed, and actually valued.  The hypocrisy of the American War on Drugs as a means of incarcerating hundreds of thousands of Americans continues to aggrieve and offend me.   I hope that in my lifetime I will see a time when freedom of choice and freedom to choose an individual lifestyle is restored to the American people, and where no person will ever be imprisoned for providing good value to a willing marketplace.  I deeply respected and will always treasure the time I spent with the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, but I wish he had fought harder, as did his Palm Beach Colleague the Honorable James C. Paine, to neutralize and counteract the War on Drugs, which began in this Country as a power grab after prohibition by oligarchs such as William Randolph Hearst and John D. Rockefeller, the war on drugs itself being a phrase coined or at least popularized by Nelson A. Rockefeller while Governor of New York  (later first unelected Vice-President under Gerald R. Ford).

And now for something completely different #2, Cross Tabbed as *Historical Vignette #(7): On February 3, 1959, rising American rock stars Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson are killed when their chartered Beechcraft Bonanza plane crashes in Iowa a few minutes after takeoff from Mason City on a flight headed for Moorehead, Minnesota. Investigators blamed the crash on bad weather and pilot error. Holly and his band, the Crickets, had just scored a No. 1 hit with “That’ll Be the Day.”

After mechanical difficulties with the tour bus, Holly had chartered a plane for his band to fly between stops on the Winter Dance Party Tour. However, Richardson, who had the flu, convinced Holly’s band member Waylon Jennings to give up his seat, and Ritchie Valens won a coin toss for another seat on the plane.

Holly, born Charles Holley in Lubbock, Texas, and just 22 when he died, began singing country music with high school friends before switching to rock and roll after opening for various performers, including Elvis Presley. By the mid-1950s, Holly and his band had a regular radio show and toured internationally, playing hits like “Peggy Sue,” “Oh, Boy!,” “Maybe Baby” and “Early in the Morning.” Holly wrote all his own songs, many of which were released after his death and influenced such artists as Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney.

Another crash victim, J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson, 28, started out as a disk jockey in Texas and later began writing songs. Richardson’s most famous recording was the rockabilly “Chantilly Lace,” which made the Top 10. He developed a stage show based on his radio persona, “The Big Bopper.”

The third crash victim was Ritchie Valens, born Richard Valenzuela in a suburb of Los  Angeles, who was only 17 when the plane went down but had already scored hits with “Come On, Let’s Go,” “Donna” and “La Bamba,” an upbeat number based on a traditional Mexican wedding song (though Valens barely spoke Spanish). In 1987, Valens’ life was portrayed in the movie La Bamba, and the title song, performed by Los Lobos, became a No. 1 hit. Valens was posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.

Singer Don McLean memorialized Holly, Valens and Richardson in the 1972 No. 1 hit “American Pie,” which refers to February 3, 1959 as “the day the music died.”

And now for something completely different #(3), Cross-Tabbed as Historical Vignette #8:  On February 3, 1966, the Soviet Union accomplishes the first controlled landing on the moon, when the unmanned spacecraft Lunik 9 touches down on the Ocean of Storms. After its soft landing, the circular capsule opened like a flower, deploying its antennas, and began transmitting photographs and television images back to Earth. The 220-pound landing capsule was launched from Earth on January 31.

Lunik 9 was the third major lunar first for the Soviet space program: On September 14, 1959, Lunik 2 became the first manmade object to reach the moon when it impacted with the lunar surface, and on October 7 of the same year Lunik 3 flew around the moon and transmitted back to Earth the first images of the dark side of the moon. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. space program consistently trailed the Soviet program in space firsts–a pattern that shifted dramatically with the triumph of America’s Apollo lunar program in the late 1960s.

OK, so saving the worst of all for last of all (as Historical Vignette #9), on February 3, 2005, Alberto Gonzales won Senate confirmation as the nation’s first Hispanic attorney general despite protests over his record on torture.   Alberto Gonzalez would have been a disgrace to his profession and to the United States of America and its Constitution as a county prosecutor handling misdemeanors and traffic tickets and clearly had no business being the Attorney General of the United States.

The Senate approved his nomination on a largely party-line vote of 60-36, reflecting a split between Republicans and Democrats over whether the administration’s counterterrorism policies had led to the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere. Shortly after the Senate vote, Vice President Dick Cheney swore in Gonzales as attorney general in a small ceremony in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. President Bush, who was traveling, called to congratulate him.

Gonzales was born in 1955 in San Antonio, Texas, the son of migrant workers and grew up in a small, crowded home in Houston without hot water or a telephone. He joined the U.S. Air Force in 1973 after graduating high school. Following a few years of service, Gonzales attended the U.S. Air Force Academy.

After leaving the military, Gonzales attended Rice University and Harvard Law School before Bush, then governor of Texas, picked him in 1995 to serve as his general counsel in Austin and in 2001 brought him to Washington as his White House counsel. In this new role, Gonzales championed an extension of the USA Patriot Act.

After Gonzales became attorney general, he faced scrutiny regarding some of his actions, most notably the firing of several U.S. attorneys and his defense of Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program. The firings became the subject of a Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007. Concerns about the veracity of some of his statements as well as his general competency also began to surface.

Democrats began calling for his resignation and for more investigations, but President Bush defended his appointee, saying that Gonzales was “an honest, honorable man in whom I have confidence,” according to an Associated Press report from April.

A few months later, however, Gonzales decided to step down.

On August 27, he gave a brief statement announcing his resignation (effective September 17), stating that “It has been one of my greatest privileges to lead the Department of Justice.” He gave no explanation for his departure. In his resignation letter, Gonzales simply said that “. . . this is the right time for my family and I to begin a new chapter in our lives.”

Gonzales and his wife Rebecca have three sons.

TODAY IN HISTORY
By The Associated Press
Today is Tuesday, Feb. 3, the 34th day of 2011. There are 331 days left in the year.
Today’s Highlight in History:
Fifty-two years ago, on Feb. 3, 1959, a single-engine plane crashed shortly after midnight near Clear Lake, Iowa, claiming the lives of rock-and-roll stars Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson, as well as pilot Roger Peterson. That same day, an American Airlines Lockheed Electra from Chicago crashed into New York’s East River while approaching LaGuardia Airport, killing 65 of the 73 people on board.
On this date:
In 1809, 202 years ago, German composer Felix Mendelssohn was born in Hamburg. Congress passed an act establishing the Illinois Territory effective March 1.
In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln and Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens held a shipboard peace conference off the Virginia coast; the talks deadlocked over the issue of Southern autonomy.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for a federal income tax, was ratified.
In 1916, Canada’s original Parliament Buildings, in Ottawa, burned down.
In 1924, the 28th president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, died in Washington, D.C., at age 67.
In 1930, the chief justice of the United States, William Howard Taft, resigned for health reasons. (He died just over a month later.)
In 1943, during World War II, the U.S. transport ship Dorchester, which was carrying troops to Greenland, sank after being hit by a German torpedo. (Four Army chaplains gave their life belts to four other men, and went down with the ship.)
In 1966, the Soviet probe Luna 9 became the first manmade object to make a soft landing on the moon.
In 1969, Yasser Arafat was elected chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization’ s executive committee during a council meeting in Cairo, Egypt.
In 1989, Alfredo Stroessner, president of Paraguay for more than three decades, was overthrown in a military coup.
Twelve years ago: The Clinton administration told Congress a NATO-led peacekeeping force could be needed in Kosovo for three to five years and might include up to 4,000 American troops.
Seven years ago: John Kerry won Democratic presidential contests in five out of seven states. Work in the U.S. Senate slowed to a crawl, a day after ricin powder was found in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Three years ago: The New York Giants scored a late touchdown for a spectacular Super Bowl win, 17-14, that ended the New England Patriots’ run at perfection.
Today’s Birthdays: Comedian Shelley Berman is 85.
Football Hall of Famer Fran Tarkenton is 71. Actress Bridget Hanley is 70. Actress Blythe Danner is 68. Singer Dennis Edwards is 68. Football Hall of Famer Bob Griese is 66. Singer-guitarist Dave Davies (The Kinks) is 64. Singer Melanie is 64.
Actress Morgan Fairchild is 61. Actor Nathan Lane is 55. Rock musician Lee Ranaldo (Sonic Youth) is 55. Actor Thomas Calabro is 52.
Actor-director Keith Gordon is 50. Actress Michele Greene is 49. Country singer Matraca Berg is 47. Actress Maura Tierney is 46.
Actor Warwick Davis is 41. Reggaeton singer Daddy Yankee is 35. Musician Grant Barry is 34.
Singer-songwriter Jessica Harp is 29. Rapper Sean Kingston is 21.
Thought for Today: “I can, therefore I am.” — Simone Weil, French philosopher (born this day in 1909, died 1943).

February 4: from the Ransom of King Richard Coeur de Lyon in 1194 to the Confederate Constitutional Convention in 1861 and Civil “Conviction” of OJ Simpson in 1997

February 4 Events in History –  

More Historical Vignettes and Trivia to Combat

Historical Illiteracy in the United States

2010 Yahoo! sells HotJobs to Monster.com for a reported $225 million; at least someone didn’t have to work after that sale, I guess…..
1998 Bill Gates gets a pie thrown in his face in Brussels Belgium; None of the Original Three Stooges were still alive on this date.
1998 Earthquake kills about 2,300 in northern Afghanistan; Taliban government claimed full responsibility for all acts of Allah….
1997 73 Israelis die when army copters collide
1997 Mario LeMieux is 7th NHL player to score 600 goals
1997 O.J. Simpson found liable in civil “wrongful death” suit for murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson due to Plaintiff counsel’s discovery of certain “Ugly Ass” shoes…..
1997 Secretary of State Margaret Albright announces she just discovered that her grandparents were Jewish; America yawned.
1996 NFL Pro Bowl: NFC beats AFC 20-13
1995 Dean Jones completes 324* for Victoria vs. South Australia
1995 Sandra Volker swims female European record 50m backstroke (27.77)
1995 Zimbabwe’s 1st Test Cricket victory, over Pakistan by an inning
1994 10th Soap Opera Digest Awards – Days of Our Live wins
1994 20 die in armed assault on mosque in Khartum, Sudan
1994 Merlene Ottey runs world record 50 m indoor (6.00 sec)
1994 Russian team beats ladies world record 4×800 m indoor (8:18.71)
1993 Admiral Studeman, ends term as acting director of CIA
1993 Marge Schott suspended from baseball for 1 year due to racism
1993 Russian space agency tests a 82′ wide space mirror; for superstitious fears of possible breakage bans Hillary Clinton from using it as America’s new first lady takes over the White House and the world remembers Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis fondly……
1991 Hall of Fame’s board of directors vote 12-0 to bar Pete Rose for doing no worse than so many other inductees have done….
1991 Martin Crowe and Andrew Jones make 467 stand vs. SL, world record
1990 10 Israeli tourists murdered near Cairo
1990 Anders Holmertz swims world record 400 m freestyle (3:40.81)
1990 Danny Everett runs world record 400m indoor (45:04)
1990 Lyudmila Narozhi-Lenko runs world record 60m hurdles indoor (7.69)
1990 NFL Pro Bowl: NFC beats AFC 27-21
1990 Pat Bradley wins Oldsmobile LPGA Golf Classic
1990 Richard Hadlee takes his 400th Test Cricket wicket (Sanjay Manjrekar)
1990 St. Petersburg Pelicans beat West Palm Beach Tropics 12-4 to win 1st Senior Professional Baseball Association Championship
1989 Dean Jones scores 216 vs. WI at the Adelaide Oval
1988 Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega indicted on drug charges, Florida Courts unjustly refuse to hear his primary defense that he engaged in drug trafficking with the advice and consent of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency—deprived of these key defenses, Noriega’s fate was sealed.
1987 President Reagan’s veto of Clean Water Act is overridden by Congress
1987 Stars and Stripes beats Australia’s Kookaburra 3, sweeps America’s Cup
1987 Sacramento Kings score only 4 points 1st quarter against Lakers; fewest in a period since introduction of 24 second shot-clock in 1954
1986 38th NHL All-Star Game: Wales beat Campbell 4-3 (OT) at Hartford
1986 Israeli fighters intercept Libyan passenger plane
1985 20 countries (but not U.S.) sign United Nations treaty outlawing torture; Senate explains that ratification could have resulted in banning televised Presidential addresses and Congressional Campaign ads in violation of the First Amendment.
1985 Naval exercises canceled when U.S. refuses to tell New Zealand of nuclear weapons (as if New Zealand didn’t know about them anyhow….they have TV in New Zealand, don’t they?)
1984 “9″ closes at 46th St. Theater New York City after 739 performances
1984 “Backstage Magic” opens at CommuniCore
1984 Frank Aquilera sets world frisbee distance record (168m) Las Vegas
1983 Jose Happart becomes mayor of Voeren Belgium
1983 U.S. Male Figure Skating championship won by Scott Hamilton
1982 “Pump Boys and Dinettes” opens at Princess Theater New York City for 573 performances
1982 Indoor distance record for a paper airplane (47m) Tacoma Wash
1982 Musical “Pump Boys and Dinettes,” premieres in New York City
1982 Suriname premier Chin A Sen flees; no one had ever heard of him before, and no one has heard of him since.
1980 Abolhassan Bani Sadr sworn in as premier of Iran as mobs chant “Death to America” (misheard in China as “Debt to America”—which became China’s long-term comprehensive national and foreign policy as a consequence).
1980 Joanne Carner wins LPGA Whirlpool Golf Championship of Deer Creek
1979 “Co-Ed Fever,” TV Comedy, debut and cancelled that outing on CBS
1979 End of last 3+day D/N game for 15 years (WSC, SCG)
1979 Joanne Carner wins LPGA Colgate Triple Crown Golf Tournament
1977 30th NHL All-Star Game: Wales beat Campbell 4-3 at Vancouver
1977 Elevated train jumps track, crashes onto a Chicago Street (11 die, 200 hurt)
1977 Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumours” released
1977 Wings release “Maybe I’m Amazed”
1976 12th Winter Olympic games opens in Innsbruck, Austria
1976 7.5 earthquake kills 22,778 in Guatemala and Honduras
1976 Judge Oliver upholds Seitz’s decision on Andy Messersmith free agency
1976 U.S. performs nuclear test at Nevada Test Site
1974 Benzine rationing ends in Netherlands
1974 Chimpanzee Nim Chimsky signs his 1st word, at 2 months
1974 Gas rationing ends in Netherlands
1974 Patricia Hearst (19) kidnapped by Symbionese Liberation Army; 12th stupidest Saga in American Criminal History begins as her “Stockholm Syndrome” training begins—was “Tanya” made in captivity or before captivity?
1973 “No, No Nanette” closes at 46th St. Theater New York City after 861 performances
1973 Islanders and Sabres had a penalty free game
1973 Manfred Kokot runs world record 50m indoor (5.61 sec)
1973 Reshef, Israel’s missile boat, unveiled
1972 6th round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ends in Vienna Austria
1972 Senator Strom Thurmond suggests John Lennon be deported; Strom’s suggestion widely rejected, but most of Strom’s constituents in South Carolina had never heard of John Lennon one way or another.
1971 Apollo 14 lander Antares lands on Moon (Shepard and Mitchell)
1971 Baseball announces a special hall of fame wing for blacks
1971 British car maker Rolls Royce declared itself bankrupt; ironic turnabout after having made a 60 year career out of bankrupting wealthy buyers of super expensive quiet luxury car emblematic of British Imperial Nobility and Financial Elite….
1971 Government exhibit under construction collapses, kills 65 in Brazil
1971 National Guard mobilized to quell rioting in Wilmington NC
1970 “Charles Aznavour” opens at Music Box Theater New York City for 23 performances
1970 “Gantry” opens at George Abbott Theater New York City for 1 performance
1970 U.S. performs nuclear test at Nevada Test Site
1969 41,163, then largest NBA crowd, watches doubleheader Cincinnati – Detroit, San Diego – Boston
1969 Beatles appoint Eastman and Eastman, as general cousel to Apple
1969 John Madden is named head coach of NFL’s Oakland Raiders
1969 Lonnie Elder’s “Ceremonies in Dark Old Men,” premieres in New York City
1969 Yassar Arafats takes over as chairman of PLO
1968 “Golden Rainbow” opens at Shubert Theater New York City for 355 performances
1968 Bowie Kuhn replaces William Eckert as 5th commissioner of baseball
1967 “Wild Thing” hits #20 on the pop singles chart by Senator Bobby
1967 U.S. launches Lunar Orbiter 3
1966 All-Nippon Airways 727 crashes off Haneda Airport (Japan); kills 133
1965 U.S. performs nuclear test at Nevada Test Site
1964 Amendment 24 outlaws poll tax; this was clearly a mistake, but just one of many, made in 1964….
1964 FAA begins 6 month test of reactions to sonic booms over Oklahoma City
1962 “Gay Life” closes at Shubert Theater New York City after 113 performances
1962 Russian newspaper Izvestia reports baseball is an old Russian game
1962 U.S. Female Figure Skating championship won by Barbara Roles
1962 U.S. Male Figure Skating championship won by Monty Hoyt
1961 Sputnik 7 launches into Earth orbit; probable Venus probe failure
1960 BBWAA voters fail to elect a new Hall of Fame member
1960 Giants move their offices to Candlestick Park
1960 Lionel Bart’s musical “Fings ain’t wot they used t’be,” premieres
1959 Israel begins exporting copper ore
1958 “Oh, Captain!” opens at Alvin Theater New York City for 192 performances
1958 Hall of Fame fails to elect anyone for 1st time since 1950
1957 1st electric portable typewriter placed on sale (Syracuse New York); this historical event is probably meaningless and/or utterly incomprehensible to anyone born after 1977.
1956 AL plans to test automatic intentional walk during spring training
1952 1st black executive of a major TV station (Jackie Robinson-WNBC New York)
1951 U.S. Female Figure Skating championship won by Sonya Klopfer
1951 U.S. Male Figure Skating championship won by Richard Button
1949 Failed assassination attempt on Shah of Persia
1948 Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) declares independence from UK
1946 Garson Kanin’s “Born Yesterday,” premieres in New York City
1945 FDR, Churchill and Stalin meet at Yalta
1944 Jean Anouilh’s “Antigone,” premieres in Paris during last six months of Nazi Occupation…
1944 U.S. 7th Infantry Division captures Kwajalein
1943 Bertolt Brecht’s “Der gute Mensch von Sezuan,” premieres in Zurich
1942 Clinton Pierce becomes 1st U.S. general wounded in action in WW II
1941 British tanks occupy Maus Libya
1941 Former Dutch premier De Geer flies to Berlin
1941 United Service Organization, USO, founded
1939 Glenn Cunningham (top miler) says 4-minute mile beyond human effort
1938 “Our Town,” by Thornton Wilder opens on Broadway
1938 Hitler seizes control of German army and puts Nazi in key posts
1937 Jim Margie, Philadelphia, bowls 900 in 3 (unsanctioned) games
1936 1st radioactive substance produced synthetically (radium E)
1933 German President Von Hindenburg limits freedom of the press
1932 3rd Winter Olympic games open in Lake Placid, New York
1932 Japanese troop occupy Harbin, Manchuria
1931 National League adopts a deader baseball
1930 1st tieless, soundless, shockless streetcar tracks, New Orleans
1929 Archie Jackson scores 164 on Test Cricket debut vs. England at Adelaide
1927 KGA-AM in Spokane WA begins radio transmissions
1926 Austrian chancellor Seipel wants to join Germany; Austria has to wait twelve years for Anschluss which is reversed after a mere seven years for entirely unrelated reasons….
1924 1st Winter Olympic games close at Chamonix France
1924 George Kelly’s “Show-Off,” premieres in New York City
1922 WGY-AM in Schenectady New York begins radio transmissions; Schenectady remains famous for bad weather and unpronounceable name….
1920 1st flight from London to South Africa takes-off
1919 City of Bremen’s Soviet Republic overthrown; one of many failed Soviet Republics in post-Armistice Germany—they should have kept the Kaiser, right?
1917 Belgium Council of Flanders established
1915 Experiments to find cause of pellagra begin at Miss Penitentiary
1914 U.S. Congress approves Burnett-anti-immigration law
1913 Louis Perlman patents demountable auto tire-carrying wheel rim
1913 National Institute of Arts and Letters founded
1904 John Millington Synges “Well of Saints,” premieres in Dublin
1903 Stanley Cup: Montreal AAA beat Winn Victorias, 2 games to 1 and 1 tie
1899 Revolt against U.S. occupation of Philippines; revolt was doomed to failure; occupation lasted until Japanese took over in 1941 and after war until 1946, although Philippine women remained and are still much in demand in the USA.
1895 1st rolling lift bridge opens, Chicago
1887 Interstate Commerce Act authorizes federal regulation of railroads
1880 Steele MacKay’s “Hazel Kirke,” premieres in New York City
1875 Princess Louise marries Prince Philip von Saksen-Coburg-Gotha in Belg
1865 Hawaiian Board of Education formed; no one cared then.  No one cares now.  Historical significance uncertain….. Historical education in Hawaii no better than anywhere else in 1865 or since then….
1865 Robert E. Lee is named commander-in-chief of Confederate Army; talk about thankless job promotions…..”Here, we’ve lost the war for all practical purposes: would you like a promotion?”
1864 Skirmish at Big Black River Bridge, Mississippi
1861 Confederate constitutional convention meets for 1st time in Montgomery, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina elect Jefferson Davis President of Confederacy; this was a much greater day than it’s given credit for—but they never should have fired on Fort Sumter—to begin the war was to lose it—had the South never fired, they could either have left the Union in peace or the rest of the Union might well have joined them in Constitutional reform.
1855 Soldiers shoot Jewish families in Coro, Venezuela
1854 Alvan Bovay proposes name “Republican Party,” Ripon, Wisc
1849 University of Wisconsin begins in 1 room with 20 students
1847 1st U.S. telegraph co established in Maryland
1846 Mormons leave Nauvoo, Mo for settlement in west
1824 J. W. Goodrich introduces rubber galoshes to public
1822 Free American Blacks settle Liberia, West Africa
1803 William Dunlap, adapts French melodrama “Voice of Nature”
1797 Earthquake in Quito, Ecuador kills 41,000
1794 French National Convention proclaims abolishment of slavery; revolution soon starts in the French Colony of Haiti—but real economic, political, and social progress have been avoided in that country for 217 years to date….
1789 1st electoral college chooses Washington and Adams as President and Vice President; there were no opponents and so no one was surprised.
1787 1st Anglican bishops of New York and Pennsylvania consecrated in London; the American Episcopal Church was born—”The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States” to be precise; an elite Church safe for sinners with distinguished grandparents and all who wished to drink and party in high aristocratic style was deemed necessary in the young Republic.
1787 Shays’ Rebellion (of debt-ridden Massachusetts farmers) fails
1783 Worst quake in 8 years kills some 50,000 (Calabria, Italy)
1782 British garrison surrenders to French and Spanish fleet
1699 350 rebellious Streltsi executed in Moscow
1697 3 VOC-ships anchor at Dirk-Hartogeiland, Australia
1657 Oliver Cromwell grants residency to Luis Caravajal
1620 Prince Bethlen Gabor signs peace with emperor Ferdinand II
1600 Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler meet for 1st time near Prague
1586 Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, becomes governor of Netherlands
1508 Maximilian I assumes imperial title without being crowned
1194 Richard I Lion Hearted pays Leopold O Fenrik VI’s ransom of 100,000; England regrets this to the present day, as has been celebrated in so many movies about King John and Robin Hood or “Robin of Loxley.”

Are State-Child Protection Agencies the Foundation of Totalitarianism? Tell your Story: A Call for a National Database of Judicial and Bureaucratic Abuse in the Name of Child Protection

The Texas Department of Child Protective Services, the Florida Department of Children and Families, offer “services” to many families which amount to invasion of the home and involuntary servitude, as do many similar departments and agencies around the United States of America, in conjunction with the Family Courts.  I would ask everyone to read this description of the national child-protection agency in Germany (which also acts in coordination with the Family Courts) and tell me whether they see similarities.  I will try to publish representative stories from every state in the Union if they are well written and documented (obviously larger states like California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida may get at least several stories).  Try to keep your narratives unemotional—I realize it’s almost impossible but if we are going to change the system by locking the state out of our homes, we have to be better than they are.

This article “Child Welfare Agency Echoes Nazi Germany” appeared on April 28, 2010 at: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/March/Child-Welfare-Agency-Echoes-Nazi-Germany/

BERLIN – It sounds like Nazi Germany: families afraid of a loud knock on their door in the early morning, police bursting in, and taking away their children.

But it’s not Nazi Germany. It’s today’s Germany.

In Berlin, when authorities came for 7-year-old Dan Schulz, his family secretly videotaped the abduction. On the tape, family members are crying and the boy can be heard screaming, “Mom I don’t want to go!”

A German official responds, “Your mother can’t help you here.”

The boy was taken by Germany’s notorious child welfare agency, the Jugendamt. The official reason young Dan was taken was that he wasn’t in school, even though he had been homeschooled and then began private school.

Wrecking Normal Families

The Jugendamt, which dominates Germany’s controversial family court system, takes children when it wants, from perfectly normal families. The Jugendamt’s well-documented treatment of families, especially homeschoolers, has now become an international issue.

In January, the Romeikes, a German homeschool family, were granted asylum in the U.S. after an immigration judge ruled that Germany and the Jugendamt had violated their human rights. Mike Donnelly, with theHome School Legal Defense Association, was one of the attorneys for the Romeikes.

“The judge said that this policy was repellent to everything that we as Americans believe,” Donnelly said. “He felt that these were basic human rights. These were the kinds of rights that no country had a right to deny their people. “

The Jugendamt undoubtedly does some good, somewhere, but it also has gained an international reputation as a ruthless organization that takes children from good families and wrecks homes.

“My experience with the Jugendamt has been terrible,” Dan’s mother Heidi Schulz said. “They destroy families; they torture people, and make money out of it.”

She is still haunted by the morning her son was taken from her.

“He was screaming so much and he held me tight, and I couldn’t do anything. Nothing,” she recalled.

After he was taken, Heidi was only allowed sporadic visits and phone calls.

“And when I would call him, he would scream and say, ‘Mama, come and get me!’ And I would say, ‘I don’t know where you are,’” she said.

Child-Trafficking Network?

After three years of fighting and praying for her son, a judge finally ordered Dan to be returned home. Heidi said her son had been kept at an orphanage where he was beaten up by other children, poorly fed, poorly clothed and not educated for the first year and half.

“It was terrible. At first I thought I was just going to the doctor but it was nothing like that,” Dan recalled. “They told me I was sick.”

Opponents and victims of the Jugendamt say the system amounts to a government child-trafficking network, in which about 80 kids per day are seized from parents and funneled to children’s homes and psychiatric care, with the overflow going to foster homes. They claim the system needs to continually take in more children to keep functioning.

“There is a system of persons, of social workers, of teachers, psychotherapists, who live on children being taken out of the family,” German psychologist Carola Storm-Knirsch said. “We call it industry.”

Storm-Knirsch has worked for the Jugendamt on several cases. But she broke with the Jugendamt over the Schulz case, which she called “totally wrong.”

“There are homes with empty beds. And they need children,” she explained. “And they call the Jugendamt and say, ‘Hello, do you have a child for us?’”

Documents shown to CBN News indicate little Dan brought in about $8,000 a month for the state home where he was kept. While CBN News was there, Heidi got a bill in the mail from the Jugendamt for what was done to her family.

“One thousand-six hundred euros,” she said, adding sarcastically, “They take your child and then they take your money.”

No Reform Needed?

The local Jugendamt office is right across the street from the Schulz’s, so we asked for an interview. They said they couldn’t talk about the case, but said that they “acted in a humane and correct way, and legally.”

The German embassy in Washington told us flatly that the Jugendamt does not need to be reformed. And it answered “yes,” when we asked, “Does Germany adhere to the European Convention on Human rights in respect to the rights of parents?”

But a German legal expert insists that the German Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the European Convention on Human Rights is not binding on Germany.

In her fight for her son, Heidi tried to get the ear of German politicians, such as the former head of the European Parliament. But a videotape shows that when another Jugendamt victim suggested the Jugendamt should be considered a criminal organization, the former head of Germany’s Green Party, Reinhard Bütikofer, exploded.

“Stop it with this stupid brazen radical cr—! It’s stupid brazen radical cr–! I don’t want to be insulted by such cr–,” he screamed.

Heidi Schulz has already raised two exceptional daughters. Winonah has studied in Japan, and Tashina in America. But the Jugendamt suspects Heidi has psychological problems, and they have begun a new process which could lead to her son Dan being taken away again.

Dan told us there’s nothing wrong with his mom.

“The children’s home is sick, not my mother,” he said.

Echoes of Nazi Germany

The psychologist Storm-Knirsch agrees, saying the Schulz family is healthy, but she thinks some members of Germany’s Jugendamt and family court system could use therapy.

“These people are sick!” she said.

Heidi, who was raised in communist East Germany, said that in some ways, communism felt safer than the new Germany.

“They (the Jugendamt) are so mighty,” she said. “They have all power and you are nobody.”

The German establishment doesn’t like to be reminded that the Jugendamt was started by Adolf Hitler. Storm-Knirsch adds that “Adolf Hitler really did his work well.”

HSLDA Attorney Mike Donnelly told CBN News that more German families are seeking political asylum in the United States.

Meanwhile, in Berlin, Heidi admitted to us that she feels defenseless, as she waits for the Jugendamt to decide whether she will keep her son.

March 5, 2011, Inauguration of (unelected) Rutherford B. Hayes (1877), Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868), the Boston Massacre (1770), First Temperance Law in America (1623), Copernicus “De Revolutionibus” Banned (1616), 3rd Lateran Council (1179)—on the whole March 5 has not been a good day for Civil Rights in History

March 5 Events in History
 

I confess to have plagiarized the skeleton for this day in history from another site called “www.brainyhistory.com”, although there’s honestly nothing so very brainy about this particular list—see the lack of historically important or even relevant events for most of the 20th century.   However, it seemed like as good a source as any and I have added my own comments where appropriate, so there is “value added” here.  However, I think the list of events in itself is notable: for most of the 20th century, the only events recorded occurred in the entertainment and sports arenas.  Real historical events are largely absent from the 20th century record, although a few start being listed in the 19th century.   In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a mindless addiction to sports, entertainment, and film entertainment (including television), together with free love (consequence and even emotion-free) sex plus constantly piped music in public places, were all integral and indispensable elements and aspects of the world- governmental plan, together with drugs, to keep a zombified and mostly uneducated population completely under control and docile.   In Edward Gibbons’ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the historian has a throw-away comment which has become popularized about how the empire entertained and controlled the masses with “bread and circuses”.  It is hard not to feel that there are certain parallels and genuine structural-functional kinship between the socio-political reality of 2nd-3rd century Rome and the modern worldwide “Pax Americana”. The average American can name more sports and movie stars than senators or representatives, and nobody seems happier with this situation than sports and movie stars AND senators and representatives, the latter largely operating behind the scenes occupied by the more flamboyant social and sex lives of the former.   If people think too much, they become dissatisfied, so play music constantly, blast television constantly, and make sure that there is little or no political or philosophical content to either.  That is how you keep a good, quiet, unfree but not unhappy population…..

2010 Gordon Brown, United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, gives evidence to the Iraq Inquiry
1997 Tommy Lasorda, Nellie Fox and Willie Wells for Hall of Fame
1996 Earl Weaver and Jim Bunning, elected to Hall of Fame
1995 21st People’s Choice Awards: Tim Allen wins
1995 Estonia Centrumlinkse Coalition party wins parliamentary election
1995 Graves of czar Nicholas and family found in St. Petersburg
1995 Marc Velzeboer skates world record 3 km short track (5:00.26)
1994 Dottie Mochrie wins Chrysler-Plymouth Tournament of Golf Championship
1994 Largest milkshake (1,955 gallons of chocolate-Nelspruit South Africa)
1994 PBA National Championship won by David Traber
1994 Singer Grace Slick arrested for pointing a gun at a cop
1993 Boston Celtic Larry Bird undergoes backfusion surgery
1993 Fokker 100 crashes at Skopje Macedonia, 81 die
1993 Former Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry divorces his wife Effi
1993 Marlins beat Astros 12-8 in their 1st spring training game
1992 Ethic committee votes to rev