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: email@example.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
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.
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; firstname.lastname@example.org
Renada Nadine March; 7 Bluebird Lane; Aliso Viejo, California 92656; Tel: 949-742-0436; E-mail: email@example.com
Daniel Christian Mack 1-949-689-7188
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