Author Archives: Charles Edward Lincoln III

33 Years (and one week) was a Long Ice Age Lifetime—May 11, 1980 to May 18, 2013—has been 33 Years and One Week

According to my old professor of Biological Anthropology, Erik Trinkaus, from whom I took several of the most amazing courses I ever had during my graduate career, Ice Age Humans (Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons) in France, Europe, and the Near East did not typically live as long as I have to date (53 years).  In fact, life expectancies were probably less than 30 years for both males and females, and if we have more burial data from older individuals, it is because anyone who lived beyond 40 was practically a godlike object of ancestor worship (OK, that’s my embellishment, not anything Erik ever actually said.  But for what Erik Trinkaus’ “thumbnail” summary opinion was, see an article which cited him in the New York Times, just for a casual and basically random example: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11obneanderthal.html?_r=0).

So it is with shock, awe, and dismay that I realize now that I graduated from the College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane University 33 years and one week ago as of May 18, 2013.  That day is also illuminated by the following historical trivia:

Saturday, May 18, 2013

On this date:

Montreal, Quebec, was founded in 1642

The Siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi, began in 1863

Plessy v. Fergusson was decided in 1896

Haley’s Comet Passed by the Earth in 1910

Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933

Apollo 10 blasted off in 1969

Mount St. Helens’ Volcano in Washington Exploded in 1980

I graduated from Tulane University on May 11, 1980, 33 years and 1 week ago today—Oh yeah, I guess I already mentioned that….

Montreal being founded was a good thing.  Montreal is a really nice city (lots of cute little French-Canadian girls up there, and the food is great too).   I hear Vicksburg was OK before the siege, but it got kind of boring afterwards.   As for the TVA—well, I have heard the TVA was such a success that they never dared to repeat it, which is just as well, because it was essentially just another Communist-Marxist-Stalinist 5 year plan that has now lasted 80 years…. Now that’s a REALLY long time for a 5 year plan to go on….. Aside from the Federal Reserve Banking System, the TVA is the United States Government’s largest “privately” owned corporation.  That is confusing, isn’t it: how can the U.S. Government own anything privately?  Well, the TVA is set up as a private corporation, it’s employees are not US Government employees, but it is wholly owned by the Government.  In other words, the TVA operates as even even more of a “private, closely held” corporation than (a) the Virginia Company, (b) the Massachusetts Bay Company, (c) the Hudson’s Bay Company, or (d) the British East India Company ever was until after the Sepoy Mutiny let to the annexation of India to the Crown as an “Empire.”  But the sole owner of the TVA is the U.S. Government, so it’s a private corporation owned by the largest and most powerful public entity (the U.S. Government) in the world.

Anyhow, I deeply resent the passage of time.   As “the Preacher, the son of David, King in Jerusalem” wrote in the Book of Ecclesiastes:

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

At least verse five gave Hemingway a good idea for a memorable title for one of his novels….some obscure travelogue about Spanish Bullfights in Pamplona.  I think there was a precociously slutty British socialite, a Rich American Jew, a War Veteran, a couple of drunken Scots, an underage Spanish Bullfighter who ends up with the aristocratic slut……

There’s also a holographic mirror at Antoine’s Restaurant in one of the private side rooms (in the New Orleans French Quarter on St. Louis) called “All is Vanity“—it’s a picture of an exquisitely beautiful young lady, probably a close relation of those French-Canadian girls from Montreal mentioned above, whose face when seen from a different angle turns into a rather frightening death’s head skeletal neck-on-shoulder with skull still in place.  And like unto that image, the inscription over so many rural Mexican cemeteries: “Aquí se Acaba el Orgullo Mundial” (Here Endeth Earthly Pride—compare also “Under the Volcano“—both the book and the movie).

As of the 33 years that have passed since my graduation Phi Beta Kappa, Magna cum Laude, from Tulane.  Well, “what profit” indeed have I to show for my labour?   I suppose I have learned a lot.  But have I put it to good use?  Continuing from the first Chapter of Ecclesiastes:

13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow

Have I accumulated a large estate?  No and No.  I suppose, in all honesty, thanks in large part to my failed marriage and related matters: I have BLOWN a large estate sky high.   That’s an accomplishment of sorts I guess, which certainly not everyone has had the opportunity to do.

I finished a doctoral dissertation at Harvard which was immediately accepted for publication but I didn’t get around to publishing it in a timely manner and now the Peabody Museum isn’t willing to publish it under the original terms as Peabody Memoir 20 unless I completely rewrite it and resubmit it and get it approved for publication.  In other words, essentially, if I do my doctoral research (why not my doctorate?) all over again.

At the end of my 52nd I got a chipped tooth and developed dental problems which remind me of the human osteology class I had with Erik Trinkaus, using Gray’s Anatomy  (the Classic Medical School Anatomy text and reference book, not the TV soft-porn prime-time soap opera series).   I developed this broken molar problem in New Orleans.  That’s the only saving grace.  I’m finally living back in my favorite city in the USA, albeit as something of a perpetual tourist rather than a real resident (at least I go to Church more regularly than most tourists who come here, I dare say).

And in that connexion, talking of Church, today was the Feast of the Pentecost, and I have to say I think that Christ Church Cathedral on St. Charles did a better job of making Pentecost memorable than I have ever seen anywhere.  They had red-ribbon banners and parasols (and/or Chinese lanterns) representing the tongues of fire through which the Holy Ghost entered the Apostles, giving them the ability to speak in tongues.  The Church was generally draped in Red, and since I was a very small child, Red has basically been my favorite colour (my exceedingly conservative grandmother Helen worried that I might turn out a communist—but I didn’t).

And the Psalm today I noticed on Thursday when I went to the mid-day mass on my first day back from Florida.  It was Psalm 104 and it was not appointed for Thursday, but for some reason I opened the Book of Common Prayer and fixated on that Psalm, and it was the Psalm for this beautiful Sunday Service after the reading from the Book of Acts concerning the first Pentacost and the first spontaneous translations of the Gospel by the Apostles….: 

104 Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.

11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.

12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.

13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.

14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;

15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.

16 The trees of the Lord are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted;

17 Where the birds make their nests: as for the stork, the fir trees are her house.

18 The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; and the rocks for the conies.

19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

20 Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.

21 The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.

22 The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.

23 Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.

24 O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.

26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.

27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.

28 That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.

29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

31 The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works.

32 He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.

33 I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.

34 My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the Lord.

35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord.

There’s that wonderfully melancholy but self-absorbed song in Jesus Christ Superstar about the spiritual transformation of the 12.  It’s called “Always Dreamed that I’d be an Opossum” or something like that (they’re all drunk while Jesus is waiting to be arrested).  A totally appropriate thought for Pentecost, I suppose….

Equally blasphemous is my question about Psalm 104: WHY would God have created “the Leviathan….to play therein?”  (or in a more modern translation “the Leviathan, who thou created just for sport”).  Some passages in the Bible are so hard to deal with…. But on the whole Psalm 104 is so beautiful, and so evocative of the natural balance of the world.   All those lions eating other creatures at night and stuff—“It’s the CIRCLE, the Circle of Life….”

I’ve always believed my grandparents were the smartest people I ever met: were they just part of a “better generation?” More thoughts on Nostalgia and whether “the Good Old Days” were really better

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10053977/The-Victorians-were-smarter-than-us-study-suggests.html

The Victorians were smarter than us, study suggests

The Victorians achieved so much because they were cleverer than us, a new study suggests.

The Victorians were smarter than us, study suggests

Actual IQ scores from different decades cannot be directly compared Photo: Alamt
Nick Collins

By , Science Correspondent

2:30PM BST 13 May 2013

Reaction times – a reliable marker of general intelligence – have declined steadily since the Victorian era from about 183 milliseconds to 250ms in men, and from 187ms to 277ms in women.

The slowing of our reflexes points to a decrease in general intelligence equivalent to 1.23 IQ points per decade since the 1880s or about 14 IQ points overall, researchers said.

Actual IQ scores from different decades cannot be directly compared because people today enjoy better teaching, health and nutrition which would help improve their results, the scientists explained.

But the reaction times signify that the genetic component of general intelligence – which leads to the type of creativity and invention typical of the Victorian era – has been dwindling over the past century.

Dr Michael Woodley, who led the study published in the Intelligence journal this month, identified the trend by comparing reaction times from trials conducted by Victorian scientists against those carried out in recent decades.

Our declining intelligence is most likely down to a “reverse” in the process of natural selection, he explained. The most intelligent people now have fewer children on average than in previous decades, while there are higher survival rates among people with less favourable genes.

“The pressures of modern life, a nine-to-five modern lifestyle, have created all these pressures against very smart people having break-even numbers of children,” he said.

British Blue Blood Barrister Barbara Hewson Stands up against Sexual Hypocrisy and Sensational Media

Very interesting for a female blue blood Barrister from a top law firm to say these things… Hurray for Barbara Hewson for saying:  “What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle.”  Scapegoats on demand, sensational allegations against prominent media figures—it’s what makes the (modern) world go round, isn’t it?  And nothing’s juicier than a case which leads a distinguished woman to say publicly, “As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are remove complainant anonymity, introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions and reduce the age of consent to 13.”  Yes, indeed, Hurray for Barbara Hewson!  I hope that people can realize that when we have worked so hard, through the media and “re-acculturation” and education of our children, worked to hard to sexualize our children, when we have done this it is utterly unfair to punish children from “doing what comes naturally” (including having sex with adults).  We could always go back to teaching Biblical Law (the laws of the Pentateuch: Moses in Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers).  We could even allow discussions of the beauty of Christian Morality in the schools and promoting the same through movies and television but, (a) that isn’t going to happen in the present New World Order and (2) even back then 13 year old girls often got married to much older men (think about Kings David and Solomon, just for instance).

So here’s the news article:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/savile-case-lead-persecution-lawyer-says-181543385.html#zrwzOaL

Savile Case Led To ‘Persecution’, Lawyer Says

Sky NewsSky News – 6 hours ago

The “persecution of old men” in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal is wrong and the age of consent should be lowered to 13, according to a leading barrister.

Barbara Hewson said the child sex abuse crimes of the disgraced television presenter Stuart Hall were “low level misdemeanours”.

She also said the law that guarantees anonymity for those who complain of sex abuse should be scrapped.

The leading human rights barrister at London chambers Hardwicke said: “The post-Savile witch-hunting of ageing celebs echoes the Soviet Union.”

Her comments in the online magazine, Spiked , came as Scotland Yard’s Operation Yewtree continued its inquiries into allegations involving Savile and others, many of whom have been high-profile names.

It has led to the arrest of Rolf Harris, the former pop star Gary Glitter, DJ Dave Lee Travis, comedian Jim Davidson and PR guru Max Clifford. All deny any wrongdoing.

She claims the witch-hunting is the result of the “do-gooders” and “moral crusaders” who have infiltrated “Britain’s law-enforcement apparatus”.

She goes on to name these “moral crusaders” as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC).

Both charities take part in Operation Yewtree.

In the article, Ms Hewson said: “But the low-level misdemeanours with which Stuart Hall was charged are nothing like serious crime.”

She added: “Ordinarily, Hall’s misdemeanours would not be prosecuted, and certainly not decades after the event.

“What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle.”

And she concluded: “As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are remove complainant anonymity, introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions and reduce the age of consent to 13.”

Peter Watt, director of the NSPCC helpline, said: “These outdated and simply ill-informed views would be shocking to hear from anyone but to hear them from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief.

“Stuart Hall has pleaded guilty to abusing children as young as nine years old, we think most people would agree that crimes of this nature are incredibly serious. Thankfully the law, and most people, are very clear on this matter.

“To minimise and trivialise the impact of these offences for victims in this way is all but denying that they have in fact suffered abuse at all. Any suggestion of lowering the age of consent could put more young people at risk from those who prey on vulnerable young people.”

In a statement Hardwicke Chambers said they were “shocked by the views expressed”.

“We did not see or approve the article pre-publication and we completely dissociate ourselves from its content and any related views she may have expressed via social media or any other media outlets.”

Ms Hewson’s comments also sparked a Twitter backlash. She posted: “So now someone wants me raped and another wants me ‘hunted into obscurity’-Visceral, very nasty stuff.”

Ms Hewson is regularly ranked as a Leading Junior by The Legal 500 in the fields of public and administrative law, human rights and civil liberties, and professional discipline and regulatory law, according to her chambers’ website.

She has won cases in the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court and High Court of the Republic of Ireland.

Savile Case Led To ‘Persecution’, Lawyer Says – Yahoo! News UK

BAC Funding Consortium, Inc., v. Ginelle Jean-Jacques et al.—As a Birthday Present, another Florida District Court Judge (Craig C. Villanti, 2nd DCA) “Got it Right”—but the struggle is fierce (and how curious that as between two Banks, the standard of pleading and proof is so much stricter)

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

BAC FUNDING CONSORTIUM INC. ISAOA/ATIMA, Appellant, v. GINELLE JEAN-JACQUES, SERGE JEAN-JACQUES, JR., and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB5, Appellees.

35 Fla. L. Weekly D369a

28 So.3d 936

Mortgage foreclosure — Summary judgment for plaintiff in mortgage foreclosure action was premature where plaintiff had failed to establish standing to foreclose — Plaintiff moving for summary judgment before an answer is filed must establish that defendant could not raise any genuine issues of material fact if defendant were permitted to answer complaint — Because exhibit to plaintiff’s complaint conflicts with allegations concerning standing and exhibit does not show that plaintiff has standing to foreclose mortgage, plaintiff did not establish entitlement to foreclose mortgage — Incomplete, unsigned, and unauthenticated assignment attached as exhibit to plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence establishing standing to foreclose note and mortgage

BAC FUNDING CONSORTIUM INC. ISAOA/ATIMA, Appellant, v. GINELLE JEAN-JACQUES, SERGE JEAN-JACQUES, JR., and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB5, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D08-3553. Opinion filed February 12, 2010. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Robert B. Bennett, Jr., Judge. Counsel: F. Malcolm Cunningham, Jr., and Amy Fisher of The Cunningham Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Cindy L. Runyan of Florida Default Law Group, LP, Tampa, for Appellee U.S. Bank National Association. No appearance for Appellees Ginelle M. Jean-Jacques and Serge Jean-Jacques, Jr.

(VILLANTI, Judge.)(http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Craig_Villanti)

BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA (BAC) appeals the final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB5 (U.S. Bank). Because summary judgment was prematurely entered, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
             On December 14, 2007, U.S. Bank filed an unverified mortgage foreclosure complaint naming the Jean-Jacqueses and BAC as defendants. The complaint included one count for foreclosure of the mortgage and a second count for reestablishment of a lost note. U.S. Bank attached a copy of the mortgage it sought to foreclose to the complaint; however, this document identified Fremont Investment and Loan as the “lender” and Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., as the “mortgagee.” U.S. Bank also attached an “Adjustable Rate Rider” to the complaint, which also identified Fremont as the “lender.”
              Rather than answering the complaint, BAC responded by filing a motion to dismiss based on U.S. Bank’s lack of standing. BAC argued that none of the attachments to the complaint showed that U.S. Bank actually held the note or mortgage, thus giving rise to a question as to whether U.S. Bank actually had standing to foreclose on the mortgage. BAC argued that the complaint should be dismissed based on this lack of standing.
              U.S. Bank filed a written response to BAC’s motion to dismiss. Attached as Exhibit A to this response was an “Assignment of Mortgage.” However, the space for the name of the assignee on this “assignment” was blank, and the “assignment” was neither signed nor notarized. Further, U.S. Bank did not attach or file any document that would authenticate this “assignment” or otherwise render it admissible into evidence.
            For reasons not apparent from the record, BAC did not set its motion to dismiss for hearing. Subsequently, U.S. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment. At the same time, U.S. Bank voluntarily dismissed its count for reestablishment of a lost note, and it filed the “Original Mortgage and Note” with the court. However, neither of these documents identified U.S. Bank as the holder of the note or mortgage in any manner. U.S. Bank did not file the original of the purported “assignment” or any other document to establish that it had standing to foreclose on the note or mortgage.
               Despite the lack of any admissible evidence that U.S. Bank validly held the note and mortgage, the trial court granted summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. BAC now appeals, contending that the summary judgment was improper because U.S. Bank never established its standing to foreclose.
              The summary judgment standard is well-established. “A movant is entitled to summary judgment ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 928 So. 2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)). When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment before the defendant has filed an answer, “the burden is upon the plaintiff to make it appear to a certainty that no answer which the defendant might properly serve could present a genuine issue of fact.” Settecasi v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Pinellas County, 156 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); see also W. Fla. Cmty. Builders, Inc. v. Mitchell, 528 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (holding that when plaintiffs move for summary judgment before the defendant files an answer, “it [is] incumbent upon them to establish that no answer that [the defendant] could properly serve or affirmative defense it might raise” could present an issue of material fact); E.J. Assocs., Inc. v. John E. & Aliese Price Found., Inc., 515 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that when a plaintiff moves for summary judgment before the defendant files an answer, “the plaintiff must conclusively show that the defendant cannot plead a genuine issue of material fact”). As these cases show, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment before an answer is filed must not only establish that no genuine issue of material fact is present in the record as it stands, but also that the defendant could not raise any genuine issues of material fact if the defendant were permitted to answer the complaint.
              In this case, U.S. Bank failed to meet this burden because the record before the trial court reflected a genuine issue of material fact as to U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the mortgage at issue.  The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and/or mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative. See Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Troupe v. Redner, 652 So. 2d 394, 395-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., 948 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“[W]e conclude that ABN had standing to bring and maintain a mortgage foreclosure action since it demonstrated that it held the note and mortgage in question.”). While U.S. Bank alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the copy of the mortgage attached to the complaint lists “Fremont Investment & Loan” as the “lender” and “MERS” as the “mortgagee.” When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the complaint. See, e.g.Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“Where complaint allegations are contradicted by exhibits attached to the complaint, the plain meaning of the exhibits control[s] and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss.”); Blue Supply Corp. v. Novos Electro Mech., Inc., 990 So. 2d 1157, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So. 2d 736, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (holding that when there is an inconsistency between the allegations of material fact in a complaint and attachments to the complaint, the differing allegations “have the effect of neutralizing each allegation as against the other, thus rendering the pleading objectionable”). Because the exhibit to U.S. Bank’s complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing and the exhibit does not show that U.S. Bank has standing to foreclose the mortgage, U.S. Bank did not establish its entitlement to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law.
               Moreover, while U.S. Bank subsequently filed the original note, the note did not identify U.S. Bank as the lender or holder. U.S. Bank also did not attach an assignment or any other evidence to establish that it had purchased the note and mortgage. Further, it did not file any supporting affidavits or deposition testimony to establish that it owns and holds the note and mortgage. Accordingly, the documents before the trial court at the summary judgment hearing did not establish U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and thus, at this point, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor.
        In this appeal, U.S. Bank contends that it was not required to file an assignment of the note or mortgage or otherwise prove that it validly held them in order to be entitled to summary judgment in its favor. We disagree for two reasons. First, because BAC had not yet answered the complaint, it was incumbent on U.S. Bank to establish that no answer that BAC could properly serve or affirmative defense that it might allege could raise an issue of material fact. Given the facial conflict between the allegations of the complaint and the contents of the exhibit to the complaint and other filings, U.S. Bank failed to meet this burden.
             Second, regardless of whether BAC answered the complaint, U.S. Bank was required to establish, through admissible evidence, that it held the note and mortgage and so had standing to foreclose the mortgage before it would be entitled to summary judgment in its favor. Whether U.S. Bank did so through evidence of a valid assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer, it was nevertheless required to prove that it validly held the note and mortgage it sought to foreclose. See Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the trial court, when considering a motion for summary judgment in an action on a promissory note, was not permitted to simply assume that the plaintiff was the holder of the note in the absence of record evidence of such). The incomplete, unsigned, and unauthenticated assignment attached as an exhibit to U.S. Bank’s response to BAC’s motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence establishing U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and U.S. Bank submitted no other evidence to establish that it was the proper holder of the note and/or mortgage.
         Essentially, U.S. Bank’s argument in favor of affirmance rests on two assumptions: a) that a valid assignment or transfer of the note and mortgage exists, and b) that a valid defense to this action does not. However, summary judgment is appropriate only upon record proof — not assumptions. Given the vastly increased number of foreclosure filings in Florida’s courts over the past two years, which volume has taxed both litigants and the judicial system and increased the risk of paperwork errors, it is especially important that trial courts abide by the proper standards and apply the proper burdens of proof when considering a summary judgment motion in a foreclosure proceeding.
         Accordingly, because U.S. Bank failed to establish its status as legal owner and holder of the note and mortgage, the trial court acted prematurely in entering final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.
          Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (ALTENBERND and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.)

Florida Senate Bill 1666 passed two days after Florida HB 87—So Florida moved significantly closer to California—a Sham Judicial Foreclosure is not that different from a Genuine Non-Judicial Foreclosure—and the Coffin Carrying the Bill of Rights has Two More Nails in it; When did the deer turn into elk? And when did the Republicans all become Maoists/Stalinists? (Oh yeah, I forgot, that was when Kissinger & Nixon went to China….)

Florida has moved significantly closer to California—a sham judicial foreclosure is only pitifully different from a genuine non-judicial foreclosure, and with the passage of Senate Bill 1666, all Florida has left is an empty shell of “due process of law” in the foreclosure business.  As I wrote the Other Day—Florida Republicans are Moral Lepers, but what’s peculiar is that they’ve also become Maoists and Stalinists—pretty much the entire “middle of the road” Republican Party has been co-opted this way—ever since Henry A. Kissinger and Richard M. Nixon bowed down before the altar of Mao Tse Tung and Chou en Lai in the Forbidden City and embraced the greatest antithesis of Freedom as potential allies….

From: ”The Hanging Together for Justice Foundation” <noreply@list.signon.org>

Date: May 3, 2013, 2:36:09 PM EDT

To: rtripka@hotmail.com Subject: KILL HB 87

Reply-To: ”The Hanging Together for Justice Foundation” <info@equityintruth.org>

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE PETITION 

http://signon.org/sign/kill-house-bill-87?mailing_id=11896&source=s.icn.em.cr&r_by=2782252

WELL AS WE FEARED THE BANKSTERS HAVE GOT THEIR FRAUDULENT BILLS THROUGH THE SENATE TODAY.  BUT ALL IS NOT LOST.  IN ADDITION TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ALREADY COMMUNICATED TO YOU, WE HAVE LEARNED TODAY THAT HB 87 WAS UNLAWFULLY SET FOR A HEARING PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CONSTITUTION ARTICE III SECTION 3 WHICH BY LAW RESTRICTS THOSE HEARINGS TO BEING HELD WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.  

INJUNCTIONS ARE CURRENTLY BEING INVESTIGATED BY ATTORNEY HENRY P. TRAWICK AND OTHERS, BUT TODAY WE NEED ALL OF YOU TO PHONE TO GOVERNOR AND TELL HIM NOT TO SIGN THIS UNCONSTITUIONAL BILL INTO LAW AND TELL HIM THAT IT VIOLATES A NUMBER OF FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES, INCLUDING ARTICLE I SECTIONS 9 & 10 AND ARCILE III SECTION 3.

IF SCOTT SIGNS THIS UNCONSITUTIONAL GARBAGE INTO LAW THE HANGING TOGETHER FOR JUSTICE FOUNDATION AND OTHER GROUPS ARE GOING TO LAUNCH A MASSIVE CAMPAIGN TO EXPOSE THE SIGNORS.  

FOR YOUR INFORMATION IT LOOKS AS THOUGH ALL BUT ONE DEMOCRAT VOTED AGAINST SB1666 AND ONE WHO DID NOT VOTE.  HB87 WHICH HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY SUBSTITUTED FOR SB1666 AFTER SB1666 HAD BEEN AMENDED AT ITS SECOND READING YESTERDAY AND ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND WHAT WAS UNLAWFULLY DESCRIBED AS THE THIRD READING OF SB1666 WHEN IT WAS IN FACT HB87 WHICH HAD NEVER BEFORE APPEARED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENANTE.  HOW MUC MORE UNLAWFUL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CAN THESE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE FLEX THEIR POWER MUSCLES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR CORPORATE BANKSTER MASTERS?  
THIS IS BOTH UNLAWFUL AND POLITICAL.  ITS TIME FOR THESE PEOPLE TO BE KICKED OUT OF THEIR CUSHY OFFICES AND TO BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA.

PLEASE CALL RICK SCOTT ON (850) 488-7146 AND TELL HIM NOT TO SIGN THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL INTO LAW.  

THIS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT AND WILL LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR ALL OF OUR NEXT MOVES IF HE DECLINES. 


This message was sent to Robert Tripka by The Hanging Together for Justice Foundation from the SignOn.org system. MoveOn.org Civic Action sponsors SignOn.org, but does not endorse specific campaigns or the contents of this message.

To unsubscribe or report this email as inappropriate, click here: http://www.signon.org/unsub.html?i=11896-2782252-hUd0FG

When I attended an archaeology field school at Salmon Ruins and Rio Puerco, New Mexico in 1976-7, run by Harvard’s first female Ph.D. in Archaeology, Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams, some of the supervising crew chiefs had worked part time in Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde National Parks or elsewhere in the National Park System.  They kept track of all the questions tourists would ask and would give an award to the park ranger or tour guide with who submitted the stupidest of all tourist questions.  The winner for Spring 1977, announced in Summer of that year was: “When did the deer turn into elk?”  

I now ask a parallel question which in 1977 probably would have struck me as being just as stupid: “When DID the Republicans all become Maoist/Stalinist Communists?”  And when did the inhabitants of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave all turn into Cringing Cowards?

 

If I had a Rocket Launcher, I’d aim it at the Federal Reserve (in Homage to Bruce Cockburn)

Bruce Cockburn is a Canadian folk-singer with a high mind and a social conscience.  He undoubtedly considers himself a liberal.   Cockburn might well be appalled to learn that a right-wing radical like myself was incorporating a couple of his songs into his own right-wing ideological repertoire—but then, perhaps this is one of those moments when radicals on both sides find common ground.  The primary difference between Cockburn and myself is that he probably sees the United States as one of the chief purveyors of violence and injustice to the rest of the world; and while this is indisputably and absolutely true, I read his songs as an American Citizen, resident of the future North American Nation of PANEM,  as one of the victims of precisely the same violence and injustice, only visited by my own government on me and “my fellow Americans.”

Bruce Cockburn recorded this first song, “Call it Democracy” on September 11, 2008, the seventh anniversary of that day of infamy known as 9/11/01: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zccrskOqQ

By an odd coincidence of sorts, this was my first 9/11 back in the USA (Cambridge, Mass., actually) after being forcibly repatriated to the U.S. on the orders of U.S. Southern District of Texas Judge Janis Graham Jack, having spent the previous 9/11 in Cockburn’s home country of Canada with no plans of ever returning to the USA.   I totally agree with what Cockburn says about the IMF and its debilitating effect on the Third World.  But for the IMF and NAFTA, Mexico might well have remained the beautiful, peaceful and quiet place it was right up through Pope John Paul II’s first visit there in January 1979—the month during which Mexico’s creole government’s excellent and highly responsible national birth control program was first attacked to the point of almost instantaneous dismantlement.  

But substitute the words “Federal Reserve” for “IMF” and “Call it Democracy” becomes a description of the degradation of the United States of America by “insupportable debt” under the quintumvirate of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama over the past 33 years:

Padded with power here they come
International loan sharks backed by the guns
Of market hungry military profiteers
Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared
With the blood of the poor

Who rob life of its quality
Who render rage a necessity
By turning countries into labour camps
Modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament –
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called “developed” nations’
Idolatry of ideology

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It’s just spend a buck to make a buck
You don’t really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there’s one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy

See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you’re going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there’s one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt.

The next song: If I had a rocket launcher, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9HFjErMMlA).  Cockburn encapsulates and articulates how I feel about U.S. Foreign Policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and indeed, all the Central American Countries that were the focus of Cockburn’s lyric folk poetry in the 1980s.  To modernize this 1984 song for the Obamanation we live in today, just substitute the words “stealth drone” for “helicopter”. Afghanistan for Guatemala, and (soon coming to a river near you) “Mississippi” for the “Rio Lacantún”.  As it happens I’ve never been to Afghanistan but I certainly have been all along the Rio Lacantún and I know its people very well.  

When I was indicted in December 1999 I was instructed that I could not own any guns.  My son at 7 was much too young to take my collection and his mother Elena was uninterested.  My grandmother (who died with a gun beside her bed) was too old to worry about such things, although she cared.  Many people in Mexico had previously asked me to bring down American firearms because gun sales were controlled and regulated in Mexico for a long time.  So in January 2000 I arranged to deliver donate my entire firearm collection to the Maya Resistance in Chiapas. The Yucatec Maya with whom I worked at Chichén Itzá and elsewhere were great admirers of their cousins in Chiapas (many of whom were in fact Lacandon Maya who speak a “hill country” dialect of the Yucatec language).   I’m sure my 300 some odd weapons went to good use, so I have no regrets whatsoever about making this gift and passing on a legacy of patriotic resistance from Texas to the Maya Lowlands (which were once joined in an alliance during the 1840s when both areas were secessionist Republics breaking away from Mexico).  In fact, making this donation was one of the ways in which I made sure that I followed my grandfather’s advice in “always turning a bad thing into a good thing.”  

So I ask you: IF YOU HAD A ROCKET LAUNCHER: against whom would you aim it?  And I ask you again: IS IT NOT PART OF OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT WE ALL SHOULD HAVE ROCKET LAUNCHERS, as part of a “Well-Regulated Militia” of Freedom Loving Americans?

Here comes the helicopter — second time today
Everybody scatters and hopes it goes away
How many kids they’ve murdered only God can say
If I had a rocket launcher…I’d make somebody pay

I don’t believe in guarded borders and I don’t believe in hate
I don’t believe in generals or their stinking torture states
And when I talk with the survivors of things too sickening to relate
If I had a rocket launcher…I would retaliate

On the Rio Lacantun, one hundred thousand wait
To fall down from starvation — or some less humane fate
Cry for Guatemala, with a corpse in every gate
If I had a rocket launcher…I would not hesitate

I want to raise every voice — at least I’ve got to try
Every time I think about it water rises to my eyes.
Situation desperate, echoes of the victims cry
If I had a rocket launcher…Some son of a bitch would die.

CREDO LIBERTATE:  THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ROCKET LAUNCHERS IS AS FUNDAMENTAL AS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ALL OTHER KINDS OF ARMS NECESSARY TO DEFEND INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP FREEDOM.

And the Ten Steps we must take to Communism? All done, Sir! Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., Reporting for Final Duty Commanding Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Sir!

The United States Communist Manifesto

(Reblogged from unifiedserenity; Reblogged from REALITY BLOG:)

10 Votes

The Communist Manifesto is a desired description of the government (corporate) control of a society, and for that mater the world, written in German by Messrs. Karl Marx and F. Engels but published first in London in February 1848, and continually in print, ever since.

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto…

Karl Marx designed these planks as a test to determine whether a society has become communist or not.

As if to give credence to these 10 pillars of a society completely controlled by the State (communism), past and present presidents of the United States Corporation have and continue to pass presidential directives, which bring these planks of communist doctrine to reality… in the state of a declared emergency. While these “directives” scared me before, the realization that they coincide so perfectly with the communist/fascist doctrine of Marx brings this to a whole new level.

These “10 Planks” written in the Communist Manifesto are listed in blue below. Underneath each “plank” is the Presidential Directives, Executive Orders, congressional acts, constitutional amendment, etc. that has made each plank of the Communist Manifesto into law. This is not good.

- Executive Order 12919 - The president would put the United States under total martial law and military dictatorship, in case of a declared emergency.

 ≈–1–≈

1) Abolition of private property. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

- The Patriot Act - Allows law enforcement to conduct warrentless searches of your records and place of residence, and to confiscate your personal property without your knowledge or consent.

 ≈–2–≈

2) The income tax. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

The Emergency Banking Act – President Roosevelt declared the United States Federal Government dissolved by being bankrupt and insolvent.

- House Joint Resolution 192, 73rd Congress -  Suspended The Gold Standard and Abrogated The Gold Clause. Dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments.

- Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) – Allows the Congress to unconstitutionally levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on census results. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

 ≈–3–≈

3) Abolition of estate. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

- Probate Laws and Taxes - The application of estate tax, property tax, and the limiting of and reassigning of property values, as well as other state and federal taxes are all aspects of this. Also, you do not own the property in which you live nor the land it sits upon. You are permitted through contract (title/deed) with the State to occupy said dwelling. It can be taken away at any time through eminent domain, or through bank contract if a loan is defaulted upon. Read your title and deed and these facts will become apparent. 

≈–4–≈

4) Confiscation of property. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

- Executive Order 10998 – Allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks, and vehicles of any kind.

- Executive Order 11310 – Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

- Eminent Domain – The inherent power of the State to seize a citizen’s private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen’s rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner’s consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties (corporations) who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Governments may also condemn (exercise power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government) personal property, such as supplies for the military in wartime or franchises. Governments can even condemn intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights.

- International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) - A UNITED STATES Federal Law allowing U.S. presidents  to identify any unusual extraordinary threat that originates outside the UNITED STATES and to confiscate property and prohibit transactions in response. In the UNITED STATES CODE  the IEEPA is TITLE 50, SECTIONs 1701-1707.Enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.

- National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51 – Allows the president to control and coordinate all three brances of government (to become king) in the event of a “catastrophic emergency”. Thus, no judicial review or jury trial will be available, thus property disputes will be squashed by the king or his minions.

- The Military Commissions Act - Strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals of anyone held in U.S. Custody as an “unlawful enemy combatant” or “rebels”. Also prohibits any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in a U.S. court. 

≈–5–≈

5) A central bank. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

- Executive Order 11921 – Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to take control of all financial institutions in the United States, and allows government to control the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources.

- Federal Reserve Act – Act of Congress that created the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, which was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

≈–6–≈

6) Government control of communications and transportation.Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

- Executive Order 10990 - Allows government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

- Executive Order 10995 – Allows government to seize and control all communications media (telecommunications, internet, radio, television, etc…)

- Executive Order 10997 – allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

- Executive Order 11002 – Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

- Act of August 29, 1916 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.

≈–7–≈

7) Government ownership of factories, land, and agriculture. 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.

- Executive Order 10999 – Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

- Executive Order 11005 – Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities… public or private.

- 1950 Defense Production Act - Gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.

≈–8–≈

8) Government control of labor - creation of government labor armies.Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

- Executive Order 11000 – Allows the government to mobilize citizens into work brigades under government supervision.

- H.R. 3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama-Care), page 1312, SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS, and SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS –Establishment of a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency. The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions. The Ready Reserve Corps shall participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel, be available for back-filling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically under-served communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services. Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps. So those “Commissioned Officers  personally appointed by Barack Obama without advice and consent of the Senate automatically become a part of the Regular Corps.Translation: a presidential army, which will most likely not be bound by any oath to the constitution, but may be bound by an oath to the president.

≈–9–≈

9) Corporate farms and regional planning. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.Note: This is a part of Agenda 21…

- Executive Order 11002 – Designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

- Executive Order 11004 – Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, to designate public lands and areas to be abandoned, and to establish new locations for populations.

- National Security Act of 1947 Allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.

≈–10–≈

10) Government control of education. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

- Executive Order 11001 – Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.

- Mandatory Government Education - Public education is schooling mandated for or offered to all children by the government, whether national, regional, or local, provided by an institution of civil government, and paid for, in whole or in part, by taxes. The State of Massachusetts enacted mandatory government sponsored education in 1852. Mississippi was the last state to enact a compulsory attendance law In 1918. Public education involves compulsory student attendance until a certain age or standard is achieved, government certification of teachers and curricula to ensure learning structure and materials are State approved, and government testing and standards for citizens, to ensure indoctrination-like education into the system of debt-enslavement and ignorance of corporate government and actual history is achieved. Homeschooling is now demonized, and has even been made illegal in some states.

One “event” is all it will take, real or false-flag.

And a national emergency will be declared.

Obama will become king, overseen and controled by an oligarchy of elites.

Be afraid… be very afraid!

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Like this:

by REALITYBLOGER on APRIL 25, 2010  •  PERMALINK

MAYDAY!!!—Florida HB 87 disrespectfully classifies Defendants in Mortgage Foreclosure Cases as Second Class Citizens and the statute adopted by the Florida Republican House would radically curtail the ability of Homeowners to Prepare and File Motions to Dismiss—(Florida) Republicans are Moral Lepers….

Motions to Dismiss in Foreclosure Cases: Due Process Requires Equal Respect and more time for (presumptively weaker) Defendants

Posted on April 26th, 2013 by Mark Stopa  http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2013/04/motions-to-dismiss-in-foreclosure-cases/

In the foreclosure-world in which we now live, motions to dismiss are widely viewed with disdain.  They’re a pest.  An annoyance.  They accomplish nothing but delay.  I don’t feel that way, of course.  I think motions to dismiss are an important aspect of foreclosure defense, as they, when used properly, ensure a plaintiff has stated a cause of action in its complaint and otherwise done what it’s supposed to do upon filing suit.

Unfortunately, many plaintiffs and, yes, judges, see motions to dismiss purely as a stall.  You see, so long as the motion to dismiss is pending, the homeowner need not file an Answer, and without an Answer in place, the case isn’t “at issue” under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.440 and can’t be set for trial.  Hence, a motion to dismiss prevents a trial from being set.

Those pesky motions to dismiss.  We need to get rid of those.  There are trials to set and dockets to clear! 

I’m glad the good judges in Hillsborough and Pinellas don’t share this mindset, as it has annoyed and frustrated me for a long time.  Unfortunately, there has been little opportunity to do anything about it, either, as there is virtually no case law from Florida’s appellate courts on the circumstances in which a motion to dismiss in a foreclosure case should be granted.  The problem is procedural.  You see, when a motion to dismiss is denied, that ruling cannot be appealed until the end of the case.  But once the case reaches its end, the homeowner isn’t concerned with appealing whether the foreclosure plaintiff stated a cause of action as much as whether the plaintiff was entitled to foreclosure.  So if/when the appeal is ultimately brought, nobody talks about whether the plaintiff stated a cause of action, but whether foreclosure was permitted.  As a result, case law on the circumstances in which a motion to dismiss is warranted in a foreclosure case is virtually non-existent.

That changed a bit recently, and I think it should change the way motions to dismiss are viewed throughout Florida.

On April 22, 2013, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal issued a written opinion in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bokatka, Case No. 1D11-3356 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).  At first blush, the opinion seems unfavorable to homeowners, as the lower court dismissed the foreclosure suit with prejudice and the First District reversed that ruling.  Dismissal with prejudice was wrong.  Ugh.

If you look closer, however, the court made it clear that the motion to dismiss was properly granted, it just shouldn’t have been granted with prejudice.  Take a look at this language from the opinion:

In this case, we do not fault the trial judge for dismissing the bank’s initial complaint, which facially created a contradiction between who the bank alleged was the owner of the note (the bank) and whom the attached note and mortgage identified as the owner (Option One). Putting aside (for the moment) the parties’ attempts to interject or examine materials outside the pleadings, dismissal without prejudice was appropriate simply to allow the bank an opportunity to amend its initial complaint to address this discrepancy and to fortify its allegations and attachments (perhaps with the allonge and some of the items the bank presented in support of its motion to vacate and set aside).

Mortgage foreclosure cases have many factual permutations—such as the many ways that ownership of notes can be established—that do not lead to simplistic judicial resolution at the frontend of litigation.

This language is important.  Every plaintiff’s attorney and every judge who thinks a motion to dismiss is just something that gets denied so a case can be set for trial should re-read that last sentence:

Mortgage foreclosure cases have many factual permutations – such as the many ways that ownership of notes can be established – that do not lead to simplistic judicial resolution at the frontend of litigation.

I want every foreclosure defense attorney and every pro se homeowner to bring this case to every motion to dismiss hearing.  That sentence needs to be shown to every single judge who adjudicates motions to dismiss.  Every one.

When a foreclosure plaintiff alleges in its Complaint it is “entitled to enforce” the Note and Mortgage, point to that sentence.

When a foreclosure plaintiff alleges in its Complaint it is the “holder” of the Note, but the Note attached to the Complaint is payable to a different entity and does not contain an endorsement, point to that sentence.

When a foreclosure plaintiff asserts it has authority to prosecute the case on behalf of the owner of the Note, but does not specify who the owner is, point to that sentence.

These are the types of issues that motions to dismiss are supposed to resolve.  Foreclosure plaintiffs should have to clarify these ”factual permutations” in their complaints, as the “judicial resolution” of such issues is not “simplistic.”

Legalese aside, I hope the First District’s opinion will make everyone realize motions to dismiss in foreclosure cases should be treated the same way as all homeowners should be treated – with respect.

Collectivization of Debt is Communism in Action: Republicans are Moral Lepers (the Republican House Majority in Florida has just passed HB 87, approving expedited foreclosures and insulating false securitization from effective challenge or review)

CONTINUING THE DEBATE BETWEEN BOB HURT, MYSELF (CEL) MALCOLM DONEY, & MELINDA PILLSBURY-FOSTER

Bob:
Without attempting to address everything you write, or even everything you wrote in your reply to Malcolm Doney below, regarding Florida HB 87 (04-30-2013 Florida House Bill 87 Just Passed—Communist Dream of Abolishing Private Property Marches Forward).  Florida HB 87 degrades due process of law in the taking of property below “rational basis” review to no effective review at all…. any deprivation of private property should be treated, quite literally, with the same seriousness as a death penalty.  Furthermore, by its expedited provisions, HB 87 will prevent all but the most prepared homeowners from mounting any sort of defense to a foreclosure suit at all.
HB 87 permits (encourages) banks to hit weak people at their weakest when they are down and hits them hard.  At a time when the system should be extending every possible allowance to the “little guy”, the small time investor or single-family homeowner in economic distress, HB 87 makes sure that the fight (actually the sacrificial execution) of the homeowner will be swift but brutal.  Summary foreclosure, summary evictions, the all permit the claimants to hide behind judicial procedures of expedience to avoid close scrutiny of their deceits and prevarications in pretense of compliance with the law—THAT is why the requirements of HB 87 are themselves dissembling and dissimulating of the true purpose: the goal is artificially to stimulate the economy by pretending to put more houses on the market.  HB 87 is revolting!  Republicans (at least in Florida) are really and truly MORAL LEPERS.
         For family, home and freedom in America, the foreclosure crisis, and securitization of mortgages, is effectively a slow death penalty.  I am appalled and shocked that the Republican Controlled State House in Florida has passed HB 87:
             I think you basically have sold yourself out to the collectivist mentality, in that you see no injury resulting from securitization. As I wrote earlier: despite your citations to Black’s Law Dictionary and your occasional assertion of the notion of sovereign citizenship, you no longer adhere to the Anglo-American common law (and indeed the Ancient Roman civil law) notions of private property, originating in private contract, and I think this is a terrible “shame on you” and your contributions.  You have championed the “sovereign citizen” movement, but in betraying the doctrines of holder-in-due-course and privity of contract, you betray one of the most basic precepts of sovereign citizenship: the right to choose with whom you deal and associate.  Socialization of debt by securitization deprives the individual of his freedom of choice of business associates.  
Such things are always justified as “cost saving measures”, but they infringe to violently and directly on our individual autonomy.  Surely you would agree that we have the right to choose our friends, especially our mates in marriage with whom we may spend upwards of 20-30 years, am I correct?  If you agree with this proposition then you should agree that each man and woman has a right to choose his business partners in the same way, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM HE OR SHE WOULD CHOSE TO DO BUSINESS.  
This freedom of choice surely includes the more important obligations we assume: marriage is a great example of an open ended series of interactions and obligations, but so is entering into any business partnership, including a partnership based on investment, in which one party lends another the funds to start a business or purchase a house with repayment planned over 30 years. The famous Christmas movie ”It’s a Wonderful Life” illustrates the ideal of lending as partnership. When Frank Capra’s movie was made, in 1946, even just after World War II, the Federal Reserve system had already extended its tentacles everywhere, into even the banks of small town America, so the story was already anachronous to the reality of modern life—UP TO A POINT.
But even as a child, growing up age 6-12 in Dallas, I knew my grandfather’s bankers as family friends and neighbors.  They went to the same churches, they walked and swam and boated in the same parks as we did. Those bankers had extended my parents personal letters of credit to live in London starting when I was six months old….The Astons who own and ran the Republic Bank of Texas in Dallas and the Dullworths and McKnights who ran First National Bank were real people.  Everybody in Dallas knew everybody else on a first name basis….no one wanted national banks that crossed state lines—everybody knew what the consequences would be: destruction of freedom.
Their kids went to the same school I did.  The adults entered into real contracts which were carefully negotiated with lawyers who were also our neighbors.  When my grandfather wanted to start a new line of products or buy a new building, he visited them and discussed his plans in detail.  Where is that kind of banking today?  Republic Bank of Texas and First National Bank are long gone, absorbed by Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, respectively.  No one has any idea who is really in charge of these banks and in fact, no one is, because they are merely bureaucratic appendages of the government.
Because of the effective nationalization and government takeover of the national banks, loans are allocated by government policy discussed behind closed doors at the Federal Reserve Board these days—they try to encourage certain actions and discourage others by liberal lending and greater or lesser taxation.  The impose nationwide CONTRACTS OF ADHESION that even small industrialists like my grandfather would have no power to negotiate anymore at all—this is the ultimate fruit of securitization—we have no freedom of choice anymore.  We have been deprived of our local control and autonomy in the interests of streamlining the economy—of maximizing leverage and debt in the hands of the central bankers—this is not injury?  This is the destruction and death of freedom….
You have always been very good to me and I hate to be critical, but you are as profoundly wrong as you can possibly be when you write:

1.  The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses. 

Collectivization of debt can only be permitted or exist in a world where private contract and private property have both ceased to exist. Florida HB 87 facilitates the abrogation of private autonomy without due process of law by demeaning private property acquired by contract to a level of an epiphenomenal set of rights, hardly worthy of the true status which ownership of private property enjoys as one of the Carolene Products, Footnote 4, specifically enumerated rights, deprivation of which is subject to the highest, strict level of scrutiny.. So the securitization of mortgages is the abolition of private property.  The Individual is either the sole owner of her/his life or s/he is not.  There are no shades of gray here.  ”Limited Sovereignty” is an oxymoron here. 
In short, Bob, what you fail to realize is that Securitization constitutes a license arbitrarily and capriciously (1) to impair and in impairment of the rights and obligations of contract, in violation of Article I, Section 10 (see this old 1922 Law Review Article: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4859&context=mulr), (2) to take private property interests without due process of law when those property interests are secured and guaranteed by contract, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, (3) to infringe if not violate the freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by the First Amendment, (4) Securitization and in particular the amendments proposed by Florida HB 87 violate the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and (5) the Ninth Amendment reservation of the right of the people to the enjoyment of the privileges, liberties, and immunities afforded to them in the Anglo-American common law tradition.
In short, I can think of nothing more pernicious than the effect that Florida HB 87 will have on the property rights of Floridians.
You need to wake up, Mr. Bob Hurt, to the fact that securitization (i.e. collectivization) of debt is just the Bush-Obama Communist Oligarchy’s most effective tool for eviscerating all the property and contract related provisions of the American Constitution, of the Common Law, and of the traditional rights and freedoms of the English people, passed on to us, their American Heirs.
Make no mistake—in condemning our resistance to securitization, you are aligning yourself with the goals of the Communist Manifesto of February 1848, and of all subsequent efforts to obliterate the sovereignty of the individual which you pretend so vigorously to support as a matter of highest principle.  Without the freedom to contract, in a world of contracts of adhesion with anonymous and unknowable, unreachable “supervisors”, we as individuals will cease to exist and our individuality will be obliterated in the collectivity of the Marxist anthill.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

In case of emergency call Amalia Thanou (Los Angeles)
at 310-430-6936 or e-mail efzin1@yahoo.com


Matthew 10:34-39
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .  

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : malcolmdoney@comcast.net
Cc : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 21h34
Objet : Re: HB 87

Malcolm:apparently you read what I wrote to Charles about HB87.  It’s pretty simple really.  We are lucky in Florida that we don’t have a non-judicial foreclosure process, MAYBE.I have learned a lot since we met at the May 2008 Foreclosure Defense Seminar.  I’ll share a few points for your edification.1.  The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses.2.  The real problem of collusion between Clinton/Bush/Obama and Lenders which resulted in predatory lending and collapse of homeowner equities has not faced any day in court, and until it does, and the court rules against the lenders, no foreclosure court or trustee will consider the merit of the argument that “the lender caused the collapse of the value of my house and that’s why it’s underwater, and caused me to lose my job, and that’s why I couldn’t pay the mortgage.”  You can present the FCIC report and TRY the argument, but it will fail because no borrower can prove proximate causation.  I make the balance of my comments in light of this reality.3.  Foreclosures, as equity proceedings, deal with FAIRNESS.  It is hardly fair for a mortgagor to sign the note and mortgage, borrow and USE money, fail to pay accordingly, and then keep the collateral which the borrower agreed to forfeit in the event of default.  Every single judge knows this, especially the senior judges you love to hate for their rocket docket summary judgments.  So they have a natural predisposition to order the foreclosure unless the borrower can dispute the essential facts alleged the complaint.4.  Except when temporarily derailed by standing issues, or the borrower cross claims with valid causes of action (which virtually never happens), statistically ALL Foreclosure complaints EVENTUALLY succeed because in fact the borrower did default and must forfeit the collateral.   And they SHOULD succeed, for that reason.

5.  The ONLY defense against foreclosure lies in an offensive action against the original lender or lender’s agents for tortious conduct, contract breaches, or legal errors underlying the mortgage.  I have written about this till I’m blue in the face and NOBODY ever refutes it because it’s true.  If the borrower cannot show how the lender injured him, the borrower who defaults WILL LOSE THE HOUSE TO FORECLOSURE, as the borrower should.  Underlying causes of action give just reason to dispute the essential factual allegations in the foreclosure complaint.  For example “Yes I breached the contract, but the original lender breached it first, AND fraudulently induced me to take a loan for far more than the actual value of the property (etc).”

6.  Given the above realities, FORECLOSURE DEFENDERS engage in legal malpractice by fighting the foreclosure itself and failing to examine the mortgage for underlying causes of action.  Their victims should sue them.

7.  I gave cogent reasons for having no opposition to HB87 as I understand it.  Foreclosure plaintiffs should stop screwing around and start speeding up their process, and competent judges should hear and dispatch the foreclosure cases, particularly those with no dispute of the essential facts.

8.  If you had loaned someone $300,000 to buy a house, would you want the borrower to tie you up in court for years just to delay giving up the collateral?

Instead of getting angry with me, SHOW me where I’m wrong.

I have attached a totally bogus QWR from Neil Garfield, FYI.  Why bogus?  Because RESPA requires the servicer to answer ONLY questions related to the loan servicing, i.e. identifying what funds it disbursed to what entities.  It can ignore all other questions, and a lawyer like Neil Garfield should have known that instead of concocting such onerous nonsense as his qwr.

I also attached my recent blast against Garfield for his bogus securitization arguments, and included plenty of case law to show how bogus they are.  Also, here’s some more case law you might find useful.  Where am I going with this?  Virtually all foreclosure defense arguments other than standing issues or attacks against the causes underlying the mortgage WILL FAIL.  So why bother with them just to delay the inevitable?

QUIET TITLE CASES
“Plaintiff’s basis for claiming ‘better title’ is that securitization somehow altered her obligation to pay her mortgage. This argument is unrecognized in the law.” Herold V. One West Bank (D. Nev. 9-29-2011);
“A plaintiff cannot quiet title without discharging the mortgage debt. Aguilar V. Boci, 39 Cal.App.3d 475, 477 (1974) (“the cloud upon his title persists until the debt is paid”); Kelley V. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Trusty V. Ray, 249 P.2d 814, 817 (Idaho 1952) (“[a] mortgagor cannot without paying his debt quiet title as against the mortgagee”); ”Plaintiff’s quiet title claim is based on the argument that, as a result of securitization, the trust deed has been split from the note and, therefore, the deed of trust should be declared a nullity. This Court has repeatedly rejected this argument. Recently, both the Utah Court of Appeals and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have similarly rejected this claim. For the same reasons stated by all of these courts, this claim must be rejected.
Winn V. Bank Of America (D.Utah 1-4-2012); ”A quiet title claim seeks to extinguish interests in the property in favor of the interest of the plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff is seeking to extinguish the Trust Deed. ‘To succeed in an action to quiet title to real estate, a plaintiff must prevail on the strength of his own claim to title and not the weakness of a defendant’s title or even its total lack of title.’ Plaintiff fails to assert her own claim to title. She does not allege that the Deed of Trust was not validly executed or that she is not in default under the note. Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiff’s argument and dismisses this claim.
Domingo V. Direct Mortgage Corporation (D.Utah 9-21-2011); ”quiet title is not a remedy available to the trustor until the debt is paid or tendered. Plaintiff has not paid the loan amount, nor has Plaintiff alleged that he is ready, willing and able to tender the full amount owed. See Farrell v. West, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (Ariz. 1941) (refusing to quiet title until and unless the plaintiff tenders the amount owed, as required in equity). Instead, Plaintiff asks this Court to invalidate the claims of the beneficiary under the deed of trust. The Court will not indulge this inappropriate use of an action to quiet title; ”Plaintiff’s argument that the assignment to U.S. Bank was void, and that U.S. Bank and MERS are not beneficiaries fails to support Plaintiff’s claim for quiet title. As discussed above, an assignment of a deed of trust does not need to be recorded in order to be valid, and under the terms of the Deed of Trust, Plaintiff was not entitled to notice of any such assignment.”
Frame V. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (D.Ariz. 9-2-2011); ”This appeal requires us to interpret the statute governing judgments in quiet title actions. The statutory language is about as straightforward as such language ever gets: “The court shall not enter judgment by default. . . .” Entry of a default judgment against appellant HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., and in favor of respondent Harbour Vista, LLC, in a quiet title action was error.”
Harbour Vista V. Hsbc Mortgage Serv. Inc., G044357 (Cal.App. 12-19-2011); Mier v. Lordsman Inc., Civ. No. 10-00584, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8484, at * 15-17 (D. Haw. Jan. 26, 2011) (“[T]o assert a claim for quiet title against a mortgagee, a borrower must allege they have paid, or are able to tender, the amount of the indebtedness.”).
 
Fidelity Land Trust Case – put property in trust and use quiet title action to defeat foreclosure – a scam. Florida Attorney General complaint:
Fidelity sued AG in Florida Middle USDC for its adverse ruling:
“… this Court concludes that Plaintiff initiated and pursued this litigation in bad faith.  The evidence of this is legion: a state judge has told Plaintiff that its legal theory is meritless; a federal judge has told Plaintiff its legal theory is frivolous; and the Florida Attorney General has obtained injunctive relief against Plaintiff to prevent it from asserting claims based on the legal theory advanced in this lawsuit. Yet even in its objection, Plaintiff clings to the notion that its claims have merit. They do not… Plaintiff appears to be in the business of delaying lawful foreclosures. The courts are not to be used to delay, deny, or frustrate just claims, and they are not to be used as a cog in a litigant’s business model. Litigants who pursue meritless claims should be sanctioned, if only to ensure that the burden of their contemptuous behavior is borne by themselves alone.”
On 4/30/2013 7:29 PM, malcolmdoney@comcast.net wrote:

Bob & Charles,

It is a long time since I contacted you Bob.  I have believed for some time that somehow you have lost your way since the days when I believed that you stood for justice and doing what is right.  
 
I have lived through and been the victim of Hitler’s fascism and I have lived in the UK during both conservative and socialist extremes.  I well remember when the leaders of the UK Trade Union Congress made their annual Christmas pilgrimage to Moscow to get their instructions on how to disrupt the British economy over the next year and beyond.   
 
I have also witnessed during my long life the extremes of communist, fascist dictatorships and religious fanatics and frankly while it may be very intellectual to debate whether or not communism or fascism is at work I could never see much to chose between Hitler and Stalin, or Idi Amin.    
 
The evidence is overwhelming that the present mortgage foreclosure crisis was premeditated by the most evil organization in modern times, the Federal Reserve.  That all these mortgages were set up to fail and comprise the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.Yet all I hear from those who seek to classify those of us who were the deliberate targeted victims of these Banksters and their government backers is that we borrowed the money and we should not get a free house.  
 
Anyone, who cannot see anything wrong with HB 87 and its almost appropriately named SB 1666 is either totally blind or so brainwashed by a corrupted society that they are incapable of any constructive thought whatsoever.  I think it is a tragedy that you have allowed yourself to be persuaded to your present apparent view.  Anyone who believes in government of the people, by the people, for the people can see through this criminal land grab for exactly what it is.  
 
Shame on you Bob – you have done such good work I am truly saddened to see your latest comments.  When Henry Trawick – the Dean of Rules tells every member of Florida’s legislature that these bills are unconstitutional and bankster inspired there must be something wrong with this bunch of garbage.  What is clear is that it is not in the interest of the people. 
Sadly
Malcolm
***********************************************************************************
They are all fascists (there is that word again) 
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
MacPherson Investment Group

Executive Vice-President for Rebuild America

Point out to me any single document in the writings of Benito Mussolini, Admiral Horthy, Francisco Franco, Sir Oswald Moseley, Paul Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, or any economically oriented member of Hitler’s government that predicts the step-by-step takeover and abolition of private property the way the communist manifesto does.  Oddly enough, the nearest to a “Socialist” among the Fascists would be British Sir Oswald Moseley.  He was very aristocratic and really an admirable “failure” among all the Fascists of Europe, but his writings go the closest towards credit-based socialism of any genuine “Fascist” from the 1920s or 30s I know—and Moseley was the only one outside of Spain to continue active through the 1950s and 60s—during which time, oddly enough, he joined with former Marshall Petain supporter Robert Schuman and other “Labor Left Socialists” in pushing for the European Union after the war…. but I do not see how you can connect the movement of Fascism to Credit Leveraged Confiscation of private property for the purpose of abolishing private property….

De : Melinda Pillsbury-Foster <themelinda@gmail.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 17h38
Objet : Re: Property Confiscation House Bill 87 Just Passed Republican Controlled House in Florida

They are all fascists (there is that word again)
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
MacPherson Investment Group

Executive Vice-President for Rebuild America

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com> wrote:
HB 87 eviscerates the adversarial aspects of litigation in favor of the foreclosing party.  
Are you ever going to work on developing those Vindicatio websites or not?  If you’re not going to develop them I need to give them to Melinda Pillsbury-Foster but you DO have a better e-mail list to promote them on….. I thought we had a deal…But I’ll suggest to Melinda that she call you to check up on what your real intentions are….I certainly didn’t spend $100 on those domains just to let them sit around undeveloped and unpromoted….. If neither you nor Melinda want to work on them I’ll have to find someone else, but heck I BOUGHT them and I want to see some new business come in as a result…. but nothing will happen if a competent Web developer doesn’t do something—-Melinda’s working on a single case website for me in regard to a personal injury suit of mine in New Orleans….
Your problem, Bob, I have figured it out, with Neil Garfield and the Anti-Note Securitization Camp (you probably don’t like Mickey Paoletta either and basically you seem doubtful about me because I’m with THEM) is that you really do believe in Social Ownership of Credit—that is why you have jumped ship on the “holder-in-due course” doctrine…. Social Ownership of Credit leads to Social Ownership of all land and real property, perhaps all real and personal property…  You have abandoned Capitalism….. you really do believe that proof of ownership is not essential to collect debt or foreclose a property…. if that’s raving like a lunatic then I plan on doing so continually until I die….

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 17h45
Objet : Re: Property Confiscation House Bill 87 Just Passed Republican Controlled House in Florida

I fail to see a problem with hb87.  It forces lenders to take speedier action and come to court better prepared for the lawsuit.

Instead of raving like a lunatic below, why don’t you explain SPECIFICALLY what you don’t like about the bill and why?

On 4/30/2013 5:29 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:
Republicans are Moral Lepers—and COMMUNISTS!:
It is beyond appalling to me that any Republicans would vote for Florida House Bill 87 to speed up foreclosures….. Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be the party of traditional American Values? Aren’t Republicans supposed to be the defenders of common law against social engineering through legislation?  Florida House Bill 87 is just speeding up the process by which the Soulless and Heartless machine of American Corporate Socialism sweeps up property into the collective “pool” of government ownership….  Everyone in Florida: WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS to stop the companion bill 1666 (how apt?) from passing.  Every step we take towards socialized ownership of debt is a major triumph for Marx & Engels’ original “manifestation” of their dream to abolish private property in land, first published in February 1848 under the name of the Communist Manifesto.
All steps to abolish “holder-in-due course” doctrine assert that mortgage debts are not private but public, and this is the key ingredient of communist confiscation of all real estate in America…

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

In case of emergency call Amalia Thanou (Los Angeles)
at 310-430-6936 or e-mail efzin1@yahoo.com

Matthew 10:34-39

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .  

My Anti-Federalist (Anti-Federal Reserve) Credo

Every complaint regarding any credit-based financing or any other Federal Reserve Issue needs to address these points:

(1) 12 USC Section 1813l(1)-(5) requires monetization of promissory notes…. and defines deposit as receipt of money for CREDIT.

(2) Does this (monetization of promissory notes as credit, definition of “credit” as adequate consideration) constitute a government mandated taking of property without due process of law?

(3) Does this (monetization of promissory notes as credit, definition of “credit” as adequate consideration) constitute a government-manated interference with obligations of contract?

(4) Does this (monetization of promissory notes as credit, definition of “credit” as adequate consideration) infringe upon the reserved rights of the people to the use and protection of the common law?

(5) What I learned fighting Obama was that the positive requirements of the Constitution regarding the Federal Government are generally NOT politically enforceable.  It is for that reason that the constitutional eligibility lawsuits against Obama all failed: we citizens cannot require the enforcement of the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article II.  Likewise, the mandate that the States shall not authorize anything but gold and silver as payment of debt has not been and cannot be enforced.

(6) But the violation or infringement of any and all rights expressly enumerated FOR THE PEOPLE in the Constitution does give rise to Article III standing, and that is why we must always frame our complaints in terms of specific “Expressly Enumerated Rights” and demand “strict scrutiny” review of the same under Footnote 4 of USA v. Carolene Products, Inc.

(7) It is incumbent on each Plaintiff to allege with the greatest specificity possible the actual injuries suffered, but we must also, I think focus on the following general questions:

(8) Is the existence of a generalized right to private property under the common law guaranteed by the Constitution?

(9) Can private property exist if contractual obligations are shared and “socialized” by assignment and pooling or securitization, or do laws which permit the socialization of obligations (which was absolutely prohibited by the Common Law) not simply obliterate the essential personal obligations of contract which constitute the proprietary elements of contract under both common law and the UCC?