Category Archives: Civil Rights Removal

The First Day of Summer, Reflections on the Solstice, the 797th Anniversary of Magna Charta, Juneteenth, the Committee of Five, with only six months left until the End of the World as we Know it?

Posted on June 21, 2012 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

The Summer Solstice 2012

(and the countdown for the last six months before Winter Solstice 2012 and then—the great yawning abyss of the time which comes after the end of time?—- or was it a great a yawning abbess who didn’t know what time it was, I can’t remember…. a really big abscess? a yawn exposing an abscessed tooth that went without treatment for too much time? Whatever….)

At 23:09 (11:09 PM) Wednesday night in London, the earth reached its maximum northward axial tilt of 23 degrees and 26 Minutes—so I guess the time was about 4:09 in the afternoon Pacific Daylight time. So today, June 21, 2012, is the First Day of Summer and soon with come the day of Saint John the Baptist. Summer berries have come out all over northern Europe and so one of my favorite distinctively German drinks, Johannisbeersaft (Johnny Berry Juice?) can now be made in season…. Nun aber kam, Johannistag… as Hans Sachs sings on St. John’s night in Richard Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg…..Knowing the nearly thousand year history of the Master Singers of Nuremberg and having grown up on Wagner’s opera, I think I have written here before how terribly disappointed I was upon being invited there for the first time (just two weeks after my Harvard Ph.D. graduation where the German Chancellor Helmut Josef Michael Kohl delivered a commencement address, coincident with the previous year’s collapse of the Berlin Wall and my receiving a Volkswagen Fellowship to the University of Bonn that year and summer) to a private tour of Die Meistersingerhalle in modern Nurnberg on Johannistag 1990 I came face-to-face with a totally modern building, neither more nor less interesting than the Wang Center in Boston, the Dallas Theatre Centre or the Dallas City Hall, or the Los Angeles Civic Center or the LA County Art Museum, or Lincoln Hall itself in New York City. Today’s Meistersingerhalle was built in 1963…. Historic, Mediaeval and Renaissance, Nurnberg having been essentially erased from the map, like most German cities, in the allied bombings of 1944-45, because we were the civilized and morally superior conquerors of a nation which…. had bombed but never totally obliterated even one single British Western European City….

I was jealous of a friend today, an old Harvard Colleague John W. Hoopes who was headed from Kansas to Chichén Itzá on this Summer Solstice…. The Yucatec Maya marked the solstices and equinoxes at their greatest architectural monuments with a variety of symbolic architectural and iconographic contrivances…. the Maya obsession with time has recently “gone global” of course with the Baktun 13 2012 End of the World “HYPE”othesis… As I told John, I don’t accept the Thompson correlation of Maya and Christian calendars, and since I don’t believe that Baktun 13 is ending this year at all, I wouldn’t be worried even if I DID believe that Baktun 13 was going to be the end of the world (because under the 11.3.0.0.0 or Vaillant correlation, Baktun 13 won’t happen for at least another 256 years, and I, for one, plan to be dead by then….no matter what anyone else has to say about my plans….). John is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, so he’ll understand if not forgive some of my discussions here…..about the history and mythology which shape modern times.

The eleven days of June 11-June 21 mark critical events in the history of our Anglo-American constitutional democracy.

THE SURRENDER OF THE LAST CONFEDERATE CITY & SEAPORT (Galveston, Texas) on June 19, 1865

Strangest and most imbued with historical mythology rather than real historical significance among these days is the most recent: Juneteenth. June 19, 1865, was a day in history that two of my sixteen great-great-grandparents (my mother’s father’s paternal grandparents) actually witnessed as children in Galveston, Texas. Juneteenth happened on the date of the surrender of the last Confederate seaport and city of any consequence (namely Galveston, Texas), two months and ten days after General Robert E. Lee’s April 9 surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia.

Galveston surrendered that day without a fight, and the Union Navy officers read and proclaimed that all slaves had been freed effective January 1, 1863 (which happened to be the New Year’s Day that the Confederates, in what was known as the “Battle of the Cottonclads” RETOOK Galveston back into CSA sovereignty from an early naval occupation by the US forces, keeping it until this final surrender of the war). It now seems that 31 States around the country celebrate the surrender of Confederate Galveston, to wit, as of 2009, it was announced that “Kansas will join Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Delaware, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, California, Wyoming, Illinois, Missouri, Connecticut, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Colorado, Arkansas, Oregon, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia, Washington State, Tennessee, Massachusetts, North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Vermont, Nebraska and the District of Columbia in recognizing the end of enslavement in America,” states Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., Chairman of the National Juneteeenth Holiday Campaign.

Of course, the historical and legal fact is the Constitution of the United States did not allow the 16th President, or any of my other distant cousins, the authority to free the slaves by proclamation. I don’t know whether the Emancipation Proclamation was the first “Legislative Decree” issued by any President of the United States in plain violation of separation of powers, but it was certainly one of the most far reaching, ever. The Modern Equivalent, if the reader can set aside her or his emotional reactions to slavery, would be if a President decreed that, as of a certain date, New Yorkers, Californians, Pennsylvanians, and residents of Connecticut and New Jersey could no longer own or operate cars.

I fear that President Obama probably believes that he can issue such an order. What I fear even more is that the Congress and Supreme Court of the United States might ALLOW him to issue such an order, to let it stand. Obama might well do so in the interest of reducing traffic and air pollution in the two most densely populated and heavily congested traffic areas of the United States, but the constitution simply does not allow it. And the Constitution never did allow the President to change the internal laws of the several states. No President today could alter the abortion or divorce laws of the individual states of the Union, no matter how strongly he felt about it, no matter how much popular support there was for such a move, and no President, in a democratic society SHOULD have the power to (a) legalize or (b) criminalize any kind of property ownership in the individual states or nationwide. President Abraham Lincoln was, sadly I say this, the first truly criminal President the United States ever had, in that most of what he did, he did outside of the law, but President Abraham Lincoln was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the last truly criminal President of the United States. Which brings us to the interesting question, who was the last completely constitutionally compliant President of the USA, and the answer might just be, either James Buchanan, or just possibly Grover Cleveland…. Rutherford B. Hayes and some of the other late 19th Century Presidents didn’t do a great many unconstitutional things…. but Rutherford B. Hayes cannot be counted as a constitutional president since he won neither the electoral nor the popular vote of 1876 but lost both to one of my lifelong heroes, Democratic President Samuel J. Tilden, Governor of New York, who won both the popular and electoral votes, but refused to plunge the United States into another great war (which, in 1876, would have been ”Civil War” in the true historical sense, compared with the English Civil War of 1642-1649 that the American War Between the States of 1861-65 never was….)

The New York Times published on Juneteenth this year a disturbing article “Southern Baptist Convergence” advocating the notion that history must be rewritten to accommodate a certain view of “Black Pride” and Communism: ”If conservative evangelicals are serious about making common political cause with black Protestants, they must revise their expectation that a free market and and a population that obeys their particular reading of scripture will correct the injustices ingrained in American society. They must rethink their approach to America’s history and its modern-day problems.” (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/southern-baptist-convergence/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120619)

The rewriting of history as a precondition for political and religious realignment should be a deeply disturbing notion to everyone. I for one DO favor constant historical revisionism, but I know that it cuts both ways. As suggested above, for example, I do not consider my namesake and distant cousin Abraham Lincoln to be a great President at all. In fact, I would rate him as something of a monster. The Sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln suspended the guarantees against false and illegal imprisonment embodied in the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus (one of the great heirlooms of Magna Charta, see below, Clause 29, to be precise). The Forty Fourth President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, has all but abolished the writ of habeas corpus entirely under the guise of the National Defense Authorization Act (last year’s Senate Bill 1867) which authorizes indefinite detention without charges or trial.

THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE

In 1776, actually since about 1763, the second largest English Speaking population in the world felt that it had not received its fair inheritance of the Rights and Liberties of the English people.

The Virginia Resolve of 15 May 1776 was passed by the Fifth Virginia Convention in the old House of Burgesses at Williamsburg. This historic three-part resolve became the basis of action plans for three America-wide measures later recommended for adoption by the Continental Congress. The three measures addressed were: [i] Independency; [ii] Diplomacy; and [iii] Confederacy.

Richard Henry Lee, head of the Virginia delegation, was “instructed” by the Virginia Convention to move the Virginia Resolve as a Congressional resolution to be adopted on behalf of the Grand American Association of the thirteen United Colonies of North America. The timing of its introduction before Congress was left to the discretion of the Virginia delegation.

Lee laid the Virginia Resolve before Congress on the Monday morning of 27 May 1776, along with a similar resolve submitted by the North Carolina delegation, adopted the previous month at North Carolina’s Halifax Convention, and dated 12 April 1776. On 27 May 1776, both resolves were “read” and “ordered to lie on the table.” This event marked the day that two colonies served that semi-outlaw Congress with formal notice that the time had arrived for all the colonies, thirteen-as-one, to prepare and to make a break from the sovereignty, and the reigning sovereign, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Eleven days later, on 7 June 1776, in accordance with the parliamentary mode of introducing consideration of a new measure, the same Richard Henry Lee of the Virginia delegation “moved” the Virginia Resolve, which was duly “seconded” by John Adams of the Massachusetts delegation.

On this day and by this historic step the Virginia Resolve of May 15th, earlier tabled on May 27th, became the Lee Resolution of June 7th. After two days of protracted debate on the Lee Resolution, conducted throughout Saturday the 8th and Monday the 10th, the process culminated in a crucial, adopted resolve of Congress, enacted on the late Monday afternoon of the 10th.

By the resolve of June 10th Congress agreed to defer further debate on the Independency measure for three weeks, in order to give adequate time for each of the still undecided colonies to come to a decision on how to instruct its delegation on the three measures proposed. Within two days of this June 10th decision three interlocking committees had been established, one for each of the three measures in the Lee Resolution: [i] A committee to prepare a broadside manifesto to justify Independency declared; [ii] A committee to prepare a constitution for Confederacy; and [iii] A committee to prepare template treaties of mutual defense and commerce. Thus was the Congressional stage set for the decisive debate and vote on Independency expected to take place on Monday, 1 July 1776.

On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress of that second largest English-speaking population in the world appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston to the “Committee of Five”

Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston

to draft a declaration of independence. A famous painting by John Trumbull shows the presentation of the declaration to the full Congress by this committee on June 28, 1776:

797TH ANNIVERSARY OF MAGNA CHARTA:

The earliest of the key historical events in the Constitutional history of the Anglo-American world directly attributable with some historical confidence to this week were those which took place exactly 797 years ago (18th century adjustments in the English Calendar being ignored for the moment) June 15-19, by the Thames River in the far northwest corner of the County of Surrey in England.

The name Runnymede may be derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘runieg‘ (“running” or regular meeting) and ‘mede’ (mead or meadow). The name designates “a place in the meadows used to hold regular meetings” (the meetings were probably “running” in the modern sense, although in modern slang perhaps, “the place to go if you’re in the know” captures it better—it was only for the elite, to be sure, the landholding barons and the king).

What is certainly true of this place is than an ancient social institution or loosely structured organization analogous to the Viking “Thinga” (Allthinga), known in Anglo-Saxon times as theWitan, Witenagemot or Council met with the Kings of the South Saxons, the Saxons of South Ridge, and the Western Saxon (Sussex, Surrey, and Wessex) from the 7th to 11th centuries took place at Runnymede. The most regularly “running” meetings in the original Kingdom of England (United Angles & Saxons under the Kingdom of Wessex) started to institutionalize this place from time to time during the reign of Alfred the Great. The Witan/Witenagemot, like the Norse/Icelandic Thinga (Allthing or the earliest Roman “Res Publica” including the Senatus & Quirites) normally met in the open air. The political organ known as the Witan evolved and transformed itself in the years succeeding 1215, which all English speaking peoples take as the moment of conception of the birth of what later became known in England’s 13th century as “the place to talk” (in Norman French or) “parliament.”

At the water-meadow at Runnymede in 1215, King John of England affixed his great seal to the Articles of the Barons on June 15 (the barons having entered and effectively “arrested” King John on June 10). The barons in turn sealed the Magna Carta on June 19. The charter indicates Runnymede by name as the place of its creation. Although only three of its original 63 clauses persist essentially unchanged as part of modern British law, the Magna Carta had an inestimable historical impact on common and constitutional law as well as concepts of political representation also affecting the development of the modern parliament, not only of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the Congress and Legislatures of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and now dearly departed Dominion of South Rhodesia/Republic of Rhodesia). Indirectly, what happened at Runnymeade, through the influence of the British Empire, especially after the American Revolution and the Fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, has reshaped the political landscape of Europe, Latin America, and Japan, of the entire civilized, and democratic world, excluding only the most barbarous Arabic Kingdoms. Tthis most barbarous list clearly includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, America’s long-standing ally—because even America’s next likely war-target the Islamic Republic of Iran, possesses a Parliament composed of and representing “the propertied middle class” = bourgeois, the French Third Estate, which directly evolved together with the English Parliament due to the long association of England and France) and some of the most backwards and benighted African and Asian nations which possess neither parliaments nor congresses of any kind.

Three clauses of Magna Charta have survived for these 797 years, unscathed, as part of the law of Great Britain, only the last of these (“Clause 29″) having crossed the Atlantic into the American Constitution:

1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Charles I, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Glorious Revolution, History and Civilization, Jeffersonian Democracy, National Defense Authorization Act, Senate Bill 1867, The American South & Confederate States, Uncategorized

A Historical Perspective on Foreclosure Rates: 1,000 per day in 1933 vs. 10,000 per day in 2010

Posted on January 31, 2012 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 3 Comments

A TSUNAMI OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE & EVICTION

A wave of bank foreclosures and evictions has shaken the stability of the people of the United States of America from coast-to-coast in a manner without historical precedent. While certain urban areas may have suffered higher rates during the great depression of the 1930s, one source reports that the foreclosure rate peaked in 1933 at 1000 homes going into foreclosure every day, nationwide[1]. A separate source reports that in the last quarter of 2010 there were 800,000 foreclosures filed in the Fourth Quarter alone[2]. One not educated in higher mathematics, Boolean algebra or statistics cannot easily calculate or articulate in meaningful terms what the difference between 1000 per day in 1933 and 800,000 per quarter in 2010 would be (although the 2010 figure appears to approach 10,000 per day), but one can fairly say that a disaster of tidal wave proportions grips this country by the throat and every class of society is equally affected except for the very richest of the richest, only perhaps the top half of the top 1% of the population can rest truly safe.

[1] http://homeguides.sfgate.com/historical-rate-mortgage-foreclosures-8868.html:

Depression-Era Information

A 2008 article by David C. Wheelock, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, cited annual reports issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the 1930s. These reports reveal that the foreclosure rate exceeded 1 percent from 1931 until 1935. At the worst point in the Depression-era economic crisis, in 1933, about 1,000 home loans were being placed in foreclosure by banks every day.

(Website quoted as of on-line report available and consulted January 29, 2012).

[2] http://www.housingwire.com/2011/01/12/foreclosures-reach-record-high-in-2010-realtytrac:

Daren Blomquist, who edits the RealtyTrac monthly reports, said the record set in 2010 will not last for long.

“We don’t think we’ve peaked yet nationwide,” Blomquist told HousingWire. “We’re expecting the 2011 numbers to be slightly higher than 2010, and then start the downward trend toward ‘normalcy’ in 2012.”

Saccacio said foreclosure filings would have been higher in 2010 “had it not been for the fourth quarter drop in foreclosure activity — triggered primarily by the continuing controversy surrounding foreclosure documentation and procedures that prompted many major lenders to temporarily halt some foreclosure proceedings.”

The final quarter of 2010 had the lowest total since the fourth quarter of 2008. Lenders filed slightly fewer than 800,000 foreclosure cases in the fourth quarter, down 8% from a year ago and down 14% from the previous period.

In December, filings dropped 26% from a year ago and 2% from the previous month. Lenders ramped up repossessions, REO, for the month by 4%, led by a 71% monthly increase in Nevada to 3,022 repossessions. However, Nevada REO was still down 24% from a year ago.

Overall, Nevada had the highest foreclosure rate for the fourth consecutive year. There, one in 11 homes received a filing in 2010 despite a 5% decrease in activity from 2009. Filings did ramp up 18% in December from the previous month and were up 14% from December 2009.

Arizona followed with the second highest rate. One in 17 homes there received a filing. Florida, one in 18, was third.

But Blomquist warned more foreclosures could be in store even for those markets that many believe are peaking now.

“There are some states and metro areas where it appears the numbers may have technically peaked, areas of California like Stockton are good examples,” Blomquist said, “but foreclosures are still pretty high in most of those areas and there is still risk that we could see some foreclosure aftershocks hitting those markets in 2011.”

(Website quoted as of on-line report available and consulted on January 29, 2012).

John Michele Fanuzzi & Norah Bawn Fanuzzi 01-31-2012 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO REMAND AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL TO US DISTRICT COURT

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Civil Rights Removal, Foreclosure, Law, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, Non-Judicial Foreclosure, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Summary Judicial Eviction

Tagged Arizona Foreclosure, California Foreclosure, Foreclosure rate in 1933, Foreclosure rate in 2010, Great Depression, Nevada Foreclosure, Sacramento Foreclosure, Stockton, Stockton Foreclosure

The Death & Destruction of Private Property in the USA: why are we so complacent?

Posted on January 8, 2012 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

The Christmas Season in the history-conscious Texas-Louisiana family where I grew up always ended with January 8, Battle of New Orleans Day. I suppose this day was as important to the 19th Century South as 9-11 is to the World of the 21st Century… albeit it was a Patriotic Day of much greater optimism and affirmation of liberty than pessimism and fear of phantoms.

What amazes me at present is that the Presidential election season has started in earnest and nobody is standing up for the defrauded, the dispossessed and the defeated in this country despite the fact that no single episode of continuous destruction of homes, families, and private property has happened on the present scale anywhere in the USA since the War of 1861-1865, in the midst of whose sadly understudied sesquicentennial we are currently coasting, only partially aware, as seems to be the modern American norm. But the truth is that it is only possible to understand what is happening in modern America if we realize that the destruction of private property is proceeding NATIONWIDE now at approximately the same rate as it was happening in Virginia and Georgia during the final year of the War Between the States in 1864-65. Family and local heritage and inheritance are being wiped out, systematically, and with just as much government endorsement and approval as during any war, but without any attempt at justification. I can only guess that the justification has already been written, and so it seems redundant to repeat it now: The Communist Manifesto of 1848, which is about to celebrate its 164th year in print (since 1848) predicted (well, actually, demanded) the centralization of banking and rampant extensions of frivolously predatory credit which have led to the present meltdown. In the 1930s-50s, certain elites decided that if Communism was to be implemented in the United States, it had to be done gradually, stealthily, with the appearance of democratic approval and due process of law. All continuity and “rootedness” in American communities is being subjected to massive disruption and near obliteration—long-term stability and inheritance of local knowledge and traditions is endangered. The world is being “shaked and baked” into dependent homogeneity rather than independent diversity. Individual ownership and family inheritance of real and personal property are being being wiped out in the interests of a destabilized society whose only recourse to survive is to depend upon the “generosity” and “benevolence” of an all-powerful government. I can see no sadder end to civilization.

The official answer to these accusations was articulated recently by a San Diego attorney who is dedicated to the destruction of private property in favor of “corporate-governmental” ownership of property:

“Your letter below serves as an excellent example for why you should consider hiring an attorney who is familiar with the law. I am disinterested in discussing your theory that California Civil Code 2924 is in actuality a communist plot to divest the citizens of California of their right to hold private property. Or that the US Constitution can be construed to permit a person to default on their contractual obligations to pay their mortgage, without any consequence.

Our judgment has not expired, it is still a judgment in our favor and it is still good. Our writ has expired because they are only good for 180 days from the time of issuance. Therefore, we are moving for a new writ, which we are legally permitted to do.

Sincerely,

Jessica Partridge, Esq.

Associate Attorney

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

1770 Fourth Ave.

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: (619) 955-1508

Fax: (619) 243-1979

I have to confess than when I was a law student and practicing attorney I simply did not know that the sole purpose of lawyers was to exploit people for personal gain while implementing whatever was the governmental oppression “du jour.” And yet this is the literary stereotype of lawyers from Shakespeare through Moliere to Dickens. It was certainly not the kind of law practiced by Marcus Tullius Cicero. It was definitely the kind of law used against Joan of Arc (whose 600th birthday was celebrated yesterday in France by Front National Presidential Candidate Marine Le Pen—notably NOT by the sitting President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is at least insofar as his ancestry is concerned as much of or even more of a foreigner in France as Obama is in the United States, although Sarkozy’s foreign origins at least derive the same continent as France, unlike Obama who hails from a distinctly non-European, non-American family background, at least on his father’s [Kenyan, Communist, Mau-Mau] side). One of the most amazing chapters in French History is how la Pucelle d’Orleans handled her own defense against English Clerical Inquisitors, and how she chose integrity and faith in herself and her own personal relationship with God over all earthly advantage or matters. Another disturbing chapter in the history of lawyers based in France was of course the Dreyfus affair, which seems likely to be repeated ten thousand times in the next few years if America really does ever arrest and detain people under the provisions of the new National Defense Authorization Act which our own foreign President just signed into law within the past few weeks.

But I have digressed from the destruction of private property in America or the government’s support and endorsement of this destruction. A recent write-up of governmental action as affirmation of the policy of national expropriation was recently brought to my attention and I want to share it:

Independent Foreclosure Review–Beware

Snapshot of the Newest Program

The review is not independent

The servicers are paying the “Independent Consultants”

The servicers are allowed to release “relevant” information to the “Independent Consultants”

“Eligibility” has been pre-determined

Forgery and fraud are not on the list of things to be reviewed

The Current Climate
We have become a nation of displaced people due to fraudulent and wrongful foreclosures conducted by the banks since the Mortgage Meltdown began in 2007. Amherst Securities has testified that 1 out 5 homeowners are likely to lose their homes before this crisis ends. It is estimated that there are at least 62 million securitized loans – loans with lost notes and unclear ownership. These are the people being foreclosed upon by banks that cannot prove legal ownership.

Fraudulent foreclosures have rampantly permeated across all 50 states. The issue is not limited to robo-signing, or clerical errors, or bank ineptitude. The issue is much deeper: Does the bank have the legal right to foreclose? Any foreclosure proceeding must include clear evidence that the bank is the rightful owner of the note, the deed or mortgage, and they have in their possession the original note with original signatures. This is the crux of fraudulent foreclosures in our country today.

Yet, the Government has announced a new “program” to get your foreclosure process reviewed “independently”. The concerns of most homeowner advocacy groups are that this new “independent Foreclosure Review Process is just another bank maneuvered government sham. Their concerns are well justified. It is.

Analysis of the Independent Review Fact Sheet
A Fact Sheet explaining this new “opportunity” for homeowners, which has been put out by the Housing Policy Council, clearly shows this is not an independent review and homeowners should be very cautious of involving themselves in the process. It appears to be yet another diversion orchestrated by the banks & US Government to get people’s attention diverted off the underlying issues of their loan and foreclosure using the time-honored and impartial justice system. Instead, tying them up in a very long bank-controlled review process that is anything but independent.
First, let’s take a look at who the Housing Policy Council is:

They are a bunch of bankers dictating to the Government while lining their pockets. They are a subsidiary of the Financial Services Roundtable, which is made up of members who provide mortgages to Americans. They are a strong lobbying force in DC. The Housing Policy Council estimates that 65% of all mortgages in the US are originated by the member firms of the Housing Policy Council. Thus, he who created the foreclosure crisis, then the fraudulent foreclosures, and never once policed himself is in charge of the program to see if he “erred.” How can this be an independent and impartial review?

This is the Opening Paragraph of the “Fact Sheet”:

“Fourteen U.S. mortgage servicers and their affiliates are making available free, impartial independent Foreclosure Reviews to certain of their borrowers . . ”

Our government must think we are really an ignorant lot. The servicers who conducted the fraudulent foreclosures are making available this impartial and independent review. I’m confident by now that anybody who is reviewing this information has safely concluded that there is no impartiality.

But there’s more: “to certain of their borrowers”

It appears that you can be the victim of a fraudulent foreclosure, yet the independent review process is only available to a selected group. That could work if that selected group is anybody who has suffered foreclosure proceedings since 2007 when the meltdown began, but that is not the case:

According to the fact sheet, that qualifying group only comprises those who believe they’ve been financially injured as a result of “servicer errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process of their primary residence.”

Their omission of forgery (robo-signing,) and fraud (securitization which obfuscates who owns the loan and if they really are the owner) is a bit too obviously absent. More disconcerting however is the use of the word eligible mostly because of who is eligible. Are they suggesting that second homes are investment properties were not wrongfully foreclosed upon?

“Borrowers are eligible to submit a Request for Review if 1) their loan was serviced by one of the participating mortgage servicers, 2) their loan was active in the foreclosure process between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2010, and 3) the property securing the loan was their primary residence.”

Thus, you are eligible if your lender is participating, if it happened during the specified dates and if it was a primary residence. There’s a word for this: It is known as minimizing.

Fraudulent foreclosures didn’t only happen to the eligible group. If the lender is “participating” doesn’t that suggest this activity isn’t independent, and who decided that we only had issues for the past two years? What about the lenders who don’t participate? Let’s face it. If you committed forgery and fraud, participation isn’t a luxury or choice that you have, prosecution and jail time are your fair due. So why do we get to hear about lenders who are participating, like they signed up to be in a special club? That’s not independent.

Also of concern, it’s already been determined by the independent group if you are eligible and they’re going to let those 4.5 million borrowers know by mailing them a letter explaining all this.

For those millions of you who have since moved on: I wonder if they have your new address. What if your mail forwarding has expired?

The independent review is also pre-determining what would constitute a financial injury, again, forgery and fraud are not on the list.

They’re claiming the process “could take up to several months”. Following in the footsteps of HAMP, more realistically, you will be tied up in this for the next several years, while valid statutes that could have served you well in court expire.

And worst of all, they have decided that the “Foreclosure Reviews will be conducted by independent consultants engaged by the servicers and approved by official sounding government entities. That is only part of the problem, however. There’s only one company being used by “all the participating” servicers to manage the incoming complaints.

And the final blow to the word independent comes in the closing paragraph: Once the request for review forms have been collected by this single vendor, the servicer will provide relevant documents to the independent consultant.

It’s clear that this review should be considered with a cynical eye, and wary countenance. Unless you show the fraud and forgery in your loan, don’t think it will get revealed by those ‘independents.’

Consider a full securitization audit to include with your submission if you do choose to do this process, minimally get an investigation for robo-signing. Don’t be duped into thinking once again that the bank and the government are actually going to fix the mess they made of your loan and your life. Your safer route is to pursue your lender in a court of law, after you’ve gotten that audit and now have the evidence of the fraud and forgery committed in your loan. Most likely in successful cases, the compensation approved by a judge will be much greater than what you could expect to see from this ‘program’.

Here’s an excellent article that you should read: Tila Solutions is not the only group expressing concerns over this program. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/business/foreclosure-relief-dont-hold-your-breath-fair-game.html?_r=2
Sara Miller

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Brave New World, California Civil Code 2924, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, National Defense Authorization Act, Non-Judicial Foreclosure, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Securities & Exchange Commission, Securities Regulation, Social Security, The American South & Confederate States, UCC Perfection of Interests, Uncategorized

Tagged Communist Manifesto of 1847, Communist Manifesto of 1848, Destruction of Private Property, Expropriation of Private Property, McCarthy & Holthus, Predatory Foreclosure

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

Posted on December 28, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 1 Comment

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

ALL FINANCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL MONOPOLIES, AND LEGAL IMMUNITIES FOR WRONGFUL TAKINGS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY MUST END, WITH FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE ILLEGITIMATE MONOPOLIES AND TAKINGS. Government licensing and government regulation of the economy are inherently destructive to the public welfare they seek to protect.

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

My interim campaign managers in this venture are: in Orange County: Renada Nadine March (949) 276-1970 and Aurora Isadora Diaz (714) 767-3311; Ed Villanueva in San Diego County (858) 231-5033; as well as my Campaign Treasurer, National Coordinator, and longtime personal trustee Peyton Yates Freiman (512) 968-2666.

Anyone interested in promoting “diversity” in the Democratic Party and U.S. Senate by electing a Conservative, sound money, pro-Private Property, pro-Common Law, pro-10th-Amendment, Libertarian Candidate to replace the hopelessly establishmentarian and politically correct Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has played a leading role as member of the Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence in approving and ratifying the corruption which shackled America, should seriously consider backing me for Senate.

To elect anyone with my “outsider” credentials and background would “send them a message” inside the Washington Beltway that the people are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want real change.

My specific platform planks are:

(1) restoration of full First Amendment rights, and the abolition of all forms of governmental regulation of speech and expression, including the elimination of penalties for advocacy and repeated submission of petitions for redress in the Federal Court system.

One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is Luke 18:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Judge—which tells of a Judge to whom a widow repeatedly brings her petition for redress, and which Judge finally grants her relief rather than hear her plea again. Apparently, in Ancient Israel, it was unimaginable that any person would be penalized for repeatedly seeking justice—even it was by no means certain that this particular widow or any person would obtain anything by her efforts. The Federal Courts, with Congressional support, have all but cut off the power of the people effectively petition through the Courts. Federal Courts seem to exist only for the benefit of large corporations and law firms. This particular corruption must end, even though, harking back to one of the passages in the Hebrew Bible, it is an ancient problem.

The following, from Isaiah 59, seems to me to embody my own frustration, and the frustration of many I know, with the Judicial System and its most numerous “officers of the court” who are the lawyers (one of my Great Grandfathers was a Judge & Justice in Louisiana—according to family legend he had a plaque on the walls of his chambers which read, “Dead Lawyers Lie Still”. ISAIAH 59:

4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider’s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7 Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8 The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
9 So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

(2) restoration of full Second Amendment rights, on the grounds that the power of the people to defend themselves against government is the necessary backup to the freedoms secured by the First Amendment (an all-powerful army and police force with the monopoly of legitimate violence is simply incompatible, in both the long and the short term, with meaningful individual or social freedom). We must reinvigorate the concept of the civilian militia, composed of every adult man and woman in society.

Switzerland and Israel both follow this model of public participation, which just shows that there are no guarantees of anything in life or politics: Switzerland by its rigid neutrality has avoided direct involvement in all the wars of the past century, while Israel has been in a state of nearly constant war since even before its creation 63 years ago in 1948.

In the United States, we have somehow combined both worlds: up until 1992, we had enjoyed a century of nearly complete domestic peace. Discounting several dozen essentially disorganized and nearly random urban riots relating to the Labor movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Protest movements in the late 1950s-early 1970s, there was no serious conflict or “state of hostility” on United States soil following the withdrawal of occupying forces from the South in 1877 and the dawn of the “Decade of Domestic Terrorism” which ran from 1992-2001, and led to the transformation of American government and the near obliteration of civil rights.

(3) freedom of contract from governmental interference of every kind;

To fully implement this phrase would eliminate such a large portion of the United States Code and the work of lawyers generally that overtaxed pulp-tree farms (and recycling plants) everywhere would heave a sigh of relief. Just as an example, the IRS code and many Federal Courts frown on contracts for barter or exchange—meaning that the most basic instinct of exchange of goods, labor, or services of any kind for negotiated substantive value without assigning any formal cash value has been very nearly made a Federal crime.

(4) reduction in governmental subsidies with a goal towards ultimate elimination, of corporate welfare, individual welfare, and all programs which foster dependency on the state rather than freedom and social-interdependence of people on each other as equals—again of absolutely every kind;

(5) reduction in governmental power over all aspects of human life, but including especially but not limited to all regulations which tend to affect individuals as members of families, and to alienate the individual from his family as a considered governmental “benefit” or “service” in support of “domestic relations” laws; and also including all regulations which tend to impose uniform philosophies or beliefs, or enforce normative standards of human philosophy, religion, or ideology of any kind.

Returning to the point about the First Amendment above, a free society (such as existed in the United States during the Colonial, Early Republican, and up through mid-19th century period at least) must foster the development of new and divergent lifestyles based on emergent new philosophies rather than trying to straightjacket society and culture into a “one-size” fits all narrow menu of politically correct and socially acceptable choices.

(6) abolition of government programs such as massive environmental regulation (including the construction and maintenance of dams and nuclear power plants) which necessarily increase the dependence of the people on the government and government controlled monopolies for their very survival;

(7) the abolition of all kinds of official immunity, including but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial immunity, for violation of civil rights, and especially for those violations and abuses of office which design or promote private or unofficial political and “social engineering” goals;

(8) any and every attempt by the state or federal government to regulate or control family organization in the name of “public welfare”; here again, multiple apparently opposing interests may be reconciled creatively. The interests of so-calle “social conservatives” will be served because the Federal government would no longer subsidize the state-sponsored breakup of families, pitting husbands and wives against each other in an eternal redistributive battle which ultimately enriches only lawyers and empowers only Judges and social workers. Moreover, the power of Churches, Religious, Philosophical, and/or even Private Social or cultural groups to institute, promulgate rules, and regulate marriage and the education of the young will be restored.

However, persons of a socially liberal bent will find that the abolition of all civil and criminal restrictions on “gay marriage” and any other (victimless, voluntary) “alternative lifestyles” will lead to complete individual choice and private decision-making, limited only by individual imagination and the criminal laws against physical injury and slavery of any kind.

In a truly free society, if the Unitarian Universalist and other churches wish to solemnize gay marriage, they shall do so according to their own rules and regulations without leave or license from any state officer. But at the same time, the Conservative Presbyterians and Southern Baptist Convention will be free to ban and forbid membership to any individuals choosing what appears to these groups an “ungodly” lifestyle. The marketplace of ideas, in short, will be open to all competing models, and the triumph or failure of any ideology will be utterly without beneficial or detrimental consequences in the law.

(9) a restoration of strict construction of the constitution and civil rights as respecting life, liberty, and property ownership;

(10) a complete restructuring of the banking and government finance systems, including but not limited to abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax;

(11) a restoration to the people of the power (and the duty) to structure their own lives and social relations by contractual agreement without governmental interference, the major legitimate function of the courts being to enforce and judge the fairness of private contracts, including but not limited to marriage contracts and other agreements relating to domestic relations, such that the marriage license and state-sponsored divorce should be forever abolished and erased from the American social scene, restoring true freedom of association and freedom of religion to the people so that MEANINGFUL cultural and social diversity can flourish in the absence of regulation. In this connection, all victimless crimes should be abolished, and the definition of “crimes against society” or humanity should be strictly limited to those behaviors which actually place real individuals in physical danger. ”Moral” or “Mental” injuries such as the consequences, for example, of merely “hateful” expression (without associated conduct such as assaultive behavior) must no longer be allowed to be a cause for criminal punishment (although tortious actions for “emotional distress” and other forms of non-physical victimization would be greatly expanded and liberalized, although subjected to the funnel and fulcrum of trial-by-fully-informed juries).

(12) corporate and professional, like governmental immunity, should be abolished or at least severely curtailed so that corporate, like governmental, officers, cannot hide behind legal shields while they wield immensely destructive financial swords, (

13) electronic voting should be carefully and independently monitored and subject to citizen audits, as should all governmental actions, but electronic voting should be supplemented by duplicative paper ballot receipt systems where the voter casts his vote electronically, but then casts and keeps a confirming paper copy of his vote, so that recounts will have double and triple built in security systems,

(14) all ancient prerogative writs, including quo warranto should be restored and forever guaranteed to the people,

(15) Federal judicial rules should be reformed in favor of freely amended pleadings and limiting the discretion of judges to dismiss complaints based on subjective criteria such as “plausibility”, while the right to decide all matters of credibility and fact-finding should be strictly reserved to juries, which should also have the power to decide whether laws are fairly applicable in each individual case.

I submit that I am a candidate for all the people. As an individual, I was born a “WASP” from the Upper Middle Class of White America, and for much of my life I thought of myself as a “Goldwater-Reagan” Republican, albeit with deep admiration for Conservative Democrats such as populated the South through at least the 1970s. But as an Anthropologist and Historian, I should hope I have a deeper than average appreciation for the mechanics and implications and demands of REAL socio-cultural and political diversity.

And because of my unusual individual life-history, I should find a “common table” with traditional elements of the California “Blue State” Democratic coalition including California’s Hispanics (I am fluent in Spanish and support official bilingualism in Government and the Court System on what you might call “the Canadian Model”), as California’s African Americans (I have suffered more than my share of unjust judicial and financial oppression and I recognize that they have been uniquely victimized as a group), along with California’s labor unions, for whom I would always defend the rights of freedom to organize, freedom to associate, and freedom to negotiate and contract without governmental interference.

Finally, I think that my social-”diffusion of power” program regarding lifestyle choices and values should appeal not only to every ethnic group belonging to the California “plurality of diversity” but also to every Californian who shares in this state’s tradition of eccentricity and the embrace of real normative divergence. The socialist tyranny which has characterized California politics and social policy during most of my lifetime stands in marked contrast to the real diversity of the California population—at least by origins. All who enjoy support California’s diverse makeup must admit that such diversity cannot meaningfully coexist with homogenization through coercive unitary educational, financial, and legal systems. “Good fences make good neighbors” and the freedom the build good fences and maintain actual distinctions is one of the freedoms to whose protection I am most deeply committed.

Above all I think I will appeal to California’s homeowners and property owners of every ethnic and class background: like no one else in this or any other race, I will fight first and foremost to restore the integrity and reality of private property against all Federal Tax-based schemes and programs of securitization and transfers of real ownership as a result of corrupt banking and lending laws. A

s an anthropologist and archaeologist, I think I have a better appreciation for the cultural history and diversity of all groups in California than anyone else, and understand the importance of maintaining identity and actual diversity by avoiding forced assimilation of any and every kind: “Vive la difference.”

As strongly indicated above, I also support absolute freedom of expression and religion, and would work to remove all Federal Support for or mandates involving state licensed or controlled marriage or relating marriage or support to the social security system, which has turned the State Family Courts into surrogate Federal Tax Collection facilities for the purpose of welfare and wealth redistribution.

As a United States Senator I would demand proof of the legitimacy and honest integrity of all our programs, institutions, and officers, including but not limited to the monetary system (the value of the dollar, the threat of renewed inflation), the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, every branch of the Federal Government, and yes, even of the Presidency and of the current occupant of the White House.

I would specifically fight in the U.S. Senate for amendments to the Civil Rights Statutes of Titles 18, 28, and 42 which would amendments would ensure the color blind application of the civil rights laws. “Equal opportunity under the law” must flourish and promote itself as among the greatest of American Values, not so much as a divisive but unifying slogan and ideal in our courts—available to the members of the DAR and recent immigrants alike.

I would also fight for the repeal of the recent National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, and the Real ID act, FISA, and the secure restoration of meaningful Habeas Corpus, and the removal of every sort of unnecessary governmental program intruding upon or regulating any aspect of business or private life.

My approach to developing a policy for California’s ecological and environmental would be simple: nature is best, all modifications of nature which pervert demographics from their natural tendencies are bad. In particular, no more dams should ever be built with Federal Funds and those dams which exist now should be subjected to retrospective environmental assessment to see which can be removed to restore rivers and lakes to their natural configurations. I think that the restoration of natural hydrology will ultimately lessen the need for governmental regulation and intervention in economic and social life, as well as solve many of the most pressing environmental threats to all life on earth. I will support every sort of incentive to develop non-fossil fuel energy bases EXCEPT hydroelectric based on damming our rivers. Deserts should probably remain dry rather than the site for suburban sprawl. Restoration of natural water flows will decrease the tendency for the United States Federal Government and State Governments to become modern day examples of “Oriental Despotism.” Energy independence for the individual household and family or local communities through wind and solar power is the ideal to be preferred.

Please consider supporting me in my attempt to shake up the California Democratic Party and Washington establishments! In sum, and conclusion, I would just offer as a Haiku-like motto

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

Statement originally published on May 20, 2011 @ 1:54, & May 21, 2011 @ 2:08 AM

→ 1 Comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, Foreclosure, Gospel of Luke, History and Civilization, Isaiah, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, Movies & Philosophy, National Defense Authorization Act, Oriental Despotism, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Plato, politics, UCC Perfection of Interests, Uncategorized, United States Senate

Tagged 1992-2001, Beverly Hills, Candidate for Senate 2012, constitution, Decade of Domestic Terrorism, Dianne Feinstein, Diversity, divorce, Domestic Relations, First Amendment, Free Exercise, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Petition, Isaiah 59, judicial immunity, Luke 18: 1-8, Marriage, Monopoly, monopoly on violence, Orange County, Parable of the Unjust Judge, Prosecutorial Immunity, Renada Nadine March, state bar monopoly, state monopoly, Theodore Kyriazis, Thomas Jefferson, to Abolish State-Sponsored Monopoly

Es Usted Terrorista? Si no, No Importe: El Gobierno EstadoUnidense Ahora le Puede Detener Para Siempre Sin Cargo ni Juicio Formal (No es ninguna broma: tomalo en lo mas serio posible!

Posted on December 8, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

Es usted un Terrorista 12-07-2011 Campaign Flyer

Es usted un Terrorista?

Si no, pues, no importa! Según una nueva ley (S.B. 1867) que la actual Senadora de California, Dianne Feinstein, apoyo con su voto la semana pasada, es sujeto a detención ilimitada (es decir, tal vez para siempre, o sea hasta que el gobierno decida) sin que le acusan ni que le llevan a juzgado formal nunca. No importa quien es! Mande a Charles Edward Lincoln III al Senado Federal para restaurar los derechos civiles al Pueblo Estadounidense!

http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com

Según Charles Edward Lincoln, III, actualmente un cadidato para el Senado Federal de California contra Dianne Feinstein el año que viene (2012), “La Ley pasado por el Senado la semana pasada (S.B. 1867) representa todo lo peor del Comunismo e Dictatura absolutista. Esto es el Despotismo del Oriente ya instalado y montado dentro de los Estados Unidos bajo la Bandera de Nuestros Padres Patriotas. Será que los Estados Unidos entraron a las dos Guerras mundiales, primero contra el Imperador de Alemania e Segundo contra Hitler y los Nazis, y despues contra Russia Stalinista durante la “Guerra Fria” solo para establecer tal dictatura aqui en nuestro país? Será que, despues de Vietnam, aceptamos a cientos de miles de refugiados Vietnameses para ofrecerles una vida peor aqui de lo que les esperaban en la region de la delta del Rio Mekong? Pienso que no!

Los Reto a los 93 Senadores que votaron a favor de S.B. 1867 llamarse “Americanos” mucho menos Constitutionalistas o Patriotas; los niego el derecho de así nombrarse. Todos los 93 deben ser sacados de sus oficinas inmediatamente….y los debemos mandarlos al Singapore donde seran sujetos a jucio y castigos penales del nivel mas severo para fumar cualquier clase de cocaina “crack” que esten fumando que les hace pensar que lo que hicieron es acceptable o corecto, porque no lo es!

Que pasó que aún Mark Udall (Senador de Colorado) votó a favor de esta nueva ley a pesar de que sus enmendamientos propuestas (que propusieron ameliorar las consecuencias de la ley 1867) no fueron aceptados por la mayoría del Senado. Al DIABLO con los Senadores de Florida (Marco Rubio), Louisiana (David Vitter), Massachusetts (John Kerry), Texas (John Cornyn), y cada otro Senator quien votó a favor de esta maldita ley. No pueden disfrasarse que pretenden ser a favor de la Libertád o leál a la Constitución.

Estos de ahora son de los tiempos más dificiles en la historia de nuestro país, y los 93 Senadores quienes votaron a favor del 1867 merecen juzgado y castigo penal de lo más severo para su traición anticonstitucional. Asevero y juro, ante la tumba de mis abuelos, la alma de mi padre y el corazón de mi mama, que me dedico la vida, y me comprometo si me eleccionan al Senado de los Estados Unidos, siempre luchar para borar todos los leyes nuevos efectuados durante los veinte años pasados derogatorios a la libertád o que suprimen los derechos fundamentales del pueblo. Es necesario cancelar todas clausulas ofensivas a la Constitución de todos los Código Federales, pero también de los manueles o guías para la policía, patrullas, e investigadores si estos textos tienen alguna fuerza o efectan a la construcción o interpretación de la ley. Otra vez lo digo: Al DIABLO con Lindsey Graham (de la Carolina del Sur), Joe Lieberman (de Connecticut), Kay Bailey Hutchison (de Texas) y Carl Levin (de Michigan), y John McCain (de Arizona) y los demás fraudes y farciantes. Sobre todo, ahora es el momento denunciar los dos Senadores de California, Barbara Boxer y Dianne Feinstein, por ser las amigas mejores de la oppression ilegitima, las dos de ellas que quieren trasformar los Estados Unidos a una gran campo de concentración penal en nombre de la seguridad.

(Ya necesitamos el derecho de Amparo Constitucional en Estados Unidos, como lo que ya existe en México, desarrollado por los Patriotas del Siglo Pasado en Yucatán).

VOTE PARA CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III, para Senador! Manda su cheque o money order, orden de pago a Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024. Llame al 310-773-6023 para mas información con respeto a la Campaña para Restaurar la Constitución al Senado!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Bilinguismo, Brave New World, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Cultural Indigena, Democratic-Republican Party, Derecho de Amparo, Derecho Indigena, Dianne Feinstein, Judicial Immunity, Juicio de Amparo, Law, politics, Prison Overpopulation, Pueblo Hispano-Latin, Senado Federal, Senate Bill 1867, Summary Judicial Eviction, The American South & Confederate States, United States Senate, V-for-Vendetta, Younger v. Harris Abstention, Yucatan

Two Months Until the Campaign for Senate Begins in Earnest—Registration of Candidates Starts in January—My Campaign Platform in Brief

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

The Constitution of the United States is the greatest charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man, and the Anglo-American Common Law is the most decent legal system ever to evolve on the Planet, the best guarantor of common sense and fairness ever offered to any people. If Elected to the United States Senate, I will struggle to restore and re-empower the Constitution as guarantor of the Common Law, the rights of the people freely to contract for and enforce their contracts and rights to own and maintain their interests in property in all courts according to that law.

I oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it to every citizen of this republic, including but not limited to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the misnamed PATRIOT Act of 2001—if Elected to the United States Senate I will work tirelessly to repeal these statutes and to restore Habeas Corpus to full force and power, and to guarantee that the Civil Rights Laws of the United States can be enforced equally by white people against economic injustice and will no longer serve solely to pit one ethnic group against another, to the detriment and degradation of all.

I stand for social and economic justice, which, I believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our Constitution, the Common Law, and the avoidance and abolition of any statutory or regulatory invasions or destructions of the constitutional rights of the states and individuals guaranteed by the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

I oppose the totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government that exists in our country and the police nation supported by the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the White House, and the Courts, as well as in the State Governments.

I am a Democratic-Republican in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, and Samuel Tilden, and I completely and utterly reject the platforms of both the Democratic and Republican parties as constituted today, which are better called the “Corporate-Socialist Parties of Confiscatory Taxation and Totalitarian Regulation.”

We stand for the sovereignty and integrity of each individual against the State; the constitutional right to choose one’s associates and lifestyle; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one’s living in any manner that is not injurious to others. I oppose the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats mandated by the misnamed Public Health & Welfare Programs. I oppose the fictitious monetary system created by the Federal Reserve and the fictitious casino-stock-market gambling society created by the Securities & Exchange Commission. I oppose the great fraud on the American people constituted by the Social Security Trust Fund and will fight to impose common law fiduciary rules of responsibility and accountability on all government insurance programs and the abolition of all unconstitutional government frauds. I favor home-rule, local self-government and absolute non-interference with individual rights.

I oppose and condemn the actions of the Federal Government in sponsoring a nationwide welfare program calling for Federal regulation of every aspect of private and family life, including the De-Facto Establishment of Secular Humanism as the National Religion of this Country in Violation of the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, Federal regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.

I affirm that the continuing enforcement and elaboration of all such programs is utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the American people, and everywhere on earth.

Wherever there may be differences in race, creed or national orgin in appreciable numbers, each race, creed, and national or ethnic group should be entitled to self-governance and self-determination.

I stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments of our government. I oppose the usurpation of legislative functions by the executive and judicial departments. If elected to the United States Senate I will work tirelessly to dismantle the Independent Commissions and Executive Agencies which usurp both legislative and judicial functions.

I unreservadly condemn the effort to maintain and elaborate in the United States an integrated national police system that blurs the lines between State-and-Federal, National-and-International and now threatens to destroy the last vestiges of liberty enjoyed by the citizens and legal residents of this Country.

I will demand that there be returned to the People to whom of right they belong, i.e. to all Citizens and Legal Residents, those powers needed for the preservation of human rights and the discharge of our responsibility as (small “d”) democratic- (small “r”) republicans for human welfare.

I oppose a denial of those by political parties, purchased by corporate and international interests, and if elected to the United States Senate I will work to undo every treaty and executive order or agreement which functions as a barter or sale of those rights by a political convention, as well as any invasion or violation of those rights by the Federal Government.

I will seek to abolish all immunities for executive, judicial, and legislative officers except those involving open and active debate and examination of issues, but will seek to reimpose the rule of law so that no governmental official, state or federal, will ever again be deemed “above the Constitution” or “immune from any suit at common law” or for violation of Constitutional rights.

I call upon all Americans who sincerely oppose totalitarianism at home and abroad to unite with me in ignominously defeating Dianne Feinstein and every other candidate for public office who support and maintain the Police State which has been established over the past 63-99 years in the United States of America since the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking system and the Federal Income Tax.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Brave New World, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, Foreclosure, Jeffersonian Democracy, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, Non-Judicial Foreclosure, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Plato, politics, Prison Overpopulation, Securities & Exchange Commission, Securities Regulation, Social Security, Summary Judicial Eviction, UCC Perfection of Interests, United States Senate

The New Deal: When Lawyers Became the Masters of our Destiny by Making Paper more valuable than Property

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

New Deal of Deception by Designation: “Security” A Working Draft of Research in Progress © Charles Edward Lincoln Sunday October 23, 2011

The “New Deal” is the name given by political historians to the “recovery & relief” programs initiated during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as President (March 4, 1933-January 20, 1937). While many of Roosevelt’s iconic “relief” programs, including the NRA, the WPA, and CCC were either struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed during World War II, the modern legacy of the New Deal includes some familiar names of the most powerful governmental agencies and programs.

The list of six most famous “New Deal” agencies which remain active today, still operating under their original names, includes (1) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), (2) the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), (3) the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and (4) the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). By far the largest “New Deal” programs still in existence today are (5) the Social Security Administration (headed by the Independent “Commissioner of Social Security”) and (6) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—because these two “independent commissions” in essence control and define the modern economy. All of these programs are tightly knit together in one single tapestry of centralization of economic “command and control”.

What each of these six programs had in common with the other was nothing less than the transformation of various areas of American life by redefining it, by altering the cultural and normative understandings of certain words, phrases, and standards of behavior and transforming the legal landscape, replacing the traditional Anglo-American common law with modern regulatory codes. The trajectory of each program merits some attention and reflection here, from the most general program to the most specific and limited.

TVA: TEMPLATE FOR A CENTRALLY PLANNED FUTURE

Most discrete and delineated territorially within the country, and yet most overwhelmingly powerful in regard to “cradle to grave” impact on the lives of those forming its target population, the TVA was the most comprehensive governmental regional reorganization and restructuring plan ever undertaken in world history, and remains the longest lived such plan (still operating up to the present day after almost eighty years as a major techno-economic and socio-cultural planning “corporation”).

Chartered by Congress during Roosevelt’s famous “First Hundred Days” (in May 1933), the TVA manifests, in essence, the ideal of the Centrally Planned Society: a region including parts of seven States in the Protestant Old South transformed and reshaped under the leadership of an ethnic Jew of Austro-Slovakian parentage named David Eli Lilienthal, trained at Harvard by fellow Austrian-born Jew Felix Frankfurter. Frankfurter was famous in teens and twenties as a socialist radical, paving the way for the New Deal by advocated “judicial restraint” in dealing with government misdeeds, including greater freedom for administrative agencies from judicial oversight….. In practice, this meant that (as Roosevelt’s 1938 appointee to the Supreme Court as the third Jewish Supreme Court Justice to Replace Benjamin Cardozo) Frankfurter would generally uphold all executive branch actions, including those of administrative agencies and government corporations against all constitutional challenges so long as they did not “shock the conscience” (meaning of course, his own conscience).

After 20 years in government, establishing first the TVA and then the Atomic Energy Commission, Lilienthal worked for several years for the investment bank Lazard Freres, and in 1955, formed an engineering and consulting firm called Development and Resources Corporation (D&R) which took the TVA’s objectives worldwide: major centrally planned public power and public works projects. Lilienthal was able to leverage the financial backing of Lazard Freres to found his company. He hired former associates from the TVA to work with him at D&R. D&R focused on overseas clients, including Post-Mossadegh/Early Shahist Iran, and similarly politically oriented “forced cultural evolution” or “regional development” projects to suppress regional dissent and thus support U.S. backed regimes or programs in Colombia, Venezuela, India, Southern Italy, Ghana, Nigeria, Morocco, and above all, South Vietnam.

Because of Lilienthal’s leadership, TVA is said to be the model which the State of Israel emulated in its reorganization and redesign of Palestine after 1947, and the Tennessee Valley Authority stands as the template for U.S. Overseas Development up through and including the reconstruction of Iraq after 2003—a nearly eighty year run. Nothing quite like the TVA ever happened again inside the United States, however.

FHA: TO ABOLISH THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CITIES AND URBAN AREAS

After the TVA’s design to redefine 100% of the way of life in a general region, the next broadest program of the six surviving New Deal Programs has been the acquisition and maintenance of interests in housing. Born of a depression wherein millions were displaced, providing housing for about forty years for tens of millions, the New Deal legacy in 2011 is a cloaked depression, or perhaps a planned “genocide” in which an astounding 30-50 million Americans are losing or have lost their homes acquired and maintained since the New Deal under the aegis of Federal Government Programs.

For its “constructive” part in the transformation, the Federal Housing Authority was a massive nationwide “lending” umbrella project to fund the mass construction of housing—it also could be called the “Suburban Genesis Authority” or “the Abolition of Urban-Rural Distinctions Authority.” Just as the TVA transformed parts of the landscape from Virginia through Tennessee to Mississippi, the Federal Housing Authority played a decisive role in moving people out of the cities and off farms into the vast suburban wastelands which now occupy immense percentages of the most fertile farm land in the world and are increasingly marred by decay and degeneracy brought on by foreclosure and eviction—empty ruins being sold off through “Investment Visa EB-5” and “Green Card” sales to thousands of Arabic and Chinese foreign investors with interests hard to characterize or predict except with the wildest speculation.

The Federal Housing Authority was originally created by the National Housing Act of 1934, which was amended in 1938 (Roosevelt’s Second Term) to create the Federal National Mortgage Association “Fannie Mae”, which under Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon metamorphosized and split into “Ginny Mae” (Government National Mortgage Association”) and “Freddie Mac” (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association) to “foster competition”, even though all three entities remained entirely government controlled and Freddie and Fannie are now [since their “renationalization” by executive fiat in September 2008] owned by the U.S. Treasury Department and controlled by FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Authority).

The Federal Housing Authority now exists within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. “HUD” was established in 1965 among the first steps of Lyndon B. Johnson’s program called the “Great Society”, which was not coincidentally also the first major expansion of Government Centralization in the United States SINCE the “New Deal” (and also not coincidentally formed part of the same program as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965). The Federal Housing Authority remains today the key government agency supervising the Banking Industry’s role in mortgage finance and securitization of home loans.

In short, the TVA was all about completely reconditioning and reworking technology, society and culture in one region considered particularly “backward” and in need of “development”. And having done so without significant protest or expressions of pain, TVA, became the model for “foreign aid” for the development of “Third World” Countries, while the FHA was a more general program to restructure the urban and rural landscape by “stimulating” housing construction and lowering costs nationwide. There are those who say that the housing foreclosure and eviction crisis brought on by Federal financial programs means that the time for a national TVA has finally come, and that the next “Third World Country” to be forceably re-engineered and developed is the U.S., except this time it will be a much more diverse consortium of Near Eastern and Chinese experts who will impose their own standards of “conscience” on our legal system and the interpretation of our constitution.

THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT: INDEPENDENT COMMMISSIONS OR AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE SEC, SOCIAL SECURITY, IRS, AND FEDERAL RESERVE: UTTERLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL & CONTROLLED BY INDUSTRY INSIDERS

Regarding distinct onomastic pattern characterizes the list of six after the TVA “Corporation” and the sub-cabinet level FHA: two “Insurance Corporations” and two “Security Commissions”— (1) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), (2) the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), together with (5) the Social Security System and (6) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

It is worth noting that in 1933 the United States Government owned no corporations whatsoever, at least not “outright”, although it had certainly chartered and funded some, including the great transcontinental railroads in the 19^th century and many large banks after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and regulated many others, especially after the enactment of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 and (never coincidentally, the establishment of the first “Independent Commission” namely) the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”) in 1887.

With the aforementioned dominance of the great transcontinental railroads in the U.S. in the late 1800s, legislators in the several states established commissions to effectively supervise them. State legislators delegated power to unelected and “independent” commissions in the belief that “specialists” could more readily accumulate expert knowledge to regulate the railroads than the legislators could do on behalf of the people. However, when the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 struck down an Illinois statute on railroad commerce involving neighboring states, the U.S. Congress intervened. Congress copied state “unelected industry specialist” approach and established the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1887. Congress authorized the ICC to issue orders regarding the rates set by the railroads and to enforce its orders in court. The Constitutional authority for Independent Commissions under the United States Constitution of 1787, and as amended since then is, as the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger once confided to me in 1993 in Palm Beach, Florida, “absolutely nil.”

However, no successful challenge to the existence of these “independent commissions” has ever been litigated through the courts. For this reason, after the ICC, Congress established many more {independent} regulatory commissions in the early 1900s, to include the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Power Commission (FPC), the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS: Headed by the “Commissioner of Internal Revenue”), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC—which took over from David Lilienthal’s Atomic Energy Commission or “AEC” mentioned above), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and of course, last but not least, the Social Security Administration (SSA: Headed by the “Commissioner of Social Security”). More recently many “Independent Agencies” such as the Environmental Protection Agency have been created, always preserving, for whatever reason, the three letter monogram style of name.

These Commissions almost always work closely with Executive Branch Cabinet Officers and Administrative Bureaucracy whose officers CAN be fired by the President. Officers of the Independent Commissions cannot be discharged by the Chief Executive nor, at least not without impeachment, by Congress, although they serve for limited terms. In “Constitutional Law I” at the University of Chicago with Judge Richard Allen Posner, we spent a great deal of time on the unsuccessful constitutional challenges to the Independent Commissions over the past century.

In blatant defiance of any principles of separation-of-powers, the independent commissions/independent “executive” agencies all both have and exercise powers that functionally parallel all three branches of federal government as established by the Constitution. These Commissions/Agencies legislate by publication in the Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations when they adopt or enact their own regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, adopts or enacts regulations limiting pollution emissions by industry.

Independent agencies also carry out executive functions, such as when the Interstate Commerce Commission checks to ensure that trucks have proper safety features. Finally, many officers of independent agencies act in judicial capacity in “administrative” courts when they hold hearings and issue fines for violations of their undemocratically decreed regulations. Their powers, however, are at least theoretically limited by Congress. Congress may alter, amend, or appeal legislation delegating authority to an agency. The president may remove the head of an agency “for cause” (but not for disagreement with policy or decisions). Under the desperately deferential “Chevron” standard, the courts (also mostly theoretically) may (but only very occasionally do) declare agency action to be unconstitutional or outside the grant of authority from Congress.

While not officially described as an “Independent Commission”, the Federal Reserve is set up in exactly the same way as the others listed above, and for many of the same practical and political reasons, its de jure “independence” of the government means de facto dependence on the industry being regulated, namely in the Federal Reserve’s case, the banking industry. Like every other “Independent Agency,” the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that “its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.” However, its authority derives from Congress and Congressional statutes and is subject to “congressional oversight.” Additionally, the members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress and the President also exercises not insignificant political control over the Federal Reserve by appointing and setting the salaries of the system’s highest-level employees.

Thus the Federal Reserve Board is populated by Banking “Industry Insiders” and its chairman always hails from Wall Street in New York or at least La Salle Street in Chicago. Like the original ICC, the Federal Reserve epitomizes the government-and-corporate cooperation which is neither democratically controlled by the people through their elected officials for the public good nor permits any genuine “laissez-faire” free-market competition by the operation of any such primitive principles as supply and demand, never mind customer satisfaction with service. “Independent Commissions” are quintessentially creatures of government “by the industry, of the industry, for the industry” allegedly being “regulated” in the public good. “Independent Commissions”, in short, constitute a fraudulent and unconstitutional mixture of governmental authority and corporate (financial) power.

TRANSFORMING THE MEANING OF “SECURITY” FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC PROMISES

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, History and Civilization, Jeffersonian Democracy, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, Non-Judicial Foreclosure, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Securities & Exchange Commission, Securities Regulation, Social Security, Summary Judicial Eviction, The American South & Confederate States, Thomas Jefferson, UCC Perfection of Interests, Uncategorized, United States Senate

Tagged AEC, Alabama, Atomic Energy Commission, Benjamin Cardozo, Commissioner of Social Security, David Lilienthal, Fannie Mae, FCC, FEC, Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Reserve System, Federal Trade Commission, Felix Frankfurter, FHA, FHLB, First Hundred Days, FNMA, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Freddie Mac, FTC, George Corley Wallace, Georgia, Ginny Mae, GNMA, Great Society, Henry Agard Wallace, ICC, Interstate Commerce Commission, IRS, Jews at Harvard, Kentucky, Knoxville, Lazard Freres, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Mississippi, Mussel Shoals, New Deal, North Carolina, NRC, Regional Development, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Sherman Act, Sherman Antitrust Act, Social Security Administration, South Vietnam, SSA, Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA, Virginia

A Streamlined Outline of a Complaint for Constitutional & Common Law Mortgage Foreclosure & Eviction Litigation in California

Posted on October 19, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

I think the attached four page outline pretty much summarizes everything that we need to say in a complaint which could be copied and duplicated everywhere and adapted, adopted, and filed by every affected person in every U.S. District Court in the State of California to attack the current regime of Non-Judicial Foreclosure followed by Summary Judicial Eviction with neither respect for due process nor any Protection for Civil Rights whatsoever, supporting massive racketeering enterprises involving attorneys, servicers and “purchasers” in support of Banking & Securities Fraud and the infliction of almost immeasurable, irreparable injuries to individuals, families, children, and destruction of their lives and private property. I would appreciate all constructive criticism, suggestions, and feedback.

REFRAMED & STREAMLINED OUTLINE of COMPLAINT 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E

REFRAMED OUTLINE OF COMPLAINT—8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E

In light of Judge Carter’s extension of our deadline until January 17, 2012, to get the Constitutional Case going, and after my second meeting with Attorneys Donald MacPherson & my 4th with Nathan MacPherson, I am persuaded that it is essential to try to reorganize and “slim down” the complaint before inviting further support and intervenors in.

This is something that we had TALKED about doing last with Diane Beall and/or Dennis Russell, but it obviously never happened. Judge Carter has shown amazing tolerance and interest in our case, I believe, and we should honor him by really getting our act together to make this case change history. I think we could streamline the case by outline as follows (I would like input from all co-plaintiffs and supporters about what needs to be added by way of specific detail):

SECTION I:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTES

(1) We ask this Court to declare Non-Judicial Foreclosure, as authorized by California Civil Code 2924 et seq., and all related statutes, declared unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(2) We ask this Court to declare California’s statutory system of Summary Judicial Foreclosure also unconstitutional under each of the same grounds. [We need to collect a complete inventory of all related and relevant statutes to itemize under each section: Richard Mendez & Lance Francis, this is probably your job primarily, although I certainly would not resist any help from Jackie Figg....or anyone else with a passion for the topic].

(3) We ask this Court to declare the California Statutory system authorizing and empowering the Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction to be declared unconstitutional under each of the same grounds, unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(4) 1714.10 (Attorney Immunity for Fraud committed on behalf of or in agreement with clients) should also be declared unconstitutional

(5) 405.21 (Attorney Required for Lis Pendens without Leave of Court) should also be declared unconstitutional:

§ 405.21. Prerequisites to recording

An attorney of record in an action may sign a notice of pendency of action. Alternatively, a judge of the court in which an action that includes a real property claim is pending may, upon request of a party thereto, approve a notice of pendency of action. A notice of pendency of action shall not be recorded unless (a) it has been signed by the attorney of record, (b) it is signed by a party acting in propria persona and approved by a judge as provided in this section, or (c) the action is subject to Section 405.6.

SECTION II:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

FEDERAL STATUTES

(6) The words “White Citizens” should be stricken from 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982:

42 U.S.C. 1981: (a) Statement of equal rights: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined:

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment: The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C. 1982: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

(7) The language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 being colorblind and neutral on its face, all Supreme Court rulings that Civil Rights Removal depends upon racial discrimination should be stricken, reversed and overturned in light of Regents of U. Cal. v. Bakke, City of Richmond v. Croson, Adarand v. Pena, and Grutter v. Bolinger.

(8) All Supreme Court rulings that Mortgage Notes be exempted from Securities Regulation should be stricken, reversed, and overturned as unconstitutional denials of due process of law.

SECTION III: ACTION FOR DAMAGES

under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): Racketeering by Eviction Attorneys & Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

(9) Steven D. Silverstein (Silverstein Evictions), BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPIER, TREDER, & WEISS, LL.P, and other attorneys and law firms engaging in mass processed evictions ________, ______,________, _____________,_________,___________have committed multiple predicate criminal acts in the process of each eviction, and they have done so under the protection of the Orange County Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Orange County Sheriff’s Office. As repeat-reinvestors in Racketeering Activities), Silverstein and other eviction attorneys such a decisive hold on the Judicial Officials, Clerk, and Sheriff’s Deputies of Orange County (and other counties in California, to wit:_______), that the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction in Orange County operate as a single unit corrupt organization with a list of Judges Cory A. Cramin, ________,______,_______,_____and named or unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies ________,_____,______as individuals who either derive income or employment or engage in conspiracy for racketeering activities (Lance Francis & Richard can elaborate on reasons for waivers of immunity, as well as the list). (This is a section which intervenors could add to and alter/modify with their own lists of defendants, with dates of actions taken illegally).

SECTION IV:

COMMON LAW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:

SALES OF HOMES BASED ON POOLED and/or

SECURITIZED NOTES ARE VOID

(10) We ask this Court to declare all sales of our homes void if and whenever foreclosured auctioned sold by “Debt Servicers” or by or on behalf of Banks/Federal Financial Institutions who held only derivative rights to notes which had been securitized.

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS’ & INTERVENORS’ PROPERTIES: _____________,_______________,___________________,__________________,__________, ________,________ (This is another section which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties).

Section V:

COMMON LAW

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE

(10) We ask that this Court grant to each Plaintiff QUIET TITLE to his/her home & Lists:____________________

SECTION VI:

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & EVICTION

(12) We ask this Court to award to each Plaintiff DAMAGES for wrongful foreclosure & eviction, including relocation costs, rental, damages to homes, etc. (Sections V, VI, & VII are all sections to which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties). (Should all servicers, banks, and purchasers be listed as Defendants along with the attorneys?)

SECTION VII:

DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY & PERSONAL INJURIES

(13) Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for their losses of personal property, and personal injuries including emotional distress to adults and children. Foreclosure of real property carries with it no right, title, or interest in personal property, but Plaintiffs have all lost considerable amounts of personal property as a result of foreclosure, and all this lost property should be compensated for tort damages in Conversion and Trebled Damages under R.I.C.O.. Further, the dislocation of lives and especially of children’s well-being should be compensated. No immunity should be allowed for any defendant to the Pattern of Racketeering which Created the Eviction Epidemic and Foreclosure Crisis.

Note: Over the course of the past year, not only Nathan and Donald MacPherson, but many people have commented that our Third Amended Complaint is just too long and too complicated to be viable. The above Four Page/13 Part Outline should make the case more readily comprehensible. How much detail do we need in the Complaint? How much detail should each intervenor add? How should we structure all this? Edit it? Present it? I hope each person to whom this outline copy is addressed will provide some feedback.

Thank you,

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

(310) 773-6023

October 19, 2011 (Wednesday)

The Original Third Amended Complaint (Draft only) is attached here, without any of the exhibits or final edits/amendments.A-Third Amended Complaint 09-cv-01072-DOC-E 09-22-2010

→ Leave a comment

Posted in California Civil Code 2924, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Foreclosure, History and Civilization, Jeffersonian Democracy, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, Non-Judicial Foreclosure, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, politics, Summary Judicial Eviction, UCC Perfection of Interests, Uncategorized

Tagged 18 U.S.C. 1961, 18 U.S.C. 1962, 18 U.S.C. 1964, 18 USC 1961, 18 USC 1964, Barrett, California Civil Code 2924, Daffin, Foreclosure Mills, Frappier, justice, non-judicial foreclosure, Orange County, Perfection of Interests, Racketeering, Sandra Day O'Connor, Securitized Notes, Securitized Notes Unenforceable, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, Steven D. Silverstein, Summary Eviction Process, Summary Judicial Eviction, Wrongful Eviction, Wrongful Foreclosure

The Social Security Trust Fund has never collected one dime in Social Security Taxes—it is “funded” entirely by highly and perpetually inflationary U.S. Savings Bonds!

Posted on August 23, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

My research into Social Security and the Social Security Trust fund Scheme to Defraud the American people has been nothing if not extremely interesting. In briefest summary: The Social Security Trust Fund is not and never was a trust fund, nor have any Social Security Taxes ever been deposited into it. This fact has been known since at least the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis in 1937, but the people have continued, blindly, for 74 going on 75 years, three quarters of a century, to fall for this despicable, nefarious scheme to defraud. Make your Representatives and Senators accountable by naming them, along with the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund, in one of a massive series of lawsuits which should be filed all over the United States. As someone once said at the Ford Theater in Washington to a distant cousin of mine: “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”

With the assistance of former Bank of America Vice-President Ed Villanueva from San Diego, as of today I finally understand what is meant by the “non-marketable government securities” which now constitute 100% of the U.S. Treasury Department administered S.S.A. Trust Fund: It is indeed true that the Social Security Trust Fund has never collected even one dime of the $13.8 Trillion paid as Social Security Taxes by hardworking Americans and collected by, apparently knowing and complicit state governments. In 1937 the United States Supreme Court confidently, but blatantly, reassured the government of the State of Alabama that it was no surrendering any sovereignty at all by handing over Social Security taxes to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, because it was (and is to this day) just the same as depositing this money into an ordinary checking account—every state from Alabama and Alaska through Utah and Wyoming can withdraw the funds merely by an order (e.g. “check”) drawn on the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 1937. For other recent parallel commentaries on this topic please see John Attarian’s “Myth of the Social Security Trust Fund”: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/ published way back in March 2000 and right about the same time I started working on this series, on July 27, 2011, the Chicago Tribune ran an article: “Social Security not a Trust Fund” at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-27/news/chi-110727nelson_briefs_1_social-security-trust-fund-national-sales-tax-federal-income. This article comments, affirming what I’ve been writing here:

“No wage earner has ever “paid” a nickel into Social Security, in the sense of writing a check on their personal bank account for their contribution. How far do you think Social Security would get relying on each participant regularly mailing in 1 percent of their paycheck? The actual money that went to the feds came from employer bank accounts, never wage earners. If the feds don’t get the check, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner.

It has always been nothing but a tax on employers. Since all employers must pay the tax, there is no competitive advantage to do any more than add it to the price of their product, thus converting the Social Security “contribution” into a silent national sales tax. In 2009 this tax was 36 percent of total federal income.

There is no Social Security trust fund. Do you think FDR ran down to the bank and deposited the first contributions into a Social Security Trust Fund account? The feds keep detailed lists of where all the money comes and goes, but these are not “trust funds.”"

Now as Ed Villanueva pointed out, if you are on the Vestry of your local Church (or are one of the Elders or in the Diaconate) or if you are on the Board of Trustees of any private corporation, if you pretended to have set up a Trust fund and then just pocketed all the money going into it, without even admitting you had “borrowed” the funds or issued yourself an advance on your salary (and that of all the other Vestry members), well, you probably wouldn’t be reading this. You would be in Jail and most correctional facilities severely limit the on-line access of their inmate populations. (And yes, in fact, I will remind my fans and critics alike that I do speak from a total of 60 days personal experience of such places, all because of my devotion to the letter and spirit of the law and my consequent willful if not positively malicious disobedience towards certain [three, I think, very bad] judges), all still sitting in the State of Texas—which is why I’m sitting writing this in the State of California….. But unlike me, if you had embezzled your Church’s trust funds, you wouldn’t be released after a week or several to go back into the world and preach what you had learned while inside the Belly of the Beast—you would sit there for a very long time.

How has the United States government gotten away with it? By and through Governmental Immunity….and it is now time to recognize that Clause 4:1 the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution removed the Legislative Immunity Conferred by the Original Constitution’s Article I, Section 6:3, and that the Constitution as it now stands requires that Congress preserve, protect, and defend the integrity (validity) of the United States debt from all enemies, public and Private, and if that includes Congress, well….. it’s time to hold Congress liable…. and I’m looking for those who would like to file the first blows….. So if you’re interested in filing a suit for embezzlement of your tax funds under the “Public Debt Clause” of the United States Constitution, please call Elena Borissovna at 323-317-4568 or else call Melinda Pillsbury-Foster at 559-542-2874. © Charles Edward Lincoln, III on August 23, 2011, at 8:10 PM in Los Angeles, California 90024.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Uncategorized

Impeachment of Judge Howard Matz: a first step towards restoring judicial integrity?

Posted on June 17, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 11 Comments

I never dreamt that I would say or write this, but I think the entire Federal and State Court judiciaries may be so corrupt that widespread impeachment and shut down of the courts may be necessary. At the very least, we need to remove every judge who has ever knowingly participated in a cover-up of the mass expropriation of real property in the United States which has occurred as a result of mortgage bundling, pooling, and securitization. To identify every such judge fairly and accurately would require examining tens of thousands of transcripts from tens of thousands of cases. But the only way that the government can maintain it’s legitimacy is by identifying and punishing those who have knowingly allowed this massive step towards the realization of the first and primary goal of Communism to take place “under color of law” in the United States.

If you favor and would support the impeachment of Judge Howard Matz, please call 512-968-2666, 512-968-2755 or 512-968-7390 (or by fax to 310-278-9684) and leave your detailed message, preferably with your name and telephone numbers or e-mail addresses. We need to hold judges accountable and impeachment is the only easy abrogation of judicial immunity under present law. I do not consider Judge Howard Matz’ comments below to constitute “good conduct” in the least.

Mortgage rights activist Lance Frances bought my attention to the case of José L. Pineda, and the October 2009 hearing in U.S. District Court (Central District of California, Los Angeles) in that case with a lawyer for GMAC on Wednesday, June 8, 2011. This case is now almost two years old. I remain deeply troubled by this case because I think that the most important actor in this story, Honorable A. Howard Matz, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, revealed an oft-suspected but never before clearly articulated truth: Matz should be impeached, possibly along with 50-90% of the Federal Trial Court Judges in California. I would like to solicit feedback: SHOULD Matz be impeached? Do Howard Matz’ statements in this case mean to others what they seem to me to mean? I do not know how to read Matz’ statement quoted below except as a threat to “tell the truth” about the mortgage industry and reveal publicly that all the mortgage foreclosures (at least those in the past 10-18 years) in the state of California, have been completely illegal, unconscionable, and that he and other Federal and State Court Judges have been willing participants, parties, and co-conspirators to what has been called the largest pyramid scheme in the history of the world.

Judge Matz’ colloquy with an attorney for GMAC illustrates, to my mind at least, both (1) complete (extra-judicially originating) awareness of and familiarity with the details of illegal conduct on the part of originators, “lenders,” investors, and servicers in the mortgage business and California non-judicial foreclosure process, (2) a complete (extra-judicially originating) willingness to suppress such knowledge against the interests of the vast majority of the American people, for the benefit of GMAC and all other originators, “lenders”, investors, and servicers in the mortgage business and California non-judicial foreclosure process. I do not think it is too much to say that Judge A. Howard Matz reveals, in this colloquy, sufficient “extra-judicial” knowledge and bias that he should be disqualified and/or recused in all cases involving mortgage foreclosure cases. And if Judge Matz’ knowledge, familiarity with the facts, and attitudes towards the same represent the typical awareness of members of the Federal Judiciary sitting in California, then the entire Federal Judiciary is engaged in one gigantic coverup and is complicit in the fraud against the American people. This colloquy has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the law or findings in this one case, but only on Judge A. Howard Matz’ discomfort with the Plaintiff’s state of knowledge and intention to charge the court with “creating a false record” (See the docket sheet and attached motion below). The degree of judicial involvement in the mortgage crisis boggles the mind:

Focus particularly on Judge Matz’ warning to GMAC Counsel Starting at Page 13, Line 11 and continuing until Page 14, Line 8 (the link to the full transcript and U.S. Clerk’s case docket report can be found below):

“Now, I want you to contact your clients today. I want you to tell them that I was prepared to — and I am — in fact, there is no doubt about this. I am granting the motion to vacate the judgment and to reopen — that I have set forth a preliminary, far from complete, road map of all of the grounds under Rule 60 why that would be warranted; that I am prepared — if this case doesn’t settle and settle quickly, I am prepared to follow the footsteps of several other judges around the country, state and federal, to take this case as a paradigm for a much larger problem, a much larger financial, regulatory and litigation problem that can stem — that has stemmed from the way these loans were issued, packaged, securitized and then lost in the maze of confusion that you yourself understandably have suffered from.

Ms. Vandale, you have been given an unenviable task, and you have not succeeded in carrying it out, but that may not be your fault. It is impossible to understand what happened to this loan based upon what the defendants have filed. How can you expect Mr. Pineda to understand? He’s not even a lawyer. He has done a good job of trying to protect his own interests.

Now, you tell your clients that unless this case can be disposed of, this case is going to be something that’s going to go far beyond this case.”

If it were not a distinguished Federal Judge on his bench, speaking like this on his dais and his robes ex-cathedra, but a swarthy Italian with a New York accent and a surname like “Genovese” or “Giancana” or “Gotti”, would we not call this a threat of extortion? In fact, I think here from his Honor Judge A. Howard Matz, we have the clearest indication yet that Federal Judges know and understand the crime against the people which is the mass foreclosure of hundreds of thousands of homes and families, perhaps millions, in this one state.

Pineda Jose L v GMAC et al Docket Report 08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

Read the Honorable Judge Howard Matz’ complete colloquy with the parties in this transcript here very carefully:

October 26 2009 Transcript Pineda v GMAC Document 93 2-08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

Can the Judge actually be doing anything other than threatening GMAC with “telling the truth” about misrepresentation in non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceedings? What does this tell us about Judge A. Howard Matz’ versions of Reality and Truth?

It appears that the colloquy in the transcript, followed by the entry of this minute order, drafted immediately following the October 26 2009 hearing and evidencing not even a hint of irregularity:

October 26 2009 Minute Order by Judge A Howard MATZ re Jose L Pineda v GMAC 2-08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

Was filed in direct response to this particular filing by a pro se litigant:

Pineda Jose L v GMAC—Plaintiff’s Objection to and Notice of the Making of a False Record of Motion for Disqualification—2-08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

The “legal realist” approach to judicial deconstruction is a frightening descent into the abyss of the human mind and soul: our most exalted officers as “Human, All Too Human” untermenschen capable of using their office to some really base purposes, like defrauding the people….

But if Judge A Howard Matz is not admitting that he is part of a massive cover-up of the reality of non-judicial foreclosure as a fraudulent enterprise in his colloquy with counsel for GMAC and Jose L. Pineda, exactly what IS he saying, especially in the excerpt reproduced here above?

If I could be elected to the office of United States Senator from California, I think it would “send a message” that the Banking and Mortgage Financial Industries’ Enterprise and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations’ hold on this state is no longer Political Acceptable to the People, and I would ask all United States District Judges sitting in the State of California to resign. A very few might be reappointed on an interim basis.

But it appears to me at least that A. Howard Matz, and probably all the United States District Judges sitting in California, have knowingly and intentionally not merely presided over but in fact approved, enforced, and ratified such a horrendous dislocation in the population as seems to have taken place 0ver the past few years not only against the lawful interests of the people, but in violation of all common and constitutional law, and at least half of the state statutes in California. It appears to me that A. Howard Matz, and perhaps the entire Federal Judiciary in California, possessed full information regarding the truth of the illegality of the foreclosure epidemic as a crime against the American People. Accordingly, I think that this case, and A. Howard Matz’ own words, quoted above, may yet serve as the basis for the abolition of Judicial Immunity for Federal Judges who approve and protect criminal enterprises such as the mortgage foreclosure industry in the State of California.

The veil of “the Matrix” has been lifted very slightly here, some sunlight let into the cave, and the Revelation of Truth which signals the Apocalypse—at least the Apocalypse of the Legal and Financial Status Quo, would seem to have begun….

I hope that the People of California will consider electing me to the United States Senate to complete the Revelation, and the Apocalypse of the Corruption of the Financial and Judicial Babylon under whose tyranny we now live….

If still aren’t convinced, read the entire transcript again. Read the Honorable Judge Howard Matz’ colloquy with the parties, the link to which appears above, very carefully!

→ 11 Comments

Posted in Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Dianne Feinstein, Foreclosure, History and Civilization, Jeffersonian Democracy, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, Plato's Republic, politics, Psychology and Manipulation, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Thomas Jefferson, Younger v. Harris Abstention

Category Archives: Civil Rights Removal

The First Day of Summer, Reflections on the Solstice, the 797th Anniversary of Magna Charta, Juneteenth, the Committee of Five, with only six months left until the End of the World as we Know it?

A Historical Perspective on Foreclosure Rates: 1,000 per day in 1933 vs. 10,000 per day in 2010

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

Es Usted Terrorista? Si no, No Importe: El Gobierno EstadoUnidense Ahora le Puede Detener Para Siempre Sin Cargo ni Juicio Formal (No es ninguna broma: tomalo en lo mas serio posible!

A Streamlined Outline of a Complaint for Constitutional & Common Law Mortgage Foreclosure & Eviction Litigation in California

The Social Security Trust Fund has never collected one dime in Social Security Taxes—it is “funded” entirely by highly and perpetually inflationary U.S. Savings Bonds!

Impeachment of Judge Howard Matz: a first step towards restoring judicial integrity?

Pages

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Archives

Blogroll

cell phone

Foreclosure

General

Health

Mortgage info

principal reduction

Products

robert ponte

Spirit

wow mobile

Follow “TIERRA LIMPIA by Charles Lincoln”

Category Archives: Civil Rights Removal

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Pages

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Archives

Blogroll

cell phone

Foreclosure

General

Health

Mortgage info

principal reduction

Products

robert ponte

Spirit

wow mobile

Follow “TIERRA LIMPIA by Charles Lincoln”