Category Archives: UCC Perfection of Interests

Florida Judiciary—A Copyrighted Survey for use in fighting Mortgage Foreclosure Corruption—What do you know about your Court System? How Hungry are the American People for Justice?

There is no such thing as the silent exercise of your right to speak freely and share your opinion about the world you live in—effective silent protest occurs only in dreams….  We all dream of a better world, but we must speak out loud and SHOUT to make it into a demand, to make it happen…. Dreaming is free, but if we dream of freedom….especially in this, post-New Deal, New Dark Age for America…. that will cost us—what I ask of you today is just a few minutes of your time…  It’s time to make our anger “Catch Fire”…..and that can only happen if we all speak our discontent loudly and often….until there real change happens…. Nothing about modern America is more deplorable than the state of the judiciary and the courts…..

The fabulous hit movie this Spring, the Hunger Games, was a clarion call to the American People to WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE—even if it already is  in some easy ways “too late”, because so much damage has already been done.  Suzanne Collins has showed us the bleak future that awaits all of us if we are calm, cool, and quiescent about the terrible corruption that has taken charge of the American Dream, of Democracy, of (the mere word and illusion of) Freedom, of the Financial Establishment, of the Government, of everything that ever was or could be important to us: our family, our homes, and our future.   My primary focus for the past twenty five years has been on the Judiciary, 21 of those past years specifically involved in projects in Florida.  So I invite you to help me, and several million other people, out here: GIVE US YOUR OPINIONS, WITH YOUR NAME, AND STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, AND READY TO TESTIFY IF WE ARE EVEN ALLOWED TO PUT ON THIS TESTIMONY (as we should be):

Florida: 06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS

Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows specific evidence of habit and routine practice to be admitted in Court.

Carrie Luft is seeking to overturn a Final Judicial Decree which was upheld on appeal in Florida.  The only way to reopen the case is the prove judicial corruption.  Wrongful foreclosure and fraudulent claims to standing, after a case is final, can only be proved if the system itself is indictable, if there is demonstrable systematic fraud on the Court—if the system is “broken,” if the judges are either “bought and paid for” or coerced into thinking in conformity with the Banks’ position.  All of these things have to be proved as a conspiracy to defraud and impose uniform outcomes on foreclosure cases.  It is a ONE THEORY, ONE SHOT, deal, although everyone who has been a victim can and could try (and I wish they would).
To prove this systemic corruption, which many people suspect, we need to gather EVERYONE who has been a victim together in one place, and that place is going to be reserved and formed through the complaint we are preparing in Carrie’s case.  If we fail, Carrie has no chance to regain her home, but I have already taken a blood oath that I will never stop until I have figured out a way to restore judicial integrity and moral honor to the judicial system in which I quite literally started my legal career, and of which I once dreamed of being an integral part.  Carrie is the first person I know who has accepted the challenge of doing everything that is necessary to try to take on the system.  Carrie literally has only this one option: prove that the system if “fixed”, broken, and corrupt.  I ask you, everyone who receives this survey:
IF YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THE COURTS OF FLORIDA AT ALL, PLEASE COMPLETE THIS SURVEY, SIGN IT, SCAN IT and either E-MAIL IT BACK TO THIS ADDRESS: lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com OR RETURN IT BY REGULAR MAIL TO
Peyton Yates Freiman, Tierra Limpia Trust/ Deo Vindice Foundation at:
603 Elmwood Place, #6 
Austin, Texas 78705
And if you have further or additional direct or circumstantial evidence of judicial corruption in Florida, how it is done and how does it, please write a letter about that as well.  We are looking to prove habits and routine practices of Judges according to Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  

06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS

If you have any experience at all with the Florida Judicial System, especially if you have any experience with any mortgage or foreclosure related incidents, we need your opinion here…. Copyright to the survey itself, and to all material received will belong to Tierra Limpia Trust/Deo Vindice Foundation, Charles Edward Lincoln, III, Founder & President, Peyton Yates Freiman Trustee.

Please return all hard copies to:

Peyton Yates Freiman 603 Elmwood Place, Suite 6, Austin, Texas 78705.

4-20 Focus on Cannabis and Confederates, Hitler and the Hunger-Games, the New Dark Ages, and Andreas Behring Breivik

Before writing anything else, I just want to reiterate a great big Cheer “Vive La France” for Marine Le Pen and the Front National in France.  The French National Elections are this Sunday, April 22, 2012, and although polls are not rating her as having much of a chance of winning, we can always hope that people lie to pollsters (as we know they do) and speak truth inside the ballot booth.  There was once a time when Jean-Marie Le Pen came in Second and the Established World went mad with fear that a real outsider candidate might have a real chance.  It was almost as crazy as the “Vote for the Crook, It’s Important” nationwide campaign to insure that Edwin Edwards beat David Duke in 1991, when Duke received over 60% of the White vote in Louisiana.  (Prior to serving his full ten year term for racketeering, the Federal Bureau of Prisons in its great mercy released Edwards from the federal gulag into a halfway house on January 13, 2011).  Marine Le Pen has none of Duke’s biographical baggages and the Old France is quite a bit more threatened by obvious aliens and outsiders today than the New France of La Louisianne  was in 1991, but the same forces of corporate industry and global homogenization have the same goal in both cases: KILL THE POLITICAL OUTSIDERS, let the real enemies of the people reign….  And no, of course, nothing that I’m saying has anything whatsoever to do with my theory of why I’m not on the California Ballot this year, absolutely, positively, nothing.

But today if 4-20, and as the show trial of Andreas Behring Breivik concludes its first week, I can only say that I am more convinced than ever that it IS a show trial staged precisely for the purpose of suppressing freedom in a uniquely European/Scandinavian way.  9-11 was too widely recognized in Europe for the staged fraud it was for the rail bombings in Madrid or the tube bombings in London to work again.  (France, as the world-leader in rational 9-11 doubt, was strangely immune to terrorist attacks—everyone old enough to talk in France knows what a sham 9-11 was and no one in that most enlightened country in Europe would be taken in by such a farce—but as PT Barnum is so famous for saying—no one EVER went broke UNDER-estimating the intelligence of the American people).

Just look at Andreas Behring Breivik making a pseudo-Nazi arm salute and then describing in such cool rational terms how he killed people.  Cui Bono Baby?  Would any rational thinking terrorist really imagine that killing a bunch of teenagers was going to garner sympathy for the cause of expelling non-Nordic immigrants from Norway?  Obviously Andreas Behring Breivik is NOT insane, as evidenced by his coherent and predictable patterns of speech and by his ability to follow instructions on courtroom decorum (such as “Don’t Make the Nazi salute anymore”, it upsets people).  But his explanation for what he’s doing is absurd.  Cui bono?  The only plausible beneficiaries of Andreas Behring Breivik’s attack are those who want to discredit his words.  The BNP, the Front National, and the German NPD certainly shy away from him, as do the National Democrats of neighboring Sweden.  Going around killing innocent people cannot CAUSE in the knowledge (which Breivik has affirmed) that you will become the most hated man in Norway is NOT a very effective way or means to become an apostle to cultural homogeneity.  Breivik’s trial has been scheduled in the week leading up to the French Elections….Marine Le Pen being the most effective anti-immigration leader in Europe, without any doubt—is this mere coincidence?  Anyone who studied how to kill people as calmly and as privately as Breivik did must have studied some history, and there is NO historical precedent or antecedent for mass random killings of completely innocent people leading to identity as a hero.  Sorry folks—if I’ve missed something out there, please let me know, but as far as I am concerned, Andreas Behring Breivik’s entire life story is part of the plot to make the descendants of the Vikings bow down and serve Mecca in much the same way that the Varangian guard once served the Byzantine Emperors.  It is to the Norwegian’s credit that they (unlike the Brits and the Americans) couldn’t be taken in by staged MUSLIM terrorist attacks), but in effect, they’ve just been taken in by the polar opposite….  And the fabled freedoms of Scandinavia will soon start to fade and diminish.  Sad but I guarantee you it’s true….

So the looming signs of the New Dark Ages come both closer and more obvious—Andreas Behring Breivik would not be giving Nazi-Arm Salutes if he were a real Nazi, he would not have chosen the targets he chose if he were a real Nazi, and this is, after all, Adolf Hitler’s birthday (4-20-1889).

The connection between Hitler’s birthday and Cannabis is one of the odder coincidences of history.  Why?  Some inconclusive evidence suggests that Hitler might (as many frontline soldiers in the Kaiser’s army did) have used Heroin during WWI, but otherwise his use of drugs is confined to having used various drugs during WWII, especially as the war went against him.

In the twisted and uneducated America today, what would you expect in the era of GW Bush & BH Obama, understanding of history is so confused in the popular mind that there is a tendency to conflate general notions of racism into one template. Confederates are considered equivalent to the Nazis and the Nazi forced labor of non-Germans in Europe to Southern American/US (i.e. “Confederate”) chattel slavery.  Critics of the Southern Confederacy have, on-line in this 150th anniversary year of Shiloh, gone so far as to claim that the CSA, if it had won the war, would have sought to extend slavery to Latin America and throughout the Western Hemisphere.  Such hateful, hate-filled fantasies seem likely to bear fruit in Tim Burton’s upcoming “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter“, and all I can say is—”will someone please help me organize a boycott?”  

The CSA Confederates and their Southern Patriotic heirs may believe in segregation of the races, and may even believe that Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally disqualified to be and serve as Reich’s Fuhrer, I mean Chairman of the Central Committee and Supreme Soviet, I mean President…. but the Southern Tradition is one of individual freedom, not corporate tyranny.  Tennessee Williams, of course, saw a serious contradiction evolving in this tradition in the 1950s when he wrote Sweet Bird of Youth when Big Oil and other mostly “Yankee” Corporate Interests were taking over the South (especially early in Texas and Louisiana, but throughout the South after WWII)….

To a true Son of the Confederate State of America, there is nothing sadder than such confusion as links Confederates with Nazis, traditional southerners with corporate values or interests….because the reality is the extreme opposite.

The Confederates fought for Freedom AGAINST Centralized Government and Dictatorship, and modern Southern leaders, like the late Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, were war heroes on the beaches of Normandy to liberate France in 1944.  In Lincoln’s Marxists, Donald Kennedy and his co-author draw intense comparisons between Abraham and Adolf.  They do not mention the ultimate irony that Judah P. Benjamin, a West Indian Jew, was one of the leading statesmen of the Confederacy, or that Florida’s David Levy was the very first Jewish American to sit in the United States Senate.  Levy County on the Florida Gulf Coast is named after this pioneering Hebrew settler of the Sunshine State, and by some irony Levy County is the site of the infamous “Rosewood” Massacre.   But really and truly, as I have recently written, All Americans are now living in “Greater Rosewood,” Levy County, Florida—we are all subject to summary foreclosure and eviction by force—from sea to shining sea, but it is NOT the Klansmen who are after us this time….it is the Banks….and their “servicers” of course…. 04-19-2012 Carrie Loft v Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp et al Response to Order of 04-05-2012 and Motion for 30 day Extension of Time to file FAC.  

As I have also written here and elsewhere, the United States Federal Courts are unwilling to apply the Civil Rights Laws of the Land for the protection of white people, apparently because these laws only exist to foment racial discord and competition between Black and White (with some bones here and there thrown to fomenting conflict with Hispanics and Asians).   So long as the Banks and Banksters apply their vicious fraud equally to black and white alike, the courts will not recognize any violation of the civil rights of the people.  This too, is a sign of the Bush 41-Clinton-Bush 43-Obama Dark Age, descending upon us…

   The Nazis had certain ideals in common with conservatives throughout Western Europe and North America: the romanticized revitalization of indigenous European Culture, for example, rooting the spirit of progress in national pride and identity.  Such things are found in England, France, Italy, Poland, Russia, Greece, and Israel, not to mention in the United States and many countries in Latin America, or even post-Colonial Africa and Asia.

If that were all that Hitler’s Naziism had amounted to—resurgent national pride and rebuilding the nation shattered by the Great Depression (which effectively began in Germany immediately after Versailles in 1919 and never really ended).  Chancellor Sutler in V-for-Vendetta is a thinly disguised Hitler (“H” is the 8th letter of the alphabet starting with “A”, “S” is the 8th letter of the alphabet reciting backwards from “Z”).  Chancellor Sutler, like Hitler, believed in the power of the Big Lie.  But unlike Chancellor Sutler and his terrorism through “St. Mary’s” infection…. Hitler did more than merely terrorize his own people.  He went off to terrorize the French and the Poles.  Had Hitler NOT embarked on his war of extensive military conquest, Naziism might have been accepted and remained a “Third Way” in Europe.  Great Britain had guaranteed the integrity of Poland, and the 129 years of the Polish Partition was a wrong that deserved finally to be righted (one of the few things the Versailles Conference actually got right, surely, was the restoration of Polish national identity and autonomy).

But as a Confederate and Patriot of the American tradition, I cannot accept Hitler’s invasion and conquest of Poland, which started World War II, as even remotely legitimate.  One interesting thought is that Hitler must have had at least as clear an idea that invading Poland (and especially then invading the Soviet Union two years later, breaking faith with the after the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) would ultimately lead to his demise as Andreas Behring Breivik must realize that his slaughter of innocents would win him no friends either personally or for his cause.  

One could almost wonder and ask “cui bono” of Nazi Germany?  Nazi Germany led to the modern religion of Globalism, suppression of nationalism, and “we are one” suppression of the ideology of race-as-extended family, in short, of race as a biologically natural and real element of human culture and social identity.  World War II also resulted in the foundation of the state of Israel and the rise of a distinctly non-Christian ethos and elite in the world, which non-Christian ethos and elite clearly either needed and created or is now using and needs Andreas Behring Breivik in Norway, and George Zimmerman in Florida…  (not to make any comparison here—what Andreas Behring Breivik did in Norway was murder—intention killing of another person without justification or provocation of any kind, but what George Zimmerman did in Florida was, in my opinion, probably—almost certainly—self-defense, but it is being USED as a racially polarizing device and divisive event by President Barack Hussein Obama….).  

Going back to my April 13, 2012, essay on the Hunger Games and the New Dark Ages, and the comparison and contrast between the Hunger Games and V-for-Vendetta, the latter is clearly about Hitler-like totalitarian oppression, while the former directly concerns Confederate Rebels within an easily recognizable future North American Corporate/Centralized Government hegemony.

Confederates were not Nazis; they were not conquerors.  For all of Robert E. Lee’s fabled brilliance a military strategist, his best bet was to seize Washington D.C. and Maryland for the Confederacy in 1861-1862, when the northern armies were poorly organized and poorly led, but he and Jefferson Davis declined even to try to impose their will on Maryland and Delaware, slave states which had elected not to secede.   The Confederacy, it has often occurred to me, could and should have simply taken Washington D.C. right after the First Battle of Manassas/Bull Run, and taken over the capital there.  The War of 1861 might have then ended, perhaps with the Confederate Constitution replacing the new Federal Constitution of 1787 as Southern Sympathizers from Ohio, Illinois, and New York joined in. Slavery would have probably ended in the South by the 1880s or 1890s regardless, as it did in Brazil and the Spanish Colonies,but this is not consistent with Obama era anti-Confederate education, because Confederates were actually the original anti-Communists.  Worse (for themselves and the CSA) because Lee and Davis were dedicated to NON-CONQUEST IDEOLOGY, they gave up their best chances at winning in 1861-62.  By the time Lee invaded the North in earnest in 1863, there was no obvious purpose in doing so, no reasonable strategy, and once again, the chance to seize Washington D.C. and make it the Confederate Capital was lost.  Gettysburg ended that campaign and with it all reasonable hopes of Confederate victory, all reasonable hopes for the survival of the Confederate Constitution.

The Hunger Games, as I wrote last week, seems firmly rooted in the legacy of the vanquished 13 state of the Southern Confederacy, of which North Carolina was the state that sacrificed the most (suffering the greatest number of casualty losses, per capita, of any Southern State—Virginia lost more by number, but not as a percentage of the population, Florida lost the least, participating in the war hardly at all, Texas effectively won the war, maintaining its independence throughout, but surrendering on June 19, 1865 at Galveston, in spite of it all; New Orleans surrendered exactly 150 years ago this month, constituting the first great loss of the Confederacy, without firing a single shot, much as Paris was not defended in World War II—the French apparently like to save their beautiful cities from war-time destruction and mayhem…. consistently choosing discretion over valor….).

 But the Hunger Games also captured the coldly exploitative nature of the centralized government, in need of lots of “coal, minerals and row crops” as President Snow puts it while talking to the ill-fated game-master Seneca, who mistakenly thinks that “everyone likes an underdog.”

In the book, Hunger Games, which I finally started reading after seeing the movie last night for a seventh time in Santa Monica, suppression of private ownership of arms (even including ordinary bows and arrows like Katniss’) is a key an important aspect of the Government’s policy towards the people of District 12 (= Appalachia,  filmed in North Carolina).  

It was critical to keep the people disarmed lest they ever rise up against the establishment armies.  The people were forbidden effectively to feed themselves…. for fear that a well-fed populace might hunger for freedom….

In that connexion, I am today on my way to Fresno to work with members of the 4-20 cooperative there.  None of them, to the best of my knowledge, will be celebrating Hitler’s 123 birthday there this evening.  They have other problems.  The State of California has legalized medical marijuana but the Federal government continues to suppress it.  Just as in 1860, the Centralized Government wishes to suppress the farmers who supply a product much in demand around the world, to denigrate individual autonomy and local authority.  Unlike 1860, the states are weak, and in fact what I will face in Fresno is finding the ways and means to oppose the degree to which the Federal Government has skipped the state or effectively nullified state authority all together, and seeks to impose state law by collaborating with city and county authorities.

This is a Tenth Amendment crusade in the Confederate tradition: restore individual independence by building up autonomous farmers.  I personally haven’t touched cannabis as an intoxicant since July 1991, but the occasion when I did, in the Mary Martin Suite at the Hotel Pontchartrain in New Orleans, was one of the turning points in my life (and certainly it sounded the death knell of my marriage).  

But for the moment, I take pride in knowing that in 2012 as it was 152 years ago, real freedom and real liberty reside in the defense of self-supporting farmers away from the city and centralized economy and government.  This is the Confederate way, and the Confederate way is anti-communist and anti-Nazi, all at the same time as it is anti-Obama, anti-Bush, and generally antithetical to the Corporate establishment which rules America and Europe, and which has dedicated untold millions to the suppression of real individualists such as Marine Le Pen, and the creation of such fake individualists as Andreas Behring Breivik……

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

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

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:

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.
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

BREAKING THE BAR: For Family, Home and Freedom, DISINTEGRATE THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA (and every state)! ABOLISH THE LICENSING OF ATTORNEYS! RESTORE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO FULL VIGOR, and ABOLISH ALL STATE-SANCTIONED MONOPOLIES (it’s the American Way)

Once again, Renada Nadine March leads the way onto the legal frontier in California. Here is Renada’s latest filing as of November 17, 2011 8-11-cv-01768-UA-SS March v Russell Complaint Filed in SACV11-01768 11-17-2011; it is directly related to our joint filing of September 30, 2011, in 8:09-cv-01072-DOC in response to Judge Carter’s Order to Show cause regarding the question of why the case was dragging on so long without being effectively moved forward (Case 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E Document 86 Response to Order to Show Cause Filed 09-30-2011Case 8-09-cv-01072-DOC -E Document 86-Part 1—Filed 09-30-2011Case 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E Document 86–Part 2—Filed 09-30-2011)

WHY DO SOME LAWYERS ACCEPT CASES AND THEN BETRAY THEIR CLIENTS?  Is it “all about money” (i.e. stealing: accepting money for nothing) or is there an agreement to silent certain people and their positions through acceptance of representation?

Mandatory Membership in State Bar Associations is supposed to increase the quality of the profession.  (see, e.g. A Reassessment of Mandatory State Bar Membership in Light of Levine v. Heffernan). 

In reality, I submit and many (for example Milton Friedman, F.A. von Hayek, and other economists) would agree that the perfection of any monopoly protects the mediocre and incompetent members of the profession to the detriment of innovators and the sharpest experts, and subjects the profession as a whole to oppressive regimentation and mind-numbing conformity.   The time has come to wipe the slate clean and remove the bar to creative advocacy and competent legal analysis independent of political power hierarchies.  When elite block gradual evolution, bloody revolution becomes more likely, even necessary.  It is a form of ordinary systemic readjustment to prevent stagnation and death—which is what we’re experiencing right now in America: socio-cultural and economic death because the legal monopoly has dug in and taken sides against the Constitution.

Judges are either political appointed and confirmed (in the Federal System) or elected politically (in most state systems, although most state Judges are in fact “appointed” and then subjected to uncontested, undebated, issue-free “retention elections” as a matter of political realpolitik and social fact—supported and bolstered by the “integrated bar” in each state).   It is preposterous to suppose that individuals politically important enough to become Judges, or with friends politically important enough to make them judges, will be anything but partisan arbiters of cases.  We live in a political society, and to pretend otherwise would be to engage in self-deception.  

The genius of the American Constitution, however, was always and should always be to take the human condition as it is (full of sin, especially greed and envy) and make the best of it by structuring a government wherein no one group or faction could ever achieve too great an ascendency over another: and this then is the fundamental constitutional, cultural, economic, and social evil inherent in monopolistic practices of any kind.  This anti-monopolistic structural-function (one could equally call it an anti-Monarchy framework with anti-Oligarchy safeguards) is the origin of the Separation of Powers doctrine advocated in favor of the Constitution throughout the ratification debates (see especially Madison, Jay, and Hamilton’s Federalist Papers) and which Separation of Powers doctrine was at the heart of most major Constitutional Litigation in the Supreme Court from its first session starting on February 1, 1790 through at least the Slaughterhouse Cases published at 83 U.S. 36, 100 U.S. 1, and 111 U.S. 746 in 1872-1884.   The dissent in the first of those case may have gotten it right when stating that the Civil Rights Acts implementing the Fourteenth Amendment perpetuated the Common Law of England in condemning governmental interference with the obligation of contracts and to avoid state-created monopolies.  The Slaughterhouse Dissent, and my own position, is that equality of rights, in the lawful pursuits of life, throughout the entire country, are privileges of the citizens of the United States.  Certainly states may (up to a point) regulate health and safety issues within their territory (although I would say this should be done with a keen eye NOT to violate either the Constitution or the Common Law), but once enacted those regulations must be free to be followed by every citizen who is within the conditions designated—there can be no specially privileged classes, no monopolies, and yet that is EXACTLY what lawyers have become.  Some have even suggested that the status now enjoyed by lawyers in the United States violates the Constitutional prohibition on titles of nobility, and there is much historical as well as socio-cultural and economic reality in that suggestion.

I myself have repeatedly advocated cutting back on the State Licensing of Attorneys and the State Licensed Monopoly created by “Integrated (i.e. Mandatory) Bar Associations” nationwide.  Currently there are several live counts in 8:09-cv-01072-DOC pending in U.S. District Court in Orange County which attack the constitutionality of several provisions of California Civil Law as creating special status for attorneys (most pernicious of which is surely the Civil Conspiracy Exemption: §1714.10, but also obnoxious and injurious is the 425.16 prohibition on the filing of Lis Pendens except by attorney).  But in the past I have advocated a more radical position which I think is in fact the correct one, see e.g.: 04-03-09 Complaint in Intervention Montana04-03-09 NOTICE OF INTERVENTION,  Case 9-08-cv-00091-DWM-JCL Lincoln & Freiman Intervene in O’Neil Document 82 Filed 04-03-09, and Case 9-08-cv-00091-DWM-JCL Lincoln & Freiman Complaint in Intervention Document 82-1 Filed 04-03-09.

Right now in California, it seems that the Attorney General and the Bar are ganging up on attorneys who really and truly want to fight the foreclosure epidemic, as I pointed out last year in an open letter to the then Attorney General, now Governor, Edmund G. Brown.  CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010.

The result is that the State Bar of California, like all State Monopolies, has become a source of stagnation and oppression.  I submit that as a matter of Federal Law, Congress has the power to by statute enact that NO STATE SHALL INFRINGE upon, limit, or grant any monopoly or license to any person or group of persons to speak, write, regarding the effect or interpretation of the law or any other subject, and no State may grant any monopoly or license to any person or group of persons to petition orally or in writing, on behalf of themselves or of others, for redress of grievances.   I think that pretty well defines and takes care of the practice of law, doesn’t it?   The practice of law is NOTHING but the exercise of fundamental First Amendment rights.

I promise to propose and advocate such legislation every day of every session if I am elected United States Senator from California.

And yes, as everyone knows, I have the nerve to write all this criticism of the system either in spite of or (in part only) because of the fact that I was formally disbarred from three integrated bar associations, resigned from two others (State and Federal).  I was once licensed to practice over most of the length of Interstate-10 from Jacksonville to Santa Monica, but on the order of Federal Judges sitting in Texas, but on the illegal or at the very least Constitutionally improper, oppressive and irrational order of two power-mad Federal Judges sitting in Texas, I have been jailed (without probable cause for any crime, but “just for a little talk”) at both opposite extremes of that same interstate for the purpose of being brought before their Honors Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack in Houston (August-October 2006) and Corpus Christi (December 2007-February 2008).  And in fact, the result of BOTH my interactions with Judges Hughes and Jack was JUST a little talk.  I would think it were too incredible to believe if it hadn’t happened to me.

So if you think that the State Licensing of Attorneys is a system beyond reproach, you must believe that I am a very bad person.  A convicted felon found (by a guilty plea no less) to have misstated two digits of his social security number in an application for a non-interest-bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank in November of 1996.  Oh what a heinous crime!   Oh shock, oh horror, oh dismay! Oh what will they think of next?

Ever since my experiences with the Honorable United States District Judges James R. Nowlin, Sam Sparks, and Walter S. Smith—Yes Nowlin,Sparks, and Smith are honorable; So are they all, all honorable men*—and especially since becoming closely acquainted with Family and Mortgage Law coast-to-coast, I have concluded that there is no single more destructive group in America today than licensed attorneys.   It is often said that the 99% of that profession which is bad unfairly destroys the reputation of the remaining one percent, and I have known and worked with several in that one percent, even during the past ten years.    But as a whole the legal profession is poisoned by the monopolistic practices which permit judges, in particular, to choose and regulate those who appear before them.  This system is categorically wrong.  

*   The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest, —
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men, —
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honorable man. 

Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2: Mark Anthony’s Funeral Oration (Shakespeare).

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

A Warning to Foreclosure Attorneys and Eviction Judges: If Equal Access to the Courts and Due Process of Law are Optional for Homeowners, so the Eighth Amendment Prohibition on Cruel & Unusual Punishment will be “optional” for you when the time comes! Boiling Steven Baum & Steven Silverstein in Oil Sounds like a Renewal of American Justice to me….

Keep their names!  Note their addresses and that of their associates!  Knit your list of those who oppress you in Code just as Madame Therese Defarge did in Tale of Two Cities!  While Marie and her Ladies in Waiting play milkmaid at Le Petit Trianon, others are planning the revolution….

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/what-the-costumes-reveal.html?_r=4

What the Costumes Reveal

Photos from a former employee of the law firm of Steven J. Baum: Two Steven J. Baum employees mocking homeowners who have been foreclosed on.
By 
Published: October 28, 2011

On Friday, the law firm of Steven J. Baum threw a Halloween party.The firm, which is located near Buffalo, is what is commonly referred to as a “foreclosure mill” firm, meaning it represents banks and mortgage servicers as they attempt to foreclose on homeowners and evict them from their homes. Steven J. Baum is, in fact, the largest such firm in New York; it represents virtually all the giant mortgage lenders, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

Earl Wilson/The New York Times

Joe Nocera

The party is the firm’s big annual bash. Employees wear Halloween costumes to the office, where they party until around noon, and then return to work, still in costume. I can’t tell you how people dressed for this year’s party, but I can tell you about last year’s.

That’s because a former employee of Steven J. Baum recently sent me snapshots of last year’s party. In an e-mail, she said that she wanted me to see them because they showed an appalling lack of compassion toward the homeowners — invariably poor and down on their luck — that the Baum firm had brought foreclosure proceedings against.

When we spoke later, she added that the snapshots are an accurate representation of the firm’s mind-set. “There is this really cavalier attitude,” she said. “It doesn’t matter that people are going to lose their homes.” Nor does the firm try to help people get mortgage modifications; the pressure, always, is to foreclose. I told her I wanted to post the photos on The Times’s Web site so that readers could see them. She agreed, but asked to remain anonymous because she said she fears retaliation.

Let me describe a few of the photos. In one, two Baum employees are dressed like homeless people. One is holding a bottle of liquor. The other has a sign around her neck that reads: “3rd party squatter. I lost my home and I was never served.” My source said that “I was never served” is meant to mock “the typical excuse” of the homeowner trying to evade a foreclosure proceeding.

A second picture shows a coffin with a picture of a woman whose eyes have been cut out. A sign on the coffin reads: “Rest in Peace. Crazy Susie.” The reference is to Susan Chana Lask, a lawyer who had filed a class-action suit against Steven J. Baum — and had posteda YouTube video denouncing the firm’s foreclosure practices. “She was a thorn in their side,” said my source.

A third photograph shows a corner of Baum’s office decorated to look like a row of foreclosed homes. Another shows a sign that reads, “Baum Estates” — needless to say, it’s also full of foreclosed houses. Most of the other pictures show either mock homeless camps or mock foreclosure signs — or both. My source told me that not every Baum department used the party to make fun of the troubled homeowners they made their living suing. But some clearly did. The adjective she’d used when she sent them to me — “appalling” — struck me as exactly right.

These pictures are hardly the first piece of evidence that the Baum firm treats homeowners shabbily — or that it uses dubious legal practices to do so. It is under investigation by the New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. It recently agreed to pay $2 million to resolve an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the firm had “filed misleading pleadings, affidavits, and mortgage assignments in the state and federal courts in New York.” (In the press release announcing the settlement, Baum acknowledged only that “it occasionally made inadvertent errors.”)

MFY Legal Services, which defends homeowners, and Harwood Feffer, a large class-action firm, have filed a class-action suit claiming that Steven J. Baum has consistently failed to file certain papers that are necessary to allow for a state-mandated settlement conference that can lead to a modification. Judge Arthur Schack of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn once described Baum’s foreclosure filings as “operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelated to the real universe.” (My source told me that one Baum employee dressed up as Judge Schack at a previous Halloween party.)

I saw the firm operate up close when I wrote several columns about Lilla Roberts, a 73-year-old homeowner who had spent three years in foreclosure hell. Although she had a steady income and was a good candidate for a modification, the Baum firm treated her mercilessly.

When I called a press spokesman for Steven J. Baum to ask about the photographs, he sent me a statement a few hours later. “It has been suggested that some employees dress in … attire that mocks or attempts to belittle the plight of those who have lost their homes,” the statement read. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” It described this column as “another attempt by The New York Times to attack our firm and our work.”

I encourage you to look at the photographs with this column on the Web. Then judge for yourself the veracity of Steven J. Baum’s denial.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on October 29, 2011, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: What the Costumes Reveal.

I can only imagine what Halloween parties might be like at the office of Steven D. Silverstein, at 14351 Redhill Suite G, Tustin, CA 92780 or Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder, & Weiss, L.L.P., at 20955 Pathfinder Road, Suite 300 Diamond Bar, California 91765, or any of countless similar law firms that fit the Dickensian caricature of soulless lawyers whole live solely to destroy the lives of others might be like.  Silverstein, at least, seems to dress in Halloween costume year round as a loan shark or loan shark lawyer.  But there are other Dickensian characters, like Madame Thérèse Defarge in Tale of Two Cities: she waited for the revolution a long time, keeping the names of the government agents and traitors to the people memorialized in code or glyphs known only to her in her endless knitting.  

I don’t know how long it will take for the revolution to come here, but I do not believe we need to pray merely that people such as these employees of Steven Baum, or Steven Silverstein, or Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder, & Weiss, will receive their just deserts in the afterlife.  On my list, the names of Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are close to the top of the list for pretending to be on the side of the people, while working tirelessly in their high ranking Senate Committees for the banks and their attorneys, to give them tax breaks for their work evicting people after non-judicial foreclosures under California Civil Code 2924.

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

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.

Sean Michael Parks arrested; is Catherine Bryan of Kokopelli Community Workshop Next?

Affidavit of John W Roberts for Arrest of Sean Michael Park USDC SDCA 10-2011 Sean Michael Park’s Arrest Docket 10-21-2011 to 10-27-2011

The jails seem to be filling up, these days, with people who fight the Banking System.  There are at least two ways of looking at this growing trend and phenomenon:

(1)    Individuals who engage in high profile litigation draw attention to themselves and heightened scrutiny of their activities.  (This is the perspective most favorable to the Government).  “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw bricks”—so if you have any potentially smelly corpses or skeletons in your closet, you should not draw attention to yourself.

(2)    Individuals who make a career out of challenging the status quo should expect to be squashed like bugs because, after all, from the standpoint of the ruling elite, that’s exactly what the challengers are: annoying bugs who stand in the way of the rich getting richer (but they won’t stand in the way for long). (This is, perhaps, the more realistic perspective).

What’s curious about the timing of the case of Sean Michael Parks is that he and Catherine Bryan have both been jointly and severally accused (albeit, so far, informally) of embezzlement by conspiracy, inducing a criminal breach of fiduciary duty, and wire-fraud by one or more “fellow-travellers”, activists in the Mortgage Foreclosure Protest movement.   

Sean Michael Park’s accusing fellow-travellers choose to remain anonymous for the moment and has asked me for an ethics opinion: when revolutionaries betray each other, should the betrayed party seek the assistance of or invoke the power of the government to squash his treacherous erstwhile compatriot?

Theft of small amounts of money from a Bank, or fraudulent statements regarding small amounts of money to a U.S. Court, positively pales in comparison with the massive epic frauds of which (those of us who have studied the matter) know the American Banks and Securities-Financial Industry generally to be guilty.

But when wealthier activists, protesters, and revolutionaries such as Sean Michael Park steal from poorer activists, protesters and revolutionaries, it demeans the movement, hurts the poor, and only helps the counter-revolution.  

Revealing a fellow-traveller’s allegations of treachery of people like Sean Michael Park and Catherine Bryan to the world at large would never help our cause, but neither does letting them get by with their cunning, back-stabbing ways.  Is it worse to let one or two bad eggs in the movement crack if they’re really guilty of crimes even against their fellows or should activists, protesters, and revolutionaries stick together against the Financial-Government-Industrial Complex at all costs?  What, in short, is the moral obligation of “we who are still free?”  Should we use the corrupt system to settle our disputes with one-another and subject the treacherous among us to the worst penalties that all of us know we face for our activism?  Or should we suffer and withstand the injuries the treacherous and greedy within our ranks inflict on us so that we can stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” against the greater enemy, which eventually wants to imprison all of us on charges which may be true or false, serious or trivial, it hardly matters so long as they push us out of the way.

So, the victim(s) of Sean Michael Park and Catherine Bryan is perplexed, and wonders what s/he should do?  Should he add his or her complaint to the Federal Prosecutor’s arsenal against Sean Michael Park and Catherine Bryan or should he stand by his or her fellow-travellers and deal with their treachery in some other way?

A rumor is floating around that someone inside the FBI or U.S. Attorneys office has speculated that Sean Michael Park might be released, and prosecution deferred, if Park would drop all of his numerous challenges to various foreclosure proceedings against his property, including his challenge to the Summary Judicial Eviction order against him for his home.  This rumor (unsubstantiated at present) would strongly suggest that the prosecution against Sean Michael Park is merely pretextual.  

It is noteworthy, in this connexion, that the charges against Sean Michael Park relate to transactions with, financial instruments allegedly received from (or pretended to be received from) his tenants in various rental properties.

It is standard practice and procedure for the Banksters to arrange to poison relationships between real-estate investors and their tenants, to give the tenants rewards or special favors for turning against their small investor-landlords in favor of the banks/secured financial industry specialists.  “Possession is 9 points on the law” and the loyalty or lack of loyalty of tenants is an easy way to transfer possession from one “claimant” of ownership to another.  

So the Banks cut deals with tenants and this is what they may have done with Sean Michael Park’s tenants.  I have no actual knowledge of anything that happened in relation to the Complaint or Criminal Charges against Sean Michael Park, and I have heard from fellow activists that Sean Michael Park and Catherine Bryan are swindlers and embezzlers.  But I submit that it is at least possible that the Banks gave the tenants false/forged cashier’s checks or money orders for free, precisely with the long-term plan of entrapping Sean Michael Park.  I haven’t examined the forgeries—I haven’t even seen pictures of them, but if they are GOOD forgeries—well, to the best of my knowledge, Sean Michael Park was an AIRLINE FLIGHT ATTENDANT before he was a real-estate investor, and the opportunities for learning how to be a skillful forger of cashier’s checks in the position of AIRLINE STEWARD or FLIGHT ATTENDANT are, to the best of my knowledge, slim-to-none, minimal at best.

But the coincidence troubles me: some of Sean Michael Park’s most sympathetic allies felt he had betrayed and cheated them, in the most outrageous and egregious manner possible.  

Conspiracy to Embezzle Funds held in Fiduciary Capacity is a crime having no elements in common with Obstruction of Justice or Perjury or Forgery of Evidence except general dishonesty and  mens rea.   

So here’s the ethics question: what should the offended co-traveller do?  Assist in the prosecution of Sean Michael Park or assist in his defense?  

As all the world knows, I have been the victim of malicious prosecution myself—not once but at least on two completely separate and distinct occasions.  I have the maximum possible sympathy for the many activists and protesters who have been indicted more because of their beliefs and ideologically motivated activism than because of any real wrongdoing.   

But I always like to point out that some of the strongest evidence my persecutors in Texas ever used against me was that I gave a refund to clients and a bonus to employees who claimed dissatisfaction with my services and/or patronage.  Several lawyers in Texas told me that no lawyer ever makes a refund to any client, so it was extremely suspicious that I did.  Sean Michael Park and Catherine Bryan have not made any refund to the party they cheated and from whom they conspired to embezzle.

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

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 19th 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

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

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 impairmentThe 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