Tag Archives: First Amendment

Should Private Gun Sales by Regulated by the State or Federal Governments? Well, it could be a return to slavery for all or it could be a “Great Leap Forward,” could it not? (only 2.5 million died of violence, the rest merely died of starvation)

Posted on April 17, 2013 by | Leave a comment

Consider the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (319 U.S. 105,  108 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, May 5, 1943):  

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press * * *.’ It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is in substance just that.

Now let’s paraphrase that statement with reference to gun control:

The Second Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that, ‘* * * the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It could hardly be  denied that a regulation laid specifically on the exercise of this right would be unconstitutional. Yet the legislation now before Congress would  imposed by its express terms as  well as substance just such an unconstitutional infringement.

Later on, the Court in Murdock made the general point more broadly and directly (319 U.S. at 113, 63 S.Ct. at 875):

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce * * * * A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect.  * * * * It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax.

And again, we could easily paraphrase this text to apply to the Second Amendment, and we would be bolstered by recent Supreme Court Decisions especially 06-28-2010 McDonald v City of Chicago Ill 130 SCt 3020

(For the Full text of Murdock, see: Murdock v Com of Pennsylvania May 3 1943)(see also *2 below).

The right to self-defense is fundamental.  One who believes in the theory of Darwinian Evolution might say it is the most fundamental of all rights: once alive, every creature has the right to do whatever is necessary to preserve its life “in nature red in tooth and claw.”

But in historical as well as evolutionary time the right to self-defense antedates any rights protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because it does not depend on our humanity (where speech clearly does).  Being part of every animal’s instinctive makeup and nature, it is a right of all who are “born free.”  

I wrote recently of my conversation with a New Orleans Policeman at one of my favorite cafes: the Trolley Stop at 1923 St. Charles Avenue.  This officer (an African American) told me he believed in the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, “but do you want them to have more firepower than us?  do you want them to be able to outgun us?”

The right of government officials to have more “firepower” than the people is not fundamental, anymore than it is the right of “some animals to be more equal than others.”  Certain lions might wish for stronger jaws or sharper teeth, but none have any “right” to more than others.

Government “entitlement” to superiority on the battlefield, in a very real and direct manner, is like slavery itself: a purely human invention res contra natura alteris omnis rebus (an unnatural thing, unlike all other things).   Legislatively determined inequality of firepower is, to my mind, as utterly intolerable as inequality of speech or the rights to breathe and walk upright.  (If you order me to bow down, you had better be a King, deriving his rights from God, and if you are such a Divine King, you have the right to kill me but I have no right to kill you—and this is inherently un-American.)

As Justice Clarence Thomas has written in several opinions now, the coincidence between the abolition of slavery and the advent of gun control laws in the United States was no accident: freedom for former slaves implied the full panoply of rights available to white citizens.  For better or for worse, discrimination has never been written into the constitution, until now.  But people have been conditioned to think that discrimination against the poor is acceptable, discrimination against the non-elite middle class is acceptable, in fact ALL discrimination is acceptable so long as it is not done along racial lines, apparently.  So the government now wants to establish a hierarchical class system in relation to gun ownership.

The evolving classes, castes, and categories of citizens recognized by the Patriot Act the NDAA, and the proposed gun control legislation now before Congress are basically these: (1) Federal Government Police & their Agents, (2) State Government Police & their Agents, (3) Everyone else in North America.  I fear that these are categories or classes of people which today’s Supreme Court might just uphold as “rational” and therefore constitutional, since they are neither racial nor sexual and therefore not “suspect”—ONLY racial discrimination has been outlawed in the US, NOT discrimination by class or title or status as office or license holder….and this is an American disease or sickness that is killing the Constitution.

The chimeras haunting both American Slavery and the abolition of American Slavery are both Racial: in the beginning, the alleged Racial inferiority of Africans was asserted in Defense of Slavery, and it was widely found to be an inadequate defense.   But afterwards, in a SUPREME Perversion of logic, the Supreme Court of the United States basically rendered all the civil rights laws of the United States enacted after 1865 bad jokes: simultaneously nugatory pointless and toothless, by saying they were designed ONLY to insure equality of the races and nothing else.

Now that we have an “African” President [I would call him African rather the African-American---Jessie Jackson, Morgan Freeman, and Al Sharpton are "African Americans", but Obama is not] the civil rights laws, it seems, can be dispensed with entirely.  

Total Power in the Hands of Government: this ultimately, appears to be Obama’s goal in life—his self-perceived destiny, his ambition (and his goals are supported by a remarkably broad coalition including obvious evil-doers Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, but treacherous snakes such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham).

The long “road to serfdom” that began with the map laid out by the Communist Manifesto in February 1848, finding its first governmental foundation laid down by Abraham Lincoln in the United States 1861-65, and was afterwards expanded into a highway under Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the possibly unwitting (or just witless) Woodrow Wilson, then a superhighway under Franklin D. Roosevelt and all his successors, is about to reach its final destination in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat if Barack Hussein Obama can just disarm the American People FOREVER!

The Courts have been heading in this general direction (the abolition of civil rights all together, once and for all, forget about giving any rights to black or white people) for a very long time.  In fact, the entire purpose of Earl Warren’s Civil Right’s Revolution in the Courts, in retrospect, was simply to pit race-against-race, to create unhealthy envy and hateful one-upsmanship rather than healthy competition.  

True, there are some majestic, wonderful opinions and some beautiful language I have found in those old decisions from the 1960s and 1970s in particular, mostly petering out around 1985-6.  Very little GOOD has happened in civil rights since 1987, but, strange as it may seem, the recent jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court has created at least one “Point of Light” in Second Amendment Jurisprudence in particular.  Ordinarily, political rhetoric concerning the lessons of or effects lingering slavery becomes tiresome quickly.  But in the case of the Second Amendment after emancipation, nothing could be clearer than the need of former slaves to own guns to protect their newly acquired liberty and property (even as limited as it was for most of the century and a half since emancipation).  

Abolition of the private right to keep and bear arms, without much doubt, is a RETURN TO SLAVERY FOR ALL, regardless of race, creed, color, ethnic origin, religion, sex, or occupation—unless you are a member of the police.  The State will then have an ABSOLUTE monopoly on legitimate violence, and the jails and prisons will be filled with all dissenting individuals.

Aside from Clarence Thomas, who will defend us against the threatened confiscation of our only sure means of self-defense AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT?  Anthony Kennedy, painfully and unhappily, stands as at least an occasional beacon for individual privacy and personal autonomy. Antonin Scalia would probably be a constitutionalist if it were politically popular, but he appears to believe that legislatures and congress can limit the constitution pretty much at will if they want to.  So Scalia’s contributions to “freedom” jurisprudence are pretty much limited to the realm of “judge made” law and precedent.  We need two more votes—perhaps we have Samuel Anthony Alito (*), John Roberts, Stephen G. Breyer?  Maybe or maybe not.  John Roberts appears to blow with the political winds like Scalia.  Breyer would probably follow Hillary Clinton’s anti-gun lead.  It looks bad, folks!

But to go back to the key point of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and its companion cases (e.g. Douglas v City of Jeannette (Pennsylvania) 319 US 157 63 SCt 882 87 LEd 1324 *1943* and Jones v City of Opelika:

the power to regulate commerce does NOT include the power to infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by Amendments 1-10.   As legions of Law Professors have correctly pointed out, this concept (that there MUST BE an exception to Congress’ broad regulatory power, even after the onset of the New Deal) traces back most precisely to Footnote Four of U.S. v. Carolene Products, Inc., decided in 1938. US v Carolene Products Co 304 US 144 58 SCt 778 82 LEd 1234 SCOTUS 04-25-1938.

Given the advances in Second Amendment Jurisprudence seen over the past decade in D.C. v. Heller and MacDonald v. City of Chicago, I would hate to see this Country take another Great Leap Forward (*1)  into Maoist Communist Dictatorship. 

So, should Private Gun Sales be Regulated by the State or Federal Government? Only if we want to take a Great Leap Forward into a de facto Communistic Caste System, or an animal farm where “Some Animals are More Equal than Others”

(*1)  Wikipedia casually and very briefly mentions in a longer and very favorable, supportive (i.e. pro-communist, pro-Maoist) article on the Great Leap Forward:

Deaths by violence

Not all deaths during the Great Leap were from starvation. Frank Dikötter estimates that at least 2.5 million people were beaten or tortured to death and 1 to 3 million committed suicide.[100] He provides some illustrative examples. In Xinyang, where over a million died in 1960, 6-7 percent (around 67,000) of these were beaten to death by the militias. In Daoxian county, 10 percent of those who died had been “buried alive, clubbed to death or otherwise killed by party members and their militia.” In Shimen county, around 13,500 died in 1960, of these 12 per cent were “beaten or driven to their deaths.”[101]

Modes of resistance

There were various forms of resistance to the Great Leap Forward. Several provinces saw armed rebellion,[106][107] though these rebellions never posed a serious threat to the Central Government.[106] Rebellions are documented to have occurred in Honan, Shandong, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, Fujian, and Yunnan provinces and in the Tibetan Autonomous Region.[108][109] In Honan, Shandong, Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan, these rebellions lasted more than a year.[109] Aside from rebellions, there was also occasional violence against cadre members.[107][110] Raids on granaries,[107][110] arson and other vandalism, train robberies, and raids on neighboring villages and counties were common.[110]

According to over 20 years of research by Ralph Thaxton, professor of politics at Brandeis University, villagers turned against the CPC during and after the Great Leap, seeing it as autocratic, brutal, corrupt, and mean-spirited.[1] The CPC’s policies, which included plunder, forced labor, and starvation, according to Thaxton, led villagers “to think about their relationship with the Communist Party in ways that do not bode well for the continuity of socialist rule.”[1]

Often, villagers composed doggerel to show their defiance to the regime, and “perhaps, to remain sane.” During the Great Leap, one jingle ran: “Flatter shamelessly—eat delicacies…. Don’t flatter—starve to death for sure.”[34]

Impact on the government

Many local officials were tried and publicly executed for giving out misinformation.[111]

Mao stepped down as State Chairman of the PRC in 1959, though he did retain his position as Chairman of the CPC. Liu Shaoqi (the new PRC Chairman) and reformist Deng Xiaoping (CPC General Secretary) were left in charge to change policy to bring about economic recovery. Mao’s Great Leap Forward policy came under open criticism at the Lushan party conference. The attack was led by Minister of National Defense Peng Dehuai, who, initially troubled by the potentially adverse effect of the Great Leap Forward on the modernization of the armed forces, also admonished unnamed party members for trying to “jump into communism in one step.” After the Lushan showdown, Mao defensively replaced Peng with Lin Biao.

However, in June 1962, the party held an enlarged Central Work Conference and rehabilitated the majority of the deposed comrades who had criticized Mao in the aftermath of the Great Leap Forward. The event was again discussed, with much self-criticism, with the contemporary government calling it a “serious [loss] to our country and people” and blaming the cult of personality of Mao.

(*2)  A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 56-58, 60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 84 L.Ed. 565, 128 A.L.R. 876), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., 309 U.S. at page 47, 60 S.Ct. at page 392, 84 L.Ed. 565, 128 A.L.R. 876 and cases cited. A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.  *   *   *   *   *   *   * [I]n Jones v. Opelika, * * * 316 U.S. at pages 607-609, 620, 623, 62 S.Ct. at pages 1243, 1244, 1250, 1251, 86 L.Ed. 1691, 141 A.L.R. 514 * * * as in the present ones, we have something very different from a registration system under which those going from house to house are required to give their names, addresses and other marks of identification to the authorities. In all of these cases the issuance of the permit or license is dependent on the payment of a license tax. And the license tax is fixed in amount and unrelated to the scope of the activities of petitioners or to their realized revenues. It is not a nominal fee *114 imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question. 8 It is in no way apportioned. It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax.

(*3): do you ever why do we have or how we got three justices named “Anthony” or a rare Italian variant ”Antonin”>|?)

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

IN OUR LAWLESS SOCIETY: ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM/FREEDOM OF SPECH—and so STAND WITH LANDEN GAMBILL—is reporting a rape on campus to be deemed “disruptive or intimidating behavior?” To the best of my knowledge, no one has questioned this young lady’s honesty, but a dishonest accusation should be the ONLY possible grounds for any accusation of “a violation of the Honor Code”

Posted on March 2, 2013 by | 2 Comments
To the Administrators of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the litigants among the “Survivors of Sexual Violence” Civil Rights Action:
         I am a Tulane Alumnus, class of 1980—and I discovered this group cause in the U.C. Lobby on a recent visit to “the old school” campus in New Orleans of which I am so fond.  
        Since I left Tulane I earned both a Ph.D. and a J.D. from Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, clerked for two Federal Judges, and made many more enemies of Judges through Civil Rights Activism, ultimately leading to my disbarment but not to my retirement from civil rights crusades.    
       I would like to lend my support to SAPHE and Landen Gambill.  Mainly I do not understand what is going on very well, but from what I have read it sounds as though a severe injustice has been done.  
          The University of North Carolina is, of course, a branch of the State of North Carolina and so it is bound by the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment to respect the rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
         I am horrified that a student could, in this day and age, be accused of “disruptive or intimidating behavior” for reporting a crime.  I asked the students at the SAPHE desk in the University Center Lobby whether anyone had ever challenged Landen Gambill’s honesty or accuracy and was told “no.”
   Only a CONFIRMED, CLEAR and CONVINCING ACCUSATION OF DISHONESTY (which appears not to have been made by the alleged rapist or anyone else)  could possibly justify a charge of an “honor code violation”, whether at a private or public institution, if the word “honor” can have any meaning.* (but see note on “False Rape Culture” below—which I find less than a “clear and convincing” denial of anything—but more of a political rant about the possibility of false accusations, which are protected under the First Amendment and the Right to Petition.)
             Obviously, by threatening any sort of disciplinary action against a student for filing what she believes (and no one has challenged or questioned) to be a legitimate complaint of criminal conduct, the State Officials at the University of North Carolina are attempting to infringe upon Landen Gambill’s rights to freedom of speech and more importantly to PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, broadly defined, under the First Amendment.  
             No exercise of First Amendment Freedom should ever be grounds for any sort of punishment, so Gambill’s right to substantive DUE PROCESS OF LAW under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is also being violated here.
               I would further submit that the right of to speak out in any way regarding the injuries one has suffered is a fundamental right and power reserved to the people under the Ninth Amendment.
      Throughout my lifetime, the tortured question of relationship between the sexes has been evolving and changing.  Nothing is more essential (literally) to the preservation of our species on earth than a stable and successful relationship between men and women, but the competing philosophies and moralities of the “bad old world” and “brave new world” have left a tremendous amount of uncertainty and doubt in everyone’s mind about everyone’s status, standing, and situation.
           As I was commenting to one of the students at the SAPHE desk at the Tulane UC on Friday, there was a time when a woman’s deadly response to male rape or sexual assault was deemed praiseworthy and beyond reproach, much less prosecution, in the State of Texas and elsewhere throughout the South.  
          How have we come from that state of mind to this, where complaining of rape could be called “disruptive or intimidating behavior?”  
          I remain profoundly confused by the description of events.  If there is no charge of dishonesty, then Landen Gambill’s charges must be heard, and Landen Gambill is entitled to the full protection of the law afforded by the State of North Carolina.
            Obviously Landen Gambill’s fundamental federal rights are at stake here.  No rights are more important than the rights to control over one’s own body and “personal space”.  No situations in our radically disintegrating (i.e. diverse and non-uniform) society present more opportunities for abuse of each individual’s body and personal space than sexual relationships and dating situation.
              Because the old Victorian and pre-Victorian normative systems have collapsed and/or failed, all that remains for us today is the “social contract” which must be negotiated between individuals at all times and in all places.  
            Everyone bears the responsibility in society for maintaing the respect to be afforded each individual for his or her fundamental rights to personal integrity, but none bear this responsibility more than the administrators of the Universities and Colleges into which today’s youth go in major part for the purpose of adjusting to the normatively disintegrated society in which we live and discovering their own place—and the dimensions and boundaries of their place—in the remnants of society that now remain.
         To the Administrators of UNC-Chappel Hill I would say: The Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution must inform all dialogue concerning individual rights and responsibilities, and above all the role of our institutions of higher learning in assuring the rights of each individual to speak and petition regarding the most intimate and difficult phases of human life, which for young people today, as much as in the time of Abelard and Heloise, is most endangered and “risky” in the College and University Setting.  I would also say: if you harbor any doubts about this woman’s veracity or honesty, you must be open and honest about your doubts and you must submit to a trial on the merits of the question—you might even want to initiate such a trial (with real rules and standards of proof, possibly even as a declaratory judgment in court) rather than standing spinelessly idle.

             To those who are plaintiffs in the Civil Rights Suit I would say this: your cause and claims for constitutional vindication just, but focus on the basic constitutional rights and not on the ephemeral modern civil rights statutes which pit one group against another.  The strength of your claim lies in reliance on the First Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Realize that by defining and describing your experiences in the uncertain and undefined world of modern moral uncertainty, ideally you are working towards the formulation of a new set of norms, of a new moral code where once again predictability and certainty will replace randomness and confusion.

I have found that standing up for the right to complain, to criticize, and to attack the system for offering remedies which do more harm than heal can be hazardous to one’s professional health and career.  It was only after filing a series of seven civil rights suits in Texas against an abusive police department in Travis County that certain judges found it more advantageous to attack me and slander me than to listen to me, but that quite simply has not stopped me.

So to Landen Gambill and all her supporters, I hope that you will find the strength similarly to persevere I your quest for justice and to demand redress of grievances concerning the system that purports to protect you when in fact it does not.

*(Note: Since writing the above, I found at least one male interest group which DOES not only strongly question but attack Landen Gambill’s honesty and reputation for truthfulness, regarding which doubts, whether clear and convincing or not, see:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/unc-landen-gambill-and-false-rape-culture/

            I have repeatedly written that we live in a lawless society—a society in which our values have become so “relative” and so “circumstantially dependent, that there is no longer any such thing as “right” or “wrong”.  And yet, Nietzsche notwithstanding, our world is not “Beyond Good and Evil.”   All that is constructive is good and all that is destructive is evil, and yet truth is ALWAYS good and lies are ALWAYS evil, even though truth can be used to destroy lives and societies while lies can be used to build careers, cultural monuments to the liars, deceitful empires, and unnecessary wars….
            The debate over the right to charge “rape” on a crowded campus may be one of the areas of lawlessness in America where abuse is not only possible but tolerated.  
           Nevertheless, we have to choose which type of error to make: the error where we repress legitimate complaints or the error where we allow false complaints (related to but not entirely co-extensive with the more serious philosophical and statistical problems sometimes referred to as errors of false affirmation or false negation).
       In the Arena of Freedom of Speech, it is my position that NO COMPLAINT should ever be suppressed; NO DIALOGUE should ever be silenced, and so I support Landen Gambill until and unless she is herself charged and proved criminally guilty of or held civilly liable for (a) defamation, (b) malicious prosecution, (c) conspiracy to commit either offense.
              About a decade ago, I lost custody of my only son, Charlie IV, because I continued (a) to listen to HIS complaints about his mother and her treatment of him and (b) accordingly continued to question his mother’s fitness and her psychological (and physical) treatment of him.  Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Williamson County actually rendered an injunction against my ability ever to speak to my son regarding his own happiness, even during my own periods of custodial “possession”.   I investigated, and it turned out this was a standard order of his: he had a custom, practice, and policy of suppressing parents’ freedom to discuss the welfare of their children or to discuss family “issues” of any kind with their children.
              Since I absolutely refused to allow any judge to limit my speech, I was deprived of the right to see my son.  Eventually, my son sought me out and I took him to summer school at Harvard.  Then my son started college at St. John’s College in Annapolis after spending three summers with me. And then after one seemingly happy year, he turned on me, at his mother’s urging and indeed her insistence.
                My son refused to go for a summer abroad in Rome after I had paid his tuition and then abruptly dropped out of College and has come (now as an adult) under his mother’s complete and unfettered control, totally refusing any contact with me at all (and since he is an adult, I have nothing to say about his choice).  
             But I will say this, “In the best interests of the child” (as if that really were the purpose of Family Courts): I should have been allowed to maintain my complaints, especially since they were always based either on what I saw with my own eyes or what my son reported to me directly and graphically).  
          To suppress freedom of speech and the right to petition, either by injunction or to punish the exercise of these rights without appropriately clear and convincing findings of abuse, is to destroy every individual’s humanity.  To invoke the power of the state to limit by censorship or sanction by any means any one person’s ability to complain of perceived wrongs, especially by such a socially unusual and stigmatic sanction as expulsion from school, embodies the antithesis of the American ways of life and justice (but do see the “False Rape Culture” article above regarding a contrary opinion).  
                Perhaps I was a reprehensible Father for listening to my son’s complaints about his mother which wee not only consistent with what I had seen his mother do but also consistent with what I had seen his mother and HER mother do to another male member of the family (my son’s Uncle George, who died in Cancun, Mexico, several years ago at the ripe old age of 51, basically abused and abandoned but totally controlled by his mother and sister—who coincidentally were my son’s grandmother and mother).  
 
               And perhaps Landen Gambill is a compulsive liar who continued to date a man who raped her on every date (as the “False Rape Culture”) article above suggests.   But even so, she must be allowed to speak.  My very guilty wife (my son’s mother) always remained silent, and never even so much as took the witness stand or wrote an affidavit to specifically deny the charges against her (which at one point included felony injury to a child).   Landen Gambill’s accused has likewise remained silent—and it is greatly to his discredit to do so.  
             In criminal courts and procedings we preserve the right to remain silent as sacrosanct and do not allow comment upon the maintenance of silence—but in all civil contexts, silence is confession.   The manufacturer falsely accused of making dangerous products who remains silent will lose.  The boyfriend falsely accused of raping and assaulting his girlfriend deserves precisely the same fate in a civil context.   

         Despite the possibility, whether it is a strong one or a weak one, that Landen Gambill has made false accusations of rape, I categorically refuse to withdraw anything that I wrote above about the way SAPHE at Tulane has presented Landen Gambill’s case, or my endorsement of her claim that the Administration must either listen to her or prove her wrong and lying by a preponderance of the evidence.  

            Where insufficient evidence exists for a criminal prosecution, but this much noise has been made, someone needs to file suit for declaratory judgment and a civil adjudication of the matter.

           A false accusation of rape is such an outrage, represents such “hubris” that for the male party involved not to respond by public action in his own vindication, with other values, such as that male’s honor and dignity, at stake, landen gambill must be accorded a presumption of truth.

         The First Amendment right to speak out (complain) and to petition for redress of grievances IS paramount.  If there is any insinuation of a “false rape culture”, it is because of the collapse of traditional morality, as I mentioned above: the death of the Victorian and Pre-Victorian standards and norms of sexual behavior and their replacement with, in essence, NOTHING except the power to negotiate and speak and discuss and define.  

              But if men are falsely accused, then they have to say so–and “act like men”—even if that itself is a victorian or even viking standard of honor.

           The  contrary article above on the “False Rape Culture” raises some disturbing but altogether unsubstantiated claims about why we should ignore Landen Gambill.  But the fact that a men’s activist group attacks her credibility does not automatically mean that Landen Gambill should be sanctioned for her complaints and freedom of speech, does it?  especially when her “silently” charged (presumably by now completely ex-) boyfriend has not stood up publicly to defend himself.   Our society and culture have indeed lost absolutely all integrity if even the falsely but very publicly accused center of a controversy remains silence.

         Supposedly, now, this “false rape culture” article says that she continued to date the man (boy?) whom she accuses of raping her—if true, that would indeed tarnish her credibility substantially.  But why then has the young man (boy?) in question not stood up for himself and cried “false”, “defamation”, “Malicious and perfidious lies”????   He has the same right to freedom of speech that Landen Gambill possesses.  I still find this entire story confusing in the extreme.  

           If a man can be publicly accused of rape and say nothing, i believe that  his silence constitutes a confession—either of guilt or of soulless, spineless indifference to the concept or Code of Honor.  ”manhood should be made of sterner stuff”.   And for violations of this code of honor, there must be the sanction of enduring continuing complaints and accusations.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit recht, 
denn alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”
Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Argue and Fight against making “Bullying” a Crime—talk about a new “Wiley Ulysses’” Trojan Horse into our Privacy, our Children’s Privacy, and all of our First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights….

Posted on November 27, 2012 by | Leave a comment

I propose to you: Bullying could never be made a crime without destroying the last remnants of the rights to privacy, the protections for Freedom of Expression and Assembly under the First Amendment, and the right of the people to be free from unlawful searches and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

There’s a petition circulating IN CANADA to make school-bullying a CRIME—this is EXACTLY what I expected the petitions circulated by young good-looking, redshirted SPLC signature collectors earlier this year (2012) would ultimately lead to—and it’s a disaster, or it would be!   I wish I thought this sort of thing could never happen south of the 49th Parallel—but I see the writing on the wall—for all of us: mene meme tekel upharsin…. http://www.causes.com/causes/797224-stop-bullying-canada-let-s-be-the-change-to-inspire-the-world/actions/1692551?recruiter_id=55421141&utm_campaign=invite&utm_medium=wall&utm_source=fb

Can you imagine what the search warrants would look like to investigate allegations sufficient to raise “probable cause” that the crime of bullying was encouraged or tolerated in a school-age child’s parents’ home?  What are people thinking when they endorse such invasions of the sanctity of our private life?  As if there were not enough unconstitutional excuses based on “terrorism” and the “war on drugs” to breach the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, and personal effects.  If you make “bullying” a crime, then the schools will be constantly swearing out search warrants for parents homes, parents will lose their parental rights because they allowed their children to “bully” someone at school—or GOD FORBID, that parents even ENCOURAGED their children to think that some ways of behaving are better than others….. GOD FORBID that a parent would inculcate ANY values into his or her child that were not pre-screened and pre-approved by a judge or “diversity counselor” or “sensitivity counselor”—such things exist, and they must be stopped.

“Bullying” is a form of immature expressive activity which can be cruel or injurious—but value-judgments are necessary to civilized society and are bound to hurt SOMEBODY.  Speech which doesn’t hurt anyone is unlikely to be powerful.  Advocating the truth of the Bible or of the Constitution will become categorized as Bullying—MARK MY WORDS!

Don’t you see that to make “bullying” and/or “cyber-bullying” a crime would be to open our children and their conduct growing up to even more intrusive state and federal scrutiny and control over their every day lives than they already are made to suffer? Every time I see these red-shirted agents of the Southern Poverty Law Center passing out anti-bullying material I go up to them and ask them how you can define bullying as anything other than a crime of expression, a crime totally dependent on ONE person’s subjective judgment of the meaning and effect of ANOTHER person’s speech. The very word itself “bullying” suggests an overbroad and extremely vague concept. Defining “Bullying” as a crime would be PERFECT for the Brave New World and New World Order types who want the STATE to substitute GOVERNMENTAL judgment for individual values and opinions. Defining “Bullying” as a crime would lead to daily governmental surveillance of our children’s behavior—and, of course, “OUR” conduct and values as well for having taught our children to be bullies. GOD PROTECT US ALL from such an insane, statist program as to make bullying a crime—any such definition of “bullying” as a crime would be simultaneously overbroad and void for vagueness.

I ask you all, if you consider yourself a supporter of the First Amendment or of Constitutional rights at all, to reflect whether you support for the United States Constitution is really consistent with your endorsement of making “bullying” a crime—I personally cannot think of anything worse in the world that could happen to our children or our schools. It would be another GIANT step towards to TOTAL ABOLITION OF FREEDOM and of Parental control over the education and inculcation of values into their children.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How to Celebrate July 4 by Compassing the Death of the King—a day to Remember the Importance of Bad Manners, Disrespect All Authority, Never to be Satisfied with anything “Conventional”, and so Always to Resist the Lure of Safety in the Authoritarian Impulse

Posted on July 4, 2012 by | Leave a comment

In particular—STAND UP FOR SMALL TIME BULLYING, HAVE A FIGHT WITH YOUR SPOUSE/SIGNIFICANT OTHER (then make up), AND GIVE A COP A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS HIGHLIGHTED and tell him to study it real hard and consider getting an honest job where he’s NOT a paid bully for the richest and most powerful people only….. or even that he use his experience in oppressing others and destroy lives for meaningless violations of traffic laws, zoning regulations, and the like—and turn around and join in the cause of freedom.

I have meant to write about this one minor topic all year because it has been irritating me: the Southern Poverty Law Center has been sponsoring a gigantic national campaign against “BULLYING” all year, and I think it’s about time somebody stood up for the Bullies.

What is particularly disturbing about the SPLC’s campaign to stop bullying is that it is all about suppressing the bad manners of “little people.”  I do not favor BIG Bullies—I have dedicated my life to fighting the arrogance of the Banks, the Judges and “licensed” attorneys they carry around in their pockets, and all the legal and systemic ways in which our Government of the Rich, by the Rich, and for the Rich has, in the name of “the General Welfare” assumed to tell us all what to do.

Do you see where this is leading?  The SPLC campaign against Bullying is just one more attack on the Freedom of Speech, the right to maintain highly individualistic values, and the right to deal with other people in whatever manner seems appropriate—or even without any manners at all.

Now I grew up in a home where decorum was valued above all things.  Everyone was extremely quiet and no one ever spoke above a hush.  I guess that’s why I eventually married a Greek girl who came from a family where everyone yelled at each other morning news and night, fought constantly, and basically acted the way out of control Mediterranean types are famous for acting.  Ok, it’s also a large part of the reason why that particular Greek girl and I parted company, but the point is, liberation from norms is: LIBERATING.

Now the SPLC has paid HUNDREDS, maybe nationwide THOUSANDS of extremely good looking young kids (99% white) to go around in red v-neck shirts or jackets, depending on the weather, in malls and commercial streets from the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica to Michigan Avenue in Chicago and Newberry Street in Boston asking people to sign petitions and make contributions to stop BULLYING in Schools.

What this plainly means is that the SPLC wants to invade yet another social arena and tell people how to live and what to think.  You see, ridicule is a key element of political discourse—I’ve dished it out and I’ve taken it, sometimes gracefully sometimes not so much.  Ridicule and “Ritualized Humor” as a means of social control was and remains a powerful tool.  It is very sinister when the corporate Government itself resorts to manipulation of norms through ridicule—and the Obama administration and its allies have engaged in a great deal of such manipulative conduct through their agents and operatives on the World Wide Web—including ridicule of some of the positions nearest and dearest to me (such as the importance of adherence to the Constitution and Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a non-Christian, non-American, non-Democratic, and completely non-Constitutional President).

I object to the use of “big money” to engage in bullying for “big players”—and what I see is the huge IRONY of the SPLC employing major corporate money and corporate methods to try to suppress “the little guy or gal” even more than s/he is already suppressed.

The BULLYING that the SPLC wants to attack is, of course, bad manners directed in politically incorrect ways at certain “disadvantaged” and hence now FAVORED groups in society.  The SPLC wants to USE THE POWER OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE (i.e. the power of the STATE, for all intents and purposes), to correct people’s manners in school in regard to whatever the “SPLC cause supported group du jour” may be.  In short, to enforce POLITICAL CORRECTNESS even for adolescents and pre-teens in Middle School, High School, and probably even elementary school and kindergarten.

THIS IS CALLED: STATE CONTROL OF MIND-FORMATION.   And of course, the concept of “bullying” is just vague and nebulous enough that it can apply to criticism or ridicule of anything you want it to apply to—I daresay that EVEN ordinary political debate could easily be targeted—”You Republicans have got to stop bullying the Democrats”—or vice versa….Anyone ridiculed, in particular, for supporting the current President, I daresay, would be a bully worthy of expulsion from any school at any level.  Unofficial, Private Audience Criticism of the President has already cost people their jobs in the U.S. Army and led to summary discipline against even U.S. JUDGES—who ordinarily cannot be reprimanded or reproached for ANYTHING.  (look up, for example, the case of Montana District Judge Richard Cebull, whose crime was that he dared quite literally to call Obama a “son of a bitch”—and was ordered to write a letter of apology to the President and his family: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/richard-cebull-obama_n_1317131.html).

We all have to have the right to call the President a “Son-of-a-Bitch”—or worse.  I recall in the movie “Raising Arizona” in the opening narrative I think, when Ronald Reagan was called a “Son-of-a-Bitch” and I can’t remember anybody (right or left) so much as batting an eye.  I had voted for Reagan and I certainly laughed at the jab in its context.

So it worries me extremely that just as the right to ridicule the high and mighty is under attack, and that people as “immune” from any sort of prosecution as Judges and military officers are being persecuted for speaking ill of the President, that the SPLC goes out into the malls and preaches that even small acts of unkindness or breaches of manners should be punished.

So, for this Fourth of July—-PLEASE insult someone in a position of power, and hand him or her a copy of the First Amendment as you do so—maybe even the whole Bill of Rights.   And, here’s another suggestion—either have a fight with your husband or wife or significant other, or just discuss the bumper sticker I’ve seen on the back of so many LAPD squad cars recently: IS THERE ANY EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

I would contend there is: we are HUMAN, and in ADAMS FALL, WE SINNED ALL.  An old song by Hank Williams, Sr., (not coincidentally called “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS”) includes the wonderful line “If my wife and I’re a fussin’ brother that’s our right, cause me and that sweet woman got a license to fight, why don’t you mind your own business.“)

I suggest that any couple who cannot admit that they are incapable of controlling their emotions and actions at all times is not mature enough to be married—but that’s just my opinion and I don’t plan on trying to enforce it on others.  I definitely believe, however, that any couple contemplating marriage or living together should ask themselves whether, when they get into a fight, one or the other would resort to dialing 911 and calling the police.   Any prospective partner who says “yes” he or she would call the police—should be SHUNNED.  Marriage and home-making are all about forming a new community, a shelter from the larger cruel world, and any spouse who would bring in the ravenous dogs of state-empowered law enforcement into that community is unworthy.

I write this today, July 4, 2012, because exactly ten years ago today and tomorrow, my aforementioned Greek wife Elena destroyed our home and marriage precisely by calling the police (Williamson County Sheriff’s Department) when we were having a marital dispute about who should drive our one remaining car (since one car was in the shop) to run las minute holiday errands, including buying a fireworks display for the Fourth of July.

Elena called 911 only after she had bitten and stabbed me, which was a bad move on her part because the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department ended up arresting HER rather than me.  Oddly enough, I worked for the next forty eight hours to get her out of jail, but she never forgave me (even though it was pretty much all her fault).  That was the beginning of the end.  But it was also the beginning of my education in the most horrific abuses of the Family Courts in America—all of which were embodied in and committed by Judge Michael Jergins and attorney-flesh eating vultures such as Laurie J. Nowlin and J. Randall Grimes of Williamson County Texas, without any doubt the scum of the earth, along with social workers like Travis County’s Mark Ashworth, who work to make sure that all marriages fail and all spouses turn to the state for dispute resolution—when that resolution is always destruction, which is always the feeding of the vultures.

The use of the police to intervene in Domestic Relations disputes is another clear and plain attack on the autonomy of the home, the sanctity of the family, and the autonomous responsibility of each individual to govern himself or herself.  The use of the Courts to impose restraining orders on one or another spouse who may have raised his or her voice or slapped or hit the other is just a matter of putting the state in charge of our human nature.  We are animals, and animals fight—more commonly in nature about sex and food than anything else.

Judge Michael Jergins in Williamson County adjudged me a bad father because I discussed my family’s problems with our minor son, Charlie, who was the primary victim of our family’s problems.   It was Michael Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, and J. Randall Grimes who opened my eyes to the possibility that Family Law and Domestic Relations law could be used to overturn the constitution “in the best interests of the child” and finally I understood the relationship between Welfare and Communist Dictatorship: “you will lead good lives, as we define good, or else you will die and have nothing.”

When Moses handed down the commandments from Mount Sinai and Christ preached to the people to love and care for one another—these were exhortations to the people to live a good life—not warning that their lives would be taken away if they didn’t.  In fact, it was precisely this kind of legalistic bullying and oppression by the Pharisees and Sadducees that Christ came into the world to protest.

No group more epitomizes the Pharisaic path of oppressive bullying more than the SPLC in modern times—CONFORM OR BE OSTRACIZED!  So, at the very least, they deserve to be ignored when they come forward asking you to contribute to their campaign.  Or you can, as I’ve done several times now, ask them how they square their views of bullying with the First Amendment to the Constitution—not to mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (powers and rights reserved to the people).

So we need to celebrate our bad manners, disrespect all authority, never be satisfied with anything “Conventional” (especially manners, norms, or wisdom) and above all we must alway accept the dangers of freedom—that we will fight with those we love and then have no one but ourselves to fall back on when there is no one to come to our aid—and hence to be REQUIRED to FORGIVE and LIVE TOGETHER, in order to take care of each other, as Christ taught us all.

So on this Fourth of July—let us celebrate our Free Will, our freedom to engage in bad manners is protected by the Constitution, and we should celebrate the fact that returning to the Sermon on the Mount is a far better solution than either the strictures of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, or the Family and Domestic Relations Code of any State.   If we cannot live well, in fact, we must at the very least strive to live free.

Expressing our opinions of others—i.e. “Bullying”—is good and healthy so long as we do not use the excessive and overwhelming force of government to “act it out.”  The SPLC, the police, the family courts and their social workers, and other arms of the current corporate governmental regime are our enemies, not our friends, lest we ever forget.  Let us never allow THEM or their rapacious tyranny into our homes and schools lest they consume our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

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

To end on a slightly lighter note, I suggest singing and reflecting on the real wisdom of Hank Williams’ lyrics to “Mind your Own Business”—if some elements are out-dated (such as the reference to “party line”) some are timeless, immortal and directly relevant to the doctrines of Political Correctness and Elitist manipulation such as that engaged in by the SPLC “Mindin’ other people’s business seems to be high tone“):

Words and music by Hank Williams, sr.

If the [d] wife and I are fussin, brother thats our right cause me and that sweet womans got a license to fight [d7] Why dont you [g7] mind your own business (mind [d] your own business) cause if mind [a7] your business, then you wont be mindin [d] mine. Oh, the woman on our party lines the nosiest thing She picks up her receiver when she knows its my ring Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) Well, if mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If my woman stay out til two or three Now, brother thats my headache, dont you worry bout me. Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If I get my head beat black and blue Now thats my wife and my stove wood too Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. I got a little gal that wears her hair up high, The boys all whistel when she walks bye. Mind your own buisness blah blah, you sure wont be minding mine. Mindin other peoples business seems to be high-toned I got all that I can do just to mind my own Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) If you mind your own business, youll stay busy all the time.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Constitutionalist, Gospel of Luke, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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?

Posted on June 10, 2012 by | Leave a comment

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.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Constitutionalist, History and Civilization, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, Non-Judicial Foreclosure, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Securities & Exchange Commission, Securities Regulation, Seguro Social, Social Security, Summary Judicial Eviction, The Hunger Games, UCC Perfection of Interests, V-for-Vendetta, Younger v. Harris Abstention

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Re: Really Bad Patriot Mythology—When Ideas can be applied practically, stick with them….when they only lead you down rabbit-trails…..”just say ‘no’”….

Posted on April 29, 2012 by | Leave a comment

I have had friends and mentors present some of those ideas to me for close to 40 years. The conclusion I have came to is, if there is something to these theories I still don’t know how to use it to my benefit. In my battles to clean up our legal system I have had more positive affect by holding up a sign in front of the courthouse letting the public know the judge was unfair or dishonest than I believe I could have had by standing mute or saying the court does not have jurisdiction over me. I have also used my campaigns for political and judicial office as a soapbox to inform the public to some affect. Maybe someone can use those ideas to gain some advantage. Although it took a lot of patience and the help of Charles Lincoln, Roger Kehew and others, I am proud of our contribution to getting the Montana Supreme Court to come out with the attached opinion using methods that made sense to me.

I carried a couple of bills during the last legislative session that would have helped the system some more. It is too bad they were killed in the process. Would you like to help get similar bills passed in the coming session if I am lucky enough to get re-elected?

Jerry O’Neil
Montana HD 3
406-892-7602

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, History and Civilization, Jeffersonian Democracy, Law, politics, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Uncategorized, V-for-Vendetta

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the Tenth Day of Christmas—An Unprecedented Decision Handed Down in Georgia, 01-03-2012

Posted on January 4, 2012 by | Leave a comment

01-03-2012 Georgia Secretary of State Administrative Court Farrar v Obama order denying motion to dismiss

Yes, I used to be closely involved in the controversy over Obama’s birthplace.  Yes, I personally really and truly do believe that Lucas Daniel Smith brought back and offered some valid evidence that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, even though that kid has caused me some serious trouble.  No, I don’t think that this minor victory (after nearly four years) in a non-constitutional administrative court in Georgia “clears” Orly of suspicion that she acted as a double agent, possibly for a foreign power, or of having acted consistently in support of Obama by making everyone involved in the “right” or “Constitutional” side of the “Birther” controversy look like a raving lunatic (and yes, for a while at least that definitely did include me).  I continue to believe that Obama should not be president, not merely because I believe he was born in Kenya but because he is either a very thinly disguised and deceitful Global Communist-totalitarian or an extremely dishonest International Socialist-totalitarian.  

I also continue to believe, as I wrote in 2009 (09-cv-00082-DOC – Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply 10-01-09) that the First and Ninth Amendments should be construed to guarantee to the American people the uncontested and indisputable right to challenge by judicial action for declaratory judgment and the potential right to obtain injunctive relief relative to the qualifications and actions of all governmental officials, whether elected or unelected.  And it is this last point which I will carry forward with me to the United States Senate if God and the People of California will grant me the right to represent this Golden State and its population in what has been called the world’s greatest deliberative assembly: NO OFFICIAL IMMUNITY EXCEPT FROM SUIT FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM POLITICAL OR GOVERNMENTAL OR LEGAL SPEECH, OPINION, AND DEBATE!  09-cv-00082-DOC – Flast v Cohen Taxpayer + First + Ninth Amendment Standing, 09-cv-00082-DOC Motion for Leave to File Surreply

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Derecho de Amparo, Jeffersonian Democracy, Oriental Despotism, Plato's Republic, Thomas Jefferson, United States Senate

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on December 28, 2011 by | 1 Comment

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

I intend to run on the following statements:

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

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

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

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

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

My specific platform planks are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

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

→ 1 Comment

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why is Senate Bill 1867 so bad? In the Exercise of Absolute Power, Justice Forbids Status Crimes and Requires Blindness to all Categories of People (Prejudicial legal Classification of “Protected” or “Disfavored” Groups ALWAYS violates due process and leads down a short, steep, and very slippery slope straight into Totalitarianism)

Posted on December 3, 2011 by | 7 Comments

Someone named “Jonathan” wrote in and asked: “So I’m just curious to know whether you would extend miranda rights to foreign terrorists operating on American soil? Why should an American who joins say Al Qaeda be entitled to a trial or a lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”***(note below)

My answer to these questions [and the pathetic Senate debate excerpted here from the December 7, 2011 Daily Show with Jon Steward (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development)] is that, contrary to current civil rights practice in the United States, governmentally imposed categories and mandatory categorization of people NEVER promotes equality but ALWAYS tends to support and advance both tyranny and real inequality.  Nobody said it better than Rand Paul: “Detaining citizens without a trial is not American.”

By contrast, voluntary categorization, classification, and all assertions of identity originating from the people are among the surest guarantors and symptoms of freedom and genuine equality.  In fact, I would submit that the voluntary and intentional creation and maintenance of identity is one of the Great Traditions of the United States of America which has defined some of the greatest and most distinctive events in the history of this Continent, from the settlement of the Pilgrim Nonconformist Separatists in New England in the 17th Century through the “Great Awakening” of the 18th Century, the Mormon emigration Westward (and many smaller “separate community, separate lifeway” experiments) in the 19th Century (including the Amish), right up until the Cultural upheaval of the 1960s, when “Hippies” and “Flower Children” sought to give a new meaning to Freedom in America.   The decision to maintain cultural separateness has historically been protected by the United States Supreme Court in the greatest of its “substantive due process” decisions (e.g. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) and Wisconsin v. Yoder,  406 U.S. 205, 232—233 (1972)).**  

I would go so far as to maintain that involuntarily classifying people  or sorting them into “favored” and “disfavored” groups as a matter of law without trial always leads to violations of due process.  No movies or other literature ever illustrated this inherent injustice in the prejudicial and discriminatory processes of classification and labeling people one way or another than V-for-Vendetta in 2005 and Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book in 2006.  

I would also say that the only real PURPOSES people EVER have in classifying their fellow man (and woman) into involuntary groups is to deny them due process, and that this is simply intolerable under the American Constitution.

Note that the Bill of Rights contains no categories of persons, but only restrictions on the power of government: absolutely and unqualifiedly stated.  Rather, Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X refer simply to “the people.”  Amendment V refers to “no person” and “any person”, since criminal prosecutions are almost always, by definition, brought on a one-by-one individual basis.  Even Nazi Germany, for example, never indicted “the Jews”, nor, during the 1950s, were there ever prosecutions against “the Communists”.  Due process of  law simply does not allow for categorical indictments.

Finally, Amendment VI refers only to “the accused”, again an individual classification.  (Despite the customary usage of the masculine gender throughout the bill of rights when referring to individuals, no one has ever suggested that the framers intended these rights only to apply to men: it was the grammatical economy of the time not to say “he and she” or “his and hers” or “him and her” as it is sometimes thought more acceptable to do now.)

So these are the major reasons why, in response to Jonathan’s question, I believe that “Miranda rights” (i.e. the full inventory of rights Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights) should be extended to all “foreign terrorists operating on American soil.”  To do otherwise would be to “prejudge” both who is foreign and who is a terrorist, and would  make both words “foreign” and “terrorists” into prejudicial, disfavored categories exactly analogous to “Negro” under Jim Crow in the South, “Jew” in Nazi Germany, and “Bourgeois” or “Capitalist” in Stalinist Russia.

What the 1996 AEDPA, the 2001 PATRIOT Act, and the Senate in passing S.B. 1867 have done, though, is actually MUCH worse than MERELY “discriminating against foreigners and terrorists” and in fact, much worse than “merely discriminating against, Blacks or Jews or even (to give two give two examples of a super-irrationally feared and overused but extremely vague pair of categories in modern law) “Sex Offender” and “Illegal Immigrant.”  No, the Category of “Terrorist” alone is “void for vagueness” as a matter of law.  See Papachrisou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 169-170 (1972), and Kolender v. Lawson (Kolender v Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1982), attached here in adobe.pdf):

. . . “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903, 103 S. Ct. 1855 (1983). 

(On the whole, the text of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville is more amusing for its analysis of how the distinction between “idle rich” and “vagrant” under the City of Jacksonville, Florida’s “Vagrancy” ordinance blurred into meaninglessness….Papachristou v City of Jacksonville 405 US 156 92 SCt 839 02-24-1972).  ”Terrorism” as a status crime under S.B. 1867 or category of criminal conduct is void for all the same reasons as was “vagrancy.”

What the Senate has done in S.B. 1867 is worse than “mere discrimination” against any of those categorical groups because in each case (Black, Jew, Sex Offender, Illegal Immigrant) there is at least a fairly narrow and objectively determinable set of traits or characteristics which define membership in the group.  There may be ambiguity at the edges, people of mixed race and ethnicity, “sex offenders” convicted of “statutory rape” where the girl lied about her age in  an objectively credible way, cases of “illegal immigration” where family hardship brought or kept people together for mutual support in violation of immigration laws, but on the whole, Blacks, Jews, Illegal Immigrants, and Sex Offenders all know who they are, and they can either “lie low” or decide to leave the country if they are able.

What is so totally monstrous about the category of “terrorist” in particular and “foreigner operating on American soil” is that theses terms are simultaneously vague, overbroad and subject to arbitrary and capricious application to the degree that even racial categories and categories based on convictions for violation of laws are not.    And in the context of modern America, merely calling someone a terrorist MAKES them a terrorist, especially (but not only) when it is a member of the government making the accusation.  To allow denial of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to individuals accused of terrorism is simply to allow the government to deny these rights to anyone it wants, whenever it wants, for any reason it wants.  We now have a “Government of the Dictators, by the Dictators, and For the Dictators” (as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address should honestly and probably have been written).   The dictatorial decision about who is a terrorist is left open—WIDE OPEN.   The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas (Greg Abbott and James Carlton Todd) have been calling the author of this blog a “dangerous paper terrorist” since 2005.  (Yes, I admit it, I have occasionally thrown paper airplanes at government buildings in protest against policies with which I disagree, OK?   So I guess that means I’m off to Guantanamo Bay? or the Domestic Equivalent?   In fact, when arrested by Live Oak at the edge of the Suwannee River on the order of Houston Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes in August 2006, they raised the prospect of Guantanamo Bay for me in Jacksonville, only half joking…at most half….or maybe not at all I’m still not sure, but here I am in West L.A./Santa Monica).   It is not trivial at all.  They have been throwing around these terms like “paper terrorist” ever since 9/11, and the purpose is, frankly, to create an atmosphere of terror and prejudice against the people so labelled.  After that experience, I just “went with it”.  But even in 2005, there was another disbarred attorney (Zena D. Crenshaw NJCDLP “National Judicial Conduct & Disability Project) who came in from Indiana to help Francis Wayne Williams-Montenegro with my family law case in 2005.  She tried to show that the Attorney General was trying to prejudice the Court against me (it was difficult to make the Williamson County 395th Judicial District any more prejudiced against me than it was) by calling me “the most dangerous paper terrorist” in Texas, but it didn’t go anywhere.  Zena rightly predicted that they were trying to sweep all Judicial Reform activists into the category of “terrorists.” In fact, Judicial Reform, Anti-Income Tax/IRS Reform, Prison Reform, Anti-Big Oil Activists, we’re ALL terrorists now.  The FBI has guidelines and we “fit” even before S.B. 1867 became law.  I said to Zena in 2004-5 and I say now that to be accused of anything so preposterous is a “red badge of courage” and I wore it proudly (still do in fact), despite the fact that my saying so on videotape resulted in my getting arrested AGAIN in December 2007 in Mexico City and brought to Los Angeles (this time on the order of Judge Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi, in the same Southern District of Texas in which Judge Lynn N. Hughes sits, and which George H. W. Bush [Bush 41st] calls “home”).

The way “Jonathan’s” questions above are written actually illustrated just how bad S.B. 1867 is: After asking whether I would “extend Miranda Rights to foreign terrorists operation on American soil” (I submit that such rights have existed ever since the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the problem is not “extending” such rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but in taking them away), “Jonathan” then asks: “Why should an American who joins say “Al Qaeda” be entitled to a trial or lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”

This question is probably the scariest of all, if serious and not merely rhetorical. My answer is simple: BECAUSE AN AMERICAN WHO JOINS AL QAEDA IS STILL AN AMERICAN, THAT’S WHY.  But Again, to Repeat, and this is SO IMPORTANT: the Bill of Rights do not discriminate between Citizens and Non-Citizens, Americans and Non-Americans, just “people” and “persons” (so the only categorical distinctions made implicitly, if any, would be those between “people” or “persons” and animals [sorry, PETA][or plants I guess---wheat plants have any Constitutional rights before being eaten...even for arbitrary and capricious purposes as being ground into flour and made into extremely unhealthy and fattening cakes or cookies....]) .

But then that does wrap up this little exercise about why S.B. 1867 is such a very bad law: Americans can be characterized as “terrorists” and reduced to ashes by such categorization.    And it could be that “Jonathan” has more confidence in the meaning of these terms than I do.  I happen to believe that “Al Qaeda” was basically created and established, fostered, aided, and abetted, by the Bush-Reagan administration and set loose to create “domestic terrorism” to justify the very repression of civil liberties which have taken place since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989-90 and the consequent evaporation of the Cold War as a reason for suppressing freedom and the Bill of Rights.  So I think “Al Qaeda” is a government made fraud, that 9/11 was a U.S. government-sponsored “false flag” attack, and that Oklahoma City MAY have been a government-sponsored incident of false terrorism.  (Please view this brilliant 5 minute summary, text also copied below at Note*: http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/)

In support of these hypotheses of mine, I can only point to patterns of history: from 1963-1972, from John F. Kennedy through George Corley Wallace,  a series of public assassinations by public shootings of “troublesome” non-conformist politicians took place in a waive of “lone gunmen” with no precedent in American History, and no tradition that survived.  The failed attacks on Ford and Reagan were just that, failures, and were easily traceable either to Squeaky Fromm/ Manson or John Hinkley personal and family psychological problems.

It is hard to believe that the generation that came of age during the decade 1963-1972 simply bred a series of “lone gunmen” who acted without obvious motive (but all happened to oppose, directly or indirectly, the policies and power of Lyndon Baines Johnson, even though John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and George C. Wallace were all at least nominally allies or at least in the same [Democratic] Party at one time or another, though Wallace ran Third-Party [American Independent] in 1968 and Malcolm X, though he hated all Democrats “categorically” as “Dixiecrats” was partially allied with Johnson on the question of Civil Rights).

It is equally hard to believe that another Decade long episode, namely the series of incidents of Domestic “Terrorism” or at least confrontation between Federal and Private parties that the Government sought to characterize somehow as “terroristic” from Ruby Ridge in 1992-9/11/2001, was merely a historical accident and not planned.  ALL the major terrorist acts since 9/11 have occurred in Europe….THAT is the legacy of 2001-2011.  Every decade has a different set of problems, with no overlap at all between the “Assassination” decade and the “Terrorism” Decade (unless you count the early 70s epidemic of hijacking which led to early restrictions on air-travel as partly overlapping with the decade of assassination).   No, it seems that the Government picks its crisis formula based on what it wants to achieve and then “stages” criminal acts and history accordingly.   So, Jonathan, whoever you are, does this answer your question?  Do you really want to live in a country where they can decide, tomorrow, that YOU are a terrorist and lock you up forever?

****I know only a few Jonathans… I hope that “Jonathan” who is the author of these questions is posing them only for rhetorical purposes to test my commitment to moral consistency and philosophical coherence.  Because, if the author of these questions is serious, and if he reflects widespread opinion in America, then…. I’m even more depressed about the passage of Senate Bill 1867 than I was before.  I can only hope this Jonathan is Dr. Jonathan Harris Levy (Brimstone & Co.)(http://www.brimstoneandcompany.com/), formerly attorney for noted Orange County Dentist Orly Taitz and (the one and only) other William Howard Taft Law School graduate I’ve ever encountered, because that would just confirm my suspicion that Orly supports the 93 bad guys who voted for this bill….  If it’s anyone of any higher level of academic achievement in law than the William Howard Taft Law School involved in presenting these questions, well that’s just demoralizing….

**If we desire homogeneity in this Country, we are well on the way to a “shake and bake” society of people no more different than one box of hamburger helper is from another.  I do not personally desire such homogeneity, but I think it is best left to the people to make voluntary associations and define local color and establish meaningful cultural diversity by devolving power downward rather than concentrating it upward.

Note*:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

(Watch French, German, Spanish or Portuguese translations of this video.)

TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidenceliterally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimonyextracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilitiesand the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

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

→ 7 Comments

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, 9-11 Truth Movement, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, History and Civilization, INCEPTION, Law, Movies & Philosophy, politics, United States Senate, V-for-Vendetta

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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)

Posted on November 27, 2011 by | 1 Comment

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 09-30-2011; Case 8-09-cv-01072-DOC -E Document 86-Part 1—Filed 09-30-2011; Case 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 Montana, 04-03-09 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 08-26-2010, CEL 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.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, California Civil Code 2924, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, Jeffersonian Democracy, Judicial Immunity, Juicio de Amparo, Law, Mortgage Crisis, Non-Judicial Foreclosure, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Social Security, Thomas Jefferson, UCC Perfection of Interests, Uncategorized, United States Senate, V-for-Vendetta

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,