Tag Archives: Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson

Which came first? The crisis of marriage through divorce or the crisis in marriage through governmental regulation and licensing…. Comparing Charles Stanley Thorne’s December 2005 Motion with Mine from April of earlier this year 2012…

Posted on September 16, 2012 by | Leave a comment
Dear Kathy:
          So which came first?  The crisis of marriage through divorce or the crisis in marriage through governmental regulation and licensing…. I want to compare Charles Stanley Thorne’s & Larry Klayman’s December 2005 Motion with what I formulated and you submitted in April of this year: 061205MntoDismiss[1]-JudyEdit 04-13-2012 KAGL Motion to Stay IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
          You have a Ph.D. in psychology.  I have a Ph.D. in anthropology.  Maybe that’s the difference in where we would start analyzing the marital relationship: you are looking (as a psychologist) at the trauma that comes in the end, rather than the social milieu in which a healthy (and stable) relationship might best evolve at the beginning.
         The late great Claude Levi-Strauss was famous for turning around the Marxist presumption and theorem that “the mode of production defines the infrastructure and determines the superstructure” upside down into “the mode of reproduction controls all aspect of social structure, material and ideational.”
          In reviewing what you have here, in Charles Stanley Thorne’s December 2005 Motion, it seems so strange to me that you would not have seen that it is allowing governmental interference with marriage and any aspect of the family relationship itself, not government regulation of divorce, that is at the heart of the problem in the breakdown of the family today.
          The Constitution, First Amendment, Fourth & Fifth Amendments, Seventh, Ninth & Tenth Amendments all guarantee the right to create and enforce private social and economic relations free from governmental interference.
        The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the agreements you make with the government, and buying a state marriage license is indisputably a contract with the government: YOU AGREED TO ALL THE GOVERNMENT’S RULES, just as you did when you signed your application for a Driver’s License, a license to practice psychology, and just as everyone does who applies to practice law.
            The key argument in the old Larry Klayman-Stanley Charles Thorne motion started out with:
           ”And there is no doubt that multiple aspects of the intact family life of Wife and Child have been recognized by the Supreme Court of United States as fundamental or basic civil rights.  Throughout the modern era, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently emphasized the importance of the family and repeatedly described the rights of citizens in marriage, parenting, and family rights as “fundamental” or “basic civil rights.”
               “The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’… ‘basic civil rights of man,’” (citations omitted.)  Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447 (1990).
               “[T]he liberty…to direct the upbringing and education of children, …are among ‘the basic civil rights of man.’” Thornburgh v. American Coll. of Obst. & Gyn., 476 U.S. 747, 773 (1986) (Mr. Justice Stevens, concurring).
               “[O]ne of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ is the right to marry and procreate.” (citations omitted)  Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 463 (1985).
               “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival”… “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”… (citations omitted).  Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383, 384 (1978).
               The “rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’… ‘basic civil rights of man,’”.  Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 771 (1975).
               “[T]here is a right ‘to be free from unwarranted… intrusion… affecting… the decision whether to bear or beget a child.’…  [M]aternity leave rules directly affect ‘one of the basic civil rights of man.’” (citations omitted.)  Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974).
               “The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed essential … basic civil rights of man… far more precious … than property rights…” Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).
               “[T]he right ‘to marry, establish a home and bring up children,’… and ‘the liberty to direct the upbringing and education of children,’… are among ‘the basic civil rights of man.’” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 503 (1965)(Mr. Justice White, concurring.)
               “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children.  This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972).
               “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents. … The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, … the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment …” (citations omitted).  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).

From these and other cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has articulated a long, but not exhaustive, list of parental rights.  “The liberty interest at issue… care, custody, and control of their children… establish a home and bring up children… control the education… direct the upbringing and education… nurture him and direct his destiny… prepare him for additional obligations… custody, care, and nurture… companionship, care, custody, and management… [I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, (2000).

        The political problem is this: people want to have their cakes and eat them too.  They want free dating, free love, free sex, and to marry ONLY for love, on the one hand, and the OLD system of marriage by contract interferes with that.
        You see, if women know in advance (“ex-ante”) that their security comes from their social relations rather than from their political dependency on the government, they simply will not engage in free sex before marriage (or not nearly so much) in circumstances such as existed 100 years ago in this country when virginity itself was once and could again be a “commodity” that a woman can offer in exchange for a contractual promise of support, along with her fertility and child-rearing capacity.
        And if women jealously guard and treasure their virginity and fertility as a “security” for their future, then the marriage contract is a “secured transaction” and has to involve a lot more in the way of substantive promises enforceable or secured by property on the part of the man.  And parents would be much more interested in the economic relations of their children’s marital arrangements because THEIR security in turn would potentially and really depend on such relations.  It is the WELFARE STATE that has broken all these ties of design and individual interdependence.
         This is the most fundamental of social contracts which Marxist-feminists do not like or want to admit.  I was born in 1960 and as a teenager I certainly enjoyed my share (some would say quite a bit more than my share) of the benefits of the “sexual revolution”.  And then, as has happened to so many men of my own and adjoining generations, the moral but entirely logical and practical consequences of this lifestyle came around to bite me in the posterior parts.  You haven’t talked to me in detail about your premarital life but I definitely get the impression that you and I belong to the same generation in every sense.
         My wife Elena turned from me to the “death to all organic social relations” Marxist-trained social-workers, counsellors, Lawyer-Judges and the Socialist State, of which Brooklyn-born Hungarian-speaking CIA Operative Edward Barna Kurjack was an integral part, and thus much more “reliable” than me as a source of support and advice.
         But if you look at the Supreme Court opinion excerpts and passages you (Messers Thorne & Klayman) quoted here below—none of which was strung together in any kind of a coherent argument so far as I can tell—IT IS ALL ABOUT MARRIAGE and CHILDBEARING-CHILDREARING needing to be free from state regulation, not about divorce needing to more heavily regulated.
          These people really made an abysmal argument, and the Motion to Dismiss was a less advantageous format because “Motions to Dismiss” do not require evidence—they are all legal argument—and there was no request for a hearing or proffer of evidence.  Compare it with what we wrote in April—
         ”Nor has Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson ever been afforded the right to amend her pleadings in accordance with her constitutional objections and challenges to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, Respondent here and now further requests that this Court acknowledge, affirm, and enforce her right under Article I, §§1, 2, 3, but especially §5 (Right to Instruct Representatives and to Petition for Redress of Grievances), §9 (Due Process of Law) and §21 (the “Open Courts” provision) of the Florida Constitution to amend her pleadings, conduct discovery (Art. I, §24), file pre-trial (and, unlike under Judge Oftedal, have a full and fair hearing on all) motions (including but not limited to Constitutional questions of both substance and procedure[1]), and otherwise to prepare try her constitutional and jurisdictional challenges related to the current Florida Statutory Scheme for the Dissolution of Marriage.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson submits that seven years is too long already, and that she should no longer have to wait to challenge and deny the power of the State of Florida so to intrude upon her fundamental rights as to design and enforce upon her a Family Law Jurisdiction and application of judicial process without consent to deny her (1) right to petition, (2) right to privately contract, (3) right to due process of law, (4) right to a trial-by-jury, (5) rights and powers reserved to her as one of the American people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
       ”Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has already collected statistical and documentary evidence which she would have plead and presented by and through expert witnesses and testimony (long ago) to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, had she been allowed to do so by Judge Richard L. Oftedal, which shows that Florida Courts automatically grant 100% petitions for divorce without regard to any principal or standard other than that to allege that a marriage is irretrievably broken is taken as sufficient proof of the same as a matter of both fact and law.
         ”Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would also have argued that such a system was enacted by the Florida Legislature without legitimate or even colorable constitutional authority, then enforced by the State Judges and “officers of the Court,” and applied to her in defiance of all constitutional and statutory law, and in violation of her rights guaranteed under the Federal and Florida Constitutions to rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom from both state impairment of the obligations of contract and takings of liberty and process in violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
        “Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would further have pled and proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence, or even by clear and convincing evidence had she been allowed discovery and a trial-by-jury, that the state statutory scheme by which Florida marriages are licensed is itself unconstitutional.
     ”Respondent would further have pled and proved that these unconstitutionally authorized (statutory) dissolution proceedings for unconstitutionally licensed marriage unconstitutionally creates an institutional double-nullity (a wrongfully dissolved marriage, which marriage offended the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishment of religious sacraments, such as the sacrament of marriage, ab initio).
      “The institutional (and unconstitutional, strictly extra-constitutional and statutory) double-nullity of State Created and State Dissolved Marriage effects only cultural, social, and economic destruction of obscene proportions, without redeeming positive practical value or importance of any kind.
      “Unconstitutional State Licensing of Marriage followed by unconstitutionally forced dissolution of that licensed marriage is, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson contends, precisely the kind of law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof which the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights in Article I of the Florida Constitution were BOTH designed to prevent.
[1]           This Court should be aware that Judge Oftedal, on the record, refused to hear or rule upon any constitutional issues in his court, which is surely a denial of Kathy Ann Garcia’s rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions of Florida and the United States.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

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

Can the Family be Saved as the Core Institution of Society? As the family goes, so go private property and the State. Friedrich Engels saw this at the birth of Communism when he wrote “The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State.” AmRen Review of a recent French critique of the Sexual Revolution—into which I was born and in which I grew up, along with most other Americans…

Posted on July 13, 2012 by | Leave a comment

Sex and Derailment

 Michael O’Meara, American Renaissance, June 29, 2012

SexAndDerailment
How the sexual revolution is destroying the West.

Guillaume Faye, Sexe et dévoiement, Éditions du Lore, 2011, €26.00, 376 pp, (soft cover, in French). 

Four years after Guillaume Faye’s La Nouvelle question juive (The New Jewish Question, 2007) alienated many of his admirers and apparently caused him to retreat from identitarianism and Euro-nationalism, his latest work signals a definite return, reminding us of why he remains one of the most creative thinkers defending the future of the white race.

In this 400-page book, which is an essay and not a work of scholarship, Mr. Faye’s central concern is the family, and the catastrophic impact the rising number of divorces and broken households is having on white demographic renewal. In linking family decline to its demographic and civilizational consequences, he dissects the larger social pathologies associated with the “inverted” sexuality now disfiguring European life. These pathologies include the de-virilization and feminization of white men, the normalization of homosexuality, feminist androgyny, Third-World colonization, miscegenation, the loss of bio-anthropological norms (like the blond Jesus)—and all that comes with the denial of biological reality.

At the core of Mr. Faye’s argument is the contention that sexuality constitutes a people’s fundamental basis; it governs its reproduction and ensures its survival. Thus, it is the key to any analysis of contemporary society.

As the ethologist Konrad Lorenz and the anthropologist/social theorist Arnold Gehlen (both of whom have influenced Mr. Faye) have demonstrated, there is nothing automatic or spontaneous in human sexuality, as it is in other animals. Man’s body may be like those of the higher mammals, but it is also a cultural, plastic one with few governing instincts. Socioeconomic, ideological, and emotional imperatives play a major role in shaping human behavior, especially in the higher civilizations.

Given, moreover, that humanity is no monolith, there can be no universal form of sexual behavior, and thus the sexuality, like everything else, of Europeans differs from that of non-Europeans. In the United States and Brazil, for example, the sexual practices and family forms of blacks are still very unlike those of whites, despite ten generations in these European-founded countries. Every form of sexuality, Mr. Faye argues, stems from a specific bioculture (a historically-defined “stock”), which varies according to time and people. Human behavior is thus for him always the result of a native, inborn ethno-psychology, historically embodied in cultural, religious, and ideological superstructures.

The higher, more creative the culture the more sexuality also tends to depend on fragile, individual factors—such as desire, libido, self-interest—in contrast to less developed cultures, whose reproduction relies more on collective and instinctive factors. High cultures consequently reproduce less and low cultures more, though the latter suffer far greater infant mortality (an equilibrium that was upset only in the 20th century, when high cultures intervened to reduce the infant mortality of lower cultures, thereby setting off today’s explosive Third-World population growth).

Despite these differences and despite the world’s great variety of family forms and sexual customs, the overwhelming majority of peoples and races nevertheless prohibit incest, pedophilia, racially mixed marriages, homosexual unions, and “unparented” children.

By contravening many of these traditional prohibitions in recent decades, Western civilization has embarked on a process that Mr. Faye calls derailment, which is evident in the profound social and mental pathologies that follow the inversion of  “natural” (i.e., historic or ancient) norms—inversions that have been legitimized in the name of morality, freedom, and equality.

Sexe et dévoiement is an essay, then, about the practices and ideologies currently affecting European sexuality and about how these practices and ideologies are leading Europeans into a self-defeating struggle against nature—against their nature, upon which their biocivilization rests.

The Death of the Family

Since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, expressions of egalitarianism and a nihilistic individualism have helped undermine the family, bringing it to the critical stage it has reached today. Of these, the most destructive for Mr. Faye has been the ideology of libidinal love (championed by the so-called “sexual liberation” movement of the period), which confused recreational sex with freedom, disconnected sex from reproduction, and treated traditional social/cultural norms as forms of oppression.

The “liberationists” of the 1960s—the first generation raised on TV—were linked to the New Left, which saw all restraint as oppressive and all individuals as interchangeable. They were convinced that all things were possible, as they sought to free desire from the “oppressive” mores of what Mr. Faye calls the “bourgeois family.”

This ‘60s-style sexual liberation, he notes, was “Anglo-Saxon” in origin, motivated by a shift from prudery to the opposite extreme. Originally, this middle-class, Protestant prudery confined sexuality to the monogamous nuclear family, which represented a compromise between individual desire and familial interests. This compromise preserved the family line and reared children to carry it on.

In the 1960s, when the Boomers came of age, the puritans passed to the other extreme, jettisoning their sexual “squeamishness” and joining the movement to liberate the libido. In practice, this meant abolishing conjugal fidelity, heterosexual dominance, “patriarchy,” and whatever taboos opposed the feel-good “philosophy” of the liberationists. As the Sorbonne’s walls proclaimed in ‘68: “It’s prohibited to prohibit.” The “rights” of individual desire and happiness would henceforth come at the expense of all the prohibitions that had formerly made the family viable. Mr. Faye does not mention it, but American-style consumerism was beginning to take hold in Western Europe at the same time, promoting self-indulgent materialism and the pursuit of pleasure.

Americans pioneered the ideology of sexual liberation, along with gay pride and the porn industry, but a significant number of “ordinary” white Americans resist their elites’ anti-traditional sexual ideology. Salt Lake City here prevails over Las Vegas. The Washington Leviathan nevertheless continues to use these ideologies and practices to subvert non-liberal societies, though not always with success: The Russians have rebuffed “international opinion” and refuse to tolerate gay pride parades.

Europeans, by contrast, have been qualitatively more influenced by the “libertine revolutionaries,” and Mr. Faye’s work speaks more to Europeans than to Americans, though it seems likely that the European experience will sooner or later come to the United States.

Against the backdrop of ‘60s-style sexual liberation, personal sexual relations were reconceived as a strictly individualistic and libidinal “love,” based on the belief that this highly inflated emotional state was too important to limit to conjugal monogamy. Marriages based on impulsive sexual attractions and the “hormonal tempests” they set off have since become the tomb not just of stable families, but increasingly of Europe herself.

For with this adolescent cult of sexualized love that elevates the desires of the solitary individual above his communal and familial duties, there comes another kind of short-sighted, feel-good liberal ideology that destroys collective imperatives: the cult of human rights. This flood of discourses and laws promoting brotherhood and anti-racism are synonymous with de-virilizition, ethnomaschoism, and the destruction of Europe’s historic identity.

Romantic love, which is impulsive on principle, and sexual liberation have destroyed stable families. This “casino of pleasure” may be passionate, but it is also ephemeral and compelled by egoism. Indeed, almost all sentiments grouped under the rubric of love, Mr. Faye contends, are egoistic and self-interested. Love in this sense is an investment from which one expects a return—one loves to be loved. A family of this kind is thus one inclined to allow superficial or immediate considerations to prevail over established, time-tested ones. Similarly, the rupture of such conjugal unions seems almost unavoidable, for once the pact of love is broken—and a strictly libidinal love always fades—the union dissolves.

The death of the “oppressive” bourgeois family at the hands of the  emancipation movements of the ‘60s has given rise to unstable stepfamilies, no-fault divorce, teenage mothers, single-parent homes, abandoned children, homosexual “families,” unisex ideology, new sexual categories, and an increasingly isolated and frustrated individual delivered over almost entirely to his own caprices.

The egoism governing such love-based families produces few children. To the degree that married couples today even want children, it seems to Mr. Faye less for the sake of sons and daughters to continue the line and more for the sake of a baby to pamper, a living toy that is an adjunct to their consumerism. And since the infant is idolized in this way, parents feel little responsibility for disciplining him. They subscribe to the “cult of the child,” which considers children to be “noble savages” rather than beings that need instruction.

The result is that children lack self-control and an ethic of obedience. Their development is compromised and their socialization neglected. These post-‘60s families also tend to be short lived, which means children are frequently traumatized by broken homes, raised by single parents or in stepfamilies, where their intellectual development is stunted and their blood ties confused. Without stable families and a sense of lineage, they lose all sense of ethnic or national consciousness and fail to understand why miscegenation and immigration ought to be opposed. The destruction of stable families, Mr. Faye surmises, bears directly on the present social-sexual chaos and the impending destruction of Europe’s racial stock.

Against the sexual liberationists, Mr. Faye upholds the model of the past. Though perhaps no longer possible, the stable couples of the bourgeois family structure put familial and communal interests over amorous ones, to the long-term welfare of both the couple and the children. Conjugal love came, as a result, to be impressed with friendship, partnership, and habitual attachments, for the couple was not defined as a self-contained amorous symbiosis, but as the pillar of a larger family architecture. This made conjugal love moderate and balanced rather than passionate. It was sustained by habit, tenderness, interest, care of the children, and la douceur du foyer (“the comforts of home”). Sexual desire remained, but in most cases declined in intensity or dissipated in time.

This family structure was extraordinarily stable. It assured the lineage, raised properly-socialized children, respected women, and won the support of law and custom. There were, of course, compromises and even hypocrisies (as men satisfied libidinal urgings in brothels), but in any case the family, the basic cell of society, was protected—even privileged.

The great irony of sexual liberation and its ensuing destruction of the bourgeois family is that it has obviously not brought greater happiness or freedom, but rather greater alienation and misery. In this spirit, the media now routinely (almost obsessively) sexualizes the universe, but sex has become more virtual than real: There is more pornography but fewer children. Once the “rights” of desire were emancipated, sex took on a different meaning, the family collapsed, sexual identity was increasingly confused, and perversions and transgressions became greater and more serious. As everyone set off in pursuit of an illusory libidinal fulfillment, the population became correspondently more atomized, uprooted, and miscegenated. In France today, 30 percent of all adults are single and there are even reports of a new “asexuality” in reaction to the sexualization of everything.

There is a civilization-destroying tragedy here: for, once Europeans are deprived of their family lineage, they cease to transmit their cultural and genetic heritage and thus lose all sense of who they are. This is critical to everything else. As the historians Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder write: “The family is one of the most archaic forms of social community, and at all times men have used the family as a model for the formation of human societies.” The loss of family stability, and thus the collapse of the family as society’s basic cell, Mr. Faye emphasizes, not only dissolves social relations, it brings disorder and makes all tyrannies possible. Once sexual emancipation helps turn society into a highly individualized, Balkanized mass, totalitarianism—not Soviet or fascist, but US progressive—becomes increasingly likely.

The Idolatry of Homosexuality

Homophilia and feminism are the most important children of the cultural revolution. They share, as such, much of the same ideological baggage that denies biological realities and makes war on the family. Mr. Faye claims that in the late 1960s, when homosexuals began demanding legal equality, they were fully within their rights. Homosexuality in his view is a genetic affliction affecting fewer than 5 percent of males, but he does not object to homosexuals practices within the privacy of the bedroom. What he finds objectionable is the confusion of private and public realms and the assertion of homophilia as a social norm. Worse, he claims that in much elite discourse, homosexuals have quickly gone from being pariahs to privileged beings, who flaunt their alleged “superiority” over heterosexuals, who are seen as old-fashioned, outmoded, ridiculous. Heterosexuals are like women who center their lives on the care of children rather than on a career, and are thus something bizarre and implicitly opposed to liberal-style “emancipation.”

Mr. Faye, who is by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality is considerably different from and less damaging than male homosexuality. Most lesbians, in his view, are bisexual, rather than purely homosexual, and for whatever reason have turned against men. This he sees as a reflection on men. Even in traditional societies, women who engaged in homosexuality retained their femininity and so were not so shocking as their male counterparts. By contrast, male homosexuality was considered abhorrent, because it violated the nature of masculinity, making men no longer “properly” male and thus something mutant. To those who evoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Mr. Faye, a long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult male ever achieved respectability if he was not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan, and, above all, was never to be “made of woman,” i.e., penetrated.

Like feminism, homophilia holds that humans are bisexual at birth and, willfully or not, choose their sexual orientation—as if anatomical differences are insignificant and all humans are a blank slate upon which they inscribe their self-chosen “destiny.” This view lacks any scientific credibility, to be sure, even if it is professed in our elite universities.  Like anti-racism, it denies biological realities incompatible with the reigning dogmas. Facts, though, have rarely stood in the way of faith or ideology—or, in the way of secular 20th-century ideologies that have become religious faiths.

Despite its progressive and emancipatory pretensions, homophilia, like sexual liberation in general, is entirely self-centered and indifferent to future and past, promoting “lifestyles” hostile to family formation and thus to white reproduction. Homophilia here marches hand in hand with anti-racism, denying the significance of biological differences and the imperatives of white survival.

This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males. Except, Mr. Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexuality is often a Calvary—and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to a reproductive and genetic dead end.

In its public displays as gay pride, homophilia defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile, thus revealing those traits specific to its abnormal condition. In any case, a community worthy of itself, Mr. Faye tells us, is founded on shared values, on achievements, on origins—not on a dysgenic sexual orientation.

Schizophrenic Feminism

The reigning egalitarianism is always extending itself, trying to force genuine sexuality, individuality, demography, race, etc., to conform to its tenets. The demand that women have the same legal rights and opportunities as men, Mr. Faye thinks, was entirely just, especially for Europeans—and especially Celtic, Scandinavian, and Germanic Europeans—for their cultures have long respected the humanity of women. Indeed, he considers legal equality the single great accomplishment of feminism. But feminism has since been transformed into another utopian egalitarianism that makes sexes, like races, equivalent and interchangeable. Mr. Faye, though, refuses to equate legal equality with natural equality, for such an ideological muddling denies obvious biological differences, offending both science and common sense.

The dogma that differences between men and women are simply cultural derives from a feminist behaviorism in which women are seen as potential men, and femininity is treated as a social distortion. In Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one.” Feminists therefore affirm the equality and interchangeability of men and women, yet at the same time they reject femininity, which they consider something inferior and imposed. The feminist model is thus the man, and feminism’s New Woman is simply his “photocopy.” In trying to suppress the specifically feminine in this way, feminism aims to masculinize women and feminize men in the image of its androgynous ideal.

Justin Beiber

This is like the anti-racist ideal of the mixed race or half-caste. This unisex ideology characterizes the mother as a slave and the devoted wife as a fool. In practice, it even rejects the biological functions of the female body, aspiring to a masculinism that imitates men and seeks to emulate them socially, politically, and otherwise. Feminism is anti-feminine—anti-mother and anti-family—and ultimately anti-reproduction.

Anatomical differences, however, have consequences. Male humans, like males of other species, always differ from females and behave differently. Male superiority in achievement—conceptual, mathematical, artistic, political, and otherwise—is often explained away as the result of female oppression. Mr. Faye rejects this, though he acknowledges that in many areas of life, for just or unjust reasons, women do suffer disadvantages; many non-whites practice outright subjugation of women. Male physical strength may also enable men to dominate women. But generally, Mr. Faye sees a rough equality of intelligence between men and women. Their main differences, he contends, are psychological and characterological, for men tend to be more outwardly oriented than women. As such, they use their intelligence more in competition, innovation, and discovery. They are usually more aggressive, more competitive, more vain and narcissistic than women who, by contrast, are more inclined to be emotionally loyal, submissive, prudent, temperate, and far-sighted.

Men and women are better viewed as organic complements, rather than as inferior or superior. From Homer to Cervantes to Mme. de Stäel, the image of women, their realms and their work, however diverse and complicated, have differed from that of men. Women may be able to handle most masculine tasks, but at the same time their disposition differs from men, especially in the realm of creativity.

This is vitally important for Mr. Faye. In all sectors of practical intelligence they perform as well as men, but not in their capacity for imaginative projection, which detaches and abstracts one’s self from contingent reality for the sake of imagining another. This is true in practically all areas: epic poetry, science, invention, religion, even cuisine and design. It is not from female brains, he notes, that have emerged submarines, space flight, philosophical systems, great political and economic theories, and the major scientific discoveries (Mme. Curie being the exception). Most of the great breakthroughs have been made by men and it has had nothing to do with women being oppressed. Feminine dreams are simply not the same as masculine ones, which search the impossible, the risky, the unreal.

Mme. Curie, French-Polish physicist and chemist.

Akin, then, in spirit to homophilia, anti-racism, and ‘60s-style sexual liberation, feminism’s rejection of biological realities and its effort to masculinize women end up not just distorting what it supposedly champions—women—it reveals its totally egoistic and present-oriented nature, for it rejects women as mothers and thus rejects the reproduction of the race.

Conclusion

Sexe et dévoiement treats a variety of other issues: Christian and Islamic views of sexuality; immigration and the different sexual practices it brings, some of which are extremely primitive and brutal; the role of prostitution; and the effect new bio-technologies will have on sexuality.

From the above discussion of the family, homophilia, and feminism, the reader should already sense the direction of Mr. Faye’s arguments, as he relates individual sexuality to certain macro-changes now forcing European civilization off its rails. His perspective is especially illuminating in that he is one of very few authors who link the decline of the white race to larger questions of civilization, sex, and demography.

Nevertheless I would make several criticisms. Like the European New Right as a whole, he tends to be overly simplistic in attributing the origins of the maladies he depicts to the secularization of certain Christian notions, such as equality and love. He also places the blame for undesirable social/economic developments on cultural/ideological influences rather than depicting a more realistic dialectical relationship of mutual causation. Likewise, he fails to consider the ethnocidal effects on Europe of America’s imperial supremacy, with its post-European rules of behavior and its anti-Christian policies.

But having said that—and after having written reviews of many of Guillaume Faye’s works over the last 10 years, and reading many other books that have made me more critical of aspects of his thought—I think whatever his “failings,” they pale in comparison to the light he sheds on the ethnocidal forces now bearing down on the white race.

TOPICS: , , , 

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

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

Curbing (Abolishing) Official Immunity for Federal and State Officers: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, following where Senators Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond of North & South Carolina led the way

Posted on February 19, 2012 by | Leave a comment

The “law” of absolute judicial immunity not only cannot be found in the Constitution nor in any statute, but in fact offends the Constitution and common sense, when articulated as follows:

     Judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities.  Immunity exists for “judicial” actions; those relating to a function normally performed by a judge and where the parties understood they were dealing with the judge in his official capacity. 
      The policy behind this principle is that judges must be free to act in a manner they view proper without fear of subsequent personal liability.  This rule is deemed essential to preserve judicial independence.  
       A judge’s errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not have to fear that dissatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.
      The immunity afforded judges is quite broad and applies to all acts performed in the exercise of judicial functions. Judges are immune from liability even for corrupt or malicious acts. Liability exists only where a judge acted in the “clear absence” of all jurisdiction or performed an administrative task not embraced within the judge’s judicial duties.
Olney v. Sacramento Bar Association, 212 Cal.App.3d 807, 260 Cal.Rptr. 842 (July 28, 1989)(citations omitted).

Obviously, being a judge by these standards rights right up there with the Divine Right of Kings or even divinity itself!  Nice work if you can get it, I guess, but can we tolerate such immunity for judges, prosecutors, and even (effectively) for the police and other officers of executive and judicial function if we are to remain in any sense a free society?  “Jurisdiction” limits judicial power, as do doctrines of “judicial discretion”—but if immunity remains absolute, regardless, and only clumsy, indirect, highly technical, and cumbersome appellate remedies exist, do judges not in fact rise higher in the real power hierarchy of earth than all the gods of the Ancient Nile, Greek Olympus and Norse Valhalla combined, inferior only to the One Creator of the Universe, who for unknown reasons rarely intervenes directly in human affairs?

I oppose all sorts of official immunity: executive, legislative, and judicial, but I especially deplore and oppose absolute immunity for judges to take actions without jurisdiction which infringe upon or violate constitutional rights.  If elected to the United States Senate, I promise to fight vigorously to construe all civil rights laws to apply to judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as to executive “police actions” and legislatively authorized derogations from the Bill of Rights and other fundamental constitutional protections.  I will work to strengthen and ensure the colorblind, race neutral, application and construction of 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, which the Courts currently only apply and construe in favor of African-Americans (and occasionally but atypically Hispanics or Asians) against Whites.   White Caucasian Americans must have equal rights to assert violations of their Civil Rights, even when the civil rights involve commercial,  contractual, or proprietary violations rather than race-based violations, but as I have often stated on this blog, I do contend that the judicial constructions of 28 U.S.C. §1443 and 42 U.S.C. §1981-1982 actually DO constitute race-based infringements upon the equal rights of White Caucasian Americans to invoke the provisions of these statutes in their own defense in cases of non-race-based discrimination and oppression under color of law.  But now on to the general concept of immunity, and the roles of Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond in fighting these concepts.

“POLITICAL PROCESS” labels the mechanism by which societies allocate decision-making authority.  ”AUTHORITY” means “POWER”.  ”POWER without CONSEQUENCES FOR ABUSE” defines “ABSOLUTE POWER”, and “ABSOLUTE POWER” equates (in societies possessing relatively well-developed judicial systems) with “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” from civil suit or criminal prosecution for official derogations, deviations, excessive use or application, infringement, or violations of any stated limits on power or action, especially when these result in the derogation, infringement, or violation of the rights or powers of others.   English Political language contains an ancient aphorism that “Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.”  In my opinion, that aphorism needs to be expanded as a constitutional norm that “Absolute Immunity corrupts Absolutely.”  And the simple truth is that in modern America, both Federal and State Officers, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, possess something very close to absolutely immunity for all crimes, torts, and violations of the constitution which they may choose to commit in their “official capacity.”  

This problem stands as a central focus of my life and career since at least 1995 when I first perceived that Family Court Judges in Texas possessed unreasonable power and discretion to infringe on the Constitutional rights of litigants in family court actions, and that the law itself, through such hopelessly vague concepts as the statutory power of Family Court Judges to rule “in the best interests of the child” when a marriage is “irretrievably broken” constituted a wild derogation from the constitutional norms of due process of law applicable in every other field.  ”Best interests of the child”, and/or “irretrievably broken” as formally enacted statutory norms, constitute extreme legislative breaches and violation of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, in my humble opinion.

On February 15, 2012, an opinion came down from a Florida District Court of Appeal which reversed a final decision rendered 19 days after my fiftieth birthday in 2010, on the grounds that “the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to render a final order disposing of the case.”  ”A trial court lacks jurisdiciton to render a final order while an appeal from a non-final order in the same case is pending and, if the trial court does so, the final order is a nullity.”  ”A trial court may proceed in a cause pending a non-final appeal and dispose of any matter not in form or effect interfering with the power and authority of the appellate court to make its jurisdiction effective, but the trial court may do so only short of final disposition.”  “This may all sound like legal gobbledegook to some…but jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  Many other aspects of this case offer promise and possess extreme interest to all who care deeply about the Constitution as a guiding light for the life of the United States of America, but those aspects must await the briefing of a Motion for Rehearing and, eventually, remand to the Circuit Court from whence this particular appeal arose.

In citing and quoting this very recent decision of an intermediate appellate court in Florida, I mean only to ask the question: should a judge so described by his immediate court of appeals not be held personally liable for acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction?  If his actions caused harm, why should any immunity at all attach to “judicial conduct” undertaken without jurisdiction, since “jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  

Only the bravest and most eccentric and idiosyncratic of all recent politicians have ever dared to confront the question of immunity head on.  Among these are Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond.

The Senatorial career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin began and ended with questions of legislative and executive immunity, respectively, which rocked the nation between 1954 and 1974, respectively, namely the investigations into the conduct of Wisconsin Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy (1908-1957) and President Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994).  

Ervin’s 1954 role in leading to the censure of Senator McCarthy for making irresponsible allegations constitutes a curious (and effectively unique) abrogation of or exception to the most basic and fundamental concepts of “legislative immunity” in that McCarthy’s conduct which Ervin’s inquiry deemed “censurable” occurred almost entirely in the context of Senate Debate’s and proceedings, and consisted entirely of verbal conduct.  In that sense, McCarthy’s censure differed from all but one of the other nine censures rendered by the Senate in United States history, which mostly commonly have concerned non-debate related issues such as financial irregularities (Hiram Bingham 1929, Thomas J. Todd 1967, Herman Talmadge 1979, and David Durenberger 1990), physically fighting on the Senate Floor (Benjamin R. Tillman and John L. McLaurin 1902) and breaches of secrecy (Timothy Pickering 1811 and Benjamin Tappan 1844).  Of these eight, only Pickering’s conduct, a breach of secrecy during 1811, actually occurred on the Senate floor during Senate debates, and even so was only very vaguely comparable to the censure against McCarthy.  Senator Sam Ervin’s role in leading the censure of McCarthy is notable as the most severe censure ever for conduct almost clearly within the meaning of the Constitution’s Article I “debates” clause (protecting members of the U.S. House and Senate as “be[ing] privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  In this connexion I consider Ervin’s role in prosecuting McCarthy historymaking: it shows (or at least suggests) that members of Congress must be held responsible for their role in obstructing or interfering with justice (and other constitutional rights) even while participating in senate proceedings.

As important and historical as Ervin’s early work with the investigation of Joseph McCarthy may have been), Ervin achieved immortality by his monumental and most memorable role on the world stage as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, 1973-1974. Richard Milhous Nixon’s extremely ambiguous place in United States and World history began as a communist-baiter (in the House, largely contemporaneous with McCarthy’s in the Senate), but ended as a communist-appeaser (seeking “Detente” with the Soviet Union and beginning the “sellout” of America to Maoist China), whom the Senate (including Republicans such as Barry Goldwater) forced to resign because of a twisted and bizarre serial episode of abuses of Presidential power in connexion with the Watergate Scandal.  Senator Sam Ervin earned worldwide reverence as  advocate for the nation’s conscience while this writer was in High School in Hollywood, California.  Senator Sam Ervin’s final year in the Senate oversaw the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, in large part due to Sam Ervin’s commitment AGAINST Executive Privilege (as Nixon referred to his claim of immunity from prosecution or even inquiry regarding his domestic actions taken as President against American citizens in the name of National Security).  

As an aside, I pledge that if I should achieve election to the United States Senate—Senator Sam Ervin would serve as my role-model on almost every issue.  I would fight both legislative and executive immunity and simultaneously uphold the Bill of Rights against all legislative infractions including the “no knock” laws which Ervin fought, which have now become routine nationwide.  Ervin, like his South Carolina cohort Strom Thurmond, feared the advent of the Police State in America long before it became fashionable or even acceptable to do so among most of the Southern and Western U.S. Middle Class—who have a terrible habit of confusing and conflating their perfectly reasonable political opposition to cultural social change with a need for legal repression and suspension of the Constitution.   All constitutionalists must deplore such confusion and conflation, for without the Constitutional protections for our freedom, no hope remains for our traditional cultural or social norms whatsoever.

Now, ironically enough, everything that Nixon did (and covered up) during Watergate is now not only legal, in the aftermath of Federal “National Security” legislation passed in 1996-2011), but Nixon’s (and his White House staff’s) conduct and career of constitutional infringements and violations pales and seems of little consequence or importance compared with what President’s now have “statutory authority” to do.  The recent National Defense Authorization Act, in particular, provides legislative statutory authority for the president to order “indefinite detention” of “terrorists” which (as a pair of connected concepts subject to wildly abusive application) is exactly analogous to the vaguest provisions of family law mentioned above regarding judicial authority to rule and render in the “best interests of the child” whenever a marriage is “irretrievably broken.”

I have in any event focused on the career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin because he was one of my first “media heroes” and I first dreamed of studying and applying myself to the resuscitation of American Constitutional Law while watching him preside over the Watergate hearings.

Less known and less famous (and much less politically correct in the modern context) to celebrate is Senator Sam Ervin’s role as the co-author of the “Southern Manifesto” with Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Richard Russell of Georgia.   The “politically correct” way to look at this document requires calling it a reactionary racist response to Brown v. Board of Education and the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court of the United States requiring school desegregation.  But forced desegregation and integration caused social chaos, first in the South, and only slightly later in the North, causing murderous race-riots even in such “liberal” citadels as Boston, Massachusetts through the mid-1970s.   Just as I have often observed that Brazil never experienced anything approaching the level of racial hatred or tensions known in the United States, precisely because emancipation took place gradually and without force there in the Brazilian Empire (and in fact in every nation of the Americas EXCEPT first Haiti and then the United States), the use of force to accelerate the implementation of social change is almost always destructive.

The authors of the Southern Manifesto saw this destructive waive being unleashed by the Supreme Court in America, and they also perceived, correctly, that pitting black against white constituted a means of destabilizing society and increasing the power of the Federal government (in particular) over the people, and of accelerating the empowerment of the police state.  

The authors of the Southern Manifesto against forced school-integration rightly focused their criticisms on Chief Justice Earl Warren.  

As I like to point out, Earl Warren’s life-long commitment to civil rights manifested itself early on in his career as Attorney General and Governor of California when he supervised the hateful and purposeless, in fact counterproductive, internment of hundreds of thousands of (as the newsreels of the time and even early “Batman” movies recited over and over again) “shifty-eyed Japs”, the Second Generation or “Nisei” as they called themselves during World War II.  

In any event, Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond led the ultimately failing Southern Resistance against Earl Warren’s Court and what became, effectively, America’s Second “War Between the States”, although this time more ink spilled in the Courtrooms than blood on the streets.

For purposes of this present topic of immunity, I will end with my repeated hymn of praise to Senator Strom Thurmond for his crafty drafting of the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a).   The United States had handed down its most dramatic and emphatic “anti-Judicial Immunity” opinion in 1984, in the decision of Pulliam v. Allen, which has been my personal favorite Supreme Court decision for more than a quarter of a century now.  Pulliam v Allen 466 US 522 104 SCt 1970 80 LEd2d 565 (May 14 1984).  In 1996, Strom Thurmond proposed a relatively minor amendment to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 & 1988 to clarify the application of this provision to judicial officers.  Under Thurmond’s leadership, Congress amended the Civil Rights Statute to clarify that judges would only be liable for judicial actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction” in the statute, and this language exactly tracks Justice Blackmun’s language in his opinion in Pulliam v. Allen (footnote 12) which reviews the tradition of limiting judicial immunity to matters “clearly within their cognizance” or “clearly within their jurisdiction”, in full (Blackmun here was in fact quoting Blackstone!).  Writing of the Judges of England, Blackstone in Volume 3 of his commentaries at pages 112-113 stated that if these Judges,

in handling of matters clearly within their cognizance, they transgress the bounds prescribed to them by the laws of England; as where they require two witnesses to prove the payment of a legacy, a release of tithes, or the like; in such cases also a prohibition will be awarded. For, as the fact of signing a release, or of actual payment, is not properly a spiritual question, but only allowed to be decided in those courts, because incident or accessory to some original question clearly within their jurisdiction; it ought therefore, where the two laws differ, to be decided not according to the spiritual, but the temporal law; else the same question might be determined different ways, according to the court in which the suit is depending: an impropriety, which no wise government can or ought to endure, and which is therefore a ground of prohibition. And if either the judge or the party shall proceed after such prohibition, an attachment may be had against them, to punish them for the contempt, at the discretion of the court that awarded it; and an action will lie against them, to repair the party injured in damages.

The Southern Manifesto co-authored by Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond (and Richard Russell?) did not expressly cite Blackstone but began:

“The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.  The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.”

The consequences of this language include the assertion that public officeholders (including judges) must be liable for the consequences and injuries caused by their derogations from and violations of “established law.”  Just as in the recent Florida case decided above, where a judge enters a decision in violation of well-and-long established law relating to jurisdiction and scope of authority, that Judge renders nothing but a personal statement with personal consequences, for which that Judge should be personally liable.
I ask here: should any Judge enjoy immunity from prosecution for civil rights violations and/or suit for civil rights violations when that judge violates the letter of the Constitution, especially when a litigant points out that violation to the Court and no excuse (such as a Constitutionally declared war or surprise invasion) exists to suspend the Constitution temporarily…. and temporarily only… I have often had occasion to refer to 1996 USCCAN 4216-4217 which affirms that these amendments do not establish absolute immunity for judges.  I submit that Strom Thurmond authored the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action to ensure that Judges (like Chief Justice Earl Warren) could and would be held liable for their actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction.”  Unfortunately, to date, neither the State nor Federal Courts have recognized the importance of these amendments, and continue to enforce Absolute Judicial Immunity.
The doctrine of “qualified immunity” also arose out of Watergate, particularly in the case of Mitchell v. Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511 (June 19, 1985) in which the Supreme Court limited former Attorney General John Mitchell to merely “qualified immunity” rather than “absolute immunity.”  Oddly enough, the standard the Supreme Court applied to the Attorney General of the United States involved a determination of what a “reasonable person” would know about the law (reasonably or unreasonably, most people in the United States today know almost nothing about the law, which explains why lawyers run amok and control the country).  Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Attorney General of the United States would enjoy qualified immunity, “so long as his actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
         Rather unsurprisingly, in practice, interlocutory appeal of any and every trial court determinations of qualified immunity plus a very pro-defense, anti-plaintiff judiciary means that even for prosecutors and police officers, “qualified immunity” is difficult to distinguish from “absolute immunity.” 

I know that my critics often accuse me of writing overly long-and-windy commentaries on my blog, and I suppose this will constitute one of my more offensive pieces.  I submit that the American public have become too used to short sound bytes and non-analytical thinking, and I hope I can encourage a more “in depth” and historically-based approach here.

Regarding legislative immunity, I recently discovered a very interesting and historically based article by a journalist name Chuck Murphy (Colorado Constitution and History of Legislative Immunity):

Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England

Blame it on King Charles I.

He dissolved Parliament, made Oliver Cromwell famous and is as responsible as anyone for the get-out-of-jail-free card Rep. Laura Bradford of Mesa County used last week.

Bradford, R-Collbran, was pulled over Wednesday night on suspicion of driving while intoxicated after a Denver officer saw her make an improper lane change. But after failing a roadside sobriety test, Bradford mentioned that she was on her way home after a legislative function at a Colfax Avenue bar.

Those were the magic words.

Article V, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution says:

“The members of the general assembly shall, in all cases except treason or felony, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective houses, or any committees thereof, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, or any committees thereof, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

That’s where Charles comes in.

By the time he took the crown in 1625, England had a robust Parliament and Charles was determined to put them in their place. He declared the divine right of the king to rule as he chose, and, after a series of confrontations, dissolved Parliament. Four years later, he did it again — and this time, he put much of the body’s leadership in prison. He was eventually defeated by Cromwell and lost his head — literally.

Say this for Brits — they have long memories.

It was 60 years later when Charles’ second son, James II (Dismal Jimmy), ascended to the throne. He wanted to impose Catholic rule on a deeply skeptical nation, and it did not go well. Within four years, he was deposed by his daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. They are better known today as William and Mary.

Parliament had invited them to take over, but with certain conditions, partly based on the naughty behavior of Charles I. One of those was the 1688 Bill of Rights, which said in part:

“That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

“That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;”

And…

“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

A couple hundred years went by before 1876, when Colorado was working on its latest version of a state constitution designed to get us admitted to the union. By then, we had the U.S. Constitution and the work of several other states to crib from, including an 1859 effort from Kansas:

“For any speech or debate in either house, the members shall not be questioned elsewhere. No member of the Legislature shall be subject to arrest — except for felony or breach of the peace — in going to or returning from the place of meeting, or during the continuance of the session; neither shall be he subject to the service of any civil process during the session, nor for fifteen days previous to its commencement.”

Look familiar? It all leaps right out of 17th-century England.

Now, say what you will about Gov. John Hickenlooper — he is impetuous, and he does on occasion show signs of a temper — but he is not about to lock up members of the legislature, not even the House, if he doesn’t get his way. I’m certain of it.

These immunity clauses exist in a majority of state constitutions today (legislators know a good thing when they see it). Arizona has discussed getting rid of theirs after their former Senate majority leader avoided arrest on a domestic-violence charge by invoking legislative immunity. His girlfriend was arrested while he went home, provoking well-placed outrage.

Legislators have no right to any protections not enjoyed by every other citizen, period, and most don’t avail themselves of this constitutional provision anyway. Even Bradford denies that she intended to avoid arrest by mentioning where she was coming from.

So who in Colorado’s legislature will take up the charge to rid our constitution of this anachronism? We amend the document all the time, with mixed results, but this seems like a no-brainer in an election year.

All it takes is a proposal to get it on the ballot. A majority of Coloradans just might go along.

Chuck Murphy: 303-954-1829, cmurphy@denverpost.comortwitter.com/cmurphydenpost

Read more:Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/murphy/ci_19849376#ixzz1mpThOiJt
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign Finance, Charles I, Charles II, James I, Jeffersonian Democracy, Judicial Immunity, Juicio de Amparo, Law, politics, Senado Federal, Senate Bill 1867, The American South & Confederate States, Thomas Jefferson, United States Senate

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

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the SCOTUS (Docket Files)

Posted on April 2, 2011 by | Leave a comment
Supreme Court Document

No. 10-1159
Title:
Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Petitioner
v.
Jeffrey P. Lawson
Docketed: March 24, 2011
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (10-12369)
Decision Date: October 6, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 4 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 25, 2011)
Jan 4 2011 Appendix of Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson filed.
03-14-2011 Final Revisions to KAGL Petition for Writ of Certiorari Appendix & Certificates
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson 2620 Nature’s Way (512) 968-2500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL  33410
Party name: Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson

→ Leave a comment

Posted in History and Civilization, Law, The American South & Confederate States

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

Mardi Gras 2010: Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson Continues her Challenge to the Florida Family Code and Court System!

Posted on February 16, 2010 by | 1 Comment

Happy Mardi Gras!  It is a day of reversal, a day to turn the world upside down.  And that is Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s purpose: to turn the modern world of marriage and divorce upside down, to get the state out of the home, not only the bedroom but also the kitchen, the dining room, the TV room, and the backyard, thus restoring both individual liberty and individual responsibility.  There will be full and genuine liberty and equality in the world with the legal reforms Kathy envisions: the state will neither compel the licensing nor the dissolution of any marriage or child custody arrangement, except to the extent of enforcing written contracts..  In fact, the state will be banned from doing so, and therefore limited in its power to license any kind of conduct which constitutes a fundamental right (e.g. marriage) and privacy (the arrangement of the family’s affairs) was intended by the framers of the First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.   Judge Richard L. Oftedal had set a final trial (without jury) in Kathy’s case for Friday, February 26, 2010, with all dutiful and compliant Domestic Relations’ litigants falsified but nonetheless self-incriminating evidence due to be created and filed in the court by today, Mardi Gras, February 16, 2010. Order setting trial Feb. 26, 2009.  But Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is kind of like Xena, Warrior Princess, when it comes to fighting against the Florida Family Courts.  KAGL Objections to Order Setting Trial February 26 2010.  This follows Judge Oftedal’s dismissal Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s February 8, 2010, Order Denying Motion on Leave to Intervene of the latest effort by the Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to Intervene. 1-230 Florida (KAGL) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE .DOC IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.  Why is a constitutional answer and objection not just as much the subject of a lawsuit as the originally framed relief? Why is the Petitioner alone, in a dissolution case, given full rights to due process of law? Or is he?  Does not the chain that binds a slave to his master equally tether the master to the slave? These issues were addressed in the Notices of Intervention filed by 42 of Kathy’s supporters (including the author of this blog).  Notice of Intervention after Marra’s Dismissal re Younger-Final and Filed

Postscript on February 25, 2010: Judge Oftedal gave a snort of in the form of an Order: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Judge Richard L. Oftedal, Friday February 19 2010) which simply ignored everything Kathy had filed as if it were a bag of sand emptied out on the Sahara or Mojave….the Order does not mention Kathy’s Objections at all, although they are duly recorded on the Palm Beach County Clerk’s Docket Report.  Kathy filed a combined Notice of Appeal of the Order Denying Intervention and the Order to Show Cause pursuant to Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.  Notice of Appeal of Denial of Intervention.  Judge Oftedal is unwilling to hear Kathy’s constitutional challenges and all related issues raised by her or the intervenors, apparently. I think his refusal even to HEAR or allow full briefing of the issues MIGHT just get the attention of the Fourth District Court of Appeals.  Kathy also filed a separate response to his Order to Show Cause, also on February 25, 2010. Response to Order to Show Cause Filed February 25, 2010 in Palm Beach, FL .  Extremism in Defense of Liberty is no vice.  Moderation in Resistance to Tyranny is no virtue.  Reserving the right to refuse to obey orders against one’s conscience is the essence of freedom, the essence of American Democracy, and the one last hope for the world.  The ability to say “NO” or to refuse blind obedience is the most sacred freedom we have.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is reserving this right to say “no”, to refuse to acquiesce in the system.  I applaud her dedication to principle.  Everyone should.  ”None can be free until all are free.”

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

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

Oh Cursed Spite, that ever I was born to set it right…..(To run or not to run, that was the question)….

Posted on February 8, 2010 by | 4 Comments
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous commie-pinko pundits, critics, and general lowlife lowbrows,
Or to take arms against the sea of troubles which they and their ilk have created,
And by opposing (at least attempt) to end them (or at least curtail their influence and power…).
****************************************************************************************************
“Everybody knows that the system’s rotten: old black Joe’s still a pickin’ cotton for your ribbons and bows, as everybody knows.” (Leonard Cohen);
“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, Ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht.”
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
So this is where I am in life.  I am going to be 50 years old in April (time is definitely out of joint).  I have no significant accomplishments to speak of except a Ph.D. dissertation I wrote at Harvard which was accepted for publication but, because I wanted to polish it up and update it, never got published and as of the present time is so totally out of date that it is no longer publishable.  I have had dozens of ideas for books which I never wrote more than an outline for.

Oh, I also got a J.D. from the University of Chicago and worked with and for a couple of Federal Judges as a Judicial Extern and Judicial Law Clerk, but I never could stand the billable hours routine at law firms or, for that matter, even the 9-5 routine at a normal job.  I wanted to be on my own.  And so I was for a few years in Texas, “on my own” as an attorney-and-counsellor-at law, but apparently even that was too much normative conformity for me—because the moment I started taking some interesting and “righteous” civil rights cases, as opposed to mere commercial litigation, real estate, and bankruptcy, I found myself under attack and then, within 3 years, forced “to resign in lieu of discipline” after having been convicted of the heinous felony of mis-stating two digits of my social security number on an otherwise complete and correct application to open a non-interest bearing checking account at Wells Fargo.

Harvard didn’t want me back at that point (2000) although I went, stayed a couple of months at the Faculty Club on Quincy near the Fogg Art Museum, did some privately sponsored research, and asked.  Things had changed.  A return to academics was just not in the cards for me.  Again, the problem of being significantly more of a “maverick” than Sarah Palin ever dreamed of being in her worst nightmares (a Palinesque big wink wouldn’t look so good over my bloodshot eyes tonight, and to think SHE’S four years younger than I am…).

Listlessly, after nearly dying on Zamalek Island in Cairo, Egypt after a common mugging/head injury sustained on November 30, 2000, I returned to Texas for no particularly good reason except I had a wife and 8 year old son waiting for me there.  I had gotten divorced from my wife once in February 1999 but was already back together with her—reunited, oddly enough, by the mere fact of being indicted on preposterous charges in December 1999—she was a real hero to me at that point in my life.

But that didn’t last long and in less than a year-and-a-half after surviving attempted murder in Egypt my wife and I were on very bad terms again.  Things had seemed OK for a while.  I had done a little teaching at Austin Community College (I was driving from Cedar Park to the Pinnacle Campus to teach a section in History on September 11, 2001—only listening to Wagnerian Opera and not the radio I was puzzled when I got on the elevator and everyone was in worried/panic mode).

In July 2002, my wife and I broke up again, what I didn’t know was that it was going to be for the last time.  We haven’t been back together since.  Initially I had custody of our son Charlie, but it was at that point that my real odyssey, and what I have concluded was my real purpose in life, really began.   I am who I am today because of Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th Judicial District Court in and for Williamson County, Texas.  I had for a long time seen evidence and suspected that Texas Family Court judges disregarded both the Texas and United States Constitutions, but it was only when I learned the customs, practices, and policies of Judge Michael Jergins and his acolytes J. Randall Grimes, Laurie J. Nowlin, and Michael P. Davis, and started getting in touch with other parents/family court victims, especially one Rhonde Malmquist nee Moe, that I realized that I was, in Georgetown, Williamson County, at the epicenter of something much bigger than the stupid police brutality and callous treatment of personal liberty and property intertests which I had encountered in Lago Vista.  If the Lago Vista police were like highly localized tornados going through people’s houses occasionally, the Family Law Courts in Williamson County, and by extension the entire Family Court system in Texas, as a stagnate hurricane sitting in place with a radius 200-500 miles in every direction emanating from the Attorney General’s (Greg Abbott’s) offices in Austin.  Texas is a big place, and the wealth redistributing-family destroying Texas Family Court was an enterprise engaged in and affecting interstate commerce which constituted the biggest “racket” I had ever seen.  And so I dedicated my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to fighting the Constitutional perversions which are the Family Code and Family Court system of Texas.

To make a long story short, that occupied almost all my time and energy from July 2002-April 2006.  I made some great temporary alliances during that time which should have lasted longer.  But the simple truth is that by May 2006 it was all over.  There was nothing more that I could or wanted to try to do.  And my son was starting to show some signs of breaking away without judicial assistance, although the final breakthrough didn’t really happen until August 2007, by which time I had already decided to leave Texas, where I basically had been stripped of all my civil rights in January 2006, even before Judge Walter Smith’s order of March 2008 banning me even from ever filing in the Texas Federal Courts again—I was already living in Florida by then, after a few exciting incidents which I have described in the “about” section of this blog….http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/about. Oh yes, and during these same years I had also met and gotten to know and admire one Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil, who has dedicated his life to fighting the state-sponsored monopoly over the practice of law.  Jerry has become one of my models in life.  I admire him more every time I look at his work, his persistence, and see him continue on.  For me, Jerry O’Neil “veritate gladiator arena publicae unus est”  (He is a true [professional] swordsman in the public arena) and I think I should be more like him: turning my own bad experiences into a crusade to make the world a better place.  He is somehow at the same time ethical, practical, and politically successful by setting modest goals.  I only question why he has set his goals QUITE so modestly, because I think he could be at least as great a force in the United States today as Ron Paul if he were to TAKE the national stage.

So now here I am, half a century old and dedicating my life to fighting yet another major fight on behalf of the underdogs of the world: a fight against mortgage foreclosure nationwide.   I have some cases right now that are more promising than before.   I have in these past 13 years since the 4th of July, 1997, parade in front of my former office on Dawn Drive in Lago Vista learned so much about the corruption of the court system, the government generally, and above all the monetary system and economy, that I wonder how I have ever avoided going into politics—not to serve the system as it exists but to scrap it.

On the one hand, if I run for public office, I will suffer much more of the same kind of garbage slander and attacks that I have experienced since first becoming involved with a certain Moldavan-born, Israeli-educated, Orange County Dentist named Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esquire.  I wish I had never met her, except that I never would have come to live since September 2009 by the beach in San Clemente if it hadn’t been for her, and San Clemente, California is one of the most beautiful and satisfying places on earth—and God only knows I’ve lived and traveled all over the United States, the Americas, and Europe and the adjacent the Mediterranean areas of Asia and Africa.  The only other possible advantage of having met Dr. Taitz last year is that perhaps I had my little retarded “sex scandal” episode before I was running for office, rather than after or during the process…..

If I can arrange it, I will always call San Clemente home from now on, and never live far from the Pacific beach again.  Oddly enough, this was my dream when I was in High School at the Hollywood Professional School (aka Hollywood Conservatory of Music & the Arts)—to live by the Pacific beach—except back then it was to live in Malibu—which is now way too crowded and expensive and the traffic much too heavy.  But San Clemente is like a combination of the Santa Monica and Malibu of 35-40 years ago: just urbane enough to have lots of good restaurants and shops all within walking distance of the water, with a fine view of Santa Catalina Island offshore.  In short, I have found my Shangri-La, and have lived there listening to the waves longer than most people dare to dream of doing.  Yes, I owe it all to the combined efforts of Orly Taitz and Steven D. Silverstein: her witless, naive, almost childlike incompetence, and his vicious and intentionally and expressly sharklike corruption and thievery.

During the past six months, also, however, I have realized that the California system of non-judicial foreclosure is an almost insuperable barrier to the security of home-ownership and private property.  In essence, California has already outlawed private property.  A combination of inflationary economics, an irresistable socio-cultural pressure always to expand and consume more and more and more, and a lack of attachment to place or fundamental respect for the concepts of home, family place, privacy, and real, long-term ownership, have all conspired to make California residences temporary and the California economy largely nomadic or transitory.   And the corporate infrastructure supports the socio-political superstructures of the courts and legal profession and financial institutions which are dedicated to wiping the family, private property, and all other remnants of the bourgeois state OFF THE MAP.

One common feature in the corruption of the Family Code and Court system in Texas, Florida, and California, and the mortgage finance customs and practices everywhere in the United States it seems, is that Federal economic and monetary policies can be found as the driving forces underlying any statutory or customary scheme of business practices or social policies.  The boundary between state and federal has become blurred.

My first thought was to run for Governor of California (“Terminator” and nominal Republican but de-facto socialist Arnold Schwarzenegger has presided over the most complete economic collapse of any state together with its government since the Great Depression of the 1930s—an unworthy heir to Governor Ronald Reagan he has proved to be indeed…..).  But it was pointed out to me that there is a five year residency requirement, and that at least one state, North Dakota, had previously, in 1937, removed by judicial mandate a governor who was elected in spite of his lack of five years residence.  This was the case of Thomas Moodie, elected in 1934-5.  State of North Dakota v Thomas H Moodie 1937

Since my association with Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, Esquire was predicated in part on misguided personal emotions and in part on a shared distaste for the current de facto President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and since our outward expression of dissatisfaction for Obama was our complaint that he was not a “natural born” American citizen and hence not constitutionally qualified to serve as President—given all these circumstances I have decided it would be best not to run for governor and risk becoming a historical footnote on the order of Thomas H. Moodie.  I know nothing about Moodie but I doubt he was anything like Obama, who is every bit as American as King Kong but not half so honest nor articulate nor generally sympathetic and likeable….and in the implementation of national policies is much clumsier (perhaps one should say “clunkier”) and much more destructive….  Obama was elected for one and only one reason: the Country couldn’t stand another minute under Bush or anyone who looked even remotely like him, which, ironically enough, John McCain, whom Bush had politically though not physically assassinated in 2000, looked significantly more like Bush than Obama, and Sarah Palin, rightly or wrongly, seemed extraordinary only in that she MIGHT have constituted an intellectual step DOWN from George W…..if that’s possible…. which it really and truly might not be….

But in any event, it does seem that although I am constitutionally disqualified for running for California Governor because I have not resided there continuously for five years, I AM eligible to run for and yes, even to serve as a United States Senator.

If I were to run, I know I would stand little or no chance of winning.  I will not be able to raise millions in campaign funds, or at least I cannot see how I would or even could, and California is the most populous state in the Union.

Yet on the other hand, I might be a good candidate.  Californians pride themselves on being trendsetters for the nation, always ahead and iconoclastic, at the same time as they set up the icons that everyone else follows.  California is ethnically diverse and I’m rather distinctively WASPY, but I was confirmed at All Saints Church in Beverly Hills, which is a good place to be a certified WASP if ever there was one.  I’m also a WASP who speaks Spanish fluently, having lived and worked on and off in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Colombia, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere in Latin America on and off for the 15 years I was involved in archaeology (1976-1991).  And even in my “fall” from establishmentarian grace I think I might have something real to offer Californians:  California has the highest prison population in the United States, one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (per capita/population wide) and it has to stop.

I spent most of my 54 days in Federal Custody at MDC Los Angeles, and so I became acquainted with the evils of the Federal and State prisons in modern times.  I have often said I am grateful, even thankful, for that experience, for that journey into America’s own Heart of Darkness, and it changed my life forever.  Never again will I believe that this is a truly fair, free, or just country, or that the mass incarceration of over 1% of the adult population is anything but a catastrophic indictment of what used to be called SERIOUSLY (and not just in our National Anthem) “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”  Only a cowardly nation of quivering slaves would incarcerate so many for so little reason.  The largest single group (by raw number of persons) in Federal custody is composed of Hispanics on various sorts of immigration crimes.   This is a scandal, because everywhere Hispanics are enthusiastically employed without regard to legal status.  HYPOCRISY!  Yet so many of my fellow whites are scornful and fearful of people “with a record.”  I regard all the legal insults which have been leveled against me as “red badges of courage” and I would like to educate my fellow whites, and improve the self-image and esteem of those groups hit harder with prison and penal sanctions generally.

So why should I NOT run for Governor in this diverse state of California, and tell the oppressed classes that I am one of them, and that I would like to lead them all out of the present authoritarian disaster into a better world.  It might be that some sort of political empowerment through separation would be necessary to give blocks of power back to the hispanic and black people of America.  I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, but in effect, socio-cultural policies of “diversity” and “social integration” amount either to voluntary or enforced loss of identity for everyone.  If “Black is Beautiful”, maybe black should stay black and empowerment of groups will strengthen identities and senses of worth and well-being.  One of my many pet peeves against Barack Obama is that he was elected in large part as the first “black” President, but in form, function, and effect he is about as “black” as his running mate Joe Biden or his Secretary of State and former adversary Hillary Clinton—Obama’s Kenyan heritage and possibly de jure Kenyan citizenship being the only really “African” thing about this graduate of Columbia and Harvard who taught at the University of Chicago and speaks with no accent of any kind.

But in addition, I have become aware of so many problems in Federal Welfare and Social Security Law which have become the guiding lights of socially targeted wealth-redistribution and family destabilization programs in America. The mortgage finance and family code/court disasters I mentioned above all trace their origins back to Federal Law regarding monetary finance and social security.

So should I run for Senate?  I am thinking hard about it.  In one sense I would rather be governor, but there’s basically noplace where I have been a steady resident for the past five years: Texas, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Montana, Louisiana and British Columbia—in about that order too—each of these places has a claim on my recent residence/citizenship Identity.  During the past year it’s ONLY been Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, and California (OK, one weekend in Montana….hardly counts, oh, almost forgot, a couple of weeks in Connecticut, a couple of days in Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York City, and Georgia).  The past few months in San Clemente have been very pleasant—I COULD settle down there, even though I haven’t quite done so yet….

If I were to run for office, my platform would run something like this which I wrote up while thinking about running for Governor, before I realized the residence requirement barriers….):

Platform Planks for Constitutional Reform:

Part I: Judicial Reform: ALL JUDGES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OFFICERS TO BE BOUND BY AND LIABLE TO THE PEOPLE FOR VIOLATIONS OF OR INFRINGEMENTS UPON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SEVERAL STATES

(1)            Constitutional Courts:          All judicial decisions concerning the life, liberty, or property of individuals shall be made only by juries of 12 persons, all of whom, before being impaneled as jurors, shall prove that they are literate and able to pass an examination on the Constitution, laws, and history of the United States and one state.

(2)            Constitutional Juries:         All judicial decisions concerning the validity of laws or governmental actions of any kind shall be supported by jury findings concerning matters of fact in support of or against the laws.

(3)            Constitutional Judges:         No judge nor any other court officer shall ever enjoy immunity from the law for any action aside from rendering or enforcing decisions necessary to decide cases properly submitted to and decided by juries; this is the proper application of “absolute” judicial immunity—it is “absolute” only when reconciled by a judge as conforming with the constitution and laws being applied and the judge’s opinion shall be the measure of his conformity.

(4)            Constitutional Executives:          No prosecuting attorney or any other executive officer shall enjoy any immunity from any action aside from reasonably applying or enforcing the law of the land according to the Constitution of the United States and to the law of the state in which they are employed; this is the proper application of “qualified” executive immunity—it is qualified by a jury’s assessment of reasonable compliance with the Constitution and laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

PART II: Government control over private commerce, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS IS PARAMOUNT—

MONOPOLES & LICENSES FOREVER FORBIDDEN FOR ALL REASONS

(5)            No state or federal government shall license or grant a monopoly concerning any kind of human activity or behavior except for the enactment and modification of laws, enforceable in the courts of any individual state or the Federal Union.

(6)            Marriage, Law, and the ability of the people to defend themselves against all enemies, including the government: In particular, all licenses or state monopolistic practices concerning marriage, speech or expression concerning the law, sometimes known as “the practice of law”, and or restricting or limiting the private ownership of firearms, weapons, and personal property of any kind (including alcohol and drugs) are abolished and shall not be resuscitated under the guise of “regulation” or “public welfare prohibition” for any reason (but personal liability for the sale or prescription of harmful drugs shall forever be unlimited).

(7)            The States and Federal government may make laws reasonably regulating any species of human activity not constituting a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so long as no license or de facto monopoly is implied or created, and such laws reasonably regulating human activities are enforceable ONLY in the constitutional courts of the land—and no administrative courts without juries shall ever be erected or maintained by any state or the Federal government.

(8)            Fundamental rights include freedom of speech and of religion, broadly defined, the ownership of land and things as private property, free from government rents, including all manner of private expressive or associative conduct within the home or family.

(9)            No person shall be deprived of life or physical liberty for any activity concerning commerce, but all failures, frauds, deceits, and trickery shall be punishable according to sentences imposed by juries under the guidance of constitutional judges, and these offenses of failure, fraud, deceits, and trickery may result in debts extending to and collectible from a perpetrator’s family and associates which limit an individual’s associative, expressive, or economic liberty or commercial activities, including the right to own or acquire property except on behalf of victims of failures, frauds, deceits, and trickery, and may also result in banishment from a community and exile from the jurisdiction of a state or the Federal union.

(10)        Juries may also impose sentences of corporal or capital punishment or deprivation of physical liberty where commensurate with the offenses committed.

(11)        Prior to trial, persons accused of any sort of wrongdoing may be reasonably restrained in their physical liberty to preserve the jurisdiction of the courts, but such restraint shall be subject to the supervision of citizen juries empanelled to supervise all prisons and jails and systems of physical restraint.

(12)        Corporate and professional immunity of every kind is abolished.  The commercial and business advantages of pooling wealth or talent shall never again be allowed to interfere, as a matter of state or federal law, with the power of juries to find or assess individual responsibility against corporate owners, operators, directors, or employees, according to the facts as juries shall hear and decide them under the guidance of constitutional judges.

PART III:  WATER, AIR, and THE ENVIRONMENT—

THE COMMONS OR THINGS BELONGING TO ALL OR NO ONE

(13)        Water, Air, and other things in the environment, including animals or plants which have not been tamed, captured or reduced to domestication by humans, shall be called “the commons”, “the common wealth” and shall be understood as things belonging either to everyone or no one, and state and federal governments shall have the power to protect the commons according to the traditions of Anglo-Saxon or Roman law, according to the selection made in each state or the Federal government.

(14)        The damming of rivers (other than partial diversions of waterways for agricultural irrigation of arid lands), and the monopolization of acquifers or subterranean waters not exactly congruent with surface ownership of the land, shall be forbidden as a violation of the rights of all people; all now extant governmentally operated dams should be dismantled.

(15)        The ocean and large navigable lakes may sometimes be dammed to create more land, but such dams must be authorized by constitutionally enacted laws by the Federal or State legislatures.  Private persons may then acquire such reclaimed property from the government.  Otherwise, the ocean floor and bed of navigable lakes shall not be privately owned, but pollution or destruction of either shall be an offense against all people.

(16)        The private ownership of the surface waters of navigable rivers and lakes connected to navigable rivers and the ocean is abolished and shall be forever be forbidden.

(17)        Any claim to the private ownership of air is null and void.

(18)        Any and all pollution of the air or water shall be actionable by all injured parties in court without limitation to time of injury or amount of damages.

(19)        The government may engage, as may private persons, in industrially polluting activities such the operating and/or launching of motor vehicles, aircraft, and rockets, but individual liability for injury shall attach to any individually responsible governmental officers or employees, except that any otherwise responsible governmental officer or employee who can show that he was acting reasonably pursuant to a lawful legislative or judicial mandate shall be fully indemnified for his liability by the government for any assessment of liability by a constitutional jury or judge.

(20)        Governments shall not tax or otherwise attempt to redistribute income or property equally among the people, except with regard to the aforementioned restrictions on private ownership of air or water.

A slightly shorter summary came after thinking a little bit more about the “slings and arrows” I had mentioned before:

The degree to which I’ve been abused, attacked, and generally “jabbed” on a half-dozen various lefty-comsymp websites during the past year has hardened my resolve—this Country, and California in particular, is run by socialists.  Some of the laws they have passed, and policies they have instituted are truly reprehensible.   I have no idea how old California Civil Code Section 2924 is, but the entire California non-judicial foreclosure system authorizes theft of property under color of law, glorifying senseless destruction of homes and families and increasing economic instability as a matter of official state economic and judicial policy.   The worst anything can say about me is that I’m crazy and demented—even on the lunatic fringe perhaps—but nobody can call me an idiotic socialist… not without my fighting back anyhow…..

In MY version of America—there would be a restoration of all laws guaranteeing the security and stability of the home and of the family structure, of freedom to work and be productive and to compete, free of monopolistic licenses administered by the nation-state and state-corporate government for the benefit of their cronies only.   In general, state control over the economy and private life will be rolled back to a bare minimum, but this will be counterbalanced in favor of the individual by much stronger juries and more honest and independent judges.  Lawyers and litigants will never again be dependent for their livelihood on currying favor with or making campaign contributions to judges.  If there is to be a bar, it will be a voluntary private organization, like a Church or a labor union, and will impose private sanctions based upon the will of its members, not on the whim of modern day kings who wear black rather than red and ermine robes.   No one will ever again be compelled to be a member of any organization in order to have a job or hire people to work in one.  Everyone will be free to compete in every profession.  Each individual will shoulder more risk, but also more responsibility to learn and evaluate, because the state will no longer provide “welfare benefits” of authorizing its agents and supporters as the only competent individuals.  To the degree possible, the family will be free to be the core unit of the economy again, and no family will be forcibly broken up in the name of incredibly vague standards like “best interests of the child” administered by “Departments of Children and Families” (that’s the Florida name—I happen to be writing this from Florida)—as if Children and Families were the wards of the State, and existed ONLY by grace of the sovereign will….

If it is crazy, demented, and luny to think that the Family Courts, Banking system and the attorneys who support them in California and elsewhere in this Country are hopelessly corrupt and opposed to every core American value from initiative to pride in ownership, from “credit” based on productivity rather than normative conformity, then I am proud to be called a crazy, demented, lunatic in California.

The resistance which Steven D. Silverstein has mounted to my litigation against foreclosures and evictions in Orange County has convinced me that the laws of the State of California are the worst in the nation with regard to property ownership and financial foreclosures.

As in NO other state in the Union (except those like Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon which slavishly copy California Law), California law protects LIAR and CHEATS.

This has to stop: the immunity of liars whose lies are perfected by attorneys like Silverstein MUST be stopped.  The transformation of California from a state owned by the people to a state owned by international Banking Interests has to stop.

The degree to which economic activity in California is regulated in favor of big business is appalling and astonishing….every activity imaginable staggers the mind.  There are laws for everything in this state.

The reason I would like to run for Governor in this state is to use the Governorship, or much more likely, merely the candidacy for the Governorship, to serve as the “last refuge of free speech” to preach against the monopolistic power of government and the banking conglomerates acting in collusion.

There is nothing worse than the collusion of the banking and financial industries with the attorneys of the state of California and, not coincidentally, the judges of the California Superior Courts and the State Bar of California.

I look forward to hearing from you all…even if it’s only to tell me again how crazy I am for considering this.  I feel, in fact, that it is absolutely essential to have a literal and figurative platform from which to attack the banks and their “servicers” and the attorneys who support their activities, a platform from which I cannot be removed by judges and court bailiffs who deem me “out of order” or “in contempt of court” for failure to obey incompetent and improper, and wholly unconstitutional, judicial orders.

As Noted, I’ll be working on my campaign platform and candidate statement this week, but the basic elements, the key points that I would like to advance, will be as follows:

(1)      FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVATE PROPERTY: Restore the sanctity of private property by limiting governmental (including both state, county, and local police and judicial) power to seize private property for private gain, as is the fundamental reality of mortgage foreclosure and eviction law in this state today.

(2)      COMMON LAW OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACT TO BE SECURED AND GUARANTEED AGAINST STATE INTERFERENCE or PRIVATE ABROGATION AND DISREGARD:  All obligations obtained by contract shall be governed by privity of contract and the common law. All statutory provisions (such as California Civil Code 2924) which abrogate or interfere with the HONEST application of common law (which exalting the status of liars and thieves of every kind) should be deemed unconstitutional interference with the obligations of contract and should be stricken from the books either by judicial declaration or legislative fiat, or else the Governor should refuse to enforce or allow any state executive power, including county sheriffs, to enforce the provisions of this law.

(3)      STATE LICENSES & MONOPOLIES, INCLUDING THE MONOPOLY ON STATE VIOLENCE AND FORCE, AND ALL OFFICIAL IMMUNITIES, SHALL BE OPENED UP TO POPULAR REVIEW:  All state issued licenses, patents, and monopolies shall be reviewed for potential abolition by repeal or through judicial declaratory, or else the Governor should refuse to enforce or allow any state agency or executive power to enforce licensing provisions more than 180 days after the next governor takes office until a complete review has been committed and, in the interim, all state funding for the State Bar of California shall be impounded.  All statutes immunizing attorneys and judges from suit for any reason except the mere advocacy of legal positions or rendition of such legal decisions and opinions as are actually required to decide the core elements of cases and controversies over which a court has jurisdiction shall be removed and abolished by judicial declaration, legislative fiat, or executive refusal to uphold any such immunity.

(4)      FREEDOM OF CONTRACT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE THE SUPREME VALUES OF THE STATE AND PEOPLE (ALL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCE and SUBSIDIES TO BUSINESS TO BE ABOLISHED):  All state restrictions on business and commerce, except those necessary to prevent the contamination of the environment by hazardous chemicals or industrial pollutants, shall immediately be suspended and subjected to review, but all defenses and limitations on liability for damages for personal injury shall be lifted in the courts of California, so that the ability of the people to defend themselves, rather than to seek governmental protection, shall be maximized.  The state as a corporate welfare organization shall cease to exist.  This Governor will approve no new contracts with any privately owned or corporate contractor who has done business with the state during the past eight years.

(5)      (ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO RETAIN SPECIAL STATUS): The environmental interests of the people of state of California shall be reevaluated according to the Ancient Anglo-Saxon theory of “the commons” and the Ancient Roman theories of res nullius and terra nullius. That which no person has captured may be protected by the state, but all things which have been reduced to private property shall be deemed as protectable ONLY as private property, and no expropriation of property shall be made by executive order implementing any state or federal law.

(6)      The official languages of California will be English and Spanish bilingually equal, on the Canadian model; programs shall be implemented for testing prospective voters on law and constitutional competence which will require a familiarity and knowledge of the law superior to any test now required for naturalization of foreign citizens.  No person shall be allowed to vote who cannot pass a written multiple choice test at least 180 questions long on the constitution and laws of the United States and California with a score of at least 120 or better out of 180.

(7)      All inmates in the prisons and mental health hospitals in California will be released except those convicted of murder, forcible rape, or assault; all persons incarcerated for financial crimes or drug crimes will be released pending evaluation of their ability to pay indemnity to their victims within a system of state supervised parole; the goal of eliminating post-trial incarceration will be explored in favor of options including corporal punishment (whipping or branding) and financial restitution for all injuries “every crime will sound in tort”).

(8)      The governor will refuse all attempts to enforce the United States Patriot Act or “Real ID” Act in the State of California.

(9)      The governor will propose to the legislature various provisions nullifying the unconstitutional laws enacted and adopted during the past thirty years by the federal government of the United States.  There will be a presumption of validity afforded to any law over 30 years old, except for all laws relating to the banking and financial industries, “the war on drugs”, and the collection of internal revenues.

I have set up a new e-mail: lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com, and I invite anyone who cares to do so to write me there about whether they think I should run or not.  I am tending, right now, to think that I should run as an “independent” for Senator in the November Race.  California law (quite unfairly I think) seems to forbid anyone who loses in the Partisan primary elections from running as an Independent in the General Elections—but it’s not possible to challenge every single unfair or unreasonable law on every subject all of the time—I should know because I sometimes seem to try to do just that… Humans have just passed too many such laws…. for too long….and most people like their lack of reason…. So would I have a chance of getting my message across?  I already KNOW that I have at best a dismal chance of actually winning any statewide election, but I’m probably going to try….and I just need some “popular reaction and guidance”.  My son Charlie is wildly in favor of my running, but he’s only 17 and a half this month—he’ll be old enough to vote in November….. Most of my friends have said “yes I should”, most of my consultation clients ask if I’ll still have time to work with them if I run (yes I will….), and so far only one friend has said absolutely not, although a few haven’t answered/addressed the point at all.   Lucas D. Smith may have jumped the gun by saying it was a sure thing, but I’m definitely considering whether I was meant to be Prince Hamlet or not…Oh Cursed Spite….I think I might just have been born to set it right….or die trying…..

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

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