Tag Archives: Ninth Amendment

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

Posted on March 2, 2013 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 2 Comments

To the Administrators of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the litigants among the “Survivors of Sexual Violence” Civil Rights Action:

I am a Tulane Alumnus, class of 1980—and I discovered this group cause in the U.C. Lobby on a recent visit to “the old school” campus in New Orleans of which I am so fond.

Since I left Tulane I earned both a Ph.D. and a J.D. from Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, clerked for two Federal Judges, and made many more enemies of Judges through Civil Rights Activism, ultimately leading to my disbarment but not to my retirement from civil rights crusades.

I would like to lend my support to SAPHE and Landen Gambill. Mainly I do not understand what is going on very well, but from what I have read it sounds as though a severe injustice has been done.

The University of North Carolina is, of course, a branch of the State of North Carolina and so it is bound by the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment to respect the rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.

I am horrified that a student could, in this day and age, be accused of “disruptive or intimidating behavior” for reporting a crime. I asked the students at the SAPHE desk in the University Center Lobby whether anyone had ever challenged Landen Gambill’s honesty or accuracy and was told “no.”

Only a CONFIRMED, CLEAR and CONVINCING ACCUSATION OF DISHONESTY (which appears not to have been made by the alleged rapist or anyone else) could possibly justify a charge of an “honor code violation”, whether at a private or public institution, if the word “honor” can have any meaning.* (but see note on “False Rape Culture” below—which I find less than a “clear and convincing” denial of anything—but more of a political rant about the possibility of false accusations, which are protected under the First Amendment and the Right to Petition.)

Obviously, by threatening any sort of disciplinary action against a student for filing what she believes (and no one has challenged or questioned) to be a legitimate complaint of criminal conduct, the State Officials at the University of North Carolina are attempting to infringe upon Landen Gambill’s rights to freedom of speech and more importantly to PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, broadly defined, under the First Amendment.

No exercise of First Amendment Freedom should ever be grounds for any sort of punishment, so Gambill’s right to substantive DUE PROCESS OF LAW under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is also being violated here.

I would further submit that the right of to speak out in any way regarding the injuries one has suffered is a fundamental right and power reserved to the people under the Ninth Amendment.

Throughout my lifetime, the tortured question of relationship between the sexes has been evolving and changing. Nothing is more essential (literally) to the preservation of our species on earth than a stable and successful relationship between men and women, but the competing philosophies and moralities of the “bad old world” and “brave new world” have left a tremendous amount of uncertainty and doubt in everyone’s mind about everyone’s status, standing, and situation.

As I was commenting to one of the students at the SAPHE desk at the Tulane UC on Friday, there was a time when a woman’s deadly response to male rape or sexual assault was deemed praiseworthy and beyond reproach, much less prosecution, in the State of Texas and elsewhere throughout the South.

How have we come from that state of mind to this, where complaining of rape could be called “disruptive or intimidating behavior?”

I remain profoundly confused by the description of events. If there is no charge of dishonesty, then Landen Gambill’s charges must be heard, and Landen Gambill is entitled to the full protection of the law afforded by the State of North Carolina.

Obviously Landen Gambill’s fundamental federal rights are at stake here. No rights are more important than the rights to control over one’s own body and “personal space”. No situations in our radically disintegrating (i.e. diverse and non-uniform) society present more opportunities for abuse of each individual’s body and personal space than sexual relationships and dating situation.

Because the old Victorian and pre-Victorian normative systems have collapsed and/or failed, all that remains for us today is the “social contract” which must be negotiated between individuals at all times and in all places.

Everyone bears the responsibility in society for maintaing the respect to be afforded each individual for his or her fundamental rights to personal integrity, but none bear this responsibility more than the administrators of the Universities and Colleges into which today’s youth go in major part for the purpose of adjusting to the normatively disintegrated society in which we live and discovering their own place—and the dimensions and boundaries of their place—in the remnants of society that now remain.

To the Administrators of UNC-Chappel Hill I would say: The Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution must inform all dialogue concerning individual rights and responsibilities, and above all the role of our institutions of higher learning in assuring the rights of each individual to speak and petition regarding the most intimate and difficult phases of human life, which for young people today, as much as in the time of Abelard and Heloise, is most endangered and “risky” in the College and University Setting. I would also say: if you harbor any doubts about this woman’s veracity or honesty, you must be open and honest about your doubts and you must submit to a trial on the merits of the question—you might even want to initiate such a trial (with real rules and standards of proof, possibly even as a declaratory judgment in court) rather than standing spinelessly idle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have repeatedly written that we live in a lawless society—a society in which our values have become so “relative” and so “circumstantially dependent, that there is no longer any such thing as “right” or “wrong”. And yet, Nietzsche notwithstanding, our world is not “Beyond Good and Evil.” All that is constructive is good and all that is destructive is evil, and yet truth is ALWAYS good and lies are ALWAYS evil, even though truth can be used to destroy lives and societies while lies can be used to build careers, cultural monuments to the liars, deceitful empires, and unnecessary wars….

The debate over the right to charge “rape” on a crowded campus may be one of the areas of lawlessness in America where abuse is not only possible but tolerated.

Nevertheless, we have to choose which type of error to make: the error where we repress legitimate complaints or the error where we allow false complaints (related to but not entirely co-extensive with the more serious philosophical and statistical problems sometimes referred to as errors of false affirmation or false negation).

In the Arena of Freedom of Speech, it is my position that NO COMPLAINT should ever be suppressed; NO DIALOGUE should ever be silenced, and so I support Landen Gambill until and unless she is herself charged and proved criminally guilty of or held civilly liable for (a) defamation, (b) malicious prosecution, (c) conspiracy to commit either offense.

About a decade ago, I lost custody of my only son, Charlie IV, because I continued (a) to listen to HIS complaints about his mother and her treatment of him and (b) accordingly continued to question his mother’s fitness and her psychological (and physical) treatment of him. Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Williamson County actually rendered an injunction against my ability ever to speak to my son regarding his own happiness, even during my own periods of custodial “possession”. I investigated, and it turned out this was a standard order of his: he had a custom, practice, and policy of suppressing parents’ freedom to discuss the welfare of their children or to discuss family “issues” of any kind with their children.

Since I absolutely refused to allow any judge to limit my speech, I was deprived of the right to see my son. Eventually, my son sought me out and I took him to summer school at Harvard. Then my son started college at St. John’s College in Annapolis after spending three summers with me. And then after one seemingly happy year, he turned on me, at his mother’s urging and indeed her insistence.

My son refused to go for a summer abroad in Rome after I had paid his tuition and then abruptly dropped out of College and has come (now as an adult) under his mother’s complete and unfettered control, totally refusing any contact with me at all (and since he is an adult, I have nothing to say about his choice).

But I will say this, “In the best interests of the child” (as if that really were the purpose of Family Courts): I should have been allowed to maintain my complaints, especially since they were always based either on what I saw with my own eyes or what my son reported to me directly and graphically).

To suppress freedom of speech and the right to petition, either by injunction or to punish the exercise of these rights without appropriately clear and convincing findings of abuse, is to destroy every individual’s humanity. To invoke the power of the state to limit by censorship or sanction by any means any one person’s ability to complain of perceived wrongs, especially by such a socially unusual and stigmatic sanction as expulsion from school, embodies the antithesis of the American ways of life and justice (but do see the “False Rape Culture” article above regarding a contrary opinion).

Perhaps I was a reprehensible Father for listening to my son’s complaints about his mother which wee not only consistent with what I had seen his mother do but also consistent with what I had seen his mother and HER mother do to another male member of the family (my son’s Uncle George, who died in Cancun, Mexico, several years ago at the ripe old age of 51, basically abused and abandoned but totally controlled by his mother and sister—who coincidentally were my son’s grandmother and mother).

And perhaps Landen Gambill is a compulsive liar who continued to date a man who raped her on every date (as the “False Rape Culture”) article above suggests. But even so, she must be allowed to speak. My very guilty wife (my son’s mother) always remained silent, and never even so much as took the witness stand or wrote an affidavit to specifically deny the charges against her (which at one point included felony injury to a child). Landen Gambill’s accused has likewise remained silent—and it is greatly to his discredit to do so.

In criminal courts and procedings we preserve the right to remain silent as sacrosanct and do not allow comment upon the maintenance of silence—but in all civil contexts, silence is confession. The manufacturer falsely accused of making dangerous products who remains silent will lose. The boyfriend falsely accused of raping and assaulting his girlfriend deserves precisely the same fate in a civil context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit recht,

denn alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Abelard, Abelard & Heloise, Chapel Hill, Code of Honor, Code of Manhood and Honor, Concept of Honor, Court of Honor, Culture of False Rape Accusations?, defamation, disintegrating society, false affirmation, false negation, false negative, false positive, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Heloise, injunction against the right to petition, Injunction against the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, Injunctions Against Freedom of Speech, institutional repression or sanction, Judge Michael Jergins, Landen Gambill, Lawless Society, malicious prosecution, Manhood, Mediaeval Romance, New Orleans, Ninth Amendment, Pre-Victorian standards and norms, rape, SAPHE, sexual behavior, spineless, Survivors of Sexual Violence, Tulane, Tulane University Center, U.C. Lobby at Tulane, University of North Carolina, Victorian morality, Viking

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

Posted on July 4, 2012 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words and music by Hank Williams, sr.

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Constitutionalist, Gospel of Luke, Uncategorized

Tagged Animal nature, Barack Obama, Bullying, Celebrate Bad Manners, Communism, Compassing the Death of the King, Disrespect All Authority, Disrespect for Authority, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family autonomy, First Amendment, Hank Williams Sr, How to Celebate the Fourth, How to celebrat Independence Day, How to Celebrate July Fourth, Human nature, J. Randall Grimes, Judge Michael Jergins, July 4 2002, July 4 2012, Laurie J. Nowlin, License to Fight, Mind your Own Business, Moses, Mount Sinai, Ninth Amendment, Repression, Sermon on the Mount, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, Tenth Amendment, Williamson County

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

Posted on January 4, 2012 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

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

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

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

→ Leave a comment

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

Tagged Administrative Court, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Carl Swenson, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Declaratory Judgment, de facto President, Farrar v Obama, First Amendment, Flast v. Cohen, Georgia, Georgia Secretary of State, Mark Hatfield, Ninth Amendment, Orly Taitz, President Barack Obama, Taxpayer Standing

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

Posted on December 3, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 7 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note*:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

→ 7 Comments

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

Tagged 2001, 2005, 2006, 395th Judicial District, 8th Amendment, Al Qaeda, Amendment IV, Amendment IX, Amendment V, Amendment VI, Amendment VIII, Amendment X, any person, assassination as national policy, Bill of Rights, Black Book, Brimstone, Classification, Corpus Christi, Discrimination, domestic terrorism, Dr. Jonathan H. Levy, due process, Eighth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, FOURTH AMENDMENT, Gangs, George C. Wallace, George Corley Wallace, Greg Abbott, Houston, idle rich, indefinite detention, James Carlton Todd, John F. Kennedy, Jon Roland, Jon Stewart, Jonathan Harris Levy, Jonathan Levy, Judge Janis Graham Jack, Judge Lynn Hughes, judicial immunity, Kolender v. Lawson, lone gunman, lone gunmen, Lyndon B. Johnson, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Lynn N. Hughes, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King Jr., Meyer v. Nebraska, Miranda Rights, National Judicial Conduct & Disability Law Project, Ninth Amendment, NJCDLP, Orly Taitz, Papachristou v. Jacksonville, paper terrorism, Paul Verhoeven, Procedural Due Process, Rand Paul, Right to Counsel, Robert F. Kennedy, S.B. 1867, Second Amendment, Senate Bill 1867, Senate Debate, Sixth Amendment, Slaughter-House Cases, Southern District of Texas, substantive due process, Tenth Amendment, Terrorism, Texas OAG, Texas Office of the Attorney General, the accused, the Daily Show, the people, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, United States Senate, V-for-Vendetta, vagrancy, vagrants, Williamson County, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Yoder v. Wisconsin, Zena D. Crenshaw, Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal

Understanding the law as it is vs. living in denial (Orly Taitz & Gary Kreep before the Ninth Circuit)

Posted on May 6, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 2 Comments

If elected to the United States Senate, I will fight for the enactment of laws which restore power to the people and diminish the power of the United States Government at every possible turn and in every possible way. I will seek to reform the judiciary, by the abolition of judicial immunity, but also by seeking Congressional override of the cases and rules which have all but closed the Federal Courts to the people of the United States with regard to any questions of real importance. I have learned by trial-and-error, quite literally, that the judicial system and the laws of the United States now support an oligarchy rather than a democratic-republic, and that in doing so they support what Dwight D. Eisenhower christened the “Military-Industrial Complex”, except that the only industry really left in the United States now is the manufacture of nearly worthless money through “credit” backed only by the bullying threats of the United States Military-Industrial Complex, which has since the end of World War II engaged in a nearly perfect Orwellian constant, continuous war against enemies whose identities are constantly shifting. At the end of 1984, of course, Winston Smith, aka “6079 Smith W”, ”had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”. It was that love of Big Brother which shaped the world which Aldous Huxley had portrayed in Brave New World, published 18 years before Orwell’s 1984, and it is something very much like Winston’s love of Big Brother which seems to dominate the American media and popular culture lifestyle all over America today. I, for one, do not love Big Brother or anyone who loves him, although I might forgive and try to educate some of the latter.

To that end I will tell you that even many of those who call themselves Patriots live just as much in denial as Winston Smith did at the end of 1984: they believe that the law is on their side, and that if they just keep trying, they can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and restore democratic values in America without wiping the slate virtually clean. I demur. I have been involved in many causes over the past twenty years, some more catastrophic than others. The only consistent “winner” in this fight I know is among the most modest of leaders, with among the most modest of goals, namely former State Senator and now State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Kalispell, Montana, who lives in the beautiful shadow of the Continental Divide and Glacier National Park. But I have spent all too much time with one of the most consistent “losers” in the game—and so it was

With more than a little curiosity I tuned in to watch Orly Taitz & Gary Kreep “do their best” before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2, 2011, in Pasadena.

. There are many personal, professional, and political reasons for my interest. As is fairly well known, I had worked with Orly, been represented by Gary against Orly, and long before either of those experiences, I knew the Courtroom because I had worked with Judge Harry Pregerson, as well as Judge Alex Kozinski whenever they sat in Pasadena, during my first actual job in law which was a judicial extern for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals*. I found the Judges of the Ninth Circuit very high minded and informal to deal with, whether liberal or conservative—even as a humble extern I was invited separately to the homes of Judges Pregerson and Reinhardt (even met Dean Pregerson before he was a U.S. District Judge—I always cannot help but wonder whether Dad still “reviews” his son’s homework—or does dad recuse himself from any appeals from his sons’ cases).

But I also found the subject matter of the Obama eligibility case interesting in 2009, while I was in fact working on it, and my interest has not much diminished, nor has my concern that this country rapidly is going to the dogs.

The arguments of counsel disappointed but did not surprise me. What disappointed me most was that neither Gary nor Orly gave even a single reason which would have convinced me (if I were still an extern working on the case for one of the Judges) why the Court of Appeals should have granted the Plaintiff’s motion to reverse Judge Carter (when I could have thought of at least a few).

Among the greatest mysteries of 2009 (to me at least) is why Orly failed or refused (I think it was refused) just really and carefully to read Judge Carter’s Order of dismissal. Because the truth is that Judge Carter’s order was about as positive and a wonderful order as an order granting a Motion to Dismiss could possibly be for a Plaintiff. Carter gave us a very well-thought out roadmap of how to restructure the complaint, which had been cobbled together EXTREMELY quickly because of Orly’s paranoia—or her very genuine desire and determination to lose the case.

And yes, I still believe that Judge Carter was initially very favorably disposed to the case and very willing to tolerate Orly’s psychologically unfathomable behavior in and relating to Court. Or at least I believe that Judge Carter was favorably disposed while I was working with Orly to temper her madness—before and until Orly backed Carter into a corner and forced him to clarify his original order of dismissal was WITH prejudice.

Orly was just determined to throw the case. I remain convinced of it. She was determined to make a hash out of everything she touched so that she could either (a) do what she was planning to do, to destroy the eligibility movement or (b) achieve status as a martyr in her own mind, an enigma in her own time. Orly never listened to a thing I said or suggested about the case or litigation strategy 99% of the time, but under the rules, a district court order of dismissal not accompanied by a final judgment of dismissal under Rule 58 is always presumed to be without when it is not specified to be with prejudice, or some other rule or circumstance requires such a determination. I told Orly—and she didn’t care or didn’t listen—or her “orders” were that she not listen. And so she ranted and raved that Judge Carter was a traitor and that some pimply-faced fresh lawclerk from Perkins Coie was an Obot planted by the President of the United States in Judge Carter’s Court to give the Judge instructions and orders on what to do and how to do it.

If Orly had really wanted even to have a chance to win—she would have listened to me and just carefully reworked the Barnett et al. Complaint—and followed Judge Carter’s instructions—and I think we could have—and either we might have made it to discovery and at least a Motion for Summary Judgment or else the appeal of this case would have been quite different—”if things had been different, well, things would have been different.”

But as it was, the sole question before the Court was whether the Plaintiff’s had injury standing to bring suit. Gary Kreep all but totally conceded the repeated question that the case was filed too late for his (former client) candidates to have any special standing, and Orly Taitz simply wasted her time saying less than nothing pertinent, trying instead to make an issue of the President’s April 27, 2011 release of a document which was not and because of its timing could not possibly be before the Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, I submit that the ideas I framed and drafted as Orly’s lawclerk were the best in the case (and if elected to the United States Senate I promise to push for the enactment of laws enshrining these ideas as litigation rights in the United States Code): that the unique circumstances of the Presidential eligibility before Court more closely resembled Flast v. Cohen taxpayer standing than anything else, in that if taxpayers were not afforded standing to object, then certain clauses of the constitution (among them Article II, Section 1, and the establishment clause of the First Amendment) are left without any advocates for judicial remedy whatsoever, and the Constitution was written to constitute a document of “fundamental law,” not just a series of non-binding resolutions to be followed at political convenience or discretion.

Had I been able to appear before the Ninth Circuit, I would have argued for taxpayer standing together with my firmly held belief that the Constitution expressly grants First Amendment standing to petition the Courts for redress of any and all grievances, and that the Ninth Amendment reservation of rights also accords similar standing to petition for redress of any and all grievances. The second best line of argument presented to Judge Carter was that concerning the obligation and remedies available to those who took specific oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States, especially Military Officers.

All these issues were before the Court, because I drafted documents which put them before Judge Carter, although he largely ignored them, yet Orly and Gary did not pick up on these details at all. It is almost as if, in particular Orly, really wanted to lose.

Orly had failed to develop any of the ideas of Flast v. Cohen taxpayer standing or First or Ninth Amendment Standing before Judge Carter—before or after she accused him of treason (which I would like to make very clear I repeatedly counseled her NOT to do) and she did not even mention them in her oral argument. The Court of Appeals Judges had little or nothing to say to Orly or ask her. They probably knew anything they said would have just encouraged her. My collaboration with Orly has caused a lot of problems in my life. That’s still a story that hasn’t been completely told and this is not the place to tell it.

So, just for the historical record, or for a partly egotistical, partly altruistic, attempt to salvage some of the ideas and pass them on for future use in other cases, I attach the two documents I consider to be the “best” of all Orly’s filings in connection with the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama should occupy the White House or not, and yes, I did have something to do with their creation while I was overlooking the Pacific from Suite 4 of the Casa del Mar in San Clemente. It was a pleasant place where I spent five-and-a-half-to-six of the most pleasant months of my recent life, only five-and-a-half-to-six weeks of which were spent in the professional and personal company of Orly Taitz. What can I say—I kind of wish she had stayed and been a sane person, but then she just wouldn’t be Orly I guess. We could have done a lot of things, and had a lot of worthwhile projects and case number 09-cv-00082-DOC was not even close to the most important of the projects we needed to do—although it was the most famous and the only one Orly ever cared about.

The documents in question to which I refer here are:

09-cv-00082-DOC – Flast v Cohen

09-cv-00082-DOC Motion for Leave to File Surreply

09-cv-00082-DOC – Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply 10-01-09

(*There being no such things as judicial “interns” in the Ninth Circuit or CDCA, the job description for a “judicial extern” still sounds to most folks very much like an “internship”, and J.D. students compete for these positions much in the manner that J.D. recipients compete for post-J.D. “judicial clerkships”)

→ 2 Comments

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, History and Civilization, Judicial Immunity, Law, Movies & Philosophy, politics, United States Senate

Tagged 1984, Aldous Huxley, Alex Kozinski, Brave New World, Capital Pamela Barnett, Establishment Clause, First Amendment, First Amendment Establishment Clause, First Amendment Right to Petition, Flast v. Cohen, Gary Kreep, George Orwell, Jerry O'Neil, Judge Dean Pregerson, Judge Harry Pregerson, May 2, May 2 2011, Ninth Amendment, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Orly Taitz, Pamela J. Barnett, Pasadena, Reserved Rights, Stephen Reinhardt, Taxpayer Standing, Winston Smith

Will Florida be infected and destroyed by the cancer of non-judicial foreclosure?

Posted on April 9, 2010 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 8 Comments

My Gratitude to Deborah Focht of Sarasota for providing this important information. Deborah (aka “American Reply”) is another one of Florida’s Great Lady Warriors who fight against creeping Socialist dictatorship in America. And let there be no doubt, although the state of California has the worst laws on non-judicial foreclosure, non-judicial foreclosure EVERYWHERE is unconstitutional (1) as an impairment of the rights of contract for existing contracts, (2) an abridgment of the common law freedom of contract on which this nation was founded and flourished for about 150-190 years (any relic traces of real economic freedom pretty much ended, for the economy as a whole, about during the middle of the Johnson Administration at the absolute latest), (3) a legislatively engineered taking of property for public purposes (those purposes being the maximization of governmental power against the citizen, and the diminution of individual freedom and stability to maintain and reserve power against the state) without due process of law, (4) a complete abrogation of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the key to universal corporate-governmental co-ownership of property. It is because of non-judicial foreclosure that I decided to enter politics (too late, too disorganized, and too underfunded to accomplish much in 2010, most probably, but I consider my present WRITE-IN CANDIDACY against Barbara Boxer as just the first step in running against Feinstein in 2012—-and I will have a much better organization by then).

Freitag, den 9. April 2010, 20:46:07 UhrHomeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act HB 1523 – STOP the Madnes!!!! bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original

Von:	“AmericanReply@gmx.com” <americanreply@gmx.com> Zu Kontakten hinzufügen
An:	Undisclosed recipents <americanreply@gmx.com>

	18 Dateien Alle herunterladen 4376.jpg (16KB); emailyourrepresentative.png (4KB); photobutton.png (3KB); 4372.jpg (35KB); 4457.jpg (35KB); 4267.jpg (15KB); 4272.jpg (13KB); 4289.jpg (7KB); 4449.jpg (39KB); 4387.jpg (43KB);4263.jpg (38KB); 4385.jpg (11KB); 4433.jpg (37KB); 4287.jpg (15KB); 4386.jpg (13KB); 4396.jpg (37KB); 4367.jpg (14KB); 4443.jpg (60KB)

HB 1523 – Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act – STOP the Madness of Nonjudicial Foreclosure « Foreclosure Fraud

« Stop Foreclosure – Fight the Banks Now

HB 1523 – Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act – STOP the Madness of Nonjudicial Foreclosure

Published April 9, 2010 Corruption , Fannie Mae , Foreclosure Fraud , MERS , Mortgage Fraud , bankruptcy , cdo , cds , foreclosure , freddie mac , mortgage electronic registration system , securities fraud Leave a Comment
Tags: 4closurefraud, Adam M. Fetterman, Audrey Gibson, bank fraud, Carl J. Domino, Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee, conspiracy, criminal, Doug Holder, Eduardo “Eddy” Gonzalez, Eric Eisnaugle,Florida Bankers Association, foreclosure, Foreclosure Fraud, hb 1523, hb1523, Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act, James W. “Jim” Waldman, Jr., Julio Robaina, Kevin C. Ambler, Luis R. Garcia,Michael B. “Mike” Weinstein, nonjudicial, Perry E. Thurston, produce the note, Robert C. “Rob” Schenck, Sandra “Sandy” Adams, Tom Grady, William D. Snyder, wrongful foreclosure

SPREAD THE WORD!

The bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original. It is being voted on by the Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee on Monday April 12, 2010

READ BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY HERE AND CONTACT THE REPRESENTATIVES BELOW IMMEDIATELY BY PHONE AND EMAIL PROVIDED BELOW.

The Florida Bankers Association, like a coven of evil banking wizards, hopes to commit an act of sorcery by conjuring up three letters “NON” to be placed in front of the word “Judicial” in Regards to Florida’s Foreclosure Process.

In this bill they propose changing the Florida law which currently requires foreclosures to be adjudicated through the courts to a new law which would allow foreclosures to bypass the judicial system altogether to become a NON Judicial foreclosure state.

Why? Perhaps the gravy train has foreseen a few obstacles on the track ahead (legally strong foreclosure defenses, educated judges, wiser populace, state mandated mediation requirements). These Florida Bankers may be trying to ease their way on the path of least resistance to confiscate more homes and more wealth from both the homeowners and the investors who funded these loans.

Or could it be the Florida Supreme Courts new Rules?

First, rule 1.110(b) is amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. The primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded “lost note” counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suitsbrought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.

OR MAYBE ASSET BACKED SECURITIZATION MEANS NO NOTE?

Regardless of the statements above, this bill could be devastating to the millions of Floridians facing foreclosures caused bybanks selling loans connived to a well planned default, bundling the bad debt, and betting against it to ensure a win for the banks and foreclosure for homeowners.

As it stands now, these aggressive, unprofessional foreclosure mills and their Plaintiff clients are still filing fabricated documents by the millions without any respect for the integrity of our official public records or the laws of evidence set by the judiciary system even after they were sanctioned by Judge Olson for these same issues. If this is how foreclosures are rammed throughwhen we have a glimmer of hope of judicial protection, imagine the steamroller effect which will potentially ensue if this bill is passed, the flood gates thrown open, and the judicial dike washed away.

So we ask the following, shall Florida:

Join the 37 states which allow non-judicial foreclosures to proceed without any protections whatsoever for the homeowner?
Allow the Bankers to smother the judicial branch as they have the executive and legislative branches?
Disrespect the serious efforts of the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Foreclosures and the Honorable Chief Justice Peggy Quince’s order mandating mediation for all homesteaded properties in foreclosure?
Ignore the contagion of Stockholm Syndrome that has infected most of our local, state, and national politician sycophants who bow with obeisance as the bankers confiscate millions of constituents’ homes?
Cost shift the $1,900 foreclosure lawsuit filing fee from the foreclosing entity to the financially stressed, perhaps newly unemployed Floridian family trying to defend their home?
Transfer the burden of proof in a foreclosure action from the foreclosing bank which has great difficulty producing authentic, genuine evidence showing its right to foreclose, to the homeowner who has subsistence survival worries?
Banish pro se litigants and clients of foreclosure defense attorneys from the halls of justice, allowing entry to only those who have the funds to pay the “cover charge”?
Allow to go unopposed the fabricated mortgage assignments, dubious indorsed notes, unauthorized property transfers, and deeply clouded property titles?
Trust as altruistic the professed motives of the same bankers who charge egregious credit card interest rates, overdraft and late fees, place holds on deposits, and reward themselves with billions in bonuses while crushing their customers under the weight of usurious loans?
Eradicate the right of due process granted by the U.S. Constitution:
- Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
- Right to be present at the trial
- Right to an impartial jury
- Right to be heard in one’s own defense

The Bankers have taken our jobs, our savings, our 401Ks, our education funds, our public safety nets, the equity in our property, our municipality revenue source, our access to credit, and our credit scores. Florida being a deficiency state, we may lose our home to foreclosure and end up with a garnished paycheck for the deficiency. Second mortgage holders are freezing bank accounts to get their piece of the action. Now that we have almost nothing left, will we also abdicate to these Florida Bankers our Constitutional rights?

GENERAL BILL by Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Policy Committee and Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee and Grady (CO-SPONSORS) Domino; Eisnaugle; O’Toole

Homeowner Relief: Creates “Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act”; provides general provisions for nonjudicial foreclosures; provides criteria for notice & knowledge; provides for transactions creating security interest; provides for time of foreclosure; provides procedures, requirements, & limitations before foreclosure; specifies right to foreclose; requires notice of default; provides right to cure; provides requirements for notice of foreclosure; provides for meeting & meeting requirements to object to foreclosure; provides period of limitation for foreclosure; provides for judicial supervision of foreclosure; provides for right to redeem collateral; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on foreclosures by auction, negotiated sale, & appraisal; provides for rights after foreclosure; provides for application of proceeds, transfer of title, actions for damages or to set aside foreclosure, possession after foreclosure, judgments for deficiencies, & determinations of amounts of deficiency; provides for effect of good faith by debtor; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on discontinuation of foreclosure; provides for uniformity of application & construction; specifies relation to Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act.

Effective Date: July 1, 2010

Substitiuded bill

Committee Substitute 2

Start Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 1:00 PM

End Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 3:15 PM
Location : 404 HOB
Duration : 2.25

Members of the Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee that will be voting on this bill are listed here along with their email address and phone numbers.

Call them all then click the links and email each and every one of them

ABOUT THE HORROR STORIES OF A NON JUDICIAL STATE ,

TELL THEM ABOUT ALL OF THE FRAUD THAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN THE COURTS,

and tell them to vote NO on HB 1523

Representative William D. Snyder

District 82

PHONE

772-221-4904

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Stuart
Occupation:	Career Law Enforcement, Retired
Child(ren):	David, John, Laura
Education:	Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., Criminal Justice, 1976; FBI Academy, University of Virginia, 1999; Florida Gulf Coast University
Born:	September 6, 1952, New York City, NY

Moved to Florida:	1954
Religious Affiliation:	Christian

Representative Doug Holder

District 70

PHONE

941-918-4028

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Sarasota
Occupation:	Real Estate Broker
Spouse:	Shannon Holder
Child(ren):	Channing, Chase
Education:	Middle Tennessee State University, B.S., Political Science, 1990, Former Student Body President, President of Associated Student Body
Born:	December 7, 1966, Marietta, GA

Moved to Florida:	1997
Religious Affiliation:	Episcopal
Recreational Interest:	cooking, family, golf, hunting, music, skiing, tennis, travel

Representative Adam M. Fetterman

District 81

PHONE

772-873-6500

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Port St. Lucie
Occupation:	Attorney/General Counsel
Spouse:	Mindi J. Fetterman, of Arlington Heights, Illinois
Child(ren):	Noah Louis Fetterman
Education:	Brandeis University, B.A., Anthropology, 1988-1992; Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Lacrosse Club; University of Miami School of Law, J.D., 1995-1998; Editor-in-Chief, University of Miami Business Law Journal; National Mock Trial Team
Born:	October 16, 1970, New Rochelle, NY

Moved to Florida:	1973
Religious Affiliation:	Jewish
Recreational Interest:	camping, canoeing, cycling, surfing

Representative Sandra ”Sandy” Adams

District 33

PHONE

407-977-4020

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Orlando
Occupation:	Law Enforcement
Spouse:	John H. Adams, Sr., of Waukegan, Illinois
Child(ren):	John Jr., Sonya, Kathryn
Education:	Columbia College, B.A., Criminal Justice Administration, 2000
Born:	December 14, 1956, Wyandotte, MI

Military:	United States Air Force
Moved to Florida:	1964
Religious Affiliation:	Episcopal
Recreational Interest:	travel

Representative Kevin C. Ambler

District 47

PHONE

813-558-1333

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Tampa
Occupation:	Attorney
Spouse:	Mindy Hanopole, of New Jersey
Child(ren):	Jason, Jami
Education:	Cornell University, B.A., 1983, Cornell Interfraternity Council, Judicial Administrator, AFROTC, Phi Alpha Omega Fraternity, President; Southwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1986, Moot Court Honors Board of Advisors
Born:	March 10, 1961, Los Angeles, CA

Military:	U.S. Air Force Reserve, Major, 1991-2005; U.S. Air Force 1986-1991; U.S. Air Force Reserve, Outstanding Judge Advocate of the Year 1991
Recreational Interest:	sailing, skiing, tennis, travel

Representative Carl J. Domino

District 83

PHONE

561-625-5176

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Jupiter
Occupation:	Investment Manager
Spouse:	Sharon Domino, of Miami
Child(ren):	Mason Carl, Reagan Deeann
Education:	Florida State University, B.S., Accounting, 1966, Student government, Dean’s List, intramural sports, elected to Gold Key and Omicron Delta Kappa; Harvard Business School, M.B.A., 1972, Finance Club, First Year Honors
Born:	April 15, 1944, Quantico, VA

Moved to Florida:	1958
Religious Affiliation:	Catholic
Recreational Interest:	golf, reading, spectator sports, tennis

Representative Eric Eisnaugle

District 40

PHONE

407-893-3141

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Orlando
Occupation:	Attorney
Spouse:	Carrie Eisnaugle, of Minnesota
Education:	Florida Southern College, B.S., 1996-2000; Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D., 2000-2003
Born:	February 6, 1977, Arcadia, FL

Religious Affiliation:	Christian

Representative Luis R. Garcia, Jr.

District 107

PHONE

305-325-2501

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Miami Beach
Occupation:	Retired Miami Beach Fire Chief
Child(ren):	Luis Rene, Jorge Luis, Alejandro Luis
Grandchild(ren):	Nicolas Luis, Tomas Alexander
Education:	National Fire Academy, Executive Fire Officer, 1997; Miami-Dade Community College, A.S., EMS Management, 1990; Paramedic Certification, 1977; Emergency Medical Technician, 1974
Born:	December 8, 1945, Marianao, Cuba

Moved to Florida:	1960
Religious Affiliation:	Catholic
Recreational Interest:	history, sports

Representative Audrey Gibson

District 15

PHONE

904-353-2180

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Jacksonville
Occupation:	Public Relations and Legal Liaison
Education:	Florida Community College, A.A., 1976; Florida State University, B.S., Criminology, 1978
Born:	March 15

Religious Affiliation:	A.M.E.
Recreational Interest:	formula racing, horseback riding, music, sporting events (football, basketball), theatre, weight training

Representative Eduardo ”Eddy” Gonzalez

District 102

PHONE

305-364-3066

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Hialeah
Occupation:	CAC Florida Medical Center; Business Development Leader
Spouse:	Barbara “Barbie” Gonzalez, of Hialeah
Child(ren):	Evan Mathew, Ethan Angel, Sianna Nicole
Education:	Miami-Dade College, Business Management and Administration, 1992
Born:	November 9, 1969, Cardenas, Matanzas, Cuba

Moved to Florida:	1971
Religious Affiliation:	Roman Catholic
Recreational Interest:	boating, football, softball, swimmin

Representative Tom Grady

District 76

PHONE

239-417-6200

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Naples
Occupation:	Attorney
Spouse:	Ann Grady, of Gainesville, Florida
Child(ren):	Lauren, Ryan
Education:	Florida State University, B.S., Finance, summa cum laude, 1979; Alpha Lambda Delta Honor Society, Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, Editor of College Republican newsletter; Duke University, Juris Doctor with distinction, 1982
Born:	May 14, 1958, Fairview Park, OH

History:	Legislative Page for the House, 1972; House Intern, 1978-1979; R.W. “Mac” Grady, father, Rockledge City Council, 1962-1965, Mayor of Rockledge, 1966-1976
Moved to Florida:	1958
Religious Affiliation:	Christian
Recreational Interest:	boating, cars, reading, SCUBA, skiing

Representative Julio Robaina

District 117

PHONE

305-442-6868

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Miami
Occupation:	AT&T Employee
Education:	Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., 1983
Born:	September 1, 1961, Miami, FL

Religious Affiliation:	Catholic
Recreational Interest:	camping, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, SCUBA diving

Representative Robert C. ”Rob” Schenck

District 44

PHONE

352-688-5005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Spring Hill
Spouse:	Megan Schenck, of Muncie, IN
Child(ren):	Micheal, Isabella
Education:	Pasco-Hernando Community College, A.A., 1995; University of Central Florida, B.S., 1998
Born:	July 8, 1975, Somerville, NJ

Moved to Florida:	1980
Religious Affiliation:	Methodist

Representative Perry E. Thurston, Jr.

District 93

PHONE

954-762-3743

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Plantation
Occupation:	Attorney
Spouse:	Dawn Board, of Cleveland, Ohio
Child(ren):	Alison Thurston, Perry E. Thurston III
Education:	Morehouse College, B.A., Finance, 1982; University of Miami, J.D., 1987
Born:	January 30, 1961, Pompano, FL

Religious Affiliation:	Baptist
Recreational Interest:	basketball, football, tennis

Representative James W. ”Jim” Waldman

District 95

PHONE

954-956-5600

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Coconut Creek
Occupation:	Attorney; General Counsel, Keiser University
Child(ren):	Jacquelyn, Steven
Education:	University of Connecticut, transferred, 1978; University of Florida, B.S.B.A., Finance, 1980; Nova University Law School, J.D., 1985
Born:	March 21, 1958, Washington, DC

Moved to Florida:	1977
Religious Affiliation:	Jewish
Recreational Interest:	golf, scuba diving, skiin

Representative Michael B. ”Mike” Weinstein

District 19

PHONE

904-213-3005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:	Jacksonville
Occupation:	Prosecutor
Spouse:	Sara Weinstein, of Florham Park, New Jersey
Child(ren):	Scott, Daryl, Danielle
Grandchild(ren):	Logan, Stryder, Mills
Education:	Hartwick College, New York, B.A., Political Science, basketball and baseball teams; California State University, Long Beach, M.S., Criminal Justice Administration; Florida State University, A.B.D., Criminology; University of Florida, J.D.
Born:	February 6, 1949, Livingston, NJ

Moved to Florida:	1975
Religious Affiliation:	Christian
Recreational Interest:	boxing, golf, physical training, working out

Election season is coming up. We are watching.

Together, we have the power of our collective voices and votes. The Bankers have thrown down the gauntlet. Let’s accept their declaration of war and fight back.

Again, enough is enough.

Contact your representatives today…

→ 8 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged April is the cruelest month, Barbara Boxer, California, Constitutional Takings, corporate-governmental co-ownership, end of private property and individual autonomy, Florida Legislature, freedom of contract, impairment of obligations of contracts, Johnson Administration, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Nancy Feinstein, Ninth Amendment, non-judicial foreclosure, Socialism, Socialist Dictatorship, takings of property without due process of law

The Agenda of Family Law in the United States (hidden in plain sight)

Posted on April 26, 2008 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 2 Comments

What is the purpose of mandatory child support payments? What do mandatory child support payments have to do with widespread domestic violence arrests? What is the role of social workers (e.g. Guardians ad Litem) who promote adversarial situations between parties by (consistently) choosing to side with the parent accused of abuse? Why is the role of contempt of court expanding in Family Law Courts?

The case of Michael Jergins in Williamson County is still ALMOST unique. He is the only judge I have ever encountered in the United States who consistently imposes sanctions for CONTEMPT for speech and thought crimes, crimes of merely truthful and sincere communication. And I know of no two people who have been more severely punished for such conduct than I and Rhonda Moe (IIO Malmquist). Judge Michael Jergins sentenced Rhonda Moe to four months in jail for giving her twelve-year old son a tape recorder to catch a certain Guardian ad Litem (Laurie J. Nowlin) in lies, and that certain Guardian ad Litem (Laurie J. Nowlin) sought contempt charges against Moe, which Judge Jergins granted.

Judge Jergins and Laurie J. Nowlin less directly but equally effectively prosecuted me for speech and thought crimes including attending my (then) ten year old son’s scout meetings, attending lunch at his school (where I was a volunteer instructor in several subjects, Spanish, History, Geography), and discussing his level of contentment with him. As a direct result, I did not see my son for two years (June 2003-June 2005, and not much contact even afterwards, since June 2005—until the past year anyhow). It was Judge Michael Jergins, not alone by any means, but more than anyone else, who convinced me to fight forever and a day to reform the Family Code systems in place in Texas and elsewhere by abolishing them. After all, in 1787-1792, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted, marriage was ONLY understood as a religious sacrament, and was therefore completely outside the realm of the government to regulate, and completely within the protection for religious freedom and freedom of association protected by the First and Ninth Amendments.

Now, unfortunately, I have just recently witnessed a Judge in Pasco County, Florida, threatening to terminate a fine mother’s parental rights for engaging in “inappropriate speech” in the presence of her beautiful, 8 year old daughter. The “speech” in this case was not even TO her daughter, but in the front seat to another adult when her daughter was sitting in the back seat. The “inappropriate speech” in question in this case was particularly interesting to me: the mother was telling a friend that she was going to make every effort to get her daughter’s social worker fired for incompetence, laziness, and lying. And the Pasco County Judge in question considers this an act evidence of “extreme hostility” and uncooperativeness. Oh yes, I forgot, we are in the Honorable Maoist People’s Republic of Amerika, where challenging a governmental employee charged with the duty of taking your children away from you so that the state government can charge the federal government exorbitant fees for providing “services” would indeed be an affront to the government.

But I digress, the first questions had to do with the general purpose of mandatory child support payments, a widespread cancer of (mostly frivolous) prosecutions for domestic violence, and the generally expanding realm of contempt of court. To my mind, it is simple and direct: the government, even those whose political roots are in the so-called “Family Friendly” Christian right, such as Texas Attorney-General Greg Abbott, have decided to destroy the nuclear family, to atomize individuals, to promote domestic discord and residential instability, to decrease the effective autonomy created by ownership of private property, and to maximize the degree to which the individual either “owes” or believes he owes all of his happiness to (1) the government, (2) the large corporations who provide most of the employment in this country, but (3) especially the judges and judiciary and their cohort who are the least democratic and most authoritarian component of society.

I charge that even the real corporate purpose of the social welfare system in the United States is this same agenda of destroying the family, private property, and the constitutional state. I charge that the family court system, especially the mandatory wealth transfers implicit or explicit in child support payments, have no economic utility except to isolate individuals from each other and create adversarial positions in society. Marriage has become a system of welfare by fiat in lieu of its former economic role as builder of private estates by contract. There are probate and inheritance law parallels to this Family Code analysis, but I will reserve that for a future post. In the meantime, I say it is time to wake up and smell the corpses of liberty, freedom, and justice, to bury the deceased and see them reborn for a new generation dedicated truth, justice, and freedom for all.

It is time for Americans to revolt against the dictatorial, communistic tyranny of Family Law Courts and wipe them off the face of the map, restoring the individual freedoms originally embodied in the First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Child Custody, Child Support, Communism, communistic tyranny of Family Law Courts, Family Law, First Amendment, Laurie J. Nowlin, Michael Jergins, Ninth Amendment, Pasco County Florida, Rhonda Moe, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Welfare

Tag Archives: Ninth Amendment

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

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

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

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Representative William D. Snyder

772-221-4904

Biographical Information

Representative Doug Holder

941-918-4028

Biographical Information

Representative Adam M. Fetterman

772-873-6500

Biographical Information

Representative Sandra ”Sandy” Adams

407-977-4020

Biographical Information

Representative Kevin C. Ambler

813-558-1333

Biographical Information

Representative Carl J. Domino

561-625-5176

Biographical Information

Representative Eric Eisnaugle

407-893-3141

Biographical Information

Representative Luis R. Garcia, Jr.

305-325-2501

Biographical Information

Representative Audrey Gibson

904-353-2180

Biographical Information

Representative Eduardo ”Eddy” Gonzalez

305-364-3066

Biographical Information

Representative Tom Grady

239-417-6200

Biographical Information

Representative Julio Robaina

305-442-6868

Biographical Information

Representative Robert C. ”Rob” Schenck

352-688-5005

Biographical Information

Representative Perry E. Thurston, Jr.

954-762-3743

Biographical Information

Representative James W. ”Jim” Waldman

954-956-5600

Biographical Information

Representative Michael B. ”Mike” Weinstein

904-213-3005

Biographical Information

Rate this:

Rate this:

Pages

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Archives

Blogroll

cell phone

Foreclosure

General

Health

Mortgage info

principal reduction

Products

robert ponte

Spirit

wow mobile

Follow “TIERRA LIMPIA by Charles Lincoln”