Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Telephone: 310-978-7638
In case of emergency call Gonzalo Diaz (Los Angeles)
at 213-255-8806 or e-mail leichenfeier6@gmail.com
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
TERI HINKLE:…… TIM TURNER FOUND GUILTY
Posted By: Seawitch [Send E-Mail]
Date: Saturday, 23-Mar-2013 16:03:18
|
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged Alabama, Alice, Conroe, Conspiracy to Defraud the US government, Corpus Christi, Grady County, Houston, James Timothy Turner, Janis Graham Jack, Malum Prohibitum, Mexico City, Montgomery, Oklahoma, Oklahoma City Transfer Center, Republic of the USA, Rumor Mill News, tax evasion, Texas, the Grady County Jail, Tim Turner, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, US Bureau of Prisons, US Department of Justice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4mj9jcnars&feature=plcp
The Tierra Limpia Trust announces the production and release of our own Trustee’s (future) blockbuster “Lost Weekend with Peyton Freiman”—an insider’s intriguing look into the somewhat startling realities of Texas’ “Coolest City” (namely Austin, which just barely edged out “Groesbeck”, “Mexia”, and “Palestine” for the title, largely on grounds of Alphabetics). This movie focuses our attention on the important subject, among other things, about how the few remaining (both ordinary and weird, and a few really weird) White People in America are living these days…..
The Tierra Limpia Trust is proud to have made this 21st century masterpiece production possible and to have our own Trustee, Peyton Yates Freiman, as the lead actor, producer, and director. Peyton is a man of amazing talents and skills, and it is simply incredible that he managed to fit this production in among his many other obligations. So without more ado, Tierra Limpia Productions now offers to the world our first release:
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged Andrew Freiman, Austin, Groesbeck, Last Few White People in North America, Lost Weekend, Lost Weekend with Peyton Freiman, Mexia, Ordinary White People, Palestine, Peyton Freiman, Peyton Yates Freiman, Texas, Tierra Limpia Productions, tierra limpia trust, Weird White People
Texas still leads the nation with 105,905 signatures on its “we the people” Petition asking, pleading, President Obama and the Whitehouse to “take these chains from my heart(land) and set me free…. you grown red (communist) and no longer care for me…. all my faith in you in you is gone, but the deficit lingers on…. take these chains from my heart(land) and set me free.” (With all due apologies to Hank Williams, Sr., who would certainly have signed the Petitions for Secessions in one or more of his beloved Southern States…). In Texas, the petition is still growing like wildfire at the rate of better than one new signature per minute, the Lone Start state now being up to 105,921…. and Louisiana has climbed from 34,631 to 34,690 in the past hour (9:15-10:15 PM, Pacific Standard Time), while Alabama has increased a roughly comparable number from 28,137-28,179 in the same time.
Mississippi hasn’t made it over the threshold of 25,000 yet, holding at 16,776, but Missouri has two Petitions, one at 17,965 and a second at 12,843 as of 9:15 Pacific. Florida (the third in line to reach 25,000) stands at 31,491, up from 31,410 one hour ago (and thus expanding at the Texas rate, at least tonight). Like Missouri, South Carolina has two Petitions, neither of which have crossed the threshold, though the one currently standing at 21,703 probably will by dawn’s early light on Thursday November 15; the second South Carolina petition stands at 14,025.
By contrast Georgia has one petition over the top at 29,375 as of 9:15 PM Pacific up to 29,430 by 10:23 PM, another holding at 11,568, and yet a third Georgia Petition had collected 6,766 signatures as of 9:15, up to 6,801 at 10:38PM. If we combine the three petitions together, sentiment in favor of secession for Georgia is second only to Texas.
Tennessee Secession has 28,415 supporters, making it the Sixth and last state (so far) to top the 25,000 mark.
Up until just now, I had somehow missed North Carolina’s Petition, but I just signed it….and the Tar-Heal state is “on board” as the Seventh State to pass 25,000 with 27,838 as of 11:52 PM on 11-14-12.
North Carolina gave more soldiers than any other state, except for Virginia, to the Armies of the Confederate States of America, and Joe Johnston surrendered to Sherman even after Lee had surrendered to Grant.
Arkansas and Arizona are nearly tied at 20,807 and 20,360, still under the wire. Mississippi lags surprisingly, and disappointingly, behind…
It is strange indeed that so many northern states have joined into the race to decide, but 7,431 people supported the Secession of the Empire State, 11,956 want Pennsylvania gone from the Union, while the smallest of three contiguous states, New Jersey, leads with 12,957 signatures. On closer examination, it appears that Pennsylvania actually has two petitions for secession, the fourth of this series though at 7,556 signatures, making this fourth “Middle Atlantic” state’s petition on par with Virginia’s oldest of three petitions which has earned 7,165.
Virginia’s three petitions may be compared by the use of different language: the oldest and largest (so far) asks “Peacefully grant the State of Virginia to Withdraw from the United States”. A Second ask that the President “Allow the state of Virginia to vote on peacefully leaving the United States” (3,948) and the third is worded “Peacefully grant the COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA to Withdraw from the U.S. of America…” (3,679)
Still focusing on the east coast, Rhode Island Secessionists have 3,815 signatures. Connecticut separatists had by 9:15PM on Wednesday collected 1,866 up to 2008 by 11:33PM. Massachusetts neo-Patriots have 2,514. Those later day followers of John Caldwell Calhoun in Maryland have 2,046.
Maryland, Massachusetts, and Connecticut secessionist number at least 923 fewer than those of Maine at 2,969 and a third less than those of New Hampshire 4,481. Strikingly, these three states each have 4,000 less than signed up for secession in tiny Delaware. Those who would make Delaware into the next Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, or San Marino have collected over 6,920 signatures on its petition “Peacefully….to withdraw from the United States of America” (up to 6,949 by 11:37PM).
Inland and Westward, Ohio has one petition with 10,264 signatures, and another with 7,489 signatures in favor of “the Republic of Ohio” and yet a third petition with 1,950 signatures. Fans of Michigan Secession number at least 17,583.
Michigan’s figure is fairly astounding for being twice the number who have signed in favor of Oklahoma Secession (8,429), while leading advocates of solitary independence for New Mexico and Washington have only 3,903 and 3,099 signatures, respectively. There is a secondary Washington State Petition which has collected 1,964.
Secessionists in California, the most populous state, are apparently few and far between, with only 12,718 signatures, including out of staters who signed in favor of resuscitating the Bear Flag Republic.
Hawaiian Secessionists finally got busy and gathered 2,530 signatures by 9:15 on Wednesday, up to 2,605 by 10:47 PM, but this is nothing compared to Alaska’s two petitions at 2,363 (“Allow Alaska to Secede from a Dysfunctional Union”), 6,953 asking to “Allow Alaskans a free and open election to decide whether or not Alaska should Secede from the United States.”
So, by day’s end on November 14, 2012, a sufficient number of signatures have been gathered only with regard to seven states, all once part of the Confederate States of America (1861-1865), to require “the White House” to comment on secession. Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and South Carolina can be confidently expected to join the list.
I’m sure our President will say nothing of any importance (he never does—why should he start now?). A real “spirit of ’61″ might be alive in Texas, Georgia, (and South Carolina, and possibly Missouri) but even the numbers from Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee, which have passed the 25,000 threshold, are otherwise unimpressive.
Up North, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, and Delaware seem the most secession minded, but unless Pennsylvania catches on fire soon, Michigan-Ohio and Delaware-New Jersey might end up as separate “Confederacies.” Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Virginia are at least “in the running”, as is South Carolina with two petitions.
The original seven states to secede in 1860-61 were South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas. They met in Montgomery to frame a new and improved Constitution which could have been adopted Nationwide but for the Abolitionist-Slavery agitation.
Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia eventually joined the CSA. That was for them probably a mistake, because as it happened most of the fighting was in Virginia, and most of the death. The War of Secession, which could have been and should have been the Second American Revolution, all-but completely and tragically destroying what had been the first and wealthiest English-speaking colony in the New World. More blood was shed in battle in Virginia than lives had been lost to gunfire or bayonet in any of Napoleon Bonaparte’s “palaeo-technic” wars of Conquest. This generalization would not count the “frozen holocaust” of the French Grand Armée of half a million in Russia in the winter of 1812-13, because it was the weather, and Napoleon’s ignorance of meteorology, that destroyed the First Empire, rather than any particular strategy on the part of the Tsar.
Of all of the eleven actively Confederate States, Arkansas and Florida saw the least in the way of battle or bloodshed. Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Maryland (of which only Tennessee completely and fully seceded, although Missouri and Kentucky had competing Confederate and Union State Capitals and legislatures during the war).
I think it is fair to say that the Petitions being signed and circulated are currently meaningless, empty symbolic acts. The First Seven States to sign up are all original Confederate States, probably signed by people like me who grew up listening to tails of the glorious heroism of the original Confederacy. Texas leads because Texas has the unique heritage of having been a moderately successful Independent Republic for ten years before agreeing to annexation. South Carolina and Mississippi, the first states to secede in 1860-61, have not yet inspired 25,000 signatures on any single petition, although they probably will, as will Missouri.
So right now the active and sufficiently numerous petitions are Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina, in the order of passing the 25,000 mark. We’ll see what happens next. I have not yet seen what the Tenth Amendment Center has to say, if anything, about this new movement, but that too will be interesting to follow—because prior to Secession was the Nullification movement, heroically led by first by Jefferson and Madison against the Alien and Sedition Acts and then by John Randolph of Roanoke and John Caldwell Calhoun against Northern Tariffs….
Magistrate Judge Sherri Polster Chappell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida sitting in Fort Myers has made me feel like Peter Pan: She’s made me want to crow: “I’m just the cleverest fellow ’twas ever my pleasure to know!” Magistrate Judge Chappell has also given Carrie Luft an extraordinary chance to litigate some unique questions of first impression in the USA, such as whether the USA needs a CIVIL Constitutional Writ equivalent to Habeas Corpus, for which I have suggested here (as I have been advocating, on-and-off now, for twenty years) the adoption of the Mexican Constitutional Writ of Amparo:
06-15-2012 First Amended Complaint Carrie Luft 06-15-2012
06-15-2012 Affidavit of Mario Kenny 06-15-2012
The Juicio de Amparo (which can be only VERY roughly translated into English as a “Writ of Prohibition”) enshrined in the Constitution of Mexico is a Constitutional Proceeding with the full force and effect of a CIVIL Writ of Habeas Corpus such as has never existed in the United States. Historically, this writ originated and was designed by the early 19th century revolutionary Creole (Hispanic White, First generation Colonial) jurists of my “second home” state of Yucatán, so strangely aligned from the late 1830s onward through Ernesto de Zavala (born in Ticul, Yucatán) with my “first home” state of Texas. Of course, it was neither Zavala who authored the Texas Declaration of Independence and gave his name to the State Archives building in Austin nor the famous Editor of the three great “incunabular” press journals of Southeastern Mexico, El Fenix de Yucatán, El Museo Yucateco, and the Registro de Yucatán, namely Justo Sierra O’Reilly who solicited Congress to admit Yucatán as a State in the 1840s. Rather it was a figure even less well-known to even to the well-educated American, by the Manuel Crescencio García Rejón, born in Bolonchenticul, Yucatán, a small town now renamed in his honour Bolonchén de Rejón, in the (now separate Mexican) State of Campeche and across the Puuc (Hill Country of Yucatán) from Ticul itself where Zavala was born.
Bolonchen means “Nine Wells” in Yucatec Maya. The number nine is quite mystically intriguing here, being, however coincidentally, not only the number of levels of Hell in both the Maya Underworld of Xibalbá and Dante’s Inferno, but also the number of justices who sit on the United States Supreme Court…. It was the Nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger Taney, whose theory of Constitutional review by judicial procedure so thoroughly impressed and influenced this heroic Hispanic jurist whose name should become famous in the United States of America:
A Great Mexican Constitutionalist and Yucatec Creole Nationalist
I feel strangely certain that if telephones or the internet had existed in the 1830s and 40s, the provincial creole patriots of Yucatán, introduced through Ernesto de Zavala and Justo Sierra O’Reilly, would have thoroughly made friends with John Caldwell Calhoun, Chief Justice Taney, and the other great Southern Constitutionalists of that time, and that Mérida would have become the Southern terminus of a cross-Gulf commerce linked to Galveston, Mobile, and New Orleans in a “Greater South” including all of Mexico after 1848. In light of subsequent history, in light of the likely union of our countries within the next hundred years, it cannot be said that it would have been so bad for all this to happen a century and a half ago. For one thing the Creole and Native American Mexicans would never have had to suffer the indignities and inferior status to which they have been relegated by the strangely “colonialist” policies which resulted from the United States’ FAILURE or REFUSAL to integrate Mexico in 1848…. the Hacendados of Mexico would have aligned themselves naturally with the Plantation Owners of the South and the large Indian populations would have had MORE protection under American Constitutional Law than they had under MOST of Mexican history–but all this is a terrible digression from Carrie Luft’s Crusade against the Corruption in Florida Courts (although it is a corruption echoing Miami’s status as “the Capital of Latin America” and Florida’s status, with Louisiana, as the Northernmost Banana Republic…..
I reiterate, we NEED your responses to Carrie’s survey, and so far we have gotten VERY FEW: 06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS
Please circulate this all around and return to one of us, either to Carrie directly or to me c/o Peyton Yates Freiman at our “Home Office” of 603 Elmwood Place, #6, Austin, Texas 78705 or to me at Mid-Cities Escrow in Downey:
MID-CITIES ESCROW, Charles Edward Lincoln, III CEO & Director,
10890 Paramount Blvd., Downey, CA 90241, (562) 861-2251 facsimile.
or by e-mail here to this blog!
Posted in Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Derecho de Amparo, Jeffersonian Democracy, Judicial Immunity, Juicio de Amparo, Law, Prehispanico, Pueblo Hispano-Latin, The American South & Confederate States
Tagged Amparo, Bolenchenticul, Bolonchen, Campeche, Carrie Luft, Caste War of Yucatan, Chief Justice John Marshall, Creole, Dante's Inferno, Declaration Concerning Judicial Habits, Downey, El Fenix, Ernesto de Zavala, Galveston, John Caldwell Calhoun, John Marshall, Juicio de Amparo, Justo Sierra O'Reilly, Manuel Crescencio Garcia Rejon, Mario Anthony Kenny, Merida, Merida Yucatan, Mexican Indigenous are Native Americans, Mexico, Mid-Cities Escrow, Middle District of Florida, Mobile, Museo Yucateco, Native Americans, Naval Alliance, New Orleans, Nine Justices, Puuc Hills, Registro de Yucatan, Registro Yucateco, Roger Taney, Spanish Creole, Supreme Court, Texas, Texas and Yucatan, Texas-Yucatan, Ticul, Writ of Prohibition, Xibalba, Yucatan, Yucatec Maya
Queen of Mexico, Empress of America---is there a political message here?
In California, one of the most tortured issues, whether one likes it or not, turns on the position of California as Anglo-Hispanic or “Global” by way of fundamental culture and identity. Another slogan-like Title of the Virgin is “Madre de la Patria” (“Mother of the Fatherland”). Still another is “La Morenita”, “the slightly dark-skinned lady”.
From December of 1531—barely ten years after the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, when there were still enough remnants of the Aztec aristocracy, priesthood, and warrior nobility* (See Note Below) to have dreamed and perhaps even had some chance at a nativistic revolution against the Spanish—the Virgin of Guadalupe both physically embodied and symbolized the unique syncretism of cultures which is that which we call “Mexico” or “Mexican”, the culture of Anahuac and the race of Tlatelolco (the site of the final battle between the Aztec and Spanish in 1521, also the site of Sahagún’s bi-cultural “College” where the Aztec and Spanish aristocracy came together.
And now we face, whether we like it or not, in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and my native Texas, the question of whether the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was a mistake or not: whether the ultimate destiny of the Southwestern United States is Anglo- or Hispanic.
The Mexicans are winning the birth race and the immigration race, despite the rather nasty political invective (by my fellow WASPS and Anglo-German descendants, primarily) against “Illegal Immigration”. It was just pointed out to me yesterday by Melody Castillo Gillespie that, under that same Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, there could have been no such thing as “illegal immigration” because the freedom to cross the border together with one’s property was absolutely guaranteed, even 12 months after the initiation of a new war between Mexico and the United States, and that Mexicans who acquired property in the United States by contract would be absolutely protected in their ownership on the same basis as other U.S. Citizens: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975 .
I have often written on these pages about the strong historical connexions which exist between Anglo-American and Latin-Hispanic culture and history on this continent—especially but definitely not limited to the states of Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas.
I do not, in any way, agree with the oppressive and homogenizing practices of globalism, but I see no realistic way to argue or maintain that the three Nations of North America do not share a common destiny. I have lived at different times in the United States, where I was born in Texas, Mexico, where I have spent more time than any other foreign country including England (where I lived with my parents when I was a small child, until age 6), and Canada (where I have lived less time but from whose population I have derived several of the great and deepest friendships I have known in my life). Crossing back and forth between the three countries of North America would seem to be a fundamental right of liberty, and yet it is one of the most hotly contested issues in America.
I submit that, if elected as a Senator from California, addressing these issues of historical identity, historical injustice, and ethnic affiliation and “destiny”, whether Manifest or not, will be one of the most serious issues I would address. I fear and despise the “mainstream” Republican approach to immigration from Mexico which would perpetuate the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of hardworking economic immigrants and utilize all the injustices inherent in the modern American judiciary against people of Hispanic speech and “southern” North American origin. But I equally despise the “mainstream” Democrats who would use issues of welfare and “entitlement” to social services and assistance essentially to wipe out Anglo-American culture and give a superior advantage to immigrants for the purpose of socially and economically destabilizing, and politically disenfranchising, the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-German, and general Anglo-European (non-Hispanic) population.
Local cultural and ethnic autonomy needs to be established throughout the American Southwest. Counties, Cities, and unincorporated areas must be given, perhaps according to the principles of local determination for each geographically coherent unit of 100,000-250,000 people (“neighborhoods” in Los Angeles) that they can select their identity and structure the nature of government and laws to avoid homogenization by “majority rule” (especially since there is simply no genuine population majority along ethnic or cultural lines anywhere in the Southwest anymore, but especially in California).
I would particularly suggest the devolution of legislative control over executive (police) authority and judicial decision-making to the county or municipal level in each and every area where this can conceivably be done, including but not limited to issues of family law, domestic violence, local property ownership and control, so long as all of these processes are subject to general and specific regulation by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the general precepts of the common law of contracts, property ownership, and the definition of (most) crimes.
The only way for such a process of political decentralization to take place is if the Federal Government abdicates its current policy in favor of increasing centralization and concentration of power in the hands of the government in Washington D.C.. If it is possible for the United States government to USURP unconstitutional power over all matters touching upon family, contract, and ownership of property, it should be possible for the United States government to RETURN that power to the states and local governments, to ABDICATE its central roles.
Once again I recommend a recent book I read on one of the oldest constitutional principles uniquely designed for North America, in 1650 by Lord Baltimore, the founder of Maryland. Carl Douglas 2011, “The Baltimore Principles“, Mesa, Arizona: the Arnett Institute. This book clearly shows how Constitutional abrogation and tyranny can best be preserved by granting increased power to local governments through a system of vertically integrated bi-cameral legislations starting at the local and county levels, where the people vote for one house at EACH level of government, but the governmental representatives elect representatives to a SECOND house at EACH Level of Government.
Full implementation of the Baltimore Principles would permit the devolution of local power downward on the vertical scale of hierarchy, thus permitting, at once, the equation of Federal (“Title 25″) Indian reservations with Counties or Municipal Governments as local sovereign entities while still preserving the Federal Nature of the United States, and even permitting such a process as the integration of all three countries in North America (subject to full open and honest plebiscite, NOT tainted by voter fraud or computerized manipulation) in such a manner as to maximize personal freedom, local autonomy, and abolish the injustices created by NAFTA and what amounts, in essence, to massive cross-border fraud, exploitation, and invited and fostered welfare dependency.
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.
Note*And, yes, the Tenochca-Mexica clearly had a society divided into three functional categories exactly corresponding to those posited as diagnostic characteristics of Indo-European Soceity by Georges Dumézil. This three-part organization (without direct Dumezilian reference) is most clearly outlined in Rudolph van Zantwijk’s 1985, “The Aztec Arrangement” (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), although it was reasonable clear from Jacques Soustelle’s 1961 Daily Life of the Aztec, and indeed, directly from the organization of Fray Bernaldino de Sahagún’s 16th Century twelve volume Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España.”
Posted in Bilinguismo, Calderon de la Barca, Candidatura, Cultural Indigena, Democratic-Republican Party, Derecho de Amparo, Derecho Indigena, History and Civilization, Jeffersonian Democracy, La Vida es Sueno, Prehispanico, Pueblo Hispano-Latin, Seguro Social, Senado Federal, United States Senate
Tagged Anglo-German, Anglo-Saxon, Arizona, Baltimore Principles, Bicameral Legislatures, California, Carl Douglas, county government, December 12, February 2 1848, Florida, Georges Dumezil, Guadalupe Hidalgo, illegal immigration, Immigration, Indian Reservations, Local Government, Louisiana, Manifest Destiny, Mexican War, New Mexico, North American Union, Texas, Title 25 United States Code, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Virgen de Guadalupe, Virgin of Guadalupe
The Voice of Him that Cryeth in the Wilderness, "Prepare ye the Way of the Lord"
Anyone who has ever gone about in the Wilderness (of the Hill Country of Texas, for Instance) denouncing vile parasitic predators such as Judge Michael Jergins and the other Judges and Prosecutors of Williamson County, Texas, the family lawyers and specialists in Family Law all over Texas, including Judges Lora Livingston and Jeanne Meurer in Travis County, lawyers like Ray Grill, John F. Campbell, J. Randall Grimes, Laurie Nowlin, etc., are bound to be considered madmen (and man-women), bad people, enemies of orderly society, even “terrorists.” We who live to fight injustice must accept such red badges of courage calmly, even welcome them.
I have now realized that in Orange County, California, there is the same culture of dishonest, fraudulent government by conspiracy between judges and lawyers—a massive culture of deceit and deception. With a population almost 8 times that of Williamson County, Texas (“The O.C.” has an estimated 3,100,000 inhabitants in 2011 compared with 422,000 in Williamson County in the 2010 Census), it would be expected that the problems in California are deeper, harder to identified and eradicated, but that is not necessarily true.
In Texas, the smaller population means that ever person who protests stands out all the more, and is an “easier target.” Here in California, Judges like Clay M. Smith of Department 69 are more sophisticated and “suave” than their Texas Counterparts, like Michael Jergins, but they are just as conniving, arrogant, and distainful of the law. The larger population means that there is a greater “bank” of stories of oppression, however, and more room to stand and shout in a crowd together, rather than merely being one voice alone, crying among the concrete jungles that were were once Orange Groves.
I am now hearing stories from San Diego County of Judges who say that pro se litigants will NEVER receive equal treatment when compared with lawyers in their courts. This kind of arrogance is utterly intolerable.
The culture of apathy and acquiescence is just as strong, just as overwhelming, in California as it is in Texas, but just as the population is larger, so are the cells of resistance. The time has come to remember the victims of oppression in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura, and every other County of California. We have to stop pretending that this state has any moral “high ground” when compared to Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas or West Virginia.
The Judges and Lawyers agree and conspire to suspend the constitution or ignore it eternally for litigants in Domestic Relations and Family Courts, Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (Forcible Eviction & Unlawful Detainer Courts), and Superior Courts of Unlimited Jurisdiction (where challenges to non-judicial foreclosures are thrown out almost as fast as they are filed).
Those who would defend Family, Home, and Freedom in California are indeed like isolate lions roaring in the Wilderness, like Saint Mark the Evangelist describing the Advent of Saint John the Baptist. But if we angry and roaring lions can somehow come together, and roar together, and show the corrupt judges and truly criminal lawyers our teeth and claws, then perhaps there will be change, in Orange County sooner than in Williamson County, in Tulare and Riverside sooner than in Travis and Dallas Counties, and California will once again lead the socio-political and techno-economic culture of the United States of America in a positive direction rather than deeper and deeper into Hell.
Posted in Isaiah, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, politics, The American South & Confederate States, Uncategorized, United States Senate
Tagged All Saints Day, Desert, Gospel of Mark, Highway, Jeanne Meurer, John the Baptist, Judge Michael Jergins, Laurie Nowlin, Lion of Saint Marks, Lora Livingston, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, Salome, St. Marks, Texas, Texas Hill Country, The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, Travis County, Wilderness, Williamson County, Winston Churchill
In the eight years since AAMES Vice-President Deborah S. Gershon in Los Angeles explained to me that AAMES loans could not be modified because they did not belong to AAMES…. strike that, in the 17 years since I first participated in the preparation of an SEC-acceptable registration statement for an MBO (Mortgage Backed Obligation, actually a Mortgage Bundled-Bond, in that case) IPO on Wall Street at Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, I have been almost obsessed with trying to understand and undo the evil caused by securitized mortgages. It’s a lonely obsession, like so many of my interests: from Wagnerian Opera, Gilbert & Sullivan’s operettas, Tom Lehrer’s and Weird Al Yankovich’s “comic pop-cultural folklore”, to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European Language, Culture, and Mythology, the calibration of the Maya and Christian calendars by and through archaeological stratigraphy and ceramic seriation, the comparative structural analysis of dual, tripartite, and quadripartite forms of religious and social organization, and then over to the comparative American graveyard organization and iconography of Colonial New England and the South, especially New Orleans, the detailed history of the Oracle at Delphi, the best approximation of Moses’ route through the Sinai Peninsula in Exodus. But of all my interests and obsessions, only securitized mortgages have become not merely a national but a worldwide crisis and obsession as well. Since my happy days as a young (or at least a much younger) judicial extern clerk for Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit, Los Angeles) and later a judicial law clerk for Kenneth L. Ryskamp (Southern District of Florida, Miami & West Palm Beach), on the opposite coasts of America, since those days when I believed that Federal judges all worked late hours into the morning with their clerks sifting through pleadings and motions and agonized over the proper disposition of cases, never “pre-judged” anything, and that federal judges in particular were basically among the hardest working and most honorable members of society at large, never mind the much maligned legal profession, I have learned a lot and become very cynical.
Sadly, I have to say that I repeatedly, and with increasing frequency, see evidence that at least some federal judges either manipulate or fix cases, and that the putatively adversarial attorneys may sometimes participate in this process. I have neither the time nor the energy to review all the cases where I have suspected this, except that I saw the process directly for the first time in September 1997 in Austin, Texas, when I saw Judge James R. Nowlin take charge of a case (ALL sides), primarily for the purpose of attacking and ultimately destroying me (well, actually, my “ordinary” legal career: which by ending that very ordinary phase of my life began the “extraordinary” phase in which I have been living ever since). But I’ve seen some evidence of staging and restructuring cases many times since, though no one has ever been quite as outrageously blatant about it as Judge James R. Nowlin of the Western District of Texas (that was one for the Guinness Book of World Records), until perhaps right now, September 2010, in the Northern District of California.
A couple of weeks ago, I became aware that a respected an experienced attorney by the name of Michael Pines had filed a truly extraordinary lawsuit against the foreclosure and eviction consequences against the securitization of mortgages, and in particular against one marvelously slimy fellow by the name of Steven D. Silverstein who operates a rather vicious shark tank out of Tustin, Orange County, California. Michael Pines’ complaint was, frankly, music to my ears: as eloquent as Wagner while as socially apt, “right on the mark” and stinging as the comedies of Gilbert & Sullivan, or the satires of Tom Lehrer and “Weird Al.” Everything that Michael Pines said was true, or at least reflected MY version of truth and reality to a very reassuring degree: Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action
Finally, a non-disbarred, currently licensed attorney with community respectability, standing had become so thoroughly acquainted with the truth as even to go record as giving CLE Courses to other lawyers on the topic, see e.g.: http://www.free-press-release.com/news-securitization-in-litigation-workshop-6hrs-mcle-michael-t-pines-esq-certified-forensic-loan-auditors-llc- 1268337159.html
Surely a lawyer like this knows at least as much as a pathetic disbarred attorney such as myself would know. Inception of a major lawsuit, especially a class action, means that you must design your litigation according to a very careful strategy, frame issues to match your defendants, and you must thoroughly research every topic prior to launching litigation. Above all, before you file your complaint, you must anticipate vigorous and violent opposition—especially if you’re suing other lawyers, but even if you’re “ONLY” suing certain major banks and loan servicing companies in the largest financial industry in the WORLD in a state (California) whose, by itself, would rank right after that of France and just above Italy’s if California were a separate and independent nation, apart from the rest of the US. Anyone who goes into Federal Court knows that the first thing to expect is the ALMOST inevitable 12(b)(6) Motion. Few and far between are the cases where anyone just files an “answer” in Federal Court, when Federal judges, even the good ones, LOVE to throw out cases without allowing a jury trial if they possibly can, because all Federal judges are “judged” and rated by their “case statistics” which rewards a LOW case load (which requires less work) than a HIGH case load (conscientious management of which would require MUCH more work). Congress has built in some VERY perverse incentives for Federal Judges but that is, as they say, a “Political Question” which we need not address here.
SO how can it be that Michael T. Pines, a distinguished lawyer known for speaking on this topic, had not filed (by September 2010) even a single answer to the motions to dismiss his complaint filed in June, 2010? CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010 Michael T. Pines did the almost unthinkable: he filed and served a major, complex lawsuit in his special field of expertise and advocacy and then, faced with the totally predictable barrage of motions to dismiss and for sanctions, never filed any responses and finally, on September 21, 2010, VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED HIS CASE. 09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The Notice provides no explanation whatsoever why Plaintiffs’ Counsel so utterly and completely failed to file any response or contest to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but only lamely “advised the court:”
2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.
3. Many new party defendants need to be added.
4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this
case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,
New York, and Seattle.
5. In an attempt to further conceal their wrongful conduct, with the exception of a
few defendants, no demand for defense was made to insurance carriers and
plaintiffs wish to make sure this occurs.
6. If the case is re-filed in this court, this action will be brought to the attention of
the court so it can be reassigned here if the court desires such.
Steven D. Silverstein’s lawyer Larry Rothman responded 09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report in a more mild-mannered and civilized way than I would have thought possible, because Larry Rothman is nothing if not a fairly consistent shark in the tradition of his client (and mentor?) Silverstein—and yet Rothman pounced on 09-22-2010 THE VERY DAY AFTER Michael T. Pines’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and demanded that jurisdiction to impose sanctions be retained. Judge Seeborg of the Northern District could do nothing other than comply with Rothman’s request: 09-27-2010—10-2622 McComas order re pending motions—Rule 11 Sanctions Remain.
This story is clearly not yet “over”—it remains to be seen what Judge Seeborg will do about the motions for sanctions and the administration or implementation of Rothman’s California “anti-Slapp” motion in Federal Court. (The idea that Silverstein’s use of the California Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction [solely to eviscerate the rights and lives of hundreds of thousands of Californians] could be protected against a “Suit to Limit Access to Public Process” [a "SLAPP" is usually conceived of as a harassing lawsuit designed for no purpose except to silence environmentalists or civil rights advocates, or historic or coastal neighborhood preservations---NOT as a vehicle to insulate criminals like Silverstein from very meritorious lawsuits] is beyond preposterous and downright offensive. I believe and have submitted in two lawsuits of my own that California Anti-SLAPP legislation is the “mother of all First Amendment Constitutional Violations”—even more reprehensible for its vagueness and obviously realized potential for overbreadth than the “Vexatious Litigant” index which I can only imagine Silverstein would like to have me registered on).
It also remains to be seen whether Michael T. Pines actually WILL refile his class action against Silverstein and his cronies and seriously litigate the Complaint once he DOES file it again.
In the meantime, Michael T. Pines has voluntarily dismissed his very fine complaint without even attempting to defend it. And I have never seen anything this suspicious in my life, except for Judge Nowlin’s conduct towards me in September 1997 [footnote/sidebar: it was a civil case, but Judge Nowlin appointed a very expensive downtown Austin lawyer, a former law clerk of his, to represent the crook I was suing as Defendant, who was proceeding pro se ---when I say "crook" I mean Donald Richmond was a forger, an interstate racketeer in real estate before it was even fashionable, and we had the certificate from the North Dakota Secretary of State confirming that he had forged a notary seal---and then he arranged to have me fired as counsel for the Plaintiff by strong-arming my housekeeper into giving outrageously and obviously false testimony against me, and on that occasion expressed his gratitude in open Court, on the record, to her and anyone else who would assist him in procuring evidence leading to my disbarment.....]
I submit that this all looks just a little bit too STAGED to me. Even if it were true, as Michael T. Pines so weakly claims that:
1. Counsel is working with several agencies including the State Of California to
coordinate proceedings against named defendants and others (and criminal proceedings in other states).
2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.
3. Many new party defendants need to be added.
4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this
case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,
New York, and Seattle.
These facts SIMPLY do not excuse Michael T. Pines failure even to defend himself for filing the Complaint in any way, shape or form. (Aside from submitting the Complaint, Pines had submitted a TRO and motion for reconsideration of denial of TRO, and no other substantive papers in the case WHATSOEVER).
And frankly, all of it would be pretty inconclusive and not nearly so suspicious if it were not for the judgment obtained in the California Attorney General’s case against a certain Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles in August of this year. I wrote a critical letter to the Attorney General immediately after learning of the Mitchell Roth judgment, saying that I did not believe that the Attorney General had acted in the best interests of the people of California in attacking Mitchell Roth’s abortive crusade against non-judicial foreclosures and evictions. CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010. I feared then and still fear that the end result as far as the public is concerned will be that everyone who pushes the “securitized note” issue, as a defense to wrongful foreclosure and the evictions that follow therefrom will be lumped with “the scammers” and the filers of frivolous lawsuits, such as Roth and, I’m going to predict, Michael T. Pines. I note in the attorney general’s summary of Roth’s conduct the disturbing sentence: “Roth filed lawsuits on behalf of homeowners, pushing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.” Isn’t THIS suit, by the Attorney General of the State of California, the ultimate “SLAPP” in the face to the movement of which I am apart, the advocacy in which I believe and have fought ever since it effectively cost me my high-paying, high-prestige job at the (they claim) oldest lawfirm in the United States (allegedly traceable back to a law office founded in lower Manhattan near the battery in 1792).
However, even more suspicious and odd, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown had made precisely the same claim against Mitchell Roth as the demonstrable reasons for the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case in the NDCA: “Once the lawsuit was filed, Roth did next to nothing to advance the case and often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines or appear at court hearings.”http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1979
Honestly, it just doesn’t get much more suspiciously coincidental than this: on or about August 12, 2010, the Attorney General enters into a consent judgment with Mitchell Roth preventing Mitchell Roth from “pushing” his “novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it”—Mitchell Roth’s alleged “M.O.” was to file lawsuits and then never do anything else about it.
Slightly over a month later, on or about September 21, 2010, Michael T. Pines, supposedly one of the leading advocates AGAINST SECURITIZED MORTGAGES, voluntarily dismisses his very strong complaint against wrongful foreclosures, after having identified the issues correctly, named all the right defendants, after initiating a lawsuit and never filing any other papers or attempting even taking steps towards the serious prosecution of the lawsuit, (i.e. (without ever answering the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or defending his complaint in any way) . (Perhaps it is significant that Pines’ Complaint named too many plaintiffs and defendents to be practically combined into a single suit, especially one seeking class certification, where “identity of injury and identity of nature of causation of injury” must be proven, but that’s a quibble about strategy).
Two nearly identical case histories, flawed legal strategies, associated with the same legal issue, both leading to potential legal sanctions or stigmatization of the very meritorious legal issues involved in attacking the securitization of home mortgages as the direct and proximate and therefore legal cause of the present mortgage foreclosure crisis.
The end result of both the stories of Mitchell Roth and Michael T. Pines’ case histories, as of Tuesday, September 28, 2010, is that two “seasoned” lawyers in the State of California who wanted to push that self-same “Novel Argument” about securitization leading to unenforceability of mortgages have both bit the dust without adequately developing or examining the legal theories or factual evidence which could be marshaled in favor and support of either Roth’s Complaint or Pines’ Complaint. This is going to lead to a lot of “See, I told you so” comments which those trying to dissuade homeowners from fighting foreclosure on this issue will now be able to use. Litigation on the scale of the Pines’ now voluntarily dismissed complaint or (I assume, without ever having looked at an example) Roth’s Complaint supposedly filed (???) 2,000 times without a single genuine litigation is expensive and difficult, and scares away even many serious people, but that is because it must be fought against all odds against such tough enemies—the international banking & finance industry, its attorneys, and its servicers.
In other words, I charge, without any inside knowledge, that Mitchell Roth’s cases and Michael Pines’ case were both staged, fraudulent situations specifically staged to discredit and destroy the causes which I so passionately support: the abolition of securitized mortgages and the modification of the foreclosure and eviction laws in the state of California and elsewhere, especially in those Western U.S.A. states which tend to slavishly copy California Codes, by inertia and gravity, as physical factors relating to size and proximity, rather than virtue or success of theoretical arguments.
And that, therein, is the biggest problem. In almost all pro se complaints, the systems-loyal state and federal judges all have an easy time throwing out the desperate homeowners who demand to see the note or ask how their property can be taken from them by a party who appears to have no relationship to them or their original mortgage application and promissory note whatsoever.
The continuing lack of argument and exposition of evidence and theories is perhaps the most devastating consequence of the Mitchell Roth judgment and the Michael T. Pines’ voluntary dismissal (with continued exposure to punitive sanctions under both Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ABSURD California “Anti-SLAPP” Motion filed by Rothman for Silverstein).
“Due Process” never occurs on stage. It is true that the language used to describe and explain legal “representation” and thespian performance is sometimes eerily similar: the lawyer “acts on behalf” of another by “representing him” as accurately as possible in his “presentation” to the Court. An actor, like an attorney in court, is to be judged on the “quality” or “accuracy” of his representation of both the character and the “original intent” of the author of the movie, the play, the book (before being made into a movie or play), or of the statutory and constitutional provisions underlying the lawsuit brought to be “put on” in Court—under the best of circumstances to a small, non-paying, poorly paid, “captive” audience of 12, and more often, to an even smaller audience of one judge, one or two bailiffs or courtroom deputies, and one-or-two law clerks.
Meaningful argument, substantial dialogue or “Due Process” on stage is impossible, except of course in completely “ad libbed” dramas (where no preset script is to be followed), because all the arguments and outcomes are normally predetermined (“Shear Madness” is a notable exception).
What aggravates so many Americans who get caught up in one or more aspects or elements of the litigation system in this country is how “pre-set” and “pre-determined” the outcome of all proceedings seems to be. There is no room for open or free argument or debate—there is no “due process” for the free development of ideas or evidence—there are rote formulas and outcomes which in some courts seem totally fixed—the opposite of freedom.
In Florida for several years now I’ve been working intermittently with Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson on the question of why every divorce litigation must end in a divorce. Why are there not multiple, possible outcomes, as unique as the individuals and families involved? Why can one not question the “pre-fixed” outcome that all divorce proceedings must end in a divorce? There is no such thing as a “not guilty” verdict. As Kathy and others have said—every marriage is doomed once it goes to court—there are no pardons and no hung juries, every marriage must die.
Likewise, in California Unlawful Detainer Courts—the outcome is even more fixed. In divorce court, there is at least some diversity of outcome with regard to who gets the house and who gets the house, the shares of Bristol-Myers-Squibb, the kids, the dog, the parakeet, and all those ancient plates inherited from one spouse’s great aunt who collected Royal Doulton (but whose eyesight was so bad in her old age that every set is hopelessly mismatched in the China cabinet).
In Unlawful Detainer Court, as in California non-judicial foreclosure, there is no diversity of outcome, and Judges have been known to tell defendants out right that only one outcome is possible—the homeowner must lose and be evicted. Contractual defenses are not allowed. Defects in property title are not allowed. Violations of due process and allegations of fraud are not allowed—or if a good humored judge allows these arguments, the Plaintiff still wins, anyhow.
Accordingly, “due process”, has become meaningless in many American Courts: there is a “prix-fixe” menu of “notice and opportunity” whereby you have notice of some dire event—either your marriage is about to be torn apart or your home is about to be sold (and possession delivered) to the Mainland Chinese and/or Saudi Arabian investors who’ve been stalking your neighborhood or both.
“Due process” is ordinarily defined as “meaningful notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard” but even those qualifying words are extravagant compared to what’s really given in most American Courts of limited and/or specialized jurisdiction (i.e. Divorce/Family/Domestic Relations Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction/Municipal Courts/Justice of the Peace Courts specializing in evictions/foreclosures). The State of Florida is setting up special “foreclosure courts” just to speed the destruction of private property in that state along at a merry pace.
But then there are the real problems—where the Courts are of unlimited jurisdiction, like the Northern District of California—but a “show” is apparently planned and put on to discredit an idea. A case is made up and then litigated in such a way that one side must lose. It is exactly like fixing a boxing match or a baseball game so that the “gamblers” and “bookies” will be happy, or make money, or both.
When lawyers participate in the fixing of cases, they betray their clients and themselves, but they also betray the concept of due process and the constitutional meaning of the courts as a part of government.
When judges participate in the fixing of cases, well, it’s just too horrifying for words.
Did any of these happen either in the Mitchell Roth case in Los Angeles or the Michael Pines case in the Northern District of California? Similar fact patterns, similar outcomes, identical legal-factual subject matter relating to the effect of securitized mortgages.
I think that “due process” should be redefined as meaningful dialogue concerning all facts and issues. The Judges would be primarily responsible for enforcing the Court as an arena for such discussions. Last year I was involved in an unfortunate case of ill-repute in Orange County wherein I worked with a lawyer who brought some very controversial claims of great national interest, and that lawyer then intentionally sabotaged her own claims on several levels by rushing the process, and then by ignoring it once she had a chance to get into court. The judge granted this particular lawyer an extraordinary opportunity to correct some past mistakes, the attorney made more. The judge then wrote an opinion outlining everything that this attorney needed to do to make her case and claims stronger, and the lawyer called the judge a traitor on the internet. It was all just tragic and disgusting, because this one particular judge really DOES get that “meaningful dialogue” is at the heart of due process. ”Due process” is simply not satisfied by summary executions where the doomed defendant has a few words to say by way of complaint before his head is lopped off or he is thrown bodily out of his house.
The world goes faster and faster, and it is time to slow some things down. Legal process, for instance, should NEVER be streamlined. It should ALWAYS be slow and deliberate and give adequate opportunity for thought, reflection, and debate both on legal theories and evidence. Above all, there must be no fixed or pre-determined outcomes.
I hope that Michael Pines did not intentionally “throw” his case by failing to answer the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but I’d say it looks very suspicious. I hope that there is nothing more than great and random coincidence between the allegations made (and established by a consent judgment) against Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles and the obvious conduct of Michael Pines’ case in the Northern District of California.
Full and open debate and exposition of evidence is absolutely critical both to resolving important issues facing the country and for the future of the free rights and enforceability of contract and the maintenance of the right to keep and own private property. In other words, due process, by which I mean “well-developed and meaningful dialogue” (i.e. dialectical reasoning and process) in the evaluation of petitions for redress of grievance concerning impairments of the rights to enforce and maintain obligations of contract, for the benefits of acquiring and maintaining ownership of private property, and the presentation of these arguments to juries, is key to the future of the United States of America, and there is some evidence that such dialectical debate and the adversarial process itself is being regularly subverted in these United States as we teeter on the verge of a major transformation in our country, as one economy, the “capitalist mode of production” gasps for air and tries to survive against creeping socialism and collectivism which deeply threatens our way of life.
In Plato’s Republic, Book VII, men are chained to a wall and never see the sunlight, and they believe that their shadowy reflections in the torchlight is the only reality of life, because they either never knew or have forgotten the sun and how the world looks by day. We in America are chained in our caves by lack of due process in court, lack of full debate on important aspects of our lives, such as WHERE and HOW we live. The judicial courts need to be a radiant source of light for all people to see evidence and theories concerning what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false, especially in the economy, especially in regard to the essential elements of life, such as food and shelter.
Posted in Foreclosure, History and Civilization, Law, Life is a Dream---Illusion of Reality, Mortgage Crisis, Plato, Plato's Republic, Uncategorized
Tagged "All the World's a stage", 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Anti-SLAPP, Austin, California Attorney General, California Non-Judicial Foreclosure, California SLAPP, California Unlawful Detainer, Darwinian man, David O. Carter, dialectical materialism, dialectical process, due process of law, Edmund G. Brown, eviction, fixed cases, Foreclosure, frivolous lawsuit, hegelian dialectic, Howard Carter, James R. Nowlin, Judge Carter, Judge Richard Seeborg, Larry Rothman, Los Angeles County Steven D. Silverstein, Michael Pines, Mitchell Roth, Northern District of California, Orange County, Rule 11 Sanctions, securitized mortgages, Seeborg, Shakespeare's "All the World's a Stage", Silverstein Evictions, SLAPP, Texas, thespian, Ursula McComas
