Monthly Archives: November 2011

If Senate Bill 1867 Passes—it REALLY is time to purge the Senate of All Supporters of Indefinite Detention in any form for anyone under the power of the American Government!

INDEFINITE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL FOR ANY REASON IS FAR WORSE THAN ANY OTHER CRIME THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE COMMITTED.  No amount of murder or mayhem committed by one or more random terrorists can equate with transforming America into a Police State, and our entire population into prisoners, or so I believe, just as Patrick Henry argued at St. John’s Church in Richmond on March 23, 1775 just four weeks before the first shots of the American Revolution. And so I will believe and maintain until the day I die.  I cannot believe that any Senator who claims to be an American, much less a Patriot, would vote for Senate Bill 1867.  Has it passed by the time you read this?  If so, then America is in even deeper trouble than I knew…  Apparently, all that has definitely happened at this point is that the ameliorative amendments proposed both by Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado and Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky (which would have removed the indefinite detention provisions) both failed:

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/11/29/senate-floor-wrap-up-for-tuesday-november-29-2011/

Senate Floor Wrap Up for Tuesday, November 29, 2011

NOV 29, ’117:36 PM
CATEGORIESWrap Up

ROLL CALL VOTES

1)      Mark Udall (CO) amendment #1107 to S.1867, the DoD Authorization Act; Not Agreed to: 37-61

2)      Paul amendment #1064;  Not Agreed to: 30-67 (60-vote threshold)

So the title of this 700 page bill is “Department of Defense Appropriations” but what certain sections of the text do is to destroy the last vestiges of the Constitution in this Country forever.   Whatever was not wiped out by Newt Gingrich in 1996 as part of the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act”, whatever survived the carnage of the 2001 “PATRIOT” Act, and subsequent renewals, and the 2007 Real ID Act, will be obliterated by S1867-PCS (Indefinite Detentions in the Defense Appropriations Bill 11-29-2011).  Please take note of sections 1031- 1032 and of course 1033 and 1034 in particular….

Some say this monstrous bill has already passed (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-charleston-sc/jim-demint-votes-to-give-federal-governmnet-controversial-new-powers)(giving a tally of votes including, of course BOTH of California’s Senators Boxer and Feinstein voting in favor) but I can’t verify whether it has or not as of 1:42 AM on the Senate’s official website: 

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/active_leg_page.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.1867:

Proposed by “Democratic” Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and supported by Arizona’s John McCain and South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham (both Republicans), this monstrosity would undermine the very notion of freedom in America.  It must be stopped.  Every senator who votes or has already voted for this bill must be removed from office—NO EXCUSES, NO EXCEPTIONS.

At this moment I would particularly like to challenge a former associate of mine, Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esq., to answer whether she would have voted for S. 1867 or not if she were a United States Senator?  I submit to you that whatever her answer, Orly most likely would have voted for it exactly as California’s current Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer appear to have done.  This is what delineates a real Patriot and a Real Constitutionalist from a fake: so ORLY, COME OUT AND I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO TELL ME, AND THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, that you would vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill to Prevent this criminal abolition of American Civil Rights from becoming law.  I dare say that none of the allegedly Republican Candidates for Senator announced for 2012 would have voted against this bill at all.  It is time to Purge the Senate of all who support indefinite detention in any form by anyone acting under the Power of the American Government.  ORLY, WHERE DO YOU STAND?  With real Patriots or against them?  

I confess that, on reflection, I believe that Orly Taitz’ stand on constitutional eligibility for President: namely that a Presidential Candidate be required to present a certified long-form birth certificate, is terribly reminiscent of the “Real ID” Act of 2007—where do you stand on that, Orly, should every American have to prove Identity beyond reasonable doubt?  Is Identity not an Element of Freedom?  The simple truth is: wherever he was born, Obama is a Socialist bordering on being a Communist, and he obviously aspires to absolute power and dictatorship.  IF the American people could get over the fact that he’s black AND went to Harvard and taught at the University of Chicago (which isn’t really all that unique a set of credentials, honestly, some people have very similar resumés even though they aren’t black, for instance—I’m one of them)—IF the American people could get passed the idea that you just have to vote for a nice-looking black man and that NOT to do so is racist….well, the people of the United States might just be able to focus on the facts that Obama is totally wrong for America and totally out of sink with American values, whether he was born in Hawaii, Indonesia, Kenya, or some as yet unspecified place in the shifting sands of Waziristan.  It’s what people are, what they stand for, and do that should matter most.  THAT is the American way.  Obama has NEVER done anything except support Communism and/or Socialism advanced by Central Banking Systems, exactly according to the model of the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

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

Saint Andrew the Apostle, aka Saint Andrew of Patras: Martyred under Nero on November 30, A.D. 60 (Patron Saint of Russia & Scotland, but his Cross shapes the flags of Alabama, Florida, and the Confederate States of America, plus the Naval Jack & Ensign of Imperial Russia and the “Spanish Flag” of Burgundy among many others)

The name “Andrew” (Gr., andreia, manhood, or valour), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the second or third century B.C., after the Conquest of both Syria and Palestine on the one hand and Egypt on the other by Alexander the Great at the beginning of what we now call “the Hellenistic Period” of Ancient History.  During this time, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek at Alexandria under the Ptolemies and was “published” in the 70 book form we now call the “Septuagint”, and the Hebrew Religion and tradition of cultural and historical literacy thus became well-known throughout the Ancient World.

St. Andrew, the Apostle, son of Jonah, or John (Matthew 16:17; John 1:42), was born in Bethesda of Galilee (John 1:44). He was brother of Simon (Peter) (Matthew 10:2; John 1:40).  Both were fishermen (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16), and at the beginning of Jesus’s public life occupied the same house at Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29).

From the Gospel of John we learn that Andrew was a disciple of Saint John the Baptist (there are a confusing number of “Johns” in the NT), whose testimony first led him and John the Evangelist to follow Jesus (John 1:35-40). Andrew at once recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and hastened to introduce Him to his brother, Peter, (John 1:41). Thenceforth the two brothers were disciples of Christ. On a subsequent occasion, prior to the final call to the apostolate, they were called to a closer companionship, and then they left all things to follow Jesus (Luke 5:11; Matthew 4:19-20; Mark 1:17-18).

Finally Andrew was chosen to be one of the Twelve; and in the various lists of Apostles given in the New Testament (Matthew 10:2-4); Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13) he is always numbered among the first four. The only other explicit reference to him in the Synoptists occurs in Mark 13:3, where we are told he joined with his brother Peter, James and John in putting the question that led to Jesus’s great eschatological discourse. In addition to this scanty information, we learn from the Gospel of Saint John that on the occasion of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, it was Andrew who said: “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fishes: but what are these among so many?” (John 6:8-9); and when, a few days before Jesus’ death, certain Greeks asked Philip that they might see Jesus, Philip referred the matter to Andrew as to one of greater authority, and then both told Christ (John 12:20-22). Like the majority of the Twelve, Andrew is not named in the Acts except in the list of the Apostles, where the order of the first four is his brother Peter, John, James, Andrew; nor do Paul’s Epistles or the Apocalypse of Saint John make any mention of him.

The apocryphal Acts of Andrew, mentioned by Eusebius, Epiphanius and others, are among the otherwise unconnected volumes of Acts of the Apostles that have traditionally attributed to Leucius Charinus, at least once alleged to be a follower of Saint John the Apostle.   “These Acts may be the latest of the five leading apostolic romances.  They belong to the third century: ca. A.D. 260,” was the opinion of M. R. James, who edited them in 1924. The Acts, as well as a (probably Gnostic) Gospel of St Andrew, appear among books rejected by the Second Council of Nicea in 787 A.D., if not before, and listed in the Decretum Gelasianum  (a list allegedly made by Pope Gelasius I).   Constantin von Tischendorf edited The Acts of Andrew in hi Acta Apostolorum apocrypha (Leipzig, 1821), putting it for the first time into the hands of a critical professional readership. Another version of Andrew’s semi-mythological history can be found in the Passio Andreae, edited by Max Bonnet (Supplementum II Codicis apocryphi, Paris, 1895).

From what we know of the Apostles generally, we can, of course, supplement somewhat these few details. As one of the Twelve, Andrew was admitted to the closest familiarity with Jesus Christ during His public life; Andrew was certainly present at the Last Supper; beheld the risen Christ after Easter (but did not ask to touch his wounds in the manner of Saint Thomas); witnessed Christ’s Ascension; shared in the graces and gifts of the coming of the Holy Spirit on first Pentecost, where he probably “spoke in tongues” and helped, amid threats and persecution, to establish Christianity in its never quite completely friendly Palestinian homeland (what is now Israel and “the West Bank”, divided by the most gigantic walls and heavily guarded small townships in the world, small townships such as Bethlehem and Nazareth).

When the Apostles left Palestine to preach to the Gentiles, Andrew seems to have taken an important part, but there is no certain documentation as to the extent of his travels or the location of his preaching (nor of anything that happened during those travels or preaching except for his crucifixion). Eusebius (Church History III.1), relying, apparently, upon Origen, assigns Scythia (a famed Barbarian land always in conflict with the Greeks and Romans, famous for its archers and goldworkers and lying in the territories which now for the Ukraine or Southwestern Russia north of the Caucasus) as his mission field: Andras de [eilechen] ten Skythian; while St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 33) mentions Epirus; St. Jerome (Ep. ad Marcell.) Achaia; and Theodoret (on Ps. cxvi) Hellas. Probably these various accounts are correct, for Nicephorus (H.E. II:39), relying upon early writers, states that Andrew preached in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia, (all in what is now called “Anatolia” in the [soon to be European Union] Republic of Turkey) then in the land of the anthropophagi and the Scythian deserts, afterwards in Byzantium (later called “Constantinople” or “the Second Rome”) itself, where he appointed St. Stachys as its first bishop, and finally in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia. It is generally agreed that he was crucified by order of the Roman Governor, Aegeas or Aegeates, at the city of Patras in Achaia (Northwestern Peloponnesian Peninsula), and that he was bound, not nailed, to the cross, in order to prolong his sufferings. The cross on which he suffered is commonly held to have been the “X”-shaped or “decussate” cross, now known as St. Andrew’s, though the evidence for this view seems to be no older than the fourteenth century. His martyrdom took place during the reign of Nero, on 30 November, A.D. 60); and both the Latin and Greek Churches keep 30 November as his feast.  Andrew is sometimes considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

St. Andrew’s relics were translated from Patras to Constantinople, and deposited in the church of the Apostles there, about A.D. 357. When Constantinople was taken by the French, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, Cardinal Peter of Capua brought the relics to Italy and placed them in the cathedral of Amalfi, where most of them still remain. St. Andrew is honoured as their chief patron by Russia and Scotland (where today, his day, is a National and Banking Holiday).

The History of Saint Andrew in Scotland

About the middle of the 10th century, well before the time of Macbeth and Duncan, and thus in the very dimmest periods of Scottish proto-history, Andrew became the patron saint of Scotland.  Several legends state that the relics of Andrew came supernaturally from Constantinople to the place where stands the modern town of St Andrews of Scotland  today (Gaelic, Cill Rìmhinn).

Two of oldest surviving manuscripts include one among the manuscripts collected by Jean-Baptiste Colbert and left to Louis XIV of France, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and another among the Harleian Mss in the British Library, London.  These texts concur that the relics of Andrew came to Scotland from “Regulus” to the Pictish king Óengus mac Fergusa (729–761). The only historical “Regulus” (Riagail or Rule) — the name is preserved by the tower of St Rule — recorded anywhere appears to be an Irish monk expelled from Ireland with Saint Columba (Columba was one of the “Twelve Apostles of Ireland” whose greatest monument and heritage was his Mission to Iona in Scotland in 563).  The relics may actually have originated in the collection of Acca, bishop of Hexham, who took them into Pictish country when he was driven from Hexham (c. 732), and founded a see, not, according to tradition, in Galloway, but on the site of St Andrews.  The connection made with Regulus might, therefore, have been little more than “Nation-building propaganda” originating in a desire to date the foundation of the church at St. Andrew in Scotland as early as possible.

According to legend, long before the time of Macbeth or Duncan, in 832 AD, Óengus II led an army of Picts and Scots into battle against the Angles, led by Æthelstan, near modern-day Athelstaneford, East Lothian.

The legend states that whilst engaged in prayer on the eve of battle, Óengus vowed that if granted victory he would appoint Saint Andrew as the Patron Saint of Scotland.  On the morning of battle white clouds forming an X shape in the sky were said to have appeared.  Óengus and his combined force, emboldened by this apparent divine intervention, took to the field and despite being inferior in terms of numbers were victorious. Having interpreted the cloud phenomenon as representing the crux decussataupon which Saint Andrew was crucified, Óengus honoured his pre-battle pledge and duly appointed Saint Andrew as the Patron Saint of Scotland. The white saltire set against a celestial blue background is said to have been adopted as the design of the flag of Scotland on the basis of this legend.  However,  at least some evidence suggests that Andrew was venerated in Scotland before this.

Andrew’s connection with Scotland may have been reinforced following the Synod of Whitby, when the Celtic Church felt that Columba had been “outranked” by Peter and that Peter’s brother would make a higher ranking patron. The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath cites Scotland’s conversion to Christianity by Andrew, “the first to be an Apostle”.   Numerous parish churches in the Church of Scotland and congregations of other Christian churches in Scotland are named after Andrew.   The national church of the Scottish people in Rome, Sant’Andrea degli Scozzesi is also dedicated to St Andrew.  Wherever the Scottish people have gone, they have taken Saint Andrew and his cross with them.  The Scottish and Irish Heritage of the American South has been celebrated many times, not least in the (now politically incorrect) movies Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind.

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

Civil Rights Removal: To Limit Removal to Cases involving Racial Discrimination on the basis of Statutory Schemes to enforce racial inequality is to make a travesty of Civil Rights—either we all have real rights or none of us do!

Lori G. McDonald now tests the waters with the best and most comprehensive Notice of Civil Rights Removal filed to date.  Why are so many eviction cases, when removed on grounds of diversity alone, remanded for the reason that the claims of dollar amounts in a Plaintiff’s case (no matter how illusory or illogical those amounts might be) is absolutely controlling for diversity jurisdiction?  Plaintiffs in limited jurisdiction “unlawful detainer” cases only claim “back rental” (if anything) in dollar amounts, but a huge amount of jurisprudence supports a completely different angle of analysis of “amount in controversy” and such claims as to value are always frivolous, fraudulent, and designed precisely to avoid the rigors of federal court. Lori has now addressed these issues in her Notice, filed November 28, 2011, in Santa Ana, Orange County, California, based on the legal research and ligation support which only the Charles Lincoln Trust for Tierra Limpia  provides to pro se homeowners….. and those who have been wrongfully deprived of home ownership.  California Civil Code §2924 et seq. is an “equal opportunity destroyer,” and there will be no peace until the entire process of non-judicial foreclosure is wiped from the face of the earth and declared unconstitutional, never to be raised from the grave again.  The lawyers, such as Steven D. Silverstein and their allies the corrupt Superior Court Judges such as Cory Cramin, who knowingly enforced that unconstitutional and immoral statute and took pleasure in the infliction of misery on millions must be punished, as must politicians such as Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Edmund G. Brown who smiled and used their positions and influence to uphold the special privileges, grossly inequitable and immorally granted rights and blatantly unconstitutional powers of the Banks while it was all going on.

If elected to the United States Senate, I will filibuster to eradicate the requirement of race-based classifications and even “protected group” analysis from equal protection jurisprudence: All must be free or none can be free, because some animals are NOT really more equal than others…..  

11-28-2011 Lori G McDonald & Mark Privitera Removal of Wells Fargo Case to USDC CDCA re 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E ; 11-28-2011 Civil Cover Sheet for Lori G. McDonald & Mark Privitera Notice of Civil Rights Removal ; 11-28-2011 Lori G McDonald Certificate of Interested Parties for Notice of Removal

Federal Civil Rights Legislation and litigation simply did not exist before the War Between the States of 1861-1865.  Such legislation and litigation were only necessary because the Military dictatorship which arose after the War made certain that the newly emancipated slaves actually had the upper hand (for a few years, anyhow) before the Compromise of 1877 obliterated what little integrity was left in the Union’s claim to the moral highground.  After a couple of decades of dormancy, “Civil Rights” became the most divisive issue in the nation again, starting almost immediately after World War II (for which the war of 1861-65 in America was a very clear and plain rehearsal).   Now the Banks have allied themselves with the United States government in a manner analogous to the alliance between Carpetbaggers and Union Troops in the South (also, coincidentally, with full bank-establishment backing….) and are wreaking havoc all over the country.  Millions are losing their homes and seeing their savings and security wiped out.  Now the whole nation knows what it was like to be a Southern White Farmer in the late 1860s.  And ironically, blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians are all being turned out of their homes without regard to race, creed, or color, but it could not have happened without the Civil Rights Laws’ having been expressly applied by the Courts ONLY to protect the rights of one race against another, and not of all people together. 

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

How did the Government hide $7.7 trillion in “bailout” loans in 2008? $1.2 trillion on December 5, 2008? Where was the “Mainstream Media?”

We Didn’t Know About the Fed’s $7.7 Trillion Loans To Wall Street

By Robert Lenzner | Forbes – 13 hrs ago

  • “What you see is all there is. We don’t react to things we don’t know about.”

This remarkable  but common sense insight is  a major theme of economist Daniel  Kahneman’s new book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow, ” just published and already on the best-seller list.

We did not know that the Fed has spent the mind-boggling total of $7.7 trillion in loans to  many of the key financial institutions in the world during the 2008 meltdown; including $1.2 trillion in a single day, December 5th, 2008– after  other costly steps had been taken to put capital in the major banks, CitigroupBank of America,Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley— and a host of European banks as well.

Had we known the extent of the money being lent through the Fed open market window–  even though the money had collateral behind it–  would we have been more frightened– or more secure in our temperament, and so willing to risk our money as well.? I reckon I would have been more frightened, and I’m glad I didn’t know.

But, the revelation after the fact is bound to stir up the conspiracy gang and lead to sharp political debate about the independence of the central bank. Thank God Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever.

What we still don’t know is whether all that nearly $8 trillion was necessary. Instead of looking backwards, it’s more crucial to look forwards.

What don’t we know about Europe, about the murky, non-transparent plans to  stabilize Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and the U.K.?  It’s frightening to think what isn’t known about  the machinations in  Paris, Rome, Frankfurt,  London and Lisbon All we know is there’s a mountain of debt everywhere (see my  “The UK  has 460% debt to GDP”) Both sovereign debt and bank debt– all interwoven in a web of danger.

We cannot know for certain– but only imagine– that the solution will  involve that tired warhorse of more debt floated to pay off or service old debt.  We can only hope that the ECB, the Bundesbank, the IMF and others will copycat the Fed– and  make funds available.

As our behavior is often ruled by what we can’t see, I guess the safest route  is to sell  European sovereign paper and bank shares. We’ll not know the true extent  of what is happening in Europe that we can only see on a piecemeal basis– until we become more aware of what is in store for us.

It all makes me edgy, and wondering about all the other things I don’t know– like  the hope that China will have a soft– not hard landing;  that Pakistan’s nuclear warheads are indeed under tight, sane control; that  Iran is far from developing a nuclear bomb; that the US will resolve the debt crisis at home without going into a lost decade like Japan.

That’s just the top rung of what we don’t know. “What you see is all there is.” What  level of discount does Kahneman’s finding deserve? I’m not sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the First Sunday in Advent, the Magnificat in English, French, Greek, Latin, and Polish (Gospel of Luke 1: 46-55)

As far back into infancy as I can recall, the Magnificat was among the very earliest things I remember learning in life.  My mother taught me this version from the 1662 Church of England Book of Common Prayer, published as revised during the reign of Charles Edward Stuart, II.  During Advent, we remember that Mary was the real force who linked the Old and New Testaments as one single story, remembering her own ancestors and God’s promise to Abraham at the same time as carrying within her the seed of the whole new Covenant:

My soul doth magnify the Lord : and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  For he hath regarded : the lowliness of his handmaiden.  For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.  For he that is mighty hath magnified me : and holy is his Name.  And his mercy is on them that fear him : throughout all generations.  He hath shewed strength with his arm : he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.  He hath put down the mighty from their seat : and hath exalted the humble and meek.   He hath filled the hungry with good things : and the rich he hath sent empty away.  He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel : as he promised to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed for ever.

My mother also taught me the Magnificat in French: Le Chanson de Marie (Le Magnificat désigne le cantique de la Vierge Marie dont il est question dans l’Évangile selon Luc au chapitre 1, versets 46 à 56 (visite de Marie à Elisabeth ou visitation). Il est aussi appelé Cantique de Marie).

Le Seigneur fit pour moi des merveilles, saint est son nom!
Mon âme exalte le Seigneur, exulte mon esprit en Dieu, mon Sauveur!   Il s’est penché sur son humble servante ; désormais, tous les âges me diront bienheureuse.   Le Puissant fit pour moi des merveilles ; Saint est son nom !   Son amour s’étend d’âge en âge sur ceux qui le craignent.  Déployant la force de son bras, il disperse les superbes.   Il renverse les puissants de leurs trônes, il élève les humbles.  Il comble de bien les affamés, renvoie les riches les mains vides.  Il relève Israël, son serviteur, il se souvient de son amour, de la promesse faite à nos pères, en faveur d’Abraham et de sa race, à jamais.  Gloire au Père, au Fils, au Saint-Esprit maintenant et à jamais dans les siècles des siècles.

It wasn’t until College that I got around to learning this texts in Koiné Greek
Μεγαλύνει ἡ ψυχή μου τὸν Κύριον
καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου,
ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αυτοῦ.
ἰδού γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσίν με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί,
ὅτι ἐποίησέν μοι μεγάλα ὁ δυνατός,
καὶ ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,
καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς
τοῖς φοβουμένοις αυτόν.
Ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ,
διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν·
καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων
καὶ ὕψωσεν ταπεινούς,
πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν
καὶ πλουτοῦντας ἐξαπέστειλεν κενούς.
ἀντελάβετο Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ,
μνησθῆναι ἐλέους,
καθὼς ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν
τῷ Αβραὰμ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

and Latin (although this is the slightly edited most “up to date”  Vatican RC Version approved by John Paul II):

Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo salvatore meo, quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae.  Ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes, quia fecit mihi magna,qui potens est, et sanctum nomen eius, et misericordia eius in progenies et progeniestimentibus eum.  Fecit potentiam in brachio suo,  dispersit superbos mente cordis sui;deposuit potentes de sedeet exaltavit humiles;esurientes implevit boniset divites dimisit inanes.  Suscepit Israel puerum suum, recordatus misericordiae,sicut locutus est ad patres nostros, Abraham et semini eius in saecula.

And finally, for Daria, in Polish:

Found this on-line, but it's quite beautiful....

I can't really read or type in Polish at all, honestly, and this is much more visually appealing anyhow... All I'm sure I can make out is "Abrahamowi" right at the end, more-or-less confirming that this IS the Magnificat...

Today at All Saints, the Reverend Barry Taylor delivered an amazing sermon on the parallels between the coming of Christmas and the coming of the Apocalypse, and of God’s time and of being awake or asleep while waiting.  Simultaneously, he was eloquent, entertaining, and awe-inspiring, contrasting the laconic text of Mark with the more flowery prose of the other Gospels.  But the connexion with Advent and the preparation for the first earthly appearance of Jesus was minimal, and I think that’s too bad (but I don’t get to set the Scripture readings in Church….)

Up to a very real point I think that the stories of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and also of Mary Magdalene, the first to see the empty tomb, did more to make Christianity acceptable and familiar to the pagan gentiles of the world than any other two single aspects of the Gospels.  The proof of this is in the Universality of “Mary” as the most common woman’s name anywhere and everywhere the world has accepted Christ.  It is almost impossible to reconcile Saint Paul’s near misogyny with Jesus’ tolerance and obvious love of the women in his life, and of women generally.  While 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 is rightly known as the “Hymn to Love,” this divine love or agape is not the kind of richly human love and relationships of which Jesus’ mother sings in the Magnificat, nor of which we celebrate during the successive seasons of Advent,  Christmas, and Epiphany.  What would Paul have said to Saint Joseph (whom I once played in a public school Nativity Play in Texas—the very concept of a “public school nativity play” is kind of astounding in 2011—but J.S. Armstrong elementary in Highland Park, Texas, well that was a different place and a different time altogether from anyplace in the United States today that I know of…)…what would Saint Paul (formerly Saul) have said to Saint Joseph during Advent about Joseph’s pregnant wife, and the fact that the two of them had not been married at the obvious time of Jesus’ conception?  Paul completely ignores all of that in his Epistles.  I cannot find the name of “Mary”, nor the words “Annunciation,” “Mother of Jesus”, “Angel Gabriel,” or anything like that even in Fr. Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s index or concordance to his exhaustive commentary on First Corinthians in the Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008). Fitzmyer comments that Paul only refers briefly that he knew the Lord’s Brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5) and elsewhere in Galatians 1:19 indicates that he (Paul) knew James, the Brother of Jesus and First Bishop of Jerusalem as one of the Apostles.  This is pretty much all that Paul says of Jesus’ family.  (See especially Fitzmyer 2008: 353-359).  “Brotherhood” and family in 1 Corinthians refers to the community of believers—an abstract family bound by spiritual values rather than blood, whereas the Gospels are all so intimately physical and related to Jesus’ capacity to be human, eat and drink with everyone, touch and heal the sick, embrace sinners, and ultimately to die.   The practical and earth Pagan world of Europe and Egypt would never have accepted Paul’s Christianity alone.  The hierarchical political world of the Roman Empire would never have accepted Jesus’ Gospels of Love and Tolerance alone.   In Mary the people and the Church found their Earthly and Heavenly Queen, and this is (to me anyhow) the essential lesson on which we must focus during the Season of Advent.

For Family, Home, and Freedom: Restoration of Civil Liberties, Restoration of Honor in Government, Abolition of AEDPA and the PATRIOT ACT, and Social Security Reform by Restoration of the Common Law of Trusts all go Hand-in-Hand

‎”The former House speaker, who has risen in the polls, would allow younger workers to take their share of the payroll tax that funds Social Security and put it in a private account.” That’s okay. If their investments tank, he also supports euthanizing elderly people who are homeless–or at least denying them any medical care for which someone else would have to pay.

Note how DESPERATELY ironic it is that ANYONE would consider Newt Gingrich a “Conservative”.   Euthanasia of the elderly (and “antisocially” uncooperative) was supported from the earliest days of Fabian Socialism by no less renowned celebrities of the turn of the last (19th-20th) Century than George Bernard Shaw, who predicted that if “people refused to live a good life, they would be painlessly put to death” in a Fabian Socialist world—later enshrined in what Aldous Huxley called the “Brave New World”—at some future date “in the Year of Our Ford.”   Real conservatives would never support euthanasia as a matter of social policy, or deny the right of any individual to make choices for him or herself.  Real Conservatives believe in Freedom as the Highest Value, but Newt Gingrich is no Conservative, no Patriot, and No American:

In fact, Newt Gingrich deserves the hatred and disdain of all Americans who value the Constitution and especially due process of law for his role in bringing about the 1996 legislation known as the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which effectively abolished the writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States. The Constitution says Habeas Corpus will never be suspended, but it’s now almost neutered, nugatory, non-existent. Of course, what’s interesting is that his proposals were part of Newt’s famous campaign “Contract with America” (sometimes called the “Contract on America”) 1994 BEFORE the April 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. If you’re of a suspicious mind, you could even imagine that they (the Feds) planned the bombing so that they would have an excuse to enact the 1996 restrictions on Freedom. But the public reaction was insufficient. They (I mean, of course, Bin Laden) had to pull off 9-11 before the Patriot Act could go into law five years later—but it was ALL part of Newt Gingrich’s original proposal. “Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog, Ear of Bat and Wool of Dog”—I’d Say Gingrich has them all, and yes, I think he’s an evil Wizard who would conjure up more evil as President than we can begin to imagine……

So far as Social Security is concerned, I have an alternative proposal where “right meets left” I think: Maintain government management of Social Security but subject government management to the Common Law. That would mean that the government would actually KEEP its promise to create Social Security Trust fund for each individual, and would manage it as a matter of fiduciary responsibility under the traditional law of Trusts & Estates. This would be real, this would be honest, and it would be guaranteed. And if it fails, there would be direct consequences to the managers (namely the six members of the Social Security Administrators, who act as Trustees over a fictitious and unfunded trust right now, subjecting them to liability for fraud even before accounting).  https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/further-thoughts-on-the-public-debt-clause-and-social-security-a-major-lawsuit-based-on-14th-amendment-waiver-of-immunity/

Real Conservatives, Real Patriots, Real Americans believe in keeping promises and honoring the commitments made by the government as TRUSTEE FOR THE PEOPLE.  It is a sacred duty and a sacred commitment which cannot be broken.

If elected to the United States Senate, I would push forward such a lawsuit on behalf of the people of California against the United States Government.  Every Senator and Congressman who did not join me in this lawsuit would have to explain why.   I think that, given the standing of a Senator from the Largest state, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to be reformed  and subjected to the common law of trust, and Social Security would be fully funded for the first time in history, as a result of the (finally) politically feasible disgorgement of 75 years of misuse and government abuse in alliance with the major corporations.  And at the same time, the government-corporate alliance would be crippled.  And for that, the people of the United States would have something seriously to be thankful for.

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 to Senate Bill 1867 to try to hide or disguise the grim, vicious reality—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.