Monthly Archives: February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blame it on King Charles I.

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

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

Those were the magic words.

Article V, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution says:

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

That’s where Charles comes in.

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

Say this for Brits — they have long memories.

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

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

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

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

And…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attention California! People calling Attorney General Kamala Harris—pay attention! Prosecute, do not settle with, the Major Securitized Mortgage Banksters! (Charles E. Lincoln responds to Cal. Deputy A.G.)

Joel A. Davis
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90013
Public: (213) 897-2130; Calnet: 8-647-2130; Fax: (213) 897-2810
Dear Mr. Davis:
  First, let me thank you for your letter and for the opportunity to discuss these matters with you.
Let me clarify to you from the outset that in this case I am at the present time represented by counsel (Diane Beall, Tel: 760-807-5417, to whom you should address future correspondence, although I do request you continue to copy me as well).  In any conversation, and I am willing to have a telephonic conversation with you or anybody else, I would insist that Diane be included for a three way.
Second, let me clarify to you that you have written almost everyone’s e-mail incorrectly, so I doubt that anyone got this e-mail besides Renada and Dan.
Third, the sole purpose of our filing suit against the State of California is to seek a declaratory judgment that several state statutes (especially the California non-judicial foreclosure system, e.g. California Civil Code Section 2924 et seq., both on its face and as applied by the California Courts, see e.g. Gomes v. Countrywide and Fontenot v. Wells Fargo (both attached121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011Fontenot v Wells Fargo Bank NA 198 CalApp4th 256 129 CalRptr 467 August 11 2011).
Fourth, as regards the Officers of the State of California, I am not a licensed attorney, but maybe you can tell me: has Ex Parte Young been overruled?
Why does Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require joinder of the State Attorney General?
Why did the United States of America sue Governor Janice Brewer AND the State of Arizona when seeking a declaratory judgment that Arizona’s state immigration laws were unconstitutional?  (See attached “United States v. Arizona, Janice Brewer, etc.”United States v Arizona, Janice Brewer etc).  If that case resulted in Rule 11 sanctions against the U.S. Department of Justice, I was not aware of that….
So, I and my co-Plaintiffs and attorney (and thousands of potential co-Plaintiffs) need to understand your position clearly: are you saying that
there is no longer any possibility of a serious and non-frivolous citizen-filed Constitutional suit for declaratory judgment where the defendants are state actors and plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin these officers from enforcing a state law that the Plaintiffs are seeking to have declared unconstitutional?  And has Ruiz v. Texas been overturned, holding that where conditions resulting from Constitutional wrongs are such that it would take years to correct, and the Supreme Court held in Ruiz that it would be improper to find a Constitutiona wrong, but afford no remedy, so damages for present conditions and ongoing injuries should be allowed?
The millions of victims among the people of California who have been wrongfully evicted from their homes AS A DIRECT RESULT OF A STATE POLICY (as described by Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loan) which seems to ME unconstitutional (and seems to my attorney and co-Plaintiffs to be Unconstitutional as well) are in a position exactly analogous to the Texas prisoners in Ruiz.
We are all prisoners because we are being reduced to mere tenants on the real property which we regarded as our own.  We are continually oppressed and penalized by confiscatory taxation and an increasingly arbitrary and capricious set of one-side contractual terms imposed on us by mere adhesion, without our consent, by banks who are constantly shifting in their identity.
We contend that the State of California has, as a matter of custom, practice, and policy, set out to destroy the meaningful right of the people to acquire and maintain ownership of real property.
We contend that the State of California does this (destroys the institution of private property, and the integrity of the contractual and judicial processes of contractual construction, enforcement and remediation) as a matter of a comprehensive state statutory scheme, assisted by licensed attorneys to whom increasingly complex and impenetrable layers of special immunity and protection are granted.
I am very anxious to meet with you, together with my co-Plaintiffs and counsel, to discuss this and all related matters.
And so, without more for the present, I will await YOUR response—
I would offer to dismiss the State of California (as a Defendant) if you believe that the State is not a proper party under the 11th Amendment even in spite of the fact that the United States of America sued Arizona for analogous relief (to have a state statutory scheme declared unconstitutional and unenforceable).
What the origins of this statutory scheme might be in terms of State-Corporate collaboration or some long-term plan to reshape society is a subject we should take up when we meet.
I am willing, indeed anxious, to discuss all these matters with you seriously and at length.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

Telephone: 512-968-2500
In case of emergency call Peyton Yates Freiman (Texas)
at 512-968-2666 or e-mail freimanthird@gmail.com


Matthew 10:34-39
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .  


Von: Joel Davis <Joel.Davis@doj.ca.gov>
An: mackassoci@aol.com; mommieanie@aol.com; renadajewel@gmail.com; mendezrichard@hotmail.com; charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com; lincolnforcalifornia@rocketmail.com
Gesendet: 10:46 Mittwoch, 8.Februar 2012
Betreff: Charles E. Lincoln III v. State

To the Plaintiffs, in pro per:I have just received your third amended complaint which apparently was delivered to the Attorney General’s office on behalf of the State of California.  I am contacting you in compliance with the Local Rules of the Court to confer prior to bringing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b) and for attorneys fees under Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C. section 1988.
The State of California, its agencies and officers in their official capacity are absolutely immune from suit in Federal Court, regardless of the claim asserted or relief sought.  (See U.S. Constitution, Amendment XI; Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 148 L.Ed.2d 866, 121 S.Ct. 955, 963-966 (2001); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73, 145 L. Ed. 2d 522, 120 S. Ct. 631 (2000); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979).)  In addition, the third amended complaint does not state a coherent, plausible claim for relief as against the State or any of its officials.  (See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1937; 173 L.Ed.2d 868; (2009).)
I request that you dismiss the State from this action.  If you are not willing to do so, I plan to move to dismiss and for sanctions.  Please contact me immediately to discuss.
Joel A. Davis
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90013
Public: (213) 897-2130
Calnet: 8-647-2130
Fax: (213) 897-2810
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Forget the Imperial Presidency and refocus attention on the Subservient Congress: Did Congress Work for Five Years to Prepare the Way for Barack Obama to become President? Was it part of “W’s” Plan as well?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw

My thanks to a dear old friend Barbara Anne K-H for sending this over to me from Alabama in the Heart of Dixie….  I had not seen or even heard of this legislative history before.  As of Friday, February 3, 2011, Judge Malihi’s decision in Georgia came down in favor of Obama as a natural born citizen.  Well, what a shock?   I had rather hoped he would knock Obama down but I am not the least bit surprised or overly disturbed that he didn’t, because Obama’s birthplace is not the problem: Obama’s philosophy and political agenda are the problems, and should be the primary focus of defining his status as a traitor.  I and many others “on the right” waste much too much ink, toil, time, and talent on the eligibility issue, but at least I gave up and moved on rather than doggedly chasing the dead dog around the tree one more time.  I hope that other versions of Judge Malihi’s decision will soon be available, but for the moment it’s good enough to read it in this slightly fuzzy PDF by scribd: 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

Focusing on birthplace eligibility is too narrow and almost silly to justify concluding that Obama is “evil” because he lied about his birthplace.  

Sidebar: I certainly wish I could lie about where I was born sometime—there’s nothing particularly glorious about having been born in Commerce, Texas (I’d have rather been born in someplace special with a really romantic name like “Waco” or “Lubbock” or “Groesbeck”, or even, just imagine it…..gasp “Fort Worth”; likewise my grandmother Helen always regretted having been born in Nachitoches out in the hinterland of French Louisiana which made her less than a full member of New Orleans society, but we all are what we are; even my grandfather, born in the beautiful Victorian city of Galveston, with its amazing beaches and incomparable sea breezes, resented not having been born in his grandfather’s homeland back in England; parents can be so inconsiderate—I often have occasion to ridicule my assistant Peyton’s birthplace being in Memphis….along with his two “triplet” brothers).  

So I stick to my guns: the whole “eligibility” debate is a major distraction and a terrible waste of patriot energies.  We who believe in the Constitution should be focusing strictly on Obama’s crimes against the people (and these are mostly economic and political crimes which his predecessors initiated, which the most extreme and staunch constitutionalists are largely ignoring because they are focusing on Obama’s status or lack thereof as a Natural Born Citizen).  The legal argument most often invoked by the Courts against eligibility cases is that “the people” have suffered no individualized or discrete injuries from any violation of the Natural Born Citizen clause occasioned by Obama’s election.  

The difference in Georgia and other states that are considering the eligibility issue right now is that PROSPECTIVE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF are ALWAYS available against Governmental Officials, even when actions for damages or other punitive or corrective actions are barred by doctrines of “official” or “sovereign” immunity.  If Obama has perfected anything, it’s his own self-image as a sovereign (Kind of Reminds me of the King in the big palace portrayed in the movie version of the Jungle Book, but that’s another story…)

This above-referenced you-tube video makes some excellent points of which I was not aware about legislative history and purpose, and I highly recommend it: for five years before Barack Hussein Obama’s election, various members of Congress made repeated attempts to amend the Constitution of the United States to modify the Article II eligibility requirements.

The producer’s “blurb” goes as follows:

– MINI Documentary Illegal Obama “Propped Up” By Congress! If you never watch another video, watch this one, this proves the Democrats (and some Republicans) know Obama is not an American and is serving illegally and unconstitutionally and the efforts they made are recorded in the Congressional Record, attempting to change the Constitution so he could serve legally. EVERYONE that cares about and loves this Constitutional Republic absolutely MUST watch and forward this video!!!!!! This one must go viral. I won’t be surprised when the people of this country begin calling for an Impeachment. This guy and his croonies have been intentionally deceiving the American public and his friends in Congress have been propping him up.. Where are our elected representatives all been hiding?

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw>

I strongly suggest that we forget about Article II eligibility and hereby propose that we amend the Constitution to define “Natural Born Citizenship” for all three Branches of Government (Article I Legislative, Article II Executive, and Article III Judicial—as they do in Mexico, for instance) and actually to extend the requirements for Natural born citizenship as follows: 

“Only persons born within the territory of any of the United States of America, or any of its dependent territories, whose father and mother were both born in the United States, or to two parents also born in the United States who are temporarily living abroad, may serve in any office or capacity created by or under this Constitution, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, except for officers with no law-making, enforcement, or interpretive functions whatsoever.   No person shall be qualified to serve in any capacity whatsoever created by or under this Constitution who does not affirm by oath the primacy of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, above all other human rights.”

Disqualifying all but third generation citizens from Federal Office would have eliminated Barack Hussein Obama from the Senate, which would have prevented his elevation into the Presidency.  It would eliminate both Orly Taitz and Arnold Schwartzenegger from national politics, and would have, not so tragically, prevented early International Socialists (“New Dealers”) like Felix Frankfurter from sitting on the Supreme Court.  (Felix Frankfurter not only supported the New Deal and global integration, but also opposed the expansion of civil rights by incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment to the States).

It is Barack Hussein Obama’s belief in other rights and powers which makes him dangerous.  There is no more certain definition of a communist than one who does not or cannot affirm that the rights of each individual to life, liberty, and property are supreme and superior to all other human rights.  This maxim must be construed to include that the rights of life, liberty, and property of the individual are superior to the rights of the society to security, the rights of any individual to any particular AMOUNT of property or wealth or income or security, the right to free assistance of any kind from the government, the right to employment, or even the rights to food and medicine.  

I suppose it sounds harsh to say that the government should not be in the business of guaranteeing the right to food and medicine to any individual, but the cost in freedom of an increased augmentation of life or property by and through submission is, or ought to be, intolerable.

There is to my mind very little doubt that George W. Bush had the appointment of an African-American successor at the top of his agenda.  Why else did he have Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as his successive Secretaries of State?  The Secretary of State is the most visible officer of the Executive Branch after the President.  So it is only reasonable to expect that Congress, during the entire term of George W. Bush, would likewise have been paving the road for the first African-American President who would only be elected because he totally supported and underwrote EVERYTHING that his predecessors were doing.  It is all just too much of a ritual and stage play.  The Republican parties commitment to affirmative action of “right thinking” African-Americans was clear at the very latest from the fiasco surrounding the appointment of Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall in what can now only be called the “African American” seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Thomas himself paved the way for the acceptance of Obama in the sense that Thomas’ own marriage was interracial and therefore especially “Brave New Worldy” in that special “destroy real diversity by promoting homogenization” and “shake n’ bake” demographics.