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

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 <>
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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s