Category Archives: Freudian Dream Analysis

A tale of two movies—one I saw: GET OUT and one I didn’t: VERSCHWINDE!

First let me tell you about the movie (VERSCHWINDE!) I didn’t see:  In this movie, set in the 1920s, a very handsome young blonde haired and blue-eyed White Christian German man (let’s call him “Erwin Christoph Rommel”) falls in love with a beautiful German Jewish Lady (let’s call here “Rose Adele” who invites him to meet her parents beautiful country home for a weekend, as a token symbolic act of how serious their relationship as become.  

Rose Adele’s parents (let’s call them “the Armandsteins”) are extremely modern progressive scientists from Vienna, a psychologist and a neurosurgeon, to be precise.   Christoph, Adele Rose’s young German beau is from a poor family, no visible career or aspirations, down on his luck in the Weimar Republic’s post-“Great War” depression before the World Wide Depression of 1929.  

The young lady’s parents (the “Armandsteins”) make intense small talk always alluding to the young man’s status as a non-Jew from a poor background, noting his physical beauty and attractiveness.   This all makes young Christoph feel very nervous and uncomfortable, as does the fact that other young Christian Germans like himself work as the servants to this family—-and basically refuse to speak like normal young Germans and seem to act only as caricatures of happy subordinates, wound up to speak platitudes of praise and thanksgiving of their somewhat degraded status.  

As the weekend evolves, it turns out that the Armandsteins, Adele’s Jewish parents, and all of their extremely wealthy Jewish friends are members of a group that agrees and conspires to enslave White Christian German men and make use of them as sex-toys or else for medical experiments in the corrupt and decadent style of 1920s Germany and Austria…. The mother, a psychoanalyst (let’s assume he was a student of Sigmund Freud, perhaps named “Anna”) hypnotizes young Christoph and partially controls or influences his mind….  Meanwhile Adele’s Father D. Armandstein conducts a ritual game of some sort with the other like-minded Jewish guests at the weekend party, which is a regular annual family event of some kind, and reveals some sort of intent to target young Christoph for an unusual but clearly unpleasant fate of some kind or other.  

The climax of this movie comes when the Jewish Father Neurosurgeon Armandstein (acting like a mad scientist Frankenstein or Frankenfurter or whatever…) attempts to perform a brain transplant from Christoph to a blind Jewish art-dealer.  Christoph plays along until one of Adele Armandstein’s slightly dimwitted brothers prepares to transport him to the surgery room, and then breaks loose and kills or disables everyone in the Jewish family and begins to escape… only to be greeted at the gate by someone who at first looks like State Police, and then turns out to be a childhood friend who is a Nazi member of the SA…. the Sturmabteilung…. the predecessor to the Nazi SS of greater fame and infamy in the 1930s and 40s…

The movie ends with heroic celebration of the brilliance and heroism of the paramilitary office German National Socialist Movement which saved young Christoph from the fate of other young Germans hypnotized and enslaved by this clearly insane, repulsive Jewish family …  

I repeat: I have not seen this movie Verschwinde for a simple reason—it doesn’t exist (or if it does, it’s quite a coincidence…. please advise me if you know of anything like even remotely like it).   Verschwinde is the sort of movie that might well have been produced in the 1930s or early 40’s with the seal of approval of Paul Joseph Goebbels….  but it’s fairly certain that if such a movie were produced today, it wouldn’t premier at the Sundance festival or be generally released to massive audiences all over the United States in 2017….

But now let me tell you about the movie I DID just see today, Wednesday, March 15, 2017:  GET OUT, which did in fact premier at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2017, and generally released by Universal exactly one month later, on February 24, 2017.   I walked out feeling, quite frankly, stabbed in the back (an historically appropriate but exceedingly uncomfortable feeling for the IDES OF MARCH…).

Chris Washington in GET OUT is not a White Christian German a young black African-American man, while Rose Armitage appears to be his very normal girlfriend.  They seem like quite a comfortable, typical modern interracial couple…. and they do indeed go for a family visit to meet Rose’s parents because, implicitly, in the modern way, they are getting really serious even though they always live together—there’s even a whiff of that horrible old tradition of “matrimony” in the air….

Bottom line folks—just rewrite the scenario I gave you for Verschwinde except that Upper Class White Americans are planning to use and destroy a young good-looking black man.  You can read a thousand on-line reviews of GET OUT—you can go see it yourself.

My point is simply this: IF “VERSCHWINDE” as I have described it above were a real movie and actually even made and existed, it would be immediately and universally characterized as a textbook example of RACE HATE movie.  The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) would Such a movie could never be made or released in modern times and, if it were, it would be suppressed and decried as the epitome of “blood libel” against the Jews, on the order of the story of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln….

So my question is—has America really sunk so low that it is acceptable to make movies like this where White People are the science fiction monsters exploiting blacks?

Oh, the SA aren’t really in this movie GET OUT, of course, but the equivalent paramilitary investigative and oppressive organizer of Chris Washington’s rescue is from the TSA—that’s right, the folks who frisk you at the airport… the Transportation Safety Agency.  I think the comparison with the original paramilitary organ of the National Socialist German Workers Party is completely appropriate….   This is Science Fiction as Historical Metaphor an Allegory… this is Science Fiction as Political Advocacy….

In case you didn’t know, my friends and fellow Americans, it is OK to hate white people and portray them as ignorant, insane monsters who pray on black people…. But just try to make Verschwinde!, and see what reception you’ll get at Sundance…..  Is the concept of hate according along racial lines any different?  Are upper class WASPS really so much worthier a target than Upper Class Jews?

I CHALLENGE EVERYONE READING THIS POST TO TELL ME HOW IT WOULD REALLY BE DIFFERENT IF THE ETHNIC IDENTITIES AND TIMES AND PLACES WERE CHANGED?  WHAT DOES IT MEAN ABOUT OUR SOCIETY TODAY THAT IT IS COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE TO MAKE THIS MOVIE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE BEING EVIL TO BLACK PEOPLE, BUT IT WOULD BE A COMPLETE ABOMINATION TO MAKE THE NAZI MOVIE ABOUT THE JEWS?

The Impossible Dream…

The Impossible Dream….

Is restoration of a Constitutionally Limited Government in America an Impossible Dream?  Is there any way that we can right the unrightable wrongs against freedom and individual autonomy that have been done in the name of “progress”, “protection,” “public safety” and “security?”

If such restorations and rectifications indeed lie out side of the realm of the possible, I still agree with this song that it is better that we dream of such things and “be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause”, than that we let our dreams die in peaceful and quiet despair….

I confess that the discovery of Obama’s Executive Order 13603, entered last March 16, 2012, has had a profound effect on me.  I think that almost all of our OTHER struggles are hopeless and in vain now, until we can start overturning some of these terrible perversions of executive power into dictatorship….

They say that Rock Hudson and Jim Nabors were gay lovers, and if so, who cares?  They were quiet and civilized about it and it doesn’t diminish one bit the fact that Jim Nabors has a beautiful voice and performs this stirring song of idealized knighthood and heroic dreaming far better than Peter O’Toole managed during his otherwise masterful performance as the Knight of the Woeful Countenance in the movie “Man of La Mancha.”

Was the world really a poorer place when people kept their eccentricities private?   Freud taught us that guilt lies at the very foundation of civilization and civilized life—I don’t know whether that’s true or not—I find a lot of Freud’s notions bizarre and anthropologically/historically untenable.   But in its milder forms of modesty and keeping our private lives private, is “guilt” really such an awful thing?  My long-term assistant Peyton went up to San Francisco about a year ago for a vacation and found himself in the middle of a “gay pride” day.  The stories he told me about what people were doing in the streets were not something that would make me proud (gay OR straight).   Sigmund Freud may have been a Jew and Henry Ford may have hated Jews, but isn’t it odd how they both promoted the culture of “instant gratification” and constant change in lifestyle and behavior of all kinds which culture has come to dominate our world?

Old Gossip, Still Floating Around—I deny it (again) just for the record—and discuss some Patriot Myths….

Gossip about me and Orly Taitz remains on the web, which just shows how completely uninformed and stupid information on the web really can be, and how much damage it can do over the long run.  I just discovered a little bit of remnant misinformation tinged with stupid insult that I think needs to be addressed:

“Charles Edward Lincoln III was Orly Taitz’ Law Clerk during her representation of Maj. Stefan F. Cook and Capt. Connie Rhodes. He is thought to have been the author of her Motion for Recusal which wound up costing her $20,000 in sanctions.

Now the simple truth is this: Orly and I had a big fight about that motion and SHE is the one who insisted on going around insulting Judges—I tried as hard as I could to restrain her myself.  As I have stated many times, I grew up in a family with several Federal Judges as friends in Dallas (including Sarah Hughes and Barefoot Sanders).  I lived near and met U.S. Judges around Tulane and Harvard, I studied under some present and (at that time) future Judges at the University of Chicago.  While I was at law school I served a term as an judicial extern to Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (it was one of the greatest intellectual experiences of my life) and after law school I held an ordinary judicial clerkship with Kenneth L. Ryskamp on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  During all of these experiences, I came to know and worked with judges whom I deeply respected.  

Now I have never had much use for the common California practice of holding lawyers in contempt for insulting Judges or the Judicial process, but I did find a funny case history about such a case of undeniably counterproductive (if extremely revealing) contempt just yesterday on the first day of summer, and I highly recommend it as instructive and fairly amusing reading: Hanson v Superior Court.  Either we need more lawyers like this Hanson guy, or we really don’t need any lawyers at all—I wonder which it is?

Anyhow, back to the piece above accusing me of being responsible for Orly’s sanctions: NOT.  Definitely not.  I suspect Orly and Yosi spread this bit of malicious gossip themselves, but it just ain’t so, folks….

I certainly started the motion and provided her with all the citations she ever used (including the Cohens v. Virginia Citation about treason against the Constitution: Cohens v State of Virginia) and with some of the text (I have done motions to recuse before), but I did so fighting with her every step of the way.

Before she attacked Judge Clay D. Land in Columbus I as already fighting with her about the need to respect the Judges before whom we appeared.  I was totally opposed to her attacks on Judge David O. Carter (who I thought was a wonderful judge, and still think is one of the best, certainly in Orange County, possibly anywhere).  Orly claimed that HER SUPPORTERS wanted her to take a strong stand against the Judge in the Connie Rhodes case, and that she had to do what HER SUPPORTERS wanted to.  Many of these were retired military types who (understandably) hated and loathed Obama with a purple passion, and that’s why they were Orly supporters.

I called this “litigation by Patriot pod committee” a very dangerous strategy and technique to proceed, especially since most of these folks were just barely off the “everything in the Courts is admiralty” boat and shouldn’t be trusted as legal or constitutional advisers.

For those neither involved in nor familiar with the Patriot-Constitutionalist Conservative movement, I make reference here to one of the stupidest and most counterproductive of all “Patriot myths” about the Courts and legal system: namely that the Courts are all operating (secretly) under British Admiralty Law, that the “BAR” stands for “British Admiralty Registry”, and that the United States government is secretly still controlled, through the operation of Admiralty law, by the Queen of England.  I originally thought the only possible origin of this myth was in amazing overdoses of cocaine mixed with bourbon, but after Hurricane Katrina I had occasion to settle a number of property loss cases in New Orleans and vicinity and saw admiralty terms in the settlement agreements.  Of course, I asked what was going on, with these very normal and  (as respectable as they can be) insurance lawyers.  It turns out that the “admiralty” and “British Influence on the Courts” myth actually has some historic foundation in the post World War II development of the Southern USA Oil Offshore Oil Industry, more than JUST BP’s involvement in drilling wells, and that it is this kernel of truth which has just provided enough historical grounding in the history of the Southern USA Oil business that the “British Admiralty Registry” myth won’t go away easily or die a natural death, as it certainly should.

Anyhow, I totally disclaim any responsibility for Orly’s unwarranted attacks on Judges.  If she had ever really listened to me, her litigation would have been conducted in a much better researched, more dignified, and more responsible matter, but she was basically out there to become “famous or infamous”, just so long as she got headlines.   As I have written before, I now think that her entire involvement in the Article II eligibility movement was designed to derail Philip J. Berg and to discredit the real constitutional lawyers who were trying to expose Obama’s crimes and lies—before the really got serious, as they have in the past year.  

In my opinion, Obama probably owes his survival as President to Orly Taitz’ completely incompetent litigation show.  I think this was an intentional plan from the very beginning concocted by Orly and her husband Yosi, and that Orly is neither a genuine conservative nor a Constitutionalist in any sense.  I have yet to see firm evidence that Orly is a spy either for Israel or China, but I strongly suspect that she is working for some foreign agent to weaken and destroy America by making a laughing stock out of true conservatives.

Many of us are convinced that those who keep on purveying the “Everything is Admiralty” and “the USA is under British” (or in the alternative, or in addition, Vatican) control are likewise acting as agents for the government.   Some of them are just illiterate.  Anyone who completed the most elementary secondary education in Latin, of course, winces with pain when some of the modern patriots claim that our “inalienable” rights (in-ale-e-en-able) should be read as “unalienable rights” (un-a-leen-able) rights, interpreting that ancient concept of natural birthright to a commercial notion of “rights upon which no lien can be imposed.”  This is the purest poppycock but people persist in believing it.  Just like some people think that Orly is still really working AGAINST Obama.

We have moved back our New Orleans Seminar to the end of July, and we will have a panel discussion on Patriot Myths at that Seminar.  Patriotic Shreveport Louisiana Lawyer Tommy Cryer died a couple of hours after I talked to him the night he agreed to appear at that Seminar, and I intend to dedicate a part of the Seminar to his memory.  Cryer, along with Larry Becraft and Donald W. MacPherson, was among the top anti-IRS Lawyers in the United States, and an inspiration to many people fighting this corrupt system around the Country—but Orly was NEVER on their side, or interested in their work or what they had to say, more’s the pity…..

A Step towards Emancipation from Lies—My Favorite Juneteenth Reading for 2012 is all about 9-11-2001 (from Salon.com)

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/

Remember, remember, Eleven September—the “Terrorist” Treason and Plot….

TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 01:24 PM PDT

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released,” an expert tells Salon

BY 

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims(Credit: Reuters)

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Let’s start there. In 2000 and 2001, the CIA began using Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Afghanistan. “The idea of using UAVs originated in April 2000 as a result of a request from the NSC’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism to the CIA and the Department of Defense to come up with new ideas to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan,” a 2004 document summarizes. The Pentagon approved the plan for surveillance purposes.

And yet, simultaneously, the CIA declared that budget concerns were forcing it to move its Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit from an “offensive” to a “defensive” posture. For the CIA, that meant trying to get Afghan tribal leaders and the Northern Alliance to kill or capture bin Laden, Elias-Sanborn says. “It was forced to be less of a kinetic operation,” she says. “It had to be only for surveillance, which was not what they considered an offensive posture.”

“Budget concerns … CT [counterterrorism] supplemental still at NSC-OMB [National Security Council – Office of Management and Budget] level,” an April 2000 document reads. “Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections.” In addition, the Air Force told the CIA that if it lost a drone, the CIA would have to pay for it, which made the agency more reluctant to use the technology.

Still, the drone program began in September 2000. One drone swiftly twice observed an individual “most likely to have been Bin Laden.” But since the CIA only had permission to use the drones for intelligence gathering, it had no way to act on its findings. The agency submitted a proposal to the National Security Council staff in December 2000 that would have significantly expanded the program. “It was too late for the departing Clinton Administration to take action on this strategic request,” however. It wasn’t too late for the Bush administration, though. It just never did.

Former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has taken credit for the drone program that the Bush administration ignored. “Things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians,” she said in 2006. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.” Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove. “If the administration wanted to get it done, I’m sure they could have gotten it done,” says Elias-Sanborn.

Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”

For all the information the documents reveal, one huge matter is conspicuously absent: torture. There are nearly 50 CIA documents relating to such matters as the interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the intelligence gleaned from him, and yet “none of them were declassified at all,” notes Elias-Sanborn. “Certainly, the CIA has a stake in revealing what they did,” and they clearly do not want to reveal their complicity in war crimes.

One last thing is worth mentioning from the documents published today:  Anyone with any doubt that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerous to the United States is contradicting U.S. intelligence. “Violence between Israelis and the Palestinians, moreover is making Sunni extremists more willing to participate in attacks against US or Israeli interests,” the CIA wrote in February 2001. It is not the only piece of information revealed by the new documents that will be deeply uncomfortable for the Bush administration and hawks across the country.

Jordan Michael Smith writes about U.S. foreign policy for Salon. He has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post.

Comments

  • Yg Bluig
  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 01:52 PM PDT

“Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had Bin Laden in its crosshairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. ”

But Bush was not in the White House “a full year” before 9/11. He took office in January 2001. On Sept. 11, 2011, he hadn’t yet stolen the election.Yg Bluig

  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 01:53 PM PDT

I meant ‘on sept. 11, 2000.”

The article doesn’t say that the Bush administration blocked funding for a year, just that the CIA knew OBL’s whereabouts for a year. The implication is that the Bushies did nothing about that information after Bush took office.tanmack

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 12:57 PM PDT

I recall Condoleeza Rice trying to explain to a Congressional hearing why the Bush Administration had disregarded the memo entitled “Bin Laden to Strike the U.S. with Planes.” I can’t for the life of me remember her response.

A few weeks ago, I rewatched the film Path to 9/11 that covered much of this ground, including CIA frustration that they could not get approval to shoot bin Laden. It also showed Richard Clarke being sidelined after he begged Rice to take bin Laden intel seriously.

I guess this is why the administration approved giving money to the 9/11 victims (rather than face being sued by thousands of families) although the Oklahoma victims received no compensation for their losses.ChillyDogg

  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 03:21 PM PDT

The CIA spent 70 billion in 2001 yet they couldn’t find a few million to monitor Bin Laden? I have a bridge to sell you.

  • sajwan
  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 03:23 PM PDT

There’s a lot of people buying.BillyFLA

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 06:52 AM PDT

Not to mention the $1 Trillion plus that we’ve spent on the GOP’s unnecessary war in Iraq and countless other millions thought needed to beef up homeland security after 9/11. If this was an example of Republicans trying to save a few bucks of Federal money, its also a great example of their being pennywise and pound foolish.Gus1964

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 08:23 AM PDT

How is it the GOP’s war? How many cowardly Democrats voted for the AUMF?

Just millions to beef up homeland security? I think your calculations are way off. The TSA alone costs billions of dollars a year.

  • sitka0230
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:30 AM PDT

The budgetary process allocates money for specific programs within various agencies. Even if the CIA had $1 trillion in 2001, it doesn’t mean a penny of it was allocated to this mission.

I am curious, though, how you arrived at $70 billion since this budget is classified. There was a slip-up in 2005 or so when it was accidentally disclosed that the CIA budget was $44 billion. I do not know if this includes so-called black ops budget.

  • paulie
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 08:28 AM PDT

Even more damning is that George’s younger brother Marvin Bush was a principal and prior director of the security company contracted to provide security to the WTC and his and Bush’s cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO at the time.The company was given a contract the day after GWB’s ignauguration.

These ties were never investigated by the 9/11 ,Commission, of course .

It must just kill the Repugnants and Bush-worshippers that their doofus let bin Laden off the hook so brazenly while that Kenyan Muslim Usurper Ni**er in the White House took him out after less than 2 1/2 years in office.jonvaljon

  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 02:08 PM PDT

it was all coordinated and neither bush nor obama had any control over when the body that no one ever saw was rolled out, thawed and stamped “done” right on the forehead.

  • mjshep
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 06:49 AM PDT

I think the tinfoil hat is cutting off the circulation to your brain. Reduced blood flow causes hallucinations.

  • suave
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:17 AM PDT

zzzzzzzz’BillyFLA

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 06:55 AM PDT

Well it WOULD just kill GOPers and Bushies IF they EVER admitted to making a mistake. But they’d rather line up en masse and insist that they have “no regrets”.sitka0230

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:32 AM PDT

Cognitive dissonance. See, for instance, jonvaljon’s comment. Rather than except reality, invent your own facts to meet your pre-established world view.

  • suave
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:58 AM PDT

.. except your reality relies on faith, instead of irrefutable evidence.

  • jonvaljon
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 09:06 AM PDT

pics or it didnt happen.

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 09:27 AM PDT

No, my reality is based on observations and parsimony.

State-Licensed Marriage is a CRIME AGAINST GOD, HUMANITY, and NATURE!

My Dear Friend Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson of Palm Beach Continues her Crusade against the forces of Secular Humanism as they fight against Constitutional Freedom, Liberty and Individual Integrity and Autonomy.  04-16-2012 KAGL Edited Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Determination back in 15th Judicial Circuit Court.  We a complete reversal in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals!  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s divorce decree was vacated and nullified (on February 15, 2012) as having been entered in the Complete Absence of Jurisdiction, by Judge Richard L. Oftedal (now off the case).  The 4th DCA returned its mandate to the Florida Circuit Court in North Palm Beach County on Friday 13 April, and so here we are, back in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County.  Hurray, Kathy! 

Notice of Respondent’s Constitutional Objections to Personal Jurisdiction,

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer & Counterclaim,

Motion for Scheduling Order and New Trial, and

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION

COMES NOW the Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, pro se, giving notice of her constitutional objections to the exercise of personal and subject matter jurisdiction over her by and under the Family and Domestic Relations Code and Courts of Florida. The fundamental question which Respondent submits is this:

Where there is no express constitutional authorization, how can there be any legitimate constitutional exercise of control over any subject matter or personal question defined as a matter of fundamental right, such as marriage, privacy, and child-rearing? If neither the constitutions of the United States of America nor the State of Florida authorize the licensing or dissolution of marriages, nor to regulate domestic relations in any way except with regard to public safety, how can the State of Florida erect and maintain courts to adjudicate cases relating to such matters?

The Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida has expressly decided in its order of February 15, 2012, that the Judge Richard L. Oftedal had no power whatsoever to enter a final judgment on April 29, 2010 for the dissolution of marriage.  In other words, the Fourth District Court found that Judge Richard L. Oftedal acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction in entering that “Final Decree of Dissolution” dated April 29, 2010, and that his actions were a nullity.  Implicitly, Judge Oftedal must also have acted unlawfully when he refused to set aside his April 29, 2010, order upon Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s post-trial Motion.  As the Fourth DCA correctly noted, Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson had not one, but two appeals of non-final orders filed (pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9.130).

The two interlocutory appeals both concerned constitutional challenges to the Florida Family Code and Florida Domestic Relations jurisdiction. Since the Fourth DCA denied Respondent’s motion for clarification or rehearing on these subjects, the appellate justices essentially declined to decide and/or found it unnecessary or improper to reach these issues, since they had already reversed and vacated Judge Oftedal’s final judgment in full in Respondent’s favor[1].

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now returns to this Circuit Court and asks for leave to amend her pleadings, and for a new scheduling order, a new opportunity to conduct discovery (which she never did) and for a New Trial in this Court to find and/or determine, after sufficient hearing and inquiry into the underlying facts and law of the case all of the Constitutional Issues which Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawon has sought to bring to bear in this case, as a matter of law.

The essential point is that neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of the State of Florida authorize the State to Issue Marriage Licenses or to impose jurisdiction by statute to resolve cases or controversies involving or arising from private domestic relations or religious questions of any kind (so long as no breaches of the public safety or peace are involved or implicated).

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now demands that, in the interests of judicial economy, this Court rule (after seven long years of waiting) how the Florida Florida Family Code (in particular as dealing with dissolution, division of property, and child custody) derives any legitimate power or constitutional authority in light of Article I: §§1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 23, 27, including but not limited to Basic Rights, Religious Freedom and Non-impairment of contract provisions of Article I: §§3 & 10 (including the proposed amendment of Article I: §3 submitted to the people for popular mandate on the ballot this November 2012) of the Florida Constitution, as well as the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as a whole, and her rights to Due Process of Law (Art. I: §9), Trial-by-Jury (Art. I: §22), and protection from wrongful intrusion into her privacy (Art. I: §23) by the Courts as a precondition of preserving those rights in dissolution proceedings.

The only mentions of “marriage” in the entire constitution of Florida appear in the recently adopted negative definition in I: §27 and in Article X, §5.  Neither section neither authorizes nor implies state authority to license marriage.  Article I, §27 mandates that Florida will respect only heterosexual unions as marriages as a matter of law, for whatever legitimate purposes there might be in so doing.  Article X, §5 likewise makes no reference to state regulation of marriage, but addresses (somewhat mysteriously, and perhaps redundantly with Article I, §2 above) another issue of “respect” under law:

There shall be no distinction between married women and married men in the holding, control, disposition, or encumbering of their property, both real and personal; except that dower or curtesy may be established and regulated by law.

Accordingly, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now asks this Court finally to rule, resolve, and clarify, upon new trial after amendments, discovery, and full-briefing herein requested to resolve Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s constitutional questions and affirm her challenges both to this court’s exercise of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is the respondent to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage brought by her husband, Jeffrey P. Lawson, originally in February of 2005.

Contending from the beginning that there was a defect in the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has never consented to the jurisdiction of this Court.  It is a time honored principle in this state, affirmed steadily by our Supreme Court since at least Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768 (Florida March 29, 1927) that any:

Party proceeding without objection with hearing in equity court of controversy, jurisdiction of which may be given by consent, may not thereafter complain as to jurisdiction.

            But the record will show that Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has continually objected to the jurisdiction of this Court and never waived her rights to challenge the personal or subject matter jurisdiction of any Florida Court to adjudicate any aspect of her marriage, her domestic relationship with her husband, or her domestic relationship with their daughter, or to dispose of any of their property except that her husband or the Court show positive constitutional authority to do so, and not merely acquiescence by silence as to this point of most sacred and fundamental rights.

Nor has Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson ever been afforded the right to amend her pleadings in accordance with her constitutional objections and challenges to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, Respondent here and now further requests that this Court acknowledge, affirm, and enforce her right under Article I, §§1, 2, 3, but especially §5 (Right to Instruct Representatives and to Petition for Redress of Grievances), §9 (Due Process of Law) and §21 (the “Open Courts” provision) of the Florida Constitution to amend her pleadings, conduct discovery (Art. I, §24), file pre-trial (and, unlike under Judge Oftedal, have a full and fair hearing on all) motions (including but not limited to Constitutional questions of both substance and procedure[2]), and otherwise to prepare try her constitutional and jurisdictional challenges related to the current Florida Statutory Scheme for the Dissolution of Marriage.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson submits that seven years is too long already, and that she should no longer have to wait to challenge and deny the power of the State of Florida so to intrude upon her fundamental rights as to design and enforce upon her a Family Law Jurisdiction and application of judicial process without consent to deny her (1) right to petition, (2) right to privately contract, (3) right to due process of law, (4) right to a trial-by-jury, (5) rights and powers reserved to her as one of the American people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has already collected statistical and documentary evidence which she would have plead and presented by and through expert witnesses and testimony (long ago) to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, had she been allowed to do so by Judge Richard L. Oftedal, which shows that Florida Courts automatically grant 100% petitions for divorce without regard to any principal or standard other than that to allege that a marriage is irretrievably broken is taken as sufficient proof of the same as a matter of both fact and law.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would also have argued that such a system was enacted by the Florida Legislature without legitimate or even colorable constitutional authority, then enforced by the State Judges and “officers of the Court,” and applied to her in defiance of all constitutional and statutory law, and in violation of her rights guaranteed under the Federal and Florida Constitutions to rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom from both state impairment of the obligations of contract and takings of liberty and process in violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.


[1]           Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson abandoned these two interlocutory appeals once Judge Oftedal entered his final judgment on April 29, 2010, but the issues were not waived firstly because by operation of law the issues raised by the interlocutory merged, and secondly because these issues were fully briefed, as part of Kathy Ann-Garcia-Lawson’s Initial Appellate Brief, of which the Florida Fourth D.C.A. reached only the 9.130 jurisdictional issue and refused, even on her March 1, 2012, motion for clarification or re-argument, to address, decide, or resolve in any manner.

[2]           This Court should be aware that Judge Oftedal, on the record, refused to hear or rule upon any constitutional issues in his court, which is surely a denial of Kathy Ann Garcia’s rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions of Florida and the United States.

In the full version of this Motion, attached above, Kathy quotes in her conclusion of Chief Justice John Marshall’s stirring words in Cohens v. Virginia (March 3, 1821):

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.

The Full text of Cohens v. Virginia is attached here: Cohens v State of Virginia 19 US 284 5 LEd 257 6 Wheat 264 Chief Justice Marshall March 3 1821

Was Martin Luther King, Jr., really a hero? Was he a tool utilized by the United States Government for certain purposes, discarded when he became too influential? Who was he, really? Who made his career what it was? Robert Kennedy? George Corley Wallace? Herbert Hoover? Just to what degree has United States History been a series of carefully orchestrated since 1898? 1913? 1919? 1933? What is real and what is fantasy? How much of the fantasy was staged, scripted, and professionally performed? 9/11/2001 almost certainly was. How about Waco 1993 & Oklahoma City 1995? World Trade Center 1993? Dar es Salaam & Nairobi 1998? How many national elections? And since when?

Martin Luther King Pop Quiz (shamelessly plagiarized, ironically enough, from: http://martinlutherking.org/king_trivia.html)

How much do you really know?

Here’s a little MLK quiz to coincide with the upcoming MLK holiday.
Enjoy!

——————————

Many Americans don’t know enough about MLK. After taking this quiz, you will see how little the schools, news media and political establishment have told you about the only American with his own
holiday.

1) Name the judge who has sealed King’s FBI surveillance file until
the year 2027.

Answer: The Honorable John Lewis Smith, Jr.

2) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on
earth in an adulterous liaison?

Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”

3) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning
on earth physically beating a woman?

Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”

4) Who was the U.S. Attorney General who ordered the FBI to wiretap
King?

Answer: Robert F. Kennedy

5) Who was the Assistant Director of the FBI who wrote a letter to
Sen. John P. East (R-NC) describing King’s conduct of “orgiastic and
adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be
bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

Answer: Charles D. Brennan

6) Who called King a “hypocrite preacher.”

Answer: President Lyndon B. Johnson

7) What U.S. newspaper reported that King had plagiarized his
doctoral thesis at Boston University.

Answer: The Wall Street Journal

8) Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his
doctoral thesis?

Answer: Dr. Jack Boozer

9) Who was the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities
who purposely suppressed knowledge of King’s plagiarism of his
doctoral thesis?

Answer: Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Richard Cheney

10) What was Martin Luther King’s real name?

Answer: Michael King, Jr. In 1935 his father, Michael King, declared
to his congregation that he wound henceforth be known as Martin
Luther King and his son would be known as Martin Luther King, Jr.

11) In his first public sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1947
who did King plagiarize?

Answer: Harry Emerson Fosdick

12) Name the man who served as King’s personal secretary from 1955 to
1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College
in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 was
sentenced to 60 days in jail in California “lewd vagrancy and
homosexual perversion.”

Answer: Bayard Rustin

13) According to whom had King “privately described himself as a
Marxist.”

Answer: His biographer, David J. Garrow

14) Who edited King’s book Stride Toward Freedom?

Answer: Communist Stanley Levison

15) Who made the following speech?

That’s exactly what we mean– from every mountain side, let freedom
ring.Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont
and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from
the Ozarks in Arkansas, from Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Blue
Ridge Mountains of Virginia –let it ring not only for the minorities
of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth–from
every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING!

Answer: Archibald Carey, 1952

——————————

If you got no questions correct it means that you are exactly the kind of ignorant citizen your government desires.

1-3 questions correct means you could be dangerous.

4-6 questions correct means you must read to much.

7-10 questions correct means you must value historical correctness instead of political correctness. Congratulations!!

11 or more questions correct means you’ve been reading this website and learned the truth. 

Now it’s up to you to tell others the truth.

MLK Pop Quiz Martin Luther King Pop Quiz

Who is this Anders Behring Breivik and what the hell is going on in Norway with this bizarre psycho-criminal process? (I wonder whether the CCHR has looked into Psychiatry in Norway? Could it be just as bad and corrupt as portrayed in Sweden in the highly realistic if substantively fictional “Millennium Trilogy”?

What is going on in Norway as they investigate the Anders Breivik case?  Thanks go to my Facebook friend, Lara Zhivago, originally from  Irkutsk by Lake Baykal in Siberia but now lives in the city of George, West Cape Province, South Africa, for this translation of the latest, published at: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10024406 (Lara lists her religious and political views as “Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense”—most of us really can’t be bothered with such disturbing thought processes, but input like this comes in handy I think…

Lara writes, “Breivik says every single page of report contains factual errors, and accuses Psychiatrists of being incapable of understanding political ideologies that are different to their own.”

TRANSLATION:(AP) Wearing handcuffs noted Anders Behring Breivik avid defenders then read out parts of rettspsykiaternes report to him. Almost on every page says Breivik errors.Breivik can not even see the report, but must sit behind a glass window while the defenders Odd Ivar Green and Isolated Ground reads aloud from the report. Friday, he read up about half of the part that is made available to him. The oral review would take six hours.

– How do you react Brevik on the content?

– We are waiting with his final conclusion until he has submitted the report and have the whole picture. We have gone through much of the report concerning conversations he had with psychiatrists. He reacts to what he believes are the facts wrong, lying, that his statements are taken out of context and that much is wrong made, says Green.

– Slightly stated

The report is written by the right-appointed experts, psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim. It is based on 13 conversations they had with the mass killing the man. They have also undergone over 130 hours of police questioning. The report is about 240 pages, but some parts are still restricted.

– What is it that rebel Breivik most?

– It’s only about the fact that many of his statements are taken out of context in the report, says Green.

– How did he react physically?

– He is normally very calm and polite. He shows signs that he is somewhat abandoned, but beyond that there is no physical reaction. He is very interested in what it says in the report.

The report concludes that Anders Behring Brevik was insane when he killed 77 people.

– He does not agree with that conclusion. He is concerned that the
experts do not have the necessary experience with political ideologies. He can say things that they perceive as bizarre, but that is not bizarre in his opinion. He has not reconciled itself with that they think he is insane, but we will wait to conclude until he has seen the entire report.

Going carefully through

Green says that Breivik stops on almost every page to point out errors.

– He is thorough and note diligently all the way, says Green.

Breivik think that this is a very cumbersome way to go through the report.

– Now we will continue working for him to get access to as much as possible in the report. He wants to have it physically in hand, so that he can read it and work on it yourself.

Green says that the defense hopes that Breivik will be presented to the rest of the report during the next week.