Tag Archives: 42 USC 1981

Question & Answer on Federal Civil Rights Claims against State Courts, Judges, & Lawyers

Question on Facebook from the Distinguished Doctor William Todd Overcash,  M.D., in Ocala and Oklawaha, Florida:
I have a question. Who would feel safe and believe they would get a fair treatment when the Chief Judge of the Florida 5th Circuit removes members of the courts ethics committee and then assigns non qualified members and incites referral of your attorney for disbarment/sanctions 3 days after your legal team files a federal lawsuit against 7 Judges and 20 State Agencies. Be the way, the previous committee 5 months earlier had cleared your attorney.

Answer from a Madman who has been studying this question for 30 years:
Who would feel safe and belief he would get fair treatment when he enters a Dragon’s Cave for the purpose of reclaiming some or all of the gold the Dragon has accumulated by killing people over the years? Whenever you invade a Monster’s lair, you pretty much have to accept that you’ll only be leaving there one of two ways:

One way is carrying the Dragon’s head after decapitating him. The other way is when the Dragon throws out whatever’s left after he’s eaten. Fairness and safety are not rights afforded to Rebels who rise up in insurrections against Monsters or against Monstrous Tyranny.

The Federal Civil Rights laws are written so that you can only invoke Federal supervision over State Courts when individual rights are systematically deprived according to a system of racial discrimination. That MAY or may NOT have been Congress’ “original intent” in enacting 28 USC 1443 and 42 USC 1981 and 1985-1986, but it is how the Supreme Court of the United States and all inferior Federal (and most state) Courts have interpreted these otherwise majestic statutes: they are basically race-based “affirmative action” programs.

So, unless you are willing to take on the question of whether you are the victim of reverse racial discrimination, you cannot enter the Dragon’s lair and expect to come out in very good shape. It may as well be said publicly: RACE defines the struggle for American (and world) CIVIL RIGHTS.

That’s why “Black Lives Matter” is the pre-eminent radical movement of 2016. That’s why non-white immigration is the biggest issue in Europe and one of the biggest issues in the USA. That’s why Donald Trump has such a strong (even if possibly misguided) support among the Far Right/Alt Right “14/88” crowd.

If you think it is a monstrous thing to allocate fundamental rights according to race and only adjudicate claims based on race, then you think that U.S. Civil Rights is Monstrous, and when you attack these questions, you are entering the Monster’s Home…..

If you disagree with the current structure and allocation of Civil Rights and the powers to enforce them under U.S. and International Law, then you need to enter the Political Fray and try to change the law by engaging in and exercising whatever political processes may be available under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. Or indeed, as Donald Trump made waives for saying earlier this week, however indirectly and obliquely, by engaging in and exercising whatever rights and political processes may be available to you under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or, perhaps Article I, Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Article 2, Section 1 of the California Constitution is similar but in no way as absolutely or powerfully phrased:

SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

It is significant and worth noting that “protection and security” are among the purposes of government included in the California constitution but omitted from the Texas Constitution.  Providing “protection and security” has always been one of the mottos and gangster watchwords of oppressive government….

But also note that, apart from whatever may be inferred from the language of the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, no such express and explicit “right to alter, reform, or abolish…government” is clearly articulated within the United States Constitution, or the Constitution of the State of Florida.

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

Can I recommend any attorney that is “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues” here in California? No, not without gagging, I cannot.

Dear Charles, Question:  Do you know an attorney that you can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California? We are in the Santa Barbara Central District.

[[[First: a merely rhetorical question: Why do you want a State Licensed Bar-Card Attorney beholden to the Supreme Court of California and an officer of every court before whom you appeal, would you not rather have independent, non-monopolistic, representation by someone not officially integrated into one of the few expressly authorized State Action exceptions to the Anti-Trust Laws under the New Deal Era “Parker Doctrine?”]]]
So, dear reader, you want “an attorney that [I] can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California?”  I fear there is nobody who fits that bill.  I sadly cannot recommend a single California attorney of whom I have any knowledge who is also “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California.”  I am copying this letter to Catherine Bryan who may have a different opinion, or at least “some” opinion on which way to turn—it generally appears that almost everyone who goes with a “bar attorney” ultimately loses, with a very few exceptions (but then, almost everyone loses, regardless).
          Attorney Michael Pines would be the closest, because he once (exactly a year ago in fact) wrote and filed a complaint (“on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California) which I considered magnificent, here attached “Michael T. Pines NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure”. On June 15, 2010, one of the best complaints ever was filed:  Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action, but then, 96 days later, that case was dead because the Plaintiffs’ California State Bar Licensed Counsel failed to file any responses to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss OR even to the Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions…CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010
So as you can see, that case foundered and died because of Michael T. Pines Voluntary Dismissal 09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and Failure to file responses to Steven D. Silverstein’s Motion to Dismiss.  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report
Since that dismal episode, Michael T. Pines would appear to be constantly trying to make the news.  He has been arrested several times for “trespass” or trying to get people back onto their lands/homes.  I’m not sure where all that stands right now but you can probably google it.  His complaint last year was filed against too many defendants on too many issues.  But he didn’t really try at all, in my opinion.  We have a case, 09-cv-01072-DOC, in USDC CDCA-Southern Division (Orange County) which is currently still alive but hanging by a thread…..and we’re unsure what exactly we’re going to do next.
           Then there was Dennis Martin Russell, who responded to my on-line/website-based ad (charleslincoln3.wordpress.com) seeking a Constitutional Lawyer to advance the issue of civil rights removal in Orange County.  Dennis Martin Russell accepted $5,000.00 from Renada Nadine March, which was close to 100% of her settlement from a car wreck, and proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING.  I am considering helping Renada with a malpractice lawsuit against him.  We had high hopes for Russell, but to say he disappointed us would be a cruel understatement: he misled us and deceived us.
        But any such malpractice suit will go up against the precedents set and actions taken by current California Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown while he was attorney General, again last year.  Governor Moonbeam, while Moonlighting as Attorney General Moonbeam, prosecuted several attorneys for….what was the phrase, advancing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loaCEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010n could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.”  See attached letter, “CEL to Edmund G. Brown, AG, 08-26-2010.”  
           To that fairly meaty letter we received a completely content-free reply, namely the attached “09-08-2010 K. Savona Response to CEL Letter.”  09-08-2010 K Savona Response to CEL Letter to Edmund G Brown
          Finally, Diane Beall Templin is currently working with an enigmatic, New York licensed, Attorney named Paul Nguyen, who won a case against Chase Bank before the highly enigmatic A. Howard Matz here in the Central District of California.   See attached files for reference: 09-cv-04589-AHM Docket Report as of 09-19-201009-04589-AHM-AJW 10-29-2009 Nguyen Motion to Howard Matz for Contempt against ChaseHoward Matz Granted Foreclosure TRO 09-4589 July 2009Howard Matz Supplemental TRO Requiring Authenticated Appraisal 08-03-2009
          Paul Nguyen has since then opened an office somewhere in Orange County and is now supposedly practicing with some success, but I cannot personally vouch for anything except that I met him once in his office and he is very sharp and energetic and MIGHT be as good as he looks—my only reservation after meeting him was that he preached a kind of caution which, although traditional and understandable among attorneys, did not seem quite sufficient or adequate to the task of unraveling the non-judicial foreclosure & eviction morass in California created by legislative statute: California Civil Code §2924 et seq..  
        And then again Paul Nguyen MIGHT just have pulled a special trick on Judge A. Howard Matz, or intimidated him in such a manner as Jose L. Pineda appears to have done—see the lead story on my blog (right after this letter).
          If I can provide you with any further information, please let me know.  On the whole, I am opposed to the State Bar Monopoly and believe that the licensing of attorneys does little more than to insulate incompetent and corrupt practice from challenge.  As I have recently written, I think that Judges such as A. Howard Matz are completely and totally knowing collusion with the banks, and so lawyers like Diane Beall Templin and Paul Nguyen may be as well.
Catherine Bryan, to whom I have copied this letter, has accused Diane Beall of being in complicity with the Banks and their attorneys.  Catherine Bryan to CEL re-Diane Beall April 3 2011 .  We do not know the truth because we see only through a glass, darkly.  We moan like doves and growl like bears.  We seek for the light but live in darkness and grope like blind men along the walls.  OK, so what else  does Corinthians 13 have in common with Isaiah 59 and the allegory of the Cave in Book VII of Plato’s Republic?
          I simply do not know what to say at this stage about Paul Nguyen and Diane Beall, but if Catherine were a lawyer, or if Bar Cards were not required, she would be the first person I would recommend, immediately after myself….. The connection between A. Howard Matz and Paul Nguyen’s victory on the one hand and subsequent migration to California on the other are both….curious and disturbing to me.  
         If you haven’t read my blog, please do so at https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com, especially the lead article on A. Howard Matz and the Jose L. Pineda case, and what it may or may not mean.
After Midnight on June 12, Pentacost Sunday, Jennifer Lee wrote in from Pasadena:
Thanks Charles
As for Paul Nguyen he stole 4 k from my mom and promised an adversarial complaint and never did it and I could give you a list of horrible things he did to her including a chapter 11 bankruptcy that he botched so badly and abandoned her when she had paid in full to him. He then told us he has 100 customers and can’t possibly help them all so he had to pick which ones he is going to let loose and he doesn’t care less if they loose and get evicted. He told us he chose us to loose as our case was more difficult and he doesn’t care. I just spoke to a lady I saw tonight who told me he did the same to her and many more people she knows and she has someone who is going to go after him for her. I was given advice of how to report him. I have been too busy but I really need to report him to the bar and judicial review. Don’t remember off hand the place.he is a con man. Diane beall was upset to hear what he did to us but she told me she was losing all her cases so she needed to learn from him and she needs money even though she didn’t want to be there and she was sick to watch what he did to mom. She tried to confront him for what he did to us and she got in trouble for it.  

Who knows corruption and oppression in America best? The victims all know….. And yes, I am one….

Why should you vote for a convicted felon?  Because you could be the next victim of injustice—and if you’re not, some relative or neighbor of yours probably is the next.  The government has set out to reduce us all to shame and compliance through a horrendous code which has already imprisoned/restricted the liberty of 3% of the population—that means that just under 1 in every 30 people, nationwide.

Some people may wonder why I am considering a run for U.S. Senate when I am a disbarred lawyer and “convicted felon.”  I find it hilarious that my detractors like to call me a “convicted felon.” It’s just so inglorious to call me a “convicted one-time misstater of his social security for no readily ascertainable reason. I am a convicted “Enemy of the State,” and damned proud of it, because “Everybody know that the system’s rotten.”

My opponents will probably get a kick out of circulating my Federal Prison system ID and mug shots I’m sure, once the campaign really starts (my Federal Prison ID number was already published somewhere on line—and not be me, either…and those who enjoy discussing my “crime” of a misstated social security number have repeatedly published my social security number INcorrectly—which you’ve got to admit is kind of funny).

But as I’ve said and written many times, I wear them all as “Red Badges of Courage.” These pictures are wounds which show nothing more than that I have deeply disturbed the powers that be so much that they feel they MUST make me into a criminal, because to allow me to stand, free and respectable, would make them all look so much less so.  To the population at large I’ll tell you: you NEED to contribute to and vote for this convicted Felon and Disbarred Lawyer because he is one of the few with the knowledge and perspective to really dismantle the corrupt system and start to make YOU free or at least free-ER and less shackled and manacled. You are all shackled and manacled in this land of false-freedom, lame-liberty, and conscience-free semi-consciousness in front of the TV.

We need to restore freedom.

We need to simplify society and restore the right of individuals to structure their own relationships with each other, and the reduce the power of government by, among other things, dismantling the unnatural infrastructures which only government can maintain, and which all depend on communistic theft and wealth redistribution, which ultimately makes us all so much poorer.   So yes, what this country needs is more convicted felons (convicted, in essence, of breathing air—or dust at the worst), all frankly, ALL lawyers, the very practice of law itself, MUST BE DISBARRED and all the practitioners set truly free, as I have been for the last nine-eleven years, to form my own opinions and come to my own conclusions, free from the oppression of Bar Committees and Judges.

So, if you’ve never been arrested, never seen any Federal or State jail, penitentiary, or “correctional facility” from the inside, you may consider yourself lucky, or worse, you may consider yourself a “really good, law-abiding citizen.”

But I would beg to differ with you.

In fact, I think you are deprived and lack information necessary to see the world as it really is: you know only what a cave looks like in electric lights, and not what one looks like in torchlight, starlight coming through an open cliffside entrance, or, indeed, no light at all.  And not to know a cave in total darkness is simply not to know the reality of a cave.

For my part, I think it is the not merely the birthright but the duty of every American to see and understand how the least fortunate in society are treated.   Only there in prison, not just watching the men and women chained together in rows but being one of them, can one really see into the heart of darkness of this bright land of the free.  I submit that no one should criticize Nazi Germany, the Soviet Gulag, or the massive slaughters of Maoist and Pol-Pot’s versions of Oriental Despotism until s/he is aware of what it feels like to live even for a short while incarcerated, surrounded by those men and women of sorrows who are hated, rejected, despised and intimately acquainted with grief.  To live all one’s life in a comfortable middle-class cocoon is hardly to live at all.  It is good and worthwhile to see up close and understand the depraved sadism of White American young and middle-aged male and female prison guards, how much pleasure they take in herding and taunting formerly free men and women like cattle, feeding them like pigs, sheering them like sheep of all outward trappings of dignity.

Ask yourself what normal person would want the job of a “Correctional Services Officer,” but also ask yourself what person could remain normal and decent while serving as a “Correctional Services Officer.”  As is so frequently advertised on late night Television—the “Correctional Services Industry” is one of the fastest growing fields and opportunities for employment in America—“Help Keep the Prison Planet Safe”—I am inclined to wonder whether the Russian Press is right that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, framed for rape, because of the revelations he planned to make about the American Financial System.  

Once you have reflected on these points, you will understand how Auschwitz and Treblinka were built, staffed, and maintained by the German people, born in one of the two or three most civilized nations in the world, who had grown up listening to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, reading Goethe & Schiller, and Nietzche and Schopenhauer.

How much easier will it be for today’s generation raised on grunge or punk (at the best) or rap (the currently universal lowest common denominator) to imprison their fellow man?   The cultural degradation of America means to me that we will soon care nothing at all for our fellow human beings, and will treat them worse than the Nazis, more in tune with the Soviet gulags and Chinese/Cambodian mass slaughters.

In state penal systems, the worst treated are the sex-offenders, alleged and real, who are the real bearers of the ultimate stigmata our courts have the power to inflict, worse than murderers, worse than bombers, sex-offenders, in or out of prison, are a category or prisoners unto themselves. They are feared and shunned even by other inmates.

In the federal “correctional” system, the worst treated are the illegal immigrants. These are honest, hardworking people from foreign lands, lured by greedy employers on this side of the border who CONSTANTLY open their doors and wallets to the illegals, and the illegal immigrants are all shuttled around on busses and on “Con-Air” and, like the sex offenders, bullied by otherwise unemployable, middle-aged guards while shackled and manacled, stigmatized for life by their offenses.

How much I loathe the state and federal penal systems in America, and the lawyers, judges, and “justice” systems, filling them with populations larger than the original population of the 13 colonies, I can never say.  And yet I am so grateful to God Almighty and indeed to U.S. District Judges Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack as well. I am so happy that I have spent two months behind bars, so that I can speak for America’s victims of injustice from personal experience, and understand the dehumanization and filth of even the most “sanitary” federal facilities.  Otherwise I never would have known about the clinical cold of the stale air conditioned air meant to depress minds and souls and simulate death, the mind washing drill of telling people that they have no rights, only privileges, while supposedly creating a more “healthful” environment (socially and biologically).

V-for-Vendetta as a movie is emblematic of my life: like the prisoner from Cell V, and also like Madame Terese Defarge in Tale of Two Cities, I count the days and treasure the memories of those who have oppressed me until the revolution will tear down all our hundreds and thousands of crowded, modern-day “Bastilles” and “relocation camps.”

The Obama Administration was elected in part to fulfill the American Dream of true racial equality, but the reality is that the jails remain disproportionately filled with people of color, and Obama has done nothing to restore the freedom of “his” people.  I am not Black or Hispanic, but I would fight for genuine penal reform, repeal of most of the Federal Criminal Code in fact, and define “the general welfare” as something better than a choice between government handouts to the unemployed, membership in the Army to destroy freedom abroad in the name of safety here at home, and incarceration for so many good business entrepreneurs who had the drive or incentive to make their own way in the world.

I am inspired to write today by reviewing the sanctimonious texts written about me on one particularly “Foggy” newsgroup dedicated to supporting and exonerating the Obama regime.   The contributors to this group are silly, all too comfortable, middle-class professionals and a few Foggy-bottom-feeding scum-suckers they collect around them.  Among the latter there is a former ungrateful homeless tenant and single mother for whom I did way too much and from whom I got absolutely nothing in return except grief.

The bowmen in the fog are indeed the detested Pharisees and Sadducees of modern times.  They who aim and show their poison-tipped darts are rare hypocrites and self-satisfied soulless creatures, who enjoy the comfort of their government or corporate jobs and pensions and care nothing for the past or future of America or the world.

I am so happy that I know first hand, coast-to-coast, what their reality is.  They are the lawyers and government employees who love the Federal Reserve System more than life itself, and who revel in the “Brave New World” ethics of “truth” generated by internet diffusion and apparent but unreal numbers.  They do not appear in their own names because they do not dare, but behind childish “avatars” and untraceable e-mail handles (unless one knows them, as I know that former tenant and single mother from Florida).

The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction know that America is in the midst of a Purge—destroying the Middle Class, and selling our homes and lands to foreigners by the thousands.  The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction probably do not all realize that they were selected for this purge by their own government—by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who favored easy credit and soft money—and that none are worse offenders than Senator Dianne Feinstein.  The Senate hearings on the mortgage crisis focused on whether the banks could escape the consequences of “robo-signing” forgery and proceed with foreclosures efficiently and expeditiously—the two major parties include few if any friends of the people, and all too many friends of Chinese investors in American realty.

But what of the millions of homeless people, in America, the inhabitants of the tent cities and “Extended Stay” hotels, uprooted by foreclosures and eviction?  They are in the extreme opposite of a jail. They are truly free, no longer shackled down by mortgages or rents or anything else.  Among their numbers are those men and women destroyed by divorce and child custody battles, destroyed by the declining income of the American population, impoverished by a dollar cheapened and weakened, oh yes, by the moneychangers, the international bankers, the finance experts and gurus, including their lawyers and the layers on layers of insanely oppressive laws and regulations which have made it cheaper and safer just to say “no” to doing business in America.

The bows in the foggy roads to socialism and dictatorship in America are many and varied, but they come down to a few key routes: (1) the destruction of the world financial system by socially engineering economists and business-strategists and lawyers, (2) the destruction of the Anglo-American legal system by those elite lawyers and judges at all levels of the State, Federal, and local judiciary, (3) the social-welfare/wealth redistribution system based on the triangulation of the Federal Reserve Banks, the Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security, and all the derivative Welfare Programs authorized under Title 42 and elsewhere in the U.S. Code.

The first key routes to destruction are pretty obvious.  I started my post-JD life working for Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, and I am almost as proud of how poorly I fit into that New York hellhole of a lawfirm, with its exquisitely shiny, constantly polished marble floors, hardwood desks, embossed stationary, and managing partners whose incomes exceed the GNP of many third-world countries. With the prison-like imposition of uniform styles of dress on employees, even though the cost of dressing up to CWT standards on a weekly basis cost several times the annual Federal subsidy paid for state prisoners on a yearly basis.

“Legal education and the reproduction of the hierarchy” was the subject and theme of Duncan Kennedy’s “Little Red Book” of 25 years ago at Harvard, and it’s a marvelous read on the reality of the legal profession for anyone who doesn’t know it.  Kennedy hints at the futility of waging any virtuous wars through the legal system.  And that was BEFORE the Federal Judicial improvement acts imposed all those negative “case statistic” incentives on judges to dismiss cases and lower case loads as a major policy priority.

But the third branch of the road to socialism is the real highway, and the Federal and State government programs of taxation and welfare benefits are only part of the picture.  To really understand the evils of “welfare” we need to look at the imposition of government “benefits” such as compulsory marriage licensing, divorce, and child protection services, as well as compulsory education, compulsory driver’s licenses, and mandatory bar integration.   The government really and truly seeks to extend its tentacles into every aspect of our lives.  The government must be stopped.

Sometimes it does require the expertise of those who have been victimized by the law to become the most effective advocates and instruments of changing the law.  I am such a person.  And besides. How can I help but do well in California?   This Golden State of beautiful people which exalts everything fake, that (incredibly) just managed to survive 7.5 years under the governorship of Frederic Austerlitz’ Austrian-born compatriot Arnold Schwarzenegger, and maybe they’re ready for someone who’s actually experienced the pain of a genuinely uncharmed life.   I consider myself really and sincerely beautiful, all 272 balding, out-of-shape pounds of me.  As Oliver Cromwell said, “paint me as I am, warts and all.”  When I was first hospitalized for tachycardia in October 2006, I told my assistant, “I’m too beautiful to die” and damned if I wasn’t right—I absolutely, positively was just too beautiful to die.  I could have died 6 years before that in Egypt, or, for that matter, two months before that in a terrible car wreck by the Suwanee River near Live Oak, Florida, or one of several other occasions I can think of, but every single time I survived.   To what purpose?  Maybe, just maybe, it was to show all the people with foggy intelligence who shoot their bows with poison darts at me that my authenticity can win, and that virtue is not just about pretending to be honest and beautiful, but of having an inward and spiritual grace which belies one’s outward and visible state.

If elected to the United States Senate I would conduct filibusters, be involved in 99-1 votes, and the news that someone like me was elected might just depress the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  That would be a good thing, because there is nothing more false than the notion that stock prices have anything to do with real productivity or prosperity. But whenever the powers that be line up against someone, threaten to shut down everything if a certain candidate is elected, you have to imagine that candidate has touched a raw nerve somewhere.

To elect someone like me would be good for the Hispanics of California and the United States because I am not only fluent in Spanish and steeped in their heritage and culture, but I have suffered by and chained to their brothers, sisters, cousins, and uncles who have been persecuted for their status as illegal immigrants, seeking neither more nor less than Frederic Austerlitz’ parents came here from the Austro-Hungarian empire to find in Nebraska or than Arnold Schwarzenegger came from post WWII Austria to find.  Those are two American movie-star icons, but their parents are indistinguishable socially and economically from the Hispanic masses who continue to be chained and oppressed in these United States, even in Texas where Ernesto de Zavala co-wrote and signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836, and served as the new “Anglo-Saxon” Republic’s First Vice-President.

Moreover, I understand the Native American as well as the Hispanic roots of “Mexican,” Central American, and South American “Hispanic” culture(s), and I would fight for the recognition of “Mexican Indians” as Native Americans entitled to all of the benefits afforded by the Constitution to Native Americans inside the United States.  I would fight for their right to the recognition of their separate and distinct cultural heritage and identity.  In fact, I would fight for the right of all peoples to their separate and distinct heritages and identities, because “one size does not fit all” either in the educational, judicial, or political systems.  True equality means and must always mean the freedom to be who you really are and not shrived of your identity.

To elect someone like me would be good for the African-American citizens of California for all the same reasons.  I have seen and shared the degradation of so many of their relatives in state and federal prison, and know that while Hispanics are famously imprisoned in massive numbers for their status as “repeat” illegal aliens, blacks have, in the past fifty years, been more the victims of the insane “War on Drugs” than any other group (Hispanics are a close second).

I know that Blacks and Hispanics both need courts where they can really and truly be assured of full and fair justice by judges and juries of their peers, and that the present system does not provide them with such courts.   As a United States Senator I would fight for the rights of all ethnic groups to maintain their identity while enjoying full equality by equal protection of the law, including equality of rights to preserve and develop their distinct and separate cultural identities by allowing legal communities to develop distinctive and culturally adjusted laws within our multi-cultural “umbrella” of American political society.   To the same degree that globalists would erase all boundaries of cultural differentiation and identity, I would fight to allow each people to maintain and preserve their identities for themselves.

To elect someone like me would for all these same reasons be good for the Jews and Armenians, Chinese, Cambodians, and Vietnamese, who have been the victims of long genocidal wars in the 20th century, and major wars of repression.  No candidate, certainly not Senator Diane Feinstein, realizes the incredible degree to which America Under the Patriot Act (and related portions of AEDPA and FISA) resembles the totalitarian dictatorships of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Vietnam under several regimes, or how much of the equipment of mass roundups and deportation of populations assembled in modern America today resembles the technology of genocide inflicted upon the Armenians of Turkey in the first genocide of the 20th century or against the Jews of Central Europe during the most famous genocide in all history.

Truly it can be said that Earl Warren, as planner of the Nisei Camps, was the Adolph Eichman of the United States, and that his cynical, racially biased implementation and application of civil rights laws was to divide, conquer, and disperse the population of America during the 1950s and 60s. The resulting America is one in which civil rights have been reduced to almost nothing, where Federal Courts repeatedly affirm that so long as all people in this Country have the same rights as white people, it doesn’t matter how severely freedom is suppressed.

This ridiculous conclusion to 150 years of civil rights legislation remains on the books today and is large part of the reason why foreclosed homeowners cannot seek adequate relief or redeem their properties by litigation under 28 U.S.C. 1443 or 42 USC 1981-1982.  Civil Rights law should be entirely color blind, but groups should have the right to defend and protect their own customs, heritage, and rights.

And this is the final reason why the (former majority, of which I am a member) White Anglo-Saxon, Northern, Eastern, Southern and Continental European Californians would benefit from my election.  I would fight to abolish all inverse discrimination against White people in this Country.  I would fight to establish true equality under the laws, recognizing the protected equality and forced assimilation are by no means the same things.   In short, I would be good for all Californians except the Foggy Bottom Poison Dart Bow Shooting fat cats, who love the status quo because it is so easy to manipulate and maintain, and so comfortable with all their precious governmental and corporate BENEFITS…. including the right to look down on others who do not agree with them and seek to deprive the true majority of their rights, all by the use and implementation of a completely biased and unfair legal system which has forgotten all the rules of fundamental fairness, due process, and constitutional rights.