Tag Archives: justice

Seventy Years after the War—Will the Joy of Arresting, Defaming, Deporting, and Libelously-Slandering Extremely Old Men never Abate? Who really thinks this is fair? I want to know WHO???? (Yes, if you think it’s fair or just in ANY sense, please write to me!!!!)

With thanks for this story going to Paul Fromm—a great Canadian Patriot, who reports by e-mail:

One More Victim of German Bashing

The RCMP have said that 90 per cent of “refugee” claimants lie. This country is awash with refugee liars — Tamils and Somalis who return to visit the lands they claim to have fled for their lives. Canada’s ethnic-vote chasing politicians do NOTHING!
 
One More Victim of German Bashing

The RCMP have said that 90 per cent of "refugee" claimants lie. This country is awash with refugee liars -- Tamils and Somalis who return to visit the lands they claim to have fled for their lives. Canada's ethnic-vote chasing politicians do NOTHING!

Germans, however, are seen to be passive. Easy to beat up on them and win praise and donations from the vociferous, German-hating "never again" Jewish lobby.

Helmut Oberlander, unlike many of these lying "refugees", has made a major contribution to Canada. He is Volksdeutsche (an ethnic German born in the Ukraine). When National Socialist Germany made its pre-emptive strike on Communist Russia in 1041, the young Oberlander, fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and German,  was conscripted into the German army as a translator. When he came to Canada, he became a builder and developer and built a number of subdivisions around Kitchener, Ontario.

In his old age, his adopted country, egged on by that lobby that wants to continue to fight WW II, sought to strip him of his citizenship and deport him. The battle has taken many turns and cost a king's ransom in legal fees. Announced on the eve of the  70th anniversary of the Soviet "liberation" of Auschwitz (could that be a coincidence?), a Federal Court judge has dismissed his appeal that he served in the German forces under duress.

Despite the National Post (January 22, 2015) misleading label "Nazi-era war crime suspect", the 90-year-old Helmut Oberlander was never charged much less convicted of any crimes. He was a 17-year-old conscript, not a decision-maker.

Former Canadian diplomat and proud member of the Royal Canadian Air Froce (RCAF), Ian Macdonald writes some insightful comments on the latest German-bashing by the Canadian courts.

Paul Fromm
January 25, 2015

Editor
NATIONAL POST
Toronto

Dear Sir

Re: "Nazi war criminal loses appeal"  (January 23, 2015)

The Federal Court judges, colluding with the Jewish Lobby in the persecution of 90 year old  Helmut Oberlander  may know the letter of the law but they clearly know little of the history of WWII nor of Ukraine which exonerates their victim from the charges, in the absence of any criminal act.

For two decades prior to the occupation of the country by German forces, Ukraine had suffered under brutal subjugation by the psychopathic dictator Josef Stalin, who overcame resistance to dispossession and enslavement by using his predominantly Jewish Kommissars to murder 8 million good Christians , many tortured to death in the most gruesome fashion.  To Ukrainians, the Wehrmacht came as liberators, avengers and protectors, making it nonsense to suggest that there was anything reprehensible, let alone criminal, in Ukrainian-German collaboration.

Be that as it may, in the broader context, despite the rhetoric, Allied statesmen knew at the time that the atheistic Soviet Union was a far greater menace to Western Civilization than was highly cultured Nazi Germany, and that the subjects of the genocidal communist dictatorship were our potential friends..This reality, soon after the war, brought the Allies and Germany into common cause, automatically absolving those who from within had earlier opposed Stalin, from "war crimes" charges, or even criticism. 

The communist partisans, who sometimes wore German uniforms when slaughtering civilians to discredit the Wehrmacht, did not abide by the Rules of Warfare, forcing the German Sicherheitsdienst to respond with extreme measures, as would Western armies under similar circumstances.

Since the impetus for the witch hunt for German "War Criminals" comes from genetically-deceitful, vindictive, avaricious Zionist Jews, it is the essence of hypocrisy.  Israeli soldiers, settlers and airmen have murdered many thousands of Palestinians in cold blood.  Although the victims are mostly unarmed women and children, their killers are seldom brought to a court of justice - instead they are commended.and, if the number of victims is high enough, become national heroes.  The Chief Military Rabbi quoted in the Israeli Soldiers Handbook describes the killing of "enemy" civilians as a worthy act, even if they appear friendly.  Many of these racist Israeli war criminals are now living in Canada.  Why have they not been charged?  Perhaps the Learned Judges can explain.

As ever,

Ian V. Macdonald

Judge denies Nazi-era war crime suspect’s attempt to get Canadian citizenship back: ‘Never expressed any remorse’

Republish Reprint
Stewart Bell | January 22, 2015 3:27 PM ET
More from Stewart Bell | @StewartBellNP
The June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division. 
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Atlantic Foto Verlag BerlinThe June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division.
Twitter Google+ Reddit Email Typo? More
TORONTO — A Nazi-era war crime suspect stripped of his Canadian citizenship has lost his latest court appeal after a federal judge dismissed his claim he had served the Germans under duress.

Helmut Oberlander failed to show he had made any effort to leave the Nazi death squad Einsatzkommando 10a, where he was an interpreter, Justice James Russell of the Federal Court wrote in his decision.

“There was no evidence that he was mistreated and no evidence that he sought to be relieved of his duties. He served the Nazi cause for three or four years [and] surrendered at the end of the war,” he wrote.

Related
Renowned ‘Nazi hunter’ says Canada still a haven for scores of war criminals who will likely never face justice
How Jewish ‘enemy aliens’ overcame a ‘traumatic’ stint in Canadian prison camps during the Second World War
Jim Keegstra, Holocaust denier who took hate speech battle to Supreme Court, dead at 80
Anti-Semitic politician underwent an astonishing transformation after finding out he is a Jew
He also “has never expressed any remorse for being a member of Ek 10a or indicated that he found the activities of the organization abhorrent. There is no evidence that what he did for the organization was inconsistent with his will.”

Mr. Oberlander has been fighting the government’s attempts to revoke his citizenship since 1995, the year Ottawa alleged he had failed to disclose his wartime past when he became a Canadian in 1960.

The case has been in and out of the courts ever since but the 83-page ruling handed down January 13 and posted on the court website on Thursday is a decisive loss for Mr. Oberlander.

“We will revoke citizenship from individuals who obtain it fraudulently to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for fraudsters and criminals,” said Kevin Menard, spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

The Ukrainian-born Ontario resident was a 17-year-old factory worker when he was forcibly conscripted by the Germans. He said he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape.

But Justice Russell said he had not proven he would be killed for disobedience or desertion. “He gave no convincing evidence that he ever gave any real consideration to ways in which he might extricate or distance himself from the brutal purpose of the organization to which he contributed,” he wrote.

The decision was welcomed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has long lobbied for action against Nazi war criminals. Avi Benlolo, the President and CEO, encouraged the government “to immediately commence deportation proceedings against Oberlander.”

Meanwhile, his daughter, Irene Rooney, said Mr. Oberlander was “not a ‘Nazi war criminal’ … He was never a Nazi, and has not been found guilty of any war crimes.”
LATEST CANADA VIDEOS
Germans, however, are seen to be passive. Easy to beat up on them and win praise and donations from the vociferous, German-hating “never again” Jewish lobby.
Helmut Oberlander, unlike many of these lying “refugees”, has made a major contribution to Canada. He is Volksdeutsche (an ethnic German born in the Ukraine). When National Socialist Germany made its pre-emptive strike on Communist Russia in 1041, the young Oberlander, fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and German,  was conscripted into the German army as a translator. When he came to Canada, he became a builder and developer and built a number of subdivisions around Kitchener, Ontario.
In his old age, his adopted country, egged on by that lobby that wants to continue to fight WW II, sought to strip him of his citizenship and deport him. The battle has taken many turns and cost a king’s ransom in legal fees. Announced on the eve of the  70th anniversary of the Soviet “liberation” of Auschwitz (could that be a coincidence?), a Federal Court judge has dismissed his appeal that he served in the German forces under duress.
 
Despite the National Post (January 22, 2015) misleading label “Nazi-era war crime suspect”, the 90-year-old Helmut Oberlander was never charged much less convicted of any crimes. He was a 17-year-old conscript, not a decision-maker.
Former Canadian diplomat and proud member of the Royal Canadian Air Froce (RCAF), Ian Macdonald writes some insightful comments on the latest German-bashing by the Canadian courts.
Paul Fromm
January 25, 2015
 
Editor
NATIONAL POST
Toronto
 
Dear Sir
Re: “Nazi war criminal loses appeal”  (January 23, 2015)
The Federal Court judges, colluding with the Jewish Lobby in the persecution of 90 year old  Helmut Oberlander may know the letter of the law but they clearly know little of the history of WWII nor of Ukraine which exonerates their victim from the charges, in the absence of any criminal act.
 
For two decades prior to the occupation of the country by German forces, Ukraine had suffered under brutal subjugation by the psychopathic dictator Josef Stalin, who overcame resistance to dispossession and enslavement by using his predominantly Jewish Kommissars to murder 8 million good Christians , many tortured to death in the most gruesome fashion.  To Ukrainians, the Wehrmacht came as liberators, avengers and protectors, making it nonsense to suggest that there was anything reprehensible, let alone criminal, in Ukrainian-German collaboration.
 
Be that as it may, in the broader context, despite the rhetoric, Allied statesmen knew at the time that the atheistic Soviet Union was a far greater menace to Western Civilization than was highly cultured Nazi Germany, and that the subjects of the genocidal communist dictatorship were our potential friends..This reality, soon after the war, brought the Allies and Germany into common cause, automatically absolving those who from within had earlier opposed Stalin, from “war crimes” charges, or even criticism. 
 
The communist partisans, who sometimes wore German uniforms when slaughtering civilians to discredit the Wehrmacht, did not abide by the Rules of Warfare, forcing the German Sicherheitsdienst to respond with extreme measures, as would Western armies under similar circumstances.
 
Since the impetus for the witch hunt for German “War Criminals” comes from genetically-deceitful, vindictive, avaricious Zionist Jews, it is the essence of hypocrisy.  Israeli soldiers, settlers and airmen have murdered many thousands of Palestinians in cold blood.  Although the victims are mostly unarmed women and children, their killers are seldom brought to a court of justice – instead they are commended.and, if the number of victims is high enough, become national heroes.  The Chief Military Rabbi quoted in the Israeli Soldiers Handbook describes the killing of “enemy” civilians as a worthy act, even if they appear friendly.  Many of these racist Israeli war criminals are now living in Canada.  Why have they not been charged?  Perhaps the Learned Judges can explain.
As ever,
 
Ian V. Macdonald

Judge denies Nazi-era war crime suspect’s attempt to get Canadian citizenship back: ‘Never expressed any remorse’

Stewart Bell | January 22, 2015 3:27 PM ET
More from Stewart Bell | @StewartBellNP

The June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division.

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Atlantic Foto Verlag BerlinThe June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division,

TORONTO — A Nazi-era war crime suspect stripped of his Canadian citizenship has lost his latest court appeal after a federal judge dismissed his claim he had served the Germans under duress.

Helmut Oberlander failed to show he had made any effort to leave the Nazi death squad Einsatzkommando 10a, where he was an interpreter, Justice James Russell of the Federal Court wrote in his decision.

“There was no evidence that he was mistreated and no evidence that he sought to be relieved of his duties. He served the Nazi cause for three or four years [and] surrendered at the end of the war,” he wrote.

He also “has never expressed any remorse for being a member of Ek 10a or indicated that he found the activities of the organization abhorrent. There is no evidence that what he did for the organization was inconsistent with his will.”

Mr. Oberlander has been fighting the government’s attempts to revoke his citizenship since 1995, the year Ottawa alleged he had failed to disclose his wartime past when he became a Canadian in 1960.

The case has been in and out of the courts ever since but the 83-page ruling handed down January 13 and posted on the court website on Thursday is a decisive loss for Mr. Oberlander.

“We will revoke citizenship from individuals who obtain it fraudulently to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for fraudsters and criminals,” said Kevin Menard, spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

The Ukrainian-born Ontario resident was a 17-year-old factory worker when he was forcibly conscripted by the Germans. He said he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape.

But Justice Russell said he had not proven he would be killed for disobedience or desertion. “He gave no convincing evidence that he ever gave any real consideration to ways in which he might extricate or distance himself from the brutal purpose of the organization to which he contributed,” he wrote.

The decision was welcomed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has long lobbied for action against Nazi war criminals. Avi Benlolo, the President and CEO, encouraged the government “to immediately commence deportation proceedings against Oberlander.”

Meanwhile, his daughter, Irene Rooney, said Mr. Oberlander was “not a ‘Nazi war criminal’ … He was never a Nazi, and has not been found guilty of any war crimes.”

LATEST CANADA VIDEOS

Again, with my thanks to Paul Fromm—one of the most level heads in North America:

 

Do Dead Lawyers Lie Still?—Attorney-Client Privilege and its Oxymoronic Effect on “Legal Ethics”

Every truth is routinely denied and falsified, every lie is affirmed and promoted.  So as I, with Mephistopheles, so often like to state: “Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit Recht, denn Alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”

Montana State Representative (former State Senator, all-time great guy) Jerry O’Neil and I have spent many hours discussing the question: what IS it that a LICENSED ATTORNEY can do that really makes a license worth having?  I am a thrice disbarred attorney, basically a victim of political games played by evil NeoCons in Texas.  Jerry O’Neil has obtained a license to practice as an “advocate and counselor” from several Indian Nations, notably the Blackfeet, but he has never sought the license of any state.  If ETHICS were the sole test of qualifications to be an attorney—Jerry O’Neil would be recognized as one of the greatest of all time, in fact, he would probably at the very least be on the Montana Supreme Court.   

What Jerry and I have concluded, along with many other people, is that, in terms of functional definition, relatable to any part of the U.S. Constitution, a lawyer is a person who takes the First Amendment VERY SERIOUSLY and does EVERYTHING in the second half (non-religious) clause of the First Amendment routinely:  An attorney SPEAKS, he produces and uses the press (i.e. printed matter) prodigiously, he peaceably assembles with others, and, above all, he PETITIONS the Government (and other private citizens) for REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

But whereas the United States Supreme Court has found that there can be no licensing whatsoever for ANY aspect of religious practice (the first two clauses of the First Amendment) and has similarly said that there can be no “prior restraint”, i.e. censorship, of freedom of speech or the right to print anything at all, all branches of government, including the Supreme Court, have at least tacitly approved the licensing of attorneys.  

Even though the licensing of priests and preachers of the Gospel would never be tolerated under the free exercise and establishment clauses, even though the licensing of newspapers has throughout U.S. history been regarded as an abomination.  It DOES matter that the NDAA and Patriot Act have had a major limiting effect on America’s traditional freedom of speech, but my concern tonight, on this First Day of July and the beginning of the Second Half of the Year, is more parochial:

Is it at all legitimate that TWO of the few things lawyers can CLEARLY get by with doing, with more impunity and immunity, than anyone else (except President Obama himself) are TO LIE and TO KEEP SECRETS.

One of the more famous sources and/or manifestations of the lawyer’s ability to lie and keep secrets is known as “the attorney-client privilege.”  The basic idea, I think, is to encourage attorney-client candor, and to prevent a client from fearing to tell his attorney “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” simply because the attorney (without the privilege) might have to tell the whole world.  This makes sense and is positive, but DOES IT REALLY MAKE SENSE and IS IT REALLY POSITIVE if construed as broadly as it seems to be in the modern world?  

Given broad construction, is the attorney-client privilege not an instrument of corruption in and damnation against society?

For example, imagine if you will an upper middle class Father, a doctor, a surgeon perhaps, who has voluntarily relinquished his paternal rights in court so as to avoid further liability for child support and his ex-wives’ attorneys fees.  This doctor has, in both form and effect, “sold” his daughter and permitted her adoption by her new husband, who is neither a professional nor anything like the biological father.   The doctor would now claim duress.  He would claim fraud and coercion.  In particular, though the doctor/surgeon claims that since he was not able to arrange a complete discharge of his (admittedly unfair, oppressive, possibly illegal, but nonetheless Court ordered and enforced) financial obligations, he should have his daughter back.

Suppose this doctor hires a socio-political advisor and consultant.  Suppose that the socio-political advisor and consultant concludes that the doctor/surgeon is unfit as a man or a father, or even to claim those names and titles.  Suppose that the advisor and consultant concludes that this man, the doctor/surgeon cannot possibly be a competent father.  Suppose that the private advisor and consultant concludes this only after spending a total of nearly four weeks with this doctor.  

Suppose that the consultant concludes that a man is unfit to be a father if that “man” turns out in reality to be a pusillanimous pup who (1) breaks down in uncontrollable tears at every discussion of his serious legal and social problems, (2) speaks more-or-less constantly of his fear of prison, his fear of suffering, and his desire for death, (3) elaborates graphically upon his suicidal ideation, (4) his plans for international flight, and/or digging a bomb-proof air-shelter or bunker in his front yard, (5) a man who is confused and distressed within the confines of his own financial, professional, and even his sexual competence and prowess.  

Suppose further that the advisor and consultant is also a socio-political advocate for the regeneration of Traditional American Values, including Christian sacrifice, individual responsibility and manliness.  SHOULD THIS SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSULTANT CONSIDER HIMSELF, because of the pendency of legal proceedings, to be bound in any sense by analogy with the attorney-client privilege?  In other words, should an advisor keep secrets or tell the truth?  Will society benefit more from a conspiracy of silence (which is one of the licensed attorney’s true “superpowers”) or from exposing reality?

Should the advisor REMAIN SILENT, OR SHOULD HE SPEAK OUT, and by way of an “intervention” of sorts, do EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER EITHER TO SHOCK THE DOCTOR/SURGEON BY PUBLIC SHAME INTO REFORMING HIMSELF OR TO PROTECT HIS (presumably) INNOCENT TEENAGE DAUGHTER FROM HER DEEPLY UNSTABLE, ONLY MARGINALLY MENTALLY COMPETENT FATHER?  

Is not “intervention” the approved means, an emotional shock therapy preferable by far to the electro-shocks or lobotomies so long administered by the sadistic practitioners of primitive psychology and psychiatry, of approaching an addicted or deranged person mired in psychological turmoil?  

Analogy: the confessional and penitential privilege, the web of hypocritical deceit and deception to which the attorney-client privilege is often compared, which was and still is one of the primary sources of and shields for the child-buggery, priest-pederastry scandals plaguing the Roman Catholic Church.  Given that Christ assured an eternal lake of fire for those who harm little children, and that priests are quite literally sworn as Christ’s fiduciary vicars, is the penitential privilege  not an intolerably inconsistent thing to be scorned, derided, and abolished rather than preserved?  

The root concept of justice, throughout history, has been to illuminate the dark places of secrecy and hidden lies with sunshine.  The Ancient Sumerians, when oppressed, are known to have rioted violently and en masse in ancient Iraq (4th-early 3rd Millennium Mesopotamia), when any person in that land cried out publicly “I UTU”—an invocation of the Sumerian name of the Sun God (UTU), the supreme god of Justice.  To demand sunshine was to allege a deep cabal of secrecy and hidden lies*** and the people of Ancient Sumer and Akkad apparently found such things intolerable.  They only wanted to live in the sunshine of truth (or so their cuneiform texts seem to suggest: Egypt, by contrast, seems to have been much more comfortable with cultural institutions built upon and treasuring values of hypocrisy, secrecy and lies).

Within the Roman Catholic Church (no other branch of Christianity enforces a celibate priesthood), the confessional-penitential privilege gave rise, over the past near millennium if not more, to countless generations of children who must have hated and feared their priests and the Church as true monstrosities.  The Catholic Priest child molestation scandals have now been going on so long they hardly make the news, but have we reflected sufficiently on the ethical lessons and analytical consequences? A CONSPIRACY OF PERMITTED SECRECY and PROTECTS LIES and LEADS TO HYPOCRISY.  

I suppose this goes also to the question of whether recent Moscow resident Edward Joseph (“Ed”) Snowden, U.S. Constitutional Attorney Glen Greenwald, and other “whistle blowing” internet disclosers (e.g. Julian Assange of Australia) are traitors or among the greatest American (and Australian) Patriots ever to live.  My own bias on and answer to that point may be evident in the way I phrase the question.  My only complaint about Snowden is that he disclosed too little too late….

Attorneys in America have become a cabal, an elite, who control society but do not, for the most part, administer justice at all.  In fact, for the most part, I would submit to you that attorneys BLOCK justice, and the attorney-client privilege is one of their tools for doing so.  

In discussing the entirely hypothetical above, suppose the political consultant asked a local attorney with parallel experience with the same doctor for her opinion.  Under the dogma of “attorney-client privilege”, one North Florida attorney (Beth Gordon) wrote dramatically regarding this scenario: 

“I certainly don’t wish to engage in any kind of discussion . . . , what kind of a parent  [SOMEONE MIGHT BE], or anything else like that. I take my ethical duties very seriously, and therefore don’t wish to engage in anything like this.  . . . As an attorney, you can be appalled by someone’s behavior. You may or may not know this however- you cannot then feel free to share and discuss what you know about the client.”  

OK, as I understand this statement, SO ONE OF THE FIRST RULES OF LAW, THE ATTORNEY’S CREED, IS ONE OF SECRECY, I.E. LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CENSORSHIP AND REPRESSION OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH—NOT MERELY IN THE CONTEXT OF A TRIAL WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL’S INNOCENCE MUST BE PRESUMED UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY—AND THE WHOLE POINT OF HIRING A LAWYER FOR A TRIAL WOULD BE DEFEATED IF THE LAWYER COULD BLURT OUT: “HE TOLD ME HE KILLED THE VICTIM, YOUR HONOR, THAT’S WHY HE HIRED ME.”  

So, the ritual presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings requires some sort of discretion on the part of an advocate.

But when an innocent third-party is involved, a child, do the same rules apply?  I submit that advocacy is only legitimate when it seeks the truth, to maximize sunshine, and to hide nothing.

I cannot help but wonder where Glen Greenwald would stand on this question.  I know he would violently (or perhaps non-violently, but vehemently) oppose compelling attorneys to reveal-client secrets in order to obtain convictions for terrorism—he is already on the record for this.  But those who defend American victims of denial of due process are presumably, at least in large part, defending people who are “actually innocent” of terrorist acts even though they may be “guilty” of hating America, and all that America has come to stand for, which is, after all, a gigantic culture of hypocrisy and lies.

Anthropological linguistics teach us that language is symbolic communication and that symbols are inherently abstract and hence, by definition, removed from the “reality” they describe.  So all language and all expression requires and demands deception of a sort: but is the purpose of law and litigation to protect the guilty or the innocent, and to maximize truth or to protect lies.  Lawyers seem to exist, in large part, to maximize protection for the guilty and to secure lies their “rightful place in the domination of world history”.

And in closing, I categorically deny that this is “sour grapes” on my part. I am NOT actually thinking about how the Austin, Texas based Admissions Committee of Western District of Texas in 1997-8 protected the one or two carefully selected and manufactured witnesses who testified in private, behind closed doors, with no recordings or transcripts, only committee summaries, from any cross-examination by me or my attorneys throughout the “Disciplinary Procedures” ordered by Judge James R. Nowlin against me. Or actually, they were protected from cross-examination until their testimony had been sufficiently rehearsed to be credible.  This was indeed an example of secrecy guaranteeing the efficacy of lies, but it goes back much farther than that.

 Rather, it is in memory of a Great-Grandfather of mine, known as “Judge Benny” who was a Louisiana Judge of impeccable albeit local reputation in Shreveport and Natchitoches who (at least according to family legend) had a knitted or crocheted and framed textile on the wall of his chambers which said, in a grand Louisiana tradition of cynicism, “Dead lawyers Lie Still.”

***It is Utu’s Akkadian-Speaking Eastern Semitic Successor Shamash who greets the Babylonian King Hammurabi and hands him the sacred laws, or pronouncement of laws, atop the Stela removed from Susa to Paris and now resident in the Louvre in Paris (with exact replicas at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and the magnificent Pergamon Museum in Berlin).  The Greek Apollo, tragically, acquired very few of the characteristics of  the Near Eastern Sun God of Justice—Apollo was more known for his sarcastic gifts mixed with curses (e.g. Cassandra’s true power of prophecy coupled with universally inaccurate disbelief) and any real justice or fairness.

A Streamlined Outline of a Complaint for Constitutional & Common Law Mortgage Foreclosure & Eviction Litigation in California

I think the attached four page outline pretty much summarizes everything that we need to say in a complaint which could be copied and duplicated everywhere and adapted, adopted, and filed by every affected person in every U.S. District Court in the State of California to attack the current regime of Non-Judicial Foreclosure followed by Summary Judicial Eviction with neither respect for due process nor any Protection for Civil Rights whatsoever, supporting massive racketeering enterprises involving attorneys, servicers and “purchasers” in support of Banking & Securities Fraud and the infliction of almost immeasurable, irreparable injuries to individuals, families, children, and destruction of their lives and private property.  I would appreciate all constructive criticism, suggestions, and feedback.

 REFRAMED & STREAMLINED OUTLINE of COMPLAINT 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E

REFRAMED OUTLINE OF COMPLAINT—8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E

In light of Judge Carter’s extension of our deadline until January 17, 2012, to get the Constitutional Case going, and after my second meeting with Attorneys Donald MacPherson & my 4th with Nathan MacPherson, I am persuaded that it is essential to try to reorganize and “slim down” the complaint before inviting further support and intervenors in.

This is something that we had TALKED about doing last with Diane Beall and/or Dennis Russell, but it obviously never happened.  Judge Carter has shown amazing tolerance and interest in our case, I believe, and we should honor him by really getting our act together to make this case change history.  I think we could streamline the case by outline as follows (I would like input from all co-plaintiffs and supporters about what needs to be added by way of specific detail):

SECTION I:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTES

(1)      We ask this Court to declare Non-Judicial Foreclosure, as authorized by California Civil Code 2924 et seq., and all related statutes, declared unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(2)      We ask this Court to declare California’s statutory system of Summary Judicial Foreclosure also unconstitutional under each of the same grounds. [We need to collect a complete inventory of all related and relevant statutes to itemize under each section: Richard Mendez & Lance Francis, this is probably your job primarily, although I certainly would not resist any help from Jackie Figg….or anyone else with a passion for the topic].

(3)      We ask this Court to declare the California Statutory system authorizing and empowering the Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction to be declared unconstitutional under each of the same grounds, unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(4)      1714.10 (Attorney Immunity for Fraud committed on behalf of or in agreement with clients) should also be declared unconstitutional

(5)      405.21 (Attorney Required for Lis Pendens without Leave of Court) should also be declared unconstitutional: 

§ 405.21. Prerequisites to recording

An attorney of record in an action may sign a notice of pendency of action. Alternatively, a judge of the court in which an action that includes a real property claim is pending may, upon request of a party thereto, approve a notice of pendency of action. A notice of pendency of action shall not be recorded unless (a) it has been signed by the attorney of record, (b) it is signed by a party acting in propria persona and approved by a judge as provided in this section, or (c) the action is subject to Section 405.6.

SECTION II:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

FEDERAL STATUTES

(6)     The words “White Citizens” should be stricken from 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982:

42 U.S.C. 1981: (a) Statement of equal rights: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined:

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairmentThe rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C. 1982: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

(7)     The language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 being colorblind and neutral on its face, all Supreme Court rulings that Civil Rights Removal depends upon racial discrimination should be stricken, reversed and overturned in light of Regents of U. Cal. v. Bakke, City of Richmond v. Croson, Adarand v. Pena, and Grutter v. Bolinger.

(8)     All Supreme Court rulings that Mortgage Notes be exempted from Securities Regulation should be stricken, reversed, and overturned as unconstitutional denials of due process of law.

SECTION III: ACTION FOR DAMAGES

under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): Racketeering by Eviction Attorneys & Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

(9)         Steven D. Silverstein (Silverstein Evictions), BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPIER, TREDER, & WEISS, LL.P, and other attorneys and law firms engaging in mass processed evictions ________, ______,________, _____________,_________,___________have committed multiple predicate criminal acts in the process of each eviction, and they have done so under the protection of the Orange County Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Orange County Sheriff’s Office.   As repeat-reinvestors in Racketeering Activities), Silverstein and other eviction attorneys such a decisive hold on the Judicial Officials, Clerk, and Sheriff’s Deputies of Orange County (and other counties in California, to wit:_______), that the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction in Orange County operate as a single unit corrupt organization with a list of Judges Cory A. Cramin, ________,______,_______,_____and named or unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies ________,_____,______as individuals who either derive income or employment or engage in conspiracy for racketeering activities (Lance Francis & Richard can elaborate on reasons for waivers of immunity, as well as the list). (This is a section which intervenors could add to and alter/modify with their own lists of defendants, with dates of actions taken illegally).

SECTION IV:  

COMMON LAW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:

SALES OF HOMES BASED ON POOLED and/or

SECURITIZED NOTES ARE VOID

(10)    We ask this Court to declare all sales of our homes void if and whenever foreclosured auctioned sold by “Debt Servicers” or by or on behalf of Banks/Federal Financial Institutions who held only derivative rights to notes which had been securitized.

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS’ & INTERVENORS’ PROPERTIES: _____________,_______________,___________________,__________________,__________, ________,________ (This is another section which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties).

Section V:

COMMON LAW

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE

(10)     We ask that this Court grant to each Plaintiff QUIET TITLE to his/her home & Lists:____________________

SECTION VI:

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & EVICTION

(12)    We ask this Court to award to each Plaintiff DAMAGES for wrongful foreclosure & eviction, including relocation costs, rental, damages to homes, etc. (Sections V, VI, & VII are all sections to which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties). (Should all servicers, banks, and purchasers be listed as Defendants along with the attorneys?)

SECTION VII:

DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY & PERSONAL INJURIES

(13)        Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for their losses of personal property, and personal injuries including emotional distress to adults and children.  Foreclosure of real property carries with it no right, title, or interest in personal property, but Plaintiffs have all lost considerable amounts of personal property as a result of foreclosure, and all this lost property should be compensated for tort damages in Conversion and Trebled Damages under R.I.C.O..  Further, the dislocation of lives and especially of children’s well-being should be compensated.  No immunity should be allowed for any defendant to the Pattern of Racketeering which Created the Eviction Epidemic and Foreclosure Crisis.

Note: Over the course of the past year, not only Nathan and Donald MacPherson, but many people have commented that our Third Amended Complaint is just too long and too complicated to be viable.  The above Four Page/13 Part Outline should make the case more readily comprehensible.   How much detail do we need in the Complaint?  How much detail should each intervenor add?  How should we structure all this?  Edit it?  Present it?  I hope each person to whom this outline copy is addressed will provide some feedback.

Thank you,

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

(310) 773-6023

October 19, 2011 (Wednesday)

The Original Third Amended Complaint (Draft only) is attached here, without any of the exhibits or final edits/amendments.A-Third Amended Complaint 09-cv-01072-DOC-E 09-22-2010

Get foreclosure help as per Neil Garfield or go to Brooklyn

Most of us do not even look at the information on the internet about getting foreclosure help, whether on our own or from someone with experience.  Neil Garfield‘s blog post the other day points out that there is NO Silver Bullet motion or defense.  He points out the nessity to get experienced help especailly if you are doing Pro Se work.  Or if you can get you case moved to Brooklyn NY and have Justice Arthur M. Schack hear your case, he has thrown out 46 of 102 foreclosure cases.  Can and will our country follow his lead and get banks to own up to the fact they do not own the mortgages they foreclouse on, and the rest are done illegally becase most people do not even show up in their own defense?  Check out Foreclosure Help website here.