Tag Archives: Malcolm Doney

Collectivization of Debt is Communism in Action: Republicans are Moral Lepers (the Republican House Majority in Florida has just passed HB 87, approving expedited foreclosures and insulating false securitization from effective challenge or review)

CONTINUING THE DEBATE BETWEEN BOB HURT, MYSELF (CEL) MALCOLM DONEY, & MELINDA PILLSBURY-FOSTER

Bob:
Without attempting to address everything you write, or even everything you wrote in your reply to Malcolm Doney below, regarding Florida HB 87 (04-30-2013 Florida House Bill 87 Just Passed—Communist Dream of Abolishing Private Property Marches Forward).  Florida HB 87 degrades due process of law in the taking of property below “rational basis” review to no effective review at all…. any deprivation of private property should be treated, quite literally, with the same seriousness as a death penalty.  Furthermore, by its expedited provisions, HB 87 will prevent all but the most prepared homeowners from mounting any sort of defense to a foreclosure suit at all.
HB 87 permits (encourages) banks to hit weak people at their weakest when they are down and hits them hard.  At a time when the system should be extending every possible allowance to the “little guy”, the small time investor or single-family homeowner in economic distress, HB 87 makes sure that the fight (actually the sacrificial execution) of the homeowner will be swift but brutal.  Summary foreclosure, summary evictions, the all permit the claimants to hide behind judicial procedures of expedience to avoid close scrutiny of their deceits and prevarications in pretense of compliance with the law—THAT is why the requirements of HB 87 are themselves dissembling and dissimulating of the true purpose: the goal is artificially to stimulate the economy by pretending to put more houses on the market.  HB 87 is revolting!  Republicans (at least in Florida) are really and truly MORAL LEPERS.
         For family, home and freedom in America, the foreclosure crisis, and securitization of mortgages, is effectively a slow death penalty.  I am appalled and shocked that the Republican Controlled State House in Florida has passed HB 87:
             I think you basically have sold yourself out to the collectivist mentality, in that you see no injury resulting from securitization. As I wrote earlier: despite your citations to Black’s Law Dictionary and your occasional assertion of the notion of sovereign citizenship, you no longer adhere to the Anglo-American common law (and indeed the Ancient Roman civil law) notions of private property, originating in private contract, and I think this is a terrible “shame on you” and your contributions.  You have championed the “sovereign citizen” movement, but in betraying the doctrines of holder-in-due-course and privity of contract, you betray one of the most basic precepts of sovereign citizenship: the right to choose with whom you deal and associate.  Socialization of debt by securitization deprives the individual of his freedom of choice of business associates.  
Such things are always justified as “cost saving measures”, but they infringe to violently and directly on our individual autonomy.  Surely you would agree that we have the right to choose our friends, especially our mates in marriage with whom we may spend upwards of 20-30 years, am I correct?  If you agree with this proposition then you should agree that each man and woman has a right to choose his business partners in the same way, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM HE OR SHE WOULD CHOSE TO DO BUSINESS.  
This freedom of choice surely includes the more important obligations we assume: marriage is a great example of an open ended series of interactions and obligations, but so is entering into any business partnership, including a partnership based on investment, in which one party lends another the funds to start a business or purchase a house with repayment planned over 30 years. The famous Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” illustrates the ideal of lending as partnership. When Frank Capra’s movie was made, in 1946, even just after World War II, the Federal Reserve system had already extended its tentacles everywhere, into even the banks of small town America, so the story was already anachronous to the reality of modern life—UP TO A POINT.
But even as a child, growing up age 6-12 in Dallas, I knew my grandfather’s bankers as family friends and neighbors.  They went to the same churches, they walked and swam and boated in the same parks as we did. Those bankers had extended my parents personal letters of credit to live in London starting when I was six months old….The Astons who own and ran the Republic Bank of Texas in Dallas and the Dullworths and McKnights who ran First National Bank were real people.  Everybody in Dallas knew everybody else on a first name basis….no one wanted national banks that crossed state lines—everybody knew what the consequences would be: destruction of freedom.
Their kids went to the same school I did.  The adults entered into real contracts which were carefully negotiated with lawyers who were also our neighbors.  When my grandfather wanted to start a new line of products or buy a new building, he visited them and discussed his plans in detail.  Where is that kind of banking today?  Republic Bank of Texas and First National Bank are long gone, absorbed by Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, respectively.  No one has any idea who is really in charge of these banks and in fact, no one is, because they are merely bureaucratic appendages of the government.
Because of the effective nationalization and government takeover of the national banks, loans are allocated by government policy discussed behind closed doors at the Federal Reserve Board these days—they try to encourage certain actions and discourage others by liberal lending and greater or lesser taxation.  The impose nationwide CONTRACTS OF ADHESION that even small industrialists like my grandfather would have no power to negotiate anymore at all—this is the ultimate fruit of securitization—we have no freedom of choice anymore.  We have been deprived of our local control and autonomy in the interests of streamlining the economy—of maximizing leverage and debt in the hands of the central bankers—this is not injury?  This is the destruction and death of freedom….
You have always been very good to me and I hate to be critical, but you are as profoundly wrong as you can possibly be when you write:

1.  The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses. 

Collectivization of debt can only be permitted or exist in a world where private contract and private property have both ceased to exist. Florida HB 87 facilitates the abrogation of private autonomy without due process of law by demeaning private property acquired by contract to a level of an epiphenomenal set of rights, hardly worthy of the true status which ownership of private property enjoys as one of the Carolene Products, Footnote 4, specifically enumerated rights, deprivation of which is subject to the highest, strict level of scrutiny.. So the securitization of mortgages is the abolition of private property.  The Individual is either the sole owner of her/his life or s/he is not.  There are no shades of gray here.  “Limited Sovereignty” is an oxymoron here. 
In short, Bob, what you fail to realize is that Securitization constitutes a license arbitrarily and capriciously (1) to impair and in impairment of the rights and obligations of contract, in violation of Article I, Section 10 (see this old 1922 Law Review Article: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4859&context=mulr), (2) to take private property interests without due process of law when those property interests are secured and guaranteed by contract, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, (3) to infringe if not violate the freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by the First Amendment, (4) Securitization and in particular the amendments proposed by Florida HB 87 violate the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and (5) the Ninth Amendment reservation of the right of the people to the enjoyment of the privileges, liberties, and immunities afforded to them in the Anglo-American common law tradition.
In short, I can think of nothing more pernicious than the effect that Florida HB 87 will have on the property rights of Floridians.
You need to wake up, Mr. Bob Hurt, to the fact that securitization (i.e. collectivization) of debt is just the Bush-Obama Communist Oligarchy’s most effective tool for eviscerating all the property and contract related provisions of the American Constitution, of the Common Law, and of the traditional rights and freedoms of the English people, passed on to us, their American Heirs.
Make no mistake—in condemning our resistance to securitization, you are aligning yourself with the goals of the Communist Manifesto of February 1848, and of all subsequent efforts to obliterate the sovereignty of the individual which you pretend so vigorously to support as a matter of highest principle.  Without the freedom to contract, in a world of contracts of adhesion with anonymous and unknowable, unreachable “supervisors”, we as individuals will cease to exist and our individuality will be obliterated in the collectivity of the Marxist anthill.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

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

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

In case of emergency call Inger Michelle Garcia, Esq.,

1-954-7461 or 1-954-894-9962, attorney@ingergarcia.com

Inger Michelle Garcia, Esq.                                                                                    4839 Volunteer Road; #514 Davie, Florida 33330

Cellular: (954) 394-7461; Tel.: (954) 894-9962; Fax: (954) 446-1635

Service E-Mail:attorney@ingergarcia.com

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

Matthew 10:34-39


De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : malcolmdoney@comcast.net
Cc : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 21h34
Objet : Re: HB 87

Malcolm:apparently you read what I wrote to Charles about HB87.  It’s pretty simple really.  We are lucky in Florida that we don’t have a non-judicial foreclosure process, MAYBE.I have learned a lot since we met at the May 2008 Foreclosure Defense Seminar.  I’ll share a few points for your edification.1.  The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses.2.  The real problem of collusion between Clinton/Bush/Obama and Lenders which resulted in predatory lending and collapse of homeowner equities has not faced any day in court, and until it does, and the court rules against the lenders, no foreclosure court or trustee will consider the merit of the argument that “the lender caused the collapse of the value of my house and that’s why it’s underwater, and caused me to lose my job, and that’s why I couldn’t pay the mortgage.”  You can present the FCIC report and TRY the argument, but it will fail because no borrower can prove proximate causation.  I make the balance of my comments in light of this reality.3.  Foreclosures, as equity proceedings, deal with FAIRNESS.  It is hardly fair for a mortgagor to sign the note and mortgage, borrow and USE money, fail to pay accordingly, and then keep the collateral which the borrower agreed to forfeit in the event of default.  Every single judge knows this, especially the senior judges you love to hate for their rocket docket summary judgments.  So they have a natural predisposition to order the foreclosure unless the borrower can dispute the essential facts alleged the complaint.4.  Except when temporarily derailed by standing issues, or the borrower cross claims with valid causes of action (which virtually never happens), statistically ALL Foreclosure complaints EVENTUALLY succeed because in fact the borrower did default and must forfeit the collateral.   And they SHOULD succeed, for that reason.

5.  The ONLY defense against foreclosure lies in an offensive action against the original lender or lender’s agents for tortious conduct, contract breaches, or legal errors underlying the mortgage.  I have written about this till I’m blue in the face and NOBODY ever refutes it because it’s true.  If the borrower cannot show how the lender injured him, the borrower who defaults WILL LOSE THE HOUSE TO FORECLOSURE, as the borrower should.  Underlying causes of action give just reason to dispute the essential factual allegations in the foreclosure complaint.  For example “Yes I breached the contract, but the original lender breached it first, AND fraudulently induced me to take a loan for far more than the actual value of the property (etc).”

6.  Given the above realities, FORECLOSURE DEFENDERS engage in legal malpractice by fighting the foreclosure itself and failing to examine the mortgage for underlying causes of action.  Their victims should sue them.

7.  I gave cogent reasons for having no opposition to HB87 as I understand it.  Foreclosure plaintiffs should stop screwing around and start speeding up their process, and competent judges should hear and dispatch the foreclosure cases, particularly those with no dispute of the essential facts.

8.  If you had loaned someone $300,000 to buy a house, would you want the borrower to tie you up in court for years just to delay giving up the collateral?

Instead of getting angry with me, SHOW me where I’m wrong.

I have attached a totally bogus QWR from Neil Garfield, FYI.  Why bogus?  Because RESPA requires the servicer to answer ONLY questions related to the loan servicing, i.e. identifying what funds it disbursed to what entities.  It can ignore all other questions, and a lawyer like Neil Garfield should have known that instead of concocting such onerous nonsense as his qwr.

I also attached my recent blast against Garfield for his bogus securitization arguments, and included plenty of case law to show how bogus they are.  Also, here’s some more case law you might find useful.  Where am I going with this?  Virtually all foreclosure defense arguments other than standing issues or attacks against the causes underlying the mortgage WILL FAIL.  So why bother with them just to delay the inevitable?

QUIET TITLE CASES
“Plaintiff’s basis for claiming ‘better title’ is that securitization somehow altered her obligation to pay her mortgage. This argument is unrecognized in the law.” Herold V. One West Bank (D. Nev. 9-29-2011);
“A plaintiff cannot quiet title without discharging the mortgage debt. Aguilar V. Boci, 39 Cal.App.3d 475, 477 (1974) (“the cloud upon his title persists until the debt is paid”); Kelley V. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Trusty V. Ray, 249 P.2d 814, 817 (Idaho 1952) (“[a] mortgagor cannot without paying his debt quiet title as against the mortgagee”); “Plaintiff’s quiet title claim is based on the argument that, as a result of securitization, the trust deed has been split from the note and, therefore, the deed of trust should be declared a nullity. This Court has repeatedly rejected this argument. Recently, both the Utah Court of Appeals and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have similarly rejected this claim. For the same reasons stated by all of these courts, this claim must be rejected.
Winn V. Bank Of America (D.Utah 1-4-2012); “A quiet title claim seeks to extinguish interests in the property in favor of the interest of the plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff is seeking to extinguish the Trust Deed. ‘To succeed in an action to quiet title to real estate, a plaintiff must prevail on the strength of his own claim to title and not the weakness of a defendant’s title or even its total lack of title.’ Plaintiff fails to assert her own claim to title. She does not allege that the Deed of Trust was not validly executed or that she is not in default under the note. Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiff’s argument and dismisses this claim.
Domingo V. Direct Mortgage Corporation (D.Utah 9-21-2011); “quiet title is not a remedy available to the trustor until the debt is paid or tendered. Plaintiff has not paid the loan amount, nor has Plaintiff alleged that he is ready, willing and able to tender the full amount owed. See Farrell v. West, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (Ariz. 1941) (refusing to quiet title until and unless the plaintiff tenders the amount owed, as required in equity). Instead, Plaintiff asks this Court to invalidate the claims of the beneficiary under the deed of trust. The Court will not indulge this inappropriate use of an action to quiet title; “Plaintiff’s argument that the assignment to U.S. Bank was void, and that U.S. Bank and MERS are not beneficiaries fails to support Plaintiff’s claim for quiet title. As discussed above, an assignment of a deed of trust does not need to be recorded in order to be valid, and under the terms of the Deed of Trust, Plaintiff was not entitled to notice of any such assignment.”
Frame V. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (D.Ariz. 9-2-2011); “This appeal requires us to interpret the statute governing judgments in quiet title actions. The statutory language is about as straightforward as such language ever gets: “The court shall not enter judgment by default. . . .” Entry of a default judgment against appellant HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., and in favor of respondent Harbour Vista, LLC, in a quiet title action was error.”
Harbour Vista V. Hsbc Mortgage Serv. Inc., G044357 (Cal.App. 12-19-2011); Mier v. Lordsman Inc., Civ. No. 10-00584, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8484, at * 15-17 (D. Haw. Jan. 26, 2011) (“[T]o assert a claim for quiet title against a mortgagee, a borrower must allege they have paid, or are able to tender, the amount of the indebtedness.”).
 
Fidelity Land Trust Case – put property in trust and use quiet title action to defeat foreclosure – a scam. Florida Attorney General complaint:
Fidelity sued AG in Florida Middle USDC for its adverse ruling:
“… this Court concludes that Plaintiff initiated and pursued this litigation in bad faith.  The evidence of this is legion: a state judge has told Plaintiff that its legal theory is meritless; a federal judge has told Plaintiff its legal theory is frivolous; and the Florida Attorney General has obtained injunctive relief against Plaintiff to prevent it from asserting claims based on the legal theory advanced in this lawsuit. Yet even in its objection, Plaintiff clings to the notion that its claims have merit. They do not… Plaintiff appears to be in the business of delaying lawful foreclosures. The courts are not to be used to delay, deny, or frustrate just claims, and they are not to be used as a cog in a litigant’s business model. Litigants who pursue meritless claims should be sanctioned, if only to ensure that the burden of their contemptuous behavior is borne by themselves alone.”
On 4/30/2013 7:29 PM, malcolmdoney@comcast.net wrote:

Bob & Charles,

It is a long time since I contacted you Bob.  I have believed for some time that somehow you have lost your way since the days when I believed that you stood for justice and doing what is right.  
 
I have lived through and been the victim of Hitler’s fascism and I have lived in the UK during both conservative and socialist extremes.  I well remember when the leaders of the UK Trade Union Congress made their annual Christmas pilgrimage to Moscow to get their instructions on how to disrupt the British economy over the next year and beyond.   
 
I have also witnessed during my long life the extremes of communist, fascist dictatorships and religious fanatics and frankly while it may be very intellectual to debate whether or not communism or fascism is at work I could never see much to chose between Hitler and Stalin, or Idi Amin.    
 
The evidence is overwhelming that the present mortgage foreclosure crisis was premeditated by the most evil organization in modern times, the Federal Reserve.  That all these mortgages were set up to fail and comprise the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.Yet all I hear from those who seek to classify those of us who were the deliberate targeted victims of these Banksters and their government backers is that we borrowed the money and we should not get a free house.  
 
Anyone, who cannot see anything wrong with HB 87 and its almost appropriately named SB 1666 is either totally blind or so brainwashed by a corrupted society that they are incapable of any constructive thought whatsoever.  I think it is a tragedy that you have allowed yourself to be persuaded to your present apparent view.  Anyone who believes in government of the people, by the people, for the people can see through this criminal land grab for exactly what it is.  
 
Shame on you Bob – you have done such good work I am truly saddened to see your latest comments.  When Henry Trawick – the Dean of Rules tells every member of Florida’s legislature that these bills are unconstitutional and bankster inspired there must be something wrong with this bunch of garbage.  What is clear is that it is not in the interest of the people. 
Sadly
Malcolm
******************************************************************
They are all fascists (there is that word again) 
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
MacPherson Investment Group

Executive Vice-President for Rebuild America

Point out to me any single document in the writings of Benito Mussolini, Admiral Horthy, Francisco Franco, Sir Oswald Moseley, Paul Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, or any economically oriented member of Hitler’s government that predicts the step-by-step takeover and abolition of private property the way the communist manifesto does.  Oddly enough, the nearest to a “Socialist” among the Fascists would be British Sir Oswald Moseley.  He was very aristocratic and really an admirable “failure” among all the Fascists of Europe, but his writings go the closest towards credit-based socialism of any genuine “Fascist” from the 1920s or 30s I know—and Moseley was the only one outside of Spain to continue active through the 1950s and 60s—during which time, oddly enough, he joined with former Marshall Petain supporter Robert Schuman and other “Labor Left Socialists” in pushing for the European Union after the war…. but I do not see how you can connect the movement of Fascism to Credit Leveraged Confiscation of private property for the purpose of abolishing private property….

De : Melinda Pillsbury-Foster <themelinda@gmail.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 17h38
Objet : Re: Property Confiscation House Bill 87 Just Passed Republican Controlled House in Florida

They are all fascists (there is that word again)
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
MacPherson Investment Group

Executive Vice-President for Rebuild America

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com> wrote:
HB 87 eviscerates the adversarial aspects of litigation in favor of the foreclosing party.  
Are you ever going to work on developing those Vindicatio websites or not?  If you’re not going to develop them I need to give them to Melinda Pillsbury-Foster but you DO have a better e-mail list to promote them on….. I thought we had a deal…But I’ll suggest to Melinda that she call you to check up on what your real intentions are….I certainly didn’t spend $100 on those domains just to let them sit around undeveloped and unpromoted….. If neither you nor Melinda want to work on them I’ll have to find someone else, but heck I BOUGHT them and I want to see some new business come in as a result…. but nothing will happen if a competent Web developer doesn’t do something—-Melinda’s working on a single case website for me in regard to a personal injury suit of mine in New Orleans….
Your problem, Bob, I have figured it out, with Neil Garfield and the Anti-Note Securitization Camp (you probably don’t like Mickey Paoletta either and basically you seem doubtful about me because I’m with THEM) is that you really do believe in Social Ownership of Credit—that is why you have jumped ship on the “holder-in-due course” doctrine…. Social Ownership of Credit leads to Social Ownership of all land and real property, perhaps all real and personal property…  You have abandoned Capitalism….. you really do believe that proof of ownership is not essential to collect debt or foreclose a property…. if that’s raving like a lunatic then I plan on doing so continually until I die….

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 17h45
Objet : Re: Property Confiscation House Bill 87 Just Passed Republican Controlled House in Florida

I fail to see a problem with hb87.  It forces lenders to take speedier action and come to court better prepared for the lawsuit.

Instead of raving like a lunatic below, why don’t you explain SPECIFICALLY what you don’t like about the bill and why?

On 4/30/2013 5:29 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:
Republicans are Moral Lepers—and COMMUNISTS!:
It is beyond appalling to me that any Republicans would vote for Florida House Bill 87 to speed up foreclosures….. Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be the party of traditional American Values? Aren’t Republicans supposed to be the defenders of common law against social engineering through legislation?  Florida House Bill 87 is just speeding up the process by which the Soulless and Heartless machine of American Corporate Socialism sweeps up property into the collective “pool” of government ownership….  Everyone in Florida: WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS to stop the companion bill 1666 (how apt?) from passing.  Every step we take towards socialized ownership of debt is a major triumph for Marx & Engels’ original “manifestation” of their dream to abolish private property in land, first published in February 1848 under the name of the Communist Manifesto.
All steps to abolish “holder-in-due course” doctrine assert that mortgage debts are not private but public, and this is the key ingredient of communist confiscation of all real estate in America…

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

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

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

In case of emergency call Attorney Inger Garcia at 954-394-7461

Matthew 10:34-39

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

Is America More a “Communist” or “Fascist” State Today? In terms of understanding and historical analysis, it DOES matter…

An ongoing conversation, of several years in duration, with Malcolm Doney of “Hanging Together for Justice” Florida and Melinda Pillsbury-Foster of Santa Barbara, California…

Malcolm Doney wrote on the evening of Friday, April 19, 2013: “Some of us mistakenly identify Obama as a Communist (this is Corporate Fascism).”

Well, as you know, I suppose I am one of those who “identifies Obama as a Communist” (for one thing, Obama’s late parents, both his father and his mother would be so pleased, so would his grandparents and “Godfather” Frank Marshall).  What’s more I think that the difference between calling Obama a Communist and a Fascist is the difference between really understanding what’s going on and NOT understanding it at all…

The Mortgage Crisis is what brings us together in this discussion: the question is—is the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis a Failure of Corporate Fascism or a Triumph of Communism?  I maintain that the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis still ongoing around the world today is the TRIUMPH of a century and a half of careful communist positioning and planning to abolish private property in real estate once and for all.

The historical threads that connect Obama to his Communist roots are very clear.  “Fascism” evolved in the 20th century ONLY as a reaction to Communism, and never had any real intellectual coherence or “platform” to stand on, Hitler’s wildly contradictory policies and behavior during his 12 year Reich being pretty much the key example of just what a “non-program” Fascism really was.  Mussolini “made the trains run on time”; here beginneth and endeth the lessons of Italian Fascism.  

But Malcolm Doney: you are without any doubt at all one of the smartest people I know and respect very highly in everything you do, but I have this argument repeatedly with you and (strange to say) another one of the smartest people I know whom I respect in everything she does, and that’s Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. Your command of finance, like hers of 20th century political and social history, is unparalleled.  But I think it is a non-trivial mistake you both make.  Barack Hussein Obama IS in every real sense of the word a Stalinist communist, and we live in a Stalinist Communist State today (or something close enough to a communist state that it is very, very scary).  

I think I have challenged both you and Melinda to this before, but I will challenge you again:  Attached here is a copy of the Communist Manifesto Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx & Frederick Engels 1848-1888, whose first programmatic platform plank is the abolition of private property in land by the means of leveraged lending and confiscation through central banking and easy credit.

I want you to tell me what parts of the Communist Manifesto HAVE NOT been implemented so far in America.  I can find almost nothing.  

There are some confusing semantic variants, to be sure: the Manifesto uses the phrase “Industrial Armies, especially in Agriculture.”  Since no such thing as an Industrial or Agricultural Army (NAMED as such) has ever existed in the history of the world, anywhere, you might think that this is one place where the Communist Manifesto has failed.

But I propose to you that precisely YOUR WORD “Corporate” is exactly what is meant by “Industrial Armies.”  “Corporate” is merely a Latin-derived word for a group of people acting with one general mind and one general purpose.  Modern Mega-Corporations are the very Industrial Armies that Marx proposed, they have just chosen a more traditional label than Marx’ because “Armies” rarely create anything—they normally specialize in destruction.

“Fascism” by contrast, is a bogeyman, a non-existent chimera.  There are neither any “Fascist Constitutions” nor “Fascist Manifestos” which have the coherence or comprehensive coverage and organizational application either of the U.S. written Constitution, the unwritten Constitution of (pre-1930s) Great Britain, or the Communist Manifesto.  

The so-called Fascists of history were pretty much improvisers—not great thinkers or theoreticians at all—they mostly made it up as they went along.  That is part of the reason why they were all such catastrophic failures—the most amazing feature of Hitler’s regime was its capacity to make alliances and treaties and to immediately break them in a manner that doubly and triply made the world hate him.  Even Hitler’s anti-Semitism, at the very beginning of his Chancellorship, was aimed primarily at the formation of the State of Israel—how ironic is that?  

Little is remembered of those early days when Hitler was effectively a Zionist….. but the whole world remembers the Stalin-Hitler/Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact which treacherously, fiendishly, split Poland in 1939, which only lasted two years before Hitler broke it and invaded Russia, which he never would have done if he had ever read the history of Napoleon, who was a much greater military strategist than Hitler, to put it mildly.  And that is how Fascism was—it was opportunistic and “reactionary” in the most fundamental sense: “Fascism” came into existence ONLY as a pro-Elite alternative to Communism, and therein is the only consistent difference: whereas Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all wiped out not only the Elites but the Middle Class of their countries, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco in Spain, Petain in France, and Admiral Horthy in Hungary all sought to preserve the Elite and Middle Class.  And that is also, in my opinion, the only real similarity between Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt, and the British Prime Ministers from Lloyd George Forward—they implemented socialist programs while keeping the elite and (for the most part) the middle class in place, although the middle class was always easily dispensable.  

Other than this feature of Elite preservation, nothing unifies the West with the Fascist movements, but by Contrast the Communist Manifesto does explain it all….

So, seriously—read and study the Communist Manifesto attached and tell me how this is not the DE FACTO Constitution of the United States of America at the Present Time…

I will anxiously await your commentary..

The Futility of Individualized Resistance to Collectivization: the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation

I want to deliver a very short and bitter message here: individual case litigation strategies have failed and are doomed to continued failure.  EVERY PERSON who wants to fight in court for his or her family home in Court in California must include a Constitutional Challenge to the Non-Judicial Foreclosure System and all the component statutes, but even this is not enough: the remedy is political action.  Until these statutes and the nation-wide socialistic policies which support them are obliterated, which can be reliably expected to happen ONLY through political rather than judicial action, the institutions of private property and the home-based family will continue to erode and disintegrate.  

Without MASSIVE LEGAL REFORM, there is no hope that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” will not be continually violated as it has been in millions of cases nationwide.  These mass foreclosure and eviction policies have been approved and strategies formulated by the government at the highest levels.  

(That was the short brief and very bitter message—all the rest that follows is an elaboration on these points).

I am writing today to announce firmly that I think that everyone involved in the “Anti-Foreclosure” guerilla resistance is and has been misguided, myself included.  We have to stop thinking, or even looking for ways, to succeed on an individual, case-by-case basis.  We have to organize as a community whose wealth and values are under siege.  Offering potential strategies or hypothetical solutions to individuals is just “wrong” and we’ve got to give it up.  We must organize like the abolitionists before 1861, like the labor unions from the 1880s-1920s, like the real civil rights activists of the 1950s-60s.  All our “gurus” and sources of individual advice regarding individual and isolated action, from the cosmically brilliant Neil Garfield on his wonderful “Living Lies” website, down the hierarchy through local geniuses like April Carrie Charney and Malcolm Doney in Florida, Charles Koppa and Catherine Bryan in Orange and San Diego Counties, California all the way down to Theresa Moore and Robert Garvin in Studio City and finally Peyton and me have just had it all wrong—–we have been doing more harm than good.  

We are all either engaging in false hopes or blindly misleading people to think that we can stop the seizure of homes and property in any sort of systematic way through litigation and the court system.  

Worse than that, by offering false hopes to people and engaging in one losing court-battle after another, we have been bolstering and shoring up the success of the corporate-banking enemies.

What I am writing today is that the individual case-litigation approach is a massive failure even to slowing the rates of foreclosure and eviction in California or anywhere else.  Even in Florida, at best “Anti-Foreclosure Guerillas” like April Carrie Charney, Malcolm Doney and Catherine Bryan can claim very if outright victories other than temporary delay in a small percentage, not even a statistically significant minority of foreclosures or evictions.  

The individual case strategy cannot be used to eradicate what is a society-wide systemic cancer created by the politically tempting bait of “easy credit” which was, after all, the original communist-socialist demand of the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

Because “easy credit” is by definition based on wants and desires rather than actual wealth or production, “easy credit” is the antithesis of capitalism or any sound economic system, but it sure is popular if you’re a politician….  When they said that Communism works through the ways and means of the devil, they weren’t kidding: the theory that temptation has been the path to sin and death since the Garden of Eden is not actually “just a theory” but a fairly demonstrable fact.

Even coordinated constitutional litigation cannot work because I do not think we can every achieve statewide in California, much less nationwide, anything like what I tried and failed to achieve in the family courts in Williamson County Texas in 2005-7.  What I tried in Georgetown, Texas, was to try to arouse and incite enough popular discontent and cooperative participant action among parents that we might close down the system.  I came close enough that Judge James F. Clawson commented on the fact that if he did not ban me from further litigation in the state of Texas, I would have closed down the Family Law Courts.  

But in fact we did not come anywhere close to permanently shutting down the courts by flooding them with protests and constitutionally demanding civil rights motions and litigation maneuvers.  We just got labelled “paper terrorists.”  Ok, Assistant Texas A.G. James Carlton Todd and his boss Mr. Greg Abbott actually called me “the most dangerous paper terrorist in Texas”—but that dubious distinction plus $5.00 is barely enough to buy you a coffee and pound cake at Starbucks these days.

Given the scale of the foreclosure crisis—Millions in California alone—tens of millions nationwide—1.5 million abandoned and empty homes in Florida—we have to recognize this as a problem much bigger than any of us as individuals.  

Slavery was not abolished by helping individual slaves escape through the “underground railroad” or even through individual plantation-owners granting manumission by will to hundreds or thousands of slaves upon their deaths by will.  

Decent wages in factories were never achieved by individualized negotiation for “modifications” of employment contracts—only by COLLECTIVE ACTION on the part of organized labor unions—and that is what we need in the foreclosure arena.  And in doing so we have to recognize that we face, just like the operators of the underground railway did, just as the early leaders of the labor movement did in the 1880s-1890s, the possibility of arrest and even armed suppression of our movement.  (Compare the “Haymarket Riot” in Chicago on May 4, 1886 and the much larger and more widespread Pullman Riots, also centered in Chicago but Nationwide, in the summer of 1894.)

So if we REALLY oppose collectivization of private property we cannot do so individually, we cannot oppose the government one-on-one, unless we do so as “We the People” acting politically and in concert.  To this end I would ask for contributions to take out full – page ads in the Los Angeles Times and advertise on television and radio as well as the internet.  “CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL—TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS BEFORE THEY TAKE YOUR HOME, IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN TAKEN, TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS AND YOUR HOME.

We must clearly articulate our position that: we know that the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation, and we demand an end to both the governmental policy and the (ironic as it might seem) banks’ confiscation of property by securitization.  

The outward trappings of capitalism have become the instruments of communistic confiscation and expropriation of homes and the destruction of families.  This will only end when the people demand it to end—and the Courts are not the proper arenas to do this. Courts in the United States and Europe, all known judicial systems, really, are designed at best to correct (or compensate) small variant problems and deviations from established norms.  

We who OPPOSE foreclosure and eviction, who DEMAND adherence to the common law and constitutional norms respecting contract and the right to own property according to contractual terms and rights, WE are the deviants now, and it is UP TO US to bring the law into conformity.  It is a tall order, but it is the only way we can reclaim our heritage and our RIGHTS to property—even when so much property has already been lost or destroyed.

Courts can only act as mechanisms for the imposition of widespread social and cultural change when they are expressly delegated this purpose by the political branches, as they have been during the racial civil rights movements 1948-1972 and the less well-publicized but even more historically significant family and domestic relations “reformulations” involving no fault divorce, abortion, and “sexual liberation” generally during the period starting not later than 1962 and continuing until the present time.  

Ironically, for all its internal contradictions, for all that it was an incomplete movement which only raised up one part of society by dragging down another, upgraded some statements of rights while degrading others, some of the best pro freedom statements and constitutional formulations of the law as written today owe their origins to the American Civil Rights movement.  

The civil rights movements of both the 1860s-70s (though mostly constitutional and statutory) and 1950s-60s (mostly judicial) had many positive components and results which were actually pro-freedom and anti-communist (although the movement itself was widely labelled as “communistic” by many opponents during the twentieth century—I often retell the story that among my earliest memories of highway driving in Texas and Louisiana were the “Impeach Earl Warren” signs all throughout the South and Southwest in the late 1960s).  

Again ironically, the “sexual liberation” movement and now the mortgage foreclosure crisis have undone many of the positive, pro freedom, effects of the civil rights movement by creating new forms of oppression (as indeed have some statutory civil rights programs—as distinct from a strong majority of the judicial decisions of the civil rights quarter century noted, 1948-1972).  

But the mortgage foreclosure crisis appears to be completing what was worst in both the civil rights and sexual liberation movements: the final destruction of the home-based family and stable neighborhood community.  In fact, it is fair to say that, on the populist activist level, it would now be impossible to have a civil rights movement analogous to the one that started after World War II, because NO COHERENT COMMUNITIES OF ANY POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT SIZE REMAIN IN AMERICA TODAY—we are truly a nation of transients).

For fifteen years now, since 1996, I have been involved almost continuously in Civil Rights litigation of one species or another against State and Corporate abuses of individual rights and personal autonomy, against takings of liberty & property without due process of law.  I started off fighting the Sheriffs and Police Departments in Central Texas, disputing their claims of “qualified immunity” to abuse the rights and autonomy of people on a random and unsystematic basis, almost like criminals or terrorists.  I then graduated to believing the problem took a more systematic form with a plan to destroy the individual and family regularly and predictably, and that the root of problem lay with judicial immunity and the Court system, especially the Family or Domestic Relations Courts.  I still believe that at both levels, our local, state, and national institutions have betrayed their birthright in liberty.

Since 2006, my focus has been primarily against the mortgage finance and credit systems.  During these five years’ time I have researched and experimented with many varieties of theories or approaches to common-law (and commercial code) holder-in-due-course doctrine, privity of contract, quiet title, securities fraud, and other pro-consumer, pro-buyer, theories.  I have tried and tested such theories at the very least in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, and (most intensely of all since 2008) California.   I know that, logically and rationally, all these theories are either correct in some absolute or historical or logical sense, but they do not work in Court in ANY SORT OF PREDICTABLE WAY. What this means is that, as a matter of any individual’s “reasonable expectation”, there is no adequate remedy at law or in equity, there is only the occasional, seemingly almost random, single decision in a thousand or so that goes the way of the owner consumer.  This is not a matter of “legal victory”, this is a matter of “playing the odds” at Roulette or Blackjack, much worse than betting on racecars, ponies, thoroughbreads, or greyhounds whose mechanical design and/or natural and innate skills can be rated and assessed objectively.

In the past five years, no two cases or situations have ever been exactly alike, but the pattern is always the same: the decks in the courthouses across the nation are stacked against the homeowner/consumer/buyer/ “borrower” or “credit applicant/credit user.”   I feel I fairly competently understand the law in only five states at the present time: California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas (although all the Ninth Circuit States—Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Washington—are by conscious historical design pretty close in design and execution of statutory scheme to California).   In Florida and New Jersey, the law is EXCELLENT, in that foreclosure and eviction are both by the clear requirement of the law judicial in nature, and common law modified by the commercial code is all that counts.  Yet the rate of foreclosure is astronomical in both states.  In Florida, they are dragging judges out of retirement to preside over the foreclosure epidemic in the state with the flimsiest houses (owing to both construction and lack of regular winter weather) and the nation’s longest tradition of continuous real estate fraud.  In New Jersey, there is a moratorium on foreclosure proceedings until the system “can catch up with itself” whatever that means.  

In California, the worst laws in the country are fueling the worst foreclosure epidemic anywhere in history.  I have written extensively about California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., especially 2924a, 2924i, and the related “attorney conspiracy” limitations of §1714.10.  Michigan and Texas are both “mixed” systems where judicial and non-judicial foreclosure are authorized by law, but non-judicial foreclosure has become the norm in the past decade.

It was only when I came to California in 2008 that I began to realize for certain what was really going on, and what is really going on is that the United States Government, and State Governments with more-or-less enthusiasm, are cooperating with banks and finance companies to abolish private property and turn ownership of all private interests to a state-controlled governmental-corporate conglomerate along the lines originally suggested in Karl Marx’ and Frederick Engels’ Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      In some very real ways, the most disturbing results come from Massachusetts.  To the same degree that I believe that the Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loan case (121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011) illustrates the utter futility of fighting within the law of California—(when the law itself is the enemy and unconstitutional wall-to-wall), I had thought that the Ibanez case in Massachusetts showed a glimmer of sanity and light on the East Coast US Bank Nat Ass’n v Ibanez 458 Mass 637 941 NE2d 40 (Massachusetts 2011).  Peyton’s research in Massachusetts last month (May 2011) has brought evidence to my attention that Ibanez in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with securitization and that Massachusetts law appears to expressly permit the separation of ownership of the note and ability to collect on the mortgage, and has done so for approximately 100 years.  In particular, two sections of its general laws make Massachusetts appear as bad or even worse than California in terms of its statutory scheme, although Massachusetts generally has a much “kinder and gentler” set of consumer protection laws § 9-609 Secured Party’s Right to Take Possession After Default UCC 106 Art 9 GENERAL LAWS of MASSACHUSETTS and § 9-607 Collection and Enforcement by Secured Party (these are all part of the “gentle, gradual” transition to socialism which deceptively gives the—entirely false— appearance of respect for individual rights).  The “Uniform Commercial Code Comment” for 1999 Main Volume appears to confirm that the note and mortgage may be separated in Massachusetts by stating: 

“6. Relationship to Rights and Duties of Persons Obligated on Collateral. This section permits a secured party to collect and enforce obligations included in collateral in its capacity as a secured party. It is not necessary for a secured party first to become the owner of the collateral pursuant to a disposition or acceptance.”

In other words, Massachusetts Law addresses by editing the Uniform Commercial Code what would otherwise is and should remain one of the strongest common law (and in fact, “normal” commercial code) explanations for why securitized mortgages are (everywhere else) facially illegal. It is widely known that Massachusetts and California are two of the most “socialist-tending” states in the Union—so the Ibanez case as originally (apparently, COMPLETELY misinterpreted) was a major surprise.  See also the Boston Bar Journal Comment on the case: Boston Bar Journal US BANK v IBANEZ THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY’S DOCUMENTATION PRACTICES IN FOCUS, and for the disconnection between Massachusetts law and the rest of the United States Concerning the necessary that “note and mortgage travel together” see the Westlaw Journal Article published on Valentine’s Day: 02-14-2011 IBANEZ A 19TH-CENTURY DECISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.  

Now, regardless of whether California or Massachusetts has the WORST foreclosure law “on the books” the simple truth is that the law, and the way that the law is consistently applied by the courts—is the primary problem—NOT “robo signing” by the banks, NOT any of the faults or practices of the banks at all in fact—because if the Courts would enforce the common law and constitution against the financial industry, criminal and civil violations would be recognized and dealt with as such.  The problem is that the law and the Courts have effectively IMMUNIZED the Banks and financial institutions pursuant to an express government policy—very succinctly and clearly, and unambiguously identified, articulated, and described in the California Gomes opinion attached above, from February 18, 2011, that California public policy favors quick and easy foreclosure.  Foreclosure has thus become a kind of “kindly manner” of execution in this “Brave New World” in which we now live.  (Compare G.B. Shaw’s Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism” which explains: 

…under Socialism…..you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not.  If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”)

One repeating mantra of the “easy credit” society is that “living well is the best revenge” but appears that in a Socialist Society—others (namely the Corporate/Governmental Intelligencia) has the power to decide on our behalf what constitutes good living.  Obviously, the choice to live austerely in the desert and contemplate truth, like the early Christian monastics known as “The Desert Fathers” would be off limits/impermissible.  I suppose “living well” means buying at shopping malls, living in government/corporate allocated housing which will be awarded based on the degree of your conformity with government/corporate policy—whatever that is—which determines whether you have or have not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble.”

Getting to these conclusions and understanding what’s going on has been a long and fairly painful process…..

       It is still less than ten years since, on my son Charlie’s tenth birthday, California Attorney Deborah S. Gershon, then Vice-President and General Counsel of AAMES Home Loan, Inc., informed me that AAMES could not modify any Home Loans because the notes at all been pooled and securitized.  Following up, I now find that Deborah S. Gershon (according to her profile with the California State Bar) is employed by and affiliated with another subprime lender: “Signature Group Holdings, Inc.” (owner of “Signature Capital Advisers, LLC, Fremont Credit Corporation and Fremont Investment & Loan Bank of California).  This is very interesting because Fremont Investment & Loan went through bankruptcy reorganization a couple of years ago as a direct result of some early “foreclosure crisis” litigation in Massachusetts relating to predatory lending in the sub-prime field.  See, e.g., http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/452/452mass733.html (452 Mass. 733, 2008) and also, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s press release on her $10MM settlment http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_06_09_fremont_agreement&csid=Cago   In short, Deborah S. Gershon has dedicated her life to the securitization of mortgages and related financial and legal endeavors.  It is apparently a very good business, and a very good line of work.  Those who had the foresight to join in that movement deserve the same respect as those who saw that the Bolsheviks were destined to rule Russia after the 1917 Revolution, that Mao Tse-Tung would triumph over Chiang Kai-shek (aka Jiǎng Jièshí or Jiǎng Zhōngzhèng in Mandarin), and that Saigon would ultimately fall to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam (for the Vietnamese aftermath, seehttp://www.eng.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/eng/news/default.aspx?cat_id=513&news_id=12053#content “Scientific seminar on President Ho Chi Minh and the road to national salvation”).

AAMES was a pioneer in home equity loans, starting an advertising program in the late 1970s (Carter Administration) which included some fairly interesting and or amusing ads, see for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjTzEzNT7_M&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgB335zLfc&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5STpiAwt0.  AAMES is thus one of the earliest criminal enterprises which insinuated the concept of Easy Home Credit through the Yellow Pages into the American Consciousness as a vehicle of expanding credit regardless of productivity and wealth or REAL need—and AAMES’ was a mover in reshaping Federal and State laws to allow for the extension of such loans and the consequent expropriation of homes without due process of law.  

In one sense, the American people bear full responsibility for and complicity in this crisis up to the present time.  More certainly even than that the Germans voted Hitler and the Nazi Party into power in not one fluke but two successive national elections in 1932 and 1933, the Americans have repeated voted the supporters of easy credit and punitive and confiscatory policies leading to the expropriation of property into power.  The destruction of Germany under Hitler and during World War II, then was guaranteed by only two elections.  

The Americans have been voting soft-sell corporate socialists into power continuously for 76 years since 1932, with increasingly express enthusiasm since at least 1970 (the last “real” anti-communists to receive any electoral votes for the Presidency were Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968).  The election of 2008 saw the first election of the first avowedly, admittedly socialist President in U.S. History, and major magazine articles discussed his commitment to socialism with fanfare as “Cover” articles, but little actual controversy.  And the greatest irony was that there was not one IOTA of difference between the “avowedly socialist” policies of President Barack Hussein Obama and the “Conservative Republican” policies of George Walker Bush—Obama has yet to introduce a single policy without precedent in his predecessor’s administration more significant than his “cash for clunkers” program.  (“Obamacare” has actually been “in the works” since 1993 during Hillary’s first term in the White House….. yes, if Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky made anything clear about Bill Clinton, it was that if anyone was wearing the pants in the White House during the first term, it certainly was NOT him….and in fact Hillary’s support for health care reform back then was well-known and publicized).  

The highly controversial “individual mandate” for healthcare has been a socialist threat since the 1920s.  Samuel Gompers, an early American union leader, founder of the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L.) and contemporary of Eugene Debbs, argued against the individual mandate as early as January 22, 1917:

“Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty.  The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty.  Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.”

If Gompers could see the “individual mandate” coming in January of 1917, it is not so surprising that we now HAVE IT as enacted law today, in June 2011, despite considerable resistance in the courts and public mind.

And the general proposition that socialism would be imposed by stealth on the United States people without their realizing it has been around since at least 1947, when Harvard’s famed professor of history (and CUNY “Albert Schweitzer Professor of the Humanities”) wrote in an oft-quoted essay:

IF SOCIALISM (i.e. OWNERSHIP BY THE STATE OF ALL SIGNIFICANT MEANS OF PRODUCTION) is to preserve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law, and mutual confidence upon which personal rights depend.

         That is, the transition must be piecemeal; it must be parliamentary; it must respect civil liberties and due process of law Socialism by such means used to seem fantastic to the hardeyed melodramatists of the Leninist persuasion; but even Stalin is reported to have told Harold Laski recently [remember this was written in 1947] that it might be possible.  . . . There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.  

        Socialism, then, appears quite practical within this frame of reference, as a longtime proposition.  Its graduate advance might well preserve law and order…. the active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working classes, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians, and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal.  

Quoted in John A. Stormer’s 1964 None Dare Call it Treason, Ch. XIII, Economics & Government: 199.

I submit to you that we find ourselves in a critical moment of history.  I oppose collectivism because I want to own my home and all its contents.  If people steal my home and all its contents under any pretext which violates my common law contractual and constitutional rights, I want them to be held liable as thieves and compelled either to restore my property to me or to compensate me very richly for the loss of the same.  I have in fact lost two homes and their valuable movable content to such “predatory lending practices”, once in Texas and once in California, both times in 2009.       I don’t think it is a coincidence that these criminal acts happened during the first full year of the first term of the first openly socialist President of the United States.  Expropriation and confiscation and destruction of private property are, in essence, a core part of the socialist way of life, mandated by the express terms of the Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      How do you feel about your homes and property, if you still have them OR if you’ve already lost them?  Do you believe that those who oppose collectivism are routinely discredited by smears as I and so many others have been?  Do you believe that we should all accept that we “can’t fight city hall” as our philosophy and settle down to “exist” within the framework of a completely-controlled, federally dominated economy and culturally decimated way of life?  Do you feel that politicians should avoid genuine controversy, and focus on emotionally “hot” issues which are tangential to the choices we have to make that will define our own and our children’s way of life for hundreds of years to come?  

Should we all just look to our own individual interests or should we band together and fight until the laws which permit Collectivisation of our Society and the Confiscation and/or Expropriation of all that we own are repealed and or overturned?

NONE OF THESE THINGS WILL EVER OCCUR THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CASE-BY-CASE LITIGATION.  NONE OF US WILL EVER REALLY OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY AGAIN UNTIL ALL OF US CAN OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY and, within the words of the Fourth Amendment, know for sure that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” either by the Federal Government, the State Government, Local Sheriffs, or Privateering Real Estate Pirates Like Steven D. Silverstein and all the other marauders like him who operate “under color of law” in California and nationwide.

URGENT ALERT: FLORIDA RESIDENTS FACED WITH FORECLOSURE ONLY!

If you have been served with a Foreclosure Suit in Florida that

does NOT comply with 1.110(b), you should immediately file a

Motion to Dismiss. Quote Rule 1.110(b) in your motion! This

information was current as of 12:31 PM on April 16, 2010.  We have

received information that the major foreclosure-mill law-firms in

Florida are ignoring this new rule wholesale, statewide.  Rule 1.110

(b) is attached here:

Fl__R__Civ__Pro__1_110

See also: MORTGAGE JUSTICE HOUSE LETTER