Tag Archives: Oregon

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-right-anchor-babies-do-not.html

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”
 

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.  

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

http://libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/index.php

So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

Senate Bill 1867 has passed, 93-7, so the Constitution has been betrayed and undermined by its most solemnly sworn trustees: the only seven U.S. Senators who even deserve a chance of reelection, EVER, are: Tom Coburn (R-OK); Tom Harkin (D-IA); Mike Lee (R-UT); Merkley (D-OR); Rand Paul (R-KY); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); Ron Wyden (D-OR); 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 Independent; and Kudos to Oregon for having the only PAIR of Senators who voted for Freedom and against the Military-Industrial Complex

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

The extremely, tragically, humiliatingly short short role of honor of those who voted against Senate Bill 1867 includes: Tom Coburn (R-OK); Tom Harkin (D-IA); Mike Lee (R-UT); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Rand Paul (R-KY); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); Ron Wyden (D-OR); 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent; and three cheers for Oregon: you are the only state with TWO Senators who stood up against the monstrosity of indefinite detention of any accused person, regardless of citizenship or national origins, in violation of the Constitution.

Senate Bill 1867 represents nothing but Stalinist Communist Dictatorship at its worst.  This is Oriental Despotism installed and housed in America under the Flag of Our Fathers.  Did we fight the Kaiser, Hitler, and the Cold War only to institute such things as this at home?  Did we take in thousands of refugees from Vietnam after 1974-75 because we offered them a worse life than they would have had along the Mekong Delta?  I think not.  I defy and deny the right of any Senator who voted for this bill to call himself an American, much less a Patriot.

All 93 Senators who voted for S.B. 1867 should be removed from office (by special recall election if necessary: Barbara Boxer, for instance) and sent to Singapore to be prosecuted and punished as major Drug using narcotics-offenders for whatever kind of crack they’re smoking that makes them think this is all right, because it is not.   Dianne Feinstein tried to make a few meaningless amendments at the last minute (which passed) but she deserves condemnation not praise for trying to “fake” a little amelioration in this bill where there was none.  What happened that even Mark Udall of Colorado voted for the bill after his amendments failed?  To HELL with Florida’s Marco Rubio, Louisiana’s David Vitter, Texas’ John Cornyn, and every other cowardly craven Senator who voted in favor of this bill, including every other Senator who ever pretended to be in favor of freedom or the Constitution.   These are the times that try men’s souls, and the trial of 93 Senators for Treason is way overdue to begin right now.  If I am elected to the United States Senate from California I swear on the graves of my grandparents, my father’s soul and my mother’s heart that I will fight to erase the past twenty years of freedom-suppressing legislation from the United States Statutes at Large and U.S. Code until no trace of them is left, either in those statutes or in the Code of Federal Regulations nor in any guidelines to law-enforcement officials having any force or effect on the construction or interpretation of the law.  To HELL with Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Carl Levin and all the lot of other fakes and phonies.  To HELL with both of California’s Com-Symp Senators who would turn America into one vast prison camp in the name of “Security.”

As Jon Stewart wryly commented on the December 7, 2011, Daily Show, even on a politically sacred cow–a “must pass” bill like the National Defense Reauthorization Bill, you would have expected at least nine or maybe “a baker’s dozen” of senators to have opposed this bill, but there were only 7 (in a vote that took place less than one week before Pearl Harbor Day).  See http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development  (Looking as always on the bright side of life, Stewart also predicts that Obama will veto the bill because it does not give him absolutely unlimited power and requires him to allow annual reviews of all persons indefinitely detained without trial or, in the alternative, execute a waiver: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development—one-way-train-to-gitmo. In other words, Obama, the rank hypocrite whose Presidential Campaign Promises meant Less than Nothing, will not sign this bill because it places minor restraint on his power.)

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 1867 As Amended )
Vote Number: 218 Vote Date: December 1, 2011, 08:02 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 )
Measure Title: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 93
NAYs 7
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —93
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —7
Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Brown (R-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Ayotte (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Johnson (R-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea

Call to Arms: Wells Fargo Class Action possible on Mortgage Servicing/Holder-in-Due Course Fraud, Securitization issues?

FEDERAL CASE AGAINST WELLS FARGO

Currently I am the sole Plaintiff in a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in US District Court in Boise Idaho. The suit, like many of the others I write, is for Quiet Title to my property located in Caldwell Idaho. My assistant, Peyton Freiman, took it to the Court for filing in September along with an Application for Temporary Restraining Order, regarding which the Court immediately ordered a three hour hearing set for October 28, 2009.  Usually the decision on whether or not to grant a TRO is made in a manner of minutes in chambers. But, on this particular occasion, given the current economic climate, distrust of banks and maybe the individual language used in my pleadings I have been given a great deal of time to make my case for injunctions against Wells Fargo as we continue onward into Discovery and finally a trial. Hopefully this is a Court that realizes the seriousness of the matter and is giving me more time as a result, not simply a scare tactic to make me have second thoughts. Either way, I plan on being as prepared as ever to argue the issues in my pleadings.

I realize that this is a great opportunity and extend the option to anyone reading this who also has a loan out with Wells Fargo to intervene and join as a co-plaintiff in this case in Idaho. It would be a great strategic advantage  to have a massive list of Plaintiffs going into this hearing to give added weight to my words and possibly gain class action certification as a result.  To obtain certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there has to be at least one claim and issue regarding which all class members have identical claims. They have gotten very strict about that recently, it seems.  So class action status as a co-plaintiff we would need to talk about what issues there are in common and whether we can make identical claims for damages, injunction, or declaratory judgment.   In other words, there’s a difference in drafting issues of a different kind here: tailored issues for class certification and designation of one representative as “typical.”  We will also have to get a lawyer representing everyone’s claims in this action.  There is nothing specific in Rule 23 that says you have to have a licensed attorney.  Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, while Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) states that “a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member desires.  Almost decision I have seen, however, requires that a class be represented by a licensed attorney and I’m not sure this is the place to try to challenge that issue, although it may be.  I’m open to discussion on that point.  The Court’s discretion to impose the requirement of a licensed attorney springs from Rule 23(d) (1)(C) “In conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that….impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors.”

For the time being, and I’m writing this as of September 30, 2009: I issue this “Call to Arms”—Will everyone who believes they have been defrauded by Wells Fargo in regard to the servicing or modification of a mortgage note or mortgage contract signed after January 1, 2000, or who particularly believes that Wells Fargo is no longer the “holder in due course” of their note, or has otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with “privity of contract” contact me through Robert Ponte at 860-599-5557?  It would be easier to start out with people in the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and American Samoa, but we have another anchor state in Florida and still others in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Michigan where parallel actions could be filed.

I’d ask this:  I am working on the lawyer, are you, dear reader, willing to work with me?  If you want to know more I am willing to forward on the complaint, essentially the damages are “holder in due course” issues, which I talk about frequently on this blog. In short, if you think that somehow you and I don’t share the same kind of damages or allegations of material fact please think again: we are ALL being duped by big banks who have no idea where our original notes are. So, think about it and contact me if you wish,

CEL III