Tag Archives: Texas

Comparing Catalonia and the Confederacy—States and Nations (with notes on the Monstrosity of Moderation in Media)

SPAIN TRIED AND FAILED TO SUPPRESS A VOTE FOR SECESSION IN ITS WEALTHY NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF CATALONIA TODAY (Sunday October 1, 2017).  According to the latest tally I have seen on the BBC, 2,020,144 Catalan voters cast their ballots in favor of an Independent Republic, centered on the Mediterranean seaport of Barcelona.  These two million plus voters constituted 90.09% of the 42-43% of the eligible electorate who voted, but Spain itself had urged pro-Spanish “no” voters to stay away from the Polls, and the massive police intervention and use of force must have discouraged some….

Although during the past 42 years that “Francisco Franco is still dead,” Spain has acknowledged the right of the several nationalities (Basque, Galician, Catalan) to assert regional autonomy, Spain has declared this vote illegal and non-binding. The Central Government of Spain in Madrid has been arguing ever since the election of the pro-Independence party in September of 2015,  that Catalonia’s vote was going to be “illegal” and they threatened to, and actually did, try to suppress the vote by Police Action.  

Most of the world (which has spoken) has either come out expressly in favor or seems tacitly on the side of Catalans who want independence.  Only Madrid and the Spanish government seem strongly against it—fearful, undoubtedly, of losing prime Mediterranean beach resorts, Barcelona (the second largest city in Spain, seventh largest and “most successful” in all Europe), plus the Balearic Islands (Majorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera).  In essence, Catalonia includes some of the best real estate IN ALL OF EUROPE AND THE CIRCUM MEDITERRANEAN WORLD.  This is indeed “the Spanish Riviera”.

The comparison to the Secession of the Confederate States of America is obvious, but it isn’t getting much currency in the U.S. or British Media, despite the fact that the Confederate States have made a renewed appearance in the news since April, here in New Orleans and around the USA…. and even in the consciousness of the whole world.

So, since nobody else is making the comparison (that I’ve seen so far, anyhow, I will).   In 1860, the Southern states formed (per capita) the richest part of the United States.   Catalonia had better hope that world opinion remains on its side!    Because Spain has its eyes and tax collectors all focused on this rich province, and history tells us that the rich can be laid low when they try to retain their wealth….

For the record, Catalonia was originally, and has always considered itself, a separate “Nationality” (i.e. ethnolinguistic group). During the Middle Ages, the County of Barcelona became the Capital of the “Principality of Catalonia” which later became incorporated into the Kingdom of Aragon.  Aragon, in turn, was one of the most powerful and richest states in the post-Reconquista/Crusader world of the Mediterranean.  Then Aragon, later, under the 15th century reigns of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, merged to form the modern Nation-State of “Spain”, leading to 500 years of almost continuous unity, although Aragon and Catalonia have several times reasserted their identities as monarchies or republics.

As James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy have shown in their most recent book “Punished with Poverty: the Suffering South, Prosperity to Poverty and the Continuing Struggle”  Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing (2016), and as my dearly beloved grandmother always told me, THE SOUTH WAS THE WEALTHIEST PART OF THE UNITED STATES, “before the War” and the poorest part afterwards.   The combined cash value of the crops in any of the three pairs of Virginia and Georgia or Mississippi and Louisiana or North & South Carolina (each pair taken alone) exceeded the cash value of all the manufactured goods produced north of the Mason & Dixon-Ohio River—as of 1860.  But as of 1870, war had irreversibly altered the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shsf–rh4PE

While neither historians or any Southerners today doubt that the people of the South overwhelmingly favored secession in 1861, the state legislatures only voted to hold popular votes as referenda/plebiscites/”propositions” in three of the thirteen states and one territory seceding (there were fifteen “slave” states, but a secession vote in the legislature in Maryland was suppressed at gunpoint and the state of Delaware never tried—West Virginia seceded from Virginia but kept its slaves and (ironically) after the war was among the most hostile toward enfranchisement of the newly freed slaves, as evidenced in several of the early major civil rights cases which emerged from that idiosyncratic Appalachian state opposite Ohio that seceded to nullify secession—oh, and Arizona was a territory constituting the southern half of what is now Arizona and New Mexico, but had then all been “New Mexico” until 1861).

In the states that held popular vote referenda, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the votes in favor of secession were nowhere nearly as lopsided as the vote held in Catalonia today (Sunday, October 1, 2017), but it should be noted that NO NORTHERN STATE, nor the United States Federal Government, under President James Buchanan, ever questioned or attempted to quash secession in any state.  From South Carolina’s legislature’s first Ordinance of Secession on December 20, 1860, through Louisiana’s secession as the sixth state on January 26, 1861, the popular support for separation from the Union never appeared to waver or be doubtful.

SOUTHERN SECESSION PLEBESCITES

In February of 1861, Texas’ legislature voted to dissolve the state’s barely 16 year old affiliation with the Union on February 1, and a popular referendum was held on February 23, wherein the vote was 3.13:1 in favor of disunion.  

Virginia went through a similar two stage process in April and May of 1861, and the vote there (after Fort Sumter) was 3.53:1 in favor of taking the Old Dominion state into the Confederacy.  Robert E. Lee had opposed secession, but IN THOSE DAYS ONE’S CITIZENSHIP BELONGED TO THE STATE, NOT THE FEDERATION.  It would be comparable to calling us all “Citizens of the United Nations”—maybe some people WANT Global Citizenship, but so far, THANK GOD, no politically viable majority anywhere have ever voted for such a thing.

Finally, in May-June, Tennessee voted to secede, although the popular vote in that state was only 2.21:1 (for reference and comparison, NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER WON ANY ELECTION BY A 2.21-1 POPULAR VOTE (although Lyndon B. Johnson came closest in 1964 against Goldwater at 1.58 to 1 comparable to FDR in 1936 against Alf Landon at 1.61 to 1—there being more third party votes in 1936 which reduced Roosevelt’s over all majority win very slightly).

IS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE REALLY TREASON?

How many of you have been divorced?  No, it’s a serious question.  How many of you have been divorced AFTER taking a vow “Til Death do Us Part”?  I was born an “Anglo-Catholic” (i.e. Episcopalian) and my wife was born Greek Orthodox in Greece.  My parents, despite their vows, split up when I was pre-school/kindergarten and it had a major impact on my life, mostly negative.  I especially regret now, looking back on it, how my grandmother taught me to scorn my own father.  That MIGHT have been a bad thing…  Anyhow, my point was this: my wife Elena and I swore personally to each other, quite aside from the marital vows, that we would never be divorced, that we would always stick together.  And we made collateral agreements that made I think this was actually a genuine promise that we would really keep, but we didn’t.  She hired the nastiest team of divorce lawyers (and their wives) in the entire state of Texas.  She turned into a monster.  Now, I blame the system, not her, but we split up, and it wrecked me.

But, in a sense, as one of my law school professors of international law at the University of Chicago said, “the nations of the world are all in a Roman Catholic marriage with one another.”  Or are they?  Are legal unions really indissoluble?  Most people do not believe that law should stand in the way of divorce, although most marital lawyers want divorce to be as much like an expensive world war as humanly possible.  So: is divorce “normal” or is divorce “treason?”

I have to admit, I led a fairly pro-Southern, sheltered life.  Even when I lived up north and attended Harvard GSAS (A.M., Ph.D.) and the University of Chicago law (J.D.) programs, I never ever heard ANYONE ever call the Southern Confederacy TREACHEROUS or the Southern Confederates called “Traitors”—as a matter of fact, everyone I knew at Harvard kind of went out of their way to apologize for Harvard’s apparent iconography of Yankee imperialism and to point out the rather obscure stained glass windows on Memorial Hall and inscriptions dedicated to the graduates of Harvard who fought for the South—(There were 257, significantly more than you might think, including five major generals, eight brigadier generals, and fully 38% of all Harvard Graduates who died in combat 1861-1865 died in the service of the armies the CSA, including three of those brigadier generals).  

So, I confess I was shocked, bowled over in fact, while I was standing in line at the very first public debate held in New Orleans on a steaming day in July in 2015 and an exceedingly unpleasant and unattractive woman in line started talking about how Confederates were all TRAITORS.

Wall Street JOURNAL MODERATE MUGWUMP: Allen C. Guelzo

“A YANKEE VISITS CHARLOTTESVILLE, WHERE GEN. LEE IS UNDER COVER.”

Some writers take poetic license, some take journalistic license.  But let’s face it: some writers DO NOT DESERVE A LICENSE.  Allen C. Guelzo is such a writer, and yet he writes for the Wall Street Journal…. and this is a disaster.  This USED TO BE a conservative, respectable journal***.   But no decent or respectable conservative would ever write that:

“As a Yankee, I find it a little difficult to grasp why monuments to Lee are here in the first place.  He lost, and if there is one sin American culture still prefers to bury from sight, it’s losing. Worse, Lee committed treason against the flag and the Constitution.  And behind that is the ugly truth that the Confederate cause was, when all the rhetorical chaff is swept away, designed to protect Chattel slavery, the singular birth defect of the American republic.” 

This is one of those sad moments when I have to admit I’m glad I’m not Chairman Mao or Uncle Joe Stalin…. because if I were, Guelzo would be TOAST—there wouldn’t be enough left of him to fill a matchbox, I promise.

UNLIKE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT IN CATALONIA ON SUNDAY OCTOBER 1, 2017—NO POLICE OR TROOPS TRIED TO STOP THE SOUTHERN LEGISLATURES FROM SECEDING OR THE PRO-CONFEDERATE POPULAR VOTES FROM HAPPENING

So, if secession didn’t bother the outgoing President James Buchanan, or if it bothered him he didn’t do anything to stop it.  Buchanan was a Democrat, but he was a PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRAT—a Yankee….the only Pennsylvanian ever to be elected President and the last President born in the 18th century.  

Buchanan supported his own Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge, in the election of 1860—Breckinridge being the choice of the “Southern Democrats” over Stephen Douglas of Illinois.  Breckinridge became a Confederate general—that’s right folks, the Vice-President of the United States who came in Second in the Electoral Vote and Third in the Popular Vote in 1860 became a Confederate General.  Was he a traitor too?  

I ask you (and Guelzo) somewhat rhetorically: IF the Vice-President of any country decides to take up arms agains that Country—don’t you suppose that there are some MAJOR issues at stake?  If James Buchanan believed that he had no constitutional power to stop secession, where did Abraham Lincoln get the idea that he had that power?

For the moment, I will leave that idea to you, but recommend to all my readers the words of James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, but also of Von Mises Institute Economist Thomas James DiLorenzo.

But is it significant that England would surely have allowed Scotland to opt out of the UK if Scotland had voted to do so several years ago?  Is it significant that Spain is trying very hard to look like a bully as it tries to bully Catalonia into submission, but that the world will almost certainly accept Catalonian secession in fairly short order?

***The Wall Street Journal was a feature of life in and around my maternal grandparents’ home in Highland Park in Dallas from the time I went to live there at age 6 years, two months, until my grandmother’s death in May 2001.  I respected it as perhaps the best newspaper in all of North America—I even arranged to have the WSJ delivered to Hacienda Chichén (and later the adjacent Casa Victoria) when I lived there, and made it the headquarters of my Harvard-Peabody-National Geographic-Chichén Itzá Archaeological Project 1983-1988.  Arranging such things by courier delivery from the Aeropuerto Internacional de Cancún in the 1980s was no piece of cake.

 

John Médaille: proposals for “Third Way” Economics of “Distributism”

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1638

John Médaille

John-Médaille

Robert Stark and co-host Charles Lincoln interview John Médaille. John is a retired businessman who teaches in the Theology and Business departments at the University of Dallas, and is a senior scholar with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. He is a veteran of the Vietnam War, a former city councilman, and the author of two books, “The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace” (2007) and “Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective.”

Topics include:

The culture and economy of Texas
How a Free Market is defined by a high degree of competition and participation
How capitalism is not a truly free market and leads to consolidation
How conservatism became redefined as corporate global capitalism instead of local control and tradition
The need to end corporate subsidies and regulations favoring large corporations
The Transportation System as a subsidy to corporations
Monopolies in the media and communications
Anti-Trust Laws
Banking and the need to end to big to fail banks in favor of localized banking
Georgism and the theory on land speculation
Why John favors a wealth tax over an income tax
How the breaking up of large estates led to the economic success of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea
The Emilia-Romagna Cooperatives in Northern Italy
Free Trade deals and how they destroyed small businesses and manufacturing
Healthcare reform involving patents and guilds systems
How guilds could issue health insurance at cheaper rates the insurance companies
Why John’s advocates providing services locally

Alabama Attorney Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft addresses the Lunatic Fringe of the Patriot Movement

MYTHOLOGY & LAW in MODERN AMERICA

I am a great advocate of historical revisionism, but only when the revised history will be more accurate than currently “generally accepted” history….  But sometimes historical revisions are proposed which go the other way—alternative history is not always BETTER….it’s just different…. but so is smoking crack…..

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of meeting Alabama Attorney Lowell A. Becraft in person for the very first time.  He and I had exchanged e-mails before on the general subject of patriot mythology in regards to legal process and substantive.  Such mythology has horrendous consequences, including jail time, fines, and sanctions, for many good people I have known.   I have a Ph.D. from Harvard (1990) and my coursework and dissertation research spanned the fields of archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, history, mythology, religion and sociology (though not necessarily in that alphabetical order).  

One of the most basic and enduring lessons I ever learned (especially applicable to the field of law, was encapsulated in the title of a book by one of American AnthroSome myths have at least a weak basis in historical fact, even if no overarching purpose.  I learned with great interest several years ago about how principles of Admiralty Law were imported from England starting in the 1940s-50s to make off-shore oil fields insurable in Louisiana, and how these usages persist in Louisiana law even today—I had a large claim for household damage that which I sued on and settled after Hurricane Katrina.  I spend many hours with top Louisiana insurance lawyers and really enjoyed what I learned, because I was already familiar with both the British Control and Admiralty Law Mythologies of Modern American Patriot Movement. 

Basically, it seems that starting in 1930, the best land-based oil-wells in Louisiana and East Texas were already showing signs of being finite, limited, and exhaustable if not already exhausted, but everybody knew that the geology indicated more oilfields could be tapped and drilled offshore.  But in the 1920s and 1930s, nobody could drill off-shore because nobody would finance off-shore drilling, which was way more expensive than land drilling.  

And nobody would finance offshore oil-drilling until such operations could be insured, and nobody in the U.S. was willing to insure such constructions.  But the British (e.g. Lloyds of London) were willing to do so, and they imported the principles regarding the insurability of anchored ships out of port to do so.  So in a sense, the widespread myth among Southern Patriots that the British were still in charge as late as the mid-twentieth century, and that the British insisted on using Admiralty law, but both of these facts of modern history have been twisted beyond recognition. pology’s greatest figures, Marshall Sahlins of the University of Chicago (where I also studied, receiving a J.D. in law there in 1992): Historical Metaphors and Mythic Realities.  Quite simply, historical events are either selected and framed in the telling, or else sometimes engineered and staged, to create mythic realities as desired.   

There is another problem though—sometimes people just get wild ideas, and these wild ideas may be based in whole or in part on some sort of confusing real events— and the real events relevant here are: the two oldest institutions, or certainly two OF the oldest institutions, in all of Europe are (1) the Vatican (dating back to the arrival of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome, sometime in the mid-first Century A.D.) and (2) the British Monarch—dating back at least to King Alfred of Wessex, as the first to be called the “King of the English,” but really back to Cerdic or Cedric in 534 (Cerdic or Cedric stands as the first King of Anglo-Saxon Wessex from 519 to 534, in the chronological history described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the founder of the Kingdom of Wessex and (at least symbolic and mythic ancestor of all its subsequent kings in the House of Wessex right up to Henry I (“Beauclerc”) after the Norman Conquest, who reigned 1100-1135.

In any event, I suppose to the modern American mind, weakly educated in history as it is, the persistence of any institution for very close to 2000 years in the case of the Vatican in Rome and 1200-1500 years in the case of the English/British Monarchy seems almost incredible as a historical fact—and it is to be admitted that these two institutions outshine almost all others in Europe in their longevity. It may seem almost mystical that the House of Wessex, which gve rise to the Kingdom of England, and ultimately Great Britain, had itslef replaced the Roman Empire in Britain. Less than 50 years having elapsed from the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 to the accession of Cerdic or Cedric in 519 or, his possible rise as a conqueror even earlier, at 490 A.D., as celebrated in the slightly racy 1951 novel Conscience of a King by Alfred L. Duggan among others.  

OR, it could be that the people who invent these historically fictitious mythologies are all generated and propagated by government agents planted to create chaos and dissent in the Conservative, Patriotic Movement—which they certainly do.

Concession of 15 May 1213             (by Lowell A. Becraft)

There is a baseless theory floating around that King John’s “Concession of 15 May 1213″ with the Pope means that, even today, the Vatican owns both England and the United States of America. Like many groundless ideas that get promoted, advocates of arguments like this one focus on a single fact and then draw wild conclusions.

The “Concession” required payments from the English King to the Pope, but history shows that King John did not make the required payment for the following year. See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England

Where the following is found:

“Under mounting political pressure, John finally negotiated terms for a reconciliation, and the papal terms for submission were accepted in the presence of the papal legate Pandulph in May 1213 at the Templar Church at Dover.[177] As part of the deal, John offered to surrender the Kingdom of England to the papacy for a feudal service of 1,000 marks (equivalent to £666 at the time) annually: 700 marks (£466) for England and 300 marks (£200) for Ireland, as well as recompensing the church for revenue lost during the crisis.[178] The agreement was formalised in the Bulla Aurea, or Golden Bull. This resolution produced mixed responses. Although some chroniclers felt that John had been humiliated by the sequence of events, there was little public reaction.[179] Innocent benefited from the resolution of his long-standing English problem, but John probably gained more, as Innocent became a firm supporter of John for the rest of his reign, backing him in both domestic and continental policy issues.[180] Innocent immediately turned against Philip, calling upon him to reject plans to invade England and to sue for peace.[180] John paid some of the compensation money he had promised the church, but he ceased making payments in late 1214, leaving two-thirds of the sum unpaid; Innocent appears to have conveniently forgotten this debt for the good of the wider relationship.[181]”

Some payments to the Pope were made pursuant to this agreement off and on for a little more than the next 100 years, eventually ending. “The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.” See: http://www.historyextra.com/qa/when-did-pope-rule-england

It is alleged that this concession was a treaty, but if it was, it is subject to another fact regarding treaties: they are often broken. King Henry VIII broke with the Vatican and established the Church of England, seizing Catholic properties. See:   

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/reformation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

History reveals that both Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell essentially ended the Papacy’s control over England. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation

The following is stated at the above link:

“The Act in Restraint of Appeals,” drafted by Cromwell, apart from outlawing appeals to Rome on ecclesiastical matters, declared that

 “This realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a body politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spirituality and Temporality, be bounden and owe to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience.[20]

This declared England an independent country in every respect.

The above (along with lots of other authority) demonstrates that certainly by the time of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell, the Pope did not own or control England.  The above theory is thus a false, baseless contention.

But does the English Monarchy or England have any legal control over the United States of America? Please remember that there was indeed (contrary to contentions of the revisionists) an American Revolution. And both English and American courts long ago held that the Revolution severed all legal connections between our country and the English crown/England. 

I described these cases and other matters on my website as follows:

Simple facts regarding the “we are subjects of the British Crown” issue

   Several years ago, some folks developed an argument that “we are still subjects of the British crown” and started promoting it. You are free to believe that argument which will waste your time. Here is a simple refutation of that argument:

1. The Articles of Confederation provided as follows:

 “Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

2. On February 6,  1778, the United States entered into a Treaty of Alliance with France (8 Stat. 6).  On July 16, 1782,  we borrowed substantial sums from King Louis XVI of France, via anagreement signed by French Foreign Minister Charles Gravier de Vergennes. It must be noted that there are people who erroneously assert that this loan was really secured from the Brits instead of the French (you can be the judge of their honesty). 

3. Our country and the British Crown signed the Treaty of Peace on September 3, 1783 (8 Stat. 218), the first provision of which reads as follows:

“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, to  be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, proprietary and  territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”

See also Nov. 30, 1782 Provisional Treaty and Jan. 20, 1783 Treaty of Cessation of Hostilities.

    Does this 1783 Peace Treaty still exist? All one needs to do to confirm this is to check out a government  publication entitled “Treaties in Force” which can be found in any good library, especially a university library. Under the list of our treaties with Great Britain and the United Kingdom, you will find that this 1783 treaty is still in effect, at least a part of it: “Only article 1 is in force.” Art.1 was the section of this treaty acknowledging our independence. The War of 1812 resulted in modifications of this treaty and so did later treaties.

4. The courts have not been silent regarding the effect of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Peace. For example, the consequences of independence were explained inHarcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526-27 (1827), where the Supreme Court stated:

 “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

 “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

In M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), the Supreme Court  held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

In reference to the Treaty of Peace, this same court stated:

“It contains an acknowledgment of the independence and sovereignty of the United States, in their political capacities, and a relinquishment on the part of His Britannic Majesty, of all claim to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same. These concessions amounted, no doubt, to a formal renunciation of all claim to the allegiance of the citizens of the United States.”

     Finally, in Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99, 120-122 (1830), the question squarely arose as to whether Americans are “subjects of the crown,” a proposition flatly rejected by the Court:

“It is universally admitted both in English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent State, and the acknowledgment of their independence.

 “The rule as to the point of time at which the American antenati ceased to be British subjects, differs in this country and in England, as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the Declaration of Independence.”

In support of the rule set forth in this case, the court cited an English case to demonstrate that the English courts had already decided that Americans were not subjects of the crown:

“The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is not applied by the British courts to the American antenati. This is fully shown by the late case of Doe v. Acklam, 2 Barn. & Cresw. 779. Chief Justice Abbott says: ‘James Ludlow, the father of Francis May, the lessor of the plaintiff, was undoubtedly born a subject of Great Britain. He was born in a part of America which was at the time of his birth a British colony, and parcel of the dominions of the crown of Great Britain; but upon the facts found, we are of opinion that he was not a subject of the crown of Great Britain at the time of the birth of his daughter. She was born after the independence of the colonies was recognized by the crown of Great Britain; after the colonies had become United States, and their inhabitants generally citizens of those States, and her father, by his continued residence in those States, manifestly became a citizen of them.’ He considered the Treaty of Peace as a release from their allegiance of all British subjects who remained there. A declaration, says he, that a State shall be free, sovereign and independent, is a declaration that the people composing the State shall no longer be considered as subjects of the sovereign by whom such a declaration is made.”

(Note: the linked copies of these cases highlight the important parts of these opinions for your convenience).    Notwithstanding the fact that English and American courts long ago rejected this argument, I still encounter e-mail from parties who contend that this argument is correct. For example, just recently I ran across this note which stated:

“In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King… This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union ?? any regulated financial institution carries with it ?? as an operation of law ?? the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD’s, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King ?? so says the Supreme Court. At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts (because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions), and you are very much in an EQUITY RELATIONSHIP with the King.

This note also alleged that George Mercier, who wrote an article apparently popular among those who believe the “contract theory” of government, was a retired judge, which is false. Just because you read it on the Net does not make it true.See:       http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/WeAintBrits.htm

 

I AM A LIVING, BREATHING MUGWUMP: Patriot Myths, Mythology, and Lies which Sabotage and Undermine Real Patriotic Americans

According to my mother, in the U of Chicago and Radcliffe “slang” parlance of her college days, a “MUGWUMP” was a mythological bird that flies backwards because it doesn’t know its mug from its wump…

Some “Patriot Mythmongers” just have to be government agents who infiltrate the Patriotic, Traditional, Pro-Constitutional, Anti-Communist movements and give not just misinformation but suicidally bad advice to otherwise decent people who find themselves crosswise with the law: They advise and counsel being rude, disrespectful, and “sassy” to the Court, engaging in unmannerly behavior which (not in the legal but in the common, everyday sense) shows true “CONTEMPT” (i.e. disdain and disregard) of the Court and its proceedings.  

To say this is bad advice, let me give this example:  Imagine that you are in Germany in the 1930s and summoned to a GESTAPO inquiry about whether you have lied about your status as an Aryan when you are in fact Jewish.  The “Patriot Mythmongers'” to which I refer here give the equivalent of the following advice: “Just tell the GESTAPO Gauleiter that your Rabbi tells you that that fact that you were circumcised and Bar-Mitzvahed by him does not make you any less of an Aryan.”  That would have gone over like a lead balloon and probably led to immediate deportation, and what some “Sovereign Citizen” Patriots advise people to do in Court is absolutely no better.

Case in point that just came to my attention in an official transcript from Florida (but it is a tragic scene that is played out OVER and OVER again all around the USA):

(1)     Court called to Order at 9:00 AM

(2)     The Court: “We’re here in the case of the State of Florida vs. (Defendant’s Full Legal name).  Is there a Mr. (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present? If there are [sic, even judges apparently use bad grammatical constructions, mixing singular and plural, come forward, please, sir.  

(3)    The Defedant: “No Audible Response.”

(4)    The Court: Is there a (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present?  If there is, come forward please, sir.  

(5)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m here to speak to that matter.”

(6)    The Court: Are you Mr. (Defendant’s Full Name)

(7)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m a living, breathing—”

(8)    The Court:  Is there a (Defendant’s Full Name) present?

(9)    The Defendant:  “No audible response”  

(10)   The Court:  If there is a (Defendant’s Full Name) present, have him come forward.  If not, I will be issuing a capias for his arrest.  Is there a (Defendant’s last name) here?  

(11)    Unidentified Speaker: “For the Record—”  

(12)   The Court:  Let the record reflect—

(13)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter

(14)   The Court: Let the record reflect—

(15)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter.

(16)   The Court: Let the record reflect (Defendant’s last name) has not appeared.  Capias will be issued for his arrest to be returned to the Court, no bond.  If there’s a surety bond — was the bondsman noticed?

What the judge did here was: he put the “Defendant” in jail for 21 days without hearing or bond.  This was arguably an overreaction, but why did the Defendant do what he did?  Why did he try to open up with the ridiculous formulaic statement “I am a living, breathing person?”  It’s because s/he got idiotic advice from a Patriot Mythmonger—“Defendant” who told me this story would not tell me who (perhaps because I offered to put said Patriot Mythmonger on my “to kill” or at least “deserves to die later” list).  

Now what were the Judge’s options here: (1) well he could have said, “I’m glad to hear you’re a living and breathing person, but what’s your name you stupid Mo-Fo?”; (2) the Judge could have said, “Will the bailiff please cause Mr. (Defendant’s full name) to enter and stand before the court?  You may use all such force as appears to you reasonable and necessary to cause (the Defendant) to do so (that would have been the same as the CAPIAS, but with more immediate results); (3) the Judge could do what he did, which was to have the Defendant arrested and jailed (effectively punishing him for Contempt of Court, although nominally it was merely an order compelling the Defendant to appear by admitting his name in Court where he had already appeared by body in person); (4) the Judge could have let the Defendant ramble on about being a living breathing person and not a fictitious ALL CAPS Corporation created without his consent.  

But as my great-grandfather, a Louisiana State Court Judge and later Justice used to say, “We are brought into this world without our knowledge and taken without our consent.”  This is relevant, because another one of the Patriot Myths is that “All Law Proceeds by Contract”—sometimes specifically under the U.C.C., or else under Admiralty Law—and these are the most misleading and pernicious lies of all….. and have cause many, including but not limited to my dear old Texas friends Daniel Marion Swank, Drs. Kamil Kreit and Jacques S. Jaikaran, to lose some liberty and a great deal of property in what should have been very important cases.

Anyhow, in the transcript excerpt above, the lines attributed to an “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were spoken in open Court by the same person.  About twenty-five people witnesses this.

The “Unidentified Speaker’s” comments may be quite mystifying to anyone who has not kept up with certain quasi-underground legal-activist elements of the (Mostly Conservative, Traditionalist, Constitutionalist) “Patriot” movement in the United States of America  over the past 25-30 years.

A certain brand of “Patriot” believes that we do not own our names, especially if they are written in capital letters.  If this sounds absurd to you, it sounds absurder to me, because I have seen the consequences.

If the “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were in fact the same person in the exchange above, it is pretty clear that “neither of these individuals” admitted to having the Defendant’s full name (even if that was his/her/its legal name).  

Now I despise bad Judges who disregard civil rights and the Constitution.  You might say I’ve dedicated my life to fighting them. But listen people: A JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AT THE VERY LEAST, IS DESIGNED TO BE A CIVILIZED ALTERNATIVE TO FIGHTING IN THE STREETS AS A WAY OF RESOLVING DISPUTES.  

Whatever information we have about judicial corruption or disregard for law, rules of procedure, or the constitution, it does NOT justify being rude to a judge in Court.

When I was 11 I left Dallas to go to school in Los Angeles.  When I came back to Dallas at 14, at the local Highland Park Swimming Pool, I saw a guy I thought was my friend from 5th grade and earlier, three years before, but at that age, kids are growing up fast and changing very quickly.  So I wasn’t sure.  I asked my friend, “Hey, are you John T.?”  He looked at me like I was crazy, as teenage boys kind of like to do, and said, “No Charlie, I’m Michael Jackson of the Jackson Five, don’t you recognize me?”  (It’s irrelevant to this discussion that I could truthfully respond, “No, I was in school with Mikey out in LA, and you don’t look anything like him, ’cause he was kind of black…”)  This kind of behavior might be perfectly appropriate among teenagers at a public pool, but it has no place in Court.  And adults should know that.

Being polite is the first step towards being respected—because we all know that to get respect you have to show respect.  Kind of a “Golden Rule” type of thing.  But still the Patriot Mythmongers go around telling people to show their CONTEMPT OF COURT and COURT RULES visibly and audibly—and they should all be taken out by friendly fire.  

It is NOT appropriate in ANY legal proceeding to say, “I am a living, breathing, person.”  It is NEITHER true in any sense nor appropriate to say that your name WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS (e.g.: CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN III) is not the same legal individual as your name written in Title Format (Charles Edward Lincoln III).  

BUT NOT ONLY IS IT NOT TRUE TO SAY THESE THINGS, WHEN YOU SAY THEM, YOU PAINT A RED BULLSEYE ON YOURSELF AND TELL THE COPS AND THE COURTS “OK, SHOOT ME, BECAUSE I AM A REAL MUGWUMP”—by which I mean, you are (like the bird) so stupid you really don’t know your mug from your wump, you don’t know which way is up, and you basically deserve to die (ok, not really—I’m not advocating shooting of ALL people who believe this stuff–though I am advocating their radical re-education).

For all the corruption in this country, I have seen no evidence in the 30 years since I first became acquainted with the “Republic of Texas” and other “sovereign citizen” movements, that we have special corporate accounts set up at birth by the government matching our social security numbers and these (non-existent) accounts cannot be accessed by writing weird negotiable instruments.  I have seen people go to jail for trying.  I have seen other people get by with such things, at least temporarily.  

But I ask you, in the spirit of our founding fathers:  what can there possibly be that is legitimate or patriotic about (1) being rude in court, (2) refusing to acknowledge the name which your parents gave you, and by which you presumably have lived all of your life, (3) trying to get something for nothing, i.e. by trying to draw on these non-existent social security birth accounts, filing 1099-OIDS, using Fred & Nina Gutierrez EFT process, or anything else that passes for “brilliant insight” in the Patriot Movement?  

NO, let’s stick to the Constitution AND Civilized Manners of our Grandparents and Great-Grandparents, and let’s NOT act like MUGWUMPS in Court or anywhere else…

First Friday of Fall (FFF) & Final Friday of September (FFS)—Equinox, Tuesday, September 23-Friday September 26

Q:   How is the Reverend Barry Taylor just like Jonah’s shady bush outside of Ninevah?  (Jonah is one of the most embarrassing books in the Bible, from the standpoint of those, like me, who “want to believe”.  The Book of Jonah’s four short chapters are filled with oversized man-housing whales which act like jails and tree-eating worms who do Gods bidding and expressions that God cares for wicked Ninevites and their animals…and whose sole moral point is that we must accept the will and acts of God, no matter how arbitrary and capricious, inequitable, and unfair they may seem….)

A:   Apparently because God gave his teaching to us for our temporary comfort only, and what God gives easily, God can take away with equal ease.  We did not create Barry Taylor, so we cannot complain that he is now gone.

Comment: but I have drunk from many wells I did not dig, have been warmed by fires I did not build, and drunk wine from grapes I neither picked nor crushed….and yet I was right to do so, was I not?

“Final Fridays and First Fridays” remind me of the wonderful parties that the late Molly Ivins used to put on in Austin, Texas….at which I was privileged to attend regularly, a long, long time ago, in a gallaxy far away, when Texas was a land of free speech, liberty, and ruled by the WD 40 crowd (“White Democrats over Forty”).  That really WAS a long time ago, wasn’t it?   Molly, born in beautiful Monterrey, in 1944 while some of my cousins were stationed in the Navy there, was a native Californian who tragically died of Cancer at the age of 63 on January 31, 2007—she had so much more to say and write about her adopted state.  Molly’s death, and the loss of her community, was definitely one of the major (contributing) factors prompting me to give up and leave my native state.  And now I’m in California half the time and Louisiana half the time.  I cannot tell in which state I enjoy living more: the food and girls are way better in New Orleans, the shopping and museums are better in Los Angeles…. New Orleans has lots of history and beauty.  Los Angeles has lots of money and power.  I feel at peace in New Orleans.  I feel I am a piece of Los Angeles.  

On this Final Friday of September, First Friday of Fall, I think it is time to go back to New Orleans.  The Reverend Barry Taylor is gone from Los Angeles—it’s now cool enough in New Orleans to enjoy the food and chase the girls…  Summer is HELL in New Orleans…. No time of year is really hellish in Los Angeles.  There was a time (around 1992-1994) when they described the four seasons of Los Angeles as “Earthquakes, Brushfires, Riots, and Floods”—rather like the Four Creations of the Maya Popol Vuh or the Five Creations of the Aztec Calendar Stone….Pierre du Soleil ou Calendrier Azteque.

Well, for me at least it was a very intense summer.  Fall will be quieter, I think, wherever I am.  Summer was so intense I cannot quite remember where my summer began.   For me summer began either in New Jersey or Florida, but without studying my travel records or receipts carefully, I’m pretty sure I greeted the Summer Solstice 93 days ago in either Ocala or Orlando, Florida.  I discovered a really good German restaurant in Orlando (the Bauern-Stube, http://www.bauern-stube.com/).  

That schnitzel & dumpling place was the only good thing I really can say about my excursion to Florida, except that I wrote and prepared a really good appellate brief for a really unworthy client (WTO 12 June EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL; 2014 6 12 final Appendix to emergency motion) who ultimately (well, actually, almost immediately) stabbed me in the back… and so I left Florida.

I ended the summer and began the Fall in Beverly Hills, California, in the midst of great turmoil.  On the one hand, I am tortured by the departure of the Reverend Barry Taylor from All Saints in Beverly Hills, especially on such complete absence of notice or warning, amid such dark but unspecified charges “not that anyone plans on pressing charges…”  On the other hand, I brought Croatian ex-Diplomat and New Right Political Philosopher to the Beverly Hills JEM Center where he preached New Right Philosophy to Beverly Hills’ Jewish Community…. I expected some negative reaction here, but instead the negative reaction was all from my fellow conservatives who felt I had done something desperately wrong…. and some even shunned Dr. Sunic as a consequence.   We shall see how all that plays out…. 

Thoughts on State & Federal Immigration Policy,

Charles Edward Lincoln (Edited from Facebook Posts from August 26, 2014):

In late March 2005, it was rumored that US President Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian PM Paul Martin at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, and there secretly planned a “North American Union.”

The meeting was real enough: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/03/images/20050323-5_la6g0997kjjpg-515h.html 

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/…/20050323-5…

President George W. Bush walks with Mexico President Vicente Fox, left, and Canadian Prime…
georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

But it is very unclear what was actually discussed in the US President’s Crawford retreat: As Wikipedia reports as of today: “In 2005, claims emerged from critics of North American integration that a “North American Union” was not only being planned, but was being implemented by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. These critics cited the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and claimed it was an attempt to dramatically alter the economic and political status quo between the countries outside of the scrutiny of the respective national legislatures, a critique heightened by the subsequent publication of the Independent Task Force on North America report which praised the SPP initiative and called for greater economic integration by 2010.”

California’s Governor Brown has already shown by his policies since 2010, and recently overtly confirmed, that all Mexicans are welcome in California, legal and illegal alike, without differentiation.  The national policy emanating from Washington seems no different, “come one, come all, the Party (the Democratic Party? aka the greatest and most successful Fabian Socialist/Communist Party in the history of the World?) has only just begun…”

I think Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’s current immigration policy in California and noted Anti-Colonialist Barack Hussein Obama’s policy nationwide is more-or-less solid proof that the North American Union has in fact already been implemented. Our leaders just don’t think it important enough to inform the people or bother with obtaining that pesky thing called “the consent of the governed”….from which “all governments derive their just powers…”

Texas Governor Rick Perry right now is pretending to be anti-Immigration, but in 2002 it was he who proposed the “North American Corridor” that linked Canada, the US, and Mexico via one big “Superhighway” roughly parallel to United States Interstate 35 (and the old “Pan-American Highway”) running through Texas. I submit the drama between Perry and the Democrats right now is just “shadowboxing” (which Perry will lose) to cement the demographic union of the three nations, which will, very shortly, be cemented by political union. All we “real” Americans can possibly do is to try to reassert leadership in this Country—and in the future, basically “inevitable” North American Union, and replace the Globalist Concept of NAU with the old-fashioned, traditional American Concepts of Manifest Destiny and, perhaps, the White Man’s Burden, whereby the Anglo-American peoples will retake the leadership of the world. Any other solution will just lead to a catastrophic powerless minority status for the founding WASP population of this Country….and I think that would be a great loss…..myself….for ourselves and for our posterity….and for the rest of the world, ironically, as well. We truly have been the “beacon light of democracy and freedom”….to which ideal almost all other peoples, except some in the Communist and Islamic nations, so desperately aspire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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