Monthly Archives: August 2010

An Open Letter to California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

FROM: Charles Edward Lincoln 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6, Austin, Texas 78705; Renada Nadine March; Daniel Christian Mack; Richard Mendez; Joseph Cohen; 7 Bluebird Lane; Aliso Viejo, California 92656; Tel: 949-742-0436; E-mail:; Plaintiffs pro se, in propia persona SACV09-1072 DOC Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint HRG 09-20-2010

Date: August 26, 2010; Thursday


TO:  Mr. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr.; Office of the Attorney General; 1300 “I” Street; Sacramento, CA 95814-2919; Phone: (916) 445-9555; Office of the Attorney General; 455 Golden Gate, Suite 11000; San Francisco, CA 94102-7004; Phone: (415) 703-5500; Office of the Attorney General; 300 South Spring Street; Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230; Phone: (213) 897-2000

Dear Mr. Brown:

We are pro se litigants in the enclosed case, 09-cv-01072-DOC (08-20-2010-2nd-Amended-Complaint-(DOCarter)), with the Second Amended Complaint we recently lodged in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, before the Honorable David O. Carter in Santa Ana.

We are providing you with notice of our lawsuit, as we are required to do by Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that we are challenging the Constitutionality of certain California and Federal State statutes relating to the ownership of property and enforcement of contracts (and preservation of common law defenses to contracts) as a civil right protected by the United States Constitution.

We note that you have recently sanctioned a California attorney, Michael Roth, according to your own website, because:

After collecting up-front fees, Roth filed lawsuits on behalf of homeowners, pushing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.

We are deeply disturbed by the message you are sending out because we firmly adhere to what you call a “novel legal argument” because it is in every way sound.  In fact, allowing and enforcing this position will help preserve the family, restore confidence in the financial system, potentially keep millions of Americans independent and off the welfare rolls, and preserve the American dream of homeownership for those who worked hardest to achieve it.

Traditional common law rights, protected by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as by 42 U.S.C. §1981-1982, required proof of “holder in due course” standing and regular “privity of contract” before contracts relating to the sale of   land, homes, and other real estate could be enforced by foreclosure.

We demand the enforcement and protection of these our constitutional rights: that the State of California shall neither enact nor enforce any laws constituting an impairment nor abridgement of the rights of contract, or the right to keep and own property, that no law shall be made or enforced which grants privileges or immunities to any one social or economic class of individuals to the unequal disadvantage of other citizens (such as attorneys vs. non-attorneys) and that the common law shall be preserved except when expressly repealed and abridged, and not merely by implications constituting a taking of rights without due process of law.

We claim that all such processes have occurred and continue to occur in California, as the direct and proximate and therefore legal result of state-enacted and state forced laws or programs, practices, and policies having the force or effect of law.

Accordingly, we ask you to join our lawsuit and assist us in seeking to have California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., relating to non-judicial foreclosure, and §1714.10 relating to attorney’s conditional immunity from liability for participating in civil conspiracies to defraud, declared unconstitutional, along with §1946 and Code of Civil Procedure §§1161-1162, relating to unlawful detainer or forcible eviction lawsuits following non-judicial foreclosures.

We ask to meet with you personally concerning this lawsuit and that you make this lawsuit and its content the very highest priority of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California.

We are all and each one of us

Yours very truly and respectfully,


Charles Edward Lincoln, III; Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice; 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6; Austin, Texas 78705; Telephone: (512) 968-2500;


Renada Nadine March; 7 Bluebird Lane; Aliso Viejo, California 92656; Tel: 949-742-0436; E-mail:


Daniel Christian Mack 1-949-689-7188


Richard Mendez


Joseph A. Cohen (949) 300-1870; (949) 212-8221


DEBORAH S. BOWEN; CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE; (To Waive Notice on Behalf of the State of California); 1500 11th Street; Sacramento, CA 95814

ARNOLD A. SCHWARZENEGGER; GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Los Angeles Office; 300 South Spring Street; Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013

Three weeks later, on September 15, 2010, it is aggravating to point out that neither did Edmund G. Brown nor the Office of the Attorney General substantively respond nor execute the Waiver of Service of Summons as requested.  However, on September 08, 2010, some clerk or underling in the “Public Inquiry” Department named K. Savona was tagged with writing a “non-response” letter as follows: 09-08-2010 K Savona Response to CEL Letter to Edmund G Brown

THE SUN ALSO RISES AND THE SUN SETS, AND HURRIES BACK TO WHERE IT RISES: These are generally accepted facts, but how can you convince a judge or jury in court?

In law, there are two kinds of witnesses: expert witnesses and “fact” witnesses.  A fact witness is someone who personally, with his own senses, “saw” the accident with his own eyes, or “heard” the violent threatening language or “smelled” the poison before it was administered to the victim, who tasted the quality of a sample of the vintage wine before it was stolen, or touched the gun left at the crime scene and felt it still hot.

An “expert” witness is someone whose education and specialization permits him or her to draw inferences and/or render opinions which will “help” the Judge and/or Jury to decide the case: how much would the real estate have been worth in the absence of the fraudulent misrepresentations?  Is the painting a genuine “Matisse” or “Renoir” or is it a fake?  How long would the victim have lived but for the airline crash and how much income would he or she have produced for her family and/or corporation?  What was a fair market value for the stock absent insider trading the day before a public disclosure leads to bankruptcy?

In law, the words “proof” and “persuasion” can be used almost synonymously.

The beginning of a civil lawsuit is called, appropriately enough, a “pleading”.  In a Plaintiff’s COMPLAINT or “Initial Petition”, an injured party PLEADS for permission to present and prove his case to a jury.  The Complaint will be judged by the “legal sufficiency” of the “alleged” (but not proven) facts said to constitute an injury or “cause of action” for injunction or declaratory judgment.  For a Past Injury, the remedy usually sought is monetary damages.  For future injury, where no injury has happened at all yet, the remedy usually sought is an INJUNCTION to prevent the injury.  For doubtful or unclear, debatable injury, a plaintiff might seek a “Declaratory Judgment” that such and such conduct or events DID or WILL constitute an injury, so that the plaintiff can THEN sue for damages or an injunction.  Civil Rights suits often take the nature of “declaratory judgment” actions that a law or policy should be DECLARED inconsistent with the constitution.

The Plaintiff, the person bringing the complaint, first has the “Burden of Pleading” (i.e. STATING AND OUTLINING THE FACTS IN A PLAUSIBLE STORY).  Once a judge finds that a plaintiff has sufficiently PLED a Plausible story which might entitle that Plaintiff to some sort of relief, Legal Damages = Money, Equitable Damages = An order of Injunction, stopping or commanding certain actions be taken, or Declaratory Judgment, the Judge then requires the Plaintiff to present evidence sufficient to PROVE his allegations of fact.

PROOF means PERSUASION in law.  A fact in law is usually a verbal statement.  Physical or Visual evidence can come into court, but it must be brought by a person who can describe and analyse the physical evidence and explain it to the judge or jury.  The murder weapon never walks into court alone: someone has to bring it, and the person bringing it must tell a story which plausibly connects the gun to someone’s death; there must be narrative, a commentary, a report.

Legal proof would clearly frustrate Eliza Doolittle from Shaw’s Pygmalion or “My Fair Lady” in which Eliza sings:

“Words words words I’m so sick of words; I get words all day through first from him now can you, is that all you blighters can do?  Don’t talk of stars, burning above, if you’re in love: SHOW ME!  Tell me no dreams, filled with desire, if you’re on fire: SHOW ME!”

Demonstrative evidence has almost no place in law or legal proof at all, although a few instances can be imagined, but even the demonstration must be described, usually by experts, in words.

The “proof” in law is not formulaic.  There are quite simply no “a-square + b-square = c-square” formulas in law.  And if mathematical formulas are used, they have to come into court by way of expert testimony.  You’d better have Pythagorus on retainer if you want to introduce his theorem for any reason……or maybe one of his students or followers.

Ultimately, in law, “proof” is achieved by getting the Judge or the Jury to agree with one or the other of a minimum of two competing arguments or explanations regarding the existence or meaning of any fact.

In a typical civil case, a judge or jury must merely conclude that it is “more likely than not” that any given fact or inference from a fact or series of facts is true.  This is called “proof by a preponderance of the evidence” and is sometimes said to equate with 51% probability.  A VERY narrow margin of proof indeed.  In certain civil cases, family law and probate law especially, “clear and convincing” evidence is said to be required, although what that ends up meaning is sometimes quite mysterious.  “Clear and convincing” evidence is said to amount to something like 60-67% probability, maybe even 75% that a given fact or factual scenario is true or false.

In criminal law, a higher standard of proof, called “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” is supposed to be used, but even the Supreme Court has trouble explaining what this means.  “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” is said to be a “visceral” (i.e. gut level, almost physical) commitment or “conviction” that a certain fact is true.  I suppose that is why the end of a criminal case in which a Defendant is found guilty is called a “conviction.”  The jury must be convinced, i.e. have a strong conviction, that the Defendant should be “convicted” of a serious crime which will have much more serious consequences for the Defendant’s life than merely having to pay cash damages for an injury or to stop doing something or be compelled to do something.

The use of vague and imprecise language such as “visceral conviction” and “a deep-seated feeling” that one fact or set of facts is true and another false shows the degree to which “proof” in law is ultimately dependent upon EMOTIONS and “Swaying” the fact-finder one way or another.  Both Judges and Juries are counseled to “look into the witnesses eyes” and therein discern whether a witness is “credible” or not.

In short, Law, on which so many things in our lives so absolutely depend, is not rocket science.  There are no formulas, there are no easy answers, there are always two sides: “proof” in court is all about emotionally persuading or convincing other people, one jury and up to 12 jurors plus 2 alternates, that your view of the facts is correct and your opponents’ view is wrong.  Anyone who disputes the value of emotion in law or legal proof has simply never been to court at all.  The jury looks at the parties and looks “up” to the judge for advice and guidance.  The Judge looks “down” at the jury and the parties and the witnesses.  The Judge “instructs” the jury on the legal guidelines by which to interpret facts.  Cases are most often overturned based on the ways in which Judges treat or fail to treat certain facts.  But Judges and Juries perceive what lawyers, parties, and witnesses project through non-verbal semiotics things which are neither facts nor matters of proof in any scientific sense.

So, it is not unfair to say that “legal proof” is essentially socially or politically determined IN ALL CASES, and so “legal proof” must be approached as emotionally and passionately as political persuasion or social interaction.  A judge or jury exposed only to “facts” devoid of emotion will rapidly fall asleep and be unable to make any decision at all.

“Legal Proof or Persuasion”, then, must be understood as much more a matter of social-psychology, then, and of culturally determined cognition and perception, together with linguistically analyzable argumentative syntax, grammar, semantics, and semiotics, organized in something close to ritually (i.e. dramatically) structured and hierarchical formats, than as “proof” by formula or equation in the scientific or mathematical sense.  By extension, “law” is much more social metaphysics than atomic physics.

Does Rule 27 Permit the Examination of Public Officials’ Publicly Recorded Conflicts of Interest Prior to Filing Suit?

Janet Claire Phelan and I were on the air (American Freedom Radio) at 2:00 Pacific Time on Thursday (August 19, 2010) to discuss our project to start depositions of judges, under Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   Judges have absolute or nearly absolute immunity from suit for their judicial decision-making, now matter how bad or objectionable it is on many levels.  But do Judges have the right to keep secret their economic transactional history which could lead to violations of or infringements upon the intangible right of the people to honest services from public officials.  If you connect to the link below, you will need to fast forward to the second hour of the link to hear us (Janet Claire Phelan and Charles Edward Lincoln) summarizing our thoughts in a one hour segment. We are now doing serious fundraising for this project. You can go to Janet Phelan’s website,, to donate via pay pal.  They money you donate will cover the costs of preparing and filing Rule 27 Petitions, attending hearings in Southern California, and then either conducting the depositions (with court reporters and videographers) or appealing the denial of our Petitions for Depositions “to perpetuate testimony” to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
We need your support to accomplish this. Thanks so much,

Janet Phelan

Aurora I. Diaz & David Wynn Miller & David Rodearmal v. Hillary Rodham Clinton


None can ever be free until all are free.  Let me repeat that: NO ONE will ever be truly free until EVERYONE is free.  We do NOT have the right, under the constitution, to judge anyone as crazy or deprive them of freedom because of eccentricity or non-normative behavior, so long as such behavior is not physically injurious without the consent of the “victim.”  Where the object of any action, the “victim” consents to non-physical injury, the freedom to act must not be impaired or impeded in any way.

The use of linguistic, grammatical, lexical, semantic, semiotic, or syntactic, ambiguity in law is routine, but Bill and now Hillary Clinton seem to have perfected this stratagem as an art form.  Why should others, including the famous, infamous, notable, or notorious David Wynn Miller, not have the right to do the same?


  1. The Orange County Superior Court (The Honorable [Commissioner] Glen Mondo, West Judicial Center at Westminster California) reconvened and in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§241-242, infringed Aurora I. Diaz’ rights to due process and equal protection of laws in the following ways and means, by its minute order and oral pronouncements:
  2. Aurora I. Diaz informed the California Superior Court that she had retained counsel, although she had proceeded pro se in the past.
  3. The Commissioner of the California Superior Court informed Defendant that she would not be allowed
  4. In fact, exercising her rights under the First Amendment (Right to Petition, Freedom of Assembly), the Seventh, and the Ninth Amendment, Aurora I. Diaz had in fact retained as David Wynn Miller as her counsel and linguistic expert on the interpretation of contractual and statutory language at a trial-by-jury.
  5. Aurora I. Diaz paid the counsel of her choice $3,000.00 cash for representation in this and another case relating to two houses and he was available to return from Australia to represent her in this case during the same week as trial, but later in the week.
  6. The right to counsel of choice, under U.S. Supreme Court holdings, has never been limited only to licensed attorneys, especially for economically and situationally disadvantaged people.  See, e.g. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969)(See Exhibit H).



  1. A Defendant in an unlawful detainer case is at a severe disadvantage due to the structure of the laws of the State of California, which make it almost impossible, perhaps completely impossible, to raise an effective defense under normal circumstances.
  2. In fact, most licensed attorneys in the State of California will not represent a Defendant in an unlawful detainer case because no effective defense is possible.
  3. David Wynn Miller is known around the world for his theory of quantum language analysis of legal documents and texts.
  4. Defendant Aurora I. Diaz is a not a native speaker of English and believes that David Wynn Miller’s approach posits a worthy analysis of this state’s laws and applications of contractual obligations and procedures under deeds of trust.
  5. The Defendant asserts that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counsel and advocate.
  6. The Defendant asserts that the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counselor and advocate.
  7. The Defendant finally asserts that 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982 guarantee her the equal right with all other citizens and lawful residents of the United States to make and enforce contracts (according to her linguistic understanding) and to institute and maintain legal proceedings (including the presentation of linguistic analysis and evidence) for the vindication of her rights.
  8. David Wynn Miller is a controversial scholar and advocate of linguistic analysis is not favored by all commentators.
  9. However, it has long been held, as an axiom of First Amendment law that, although the government may disagree with every word one man or another speaks or rights, it is the duty of all who uphold the Constitution to defend to the death each man’s right to speak or write his opinions and conclusions freely.
  10. David Wynn Miller has devoted his life to the linguistic analysis of the law and the deconstruction of legal texts, which, to the average native-born speaker of English, are all but totally incomprehensible.
  11. David Wynn Miller’s theory of grammar and Syntax may not be the same as Noam Chomsky’s theory or that of non-Chomskyites such as Joseph Harold Greenberg, but the fact that his theories may not be taught in all departments of Semiotics or Linguistics does not mean that this Defendant should not have the right to fully take advantage of his advice and teachings and the application of his analytical theorems to the language of law in this case.
  12. It is even incomprehensible why “counsel” in a case such as the present case, so heavily dependent on the analysis and decipherment of dense legal texts, should be limited to “legal” counselors rather than “linguistic” counselors.
  13. Defendant Aurora I. Diaz would point out that even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sought the assistance of and representation by Linguists and grammatical analysts in cases pending during the past year, see for example Rodearmal v. Clinton, in the United States District Court Case 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR     Document 29      Filed 08/27/2009     Page 1 of 29.  See Exhibit E: Linguistics in Law Amici Curiae Linguists


  1. The California Superior Court refused to accommodate Aurora I. Diaz’ reasonable and modest request.
  2. At the same time, the California Superior Court in Westminster set this case for a NON-JURY trial on August 23, 2010, despite the fact that the Plaintiff had properly demanded a trial-by-jury on November 12, 2009, and again on December 7, 2010, all prior to her first removal to the United States District Court on December 10, 2010 (Exhibit F).
  3. Finally, in the minute order entered on August 2, 2010, Commissioner Mondo also stated that Defendant had “waived her right to notice” of the trial.  At no point was Defendant Aurora I. Diaz aware of having waived any rights, and in fact, the Judge did not engage in any colloquy or verbal exchange of any kind with the Defendant to inquire whether she realized that she was waiving any rights or what the consequence of these waivers might be.
  4. The entry of a “waiver” on an order without even inquiring of a Defendant whether she agreed or not to a waiver is an unconscionable act of oppression in derogation of this Defendant’s fundamental constitutional and human rights.
  5. In sum, Commissioner Mondo refused to respect the Defendant’s right to be represented by counsel, refused to schedule final trial so that Defendant’s counsel could be present, refused to schedule a trial-by-jury, and also forcibly deprived Defendant of other rights by falsely entering a “waiver of rights” on the part of Aurora I. Diaz, when no such waiver of rights ever took place.
  6. With regard to Civil Rights Removal due to denial of equal protection of laws, Defendant’s Notice of Removal is proper and timely because the Court’s order of August 2, 2010, was entered less than 30 days prior to the removal of this case, and is accordingly proper within the meaning of and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and 1446(b), which states:

a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title [28 USCS § 1332] more than 1 year after commencement of the action.

  1. Furthermore, Defendant submits that racially blind civil rights removal should be properly applied and allowed to the protection of disadvantaged classes which are denied equal protection and due process of law in Orange County, California (and the state of California generally) under color of California statutory law enforced, interpreted, and applied by the Superior Courts of Orange County include (1) a racially defined class (Hispanic residents of California), (2) a sex defined class (single female), and (3) a class defined by economic litigation (of defendants of wrongful eviction actions predicated on their status as victims of wrongful foreclosure) whose members are each denied and cannot enforce in the courts of Orange County, California.

The Triumph of Will—A Personal Note

This summer has been absolutely amazing for me and my very small family.  Frankly, we did what most would have thought impossible.  We spent a peaceful summer together, interacting with each other every day, spending time together (Father, Mother, and 17 year old son) almost every day.  There was no conflict worth talking about, no lawyers, no serious tension, only a family living together, at least during the daylight and most of the evening hours, going out to dinner and movies and shopping, tending to medical issues both routine (our son’s wisdom teeth) and extraordinary (a scare over kidney abnormalities, which turned out to be pretty much nothing.

For anyone who knows us, or anything about my wife Elena, my son’s and my own history (Charlie was born on August 23, 1992, in Palm Beach, Florida DURING Hurricane Andrew), he or she would know what an amazing thing this terribly ordinary summer really was for us.  PEACE, DETENTE, GETTING TOGETHER, being as near to a family as three people can be whose lives for many years, but especially in some intense episodes during 1995-1998 and again in 2002-2006, was totally dominated by fighting and conflict, lawyers and motions, constitutional issues and above all, separation and tension.

I can only call this a Triumph of Will for me and Charlie because I am not sure how much Elena wanted it, although her mother (Charlie’s maternal Grandmother) Nina seems to like and enjoy it a lot.   It does not appear that Elena and I will ever be back together “as a couple” or anything.  But that is only because of where we sleep and what we do or do not do behind closed doors, which is absolutely nothing.  To our son and the outside world, we appear as a family, planning his first year in college, at St. John’s in Annapolis, Maryland, a school I had considered attending nearly 40 years ago, but turned down in favor of Tulane University in New Orleans.

It has taken me and Charlie four or five years to break down the barriers which the evil Domestic relations system of Texas created in 2002-2005,which I made the subject of several federal lawsuits, and which I still intend to make into a lifetime career for reform.  But my wife has turned to me again for assistance and support.  She has eschewed the lecherous Hungarian scab who has been waiting in the wings all these years for our marriage to finally die.  I asked her not to take money from him anymore, and she has not.  Rather, we have been planning our son’s present and future together.

It is gratifying in the extreme, because I know that my son and I have both wanted this kind of peace and “detente” (one cannot call it an alliance or true reunification, because it is not, but it has been like Nixon’s trip to China, compared to the “cold war” of our divorce and custody battles, which sometimes exploded “hot”, just like the cold war between Communism and the West 1945-1990, which shaped both my childhood in London & Dallas and my wife’s childhood in Athens & Detroit, and every place in between).

These have been years of struggle over identity and ideology, religion and politics, and the right way to raise a young man.  I am happy to say that our son Charlie IV is by far the most intellectually accomplished, cosmopolitan, and well-rounded of any of his peers.  He is an expert in history and several languages, and yet has excelled in science and music.  And now Charlie will attend a college, St. John’s in Annapolis, Founded in 1696 as “King William’s”, that my mother had suggested to me as the greatest remnant of the Mediaeval and Renaissance Education she received at the University of Chicago under Chancellor Robert Maynard Hutchins.  He has a full scholarship (we will pay for his books and insurance, and travel expenses, which all in all add up to plenty, but his first year tuition and housing are covered, and not by loans either).

Somehow, this summer, we buried all our tensions and just worked towards the future.  All three of us talked about Nietszche and Freud, education and class hierarchy, competing political theories, about drugs and other problems facing Charlie and every other American youngster.  We neither reminisced nor recriminated about the past.  It was almost as if the past 15 years had not happened.  Whenever subjects came up which would have inevitably led to discussions, we simply eschewed those subjects.  It was marvelous.

We all see only through a glass darkly, and none of us has the gift of prophecy, but somehow I think we three of the Lincoln Family (Four with Grandma Nina Kourembanas) achieved something of that forgiving, tolerant love which St. Paul defined in 1st Corinthians 13:1.  And we did so IN SPITE of all governmental, legal, and social pressure to the contrary.  Yes indeed, our collective wills to have peace in and among ourselves, at least for this little while when Charlie is about to turn 18 and pass over from childhood to adulthood, have triumphed over all the experts and social planners and sociologists from the Brave New World think tanks who told us all what to do, and whom I particularly chose to ignore.  Just as in First Corinthians, there is Love, but it is neither as simple and earthly as the “Eros” that brought us together as young people and created our son, nor was it as complex and unearthly as the transcendent love of God known as “Agape”, but perhaps THROUGH the power of Agape-motivated human will, Elena and I have achieved, and presented to Charlie the possibility, for himself and for all the futrue that even former enemies could be “brothers and sisters in Christ”, in the love and peace of friends.  It is “OK” for former lovers, former enemies, former litigants, for a long time separated but never quite completely divorced, to settle on an identity of “Philios” (brotherly love).

Of all the Gospels, St. John’s focuses least on the life of Christ and most on the Holy Spirit.  And somehow, although I was Baptized at a Church called St. Thomas in NYC, attended children’s classes at All Saints in London, sang in the Choir at Incarnation & St. Michael’s in Dallas, and was confirmed at All Saints in Beverly Hills (after confirmation classes at St. Thomas in W. Hollywood), and Elena and I were married at what I always called “The Church of Santa Claus” (Hagios Nikolaos) in Athens, “St. John’s” has always been in the background, even aside from my mother’s nostalgia about the resurrection of Mediaeval Learning celebrated at Hutchins’ Chicago in the 1930s and 40s.  When I had first met Elena in 1985, I tried in vain to impress her with my recitation of the Gospel of St. John from memory in the Koine dialect of Biblical Greek.  She said my pronunciation resembled not any Greek she had ever heard in the least, but she recognized it when I wrote it down.  (I had one prizes in High School for my recitation….).   More recently I’ve been involved in some terribly trying times in St. Johns County, Florida, and at the start of my archaeological career, my first study of archaeological ceramics concerned White Mountain Redware and St. John’s Polychrome from the Zuni and Northern Anasazi regions of New Mexico and Arizona during the Chaco and Mesa Verde periods (Pueblo II and III).

“The Holocaust became the new Western religion”—

I had come to this exact same conclusion by 1998-1999, during the David Irving Libel Suit against Deborah Lipstadt.  In particular, I concluded and formed the very strong and precise opinion “the Holocaust” had become the basis of the religion of the New World Order of the United Nations, just as the Trojan War was the religion of Ancient Greece, the Punic, Gallic, and Civil Wars the Religion of Pre-Christian Rome, the Crusades the Religion of Mediaeval Europe, Charles the Martyr became the chief subject of Episcopal Sermons during the years 1660-1789, and lastly, just as the “Civil” War of 1861-65 became the “Constitutional” Religion of the United States after 1865-1877.  I never at that time would have dared to articulate or publish this conclusion, especially since in 1998-1999 I was under direct assault for my own involvement in “revisionist civil rights” activism in Texas, asserting that the Civil Rights Laws of the United States applied equally to White people as to people of color, which campaign ultimately led to my disbarment.  I am now happy and grateful to see and share that Gilad Atzmon, a Jewish artist and Historian from Israel, living in Great Britain, has now finally published this precise statement!  It is quite gratifying to see that even a Jew who questions the Global state religion of the Holocaust is accused of Anti-Semitism!
 What will happen if Gilad visits Austria?  Will he be arrested and charged with the same crimes as David Irving?  Will he be put on trial and imprisoned?  Or will he be declared mentally unsound and threatened with psychiatric confinement and threatened with “attainder” of his civil rights for life, just as Jane Burgermeister is facing in Austria this month?  In certain sectors they call me stupid or insane?  Is there any reason why YOU are not eligible for similar treatment?  If you support animal rights?  If you oppose Obama-care?  If you either oppose OR support one hypothesis or another about climate change and global warming?  Only a country which guarantees freedom of thought and expression and debate is truly free…..God Bless Gilad Atzmon, Jane Burgermeister, David Irving, Janet Claire Phelan, Nancy Jo Grant, and everyone like them who dare to speak out against “established truth” in history or science!

Truth, History and Integrity by Gilad Atzmon

Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 2:02PM
Gilad Atzmon

Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as “genocide.” The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision.  It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.

The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”

How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.

The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past.  For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method.  Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality,  truthfulness or  correspondence rules with any given vision of reality. It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective,  the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.

Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”

However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.

This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and  oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.

When I was Young

When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.  I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.

When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.

When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

It Doesn’t make sense

It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:

If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all  I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate “ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).

I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.

As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust  became the new Western religion.  Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.

*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.

Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (

See website for complete article licensing information.

Notes on Nitwits who are Nothing but Little Snakes for Hire

On Aug 3, 2010, at 3:06 AM, “Bob Hurt” <> wrote:

Charles, I had not read any of your history – just never bothered googling you.  But this Nolu Chan seems to love exposing some of your past, and obviously he likes making it ugly.  What did you do to piss this person off?

Yuk.  You must spend a little time explaining all that stuff.

Frankly, I think you should hire a couple of young buck / hot chick attorneys fresh out of school and set them onto the project and tell them they have to earn their keep.  You could get Kathleen to sell services and memberships.  She’d do well at it.

Just some thoughts on this muggy morn.

And I haven’t heard further from Gen or Manny or Charleston.

<image001.jpg> Bob Hurt • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511

Donate to my Law Scholarship fund • Learn to litigate with Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to Law Newsletter • Visit the Archive and Download FREE

Build a financial destiny with GetZooks! • Save fuel with this invention

Get 3+Gigabytes of SpiderOak online backup space for your data files – FREE!

Dear Bob:

You know the reality: as Simon & Garfunkel used to sing: “Everywhere I go, I get slandered, libeled.  I hear words I never heard in the Bible” (And see pictures of demons neither Elijah, Daniel, Isaiah, nor Jeremiah ever dreamt about….)

Nolu Chan is an Obot.  By “Obot” I mean a paid-by-the hour, specially recruited from some half-way house, semi-literate supporter of Obama who is apparently so short on real work or anything constructive to do in life that all he does is dedicate his life to supporting by mass produced verbal trash the very worst and most illegitimate President in U.S. History.  (Note that I state this in the comparative, not as an absolute—the last several Presidents, especially the Bushes, were each the second and third worse Presidents, respectively, and in the execution of their office were serious illegitimate disgraces to our Constitution and Heritage, who probably should be tried for treasonous activities starting pre-dating their Presidencies and continuing until the present day).

But as for Nolu Chan’s enthusiasm for attacking me and trying to make mountains out of mole hills: ALL of this is related to my working with Orly last year.   Do I wish I had never met her?  Yes.  Will I ever be allowed to forget her?  No.  And yet in spite of her absurdity, incompetence, and possibly derangement, she was right, because Obama IS only President of our country by the darkest and most sinister of frauds. Philip J. Berg is neither absurd, incompetent, nor deranged, but Orly got the limelight and basically destroyed the movement.  Her website is now becoming boring and I’d imagine that soon the poor old gal will be forgotten, but I will have to do some major penitence to ever get from under the shadow of my association with her….  But Orly played directly and perfectly into the hands of the likes of Nolu Chan—and much to my discredit, I worked side-by-side with her, for five whole months last year—even though she really never took any significant advice from me….much to the continued damnation of her own causes…..

Anyhow, Nolu Chan is a perverted nightmare, and even portrays himself as one of the 20th century’s most perverted nightmares by invoking the Rocky Horror Picture Show… It is so completely appropriate for Charleston to be associating himself with this sort of deceitful, misleading trash.  I had given him the benefit of the doubt, largely because I know what characterization at the hands of the like Nolu Chan is really like… but really and truly, I regret that you think it is necessary that I waste even a few pixels responding or reacting to this sickening stuff….  It upset me for a long time, until I met some of the relevant characters at Magistrate Judge Lurana Snow’s hearing in January, and they admitted that they were paid for their time to do this kind of blogging….. PAID FOR IT!  Who on earth would pay so to debase the currency of the written word?

Anyhow, I have no idea who Nolu Chan is, aside from being sure that he is one of the very scum of the earth, but certainly none of his stuff amounts to a bag of rancid rotten beans except to the most fatally bored and mindless among us.  Nolu Chan’s activities are related to those of one Obot newsgroup called Politijab and another called “the People’s Forum” (I’d love to write the Obots Obits, but I guess we have to wait for a while) and there are a few others like them, although Politijab is the only one whose negative obsession seems equivalent in scale to Nolu Chan’s: using the techniques advocated by propagandists and terrorists throughout time, they have exalted gossip to an artform in lieu of political assassination by bullet.  They achieve this by some downright lies, but mistly twisted perversions of the truth by mispleading implication.  And no I NOT going to dignify any of this psychopathic garbage by spending a lot of time defending myself or tryong to explaining his stupidity.  The story of my housekeeper Marcelina who lived two blocks from the Lago Vista Police Station and allowed her name to by used in a typewritten but unsigned statement in English (she’s effectively monolingual in Spanish) prepared by Lago Vista Police Lieutenant Reyes which ultimately led to my indictment is a story of how to twist the truth beyond recognition and then blow it out of proportion beyond the realm of physics.  It is the story of Federal Judicial Corruption and transgression of the separation of powers by an Austin Federal Judge named James R. Nowlin who will go down in my books at least as possibly the greatest robed psychopath in Texas history—although the competition for that title of distinction also.  I have addressed some of this material on my blog.

What these people do is hope that, by repetition, they will give words and stories, however false, more power than they ever had or deserve.  Have we discussed this recently?  How repeating a libel or slander OVER and OVER again makes it seem true?  How being silent about the truth makes it appear to be a forgotten deception, a false lie, a wrongful or worthless justification?

But I will say of Nolu Chan anyone who uses the image of Dr. Frank N. Furter from Rocky Horror Picture Show as a model for medical or scientific investigation, suggesting proctological examination for prurient sexual delight, is by that very self-definition a murderous psychopathic pervert whose ethics derive from another planet (and that planet is called “Transsexual Transylvania” rather than “Krypton” BTW).   So, my evaluation of Nolu Chan and everything that he does is that he is an evil representative of the Brave New World and it is comforting for me to know that my critic chooses for himself a name which is meaningless in English or any other language i know but could be roughly translated in Latin as Nolu = “I do no want” or “nothing” and “Chan” in Maya as either “liitle” or “snake.”