Tag Archives: “a novel legal argument”

Abolish all Family Courts!

The American Freedom Party today (September 15, 2018) agreed to endorse an original understanding of the First Amendment Establishment Clause:
“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.”

The American Freedom Party agreed to my proposal to adopt and endorse, as a key plank of the party platform, the gradual abolition of the family courts and family codes at both the state and federal level, and to return all control over family and child rearing decisions to the people and only such non-governmental institutions as those to which individuals, in the exercise and delegation of their freedoms of religion and association, may wish to adopt as their own by contract.

The American Founding Fathers opposed Monarchy and sought to establish a Republic. The Family Courts (in America and elsewhere) have de facto reestablished absolutely tyrannical monarchical control over the fundamental freedoms of every individual involved in any sort of “family” (divorce or child or elder-related) dispute.

These courts, on an ad hoc basis, routinely violate every fundamental freedom. establishing arbitrary and capricious rules that defy all reason, logic, and rationality. These courts intrude and infringe upon our rights to freedom of speech and association. They intrude upon every aspect of our lives.

Original Intent: In 1787-1791, the American Colonists were only 200-250 years away from historical memory of the first Protestant “Acts of Uniformity” by which the Church of England was established, and all its sacraments (including the licensing and solemnization of marriage) adopted by Parliament.

Thus, it can be inferred that the American Founding Fathers sought forever to prevent the Federal Government from licensing or otherwise regulating marriage (or its dissolution, or child-rearing). The abuses of the Family Courts were and are so great that we must now “disestablish” all family courts, and all regulation of the “businesses of family organization and reproduction.”

14th Amendment: The American Freedom Party recognizes that certain clauses of the 14th Amendment have been interpreted in such a way as to have disastrous consequences for the American people (especially the “automatic citizenship by birth” clause, which should almost certainly be repealed).

However, the American Freedom Party wholeheartedly endorses the “doctrine of incorporation” which has developed under 14th Amendment jurisprudence, which requires that the several states apply the First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights as federally guaranteed rights within the borders of each state.

Thus, just as the First Amendment prohibits all Federal Regulation of Marriage, the First Amendment, incorporated to the States, should prohibit all State regulation of marriage or its dissolution and consequences, including child custody disputes. There is simply no way of saving the Family Courts in their present form. They have become dens of corruption and iniquity, which impoverish the people, confuse and disorient both parents and children, destroy all meaning value to family life, and render the people dependent upon the arbitrary and capricious whims of government for every iota of common, everyday, happiness.

As membership campaign manager and coordinator for the AFP, I solicit your suggestions about how this can be accomplished.

I suggest a seven year transitional plan starting with the immediate abolition of all state issued marriage licenses.

To facilitate this transition, the states will institute educational programs in both the schools and for the communities.

Every individual who comes to any state agency, from the adoption of such a law forward, to apply for a marriage license will be advised to go to counseling and arrange a marital contract regarding the nature of the relationship and the expectations of the individuals to be married, including their expectations regarding child rearing and child custody upon divorce.

For the initial stages of implementation, the courts, will continue to resolve divorce petitions filed under current law, but with a mandate to respect all constitutional rights, an expedited review process for all judicial infringements on constitutional rights, and a mandate to accommodate jury demands for all issues involving money or custody.

The next stage will begin between one and three after the adoption of the reform program, and after this date, the state divorce courts will only hear cases where a couple bring forward a marital or pre-marital agreement, or two comprehensive proposals, and the court will resolve those differences.

The goal will be the final abolition of the family courts within seven years…..and after that stage, the civil courts will only be involved to the extent required to interpret, apply, enforce, modify, or (only if illegal or unconscionable) abrogate the agreements between “partners”.

Can I recommend any attorney that is “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues” here in California? No, not without gagging, I cannot.

Dear Charles, Question:  Do you know an attorney that you can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California? We are in the Santa Barbara Central District.

[[[First: a merely rhetorical question: Why do you want a State Licensed Bar-Card Attorney beholden to the Supreme Court of California and an officer of every court before whom you appeal, would you not rather have independent, non-monopolistic, representation by someone not officially integrated into one of the few expressly authorized State Action exceptions to the Anti-Trust Laws under the New Deal Era “Parker Doctrine?”]]]
So, dear reader, you want “an attorney that [I] can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California?”  I fear there is nobody who fits that bill.  I sadly cannot recommend a single California attorney of whom I have any knowledge who is also “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California.”  I am copying this letter to Catherine Bryan who may have a different opinion, or at least “some” opinion on which way to turn—it generally appears that almost everyone who goes with a “bar attorney” ultimately loses, with a very few exceptions (but then, almost everyone loses, regardless).
          Attorney Michael Pines would be the closest, because he once (exactly a year ago in fact) wrote and filed a complaint (“on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California) which I considered magnificent, here attached “Michael T. Pines NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure”. On June 15, 2010, one of the best complaints ever was filed:  Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action, but then, 96 days later, that case was dead because the Plaintiffs’ California State Bar Licensed Counsel failed to file any responses to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss OR even to the Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions…CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010
So as you can see, that case foundered and died because of Michael T. Pines Voluntary Dismissal 09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and Failure to file responses to Steven D. Silverstein’s Motion to Dismiss.  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report
Since that dismal episode, Michael T. Pines would appear to be constantly trying to make the news.  He has been arrested several times for “trespass” or trying to get people back onto their lands/homes.  I’m not sure where all that stands right now but you can probably google it.  His complaint last year was filed against too many defendants on too many issues.  But he didn’t really try at all, in my opinion.  We have a case, 09-cv-01072-DOC, in USDC CDCA-Southern Division (Orange County) which is currently still alive but hanging by a thread…..and we’re unsure what exactly we’re going to do next.
           Then there was Dennis Martin Russell, who responded to my on-line/website-based ad (charleslincoln3.wordpress.com) seeking a Constitutional Lawyer to advance the issue of civil rights removal in Orange County.  Dennis Martin Russell accepted $5,000.00 from Renada Nadine March, which was close to 100% of her settlement from a car wreck, and proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING.  I am considering helping Renada with a malpractice lawsuit against him.  We had high hopes for Russell, but to say he disappointed us would be a cruel understatement: he misled us and deceived us.
        But any such malpractice suit will go up against the precedents set and actions taken by current California Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown while he was attorney General, again last year.  Governor Moonbeam, while Moonlighting as Attorney General Moonbeam, prosecuted several attorneys for….what was the phrase, advancing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loaCEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010n 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.”  See attached letter, “CEL to Edmund G. Brown, AG, 08-26-2010.”  
           To that fairly meaty letter we received a completely content-free reply, namely the attached “09-08-2010 K. Savona Response to CEL Letter.”  09-08-2010 K Savona Response to CEL Letter to Edmund G Brown
          Finally, Diane Beall Templin is currently working with an enigmatic, New York licensed, Attorney named Paul Nguyen, who won a case against Chase Bank before the highly enigmatic A. Howard Matz here in the Central District of California.   See attached files for reference: 09-cv-04589-AHM Docket Report as of 09-19-201009-04589-AHM-AJW 10-29-2009 Nguyen Motion to Howard Matz for Contempt against ChaseHoward Matz Granted Foreclosure TRO 09-4589 July 2009Howard Matz Supplemental TRO Requiring Authenticated Appraisal 08-03-2009
          Paul Nguyen has since then opened an office somewhere in Orange County and is now supposedly practicing with some success, but I cannot personally vouch for anything except that I met him once in his office and he is very sharp and energetic and MIGHT be as good as he looks—my only reservation after meeting him was that he preached a kind of caution which, although traditional and understandable among attorneys, did not seem quite sufficient or adequate to the task of unraveling the non-judicial foreclosure & eviction morass in California created by legislative statute: California Civil Code §2924 et seq..  
        And then again Paul Nguyen MIGHT just have pulled a special trick on Judge A. Howard Matz, or intimidated him in such a manner as Jose L. Pineda appears to have done—see the lead story on my blog (right after this letter).
          If I can provide you with any further information, please let me know.  On the whole, I am opposed to the State Bar Monopoly and believe that the licensing of attorneys does little more than to insulate incompetent and corrupt practice from challenge.  As I have recently written, I think that Judges such as A. Howard Matz are completely and totally knowing collusion with the banks, and so lawyers like Diane Beall Templin and Paul Nguyen may be as well.
Catherine Bryan, to whom I have copied this letter, has accused Diane Beall of being in complicity with the Banks and their attorneys.  Catherine Bryan to CEL re-Diane Beall April 3 2011 .  We do not know the truth because we see only through a glass, darkly.  We moan like doves and growl like bears.  We seek for the light but live in darkness and grope like blind men along the walls.  OK, so what else  does Corinthians 13 have in common with Isaiah 59 and the allegory of the Cave in Book VII of Plato’s Republic?
          I simply do not know what to say at this stage about Paul Nguyen and Diane Beall, but if Catherine were a lawyer, or if Bar Cards were not required, she would be the first person I would recommend, immediately after myself….. The connection between A. Howard Matz and Paul Nguyen’s victory on the one hand and subsequent migration to California on the other are both….curious and disturbing to me.  
         If you haven’t read my blog, please do so at https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com, especially the lead article on A. Howard Matz and the Jose L. Pineda case, and what it may or may not mean.
After Midnight on June 12, Pentacost Sunday, Jennifer Lee wrote in from Pasadena:
Thanks Charles
As for Paul Nguyen he stole 4 k from my mom and promised an adversarial complaint and never did it and I could give you a list of horrible things he did to her including a chapter 11 bankruptcy that he botched so badly and abandoned her when she had paid in full to him. He then told us he has 100 customers and can’t possibly help them all so he had to pick which ones he is going to let loose and he doesn’t care less if they loose and get evicted. He told us he chose us to loose as our case was more difficult and he doesn’t care. I just spoke to a lady I saw tonight who told me he did the same to her and many more people she knows and she has someone who is going to go after him for her. I was given advice of how to report him. I have been too busy but I really need to report him to the bar and judicial review. Don’t remember off hand the place.he is a con man. Diane beall was upset to hear what he did to us but she told me she was losing all her cases so she needed to learn from him and she needs money even though she didn’t want to be there and she was sick to watch what he did to mom. She tried to confront him for what he did to us and she got in trouble for it.