Tag Archives: Lago Vista

Re: National and Local Reaction to Grand Jury “No Bills” in Regard to Recent Police Killings

Quite Simply, Grand Juries are instructed in the law by Prosecutors, and Prosecutors, like Police and judges, claim either absolute or qualified immunity from prosecution, even for the most outrageous violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights, even though neither form of immunity has ever been authorized by any constitution or statutory law.  In the U.S. Constitution, for example, ONLY Legislative Immunity is authorized, and then ONLY for members of Congress actually participating in, or on their way to or from actual participation in Congressional Debates or Votes.

Legislative Immunity is found in Article I, but no executive of judicial immunity can be inferred from any section or clause of Articles II or III. The Eleventh Amendment was enacted to support some forms of State Sovereign Immunity but the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to cut back on that.

I have, for twenty years now, ever since the 7 cases I launched in Texas against the City of Lago Vista Police Department (especially Police Chief Frank Miller, the Policy Formulator, and Bart Turek, a very abusive Police Officer) and the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, been campaigning for a “rule of reason” in evaluating police actions: always ask, and permit jury review of the single question: “were the officer’s actions reasonable under the circumstances?” To implement this rule, we must amend the Civil Rights Action, 42 USC Sections 1983, 1988, expressly to abolish the Court created doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity. We must disarm the police (and prosecutors and judges) of these unjust shields and hold the Police to a higher standard of responsive and reactive conduct rather than a lower standard compared to ordinary citizens.

August 9—which was worse: Nagasaki, Dresden, or Auschwitz? In Memory of the Victims of Nagasaki, August 9, and the Sharon Tate Murders, 1969, with thoughts about the Warren Commission and its members, including Gerald Rudolph Ford

On a certain level, I think it is a nearly inexcusable miscarriage of justice that so many “High Command” and “Middle Level Command” Nazis were hanged for their war crimes in and relating to World War II, while no one has ever been punished for the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Dresden in 1945.  

Today, on August 9, 2013, the 68th anniversary of the “Fat Boy” Plutonium Bomb being used against Madame Butterfly’s hometown…. I think it is incumbent on all of us to reflect that maybe the U.S. was not so great and morally superior to Nazi Germany, and maybe the War, and the Myth of “the Good War” are just that, all mythological.   The aftermath of Roosevelt’s corporate-communist reforms in America has been the complete subversion of the constitution and the advent of Globalism.   (As I have often argued, the concept of “corporate-communism” is consistent with, and I submit actually arose from, the concept of “Industrial Armies” as articulated in the Communist Manifesto of 1848—what is a vast corporation BUT an Industrial Army?  This, again, is why I say that, at least from the standpoint of economics, there is NO SUCH THING as Fascism, only different propagandistic “spins” on communism).

Harry S. Truman, who ordered the Bombs Dropped, and Eisenhower, who led the allied troops to conquer and subjugate Germany, set Roosevelt’s corporate-commonist system into stone over the next 15 years.  The only President who might have attacked the International Banks and preserved the Constitution was gunned down in a hale of bullets fired when I was three and a half years old in the nearest thing I have to a hometown (though I wasn’t born there) of Dallas, Texas.    His successor (LBJ) was a classic corrupt politician who would do and did anything for power and position, whose first act in office was to abolish silver currency (because that’s the logical first step when your predecessor is assassinated, right?).  LBJ’s second was to form a Commission to cover up and forever confuse the truth about the crime of assassination itself.  The membership of which commission included future President Gerald R. Ford and future Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter.  

Also prominent on the Warren Commission was Allen Welsh Dulles, the former head of the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  Aside from having a brother (John Foster) who was Eisenhower’s Secretary of State and a senior partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, Allen Dulles is perhaps best known for his involvement in the planning the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, a decisive factor in shaping the world map along Orwellian “1984” lines 31 years ahead of schedule.  Dulles also subverted democracy in Guatemala and for all  his services they named a large airport near Washington in Virginia was later named after him (and his brother).  No person on the Warren Commission had more distinguished credentials in subverting democracy and falsifying history than Dulles, except perhaps Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had presided first over the erection and operation of Japanese Nisei Concentration Camps in California during the years 1942-1945 and then over the equally brutal, cynical and manipulative Civil Rights Revolution in the 1950s-1960s.

Yea, verily, I say unto you—no I will merely ask you: was the United States ever morally superior to Nazi Germany during World War II or after?   Was Allen Dulles REALLY not a war criminal?  Was Harry Truman and were all those involved in dropping the two bombs (August 6 and 9, 1945) not really and truly war criminals?  I think the argument can be made that “war is hell” and that Truman and Dulles were NOT War Criminals—but if they were not, than the descendants of all those Nazis Hanged by the Nuremberg and other tribunals are entitled to sue (with full waiver of statutes of limitation) for wrongful death and malicious prosecution.  

Whether the Nazis wanted to or not, they never incinerated between 70-75,000 human beings in a single second, but that is what happened in Nagasaki on this day, August 9, 1945.  And another 75,000 were burned, injured, but who cares about them, right?

Is it time to stop claiming that we were morally superior?   I am not exactly defending the Nazis here.  I highly value Democratic Process, I highly value Freedom of Speech, and especially the absolutely rigid and unwavering tolerance  of dissenting ideas.  (As oxymoronic as it sounds, anything less than rigid and unwavering tolerance of dissenting ideas is simply intolerable—and here I  include SO many degradations of and derogations and deviations from true, First Amendment, Freedom of Speech in the rapidly evolving American-New World Order framed by G.W. Bush and B.H. Obama.  I value a lot of things that the Nazis obviously repressed very severely.  No, I could never be or ever have been a brownshirt (nor a Maoist Redshirt), but that’s in part because I just dislike power and would never want to help anyone acquire a lot of it if that person was involved in book-burning and mass arrests leading to mass murder of dissidents.  There are merely all the same reasons I could never support Obama.

BUT I do think that the Nazis may have been, on the whole, more open and honest about their goals while the Western Governments have specialized more in deceit and deception.  I do think that the West may have decided to back the Communists of Russia rather than the Nazis because the Nazis saw some of the corruption of the International Banking System which both the West and the Soviets actually valued.  

Goebbels was even more honest about trying to use lies as a propaganda tool.  These days, they just call propaganda, “the CBS Morning and Evening News” in the USA—and my former Law Professor Cass Sunstein is the Propaganda Czar for Obama… he was the lone (admitted, open, “out of the closet”) liberal at the University of Chicago Law School when I attended there.  I do not see Sunstein as in any sense superior to Goebbels.  Goebbels gave better speeches than Sunstein gave lectures in class… that’s for sure.

In 1969, a deranged sicko by the name of Charles Manson desecrated the Nazi Swastika, took even that much maligned “twisted cross” in vain and tattooed it on his forehead, and hoped to start a race war in the USA—or so they say.  I wonder whether it was just a planned show to freak the American people out, like so much that happens on TV, I mean, on TV news…  It is another major miscarriage of justice to think that such great minds as Hermann Goering and Arthur Seyss-Inquart were executed at Nuremberg but Charles Manson and all the members of his “family” were allowed to live after what they did to Roman Polanski’s Dallas-Texas born wife Sharon Tate on August 9, 1969, and that Manson has managed to maintain his celebrity status throughout his years in California prisons.

No, evenness of justice “equality under the law” is definitely no great triumph of the American way either (remembering that it was Justice Robert Jackson who led the prosecutions at Nuremberg).

And by some astounding coincidence, one of the aforementioned members of the Warren Commission, Gerald Rudolph Ford, became President on this day in 1974, an event which I recall watching from the gigantic old black-and-white TV we used to have out in Lago Vista, upon the resignation and departure from Washington of Richard M. Nixon.

Yea, Verily, Verily, I say unto you—Not all who Wander are Lost….

It's All I REALLY miss about Living in Lago Vista, though

I miss the raccoons who used to gather on my front and upper decks in Lago Vista, Texas.  This is a hot summer, this summer of 2013 but I guess they have survived hotter.  Still, I hope they are doing OK while I’m here in New Orleans, not providing the copious bags of Wysong Canine Growth Food, supplemented with grapes and watermelon, carrots, and huge “kiddie” pools for drinking and splashing around in.  I would often have over 30 raccoons per might visiting my upper and lower decked and sometimes almost 100.  They would send the word out through their “coonie” networks and bring in friends and relations from everywhere in Lago Vista, Point Venture, and the Travis Peak (Balcones) National Wildlife Preserve northwest of town. So raccoons are clearly NOT solitary animals but they socially communicate information concerning abundant or attractive food supplies through networks which can reach farther and farther away from the source.  Or at least, that is my hypothesis based on observation in Lago Vista, NW Travis County, Texas.  And in general, Raccoons are marvels of adaptation.  I have watched photographed them in the heart of Beverly Hills 1 block south of Wilshire and 2 blocks east of Rodeo Drive and inside Harvard Yard in front of Lamont and Widener Libraries in Cambridge, Mass.  A long time ago, back in the 1980s, Massachusetts had a promotion featuring one of their “Bergmann’s Rule-Effect” (larger mammals in colder climates) Gigantic Raccoons featuring on various signs, posters, and even bumper stickers and keychains saying “From Massachusetts with Love”

If anyone has one of those old Massachusetts Raccoon posters, mugs, or promotions, I would be interested in purchase or exchange for other memorabilia…..

Go Suck a Lemon, Orly: Or whoever it is that keeps writing these Retarded Attacks on me in the Ripoff Reports!

(see Saturday afternoon 5:55 PM update below—this may go on for a while–)

I have no idea anymore what the real purpose of the Ripoff Report is—it obviously has nothing to do with Consumer Protection—I wonder whether Orly and Yosi Taitz have used their ill-gotten wealth and indirectly taken control or is Ripoff Report just too good to pass up for the purpose of content-free anonymous slander?  The latest appeared today at 12:13 High Noon…. when Orly or one of her flying monkeys just wrote on the Ripoff Report:

SUBMITTED: Saturday, October 13, 2012

AN INDICTMENT IS NOT A CONVICTION and I have never been convicted of FORGERY or BANK FRAUD or anything like that.Yes you took a plea rather than face your crimes!The reason why Marcelina Alvarado’s affidavit was in perfect English is that most people DO NOT write there own affidavits they tell there story and a lawyer or legal assistant writes it and they sign it. Even you where not this incompetent as a lawyer, rather than be a man and admit your crimes this is a pathetic attempt to manufacture a “conspiracy” against you.You get no mercy Mr Lincoln, everyone will know of your scams, you are merciless with your victims, you lie and steal until there is nothing left, or you have been exposed, then you file suite or lean their house! You are a disgusting human being inside and out!

(Whoever you are that’s writing all this crap: I love you, I forgive you, but I neither love nor forgive your spelling, grammar, and I think you’re pretty disgusting impersonation of a human being inside and out too—and I think you should be made to stay in time-out in the closet while all of the rest of the class has recess on the playground, OK?  TEACHER!!!!  Will you do what you can, Mrs. Cadwalader?  THIS PERSON’S WHO’S WRITING ALL THESE THINGS ABOUT ME IS A REALLY NASTY BULLY, CAN YOU CALL THE SPLC PLEASE TO PROTECT ME???????)

But to ORLY TAITZ, or whoever this is, I replied within two hours:

(1)  Even if it’s true that most people don’t write their own affidavits or declarations, which I’m not at all sure about, especially in initial reports to the police, it’s true that, to be real, a complaint has to be both signed and understood by the person who wrote it—Marcelina’s complaint against me, as described above, was NEVER signed nor any indication that she gave a statement in Spanish.

And of course, it was NOT Marcelina’s LAWYER or LEGAL assistant who prepared Marcelina’s complaint against her—it was Lieutenant REYES of the Lago Vista Police Department who summoned MY HOUSEKEEPER to the Police Station—and Marcelina NEVER signed that statement.  All the members of the Western District of Texas Admissions Committee who supposedly heard her speak said to me and my lawyer she was “a very credible witness” but since my lawyer and I never got a chance to see how credible (or otherwise) she might have been.  This is the way tyrants have brought false charges against people since the beginning of time, but it was outlawed in the English system after the unjust execution of Sir Walter Raleigh under King James I in

(2)  The Admissions Committee of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas never allowed me (or my attorneys John F. Campbell and Mark Clemens) even to SEE Marcelina Alvarado testify, or provide any actual transcript of her “testimony, “much less allow me the right to cross-examine her—NO—they kept Marcelina and her husband Timoteo in separate rooms to make absolutely sure that they didn’t say anything on the record—except for the Judge-appointed committee’s summary of what they claimed she said.

(3)  Once I saw her from a distance going into one of the admissions committee hearings and Marcelina seemed to look sadly at me and mouth the words “perdoname Mr. Lincoln” (forgive me, Mr. Lincoln).

(4)  The one time anyone of them ever appeared in Court, MUCH later, Marcelina said nothing and Timoteo said only that he thought Marcelina’s story was true—but he had no personal knowlege of anything.

(5)  the Plea I took on the advice of Edwin G. (“Gerry”) Morris—a hero of the Waco Branch Davidian Defense among many others—was for a “strict liability” offense, and Gerry’s advice, and my wife Elena’s advice, was that they wanted me out of the Bar, and so long as I resigned and accepted the stain of a felony, nothing else would happen to me.

More or less this was true.  For all the secret “audiencias” and hearings that took place about Marcelina Alvarado, I didn’t plead guilty to ANYTHING even remotely relating to her allegations (four counts in the December 7 1999 indictment) about counterfeiting and bank fraud—any of which would have had me locked up for years—and Gerry assured me that if I had gone to trial on any of those counts, he would have obtained a Rule 29 Judgment of Acquittal—before anything would have gone to the jury.

But, at least as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (of which Texas is a part) had then construed 42 USC 408(a)(7)(B) at that time, the Social Security count had no defense (required not even a scintilla of proof of intent or motive or gain) and Gerry said, and I remember his words I think pretty exactly, “they will do everything they can to poison the jury about you, and so, even if only that one count goes to the jury, even without the original document (which had been lost at Wells Fargo—ONLY fairly bad copies existed)—they COULD find you guilty and give you the maximum penalty on that one count”.

So I am not sure whether it is even right to say I plead guilty to a “crime”—because I neither admitted to nor was any “mens rea” proved.  So this is a warning, my friends and fellow Americans: believe it or not, misstating your social security number unintentionally and/or FOR NO REASON AT ALL is still a Felony in the US.  They do not have to proof that you either gained anything to which you were not entitled nor AVOIDED any debt you owed because ALL THE OTHER INFORMATION WAS COMPLETELY ACCURATE!).

So the simple truth is: I do not need Mercy—the people of the United States need the “Mercy” of genuine legal reform—by the abolition of judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and secret trials and secret agreements fixed without juries or public oversight or insight of any kind.

The illegitimate-state-sponsored monopolies created by the licensure of attorneys and the resultant Judge-Appointed and Approved State Bar Associations create something like absolute power for judges and those attorneys who collaborate closely with them—but I never joined that club and they hated me.  In this modern context of monopoly, the Judges are Corrupt, the Prosecutors are Corrupt—they saw my civil rights litigation and my refusal to join any of the GOOD OLD BOYS clubs in Austin and Central Texas law as a totally viable threat to the status quo.

They saw me as a person who would upset the whole system by arguing against Police Departments, Qualified Immunity, and for the extension of the Civil Rights Laws to all people, even to Middle Class White People for whom those laws were clearly NOT designed.

But the irony is that back in 1997, I thought and considered NOTHING except that I was doing the right thing—I never imagined that filing suit against Police Brutality and abuse in my little soft-living Lakeside Community of Lago Vista, surrounded by golf courses, Lake Travis, and the Balcones National Wildlife Refuge would cause such a ruckus in the news or such a severe rupture in my life.

But ever since then, I have dedicated my life to reform—that was the real result of my indictment—they took a very socially mild conformist conservative and turned him into a radical agains the system—they forced me to see a lot of things I never dreamt I would see, that I never wanted to see, but that, now having seen them, I can never again ignore.

So in my life after my social and professional death at the hands of Judges Nowlin and Sparks, these are my mottos: “IN GOD I TRUST,” “SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS” and “DEO VINDICE.”

What exactly are YOUR mottos, Orly, or whoever keeps writing these stupid little Ripoff Reports?  I suppose EVERYONE KNOWS that former indictments cannot be used in civil cases to impeach a witness after ten years—but on the Ripoff Reports I guess the limit is a hundred or more?

AND AT 2:41 Orly (or whoever) “reported again” and I had to reply (again)—but now this is getting beyond stupid:

SUBMITTED: Saturday, October 13, 2012

How about the hundreds of thousands in sanctions you racked up?Lincoln was kind enough to post a picture of his scam partner Peyton Freiman, when Peyton shows up he will need 2 things a bath and your money! If you put your money in a pile and burn it you will get light and some warmth with is more than you will get from Lincoln and Freiman! Once the money stops get ready to be sued!!

My reply was:

Yes, I suppose I was overly ambitious to try and politically naive to think I might succeed in my attempt to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional in both State and Federal Courts, and to abolish Judicial Immunity on grounds that it is totally unconstitutional, because it is.  I regard the sanctions issued against me by Texas District Judge James F. Clawson in the 395th Judicial District of Williamson County, when I was represented by Attorneys Francis Wayne Williams-Montenegro and Valorie Wells Davenport, and by U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith of Branch Davidian infamy in Waco, to be the brightest of the red badges of courage I wear……

For the Record, Judge Walter S. Smith imposed $150,000.00 on me based on ridiculous hearsay allegations in a case wherein I was never a party or a witness and to hearings in which I was never even invited…..all because I had supported a friend, Daniel Louis Simon, of Liberty Hill, Texas….

PS: This is the second time you (Orly, Yosi—who never met Peyton) or whoever, you have complained about Peyton needing a bath.  You must be writing about a different Peyton from the one I know.  But WHOEVER you are, please SHUT UP and crawl into a hole and just disappear from the internet—you are now repeating yourself and this is really getting BORING!

Completing the First 1% of the Third Millenium….

I remember New Year’s Eve, December 31, 1999 in New Orleans—what an amazing party it was.  My then 8 year old son rode on my shoulders as we were crushed among the crowds at Jackson Square.  I recall we had a really good view and nearly a perfect vantage point at one early point about an hour before midnight, but got distracted by something and then by midnight we were just in the square crushed by what seemed like millions, looking at the fireworks from the Riverwalk by the Old Jax Brewery.   Elena and I had discussed when deciding it was time to “get pregnant” with Charlie that it would be fun to have a child who would remember the transition between the 20th and the 21st century, and having Charlie in 1992 was almost the last chance to have such a child.  Charlie was born during Hurricane Andrew in 1992 on August 23, 1992, in Palm Beach, Florida.  It was an amazing event.  We were on the first page of the Palm Beach Post the next day—a beautiful picture of Elena holding Charlie with me on the telephone in the background.  We knew we were going to have a boy and it was a foregone conclusion he was going to be Charles Edward Lincoln IV, but we added the name “Andrew” as a second middle name, and among other oddities, the windows of St. Mary’s Hospital in West Palm Beach were all duck-taped with gigantic X-es, which on the horizontal hospital windows looked like transparent Scottish flags bearing St. Andrews’ Crosses.

This holiday vacation, as I mentioned before, is the first time since 2001-2002 that Charlie and I have been able to spend the entire Christmas and New Year’s holiday together.  The fact that we have done so (in California) as well as the fact that we spent the past two summers together in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a tribute to Elena K. Lincoln’s spirit and willingness to compromise and/or admit de facto defeat or mistake, in the face of her de jure victory in Court, which was the event or series of events which changed my life, and caused me to take the paths I have taken in life since 2002.

Yes, during the past decade, the first 1% of the Third Millenium, I dedicated my life in large part to attacking the Texas Family Code, a tradition which I continue now in Florida, and would like to begin in California.  The Texas Williamson County Family Court establishment was my first great confrontation with a major establishment.  The City of Lago Vista Police abuse cases in my hometown/backyard in 1997-98, which ultimately got me disbarred in the W.D. Texas and , were just a very mild warmup to what became a major anti-establishment civil rights and reform career.  Lago Vista Police Chief Frank Miller and his “prize” officer Bart Turek were my first major civil rights adversaries, but I did not hate them or even particularly dislike them.   They had just instituted and upheld a misguided and injurious police policy in Lago Vista.  The people I came to hate were those who destroyed my family and took my son away from me for during 2002-2007, with only a few respites.  I have dedicated my life to exposing the lies and the evil embodied by Williamson County Judge Michael P. Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, J. Randall Grimes, and Michael Davis, as well as their henchment such as the crew of psychologists including Don Jones.

But this moment, these two weeks with my son, overlooking the Pacific Ocean, with the low hills of Catalina Island in the background, is one of the sweetest moments of my life, and I thank God, and Elena for it.  I should note that I invited Elena here to share this moment not once but many times.  There’s enough sleeping space here for three to be in private rooms, as was proved when Peyton and Charlie were both here for Thanksgiving.  But Elena demurred, preferring to go to Cancun, ironically enough, since the Yucatan Peninsula was where Elena and I met in 1985.

Anyhow, to everyone out there, I wish a glorious and prosperous New Year 2010, and I hope that whatever happens to me, Charlie, and Elena, and to everyone else, that the next decade will be as full of emotional, psychological, and spiritual growth as the past decade has been for me.  In every defeat and setback I have found the inspiration to move forward and see deeper truths and meanings, and for such experiences I can only be thankful to all who gave me such opportunities, even if they meant me harm by doing so.  The absolute rock bottom low-point of this decade for me was clearly the death of my grandmother Helen in May 2001.  But not a day goes by that I do not recall fondly and given thanks for the century of life my grandmother enjoyed on earth and at all the time I shared with her and her husband, my grandfather Al, who predeceased her by 21 years in 1980.   The high points of the decade were all spent with my son, and none were higher than our days on Harvard Square and in California.

On this beautiful New Year’s Day looking West, I remember and give thanks to all my good friends and allies during the past ten years (whether we’re in contact to this day or not), in particular to my trustee, Peyton Yates Freiman, a more honest and truer soul does not exist!   I also recall my oldest friends Helen S. Carr (the only person not related to me by blood who has remembered every birthday, Christmas, and intercardinal solstice or equinox to me since the 1970s) and John K. Naland, but also to my newest best friends just made in 2009, Robert J. Ponte, Dennis & Milenne DeLeon, Renada Nadine March, and (irony of irony’s, because I first heard of her as an adversary) Lisa Liberi.  In this transitory life, in this “shake and bake” world we live in, there are many people who were once important to me whom I never see anymore, even if I have not forgotten them, but I hope that my new friends from 2009 will remain with me always.

No inventory of my most steadfast friends could ever be complete without “honorable mention” of Lisa Cook, my sister-in-law in Michigan, who talked to me and understood me and listened to me for years when to do so meant that her own husband’s family (my wife Elena’s relatives) would heap scorn upon her during “the war years” when Elena was calling me “Not Family, but Cancer in the House.”  Lisa was always there for me and I tried always to be there for her, even when nobody else was.  Charlie’s Brazilian Godmother Helir Arlotta from Palm Beach and Tarpon Springs, Florida, falls into this same category….  I don’t have Lisa’s new telephone number (I tried to reach her over the holidays) and Helir has vanished, but we do not and will not forget each other, I’m sure.

Throughout it all, the priests at St. Luke’s-on-the-Lake in Austin provided genuine friendship and support—and I will never forget them even though I might never spend much time in Austin again.  Father James P. Jameson, a fellow Harvardian, Father Philip May, and Father Mike Wyckoff were there for me (during the “war years” with Elena) when I had no one else to whom I could turn.  They are true Christians, true gentlemen, and truer friends than I ever deserved.  Father May was actually willing to meet with me and Charlie in secret in 2005, to provide “aid and comfort” like the Church Martyrs of old….

I remember more often that they will imagine possible the close relationship I had over three years of tumultuous conflict with my steadfast attorneys during the “War Years” (withe Elena of 2003-2006 Francis Wayne Williams Montenegro and Valorie Wells Davenport.  They worked mostly for free, certainly without any profit, and their dedication to my cause was incomparable, encapsulated in Francis Williams’ statement that he would support me even if threatened with a firing squad, and I believe he meant it at the moment, even though he and Valorie, once actually faced with an “offer they couldn’t refuse” by way of extortion or a “constructive bribe” from the Deputy Texas Attorney General James Carlton Todd, Mike Davis, J. Randall Grimes, and the obviously intimidated visiting Judge James F. Clawson (who replaced Jergins after the Federal suits), ultimately gave up the struggle rather than face sanctions.  Francis and Valorie also introduced me to two good people Corinne Irwin and Rod A. Dal Sasso.  I remember and pray for my late father Charles Edward, Jr., who supported my struggles until he could not stand to hear about them anymore.

I remember my friends in the Southern District of Texas early mortgage note battles: Dan Swank, Jacques S. Jaikaran, Mike Palma, Robert Bruce, and David A. Sibley (who despite some ironic vicissitudes, started off a friend and returned to friendly status) from 2006 and  Jon Drew Roland, my first trustee and closest friend and ally from 2004-2007.

Daniel Louis Simon of Liberty Hill joined my crusade against the Texas Family Courts and Code and has become a steadfast and probably last-long friend.  He holds the dubious distinction of having been sanctioned for following my lead against the Texas Family Courts and Code by Judge Walter Smith, who sanctioned Dan and me jointly and severally to the tune of $150,000.00 in March 2008 for the sole purpose of preventing us from continuing our crusade against the Texas Family Code in Federal Court.  His continued friendship and support is a great comfort to me, and I hope I can provide the same for him.

Between January 2005 and September 2007, I went through major ideological transformations in my life, realizing that the “normal” paths to reform were all but closed in the United States.   It was during these years that I also met and first had the privilege of meeting and working with Senator Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls and Kalispell, Montana.  Many friends, even on this ten year list, have already come and gone out of my life, but I hope Jerry will remain my friend for all the rest of the days we might both be living on earth.  He is the truest Patriot I know, one of the greatest constitutional scholars of the “Old School”, and one of the most honorable men on earth (in addition to being, as my son says, “the coolest guy I ever met”).

I remember my Florida friends and accomplices Nancy Jo Grant, Bob Hurt, Bill Trudelle, Pearl Lanier Bryan, and Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson.  Nancy is a hero who should be known to all Patriotic Americans.  Bob, Bill, & Pearl have provided me with so much support and courage.  Pearl is a warrior among warriors.  Kathy Garcia-Lawson is in so many ways my soulmate, with regard to our parallel paths crusading against (respectively, the Texas and Florida) Family Law and Domestic Relations Courts.  Kathy is such a paragon of the devoted, virtuous spouse committed to and still in love with her husband, even after five years since he left her, I can only stand in awe of her.  Kathy breathes new meaning into the words “family” and “until death do we part.”  Kathy’s funny, sassy, and spunky daughter Alexandra, and all of their friends whom I have met in Palm Beach Gardens, especially Claire and Rebecca.  I love Kathy, her character, and her mind, and hope that she and I will also forever be friends.  And yes, in connection with a person to whom Kathy introduced me, I even will toast on this day Orly Taitz whose affection and company “woke me up” in so many ways up through November 4, 2009—May she find peace and harmony and achieve freedom from want and freedom from fear sufficient that she might break free from the golden shackles that hold her prisoner in what may be a comfortable or even palatial prison.

And I would especially like to remember Vance Fecteau and Moshe Leichner, whom the Federal government continues to hold in prison, who were my closest friends during the worst 54 day period of my life, and who made even that extreme low moment a much brighter, more enlightened, and so more bearable moment.  I doubt that it will happen within the next decade, but I pray for a day when America and the rest of the world will be truly free again, when 1-2% of the population will no longer be incarcerated or on supervised release of some sort, when crimes will be established and measured only by their actual injury to others, so that no person will ever again be incarcerated merely to increase the arrest rates and the prison population so that large corporations owned by major politicians can make larger profits.  I can honestly say that all my experiences in the past decade have educated me and made me a better person and patriot.

Letter to the ABA I posted Four Years Ago. I have devoted my life to the study and understanding of complex society and complex political and legal structures. I believe that the light of the Constitution was one of the greatest formulations for justice in the history of the world, but it seems foreign to the American Judiciary and American Judges, both Federal and State. This is now my life’s crusade: to restore the honor and integrity of the American Judicial Process.

Subject: * * * A Former Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges * * *
From:
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:25:44 -0700
To: “www.jail4judges.org”

 

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                            April 11, 2005

______________________________________________________
 
 A Former Lawclerk Who
 No Longer Trusts Judges
by Charles E. Lincoln, charles.e.lincoln@worldnet.att.net
 
Mr. Robert P. Grey, Jr.

 

President of the American Bar Association

 

Dear Mr. Grey:

        I have served as a lawclerk for two of the finest District and Circuit judges, both liberal and conservative, in the entire Federal Judiciary.  I studied law under half a dozen other current federal judges at the University of Chicago Law School, where I received my J.D. in 1992. 

        A balanced and even-handed appreciation, acquired only after hours if not days of hard work and exhaustive consideration, of the legal and factual issues in every case was always the cornerstone of law and judicial decisionmaking as I learned it, both from great conservatives like Michael W. McConnell and liberals like Diane Wood at Law School, or Stephen Reinhardt and Kenneth L. Ryskamp in whose chambers I worked on the opposite ends of both the political spectrum and the geographic boundaries of this country.

        I do not believe that the judicial ideals I learned working for these men, the judges whom I served, or at law school, are reflected or embodied in the larger body of current American (state or federal) judiciaries AT ALL.   Judges have learned to use their power in manners which I can only describe as consistently

 

oppressivearbitrary, and capricious, and violative of the Constitution. 

        Civil rights actions, and every other procedure by which the people might challenge their government or the wealthy, have been struck down and redefined and limited almost out of existence.  Rather than using the Courts to protect the poor, Judges maximize the advantage of the rich, strike down the rights of the pro se or indigent parties.  The quality of mercy is most definitely strained in this country, and everyone knows it.

        It can be said that few if any “modern” judges keep the balance nice and even.  That is my experience, the experience of those around me, and in fact I know of only a few widely scattered exceptions all of whom I can count with one hand.  The most common characterization of judges behind their backs, even among seasoned lawyers, is not as scholars or workaholics but as “eight hundred pound gorillas.”  The judges with whom I studied and worked were only scholars and workaholics, but the simians have come to the bench in greatest numbers and at all levels.

        And for this reason, the even well-balanced scales, that ancient ideal and symbol of the judiciary seems to be everywhere dead. 

        I am sending you two recent essays I have “published” on-line, but I would like to add that, based on my experience, I have devoted my entire strength, my entire educational background, and what remains of  my own judge-shattered career to fighting judicial immunity, restricting judicial discretion to that which the law allows, and in general to reimpose the lofty rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States on a judiciary which seems to have all but forgotten that all men are created equal.

        In short, I think you are wrong—the American judiciary as a whole has not earned our respect.  There is a certain parallel—albeit not exact—between what I have written below and what Texas’ Junior Senator said on the Senate Floor the other day—the American judicial system has degenerated to the point that no one can trust it, and it must be reformed—or else the constitution itself will crumble and dissolve in a cesspool of the people’s disappointed tears and bloodied lives. 

        The judiciary and its judges are the least visible and most poorly understood branch and actors of the government, but it can no longer be said that they have just powers derived from the consent of the governed.

        Charles E. Lincoln, Lago Vista, Texas.

************************************************************

http://victimsoflaw.net/ABAonjudges3.htm#__Judges_Deserve_Our_Respect,_Not_Our_Sc

Response to “Judges Deserve Our Respect, Not Our Scorn”

In Response to: “Judges Deserve Our Respect, Not Our Scorn”

— By: Charles E. Lincoln


Citizen’s Response to the ABA Statement

Dear Mr. Grey:

  ©2005

        I have written elsewhere on this website (A Comparison of “An Act for the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo”with existing law under 28 U.S.C. §1343 and 42 U.S.C. §1983), that from at least one perspective it is Congress who cast the ultimate vote of no confidence in the judiciary when it re-enacted pre-existing laws to guarantee that Terri Schiavo’s case could be reviewed in the Federal Courts.  If Congress had believed that the U.S. Courts were consistently (or even “ever, recently”) willing to follow and apply the laws already enacted by Congress and entered on the books, such as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, it is hard to understand why Congress would have needed or bothered to enact a special bill for Terry Schiavo that did not expand on the rights already conferred by that statute. 

        It was once my privilege to work for a man whom I consider to be one of the finest U.S. District Judges in the state of Florida, actually in all the United States, the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp of Palm Beach, a man of utterly unimpeachable integrity, intelligence, and honor. One of Judge Ryskamp’s mottos was “if judges don’t follow the law, then who will?”

        Now, however, it seems that one can rely on both State and Federal Judges for little else other than their complete willingness to disregard the law, to twist it to purposes inverse from original framer’s or legislative intent (if the law involved is constitutional or statutory) or unrecognizably out of the original context and factual framework (if the law involved is based on judicial precedent).

        I have recently worked very hard to clarify and limit the proper understandings of two doctrines, Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris which support or even advocate a national judicial policy of “jurisdictional helplessness” which has been used to defeat federal civil rights litigation.  Cf., Susan Bandes, “Evaluating Rooker-Feldman’s Jurisdictional Status,  74 Notre Dame Law Review, 1186 n. 58 (1998-1999)(Symposium: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: worth only the powder to blow it up?).

        The simple but unspoken truth is that the judicial over-extension and over-application of both Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris, far beyond what those extremely sound precedents originally stood for in the context of the facts and circumstances of the cases they decided, are part and parcel of a nationwide movement over the past two decades to cut-back on the civil rights progress which the Courts had made against arbitrarily and capriciously oppressive, discriminatory, and biased local customs, policies, and practices during the 1950s-1970s.  

        It is politically impossible for the anti-civil rights crowd to repeal such monumental pieces of civil rights legislation as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, but it has so far not been at all politically impossible to whittle away civil rights piece-by-piece judicial rewriting of these laws to the point where they no longer effectively enforce or preclude ANYTHING.  

        So, when the terribly sympathetic case of Terri Schiavo made it to the top of the news, Congress had no choice but to recognize the reality that activist anti-civil rights judges, many in the name of “opposing judicial activism”, had so curtailed the civil rights laws of these United States, so obliterated the enforcement of the law as an expression of the “consent of the governed”—acting through their democratically elected representatives in Congress, that Terri Schiavo’s ONLY access to the Federal Courts to clarify the extent of her SUBSTANTIVE due process rights was for Congress to RE-ENACT the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (now 42 U.S.C. Section 1983) specifically in her name and for her benefit only. 

        It is patently obvious (as I described in my article) that Congress specifically intended to eliminate the barriers set up by both the judge-made Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris jurisdictional and “abstention” doctrines, in enacting the Schiavo bill—-while Congress shied away from expanding Terri’s (or anyone else’s) substantive due process rights to life, liberty, or property.

        Thus, Congress showed, for all the world to see, that Congress knows what the U.S. Courts have done to the U.S. Civil Rights law, and Congress, albeit to no result or end, wanted to give Terri Schiavo, or her parents, a one-time access to the U.S. Judiciary, acknowledging thereby what everyone knows: namely that, historically, the US Courts were the “last best hope” for those whose life, liberty, and property was threatened or endangered.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Lincoln

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charles E. Lincoln  lives in Lago Vista, Texas.  After his B.A. at Tulane in New Orleans (1980), he received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1990 and a J.D. from the University of Chicago in 1992.  He clerked for U.S. District Court Kenneth L. Ryskamp in Palm Beach, Florida, in 1992-1993 and before that was a judicial extern for U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Los Angeles, in 1988-9

 

 

http://victimsoflaw.net/SchiavoPrecedent2.htm

A Comparison of “An Act for the Relief of the Parents of

Theresa Marie Schiavo”with existing law under

28 U.S.C. §1343 and 42 U.S.C. §1983

 — By: Charles E. Lincoln — 4/5/05

 

Substantive And Procedural Due Process:

A Comparison of 
“An Act for the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo”
with existing law under 28 U.S.C. §1343 and 42 U.S.C. §1983 
 ©2005

By: Charles E. Lincoln

INTRODUCTION

Much of the discussion in the media over the past week concerns the impact of Congress’ private bill regarding Terri Schiavo on Federal-State relations. Congress had a choice between granting Terri special procedural due process rights (which is what they did) and granting her substantive due process rights (which they expressly chose NOT to do—it says so in the statute). See Terri Schiavo bill.

Procedural due process (federal review of state cases) is what the Federal Courts (without express Supreme Court sanction or approval) have been curtailing through my favorite paired boogeymen “Rooker-Feldman” jurisdiction (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust) and Younger v. Harris abstention—against people with causes like Charlie’s which do raise well-established substantive rights (e.g. Freedom of Speech, the right to the care and education of one’s own children).

The whole problem with Schiavo is that there ARE no well-defined substantive due process rights that apply to an unconscious person’s right to live (or be kept alive) anywhere in the bill of rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any of the Supreme Court’s cases. It’s a recent problem of technological origin and the courts haven’t caught up.

Both the Florida and 11th Circuit courts agreed only that there is no precedent in John Ashcroft’s (now very old) “Cruzan” or any of the relevant cases that establish or identify any affirmative rights which have been violated in Terri’s case.

Meanwhile, Congress wanted to give the impression of doing something while in fact doing nothing, so Congress granted Schiavo’s parents an extra procedural “bite at the apple”—by re-enacting statutes that already existed but which the Courts have essentially defined out of existence.

So the next question is: What does it mean that Congress knows that the existing Civil Rights statutes enacted by Congress are not being implemented or enforced by the Courts, and that it takes a special bill to get full, already statutorily authorized review of even a high profile case where no known substantive rights can be identified? Does it mean that Congress tacitly approves the lower Court treatment of Civil Rights’ statutes? Or does it mean that Congress was disturbed by the notion that the Courts are not even giving procedural due process a chance, and that Congressional displeasure with the status quo of civil rights jurisprudence is reflected in the enactment of the special bill in the Schiavo case?

If the latter is true, how can litigants use the case to support a roll-back in the draconian anti-civil rights “shotgun blast” mis-application of “Rooker-Feldman” and “Younger v. Harris?”

 

THE STATE OF THE LAW BEFORE THE SCHIAVO BILL

Either Congress has completely forgotten the civil rights laws already on the books (and chose to re-enact statutes with uncanny similarities to those already in existence), or else Congress recognizes that the Federal Courts have all but stopped enforcing the civil rights laws as a matter of “anti-civil rights judicial activism” under the rubrics of Rooker-Feldman or Younger v. Harris and accordingly enacted a “one time private exemption” to provide another procedural “bite at the apple” for a politically popular cause.

There is simply no getting around the fact that the Schiavo bill merely restates the basic enabling acts for civil rights litigation under the Constitution, and adds nothing to those laws. Too many people are blaming the state and federal court judges for doing nothing. But the truth is that Terri Schiavo and her parents have spent more time in and received more judicial attention from both state and federal courts than 99.99% of all death row inmates. If there had been, as so many supporters of Terri Schiavo and her parents maintain, any misconduct or conduct in excess of or in variance from the Florida or Federal Constitutions on the part of Florida Circuit Judge Greer, 42 U.S.C. §1983 as amended in 1996 already provided both a federal forum an express remedy IDENTICAL if not stronger than the Schiavo “private bill.”

There has been no denial of PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS in the Schiavo case—as Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit would undoubtedly say, “Terri Schiavo and her parents have received ‘oodles of process’” (cf.  Szabo v. Digby, 1987). The problem for Terri and her parents is a massive default of either judicially or congressionally determined SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS rights on the side of keeping Terri Schiavo alive—and on this point both the Federal and State Courts have quite simply concurred from the Middle District of Florida in Tampa through the 11th Circuit en banc.

One way to think of this is that the generally anti-Plaintiff, anti-civil litigation Republican Congress granted a one-time exemption to Terri Schiavo’s parents to file a frivolous lawsuit (lacking in any possible allegation of violation of any express substantively guaranteed rights) without granting to either Terri or her parents one single substantive right which would make that lawsuit less frivolous. In short, Congress’ posturing was nothing but a cruel and meaningless hoax.

Section 1 of the Schiavo bill (signed into law on March 21, 2005) invested the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida with

“jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Shiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States…..”.

Title 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3)-(4) already provided that:

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:  to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; to recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.”

Except and unless Congress forgot about the existence of 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3)-(4), what did Congress add by enacting Section 1 of the Schiavo bill? Could it be that Congress knew that the courts were systematically refusing to exercise its pre-existing jurisdiction to hear civil rights cases authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)? So, was Congress making a one-time exception to Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris abstention doctrines, or has the judicial refusal to enforce the civil rights laws simply become so ingrained and routine that Congress completely forgot about the express language of pre-existing statutes?

Section 2 of the Schiavo bill makes it clear that only the parents of Terri Schiavo have standing under this bill and specifically authorizes suit against “identical parties” to the state court litigation, which normally would present a problem under Rooker-Feldman (if the state court cases were final), and Section 2 also specifically exempts Schiavo litigants from any requirement of exhaustion of state court remedies and liberates the federal court from any requirement to give res judicata or any other issue preclusive effect to any previous state court decisions and specifically provides that “The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State Court proceedings….” 

Obviously, Congress was aware of both judge-made Younger v. Harris and Rooker-Feldman constraints on civil rights litigation in enacting the Schiavo bill, but was  unaware of Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 108, 124-5, 110 S.Ct. 975, 982-3, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990) and the courts’ statements in the Zinermon opinion that exhaustion of state court remedies is not required to institute suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, (it should be noted, however that, the ACLU cited Zinermon on the definition of due process in its amicus brief in Schiavo to the U.S. Supreme Court).

Section 3 of the Schiavo bill provides that:

“After a determination on the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States…..”

Again, one must wonder how this differs from the pre-existing language of 42 U.S.C. §1983, “Civil Action for Deprivation of rights” and whether Congress has forgotten the status of existing US law:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable….

As always, 42 U.S.C. §1983 must be read together with its companion “Proceedings in vindication of civil rights” 42 U.S.C. §1988(b):

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision….of this title…..the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.

It is reasonable to infer that in enacting the Schiavo bill, Congress may have intended an act of meaningless legal, purely symbolic, import.  It is equally plausible that Congress completely understood that the substantive due process question of whether Terri Schiavo had any affirmative right to stay alive against the will of her husband and legal guardian was simply a political potato “much too hot to handle” but that the buck could be passed to the Courts by re-authorizing “procedural due process” by giving another “notice opportunity” for Federal review of state court litigation despite the Federal courts recent history of “anti-review” procedural jurisprudence.

If Congress had chosen to reaffirm the civil rights enabling statutes which are “on the books” by making affirmative reference to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a) and 42 U.S.C. §1983, Congress could have reinvigorated civil rights litigation in federal courts against the stain of Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris abstention and refusal jurisprudence. Alternatively, Congress could have taken the more meaningful step (from the standpoint of Terri Schiavo and her parents, anyhow) of enacting an affirmative substantive right to nourishment to persons who are unconscious and have never executed a living will, “DNR”, or “no extreme measures” directive.   Congress rejected these latter, “substantive due process” alternatives, however, in sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Schiavo Act.

So the question remains—what does it mean that Congress enacted a “special bill” for Terri Schiavo which gave her parents another “procedural bite at the apple” but no substantive due process rights to life or liberty and expressly did not change the general law regarding substantive rights, assisted suicides, or patient self-determination?

It may mean that Congress was tacitly admitting that the Federal Courts have gone so far in their 1980s-1990s “anti-civil rights activism” of abjuring the originally intended mandate of the civil rights acts under Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris that there is, in effect, no viable outlet under existing law to obtain Federal Courts’ review over state-court actions, except to re-enact the very laws which are already on the books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charles E. Lincoln  lives in Lago Vista, Texas.  After his B.A. at Tulane in New Orleans (1980), he received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1990 and a J.D. from the University of Chicago in 1992.  He clerked for U.S. District Court Kenneth L. Ryskamp in Palm Beach, Florida, in 1992-1993 and before that was a judicial extern for U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Los Angeles, in 1988-9.”


 

On behalf of National J.A.I.L., we express our deepest gratitude to Charles Lincoln for sending J.A.I.L. a copy of this provocative and meaningful testimony which carries with it the utmost degree of respect and credibility. May this lead to an awakening of the People to end this scourge of judicial corruption, by passing J.A.I.L. throughout this country as soon as possible. This is indeed an Evil that is no longer sufferable.  -Barbie


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law – www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, 
http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government

heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America’s ONLY hope!  JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! 
E-Group sign on at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
To be added or removed, write VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org 
 
“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” – Samuel Adams
 
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”                      — Henry David Thoreau   <><

 


Return To JNJ 2005

 

To JNJ Library Index for All Years