A bit about Charles Lincoln

28. June 2009 by Spiritual Patriot.

We live in a time, and under an economic system, the artificiality and dishonesty of which is unparalleled in human history. The modern world economy is based on deceitful governmental promises, which are given in exchange for the right to sell worthless paper around the world. This sort of system is too insane, too irrational, and to perverse ever to have evolved naturally. The modern economy is a creature of cunning and artifice to fool everyone into believing in the reality of things, which do not exist because there is no rational need to posit their existence. The road to discovering the reality of the economy is an exploration of intentional deceit then, of “pious frauds” and hidden meanings and purposes.

    

    The discovery of royal deceits, pious frauds, and hidden meanings is sometimes called the science of ‚Äúhermeneutics‚Äù, as practiced by anthropologists, students of comparative mythology, and structural/theoretical historians. So is it any surprise that Charles Edward Lincoln, a 1990 Ph.D. from Harvard University who wrote a doctoral dissertation focused on the comparative hermeneutics of complex political structures in Indo-European, Near Eastern, and Mesoamerican/ New World antiquity as revealed in archaeological and historical data would have ultimately come to study the secret language of money and official artifice in his own culture?

    

    Charles started his amazing journey and hectic life when he was born in Texas in 1960, the son of two Ph.D.s in comparative literature, who took him to live in London when he was six months old. After 1966, he was raised primarily by his grandparents who brought him back to Texas, where he lived in Highland Park, Dallas, Texas and went to elementary school with a colorful set of characters including the children of some major Texas financial and political figures. When he was 11, with his eccentric ‚ÄúAuntie-Mame‚Äù-style grandmother‚Äôs encouragement and support, he accelerated his studies and finished high school at 14 in Los Angeles, at the Hollywood Professional School, where child actors from Judy Garland and Shirley Temple to Melanie Griffith and the Jackson Five had at various time enrolled. 

    

From Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, Charles went to Tulane University in New Orleans, where he first became enthralled with the secrets of history and prehistory in the Classical Mediterranean and Non-Western worlds. He finished Phi Beta Kappa, Magna cum Laude in 1980. In addition to a varied academic career at Tulane, Charles was the President of the Tulane College Republicans and organizer of a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, as well as a participant in campus musical and theatrical productions, even while taking a year off in the middle of his undergraduate degree to work at the Ruins of Copan in Western Honduras with William L. Fash (now Bowditch Professor of Central American & Mexican Archaeology at Harvard) in 1977-78.

 

From Tulane he went on to graduate school at Harvard, at the Peabody Museum, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the same building as the Agassiz Museums of systemic & evolutionary biology, and across Divinity Avenue from the Semitic Museum (dedicated to Near Eastern archaeology & history). These three institutions were Charles‚Äô home for the next ten years.  Between 1980 and 1990, Charles had a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, was director of a National Geographic archaeological research program at Chichen Itza and several other sites in the State of Yucatan, Mexico, and was a personal guide, advisor, and counselor to the late James A. Michener in all things Mexican, Caribbean, and Native American.  In 1990, he finally completed his doctoral dissertation on ‚ÄúEthnicity and Social Organization‚Äù utilizing and combining the theoretical writings of Georges Dumezil, Claude Levi-Strauss, James G. Frazer, and Marshall Sahlins.  

 

Charles‚Äô dissertation posited, among other things that ‚Äúethnicity‚Äù, ‚Äúethnic conflict‚Äù, and ‚Äúethnic inequality‚Äù functioned, hermeneutically, as world-wide markers of and metaphors for economic, social, and political hierarchy, and that actual the cultural or linguistic differences demarcating the socio-economic and political boundaries were more-often-than-not invented to justify inequality in what were otherwise culturally and linguistically homogeneous societies. Lesson learned: Complex societies depend on socio-economic and political inequality to function. Therefore, the ‚Äúmythic reality‚Äù of ethnic hierarchy is a psychologically powerful and therefore politically necessary expression of or explanation for inequality. It is so powerful that wherever  such inequality does not exist by virtue of ‚Äúhistorical metaphors,‚Äù enactments, or performances of actual conquest of one group by another, people (especially the elite in charge) will invent false ‚Äúhistorical‚Äù of such differences and that story will be the constitutional foundation of society.   

 

The “deconstruction” or analysis of such demonstrably inaccurate stories of ethic migration, conquest, and outside was Charles’ first major foray into “heremeneutics”, although he had a life-time interest in comparative mythology and the relationship between mythology and history, of reality and fiction, of the “contradictions inherent in all things.”

Troubled by many things, but among them by the practical irrelevance of studying ancient societies to the economic, political, and social problems of the modern world, of which Charles had always been acutely aware, Charles’ life and career made yet another branch or turn, and Charles completed a J.D. in comparative law at the Law School of the University of Chicago in 1992.

 

 

STATEMENT: 

 

So you‚re losing your (a) house, (b) family, (c) assets, (d) mind?

 

    We can help you with three out of four of these directly, but the way we can help you will not appeal to you if you have a ‚Äúget rich quick‚Äù or ‚Äúsomething for nothing‚Äù mentality.  Unfortunately, in my experience, too many people think that there are easy and simple solutions to complex problems.  There are none.  There are certain ‚Äúfree lunches‚Äù out there, but ultimately the price of relying on free lunches is that you lose all other forms of freedom you might have.

 

    In ancient Roman law, there was a special form of litigation called the Vindicatio.  This was the most complex lawsuit known in the ancient world, and the most serious.  Its purpose was to clear, protect, or recover (i.e. ‚Äúvindicate‚Äù) title to lost land, or other economically essential, necessary property such as agricultural tools, horses, cattle, and slaves.  The Vindicatio then, was litigation arising from disputes over the ‚Äúmode of production‚Äù, the infrastructure, the very basis of economic life in ancient Rome.   It was a comprehensive lawsuit, far broader in scope than normal, either in ancient or modern times, including as it did all aspects of the law: constitutional, contractual, equitable, familial, and successional (i.e. inherited) rights were all relevant to the resolution of the Latin Vindicatio.

 

    Our purpose here is to teach you how to wage your own Vindicatio in the modern courts.  If you want a free lunch, this isn‚Äôt it.  If you want a simple solution to a complex problem, you can forget about it.  If you feel that you are fighting for not only for your life but for your and your children‚Äôs way of life, if you would like to feel that someday you will truly own your property without owing debts to anyone, and if you are willing to fight very hard, like a ‚Äúrebel with a clue‚Äù, then sit down, and look listen, and learn, because you are in the right place.  

 

We can (a) teach you how to fight, (b) give you the equipment, the tools, and the weapons needed to fight, and/or (c) take over your fight and fight in your place, ‚Äúin your stead for your homestead‚Äù as it were.  But you have to be willing to work very hard, and fight very hard, understanding that we are standing on a historical precipice.  In exchange for some bowls of porridge, for a few free lunches as it were, we are being asked to give up our birthrights to private property and freedom of contract.  

 

As we stand on this precipice, with the offers of free lunch in front of us, we are looking into the gaping jaws of state-run socialist/communist/totalitarian hell.  We at Deo Vindice say that we want to turn around from that precipice, turn down the offers of free lunch, bowls of porridge for our birthright, and reclaim the dream of that shining city on a hill where we can guarantee our own freedom by our own private property, our own time, toil, and talent, our own blood, sweat, toil, and tears.  But please note, we used the work ‚Äútoil‚Äù twice in that last sentence, because work is the only hope any of us have at all.

 

    The Obama administration is trying to figure out how to save the American financial elite, by which I mean, among others, the folks at my own almae matri Harvard and Chicago Universities, who embraced Obama and got him elected, by giving out free lunches (or ‚Äúbread and circuses‚Äù if you prefer a directly Roman historical analog).  Every day there‚Äôs new word on the gravy that Obama is spreading around, the bridges he‚Äôs going to build, the roads he‚Äôs going to repair, and the money that may eventually be given directly to homeowners to ‚Äúsave‚Äù their homes.   None if any of this money has yet saved a single home as of March 5, 2009, to the best of my knowledge, but the conquering hero has not yet been enthroned for his first full hundred days as of yet.

 

    All of these government handout programs have two things in common: they neither address the roots of the crisis, nor do they map any route out of it.  The root of the crisis lies in securitized mortgages, collateral backed obligations, mortgage-backed equities—all of these terms meaning the same thing.  What each of these terms mean is that when you took out your mortgage, at least a couple of people got a free lunch, and you were not one of them, but your freedom was put at risk without your knowledge or consent.  

 

The ‚Äúroute out‚Äù of the crisis is to abolish the circumstantial exceptions to some very basic tenets of the common law of contract and property ownership which have dominated American lending increasingly for the past 30 years, exploding in the past 20, consuming us all like cancer for the past 10, and now collapsing in the past two-three years.  The process of selling these loans is sometimes called ‚Äúpredatory lending‚Äù.  It‚Äôs a process, which makes a lot of money for a few people really fast (this becomes the political support basis for the process and system), but the real purpose of this process is just simply to abolish private property and destabilize the family as an autonomous unit in America.  

 

To this end, predatory lending has been coupled with radical ‚Äúconfiscatory‚Äù increases in property taxes to underwrite government programs, in particular, at the local level, an increasingly useless elementary and secondary educational system which teaches children nothing of any value, but least of all any real historical, moral or political philosophy.  Predatory lending encourages, almost requires, everyone to become a debtor who lacks clear title to property so that everyone will move around and be more dependent upon governmental/ corporate largesse and more susceptible to governmental/corporate social control and manipulation.  The end result is a highly (geographically, not so much socially or economically) mobile society of people playing a vast game of ‚Äúmusical chairs‚Äù across the North American Continent.  It is our position at Deo Vindice that the game of musical chairs will ultimately end with a re-establishment of private property, but only those sitting down will win.  We want to achieve, for you and for ourselves, the maximum advantage in place-holdings, the greatest number of chairs, which we will fight to hold on to, and teach YOU how to fight and hold onto, until the day the music dies (when the game of musical chairs is then over).   George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and all the other Yale-Harvard-Chicago school elite in this country, are struggling to keep the music going as long as possible, because they believe that even in a Marxist-Leninist state, the intellectual elite will retain their special privileges as the guiding bureaucracy of the mechanical technocratic state peculiarly appropriate to the post-industrial society in which they believe we will all live.

 

Specifically, the person (mortgage broker) who arranged your loan and the ‚Äúlender‚Äù (or ‚Äúoriginator‚Äù) of the loan both got free lunches: they were paid IMMEDIATELY, or within a few weeks of approving your loan, by the person who bought your loan.   The curious thing is, nobody knows who that is, or at least, it‚Äôs very, very difficult to ascertain.   

 

Notes are bundled into securities and then sold on the open securities market.  Sometimes the physical pieces of paper are preserved and found and can be recovered (and sometimes not) but the  chain of title, the chains of privity of contract, the status of holder in due course, can NEVER be reestablished after securitization unless you bring the OWNER of the securities into court.

 

This situation is illegal, within the traditional bounds of both Roman (Civil, Napoleonic) and Common (Anglo-American) law, because all ‚Äúdebts‚Äù are (a) prepaid to the lender, thus unjustly enriching him with no disclosed benefits to the borrower except the ability to take out a ‚Äúloan‚Äù which would never have otherwise been made at all, (b) collected by someone who is neither in direct nor indirect ‚Äúprivity of contract‚Äù with the borrower, and who is therefore (c) not entitled to collect anything, because he is NOT a ‚Äúholder in due course‚Äù of the borrower‚Äôs note.  (A borrower‚Äôs promissory note is defined by United States ‚ÄúFederal‚Äù law as the equivalent of money, but discussion of that point would lead to a digression in which we should not at present indulge).

 

To put it mildly, creating a situation where you are able immediately to recover 100% of your investment immediately after making it, plus being able to reap marginal returns on your investment forever, is very attractive to those with access to financial resources to lend money (and again, we‚Äôll leave aside in this brief introduction the question of where that money actually comes from, or what the nature of that money really is—it WORKS, and that‚Äôs all we need to know right now).

 

Where you (as a borrower/debtor) are paying money to someone who falsely holds himself out as the ‚Äúholder in due course‚Äù of a note, or as someone in privity with someone who was once in privity with you before transferring the subject matter of the contract (i.e. your promise to pay, your ‚Äúnote‚Äù) to another, you are a victim of fraud.  It‚Äôs a pretty simple fraud, when you look at the basics: someone is claiming to be a person with legal entitlements which he/she/it does not have, and cannot prove.

 

That‚Äôs the easy part.  But as was noted a few paragraphs ago, we are standing on the edge of this gigantic precipice looking down into the jaws of state-controlled socialism/communism/totalitarianism.   We didn‚Äôt get here overnight.  We didn‚Äôt even get here JUST in the past 30 years.  Some people would point to pivotal years in the evolution of a socialistic America as 1913, 1933, or even 1861-65, but really, socialism traces its real roots to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England and France in the mid-to-late, when changes in technology began to bring about a change in the social-relations of production and greater social and economic inequality than had ever been known in those countries up through the first half of the 18th century.   

 

While the Industrial Revolution was taking hold of Western Europe, however, America was just coming into its own as a viable agrarian society, with very little knowledge of and almost no participation in the technological changes which were about to change society, so America started out as a very conservative place.  American common law, severed from its English ‚Äúmother‚Äù after 1776, preserved in even greater purity the common law guarantees than survived in the king‚Äôs homeland.  And ironically, during the very same years (1789-1793) that the French Revolution started with the final calling and abolition of the monarchical three-part, tri-functional Mediaeval constitutional government, a somewhat more democratic three-part, tri-functional Mediaeval constitutional government was adopted and implemented in the United States of America.

 

All this is only important in that you have to understand the historical stage, and the gravity of what you‚Äôre trying to do if you try to save your home from foreclosure by these ‚Äúbandits‚Äù who operate partly under color of constitutional law, partly under color of common law, while violating all the principles of both, regularly.  If you want to save your home, your family, your property, your assets, and keep your sanity about you, you have to realize that you are now engaged in a great struggle, to determine whether any nation so conceived and so dedicated to the propositions of personal freedom and autonomy through private property and contract, can long endure in the environment of a socialist/communist revolution, specifically a communist Chinese (Maoist) revolution (but that again is a separate story, separate issue).

 

HOW TO FIGHT: THE WAYS OF WAR REQUIRE ADAPTABLE STRATEGIES

 

    Over the past seven years or so, we‚Äôve heard about and utilized every possible, conceivable, strategy of resistance to predatory lending.  The good news is that no theory has ever completely failed (except, unfortunately, for the UCC/ Admiralty and ‚Äúpositive language‚Äù aberrations), while the bad news is that nothing has ever COMPLETELY worked to establish free and clear title to property.  The REALLY good news is that a strategic and persistent implementation of one strategy after another has never failed, either.  I know NO ONE who continued fighting who actually lost their property.  I know of several people who missed a beat, failed to fight at crucial junctures, and lost their property, but they did so by default, and not by actual, ‚Äúfull and fair‚Äù litigation loss.

 

 

Posted in General | Print | 1 Comment »