2. September 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

So is a principal reduction a good thing when it comes from a private firm?  In all fairness WSJ writer James R. Hagerty does say in the video on the site that if you can get a principal reduction co, it is a good thing.  You be the judge. I know many of us are attempting a loan mod and got a foreclosure notice, or it just plain failed because you cannot qualify, so then what?  The choices may seem few, especially if we keep looking in the same places for solutions.  And when you look at something good that may be good, it may get characterized as a Vulture.  Kind of a catch twenty two, huh. Where do you go? 

I encourage you to take a good long look at Living Free and Clear’s program in detail.  Good reputation, well known and respected CEO TJ Marrs and good client references.  Living Free and Clear’s Equity Triad program can reduce your principal, eliminate interest and even may get you in such a position that a bank will happily do these things or even more, to avoid triple damages against them.

Please join me in this discussion by clicking the comments button below.

As always yours in peace and prosperity, Freedom Writer.

Posted in mortgage solutions, principal reduction, loan modification, new york, the hudson group, Politics, wells fargo, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

26. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

Let’s examine how it is MONEY created by “credit-lenders”.

Your signature is an asset in our economy. You create the value for your mortgage with your signature on the Promissory Note.

You do not borrow the bank’s money.

Take a look at the definition of “Bank” in the 4th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary:

If a promissory note is designed to circulate as money, like money it can be deposited into a checking account. Though this is the case it was never disclosed in the bank loan agreement.

Since the promissory note is a negotiable instrument, per the Uniform Commercial Code, at what point did the bank “own” the promissory note?

The “lending” techniques that banks have used for centuries appear to be lending money, but in actuality have the value supplied by the person seeking the loan.

The bank does not disclose to you that your Promissory Note is actually an asset to the bank. Instead they focus your attention on the second document you sign, the Mortgage Agreement. The intent of this misdirection is to perpetuate a public perception that you are receiving something from the bank that you are obligated to repay.

The bank does not let you know that a promissory note is actually a “negotiable instrument” under the Uniform Commercial Code, and that it will be deposited to fund your loan. Nor does the bank tell you that they have a liability to you of approximately the amount of the loan.

(The bank owes you by their own bookkeeping entries).

When you apply for a $100,000 bank loan, you sign a $100,000 promissory note, which funds the $100,000 bank loan check that you receive at closing.

What is the actual cash value of the promissory note? It is $100,000, because the bank exchanges your promissory note for $100,000 in government bonds, which has value equal to cash.

The lender merely exchanged actual cash value for actual cash value, and you were charged as if there was a loan. As per the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco publication Monetary Policy in the United States (p. 13) states that, “bank loans is/are funded…by banks creating new deposits.”

They claim there was a loan. The truth is , it was an exchange and they called the exchange a loan. The proof is in the bookkeeping entries.

No actual cash value was loaned as consideration for obtaining the promissory note, and the proof is that the note is what funded the check that you received.

If you gave the bank $100.00 cash as collateral for a bank loan, and the bank deposited the $100.00 cash and used it to fund a bank loan check which was delivered to you, and the bank refused to return the $100.00 cash collateral, does that make business sense to you?

Does that sound like a fair and equitable transaction?

That is exactly what the bank does on every loan it makes. When you hand the lender a promissory note, it has equal value to the loan check.

Where is the money that paid for the promissory note?

When a bank grants a $100,000 loan, all they are doing is taking $100,000 of actual cash value from you (the promissory note) and transferring it to them, for free. The bank did not loan one cent of their depositor’s money for the $100,000 promissory note.

They did it by recording the promissory note as a loan from you to the bank, on the banks books by journal entry. The bank then used the $100,000 they obtained from you to create the $100,000 of new money called checkbook money. Checkbook money has equal value to legal tender because the promissory note can be sold for legal tender.

Then the bank uses the newly created checkbook money to give you back the $100,000 as a bank loan.

How Does A Bank Loan Actually Work:

1. You want a loan for your home

2. The bank advertises that they loan money

3. You apply for a loan

4. You jump through all their hoops and are approved for a loan

5. They have you sign a promissory note

6. Your promissory note is exchanged for currency of equal face value

7. The bank deposits the currency into an account

8. The bank cuts you a check from the deposit you never knew

about (or transfers the money to those who should be receiving it).

9. And you think you owe money back on a loan, when in fact

all that took place was an “exchange”.

Did they give you money? NO

What other business in the world allows you to create money based

on the value that someone else GIVES YOU, then charge that person

again plus interest!?

So the real question becomes, “If the promissory note is an asset,

what funded the bank’s ownership of the note?”

Answer: They still don’t really own it. They made and exchange -

Your promissory note (asset to the bank) was exchanged for approximately

the amount of the loan. You gave the bank an asset worth $100,000 and

the bank returned $100,000 to you. Where was the loan? There was not one.

As an honest ethical person who believes that all loans should be repaid,

do you agree that the bank should repay your loan to them? After all, they

deposited your promissory note. Your promissory note is an asset that

they exchanged for a check.

Where’s the loan? Factually, there is not one. And since all lenders

should be repaid, shouldn’t the bank repay your loan to them?

To add insult to injury, the banks can “fractionalize” your note through

the Federal Reserve System, expanding its value up to nine times the

note’s face value ($100,000 becomes $900,000), tax-free money they

can spend and invest as they please. Bearing in mind, your are

“currently obligated” to repay the loan with interest that works out

to 2 1/2 times the principal over a 30 year period.

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AMONG SEVERAL OTHER FLAWS ARE

PART OF THE BASIS UPON WHICH WE PROCEED TO HAVE MORTGAGES

SETTLED IN FULL, BECAUSE THE ARE IF PAID IN FULL.

Posted in lindsey howell, wells fargo, foreclosure help, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »

24. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

The Supreme Court of Kansas recently referenced a Bankruptcy Court from Massachusetts that said:

“When the role of a servicing agent [MERS] acting on behalf of a mortgagee is thrown into the mix, it is no wonder that it is often difficult for unsophisticated borrowers to be certain of the identity of their lenders and mortgagees.” In re Schwartz, 366 B.R. 265, 266 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007).

Then cited the Supreme Court of New York (Kings County) that said:

“[T]he practices of the various MERS members, including both [the original lender] and [the mortgage purchaser], in obscuring from the public the actual ownership of a mortgage, thereby creating the opportunity for substantial abuses and prejudice to mortgagors . . . , should not be permitted to insulate [the mortgage purchaser] from the consequences of its actions in accepting a mortgage from [the original lender] that was already the subject of litigation in which [the original lender] erroneously represented that it had authority to act as mortgagee.” Johnson, 2008 WL 4182397, at *4, 873 N.Y.S.2d 234 (2008).

When a court references these slams you know that the House of Cards that is MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) is gonna take a hit.

TECHNICAL STUFF: Seems that when a first lienholder was foreclosing it sent notice to the originator of the second lien even though MERS was shown to be mortgagee on the second lien (as nominee of the lender).  Of course, the second lien originator had previously transferred its interest to a new lender, and the new lender did not get notice of the foreclosure and was wiped out by the foreclosure by the first lienholder.  The question was whether MERS was entitled to notice of the foreclosure.  The answer was no. (See another description of the case here.)

The relationship that MERS has to (to holder of a loan) is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer. A mortgagee and a lender have intertwined rights that defy a clear separation of interests, especially when such a purported separation relies on ambiguous contractual language. The law generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from a lender: a mortgagee is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage creditor, or lender.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1034 (8th ed. 2004). By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. K.S.A. 58-2323. Although MERS asserts that, under some situations, the mortgage document purports to give it the same rights as the lender, the document consistently refers only to rights of the lender, including rights to receive notice of litigation, to collect payments, and to enforce the debt obligation. The document consistently limits MERS to acting “solely” as the nominee of the lender.

Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), here.

The Kansas Court went on:

What stake in the outcome of an independent action for foreclosure could MERS have? It did not lend the money to Kesler or to anyone else involved in this case. Neither Kesler nor anyone else involved in the case was required by statute or contract to pay money to MERS on the mortgage. [citation omitted](”MERS is not an economic ‘beneficiary’ under the Deed of Trust. It is owed and will collect no money from Debtors under the Note, nor will it realize the value of the Property through foreclosure of the Deed of Trust in the event the Note is not paid.”). If MERS is only the mortgagee, without ownership of the mortgage instrument, it does not have an enforceable right.

Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), here.

Note that the Kansas Supreme Court feels the same way about MERS as the Arkansas Supreme Court in March 2009:

MERS holds no authority to act as an agent and holds no property interest in the mortgaged land. … MERS has no interest to protect. It simply was not a  necessary party. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 19(a). MERS’s role in this transaction casts no light on the contractual issues on appeal in this case. See, e.g., Wilmans v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 355 Ark. 668, 144 S.W.3d 245 (2004).

Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Southwest Homes of Ark., 2009 Ark. 152, 7-8 (Ark. 2009)

MERS is a straw man to the Kansas high court.  MERS does not own anything, and therefore does not have an enforceable right.  It is not entitled to notice says the court.

Posted in Kansas, MERS, foreclosure, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

7. March 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

What do cell phones and foreclosure have in common? Both are pretty much forced on us. Foreclosure happens after you try with all your heart to get a loan modification, which never happens. Then they start foreclosure on your home. But what do we always keep even while one of the worst events in our lives is happening. We keep our cell phone, no matter what the cost. It is kind of our home away from home. I never thought 3 years ago I would be in foreclosure and having a hard time paying for my cell phone, but I am. So what have I learned? Well I am working with Lindsey Howell putting together a course to teach people how to defend their homes. Especially since the banks, government and attorneys will not. One must as they say take the bull by the horns. Next we have to cut expenses, but can’t lose the cell phone. So my next step now is learning again how to tell the millions of foreclosure victims and cell phone users how to get their service for free, with Wow Mobile. Wow on the road again now. Defending my home and will win. Reduced my cell phone bill to zero and helping others to do the same.

Posted in robert ponte, cell phones, wow mobile, the hudson group, foreclosure, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

6. February 2010 by Spiritual Patriot.

Written by Robert Ponte on February 6^th, 2010

Hi, Robert Ponte here in Stonington Connecticut, my home for just a bit over three years. The Hudson Group’s new partnership with Wow Mobile is the perfect product and service that will help thousands recover from high monthly cell phone bills.

Text and talk and surf the web, even tether your GSM cell phone with WOW Mobile service to your blue tooth enabled laptop and recover from the overpriced monthly air card bill you may be paying for now. WOW Mobile provides you, the valued customer (and distributors) all this month to month without a locked long term contract, no deposits, credit checks. All fees are included, no hidden costs or fees.

Liberty International is a 10 year old debt free parent company of WOW Mobile. Liberty International has been providing their distributors the highest payouts in the industry for referral marketing and creating more seven figure income earners than any other company.

With WOW Mobile as a customer enjoying the benefits of unlimited monthly service on the GSM network with your existing mobile phone by inserting a SIM card. Your plan can include unlimited everything! Now you can…email, browse the web, text, SMS, and even use your phone to make unlimited anytime calls-NO restrictions whatsoever.
Or you can sign up for the all you can talk and chat (no email, browsing the web.) And then we have a basic anytime unlimited calls plan as an entry level package. Go to the website for in depth details and also do check out the feature, Refer 3 Three and YOURS IS FREE.

Refer three and yours is free has been the cornerstone to the compensation plan and business development with Liberty International for the past ten years. No other company does this. No other company rewards their distributors to the level that Liberty Intl.

Want a new Google G1, My Touch or Motorola CLIQ? Check out how to get an instant $250 rebate and pay only $150 each. www.freemobilewow2.com

Start your recovery today!

Robert Ponte
Stonington, CT.
The Hudson Group
860-599-5557

Posted in cell phones, wow mobile, the hudson group, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

29. June 2009 by admin.

Do you think you might lose your home in foreclosure and to a servicing company no less?  Are you behind in your payments?  Is your home worth less now than the mortgage balance? These and many other questions can be answered by Dr. Charles Lincoln. Have questions? write to admin@charleslincoln.spiritualpatriot.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

25. June 2009 by admin.

Today will be the first day in weeks we will see the sun around here.  If you are losing your home to dark servicing companies. Contact us at info@the-hudson-group.net and learn what Charles Lincoln has to say? Peace

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

10. June 2009 by Spiritual Patriot.

For Jon Roland: “You! hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frere” and for Shelley Sue Thomson, for whom I won a fast and speedy victory taking her from near homeless slums to a nearly palatial Hill Country Home….

August 23, 2008 · No Comments

For about a year now, Jon Drew Roland, three time failed Libertarian Candidate for Texas Attorney General and who knows what else, a man who never campaigns and never puts himself at risk for anything, has published a nasty little snipe against me on his otherwise rather marvelous website, www.constitution.org.  Jon Drew Roland USED to be one of my most enthusiastic supporters and best friends, and indeed, he and I were for some years quite inseparable around the Central Texas world of Patriotic Constitutionalism and Civil Rights Litigation on behalf of the oppressed but silent majority in Texas.  Quite frankly, he and I lost LOTS of cases we worked on together because we picked on people who were just too damned powerful: among them, Jon Roland’s old nemesis Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, one of the worst Attorneys General in the history of the United States, never mind of Texas, who has institute one of the most oppressive regimes of Maoist Family destruction and mass imprisonment (never mind mass execution) in these formerly great states of the Union—and Texas, even into the 1990s, was one of the freest corners of the United States, believe it or not.  That all changed with the election of Governor George W. Bush and Attorney General Abbott.

But one day in November 2006, Jon Roland told me about a friend of his who needed some help.  She needed to find out if she had inherited anything from her mother, who had died 10 years earlier.  I told Jon it was almost inconceivable that she would inherit anything now, or could claim anything now, after so long, but Jon asked me to talk to this dear and long-time friend of his, knowing that I had practiced quite a lot of probate & trust law back when I was a semi-normal attorney in private practice, before civil rights and the reaction to my efforts in that department changed my life forever. 

To make a long story short, I found that Shelley Sue Thomson, then living in an incredibly depressed slum in Albuquerque, New Mexico, had indeed been the victim of one of the most bald-faced cases of probate theft and conversion I had ever seen.  Shelley Sue Thomson couldn’t afford to hire a licensed attorney, and she asked me to back up Jon Drew Roland as her Trustee, as Jon would act merely for free.  Shelly Sue Thomson promised me 1/3 of whatever estate she could recover in exchange for my efforts—actually she promised even more than that—she promised me that, since she had no children of her own, she would leave her mother’s house to my son Charlie if she could live in it for the rest of her life. 

As it turned out, victory was swift, coming by May 1, 2007: after merely filing two state and two federal lawsuits, Shelley’s old, greedy, and evil stepfather simply gave up and vanished, deeding everything to her, with his large team of high-paid attorneys trumpeting his generosity. 

Shelley could not even believe it had all happened so fast, but my loyal assistant Peyton Yates Freiman and I, at Shelley’s initial invitation and Jon Roland’s enthusiastic backing and support, met in Albuquerque.  I came from Santa Monica, California, where I had been celebrating another commercial litigation victory [actually a post-Katrina insurance victory in New Orleans Federal Court].  I was specifically in Santa Monica for a birthday party—a certain California TV actress friend’s 30th birthday, while Peyton came from Austin, where he left his only recently acquired new girlfriend Mercedes behind out of sheer loyalty and devotion to the causes of justice). 

In the midst of all this euphoria, something went wrong.  I had talked with Shelley for hours and hours but never actually met her.  Jon Roland and I had done all the actual work (as a matter of fact, Jon Roland, ironically enough, was under investigation and injunction for UPL as a result of his litigation activities on Shelley’s behalf).  All I can say is, apparently, Shelley hated me on sight and everything went downhill from there, but Peyton and I ran around Albuquerque renting trucks, hiring a moving crew, loading up Shelley’s cat ridden house (I’m allergic to cats….of all kinds) and even finding a way to move Shelley’s immense private safe….yes that wasy fun.  After a few tense days and one extremely pleasant farewell dinner, Peyton and I moved all of Shelley’s worldly possessions to her mother’s sumptuous suburban (not-quite-palatial but extremely nice) residence on Windsor Drive in a Western Suburb of New Braunfels, Texas.  Shelley does not, at first glance, fit the Disney image of Cinderella, but her rags to riches transformation in less than six months was, to put it mildly, very dramatic and not at all dependent upon fairy Godmothers or glass slippers, but on about 2000 hours of work between Peyton and me put together—Jon Roland had advanced most of the costs of litigation, Peyton had advanced the costs of moving Shelley, Peyton and I had “done our time” and Shelley was now ready to commit a crime: she wanted to stiff us. 

Well, I don’t take it well when people want to stiff me.  I especially don’t take it well when I haven’t had any money down, no retainer, no cash up front, NOTHING, and yet I pull off a major victory within less than six months and can truthfully say that the result is the complete transformation of someone’s life from near homeless pauperism to near Texas-Hill Country Royal living. 

I accordingly have NO apologies whatsoever for the fact that Peyton and I slapped first one and then an amended lien on Shelley’s property.  Jon Drew Roland had been directly responsible for the amended lien.  He knew that Peyton’s parents were respectively a Deacon and a Sunday School teacher at a major Baptist Church in Austin, and that Peyton could often be found with them there on Sundays.  So, one Sunday in August 2007 (it was almost exactly one year ago as I write this, maybe one year and two weeks ago), Jon Roland went over to Great Hills Baptist Church and cornered Lennie and Claudia Freiman and told them that their son (Peyton) was going to jail for having filed the lien against Shelley on behalf of my Tierra Limpia Trust fund.  Peyton was there and tried to set him right, but anyone who knows Jon Roland knows him to be one big talker—very forceful and almost impossible to shut up (it was a large part of why I liked him so much….honestly).  Jon Roland said that the Notice of Claim of Lien Peyton had filed was improper (1) because I hadn’t signed it and (2) the Lien didn’t mention him (Jon Roland) as Trustee for Shelley Sue Thomson.  Well, I was by this time in Montana visiting Senator Jerry O’Neil, and so I prepared an amended Notice of Claim of Lien which I signed and included reference to Jon Roland as Trustee for Shelley Sue Thomson.  

Well, I suppose that was when Jon Roland decided to slander me, to accuse me of filing a false lien against Shelley Sue Thomson on his website.  I was totally disgusted and suppose I will eventually have to sue Jon Roland for defamation and libel—and I guess I can sue him anywhere since people from Florida to Russia have now read about how I take advantage of poor people by filing liens on their property without moral or legal justification. 

It was Jon Roland who had originally told me about how easy it is to resolve legal disputes without litigation through liens.  It was a very successful Texas mortgage broker (who hopes to stay OUT of the line of fire in this and who shall accordingly remain anonymous) who suggested to me that I just slap a lien on Shelley’s property if she didn’t want to settle up with me–because after all, my services (and Peyton’s) were in fact the equivalent of the “Purchase Money” of Shelley’s house—Shelley had never seen her mother’s will, never been aware that she was the intended beneficiary of a VERY large trust fund, or that her step father had embezzled 100% of the trust fund for himself and kept the house on top of that.  I am very proud of my work for Shelley Sue Thomson and frankly I enjoyed all our time on the telephone talking between November 2006 and end of April 2007.  

I was so enthusiastic about the work I did for her that I actually LEFT THE HOTEL CALIFORNIA for Shelley (and no, I’m not kidding—I was actually staying at a place called THE HOTEL CALIFORNIA on the beach in Santa Monica, and yes, I really DIDN’T want to leave at all—I had a beautiful suite, room 19, less than five minutes from both the beach, third street, and the Santa Monica Pier, and I wouldn’t have left that place for anybody except someone I imagined would be a lifetime friend—I had just made several new friends in California that trip, and spent a huge amount of time with them at the Getty Villa in Malibu, the Getty Center on the 405, and LACMA Art Museum by the La Brea Tar Pits—the LACMA Art Museum having been the place I first became interested in archaeology, sitting and copying the cuneiform inscriptions of Asurbanipal on weekends when I was in High School with the Assyrian Primer my mother had brought me from the British Museum). 

Now, as it happens, Shelley Sue Thomson later enlisted the pro-bono services of another friend and supporter of mine—a lawyer with whom I had a temporary falling out over yet more civil rights litigation, namely David A. Sibley of Corpus Christi, against me.  David definitely should NEVER have taken this job—it was not quite ethical since he was representing me the whole time I was working for Shelley—but I forgive David because of what he wrote about Shelley in his April 30, 2008, Motion to Withdraw as her attorney in Thomson’s suit against me and Peyton (No. 2008-119-C in the 274th District Court of Comal County, Texas) after Sibley finally had his own nearly fatal falling out with her.  What follows are only four excerpted paragraphs from David A. Sibley’s nine Page Single-Spaced Motion to Withdraw—possibly the most devastating Motion to Withdraw I have ever seen—no lawyer has ever felt this oppressed by has client to need to “nuke” her this way before—but if anyone ever deserved it, it would be Shelley Sue Thomson) TO WIT: 

“4. Thomson sends repetitive emails (now probably numbering in the hundreds). She asks the same questions over and over and over and over again. Sibley has answered these questions over and over and over and over again. She will repeatedly threaten grievances among other things stating that Sibley has not answered her questions when he has answered them many times (and for other spurious reasons). She makes the same arguments over and over and over again even after Sibley has refuted her arguments over and over and over again (or expressed disagreement). Some of her arguments reflect profound misunderstandings of the law and she expects Sibley to answer endless questions about the law. More often than not, when Sibley explains the law, she disagrees or continues to ask questions about the same issue of law (or ignores his answer). She has recently taken to mixing her comments in her emails with previous emails so it is almost impossible without great effort to determine her new comments making her emails extremely burdensome (undoubtedly in the hope of Sibley missing one of her comments so she can argue that Sibley has not answered one of her questions — she doesn’t set her comments out by bold face, underline, or otherwise). Sibley has repeatedly asked her to identify questions he supposedly hasn’t answered and she never has. She just continues her endless repetitions, etc.

5. Thomson has suggested that Sibley and Peyton are having some kind of affair. She has stated to [a mutual friend & colleague Attorney Andrea S.] Atalay that Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet (Atalay is Jewish). She also told Atalay that Hitler should have killed all the Jews. Also, she told Atalay that she was putting witchcraft spells on Sibley (she claims to have various psychic abilities including “remote viewing” and believes in numerous para–normal things, for example she believes Lincoln is possessed by an Aztec “deity”). She has tried to sow dissension between Sibley and Atalay by telling inconsistent things to each and trying to turn each against the other. She repeatedly harasses Sibley with comments suggesting that Sibley wants to steal her house (or is in a conspiracy with other lawyers to steal her house), he is stupid, he is unethical, etc. Also, she has suggested that Sibley may be in conspiracy with Lincoln and/or Peyton. When Sibley planned to travel over 100 miles by airplane to a hearing, she refused to pick him up at the airport. She has never paid Sibley a penny and never offered to even reimburse any out of pocket expense. In fact, she mocks the out of pocket expenses incurred (suggesting they are trivial – the amounts are not trivial to Sibley – she has no appreciation whatsoever for Sibley’s efforts). Sibley has never demanded payment of a penny but he expects basic courtesies like being picked up at the airport (how far can the airport be out of her way in New Braunsfel – she said “you can take a cab!”). She clearly does not respect Sibley’s advice or strategies (or him). As a result, Sibley is unable to act as an attorney in this case. Sibley finds some of Thomson’s behaviors highly offensive.

******

8. The attorney client relationship is completely destroyed. Atalay has been suffering even more from Thomson’s abuse than Sibley. Atalay has called Sibley on numerous occasions passed the point of tears (literally crying). The most extreme example was when Thomson made offensive comments including that Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet and Hitler should have killed all the Jews, etc. Thomson has repeatedly insulted Atalay including her abilities as a lawyer, her communication abilities, etc. Atalay called the Comal County District Attorney (or one of his representatives) and Thomson went ballistic (Thomson had been discussing this case with the District Attorney). Thomson and Roland clearly want to control everything (including all information). Thomson and Roland clearly want to handle this case themselves and just want a lawyer as a puppet. Sibley does not trust Thomson (neither does Atalay). It is believed Thomson may have been misrepresenting her conversations with the District Attorney and this is why she went ballistic when Atalay called the District Attorney. Thomson is an endless nightmare.

9. Atalay has been in the hospital for several days and it is not clear when she will get well. She has an extremely high fever (over 104 degrees at one point). She shows evidence of stress and exhaustion. It is entirely possible that her condition results from Thomson’s endless abuses, insults, etc. Her condition certainly hasn’t been helped by Thomson’s endless abuses. This situation has just got to stop. It has gotten way, way out of hand. Thomson is an abusive personality. She seems to enjoy harassing, annoying and abusing Sibley and Atalay. Thomson has had plenty of time and many second chances to end her abusive behaviors but she refuses.  She received an additional “chance” as recently as last week and responded with the same endless nonsense. A specific very reasonable plan was proposed for resolving the liens on her house and she rejected the plan and continued her endless pattern of abuse (endless insults, threats, etc.). It has to be done her way and no other way. Her way involves refusing settlements that involve exactly what the objective supposedly was (partial resolution of this case). She wants Sibley and Atalay to endless dance to her tune. She is not a lawyer and not only does her demands waste time and money they are likely to embarrass two lawyers severely.”

It is really hard to imagine why Sibley would find any of Shelley’s conduct offensive—I for my part feel rather flattered and intrigued by Shelley’s observations (of which she had informed me personally) that she believed I was either possessed by or even the reincarnation of one of the Aztec Gods, either Huitzil Opochtli (Hummingbird of the left, the Chief Aztec God & God of War) or his pair Tezcatl Ipoca (Smoking Mirror, a much older God in Mesoamerica, patron of kings).  Well, I could have warned Sibley that Shelley really does believe herself to be the original “Witchy Woman” (I have to confess she never revealed her virulent hatred of Jews & Israel to me).  But in any event—when people “Google” my name they too often find and go to Jon Drew Roland’s hateful defamation & slanderous comments on www.constitution.org.  Peyton and I did a lot of work, and shed a lot of “blood, toil, sweat, & tears” for Shelley, and she is just the consummate ingrate, and Jon Drew Roland is nothing but a treacherous Judas who stabbed his best friend in the back.  In the words of Paul Harvey, you now know “the rest of the story.”

Categories:
Uncategorized

Tagged:
“Au Lecteur”, “the rest of the story”, “You! hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable, —mon frere!”, Albuquerque, Baudelaire, Civil Rights, Claudia Freiman, Comal County Probate Court, David A. Sibley, defamation, false liens, Getty Center, Getty Villa, Great Hills Baptist Church, Greg Abbott, Hotel California, Jon Drew Roland, Jon Roland, Jon Roland Unauthorized Practice of Law, Lennie Freiman, libel, liens, New Braunfels, Patriot Movement, Patriotic Constitutionalism, Paul Harvey, Peyton Freiman, Peyton Yates Freiman, remote viewing, seer, Shelley Sue Thomson, Shelley Thomson, slander, T.S. Eliot, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Texas Hill Country, Texas Libertarian Candidate, Texas Libertarian Party, The Wasteland, Windsor Drive, witchraft, www.constitution.org

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

9. June 2009 by Spiritual Patriot.

I just met Charles Lincoln and found him to be straight forward and honest. I like what he stands for and what he has done and will do for potential clients. Are you about to loose your home? Keep this blog bookmarked to find out more about the good work going on with Charles Lincoln and his work.

Charles 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.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

7. June 2009 by Spiritual Patriot.

How do home ownership and corporations work to help people or employees achieve a common goal and partnership? Who and what companies even think about their roles supporting initiatives with their employees? Think of Linus Gitahi when it comes to forward thinking and his new role as CEO of New Media Group. Think of Linus Gitahi and the experience he gained working in Kenya with GlaxoSmithKline.

Our understanding of health, home ownership and many other corporate and employees issues are now more than ever open to new discussions of the partnerships we can nurture in our world economy today! Check out Linus Gitahi and his blogs and company to find out more.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »