Re: conversation
Mike Blessing
> Hi, Mike:
>
> Thanks for calling. It was nice to hear your voice. Do you not have a
> land line any more?
> There's a videoconferencing site called ekiga.net . The basic service
> is free, or was the last time I looked. If you can get it working on
> your machine, we could talk without it costing you minutes.
>
> Sorry I was distracted when you called. I had just read the amazing
> piece of dreck that is the latest product of the legal process.
> It doesn't get better on re-reading.
> My stepfather committed probate fraud, an old custom in Texas and
> probably elsewhere. He lied to me for ten years. An friend (Jon Roland
> of www.constitution.org) introduced me to a disbarred lawyer, who
> described himself as a crusader for individual liberty and against
> official corruption. He said that his efforts had been so effective
> that the good old boys got together and had him prosecuted for an
> innocent error in SS number, which the bank had actually made and
> neither of them had caught. It was a federal felony. Rather than go
> through the federal kangaroo courts he took a plea bargain; he did not
> serve any jail time but lost his law license.
> The good old boys notoriously gang up on people who make their lives
> difficult. It was easy to believe.
> It was not true. The individual, Charles Lincoln III, was indeed
> disbarred, but I now understand that the issue was not as simple as a
> transposition of digits in his SS number. He was caught red-handed
> defrauding a client.
> Charles is plausible. He has a marvelous old money accent, he is very
> bright and a good liar. He has made a career of victimizing people with
> real estate who have legal problems but cannot afford to rertain a
> licensed lawyer.
>
> By the time I met him Jon had lent Charles more than $20k to subsidize
> his lawsuits and living expenses. Charles offered to use his legal
> knowledge to help me at no charge in order to work off what he owed Jon
> and because he considered me a friend.
> My stepfather had committed probate fraud but he was a wealthy man.
> Ordinarily I would have had no recourse since I could not afford to sue
> him. Charles proposed that I file suit pro se; with his legal expertise
> behind me, I could go up against a law firm and still prevail.
>
> I was naive, and he convinced me. So I sued.
> I had no money. It so happens that in the past I lent my friend Jon
> [Jon Roland of www.constitution.org] a large sum of money over several
> years, some $32k not figuring interest. He'd had a heart attack and
> business reverses so I didn't press him to pay it back. Now I asked if
> he could repay me; he said he would, but it came in small amounts with
> strings attached.
>
> Thus, I was dependent on Jon when my stepfather abandoned the house in
> Texas. I had to decide immediately whether to sell it or go ther and
> live in it.
> Jon and Charles insisted that I move to Texas.
> The move was a devastating experience. The movers stole, and
> deliberately damaged my belongings. Valuable items had to be left
> behind because the move took place on such short notice. It was
> horrible. You saw some of it. Your presence was a comfort.
>
> Once in Texas, I needed to get a loan on the house. Charles promptly
> filed a fraudulent lien for more than $50k. This made it impossible for
> me to get financing. He used the loan as leverage to try to extort a
> large sum of money.
> This led to about a year and a half of a really miserable time.
> Compared to ABQ the countryside is lush, but there are no jobs. This
> was formerly a tourist town, but tourism is extinct. On Sunday you can
> hear the whooshing sound of IQ points being sucked into the churches and
> disintegrated.
> I had expected Jon to help me get established, give me introductions and
> soforth. Jon spent his life in Texas and has run for office several
> times on the libertarian ticket. I thought I'd have his help but he
> wouldn't give it. He wanted me quarantined in the outback.
> I had a series of compute malfunctions. Jon helped, but it was a string
> of defective hardware, one after another. Motherboard, HDs. Then he
> took the computer and provided a spiffy looking refurbushed HP which he
> had equipped with a dual boot with linus and Vista.
> Vista was loathsome. I took one look at it and barfed. No way.
>
> The linux system was really peculiar. For one thing, it had no file
> management utility. wtf? I applied to Jon, the expert, for help and he
> suggested that I get involved with a linux support group.
>
> Jon's refusal to give me introductions was hurtful. I think the reason
> was that he had worked with Charles Lincoln for years and introduced
> Lincoln to everyone he knew. He did not want me telling people what
> Lincoln had tried to do to me.
> As timepassed the linux OS became eccentric and rebooting did not fix
> it. Ultimately it crashed. I took the computer to the shop
> and had it fixed.
> Recently I discovered that some emails are missing from my inbox. These
> are emails in which Jon's involvement with Lincoln was explicitly
> evident. I have emails for the days before the crucial communications
> and the days right afterward. I believe Jon deleted these emails in
> order to protect himself from a potential lawsuit from me.
>
> Thus, he is not the white hat he appears to be. Please be on your guard
> if you ever run into him.
> Jon is in Austin.
>
> They have a public tv operation. Jon has had a show on local cable for
> years. I asked about it and he was discouraging. He said that in order
> to get on the air you first have to produce a professional quality video
> and if station management likes it, it might be shown sometime. You
> have to create a series of first quality videos to have any chance of
> getting a regular time slot. And the chance of getting one is not good,
> Jon indicated.
>
> I asked him for introductions again. He refused. Said he didn't know a
> single person who would be interested in talking to me about anything.
>
> So I spent a year in the Texas outback, in a house I couldn't afford to
> maintain, without any appliances including a refrigerator. (My stepdad
> stripped the house when he left.) I couldn't afford gas to get to San
> Antonio or Austin so I was effectively marooned.
>
> The situation is better now. I was able to counteract the fraudulent
> lien and get a loan. Currently I am solvent.
> On balance, I think Jon is a sinister chararcter and probably working
> for some letter agency or other. He's well known in the militia
> movement. He also hangs around with the tax protest guy whose name I am
> repressing. Bob Schultz? You know, Don Quixote, who is trying to
> force the IRS to acknowledge that the income tax has no legal basis.
> Wiping those emails off my hd is not the act of an honorable man.
>
> All this has given me perspective on the legal process. To my knowledge
> Charles Lincoln has never won a case. His procedure is to enlarge the
> case, making such a huge mess that he becomes indispensable to the
> victim. Then he extorts money. (In one case he convinced a woman to
> sign over 50% of her house to him in return for legal work he said he
> had done, that he did not do.) Then he moves on, leaving the victim in
> the lurch.
> The legal strategy Jon and Charles both like is to rely on arcane points
> of law and on Constitutional rights arguments that are never going to
> succeed even if they get to the Supreme Court, which they won't, due to
> lack of money. Splitting hairs just antagonizes judges. It doesn't win
> cases.
>
> Jon prides himself on his knowledge of the law and legal experience, but
> he gave me a bad piece of advice last year that nearly got me
> sanctioned. The case might well have been thrown out of court, which I
> think he hoped would happen.
> Lincoln has been forbidden to file in many courts in Texas, and in
> federal court for the whole western district. The rulings do not apply
> to his apprentice, who filed the lawsuit against me and Jon.
> It's the weirdest piece of legal paper I've ever seen. It is sprinkled
> with legal terminology including a plentiful helping of Latin, so it
> looks professional until you read what he actually said.
> In Texas you cannot legally lien real estate for the kind of expenses
> Charles and Peyton claim. Even if their claims were true, you can't
> lien real estate for them. To file a fraudulent lien, thereby clouding
> a title, and refuse to take it off is a criminal offense. Peyton knows
> this; he has been served with the appropriate sections of Texas state
> code at least four times.
> Yet in this new lawsuit he maintains the lien and disparages the legal
> procedure I used to counteract it, as if procedures in Comal County
> carry no weight in Travis County. He also accuses me of malicious
> prosecution, the basis for that being that I tried to get the local DA
> to prosecute.
> Well, the dude broke the law and here he is egregiously continuing in
> his crime. It's not my fault the DA chose to sit on his hands.
> (Freiman's parents live in Comal County and they are rich. If I had a
> kid like that I would be a major donor to the DA's campaign fund.)
>
> The problem in all this is that Charles is somehow untoucheable. His
> career in white collar crime is spectacular and spans the entire
> country, but no DA or fed is interested in putting him away. I think I
> know why. As a financial predator he is connected to some people who
> have connections. In return they get a piece, maybe even the lion's
> share, of whatever he can rip off. And where is the IRS? They put
> waiters and hairdressers through hell but Charles is invisible to them.
> I'm tired of putting time into this but when this all started I promised
> Charles and Peyton that if they did not take the phony lien off I would
> do my best to see that they went to prison. It's a promise I want to keep.
>
> As for Jon, I am reasonably sure Charles has dirt on him including
> incriminating emails. He'd like for my lawsuit against Charles and
> Peyton to die on the vine. This new lawsuit must be quite unwelcome.
> From Peyton's standpoint the legal system is just a slot machine. Put
> in the quarter and pull the handle; if you keep doing that you will
> eventually get money. In this case I think he will be out of luck. I
> can't see some judge in Travis County taking time to deal with a matter
> that is already being litigated in an active case in Comal County.
>
> So that's the scoop. I also need to write an abstract for an important
> conference paper. And, someone may finally pony up some cash for my
> research. Nice if that happens.
> The does are finally bearing their fawns. I got to see one of them
> taking his very first steps. It must be strange to be a baby deer. You
> are in the safest, darkest place in creation and suddenly get dumped
> into the daylight world, on stilts no less. He looked confused.
>
> A little while later he was playing with another fawn. Their coats are
> dappled with pale golden spots, so bright that they look like they have
> lights inside.
> Nature is so beautiful.
>
> Shelley
I'm planning on getting a desktop this weekend, but I don't know if it
will support that kind of bandwidth needed.
Interesting turn of events you've got there -- interesting in the sense
of the Chinese curse.
Jon Roland was the banquet speaker at the 2007 LPNM State Convention in
Farmington, after L. Neil had to cancel at the last minute for a medical
emergency. He gave a decent speech, but I'm not sure about its
usefulness -- it was about filing quo warranto lawsuits against public
officials, challenging them to prove that they have the authority to do
what they do. One of the audience members asked him how many he won, and
he said "None, but that's OK," because that's just more evidence that
the system is broken.
As for the HP desktop Roland provided, did you set a root password on
the Linux part of it? An password-protected administrator account on the
Win-XP side? If you didn't, you gave him access to everything you had on
there.
Where you said that the Linux side didn't have a file-management
utility, "WTF" ain't the half of it -- what kind of operating system
doesn't have a file-management utility?! That just doesn't make any sense.
Is this the Charles Lincoln that you're talking about here?
http://www.constitution.org/abus/cel/cel.htm
Here's the case that Roland cites Lincoln as being involved with --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._Lago_Vista
Here's the Google search I just ran on Lincoln --
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Charles+Lincoln%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
It seems that Lincoln put up a rather lengthy blog posting about you and
Roland. It actually HURTS to read this rambling pile of BS, especially
considering that good bits of it are in ALL-CAPS. He definitely needs to
learn to use the <Shift> key, if anything.
I found links to three motions you filed in this --
Plaintiff: Shelley Thomson; Defendant: Charles Edward Lincoln, Peyton
Yates Freiman
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-5:2008cv00105/case_id-281762/
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-5:2008mc00105/case_id-284912/
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-5:2008cv00105/case_id-287085/
______________________________________________________________________
- Mike Blessing / Phone - 011-001-505-918-6567 / Yahoo IM - mikewb1971
http://mikewb1971.xanga.com
Who owns you? Who runs your life?
Who should - you or someone else?
KCUF Media, UnIncorporated
Commentary and Opinion for the Undamaged Mind
http://kcufmedia.xanga.com
______________________________________________________________________
Mike Blessing
>>>>> Mike Blessing wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jon Roland was the banquet speaker at the 2007 LPNM State
>>>>>> Convention in Farmington, after L. Neil had to cancel at the last
>>>>>> minute for a medical emergency. He gave a decent speech, but I'm
>>>>>> not sure about its usefulness -- it was about filing quo warranto
>>>>>> lawsuits against public officials, challenging them to prove that
>>>>>> they have the authority to do what they do. One of the audience
>>>>>> members asked him how many he won, and he said "None, but that's
>>>>>> OK," because that's just more evidence that the system is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> wins cases. Jon loves the legal process. He doesn't care about
>>>>> the end point, and he doesn't really care what happens to the
>>>>> person he is helping.
>>>>> It may be different now since he has been named in this latest
>>>>> lawsuit. In fact it's mostly about him. Unless he can think of a
>>>>> way to quash it he will have to disclose all the discussions he had
>>>>> with the perps about me and my house.
>>>>
>>>> Victor discusses this in an article titled Down By Law he wrote for
>>>> The Libertarian Enterprise back in 1997 --
>>>>
>>>> http://ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970301-07.html
>>>
>>> Thanks, I will pull it up.
>>>
>>> Jon is stalling. I think he read the petition on Thursday evening.
>>> He claimed he didn't get a copy so I had the UPS store send him one
>>> yesterday. Today I asked him about it and he said he had replied to
>>> me. Well, no email had arrived. Now he says he will be busy for the
>>> next few days. (probably ransacking his files and deleting
>>> incriminating messages)
>>
>> Even if he erases the incriminating files from his main hard drive,
>> there's really no way for you to stop him from saving them to a flash
>> drive, and then stashing the flash drive in the door panel of his car,
>> or behind drywall in his house.
>>
>> It'll boil down to your word against his, and a judge isn't going to
>> issue the local cops a search warrant on that basis.
>
> No doubt Jon can sequester the files. The problem is that Charles has
> files. I am sure they contain plenty of incriminating emails. They
> will appear when Charles decides to provide them. The files surely show
> Jon and Charles conspiring to commit the unauthorized practice of law.
The problem here with Charles is the same one as with Jon. If Charles
just wants the files to disappear, he can just erase them from the
hard drive, back them up them to a thumb drive if needed, and stash the
thumb drive.
> Jon's involvement is not an issue in my lawsuit, although I could make
> it one if the evidence appeared. Not that I really want to sue Jon or
> think I would get anything in return.
From what you've told me, it sounds like he got caught up in Charles'
shenanigans and got in over his head.
>>>>>> Where you said that the Linux side didn't have a file-management
>>>>>> utility, "WTF" ain't the half of it -- what kind of operating
>>>>>> system doesn't have a file-management utility?! That just doesn't
>>>>>> make any sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was defective. When I asked Jon for help he advised me to join
>>>>> a linux users' group. Had I done that I wouldn't have had time to
>>>>> do anything else with my life. Perhaps that was the plan.
>>>>
>>>> LUGs can be finicky things -- sometimes they meet on a regular
>>>> basis, and are a great help, like the one in ABQ that recently
>>>> (re)started. Other times they rarely meet, the people are assholes,
>>>> etc. Like any other group.
>>>>
>>>> I'd recommend taking a class at the local community college, if you
>>>> get the chance. That's what put me "over the top" with Linux. If you
>>>> come back to Albuquerque, I'd recommend that you take Linux
>>>> Essentials (CIS 1680) at CNM, and get a copy of _Unix Made Easy_ --
>>>> Dave Clauss was my instructor there, and helped me out a lot.
>>>>
>>> Well, I'm back in XP. My adventure in linux gave me a jaundiced view
>>> of the subject. I need to write, not tinker with the system.
>>
>> Tinkering has its own rewards. :)
>
> If it were an aircraft I'd be willing to tinker. I'd like a Harrier.
Start drinking Pepsi :)
>>>>>> Is this the Charles Lincoln that you're talking about here?
>>>>>> http://www.constitution.org/abus/cel/cel.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the case that Roland cites Lincoln as being involved with --
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._Lago_Vista
>>>>>
>>>>> Lincoln takes credit for this case but he was not the attorney of
>>>>> record. Ultimately the case went to the US Supreme Court, and was
>>>>> decided in favor of the police. We all lost a piece of freedom
>>>>> thanks to Atwater v. Lago Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I recall, a cop stopped a woman who was driving with her
>>>>> children, one of whom was not in a government approved
>>>>> transportation container. The offense is not one that involves
>>>>> jail time but the cop threw her in jail anyway, and she sued. The
>>>>> outcome was that anybody can be thrown in jail if accosted by a
>>>>> cop, whether the alleged offense is one you can only get a ticket
>>>>> for or not.
>>>>> Of course that was well before the spate of post-911 legislation,
>>>>> in which all our remaining rights evaporated...
>>>>
>>>> He's bragging about a case that ended up as a LOSS for Liberty?!
>>>
>>> Yep. One way or another his clients always lose.
>>> Huitzil Opotchle was supposedly worshipped as a war god but he really
>>> wasn't. He loved war because he regarded everyone who died in a
>>> battle as a sacrifice to himself. He liked lots of sacrifices.
>>
>> I'm thinking that there's a way to tie this into contemporary politics,
>> but Aztec mythology is a bit on the obscure side.
>
> It was a good thing I succeeded in snuffing Huitzil Opotchle. We don't
> need another instigator of wars, battles and death squads.
>
> Charles was a good avatar. Lawsuits and conspiracies are really battles
> with winners and victims. Everybody connected to Charles suffers. Look
> what has happened to Jon: he lent Charles a substantial sum of money,
> which he will never get back. He introduced Charles to all his friends,
> including people who owned real estate and got "help" from Charles with
> their legal problems. Jon has taken massive social damage from the
> association. I am just a small part of it.
What about offering Jon to help him recover from his association from
Charles?
> I am concerned about political trends, to put it mildly. The prospect
> of officially sanctioned death squads inside the USA is disturbing. It
> looks like the feds are about to undertake a no-holds-barred war against
> dissent.
We've been living with that prospect since the 1950's when Hoover
turned the FBI into a White House dirty tricks squad. Then came
COINTELPRO in the late 1960s. I remember reading an article back around
2003 that the Bush Administration was thinking about giving Mossad
sanction to conduct hits in the States.
> Peyton's claims to be penniless and miserable are undoubtedly true.
> Charles only gives him money when he is useful in a current enterprise.
> From the association Peyton has acquired the belief that the way to make
> money is to file legal papers against someone who owns real estate.
> Eventually that will land him in jail, where a bad fate is waiting for him.
Sounds like he set the stage for this himself by signing on with Charles.
>>>>>> Here's the Google search I just ran on Lincoln --
>>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Charles+Lincoln%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that Lincoln put up a rather lengthy blog posting about
>>>>>> you and Roland. It actually HURTS to read this rambling pile of
>>>>>> BS, especially considering that good bits of it are in ALL-CAPS.
>>>>>> He definitely needs to learn to use the <Shift> key, if anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's BS, all right. You sould see his emails. They are ineffably
>>>>> loathsome. The petition Peyton filed is more of the same. I have
>>>>> an electronic file of it if you are interested. He sounds deranged.
>>>>> If my psi is working, Jon read the new lawsuit last Thursday
>>>>> evening. However he told me he never received a copy so I had UPS
>>>>> scan and send one. He got it yesterday but there has been no
>>>>> reply. Odd.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you have to go to UPS to scan it?
>>>
>>> My scanner wasn't working and I was in a hurry. I think it is
>>> functional now, though. The local UPS shop is nearby and a miracle
>>> of efficiency.
>>
>> At the local UPS Store here, it's usually manned by the manager. Last
>> time I was there, it was just him, no other customers, and he was
>> sitting there twiddling his thumbs or whatever. And all he's got is
>> standard photocopiers -- no scanners, no computers. When I need to do
>> something like that and can't do it at home or at CNM in the computer
>> lab, I go to Kinko's -- haven't gone wrong there yet. :)
>
> Our UPS shop is probably the best run business in the county. They have
> everything and they do everything; they are fast and friendly and their
> services are inexpensive.
The downside of franchising? The UPS Store by me used to be a Mail Boxes
Etc. franchise, and the owner switched it over when UPS bought out
Mail Boxes.
> They include extras. On a cold, miserable day last December I had to
> send some certified mail so I waited in line in the packed office. It
> was about lunchtime. The whole shop was pervaded with a wonderful aroma
> of delicious Italian food. To my knowledge the local Italian
> restaurants don't make anything that smells that good. When it was my
> turn at the counter I asked where they had gotten it. The girl
> blushed. "We made it ourselves. We knew we wouldn't have time to take
> lunch."
>
> I came back when they were less busy and the woman who had made it gave
> me the recipe. It sounds simple but you have to be a good cook to make
> it work in a crockpot. I'm still working on it. Nevertheless, just
> remembering that wonderful smell, on that day when I felt so cold,
> hungry and harassed, makes me happy.
I haven't seen anything like that yet in Albuquerque. It must be a
small town thing.
> The town has its good moments. For one thing, it is small enough that I
> may be able to get some action out of the DA. I don't need it for my
> lawsuit, but the perps just keep filing papers forever. They will be
> part of my life until the law does something about it.
>
>>>> If it's already on your hard drive (Word file?), just email it to
>>>> him with the return-receipt-requested feature activated so you get a
>>>> notice back when he opens the message.
>>>
>>> The receipt is voluntary; he gets a choice about whether to send it.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cy6c5e
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/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/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found links to three motions you filed in this --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plaintiff: Shelley Thomson; Defendant: Charles Edward Lincoln,
>>>>>> Peyton Yates Freiman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-5:2008cv00105/case_id-281762/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-5:2008mc00105/case_id-284912/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-5:2008cv00105/case_id-287085/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These appear to be related to Charles' effort to remove the case to
>>>>> federal court. He removed it once and it was promptly remanded
>>>>> (sent back to district court). Then Peyton filed a notice of
>>>>> removal, but never actually removed the case; this tactic bought
>>>>> them 7 months.
>>>>> When I discovered what they had done I filed a Notice of a Fraud
>>>>> Upon the Court. They probably don't know it is in the file. The
>>>>> local judge will be annoyed.
>>>>> Since Peyton dissed the local court in his petition, I'm going to
>>>>> see if there is a way I can file it here. Maybe as an exhibit.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like fun.
>>>
>>> I have to prepare interrogatories. Since Peyton has copped to filing
>>> the fraudulent lien in a sworn document--the petition--I am going to
>>> see if I can word an interrogatory so he admits to extortion as
>>> well. Good chance he'll admit that too since he thinks he is immune
>>> to prosecution.
>>
>> Sounds like perjury.
>
> The problem with the lien is that in Texas you cannot legally lien real
> estate for the kinds of expenses he claims. The lien is fraudulent for
> reasons that have nothing to do with the merit of his claims (which are
> also fraudulent). In Texas it is a criminal offense to cloud the title
> of real estate with a fraudulent lien and refuse to remove it. There is
> also an ex parte legal procedure you can use to have a judge review the
> purported lien document and determine whether it actually creates a
> lien. I did this and the judge found that the purported lien document
> did not really create a lien.
>
> This guy has been served with a demand letter four (4) times. Each time
> he was given a copy of the section of the criminal code that makes
> filing a fraudulent lien a crime.
>
> The DA wants him served a fifth time, this time with a copy of the
> judicial determination that the purported lien is invalid. If he
> doesn't take it off then, prosecution can take place.
Sounds like the DA wants other people (in this case, you) to do his
legwork for him.
> (After which this little weasel will stand up in front of the judge,
> neatly dressed and barbered, and give the same speech Charles gave. All
> perps know it by heart. And the judge will release him on probation,
> because the prisons are only for political prisoners and people caught
> with forbidden substances.)
>
> Since I sued him I can issue interrogatories, questions which he is
> required to answer. One will be whether that is his signature on the
> purported lien. He has to say yes to that because he bragged about it
> in the petition for the lawsuit he just filed against me and Jon. I am
> working on another which will conform to the legal definition of
> extortion. He'll probably say yes to that too.
This looks even better for your case.
>>> Well, I have news for him. Charles is connected but I don't think
>>> Peyton is. One of the mysteries about Charles was what he did with
>>> the vast sums he extorted from people. Recently I discovered that
>>> there is a branch of the same criminal network associated with Bernie
>>> Madoff, not only in this county but in the very next town. Obviously
>>> Charles is having to split with his silent partners in return for
>>> protection.
>>> Peyton doesn't have any money because Charles keeps it all for
>>> himself except the very minimum necessary to keep Peyton alive. The
>>> protection logically ends with Charles.
>>
>> Seems to me that the weak point in your opposition would be Peyton --
>> get him out of the picture and Charles is up the creek minus a paddle.
>
> Peyton is the weak link, all right, but Charles has protection. He has
> committed white collar crimes--fraud, extortion, identity theft, mail
> fraud, wire fraud, the unauthorized practice of law--at a rate that
> staggers the imagination but no DA will touch him. The FBI, postal
> inspectors, FINCEN, the IRS won't take notice.
>
> If Peyton gets popped Charles will find another cute young fellow to
> take his place.
This sounds like more than a business relationship. :)
> I will try to get the local DA to go after Charles but I am not optimistic.
Mike Blessing
> Hi, Mike:
>
It doesn't even come close -- there was one on the [smith2004-discuss]
Topica list that started out under the subject line "Is everyone in
church or something?" and proceeded to branch out into at least ten
sub-threads over the next three months.
> Charles wants the files as leverage against Jon. He'll produce them
> when it serves his purpose. Until then he'll neither comply with court
> orders nor make appearances, so I should eventually be able to get a
> default against him.
Interesting.
He needs the files to make hay against Jon, but when he produces them,
you'll be able to nail him.
Sounds like he's like a pig in a poke.
Did I get the cliche right there?
>>>>>>>> Where you said that the Linux side didn't have a file-management
>>>>>>>> utility, "WTF" ain't the half of it -- what kind of operating
>>>>>>>> system doesn't have a file-management utility?! That just
>>>>>>>> doesn't make any sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was defective. When I asked Jon for help he advised me to
>>>>>>> join a linux users' group. Had I done that I wouldn't have had
>>>>>>> time to do anything else with my life. Perhaps that was the plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LUGs can be finicky things -- sometimes they meet on a regular
>>>>>> basis, and are a great help, like the one in ABQ that recently
>>>>>> (re)started. Other times they rarely meet, the people are
>>>>>> assholes, etc. Like any other group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd recommend taking a class at the local community college, if
>>>>>> you get the chance. That's what put me "over the top" with Linux.
>>>>>> If you come back to Albuquerque, I'd recommend that you take Linux
>>>>>> Essentials (CIS 1680) at CNM, and get a copy of _Unix Made Easy_
>>>>>> -- Dave Clauss was my instructor there, and helped me out a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm back in XP. My adventure in linux gave me a jaundiced
>>>>> view of the subject. I need to write, not tinker with the system.
>>>>
>>>> Tinkering has its own rewards. :)
>>>
>>> If it were an aircraft I'd be willing to tinker. I'd like a Harrier.
>>
>> Start drinking Pepsi :)
>
> Why? I like airplanes. When you finish tinkering you can go
> somewhere. Travel by computer is not as satisfying.
Remember the "collect enough Pepsi points and get a Harrier" advert? :)
> I have offered. He can't hear me. He is too confused.
He's probably swamped with his own problems right now.
Give it a month and contact him again, maybe through a third party?
> Yes.
That figures.
>>> (After which this little weasel will stand up in front of the judge,
>>> neatly dressed and barbered, and give the same speech Charles gave.
>>> All perps know it by heart. And the judge will release him on
>>> probation, because the prisons are only for political prisoners and
>>> people caught with forbidden substances.)
>>>
>>> Since I sued him I can issue interrogatories, questions which he is
>>> required to answer. One will be whether that is his signature on the
>>> purported lien. He has to say yes to that because he bragged about
>>> it in the petition for the lawsuit he just filed against me and Jon.
>>> I am working on another which will conform to the legal definition of
>>> extortion. He'll probably say yes to that too.
>>
>> This looks even better for your case.
>
> The DA could get him to turn on Charles. I doubt the DA will go that
> far, but it would be nice if he did.
The DA sounds like a typical state employee, feathering his own nest at
public expense and by using his connections while using the system to
nail the people he doesn't like.
Seems to me that Lincoln hasn't gotten personal with the DA, and that's
why the DA leaves him alone.
>>>>> Well, I have news for him. Charles is connected but I don't think
>>>>> Peyton is. One of the mysteries about Charles was what he did with
>>>>> the vast sums he extorted from people. Recently I discovered that
>>>>> there is a branch of the same criminal network associated with
>>>>> Bernie Madoff, not only in this county but in the very next town.
>>>>> Obviously Charles is having to split with his silent partners in
>>>>> return for protection.
>>>>> Peyton doesn't have any money because Charles keeps it all for
>>>>> himself except the very minimum necessary to keep Peyton alive.
>>>>> The protection logically ends with Charles.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that the weak point in your opposition would be Peyton --
>>>> get him out of the picture and Charles is up the creek minus a paddle.
>>>
>>> Peyton is the weak link, all right, but Charles has protection. He
>>> has committed white collar crimes--fraud, extortion, identity theft,
>>> mail fraud, wire fraud, the unauthorized practice of law--at a rate
>>> that staggers the imagination but no DA will touch him. The FBI,
>>> postal inspectors, FINCEN, the IRS won't take notice.
>>> If Peyton gets popped Charles will find another cute young fellow to
>>> take his place.
>>
>> This sounds like more than a business relationship. :)
>>
> I am trying not to think about it.
Maybe suggest to Peyton that he get used to soap on a rope . . . ?