Federal Information News Syndicate - SunSITE@UTK

FINSFederal Information News SyndicateCommunicating the emerging philosophy of the Global Information-AgeTuesday January 3, 2007 (Updated Monday April 16, 2007)110 TH CONGRESSLetter to the ChairmanTwo Disasters of the Doctrines of InjusticeI. Wired but Disconnected E-culture,II. Courts of RobberyHon. John Conyers, Jr., ChairmanJudiciary CommitteeU.S. House of Representatives2138 Rayburn HOBWashington, DC 20515From Vigdor Schreibman 11 Mr. Schreibman is a Knowledge Management writer. From 1993 to the present he has also beenWebmaster of numerous top-ranked Websites: GOOGLE: FINS GLOBAL INFORMATION AGELIBRARY; FINS World News; Lovers of Democracy; Democratic Sustainability; and Doctrines of Injustice.and Forthcoming: New Agora: New Geometry of Languaging And New Technology of Democracy: TheStructured Design Dialogue Process By Vigdor Schreibman and Alexander N. Christakis, in InternationalJournal of Applied Systemic Studies (IJASS) http://www.inderscience.com/ijass.; online in FINS at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/NewAgora.htm. From 1960 to 1979, he was the CEO andcontrolling stockholder of various corporations engaged in development of Las Colinas Properties, a 783-cuerda oceanfront estate located on the East Coast of Puerto Rico. The Controversy Over Las ColinasProperties has persisted for more than forty years, and continues.

The real voyage of discovery consistsnot in seeking new landscapes,but in having new eyes.--Marcel ProustIntroductionIf Americans can agree that the promise of democracy remains the vital core of theirnormative plan for existence, we should be able to agree that in order for the people torule, and in order to “form a more perfect Union,” a Technology of Democracy is needed.In Part I of this Letter to the Chairman, I lay out the paradox of our electronically wiredsociety that is spiritually disconnected and compelling arguments for the Technology ofDemocracy. In Part II, I describe the most critical aspects of The Controversy Over LasColinas Properties, which has persisted during the past forty years, disclosing alarmingdistortions in the system of justice, Courts of Robbery, with a compelling need forReform of the Judiciary and Legal Systems. We may not be able to control the future butby following this frame – normative, strategic, and operational – we can design ourinstitutions and society toward evolutionary betterment.I.Wired but Disconnected E-culture1. As many are likely aware, we were forewarned about the threat of the recentvolcanic power shift arising from the technological transformation in the United Statesand throughout much of the world. Fred B. Wood, (formerly) Project Director of theOffice of Technology predicted this power shift. Wood observed in Congressionaltestimony, in 1993, and a subsequent phone interview with this writer, as follows:“(W)e are at a crossroads, beyond the point of no return," in which "avolcano is going to go off and 25-foot waves are going to crash onto theshore." This is the probable result, Wood stated, of the "inequities" thatare built into the structure of the emerging technological transformation,"in terms of expected changes in the structure of political power." 22. This shocking power shift runs parallel with the level of wealth inequality in theUnited States today, which is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s. The top 202 Federal Information News Syndicate (FINS), "A New Fight For Democracy in Cyberspace," Mar 14,1994 (discussing testimony of Fred B. Wood, OTA, Project Director, hearing of Senate Sub. on Regulationand Government Information, Dec 2, 1993). http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/News_Columns/Fins-NC2-06.txt.

percent of income groups own more than 80% of all wealth. The richest 10 percent offamilies own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of allfinancial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. The bottom 20 percent basically haszero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. 33. Viewed along a trend line from democratic enlightenment to fascist inequity, theUnited States is manifestly moving rapidly toward a goal far from the blood-soakedpromise of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” made by PresidentLincoln at Gettysburg. This trend follows the design of Universal Internet, ubiquitousbut based on superficiality. These systems conform to "Internet time" that requires "fast,cryptic, communications among strangers" but they remain as Harvard UniversityProfessor of Business Administration, Rosabeth Kanter, has observed, without the time orability "to interpret subtleties or build a deep relationship based on intimate knowledge." 44. In an article on “Eternal Fascism” Umberto Eco, observes different forms ofdictatorship commonly use superficial communications: "All the Nazi or Fascistschoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in orderto limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning." 55. Now comes Paul Hawken, author of a forthcoming book and feature lengthdocumentary film, Blessed Unrest, which is about sustainable civil society. 6 He suggeststhe e-culture is shaped by global Internet connectivity involving organizations workingon social justice, ecological and indigenous issues estimated to exceed one millionworldwide and involving direct participation by over 100 million individuals. 7Unfortunately, like the first promises of television broadcasting that quickly degenerated3 See e.g., The Wealth Divide: The Growing Gap in the United States Between the Rich and the Rest, Aninterview with Edward Wolff, Multinational Monitor. May 2003.http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/Wealth_Divide.html ;Martin Wolf: A New Gilded Age. April 2006.http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/04/martin_wolf_a_n.html4 R. Moss Kanter, Evolve! (2001).5 Umberto Eco: “Eternal Fascism” in The New York Review of Books 12, 15 (June 22, 1995).6 I am grateful to my colleague Peter H. Jones, Ph.D., for bringing to my attention this forthcoming bookand criticism of the theory that motivates the same.7 Remarks of Paul Hawken, in Natural Capital Institute, forthcoming book Blessed Unrest (Earth Day2007). http://www.naturalcapital.org/Projects.html..

into a "vast wasteland" as characterized by former FCC Chairman, Newton Minow, in1961, 8 the first promises of the National Information Infrastructure, of a platform forresurgent democracy, were gross metaphorical distortions, or simply unfulfilled.6. Global Internet connectivity remains without the norms and network standardsnecessary to realize the original purpose that was expected to “dramatically enhance theability to collaborate among members of the research and education community.” 9 Mr.Hawken’s book and documentary about sustainable civil society,will explore the history and nature of what Hawken believes, is the biggestmovement in the history of humanity, its rate of growth, and why this unnamedmovement is largely unrecognized, even by itself. … It is a vast coalescence oforganizations with no center, codified beliefs, or charismatic leader. Rather thanseeking dominance, it strives to disperse concentrations of power. Knowing itsweakness, it creates innovative tactics to leverage itself. Rather than control, it seeksconnection. The movement can’t be divided because it is splintered and atomized,“small pieces, loosely joined.” Large as it is, no one knows its size, especially those inpower. It brings down governments, companies, and leaders through witnessing,informing, and massing. It provides hope, support, and meaning to billions ofpeople in the world. Its clout resides in its ideas, not in force. Think of the biggestmovements in the history of humankind, and then multiply by a thousand.7. This sketch might make a great comedy but Mr. Hawken is not fooling around, itappears. His description of the significance of Internet movements, in their presentstructure, is largely illusory given the history of Internet. What we have seen is not theinfluence of enlightened ideas but a return to barbarity amid right-wing economic andpolitical machinations leading to a massive technological shift in the structure of powerwith a virtual lockout of civic engagement in the US Congress, as I have reportedearlier. 10 Without social structures that can encourage and facilitate meaningful civicdialogue, technological innovation will most likely insure an ill-designed, capitalist e-culture based on “Technopoly” 11 without “questioning or morale grounding.” 128 G. ROBINSON, E. GELLHORN, H. BRUFF, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 278 (2d ed. 1980).9 Purpose of the NREN Program, summarized in The National Research and Education Network Program,A Report to Congress, December 1992, submitted by D. Allan Bromley, Director Office of Science andTechnology Policy, Executive Office of the President.10 V. Schreibman, A Balance of Corporate Interests, in FINS June 19, 1995, online at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/News_Columns/Fins-NC3-12.txt ; V. Schreibman, The Politics of Cyberspace,in Journal of Government Information, Vol. 21. No. 3, pp. 249-280 1994.11 N. Postman,Technopoly (1992).12 N. Fitzpatrick, Book Review, Technoloply, online at URL:http://students.whitman.edu/~fitzpant/bookreport.html

8. The “splintered and atomized” civic movement described by Mr. Hawken is asymptom of the lack of shared ideas that meet the test of democratic sustainabilitydescribed in The Transformative Paradigm that guides the LOVERS OF DEMOCRACYenterprise. http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/#TTP. Under such conditionsthe traditional way to counter the power of organized money is with “organized andoutraged people” 13 who turned the tide of American politics in 2006.9. We must be encouraged by the peaceful engagement of citizens, regardless of theirstyle of association. However, 21 st century democracy can’t prosper trapped in anarchaic style of political organization based on “crowd politics” that relies on emotionalappeals or demagogic leadership, with the main channels of political discourse capturedin distorted electronic connectivity without an effective civic architecture and withoutshared understanding or genuine social bonds. This situation has produced a LonelyNation and a pathetic, existential state of mind of America. 1410. Collective wisdom generated through a Structured Design Dialogue Process(SDDP), http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/WISDOM.ppt, is the essentialbasis of the most creative form of political power sharing in state-of-the-art democracy.11. Mr. Hawken expresses particular satisfaction that the Internet movement is notdirected, nor is it disciplined in any way, free as a bird. This is a throwback to theexistential state of human beings at the start of the Holocene period, following the lastmajor glacial epoch and the rise of all civilizations, when hunter-gatherers began to leavetheir nomadic egalitarian existence and accept the benefits, conflicts, and hierarchy ofhuman settlements. It is important to recognize the valuable lessons of that major periodof human history, which embraced “the most stable social system yet invented by humanbeings” but it is impossible to return to the hunter-gatherer style of social organization. 1513 Bill Moyers, veteran television journalist for PBS, “Lincoln Weeps,” in Common Dreams.Org, Oct 3,2006, online at URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1003-30.htm.14 The Global Noosphere, online at URL: http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/Noosphere.htm15 I am grateful for the contribution on this topic of Professor Jacqueline Howell Wasilewski, Ph.D., whoteaches about intercultural communication in the Department of Communication and Linguistics, in theGraduate School of Public Administration, International Christian University at Tokyo, Japan

12. We are not told how this libertarian dream, without direction or discipline, willsupport the preeminent goal of American democracy, the “pursuit of a more perfectUnion.” Indeed, the lack of democratic union produced by 100 million individuals thatconstitute this unknown and unseen civic movement referred to by Mr. Hawken, seems tothis writer like a function, in significant part, of the paralysis of libertarian civic activists,who are unable or unwilling to learn how to share real power with the multitudes.13. Instead of fantasizing about unknown and unseen global movements thatunderscore the continuing cycle of failure of progressive democratic politics, 16 what isneeded to rescue democracy from its failures is meaningful dialogue and the structures,norms, and networks that can support genuine engagement of the multitudes in thetransformative paradigm. 17 . Professor Howell Wasilewski, sent me this positive vision: 18Participation in decision-making is the key to democratic decision-making. We donot all have to participate in every decision made, but we have to be able toparticipate in the decisions that affect us, our families and our various communitiesof belonging. What has to emerge is a dynamic, multi-centered and interlinkedsystem … not isolated circles but overlapping circles, like the interlinked circles in aPlains Indian hoop dance … where each of the interlinked hoops represent adifferent created realm … the Two Leggeds, the Four Leggeds, the SwimmingPeople, etc.What enables the system to interlink is dialogue … the creation of mutual meaningthrough words. Unfortunately, no existing parliamentary or congressionalgovernance structure is capable of adequately representing the world’s diversity, sowe have to use our imaginations to create new dynamic forms of governance whichmore adequately allow the true aggregation of opinion/meaning in our world, plusfigure out a way to include, paradoxically, the voices of those and things that haveno voice … the natural environment, children, the challenged.14. In contrast with this positive vision an e-culture that is limited to superficialitycannot survive the ill-structured complexities it promotes, without having the capacity torise above the limited concerns of strangers to contemplate the needs of communities thatgive life to the medium. Instead, telecommunications in virtual space can work as amarvel of illusion spinning powerful virtual images that are largely indistinguishable to16 Moving from Tyranny to Democracy Right Now! By Vigdor Schreibman, in FINS, Sept. 2002 (asamended), online at URL: http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/DemocracyRightNow!/Fins-DRN-05.htm.17 Lovers of Democracy, The Transformative Paradigm, online at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/#TTP.18 Professor Howell, infra, note 15, e-mail message sent to V. Schreibman, Sunday, Dec 31, 2006.

viewers from real images concerning the sensitive relationships involving men andwomen, rich and poor, markets and nature, political advocacy and political action.15. Deprived of the capacity to examine deeper, more complex attributes of humanrelationships those virtual images can pose significant risks, particularly, in anenvironment in which "infectious greed seem[s] to grip much of our businesscommunity" as confirmed by Alan Greenspan, (former) Chairman of the Federal ReserveSystem. 1916. More than thirty centuries have passed since publication of The Iliad, by Homer,placed before humankind a fleeting vision of the democratic assembly. We have said,“The people must rule.” We now again ask, “How are they to rule?” Local and globalcivilizations that are truly democratic may appear in the world out of the resultingwisdom of the multitudes, only when everyone everywhere have learned to exercise theirsovereign democratic powers in “a dynamic, multi-centered and interlinked system” of“overlapping circles” based on dialogue … the creation of mutual meaning throughwords. These are vital components of the New Technology of Democracy. “We thePeople” will, thereby, become "masters of the situation," 20 our own rulers.17. Is this the time for development of a real democracy or will we wander the Earthas warring nomads, sleepwalking through our own evolution, for another thirty centuries?18. Ancient political choices were slim, increasingly, choices have becomestupendous, and terribly threatening. Social Technologies first developed to help peoplefigure out whom they can and cannot trust beyond their immediate kin. This began withtribal identity and trading networks, language development, communications systems,and the rule of law. Then came the Greek Agora, birthplace of democracy, which yetcasts great spiritual wonder.19 Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report tothe Congress Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate July 16, 2002,also presented identical testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, on July 17, 2002, available online at URL:http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2002/july/testimony.htm.20 Charles E. Lindblom, The Market System 234 (2001).

19. Now comes our own 21 st century Internet, which has already splintered andfragmented the world, while opening a spectacular challenge for loving human relations,which is explored in New Agora: New Geometry of Languaging And New Technology ofDemocracy: The Structured Design Dialogue Process By Vigdor Schreibman andAlexander N. Christakis, in International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies (IJASS), inFINS online at URL: http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/NewAgora.htm.20. Meanwhile, the bust of the 1990s capitalist bubble buildup brought a stunningnew literature of capitalist horror stories; 21 more horror stories described the robbery ofthe Office of the President of the United States, 22 and the Imperial Presidency of GeorgeW. Bush; 23 culminating in the history of Middle East Wars, a morally depraved style ofwar, "primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction ofdeath" 2421. These conditions have enfeebled the rule of law in the international sphere, just asthey have opened the dreadful path toward corrupt Courts of Robbery within the UnitedStates. In Part II, The Controversy Over Las Colinas Property is examined in detail asone major example of the breakdown of our democratic institutions.22. These conditions have also pierced the culture of denial about the attributes ofcapitalist decadence and the culture of corruption in the United States, so that carefulanalysis and social synthesis can begin. The first significant dividends from valid publicinformation and heightened public understanding realigned Congressional powers duringthe 2006, Mid-Term Elections, bringing your chairmanship of the House JudiciaryCommittee.21 See e.g., Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Roaring Nineties 302-303 (2003); Arianna Huffington, Pigs at theTrough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America (2003); Kevin Phillips,Wealth and Democracy (2002).22 Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, Preserving Democracy:What WentWrong in Ohio (Jan 5, 2005).23 Kevin Philips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush(2004); Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (2004)..24 Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilization (Knopf, October 2005).

There remains ... what only those who have experienced it for themselvescan feel in their hearts: "An unjust court is worse than brigandage."A.I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago Three 524 (1978).Without equal access to the law, the legal system not only robs the poor of their onlyprotection, but it places in the hands of their oppressors the most powerful and ruthlessweapon ever invented. The law itself becomes the means of extortion. R.H. Smith,Justice and Law (1919), reviewed by Conyers, Undermining Poverty Lawyers,in VERDICTS ON LAWYERS 129, 131 (R. Nader & M. Green eds. 1976).The Court of First Instance, of Fajardo, PR, where litigation is in progress over the titleright to Las Colinas Properties, “is as corrupt and dangerous as ‘the Sicilian Mafia.”Statement by Lt. Col. Eduardo Vargas-Dones, former US Naval Intelligence Officer, in asurprising encounter shortly after my claim for revendication of Las Colinas Propertieswas presented to the Court of First Instance, of Fajardo, PR, June 2005.II.Courts of Robbery1. The illegitimacy of court doctrine andpopular hatred of lawyers at the birth of the nationturned the citizenry livid with rage into violentrebellion against the courts and electedgovernment, as exemplified in Shay's Rebellion. 25The threat of despotism in the Judiciary of theUnited States, arising from its original“irresponsible” structure, which remains the framefor Justice in America, in the early 21 st century,was of special concern to the leading statesmenduring the 19th century, including the firstDemocrat, Thomas Jefferson, 26 and the firstRepublican, Abraham Lincoln. 2725 Gary B. Nash, The Unknown American Revolution 401-402, 448 (2005).26 T. Jefferson, “Letters on Liberty and Power” online at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Periodicals_and_Newspapers/Fins-PaN-52.htm.27 A. Lincoln, First Inaugural, “On Judicial Supremacy” online at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Periodicals_and_Newspapers/Fins-PaN-51.htm.

2. It is now a condition largely beyond cavil, self-regulation under the Canons ofProfessional Ethics by lawyers and former lawyers, no matter how well intentionedsimply "cannot escape the economic, psychological, and political constraints of theirposition." 28 Each of the primary forms of regulation of the legal services marketplace --barriers to entry, legal ethics and disciplinary bodies, and the tort system --- "is seriouslyflawed as a means of protecting the public." 293. In a break with tradition, Congress has begun to consider an outside ethics panel toenforce rules of ethical conduct that members of the 110 th Congress believe are needed. 30Judiciary Power, on the other hand, is dependent for its distribution and organization, andthe modes of its exercise, “entirely upon the action of Congress.” 314. Judges and Lawyers have a recognized, direct conflict of interest between theirgroup and other groups such as nonlawyers, 32 which adversely impacts adjudication ofthe interdependent actions of citizens in their transactions with “big money.” TheControversy Over Las Colinas Properties, 33 which has persisted over the last forty years,provides an empirical basis for understanding the illegitimacy of the systems of justice,arising from that conflict of interest. This record confirms the failure of self-regulationand the compelling need for Congressional Reform of the Judiciary and Legal Systems.5. Throughout many court proceedings in Federal and Commonwealth Courtspertaining to The Controversy Over Las Colinas Properties, as reviewed below, Judgesand lawyers have violated the democratic principle of self-representation protected underthe common law, they have violated the antitrust laws with impunity, and they have,28 ACOSTA, BOOL REVIEW, HOW. L.J., Vol. 94:I (2002) (reviewing Stanford Law Professor, DeborahL. Rhode , In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession, 12 (2000)).29 ACOSTA, infra, note 28, 13.30Democrats Consider Outside Ethics Panel, The New York Times, online at URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/washington/13ethics.html?hp&ex=1166072400&en=dfde954d8fec2276&ei=5094&partner=homepage ; but see, The Constitution of the United States provides “Each Housemay determine the Rules of its Proceedings. U.S. CONST. Art. I, § 5, cl. 2.31 Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 401 (1973), reviewed in Constitutional Restraints Upon TheJudiciary, 97 th Cong. 1 st Sess. (1981); Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 321, 327 (1796).32 Merrick v. American Security & Trust Co., 107 F.2d 271, 272 (D.C. Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 308 U.S.625 (1940); Duke L.J., 649, 652 (1960) (discussing court action to “define and protect monopoly" withoutbeing "beneficial to society in order to justify its continuing existence.").33 V. Schreibman, The Controversy Over Las Colinas Properties, online at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Doctrines_Injustice/Fins-DI-03.htm.

obstinately disregarded the constitutional rights of the indigent corporate litigants, whichguarantee court access and due process. Judges and lawyers have, thereby, sought toexpand their own powers, favoring “Big Money” clients. The urgent need for reform ofthe Judiciary and Legal Professions is established upon that record, and is long overdue.IIA. ClaimsClaim 1. $4,000,000 Morttgage Deed6. Las Colinas Development Corporation acquired Las Colinas Properties consistingof 783-cuerdas pursuant to deed #176 executed before Notary Public Eduardo E.Franklin, Dec 6, 1972. This deed included consolidation of fincas: 2974, 2973, 2972,1808, 1925, 1826, 1838, 2394 of Fajardo, and finca 621 of Ceiba. The consolidation wasdemanded by the lender Walter E. Heller & Company, to make it possible to maximizethe value of collateral security provided by Las Colinas Properties for a $4,000,000mortgage loan agreement made on the same day between the developer and the lender. 347. The consolidation of Las Colinas Properties was a device used to get around strictprovisions of the Mortgage Law of Puerto Rico, 35 which as a matter of public policy,sought to conserve the capital of the country by requiring all mortgages to distribute theamount among the mortgaged properties instead of over-encumbering the mortgagedlands. The device risked a judgment of nullity as the lender well understood from pasttransactions with Las Colinas Properties. 36 In a surprising twist to this controversy,Property Registry Certification No. 956 dated 27/Oct/06, provided by plaintiffs’ lawyer,Lcda. Grace Monge-La Fosse, we learned the mortgage device did, indeed, fail!34 Banco Popular bought control of Heller prior to the time of this transaction, I was informed by a director,in a secret deal evidently intended to put Banco Popular in a position to exact revenge against the developerbecause of the successful outcome (for the developer) of the first Controversy over Las Colinas Propertiesspanning between 1964-1972, reported in Las Colinas, Inc. v. Mason, 377 F.2d 99 (1st Cir. 1967), afterfirst remand, sub nom, In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005 (1st Cir. 1970), after second remand, 453F.2d. 911 (1971), cert. denied, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Las Colinas, Inc. 405 U.S. 1067 (1972). .35 30 L.P.R.A. § 215 (1993) (under Mortgage Law of 1893).36 In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005 (1970), affirmed 453 F.2d 911 (1971), certiorari denied BancoPopular de Puerto Rico v. Las Colinas, Inc., 405 U.S. 1067 (1972); Galiñanes Hnos. V. Registrar, 65 P.R.R.541 (1946); Credito y Ahorro Ponceño v. Registrar, 30 P.R.R. 131 (1922); Ortiz v. Registrar, 16 P.R.R. 643(1910).

8. Rio Demajagua divides Las Colinas Properties in 2 parts from East to West. Sincethe lands located in the North and South parts divided by Rio Demajagua (green channelbelow) are not contiguous, they could not be consolidated. 37 The Registrar, therefore,inscribed the property as 2 fincas: finca #8334 of Fajardo, and finca #2892 biz of Ceiba.The consolidated farm was later subdivided by Las Colinas Development Corporation, asshown below in the General Properties Plan, pursuant to Deed #46, authorized beforeNotary Public Noel Zamot, Nov 29, 1974, in which 58 parcels were segregated fromfinca #8334, of Fajardo and 30 parcels were segregated from finca #2892 biz of Ceiba.9. The amount of the $4,000,000 mortgage was made to encumber only oneconsolidated farm. Failure to divide the amount of the mortgage between the two farmsthat were actually recorded was a fatal defect resulting in a mortgage void ab inito 3837 30 L.P.R.A. § 919, subsection fourth on adjoining farms (Mortgage Regulation of 1893).38 See authorites cited, infra, note 36.

10 Faced with this fatally defective deed of mortgage the lender evidently sought tocover up or hide evidence of the same. Lands located South of Rio Demajagua wereassigned the obscure finca number 2892 biz; and mysteriously, the first page of theRegistry in which the 1 st inscription of the property was recorded, was removed from theRegistry book! The Registry of Property as provided in such cases did not restore themissing entries. 39 A search by Lcda. Monge of subsequent entries in the Registry ofProperty has revealed the facts about the fatally defective $4,000,000 mortgage.Claim 2. Foreclosure Action -- Jurisdiction11. Default judgment against Las Colinas Properties was entered in a foreclosureaction in the US District Court for Puerto Rico. Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Las ColinasDevelopment Corp., et al., Civil No. 77-1075 (Apr 26, May 9, 1978). Jurisdiction of theU.S. District Court in this foreclosure was predicated upon on a decision and order ofBankruptcy Judge, Aza Herzog, entered July 7, and Aug 2, 1977, respectively, In theMatter of Las Colinas Development Corp., B. 74-267, granting relief from automaticstay, under 11 U.S.C. Rule 44(d) (1976 ed.). This decision was based upon the inexistent$4,000,000 mortgage without any findings with regard to the nullity of the mortgage asnow disclosed by certification of the Registry of Property of the two recorded fincas.12. The court may, "for cause shown," lift the automatic stay under the oldBankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. Rule 44(d) (1976 ed.). Heller had the burden of proof "toshow irreparable damage" to their mortgage security interests would be caused bycontinuation of the stay, 40 or that a sale of the mortgaged property, "will not produce asurplus over and above the total amount of encumbrances and sales expenses so that abenefit may be expected for general creditors." 41 Similarly, a valid finding that thedebtor "has no equity" is required in any complaint for relief from stay under theBankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) (1978 ed.). 4239 30 L.P.R.A. § 1740 (1993).40 In re Dickey, 19 B.R. 489, 491 (S.D. Fl. 1982).41 Lance, Inc. v. Dewco Services, Inc. 422 F.2d 778, 783 (9 Cir. 1970).42 See e.g., In re Bialac, 712 F.2d 426, 432-433 (9 Cir. 1983); In re Kirby, 9 B.R. 901, 903 (Bkrtcy. E.D. Pa.1981); In re Brown, 27 B.R. 5, 6-7 (Bkrtcy. M.D. Pa. 1982); In re Camellia Court Apartments, Ltd., 117B.R. 316, 318 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Ohio, 1990).

13. The decision granting Heller relief from stay based on an inexistent $4,000,000mortgage obviously precluded any finding that Heller met its burden of proof to lift thestay. The order granting relief from stay without any such proof was a violation of theBankruptcy Act, void ab inito. 43 Consequently, the U.S. District Court foreclosure actionwas entirely without jurisdiction in violation of the Bankruptcy Act, void ab inito. 44Similarly, the U.S. District Court default judgment based on a mortgage that was anabsolute nullity was, itself, an absolute nullity. 45 An action to recover Las ColinasProperties may be filed at any time within the 30-year period of prescription after thedate when anyone acquired any part of Las Colinas Properties. 46Claim 3. Foreclosure Action – Public Notice14. An auction of Las Colinas Properties was carried out on Aug 16, 1978, pursuantto an Order of Sale of the US District Court, entered in Civil Case No. 77-1075, June 27,1978. Public notice of the auction under the mortgage regulations then in effect required,the names by which the properties are known, the names of the owners, the number ofcuerdas of land composing them and their value and the place where the title deeds are to befound, without mentioning the boundaries and the wards, in which they are situated. 4715. Public notice of the auction was published in "El Mundo" newspaper, with adescription of the original consolidated property of 783-cds, purchased in 1972. Nodescription was given in the public notice of the judicial sale, of any of those 88 parcelsand remnant, which were the actual subject of the auction. There were no public biddersat the auction, implicitly influenced by the limited market for the very large farmdescribed in the public notice. Heller failed, thereby, to provide the required details"sufficient to give notice to any person interested in the purchase of the properties to besold." 4843 Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 438-40 (1940); see In re Costa, 172 B.R. 954, 962 n.10 (Bkrtcy. E.D.Cal 1994).44 Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. at 438-40.45 Atanacia Corp. v. J.M. Saldaña, Inc., 133 D.P.R. 284, 305 (1993). (30-year prescriptive term).46 31 L.P.R.A. § 5293; Perez-Cruz v. Estate of Fernandez-Martinez, 645 F.Supp. 1253, 1258-1259 (D.PuertoRico 1986).47 30 L.P.R.A. § 1093 (1967) (corresponding to 30 L.P.R.A. 2720 (1993)), Henna v, Saurí & Subirá, 22P.R.R. 776, 789-790 (1915).48 Cf. Henna v, Saurí & Subirá, 22 P.R.R. at 789-790.

16. Reference was made in the public notice to title descriptions contained in thecourt record. However, it is the holding of state and federal courts of this country,including decisions of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, that valid notice for a judicialsale of property, "must describe with reasonable certainty the lands to be sold." Adescription of the property in the public notice, "is not sufficient" when it requirespersons who desire to purchase, to ascertain the situation "by inquiry." 49Claim 4. Foreclosure Action – Doublespeak17. Heller and their attorneys pursued foreclosure of an inexistent $4,000,000mortgage spread across the inexistent consolidated Las Colinas Properties constituted byDeed #176 of Eduardo E. Franklin. This conduct was unconscionable, giving preferenceto Heller and Banco Popular while wrecking the investments and lives all other interests.18. Heller also relied on the changes in Las Colinas Properties, segregating 88parcels from the original consolidated farm, for the auction of those separate parcels, asprovided by the US District Court Order of Sale. Heller paid the lawyer's fee forpreparation of Deed #46 of Noel Zamot, and Heller paid the filing fee required by theRegistry of Property for inscription of the 88 segregated parcels. Presumably, Hellersought and paid for the "Individualization of Property" provided by Deed #46, as a meansof enlarging the marketability of Las Colinas Properties and, thereby, strengthening theliquidity of their security interests.19. At the same time, Heller successfully arranged for the cooperation both of Aza S.Herzog, specially appointed Bankruptcy Judge of the US Bankruptcy Court for PuertoRico, and José V. Toledo, Chief US District Judge of the US District Court for PuertoRico, to entirely disregard the radically changed lotification of the consolidated property,and the presumably changed marketability of 88 segregated parcels. Without takingthose radical changes into consideration in court findings, the appraisal of the debtor's49 Thompson v. Auditor General, 247 N.W. 360 (Mich. 1930), following Ronkendorff v. Taylor's Lessee,29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 349, 362 (1830); Concepción Dapena Quiñones v. Providencia Urrutia Vda. de Del Valle,109 D.P.R. 138, 141-142 (1979) (holding that a mere implicit description in the public notice is a deficientdescription. This is a "fundamental defect" that is "inextricably linked to the due process of law" which"take[s] away from the judicial validity of the public notice.").

property for purposes of obtaining relief from stay, discussed in the preceding part, andthe public notice required for the judicial sale discussed in this part, were a sham.20. Ultimately, it may be said, this was the foreclosure doublespeak that produced thequadruple play on Las Colinas Properties by the United States Courts: an inexistentmortgage, a null order of relief from stay, null foreclosure action, and null judicial sale.In a judicial system finding its way back to the ideals of due process and equal protection,those judgments of doublespeak must lead to the final judgments of nullity, cancellationof all intervening property transfers, and revendication of Las Colinas Properties.IIB. Fundamental Interests21. When fundamental interests are at stake, 50 litigants have a due process right ofaccess to courts if litigation offers the only effective means, if not the exclusive means ofresolving the dispute at hand. 51 Once the state has made “access to courts an entitlementor necessity,” it must afford that access “unless the balance of state and private interestsfavors the government scheme.” 52 In the case now before the Commonwealth Courts,The Owners of Las Colinas Properties are codefendants brought into court, by summonsunder the Court’s “long-arm” jurisdiction, consequently, they are required to defend theirinterests in court as the exclusive dispute-settlement forum.22. The “property” component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clauseimposes “constitutional limitations upon the power of courts, even in aid of their ownvalid processes, to dismiss an action without affording a party the opportunity for ahearing on the merits of his cause.” 53 The court must also safeguard the right of thelitigants to equal protection before being deprived of their liberty or property interests,under the Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which prohibits50 Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 209-212 (1958) (corporate property); Goldberg v. Kelly,397 U.S. 254 (1970) (individual entitlements); Boddie v. Connectucut, 401 U.S. 371, 374-78 (1971)(marriage dissolution); Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (individual entitlement)..51 United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 445 (1972); Boddie v. Connectucut, 401 U.S. at 374-78.52 Logan v. Zimmerman Brush, 455 U.S. 422, 430 n.5 (1982).53 Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. at 209; Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 429.

discrimination against an indigent litigants because of their social origin or condition,social position or economic interest. 5423. The Owners of Las Colinas Properties have a fundamental interest in multiple,absolute failures of equal protection and due process in the Bankruptcy Courtproceedings for relief from stay and in the US District Court foreclosure action, whichdeprived them of their ocean-front property during the Second Controversy Over LasColinas Properties spanning the years 1974-1979. 55 These failures included the followinginter alias:A. The obstinate failure and refusal of the Bankruptcy Court proceedings for relieffrom stay and the United States District Court foreclosure proceedings torecognize the indigent debtor corporation’s fundamental constitutional right tofull and fair access to court protected by self-representation to prosecute theirfundamental interests;B. The lack of findings with regard to appraisal of the debtor corporation’s landholdings at the time of the hearing, which included 88 lots and remnants that weresegregated from the consolidated Las Colinas Properties, pursuant to Deed #46 ofNoel Zamot, which were the subject of the Bankruptcy Court demand for relieffrom stay and the US District Court foreclosure action;C. The inexistent $4,000,000.00 mortgage that was the subject of the BankruptcyCourt demand for relief from stay, and US District Court foreclosure action;D. The lack of adequate public notice of the debtor corporation’s land holdings,which included 88 lots and remnants that were segregated from the consolidatedLas Colinas Properties, pursuant to Deed #46 of Noel Zamot, which were thesubject of the US District Court judicial sale.54 1 L.P.R.A. Preamble, & Art. II, § 1. Molina v. U.R.H.C., 114 D.P.R. 295 (1983) (per curiam) (J. IrizarryYunque, and C.J. Trias Monge, concurring) 14 Official Translations of the Opinions of the Supreme Court382, 387, 397-402 ("Any classification based on [a person's poverty] should be regarded with suspicion andbe strictly scrutinized.").55 In re Las Colinas Development Corp., 12 COLLIER BANKR. CAS. 652 (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico 1977),appeal dismissed, 446 F.Supp. 141 (D. Puerto Rico 1978), aff'd, 585 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1978), cert. denied,Vigdor Schreibman and Las Colinas Development Corp. v. Walter E. Heller & Co., No. 78-5914 (1978),439 US 1063 (1979) (exception noted, "Mr. Justice Stewart would grant the motion".]).

24. The Owners of Las Colinas Properties also have a fundamental interest inprosecuting their grievances over the multiple failures of due process and equalprotection in proceedings in the Commonwealth Courts during the Third ControversyOver Las Colinas Properties spanning the years 2003—2007. 56 These failures include thefollowing inter alias:A. The concerted actions by lawyers, on behalf of their “Big Money” clients,supported by Court Officials, and Judges of the Commonwealth Courts, in anillegitimate use of the judicial process beyond the jurisdiction of the Court todefine and enforce the lawyers’ monopoly, to unlawfully prevent access to courtby The Owners of Las Colinas Properties, in violation of the Sherman Act, 57 thePuerto Rican antitrust law, 58 and 1 st and 5 th Amendments to the Constitution.B. The attempted coercion of the indigent litigants to contract for the services of alawyer despite the lack of funds to pay for such services, in an illegitimate use ofthe judicial process beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to define and enforce thelawyers’ monopoly, violated of the Sherman Act, 59 and the Puerto Rican antitrustlaw. 60C. Disregard for the fundamental constitutional rights of the indigent litigants to:(1) secure access to court without payment of court fees, (2) secure access tocourt, by self-representation, and (3) file their pleadings in court in Englishwithout Spanish translation.IIC. Access to CourtIssue 1. Indigency25. After loosing their property in the foreclosure action discussed previously, LasColinas Development Corporation was declared a bankrupt. Following finaldistributions, the bankruptcy case was closed in 1980. 61 The official court record in the56 Harold Santiago Martell, et al., v. Marina Las Gaviotas, et al, Civ. No. NSCI-2001-0378, Estado LibreAssociado de Puerto Rico, Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Fajardo, first set of pleadings byThe Owners of Las Colinas Properties transmitted by USPS June 6, 2005, and presented June 17, 2005.57 15 U.S.C.A. § 3 (1997).58 10 L.P.R.A. § 258 (1997)59 15 U.S.C.A. § 3 (1997).60 10 L.P.R.A. § 258 (1997)61 Certified copy of Order of the Bankruptcy Court closing the case.

Commonwealth Courts cited here, 62 shows the corporation has been inactive, entirelywithout assets, income, or money, since 1980, paralyzed by the illegitimate taking of alltheir real estate property. 63 Mr. Schreibman, personally, is without relevant assets orincome other than Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 6426. The Owners of Las Colinas Properties, desire to prosecute their petitions forredress of their grievances concerning Las Colinas Properties, 65 but they have beenunable due to their distressed financial circumstances and the complex nature of the lawsuit against powerful “Big Money” institutions to secure the services of a lawyer toprepare the case and prosecute their claims, after making reasonable effort to obtain suchrepresentation. 66 Accordingly, the Owners of Las Colinas Properties acting on their ownbehalf, presented to the Court of First Instance (CFI), on June 17, 2005, their verifiedand notarized pleadings for, inter alias:A. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 67B. Leave to proceed by self-representation; 68 andC. Leave to file their pleadings in the English language without Spanish languagetranslation. 6927. The CFI authorized the filing of this initial set of pleadings in the record of thecase without payment of any court fees required by 32 L.P.R.A. § 1476-1482, and issued62 Record Appendix cited in Harold Santiago Martell, et al. v. Marina Las Gaviotas, et al. Civ. No. NSCI-2001-0378, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, Tribunal Supremo, Caso CC-2006-055, Petition forWrit of Certiorary and Record Appendix, transmitted June 6, 2006, and delvered to the Court June 8, 2006.63 "Certificate of Resolution of Las Colinas Development Corporation," dated April 21, 2005, notarized onJune 3, 2005, record appendix Volume I, at pp. 06-07, and 10.64 Social Security Administration Notice of Change in Payment, Nov 27, 2005, and Nov 26, 2006.65 PROPOSED COMPLAINT OF LAS COLINAS PROPERTY OWNERS, notarized June 3, 2005, andpresented to the TPI June 17, 2005, Record appendix Volume I, at pp. 33-75.66 "Sworn Statement of Vigdor Schreibman of the Inability of Las Colinas Development Corp. to Securethe Services of a Lawyer," dated April 14, 2005, notarized on June 3, 2005, record appendix Volume I, atpp. 06-07, and 13-14.67 APPLICATION OF VIGDOR SCHREIBMAN TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, andAPPLICATION OF LAS COLINAS DEVELOPMENT CORP., TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,notarized June 3, 2005, and presented to the CFI June 17, 2005, Record appendix Volume I, at pp. 01, and02-05 (and attached documents).68 MOTION OF LAS COLINAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR INCOURT BY SELF-REPRESENTATION, notarized June 3, 2005, and presented to the CFI June 17, 2005,Record appendix Volume I, at pp. 06-08 (and attached documents),69 MOTION TO PROTECT THE OWNERS OF LAS COLINAS PROPERTIES AGAINST BURDENSOF LITIGATION IN A DISTANT FORUM, at Record appendix Volume I, at pp. 76-79.

an Order (as amended) scheduling a "status conference" for Dec 1, 2005, to discuss allmatters presented in the initial set of pleadings presented to the Court by The Owners ofLas Colinas Properties. Various motions, objections and defenses in opposition to theinitial set pleadings presented to the Court by The Owners of Las Colinas Properties werepresented to the Court by co-defendant developers and banks. The CFI issued more thana dozen Orders to include in the scheduled "status conference" for Dec 1, 2005, 70 allmatters presented in responses to the initial set of pleadings presented by The Owners ofLas Colinas Properties, 71 by codefendant developers and banks. 7228. In addition to concerted objections to corporate self-representation by lawyersrepresenting the codefendant banks and developers, 73 the opposition pleadings raisedissues such as a motion for nonresident bond, 74 and a motion for summary judgment. 75All of these pleadings required a response by The Owners of Las Colinas Properties.29. The initial set of responses of The Owners of Las Colinas Properties to the saidmotions, objections and defenses, were presented to the Court on August 8, 2005,including the following verified and notarized pleadings: 76A. REPORT AND PLEADING OF THE OWNERS OF LAS COLINAS PROPERTIES INRE: STATUS HEARING FOR AUGUST 22, 2005 (as amended to December 1, 2005). 7770 Copy of Court Orders notified 19 July 2005, record appendix volume III, at 01-03, as amended by CourtOrder notified 4 August 2005, appendix volume III, at 23-25.71 Court Orders, appendix volume III, at 03, 07.72 Copy of responses by co-defendant developers and banks is included in volume II. In all, there aretwenty-four (24) pleadings presented to the Court by the co-defendant developers and banks, and byplaintiff, between June 22, 2005 and January 24, 2006, which are listed in the online case docket. Twodocuments have never been received by The Owners of Las Colinas Properties: One document "Solicitudde Sentencia Sumaria" filed by Marina Las Gaviotas and Fajardo Farms by their representative, Lcdo. IvanGarau Diaz, was sent to the wrong address and we have never received a copy of the same complete withrecord appendix although we did received a copy of the pleading without appendix from Lcda. Monge onJanuary 26, 2006. Another document has never been received, "Mocion de Desestimacion" filed by MarinaLas Gaviotas and Fajardo Farms by their representative, Lcdo. Ivan Garau Diaz. Of the twenty-three (23)documents that were received by The Owners of Las Colinas Properties there were no notices of service toVigdor Schreibman for ten (10) pleadings.73 Court Orders, record appendix volume III, at 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, and 43.74 SOLICITUD DE FIANZA DE NO RESIDENTE ..., appendix volume II, at 19-22, presented July 19,2005, by Lcdo. Garau Diaz, representative of Marina Las Gaviotas Corp., and Fajardo Farms Corp.appendix volume.75 SOLICITUDE DE SENTENCIA SUMARIA PENDIENTE, appendix volume II, at 80-111, presented 29December 2005, by Lcdo. Garau Diaz, representative of Marina Las Gaviotas Corp., and Fajardo FarmsCorp..76 Copy of initial responses of The Owners of Las Colinas Properties are included in volume IV.77 Record appendix Volume IV, at pp. 03, 04-14.

B. MOTION OF THE OWNERS OF LAS COLINAS PROPERTIES IN OPPOSITIONTO APPLICATION FOR SECURITY BOND. 78C. OPPOSITION OF THE OWNERS OF LAS COLINAS PROPERTIES TO MOTIONFOR ORDER TO LAS COLINAS DEVELOPMENT AND MR. VIGDORSCHREIBMAN TO CONTRACT LEGAL REPRESENTATION. 7930. However, on Aug 9, 2005, Deputy Clerk of the Court, Lillian L. GarciaVillanueva rejected the three responsive pleadings presented to the Court on Aug 8, 2005,explaining that this action was taken because of Mr. Schreibman's failure to pay the filingfee of $40.00 for the first appearance and $1.00 for each subsequent motion. 80 The "statusconference" with regard to those matters was held Dec 1, 2005, without consideration ofthe essential responsive pleadings presented to the CFI by The Owners of Las ColinasProperties and without Mr. Schreibman who declined to appear in Court while hisresponsive pleadings were lockout out by illegitimate actions of the Court Clerks.31. The CFI issued a "M I N U T A" with regard to the said "status conference"notified to The Owners of Las Colinas Properties on Jan 31, 2006 (after correcting anotice inadvertently sent Jan 12, 2006 to the wrong address). 81 Various Court Orderswere included in the said "M I N U T A" including inter alias: (A) an order that Mr.Schreibman must appear in court at the next hearing at a date undetermined, to discusshis own representation; and (B) a conclusory order written in the English language "underlocal law pro se rights do not benefit corporations." 82 These orders entirely disregard theconstitutional claims of The Owners of Las Colinas Properties, and disregard the criticalcircumstances of the case that provide a basis for application of their constitutional rights,78 Record appendix Volume IV, at pp. 03, 15-17.79 Record appendix Volume IV, at pp. 03, 18-20.80 Memorandum from Deputy Clerk of the Court, Lillian L. Garcia Villanueva, dated 9 August 2005,Record appendix volume IV, at pp. 01-02.81 A true copy of this document is included in the record appendix Volume III, at pp. 48-51.82 Id.; In the same "M I N U T A" the court ordered the representative of Citibank, Lcdo. AntonioHernández, to prepare a draft resolution "relacianado a por qué una persona natural no puede representaruna corporación" but no such resolution has ever been issued and notified. The Court's Order, nevertheless,precludes the appearance of the corporation by its duly appointed nonlawyer representative disregarding itsmeritorious claims.

as mandated by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico and the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates. 8332. A response of The Owners of Las Colinas Properties to the "M I N U T A" of the"status conference" was presented to the CFI on Jan 26, 2006, by letter together withattached pleading addressed directly to the presiding judge, Hon. Eduardo R. EstrellaMorales, with a plea that the Court Order the Clerk to file our pleadings in the record ofthe case without payment of court fees. 84 This request was also disregarded, and theDeputy Clerk of the Court, Mildred Burgos Robles, again rejected the pleading on Jan 27,2006, because of the failure to cancel $1.00 in Internal Revenue stamps, 85 which webelieve was clearly not payable.33. Under the Laws of Puerto Rican Annotated: 86“(A)ny person against whom an action is brought, if unable to pay the fees requiredby §§ 1476-1482 of this title, may file said affidavit, together with a copy of his/herreply to the complaint or any other pleading in said cause, with the court clerk whoshall immediately submit the same to the judge of said court, and if in the opinion ofsaid judge the defendant presents a meritorious plea then the defendant mustthereafter be entitled to the services of all officials, and the benefits of all writs andprocesses as if all the fees had been paid. But in any case the judge may requireadditional information as he/she may deem necessary whenever any party asks to beexempt from the payment of costs.”34. The statute authorizing IFP applications exempts any person against whom anaction is brought from payment of court fees because of their poverty, 32 L.P.R.A. §1482. The right of access to court without payment of a filing fee provided by the IFPstatute implements the provisions of the Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of PuertoRico prohibiting discrimination by reason of a person's poverty. 8783 Lizarribar v. Martinez Gelpi, 121 D.P.R. 770, 786 (1988); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)(applied to a married couple); Silver v. Cormier, 529 F.2d 161, 163 (10 Cir. 1976) (applied to abusinessman); Matter of N.C. Trading, 586 F.2d 221, 231, n.28 (1978) (applied to a corporation).84 A true copy of the letter to Hon. Eduardo R. Estrella Morales, dated January 20, 2006, is included in theRecord appendix volume V, at pp. 02-03.85 M E M O R A N D O, from Mildred Burgos Robles, Secretaria Auxiliar, dated 27 January 2006, Recordappendix Volume V, at p. 01.86 32 L.P.R.A. § 1482 (2004).87 See authorities cited, infra, note 54. .

35. Although the right of all persons of access to court is a fundamental constitutionalright under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 88 the right to anexemption of fees, expenses, and costs for poor litigants in civil cases has been grantedunder the 18 th century Constitution of the United States only in cases where a“fundamental human relationship” is somehow involved. 8936. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, in 1948, described the right to IFP status andexemption of filing fees for poor litigants, as a statutory “privilege” to be “strictlyinterpreted.” 90 However, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was established, in 1952,with a 20 th century Bill of Rights that opened a new chapter in the doctrine of EqualProtection in Puerto Rico. In a concurring opinion written three decades later by one ofthe delegates to the Constitutional Convention, the late Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt of Puerto Rico, José Trias Monge explained, “there can be no doubt that thedrafters of our Constitution thought it was basic that there be no discriminationagainst any person by reason of the person’s poverty.” 9137 Nevertheless, Equal Protection suffered a conservative blowback on Feb 2, 2007(one day prior to the initial release date of the instant Letter to the Chairman!), when theSupreme Court of Puerto Rico rejected the constitutional right to IFP status andexemption of filing fees for poor litigants, in an appellate proceeding, and instead,reaffirmed the IFP exemption as a statutory “privilege” to be “strictly” interpreted. 9238 It is true, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is not required by its Constitution toprovide appellate courts or a right to appellate review at all. However, when appellatereview is authorized by statute the application of this statutory right cannot discriminateagainst any person on account of their poverty. 93 Moreover, at the trial court level wherethe lockout in this case occurred, access to court to protect fundamental interests is a clear88 See authorities cited, infra, note 83.89 See authorities cited, infra, note 54, translation at p. 394.90 Camacho v. District Court, 67 P.R.R. 751, 754 (1947).91 See authorities cited, infra, note 54.92 Gran Vista I, Inc. v. Minerva Gutierrez Santiago, No. CC-2003-387, slip op. at 17 (PR 2 Feb 2007) (percuriam). 9293 See authorities cited, infra, note 54; and Cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18 (1956).

constitutional right, 94 certainly not a mere statutory “privilege” to be “strictlyinterpreted.” Any classification that limits the constitutional right of access to court basedon a person's poverty must be regarded “with suspicion and be strictly scrutinized." 9539 Under the Bill of Rights of Puerto Rico Equal Protection obviously must beapplied at both the trial and appellate levels.40. The inability of an individual to pay court fees must be based on “localconditions;” presumably, the indigent applicant’s place of residence 96 Mr. Schreibman isa resident of Washington, DC, in which local social policy fixed by statute, 97automatically authorizes in forma pauperis access to court upon an affidavit showing theapplicant is entitled to receive Supplemental Social Insurance. Jurisdiction of theCommonwealth Courts in this case, based on the “long-arm” statute, should recognize thesubstantive social policy of the District of Columbia with regard to IFP status, throughapplication of the forum’s choice-of-law rules. 98 Mr. Schreibman’s IFP affidavit verifieshis qualification to receive the SSI entitlement. His economic eligibility for IFP statusmust, therefore, be automatically approved. Las Colinas Development Corporation isdestitute. The IFP affidavits are unchallenged. Judges must accept unchallenged,credible affidavits, as true. These IFP applications raise no issue of economic eligibility.41. Las Colinas Development Corporation is “a person against whom an action hasbeen brought” under the IFP statute of Puerto Rico, where a "private corporation" isdefined as an "artificial person"; 99 a "transindividual entity" with its own "individuality"and "subjectivity" and “standing” gained directly from the law. 100 Such corporationshave a fundamental right of access to court, safeguarded by the principles of EqualProtection, 101 and Due Process of law. 102 . There is no statutory limitation on a corporate94 See authorities cited, infra, notes 50-53, and related discussion.95 See authorities cited, infra, note 54,96 Camacho v. District Court, 67 P.R.R. at 754.97 Cabillo v. Cabillo, 317 A.2d 866 (DC 1974), following Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971).98 Burger King Corp. v. Rodriguez, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985).99 31 L.P.R.A. § 101(2). .100 Rivera Maldonado v. E.L.A., 119 D.P.R. 745 (1987).101 See authorities cited, infra, note 54102 See authorities cited, infra, Part IIB, Fundamental Interests, at pp. 15-17.

entity in Puerto Rico that excludes in forma pauperis status. Las Colinas must, therefore,be granted IFP status by the CFI in Puerto Rico.42. When an IFP affidavit is sufficient on its face to demonstrate economic eligibility,"the court should first docket the case and then proceed to the question of whether theasserted claim is frivolous." 103 If the Court denies the IFP application it must "provide asufficient explanation for its determination on IFP status to allow for meaningfulreview." 10443. The lockout by the Deputy Clerks of the pleadings in response to objections byco-defendants and in response to the "M I N U T A" of the "status conference" gave nonotice of any defect or omission in the IFP applications. The CFI has never issued anyorder denying the applications to appear in forma pauperis, as required by localregulation. 105 .44. The action by Deputy Clerk Garcia Villanueva, Aug 9, 2005, to reject theresponse of The Owners of Las Colinas Properties to objections by the banks anddevelopers, 106 and the action by Deputy Clerk Burgos Robles, Jan 27, 2006, to reject theresponse of The Owners of Las Colinas Properties to the said "M I N U T A," of the"status conference" clearly violated the local statute authorizing proceedings in formapauperis. 107 There can be no classification precluding IFP status because of the litigants’poverty. Those acts clearly violated the applicants’ constitutional rights of access tocourt, Due Process, and Equal Protection. 108103 Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11 Cir. 2004).104 Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d at 1307; Camacho v. District Court, 67 P.R.R. 751, 753-754(1947); 4 L.P.R.A. Ap. II-B, Rule 18 (2002) (requiring the court in the event of denial of an IFP applicationto "expondrá por escrito las rezones para la denegatoria.") (accent in original); cited by the CA in theRESOLUTION in this case, record appendix Volume VI, at p. 67.105 4 L.P.R.A. Ap. II-B, Rule 18 (2002) (requiring the court in the event of denial of an IFP application to"expondrá por escrito las rezones para la denegatoria.") (accent in original); cited by the AC in theRESOLUTION in this case, record appendix Volume VI, at p. 67. Camacho v. District Court, 67 P.R.R. at753-754; Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11 Cir. 2004).106 Memorandum from Deputy Clerk of the Court, Lillian L. Garcia Villanueva, dated 9 August 2005,Record appendix volume IV, at pp. 01-02.107 32 L.P.R.A. §§ 1482 (2004).108 See authorities cited, infra, Part IIB, pp. 15-17, Fundamental Interests.

45. All proceedings that followed such unethical, unfair and unconscionable,unlawful and unconstitutional acts of the Deputy Clerks of the CFI, including the "statusconference" and all the decisions and Orders contained in the "M I N U T A" 109 are nulland void.46. Following notice on Jan 31, 2006 of the "M I N U T A" with regard to the "statusconference," a letter-petition for Writ of Certiorari by The Owners of Las ColinasProperties was presented to the Court of Appeals on Feb 24, 2006. 110 In their review,the Commonwealth Court of Appeals (CA), issued a surprising finding that the IFPapplications were not prepared under oath. The CA also found that the clerk of the CFIreturned the IFP applications for failure to pay the filing fees (with internal revenuestamps), which the IFP statute expressly exempts for IFP applicants. 111 There was noevidence whatever in the appellate record to support these findings by the AC.47. The Appellate Court findings were nothing but a pack of outrageous lies, entirelywithout evidentiary support, absolutely repudiated by the original record in the case. TheSupreme Court of Puerto Rico denied certiorari, for lack of jurisdiction, evidently on thebasis of that pack of outrageous lies. 112 Moreover, dismissal of the petition by the CAand SC without any opportunity to respond to those findings, violated the Puerto RicanJudiciary Act of 2003, and appellate regulations, which guarantee “effective appearanceby self-representation of the appellant in forma pauperis.” 113 Ironically, the SupremeCourt of Puerto Rico reversed the opinion of the AC, in another case then pending forseveral years, based on that provision of the Judiciary Act, in a decision issued Feb 2,2007, one day prior to the initial release date of this Letter to the Chairman. 114 TheAppellate Court and the Supreme Court, nevertheless, disregarded the Puerto Rican109 Record appendix Volume III, at pp. 48-52110 Harold Santiago Martell, et als., v. Marina Las Gaviotas Corp., et als, KLCE-2006-00278, El Tribunalde Apelacions, Region Judicial de Fajardo ("CA"), RESOLUCIÓN dated May 8, 2006 notified May 10,2006; Record appendix Volume VI, at pp. 01-14, 64.111 32 L.P.R.A. § 1476-1482.112 Harold Santiago Martell, et al. v. Marina Las Gaviotas, et al. Civ. No. NSCI-2001-0378, Estado LibreAsociado de Puerto Rico, Tribunal Supremo, Caso CC-2006-055, RESOLUCIÓN, June 30, 2006 (Trans.“The petition for certiorari is denied for lack of jurisdiction.”).113 4 L.P.R.A. § 24u (Cumulative Pocket Supplement 2004); In re: Reglamento del Tribunal deApelaciones, 2004 TSPR 121, 162 DPR ___, Rule 12.1, Commentario.114 Gran Vista I, Inc. v. Minerva Gutierrez Santiago, 2007 TSPR 20 170 DPR ____ (Feb 2, 2007).

Judiciary Act of 2003, and disregarded the appellate regulations in this case. They alsoobstinately disregarded provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill ofRights of Puerto Rico that guarantee access to court without discrimination. This was adeliberate line of conduct based on a pack of outrageous lies driven by treason to theConstitution of the United States and treason to the Constitution of Puerto Rico, 115 all ofwhich was designed to sustain the robbery of Las Colinas Properties.48. The record that petitioners presented to the AC included a copy of the verifiedand notarized and authenticated statement by Mr. Schreibman attesting that the factsbearing upon the indigency of both applicants were true and correct. 116 The applicationsto appear in forma pauperis were certainly not returned to Petitioners by the Clerk of theCFI for failure to pay filing fees ("por falta de sellos") as the CA found. 117 Petitioners onappeal, and the certified record absolutely repudiate this finding. 118 Both IFPapplications were admitted to the record without payment of Court fees, and docketed at11:10, 17/06/2005. 119 The CFI issued Orders notified July 19, 2006 (as amended)scheduling a hearing for Dec 1, 2005, upon each of the three sets of pleadings presentedto the Court by Petitioners. 120 All the objections by the banks and developers werescheduled for hearing, 121 but the applicants’ responses were lockout out.49. Subsequent to the Appellate proceedings, on September 7, 2006, the CFI issuedan order declaring inter alias that Las Colinas Development Corporation and VigdorSchreibman have not adequately conformed their application to litigate in forma pauperisnotwithstanding the instructions on how to do so by the Resolution of the Court ofAppeals of May 8, 2006, notified May 10, 2006 in case KLCE2006-0286. The CFIgave the indigent litigants thirty days to comply. No specific defect or omissions in thelitigants’ affidavits were stated. Indeed, as described below, the Resolution of the Courtof Appeals relied upon was absolutely illegitimate and without legal effect.115 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821).116 Record appendix Volume I, at p. 01.117 Record appendix Volume VI, at p. 69.118 See authorities cited, infra, note 83.119 Record appendix Volume I, at p. oi.120 Record appendix Volume III, at pp. 01-03, 07-08, 23-25.121 Record appendix Volume III, at pp. 11-34, 38-42, 45-47.

50. Regulations of the CFI grant permission for a person to present their IFPapplication on an official form. 122 The applicants in this case did not use an official formfor several reasons: (1) the available IFP application form is not an official formpublished in any Spanish and English editions as part of the Laws of Puerto RicoAnnotated, but is only made available directly by the CFI; (2) under the publishedregulations, use of an official form is not mandatory; and (3) information provided to theCourt by the indigent litigants’ affidavits, which no one has disputed, rendered use of anyIFP application forms entirely superfluous. To the extent there was any mandatory legalrequirement to make the IFP application on the official form, specific notice of thisrequirement was required prior to rejection of any pleadings by the Court Clerks. Nosuch notice was issued. The subsequent general notice by the CFI of the need to complywith regulations came on Sept 7, 2006, 13-months after the Deputy Clerk’s first rejectionof the indigent litigants’ pleadings. This belated notice clearly does not remedy thelockout, which was a crass violation of the indigent litigants’ constitutional right to havenondiscriminatory, full and fair access to court!51. Commonwealth Courts cannot lawfully apply the unpublished, purposeless,discretionary IFP application forms to impinge on the constitutional right of access tocourt, Due Process, and Equal Protection of the indigent litigants in this case by afrivolous attempt to treat their IFP applications as a mere statutory “privilege” to be“strictly interpreted” against their fundamental interests. 123 Any such classification basedon the litigants’ poverty “should be regarded with suspicion and be strictlyscrutinized." 124 Similarly, the power of the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico to enactlaws for the protection of the life, health and general welfare of the people “shall … notbe construed restrictively. 12552. Following the appellate proceedings on these matters Bank lawyers argued at aconference of lawyers held Oct 17, 2006, in the Offices of Plaintiffs’ attorney, Lcda.122 4 L.P.R.A.App. II-B R. 18 (2002) (Editor’s notes. The official translation of these rules was notavailable at the time of publication.)123 Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. 422 (1982).124 See authorities cited, infra, note 86.125 1 L.P.R.A. Art. II, § 19, cl. 2.

Grace Monge La Fosse, that neither Vigdor Schreibman nor Las Colinas DevelopmentCorporation had appeared in the record and they were not essential parties in the case ofHarold Santiago Martell; that their pleadings should not exist in the record; and that theClerk of the CFI had returned these documents for failure to pay the filing fees. 126Responding to this argument by Bank lawyers, a copy of the original record of pleadingspresented by Vigdor Schreibman and Las Colinas Development Corporation to the CFI,certified as true and correct by Lcdo. Agapito Rosa Martinez, Regional Clerk of theCourt, on Oct. 23, 2006, was brought to the attention of the CFI. by Plaintiffs attorney,Lcda. Grace Monge La Fosse, on October 25, 2006. 127 This document absolutelyrepudiates the findings of the CA and the argument of Bank lawyers, and absolutelysustains The Owners of Las Colinas Properties with regard to these matters!53. A hearing was held by the CFI, January 18, 2007, to consider these mattersfurther. In view of the absolutely illegitimate lockout, which the Commonwealth Courtshave simply refused to consider or remedy, and in view of the continuing failure andrefusal of these courts to recognize the indigent litigants’ fundamental interests and theirevident constitutional right of access to court, The Owners of Las Colinas Properties didnot attend that hearing. Mr. Schreibman will not attend any further court hearings in theCourts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in the absence of some effective remedy toassure a legitimate judicial process that will reliably protect his and his corporation’sfundamental property and liberty interests.54. We are mindful not only of the violation of those fundamental property andliberty interests, but also deeply concerned over the death threats and acts of computerterrorism perpetrated against these indigent litigants (described below, pp. 34-35). Acompetent official has explicitly warned Mr. Schreibman that the Court in which thislitigation is pending “is as corrupt and dangerous as ‘the Sicilian Mafia.” Statementby Lt. Col. Eduardo Vargas-Dones, former US Naval Intelligence Officer June 2005.126 Harold Santiago Martell, et al., infra, note 86, BRIEF TO MAKE RECORD THE MATTER OFDOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY VIGDOR SCHREIBMAN / LAS COLINAS DEVELOPMENT CORP.FOR JUDICIAL ATTENTION & NOTIFICATIONS OF THE ORDERS OF THE HONORABLE COURTWITH RESPECT TO SUCH DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE RECORD DURING THE PERIOD OFJUNE 17, 2005 TO JANUARY 27, 2006 AND OTHER MATTERS, dated Oct 25, 2006 (trans.), at p. 2.127 Id.

Issue 2: Self-representation55. The “Big Money” institutions in this case have sought to perfect the foreclosureaction against Las Colinas Properties, by robbing The Owners of Las Colinas Propertiesof their only protection: the right of access to court without inappropriate and unlawfulinterference during the course of that litigation. 128 Access to court to prosecute their“fundamental interests” is a constitutional right held by The Owners of Las ColinasProperties, guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments. 12956. While routinely recognizing the right of access of affluent corporations, 130 Federaland Commonwealth Courts have, from 1974 to the present, during the Second and ThirdControversies Over Las Colinas Properties, obstinately disregarded this right of accesswhen claimed by an indigent corporation or one that could not find an attorney toprosecute its meritorious claim. 131 In addition, these same courts have repudiated theholding of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Puerto Ricothat the right of access to court is a personal right, which must be applied under thecircumstances of the case, both with regard to individuals and corporations. 132128 See e.g., Hart v. Gaioni, 354 F.Supp.2d 1127, 1137 (D. Cal. 2005).129 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) (applied to a married couple); Silver v. Cormier, 529 F.2d161, 163 (10 Cir. 1976) (applied to a businessman); California Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404U.S. 508, 510, 513 (1972); Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 209 (1958); Defendini Collazov. E.L.A. 134 D.P.R. 28, 63-68 (1993); Matter of N.C. Trading, 586 F.2d 221, 231, n.28 (C.C.P.A. 1978);Hampton Bays Connections, Inc., v. Duffy, 127 F.Supp.2d 364, 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Chandler NaturalGas Corp. v. Barr, 110 F.Supp.2d 859, 867, 871-72 (S.D. Ind. 2000); Capital Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v.Cuomo, 77 F.Supp.2d 690, 697-98 (D. Md. 1999); Defendini Collazo v. E.L.A. 134 D.P.R. 28, 63-68(1993) (applied to a corporation).130 See authorities applied to corporations, infra, note 129.131 In re Las Colinas Development Corporation, 585 F.2d 7, 12 (1 st Cir. 1978) (In this case the courtrecognized the right of access to court but refused to apply that principle, finding the litigant had exercised“bad faith” in his “obstinate persistence” demanding recognition of his meritorious claim. The court did notexplain why persistence in demanding recognition of the corporation’s meritorious constitutional claim,which the lower courts had obstinately failed and refused to consider, was in any way inappropriate. Therule prohibiting corporate self-representation decided by this decision is cited in an Advisory CommitteeNote to Bankruptcy Rule 9010). A detailed review of this baseless finding of “bad faith” is included inThe Controversy Over Las Colinas Properties, infra, note 33.132 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379-380 (1971) (spplirf to a married couple); Lizarríbar v.Martínez Galpí, 121 D.P.R. 770, 786 (1988) (applied to a corporation).

57. This historical pattern is an invidious discrimination, an engine of oppression,subjugating a disfavored group to enhance or maintain the power of lawyers and theirfavored “Big Money” clients.. 13358. After Banco Popular lost the First Controversy Over Las Colinas Properties inwhich Mr. Schreibman was allowed to represent his corporation in court, 134 RafaelCarrion, Jr., the Bank’s late President, sought to defeat the democratic principle of anindigent corporate right of access to court by self-representation, implicitly advocatingthe right to robbery by banks of an indigent corporation’s liberty and property interests.Following the announcement in 1972, by Walter E. Heller & Company, to grant a loancommitment for new financing of Las Colinas Development, Banco Popular secretlybought control of the new lender. When it later appeared that there was a fatal defect inthe mortgage security obtained by Heller, Mr. Carrion brought in the law firm of thePresident of the American Bar Association, and the latter brought in Aza Herzog, “Mr.Bankruptcy” himself, in direct consultation with Mr. Richard Nixon’s Chief JusticeWarren Burger, 135 to grease the wheels of legal corruption. .59. The entire Las Colinas mortgage foreclosure was a fraud on the court, based on aninexistent mortgage. Corrupt monopoly power of lawyers and illicit judicial power ofjudges advancing their corrosive conflict of interest, has handed “Big Money” covertapproval of this oppressive scheme.60. As a practical matter the indigent corporation can be assured access to court onlyby self-representation, circumstances in which the illicit lawyers’ monopoly overcorporate legal services (discussed below) has no real practical role or real publicpurpose. In civil cases, without a guarantee of assistance of a lawyer for litigants, theright to self-representation has enlarged urgency. 136133 See authorities cited, infra, note 54.134 See authorities cited, infra, note 34.135 I was informed of this direct negotiation, which excluded the Chief Judge of the US District Court, JoséV. Toledo, by the latter’s executive secretary Consuelo.136 Lizarríbar v. Martínez Galpí, 121 D.P.R. at 785.

61. In both the Roman law of Empire and modern law, "a corporation, acting throughits proper officer, may sue or be sued in a court of justice." 137 "The officer of a Romancorporation who brought or defended actions at law was ... the representative of thecorporation." Unknown to ancient Roman law, however, was the idea that an artificialperson could exist and possess proprietary rights. A persona was simply a human being.During this period there was a tendency to conceive of a corporation as a mere group ofpeople with joint interests. Their representatives "sued in their own name, and they had togive security for the ratification of their acts by their principals." 13862. The elite classes in Roman civilization had their famous “patron” lawyers, like thegreat Marcus Tullius Cicero, known as “Rome’s Greatest Politician,” who provided“clients” with necessary legal representation in court as well as a web of personalconnections that was an essential means of holding the Empire together.” 139 There alsowere a large class of legal “representatives” who were known in Roman and modern lawby various names (e.g., congnitors, procurators, tutor, curator or trustee, attorneys, actoror syndicus, barristers and advocates). Perhaps, the most interesting aspect of thisscheme of legal representation was the entire lack of exclusivity or monopoly under thecontinuing historical policy of open access to justice that was maintained by the courts.Aside from distinctions between the ancient Roman law applied to corporationsconceived as a mere group of people with joint interests, and modern law applied toartificial persons, Historian John Maxcy Zane recognized one particularly pertinentachievement of those legal systems, "(E)ven among our barbarous ancestors one couldalways have a friend or associate to speak for him in court." 140137 CHARLES PHINEAS SHERMAN, ROMAN LAW IN THE MODERN WORLD § 554 (2d Ed. NewHaven 1922), citing 1 The Digest of Justinians (A, Watson, trans. 1985), Book Three, Part 4, Actions in thename of or against any corporate body, 1, cls. 1, 3 and 7, cl. 2; Morawetz, Private corporations, Vols. I-II, §§ 356-8, 779 (1886 ed.).138 CHARLES PHINEAS SHERMAN, infra, note 1, at § 537; W.W. BUCKLAND AND ARNOLD D.McNAIR, ROMAN LAW & COMMON LAW 50, 52 (London 1932); GORDON CAMPBELL, ACOMPENDIUM OF ROMAN LAW 157 (1892); DAVID HASMITH, OUTLINE OF ROMANHISTORY, § 84 (London 1890).139 ANTHONY EVERITT, CICERO: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ROME’S GREATEST POLITICIAN30-31 (2001).140 JOHN MAXCY ZANE, THE STORY OF LAW 287 (Liberty Fund edition 1998) (New York, 1927).

63. Roman, English, and American common law handed down over the past fifteencenturies embraced a distinctly democratic policy of access to court and legalrepresentation. The practices of self-representation in America arose from a deep andancient "dislike and distrust of lawyers." 141 Consistent with the democratic sentiment, thetext of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 142 which provided, "(I)n all courts of the United States,the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of ...counsel..." did not clearly or explicitly prohibit self-representation in court by any person,whether natural or artificial. This embodies a principle of justice recognized since thetime of the Romans. Without the right of self-representation "a poor person or one whowas unable to find an attorney might not be heard in court." 14364. Indeed, four appellate panels of the United States Court of Appeals for the FirstCircuit previously decided the law of the case with regard to corporate self-representationunder virtually identical circumstances. 144 In those four appellate proceedings the law ofcorporate appearances in court by a non-lawyer corporate officer (the same appearing inthe present case) under circumstances of financial distress, was argued, heard anddecided, clearly meeting the principles of stare decises, "constituting a precedent to befollowed." 145 That court, sitting en banc, has never revoked this precedent. 146141 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 826-34 (1975).142 Ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (1789), corresponds to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1654 (1982).143 See e.g., Hernandez v. District Court, 15 P.R.R. 251, 255 (1909); In re Opinion of the Justices, 194 N.E.313, 317-318 (Mass. 1935) (applied to individuals); A. Victor & Co. v. Sleininger, 9 N.Y.S.2d 323, 326(N.Y. App. Div., 1939), reh'g denied 11 NYS2d 548, cited as persuasive Schifrin, v. Chenille Mfg. Co. 117F.2d 92, 95 (2 Cir. 1941); quoted with approval In re Holliday's Tax Services, Inc., 417 F.Supp. 182, aff'dmem. 614 F.2d 1287 (2d Cir. 1979); In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286, n.* (1 Cir. 1976)(citing cases); In re MSD Woodworking Co., Inc. 132 B.R. 631 (Bkrtcy. D.South Dakota 1991); FraasSurvival Systems, Inc. v. Absentee Shawnee Economic Develop. Auth., 817 F.Supp. 7, 9-11 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (applied to corporations and other non-individuals).144 Las Colinas, Inc. v. Mason, 377 F.2d 99 (1st Cir. 1967) (Aldrich, Chief Judge, Maris and McEntee,Circuit Judges) (Vigdor Schreibman, president and majority stockholder, "for appellants"), after firstremand, sub nom, In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005 (1st Cir. 1970) (Aldrich, Chief Judge, McEnteeand Coffin, Circuit Judges) (Vigdor Schreibman, "pro se and as attorney-in-fact for appellants"), aftersecond remand, 453 F.2d. 911 (1971) (Coffin, Circuit Judge, Van Oosterhout, Senior Circuit Judge, andStephenson, Circuit Judge) (Vigdor Schreibman "pro se for Las Colinas, Inc. and others"); In re VictorPublishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286 n.* (1st Cir. Nov 29, 1976) (per curiam) (Coffin, Chief Judge, Aldrichand McEntee, Circuit Judges) (determination that the non-lawyer officer of Las Colinas, Inc. was a personwith "extraordinary legal ability").145 E.E.O.C v. Trabucco, 791 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1986).146 Lacy v. Gardino, 791 F.2d 980, 985 (1st Cir. 1986).

65. The first lawyers were personal friends of the litigant, brought into court by himso that he might "take 'counsel' with them" before pleading. 147 During this period,"Probably every free and lawful person may appear as attorney for another; and a wifemay be her husband's attorney. A bishop will appoint one of his clerks, an abbot one ofhis monks, a baron will be represented by his steward or by one of his knights." 14866. American common law, following English tradition, required litigants to plead inperson. 149 Courts had no power to admit a licensed attorney to practice; the power ofclients to appoint such attorneys and of the court to regulate their admission to practicewas statutory in character. 150 An aggregate corporation must always appear by "attorney"existing only in consideration of law but "Any natural person may be this attorney"leading common law commentators have noted. 15167. Under the American common law, "a corporation necessarily sued through itschief officer or other specially appointed attorney-in-fact.” 152 The democratic commonlaw principle of justice authorizing corporate self-representation is fully consistent withthe social and political attitudes and beliefs of an insurgent democracy guarding againstthere ever again becoming a monopoly of a favored class in the community. 15368. Since a corporation cannot act other than through its officers and agents,depriving the indigent corporation of the right of self-representation in the legal processwould constitute a significant abrogation of a corporation's right to a viable, autonomous147 1 F. POLLOCK & F. MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 211-213 (2d ed. 1898).148 Id., at 213.149 In re Cooper, 22 N.Y. (8 Smith) 67, 68 (1860); 1 F. POLLOCK & F. MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OFENGLISH LAW 211-13.150 In re Cooper, 22 N.Y. (8 Smith), at 90-91; Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. (Wall.) 333, 378-79 (1866).151 1 CHRISTIAN, CHITTY, LEE, HOVENDEN, AND RYLAND, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWSOF ENGLAND, pt. II 2, Rights of Persons *475, *477, n.7 (16th American ed. New York 1832)(sometimes called "Chitty's Blackstone.") (18th London ed. 1829) (Yale University Eller Collection PartIII, item # 96); In re Cooper, 22 N.Y. (8 Smith) 67, 68 (1860); 1 F. POLLOCK & F. MAITLAND, THEHISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 211-13; Louisville Rail-road Company v. Letson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 497,520-521 (1844) (argument of then Attorney-general).152 Cf. Recent Cases, Corporations--Appearances-- Attorneys-In-Fact, 37 HARV. L. REV. 384 (1923); Inre Cooper, 22 N.Y. (8 Smith), at 69-70.153 A. REED, TRAINING FOR THE PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE LAW 17-21 (1976); ROSCOEPOUND, THE LAWYER FROM ANTIQUITY TO MODERN TIMES 227-228 (1953). D. BOORSTIN,THE AMERICANS: THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE 189-202 (1958); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. at826-27.

existence, and the freedom of choice to protect its survival by an exercise of thedemocratic common law principle of justice authorizing corporate self-representation.Writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Faretta v. California, JusticeStewart observed, "(W)hatever else may be said of those who wrote the Bill of Rights,surely there can be no doubt they understood the inestimable worth of free choice." 15469. The rule governing the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Puerto Ricounder 4 L.P.R.A. § 740, similar to the federal rule governing appearances in court under28 U.S.C.A. § 1654, does not bar corporate self-representation based on their ownspecific statutory limitations. 155 Those rules do not determine whether a corporation canbe relieved of the duty to appear by a lawyer in appropriate circumstances. 156 By statutea corporate entity in Puerto Rico, is an “artificial person” defined as a “transindividualentity” with its own “individuality” and “subjectivity” and “standing” gained directlyfrom the law. 157 This entity obviously has the legal capacity to act in court on its ownbehalf pro se by a non-lawyer officer or specially appointed attorney-in- fact. 15870. "It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that '[t]he common law... ought not to be deemed repealed, unless the language of a statute be clear and explicitfor this purpose.'" 159 This rule is consistent with the prohibition included in the154 422 U.S. at 833-34; Christensen, The Unauthorized Practice of Law: Do Good Fences Really MakeGood Neighbors? A.B. FOUND. RESEARCH J., Spring 1980, at 159.155 Schifrim v. Chenille Mfg. Co., 117 F.2d 92, 95 (2 Cir. 1941); Reshard v. Britt, 839 F.2d 1499, 1502-04(11 Cir. 1988) (en banc) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting) (equally divided court).156 See e.g., A. Victor & Co. v. Sleininger, 9 N.Y.S.2d 323, 326 (N.Y. App. Div., 1939), reh'g denied 11NYS2d 548, quoted with approval In re Holliday's Tax Services, Inc., 417 F.Supp. 182, aff'd mem. 614F.2d 1287 (2d Cir. 1979); In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286, n.* (1 Cir. 1976) (citing cases);In re MSD Woodworking Co., Inc. 132 B.R. 631 (Bkrtcy. D.South Dakota 1991); Fraas Survival Systems,Inc. v. Absentee Shawnee Eco. Develop. Auth., 817 F.Supp. 7, 9-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (applied tocorporations and other non-individuals)..157 Rivera Maldonado v. E.L.A., 119 D.P.R. 745 (1987).158 See e.g., In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005 (1st Cir. 1970) (Vigdor Schreibman, "pro se and asattorney-in-fact for appellants"), after second remand, 453 F.2d. 911 (1971) (Vigdor Schreibman "pro sefor Las Colinas, Inc."); Sellent-Repent Corp. v. Queens Borough Gas & Elec. Co., 160 Misc. 920, 921, 290N.Y. Supp. 887, 889 (Sup. Ct. 1936) (“When a corporation does not go outside its own corporatemachinery in the performance of a corporate act, it is acting in person and upon an equal footing with anatural person, including the right to sue in person”); see also, American Soda Fountain Co. v.Stolzenbach, 75 N.J.L. 721, 734, 68 A, 1078, 1083 (1908) (“[W]here it becomes necessary for acorporation … to make an affidavit, the affidavit may be made in its behalf by an officer thereof …; andsuch affidavit is, in legal contemplation, the affidavit of the corporation, and not of an agent”).159 Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 603, 623 (1813); Shaw v. Railroad, 101 U.S.557, 564 (1879), followed in Norfolk Redev. & Housing Auth v. C & P. Tel., 464 U.S. 30, 35-36 (1983).

Constitution of Puerto Rico that the exclusive power of the Legislative Assembly to enactlaws “shall not be construed restrictively.” 160 Unless prohibited by “clear and express”language, a corporate entity in Puerto Rico, possesses its own individuality, 161 with thelegal capacity to act in court on its own behalf pro se by a non-lawyer officer or speciallyappointed attorney-in-fact. 16271. Construed within the strict limitations of the antitrust law, the language of thosestatutes governing the practice of law reveal no repeal of antitrust protections over theconduct of the legal affairs of corporations that cannot afford to hire a lawyer. Judicialsanction of the lawyers' monopoly practices against corporations is obviously not an actof government, which would compel exemption from the antitrust laws. 163 There is aheavy presumption against implicit exemptions. 164 The Sherman Act, 165 as well as thePuerto Rican antitrust law, 166 bars the sanction of that monopoly by resort to strictconstruction of the statutes regulating appearances in federal and local courts. Repeal ofantitrust laws is to be regarded as implied only if necessary to make the judiciary actwork, and even then "only to the minimum extent necessary." 167 No such necessityappears in this case.72. Mr. Schreibman has been engaged in litigation concerning these matters duringthe past four decades. 168 Despite his corporation’s distressed financial circumstances, the160 1 L.P.R.A. Art. II, § 19, cl. 2.161 Rivera Maldonado v. E.L.A., 119 D.P.R. 745 (1987).162 See e.g., In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005 (1st Cir. 1970) (Vigdor Schreibman, "pro se and asattorney-in-fact for appellants"), after second remand, 453 F.2d. 911 (1971) (Vigdor Schreibman "pro sefor Las Colinas, Inc."); Sellent-Repent Corp. v. Queens Borough Gas & Elec. Co., 160 Misc. 920, 921, 290N.Y. Supp. 887, 889 (Sup. Ct. 1936) (“When a corporation does not go outside its own corporatemachinery in the performance of a corporate act, it is acting in person and upon an equal footing with anatural person, including the right to sue in person”); see also, American Soda Fountain Co. v.Stolzenbach, 75 N.J.L. 721, 734, 68 A, 1078, 1083 (1908) (“[W]here it becomes necessary for acorporation … to make an affidavit, the affidavit may be made in its behalf by an officer thereof …; andsuch affidavit is, in legal contemplation, the affidavit of the corporation, and not of an agent”).163 Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 788-92 (1975).164 U.S. v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 350-51 (1963).165 15 U.S.C.A. § 3..166 4 L.P.R.A. § 740.167 Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 357 (1963); Canter v. Detroit Edison Co., 428 U.S.579, 597 (1976); Surety Title Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Virginia State Bar, 431 F. Supp. 298, 307-08 (E.D. Va.1977), vacated on other grounds, 571 F.2d 205 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 941 (1978); Boddicker v.Arizona State Dental Ass'n, 549 F.2d 626, 631-632 (9 Cir. 1977).168 V. Schreibman, The Controversy Over Las Colinas Properties, infra, note 33.

developers and banks in the current court case, with the support of their able lawyers, 169Court Officials, 170 the Judge of the Court of First Instance, 171 and the Appellate CourtPanel Judges, 172 have engaged in felonious concerted actions to unlawfully delay, burden,and interfere with the right of access to court by The Owners of Las Colinas Properties,to vindicate their fundamental interest in property taken by foreclosure of an inexistentmortgage without adequate public notice. This felonious concerted attack on Las ColinasDevelopment Corporation attempted to coerce the corporation to contract for the servicesof a lawyer despite the lack of funds to pay for such services. This is an entirelyillegitimate use of the judicial process and the jurisdiction of the Court to define andenforce the lawyers’ monopoly, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.73. For litigants subjected to violation of the democratic common law principal ofself-representation, corrupt monopoly practices against indigent corporations, andinvidious discrimination by Federal and Commonwealth Courts, the legal system and thejudiciary have become a ruthless instrument of “Big Money” robbery!169 See e.g., Harold Santiago Martell, et al. v. Marina Las Gaviotas, et al. Civ. No. NSCI-2001-0378, EstadoLibre Asociado de Puerto Rico, El Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, pleadings of banksand developers, and their lawyers: Banco Santander of Puerto Rico represented by Lcdo. Erasmo ReyesPeña; Marina Gaviotas Corp. and Fajardo Farms Corp., represented by Lcdo. Iván Garau Díaz, thecontrolling stockholder and officers of those corporations, Lcdo. Enrique Rodriguez Negrón, MargaritaMorales Santiago, Ing. Héctor Collazo, Nélida Ramos and Phillip Diorio, represented by Lcdo. RodolfoCruz Contreras; Banco Popular, Popular Mortgage, Citibank, N.A., R-G Mortgage, R-G Premier Bank,and Doral Mortgage Corp. represented by the Law Firm McConnell Valdéz and their Attorneys Samuel T.Céspedes and Henry O. Freese Souffront; Popular Mortgage represented by Lcdo. Humberto GuzmanRodriguez, Citibank, N.A. represented by Lcdo. Antonio A. Hernandez Almodovar and Lcdo. TomásCorrea Acevedo; RG Premier Bank and RG Mortgage represented by Lcda. Maria I. Camino Rolón; andDoral Mortgage Corp., represented by Lcdo. Jose A. Cuevas Segarra and Lcdo. Raul J. Tous Bobonis.170 Harold Santiago Martell, et al. v. Marina Las Gaviotas, et al. Civ. No. NSCI-2001-0378, Estado LibreAsociado de Puerto Rico, El Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, Deputy Clerk, Lillian L.Garcia, and Deputy Clerk, Mildred Burgos Robles, obstructing self-representation of the indigent LasColinas Development Corporation and Vigdor Schreibman, and thereby, concertedly promoting aninvidious discrimination against said persons, to enforce the lawyers’ monopoly in violation of antitrustlaw.171 Harold Santiago Martell, et al. v. Marina Las Gaviotas, et al. Civ. No. NSCI-2001-0378, Estado LibreAsociado de Puerto Rico, El Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, Judge Eduardo R.Estrella Morales, obstinately obstructing self-representation of the indigent Las Colinas DevelopmentCorporation and Vigdor Schreibman, and thereby, concertedly promoting an invidious discriminationagainst said persons, to enforce the lawyers’ monopoly in violation of antitrust law.172 Harold Santiago Martell, et al. v. Marina Las Gaviotas, et al. Civ. No. NSCI-2001-0378, Estado LibreAsociado de Puerto Rico, El Tribunal de Apelacions, Region Judicial de Fajardo , Appellate Court JudgesMartinez Torres, Cotto Vives, and Aponte Jimenez, disregarding the Judiciary Act of 2003, and relatedappellate regulations, and disregarding the obstinate pattern of invidious discrimination practiced againstthe indigent litigants, Las Colinas Development Corporation and Vigdor Schreibman, to enforce thelawyers’ monopoly in violation of antitrust law.

74. Indeed, one who persistently challenges corrupt court policies pertaining toindigent corporate self-representation will be subject to the terrorist treatment of “civildeath” and attempted assassination by suicide supported by the despotic conduct ofCourts! 17375. M. Schreibman has also been hit by repeated death threats and computerterrorism, as well. The Patriot Act has generated a large body of controversy with regardto its illegitimate uses. Immediately preceding my presentation of our first set ofpleadings to the Court of First Instance at Fajardo, June 17, 2005, my computers were hitby terrorists. My computer operating systems, my files and even my external drives weredestroyed. Fortunately, I was able to recover my pleadings, largely from personalmemory, transcribe and transmit the same to the Fajardo Court just in time. I sent a letterto Rep.Bernard Sanders (I-VT At Large). He published my letter in AOL GovernmentGuide. The letter states:It is good to see the House exercise a little control over the PA. Good for you!I am concerned about the aggressive use of the PA by the FBI and other federalagencies to subvert the pursuit of justice in America. This includes repeated breakinsat my apartment destruction of my computers and data files, implicating the FBIin a conspiracy with the Banks of Puerto Rico. There is no foreign terrorism issuehere. My corporation was named as in “essential party” by the Courts of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico in a lawsuit against a dozen or so banks anddevelopment companies in Puerto Rico. We are seeking to overturn the robbery ofmy prime ocean front real estate holdings by illegitimate judgments of the UnitedStates Courts. The case is described in my Memorandum of Law concerning “TheControversy Over Las Colinas Properties” available on-line at URL:http://sunsite.uitk.edu/FINS/Doctrines_Injustice/Fins-DI-03.htm.What the FBI is attempting to do is prevent my corporation from obtaining full andfair access to the Courts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to prosecute ourmeritorious constitutional claims. The use of the PA by the FBI and other federalpolice agencies such as Homeland Security Agency, to foster domestic criminalconduct by officials of the US Government Agencies is a pertinent issue that needsreview by Congress.Thanks for your consideration of this issue.173 V. Schreibman, “Assassination by Suicide,” in FINS, Doctrines on Injustice, online.at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Doctrines_Injustice/Fins-DI-02.htm

Issue 3: Bilingualism76. This litigation imposes burdens on The Owners of Las Colinas Properties in termsof a trial far away from home, and a judicial policy preference for proceedings in theSpanish language imposed by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. 174 This policyrecognizes the linguistic reality of native Puerto Ricans but discriminates against thereality of North Americans, who are unable to speak and write fluently in the Spanishlanguage.77. The burdens imposed by linguistic discrimination against the English languageare drastic. 175 These burdens should not be based on unreflective invocation of therealities perceived by the majority group who reside in Puerto Rico, which leave theminority citizenry swinging in the wind.78. Court doctrine that has such a debilitating impact upon the capacity of an entireclass of parties to plead and speak to the Court in the English language, which is definedas an official language by the Commonwealth Legislature, tells us something is terriblywrong.79. Under these conditions the Court must weigh the reasonableness of the situationto avoid jurisdictional questions. 176 The radical existing clash between the Puerto Ricanforum's law with English language realities of millions of Nuyoricans and NorthAmericans, justifies an accommodation by application of the forum's choice-of-lawrules. 177174 People v. Superior Court, 92 P.R.R. 580, 589 (1965).175 The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has recognized "que existen muchas personas en todos los nivelesque tienen conocimientos suficientes de un idioma para leerlo y entenderlo, pero no pueden escribirlocorrectamente." Hernández Torrez v. Hernnádez Colon, 127 D.P.R. at 979 n.2. This reflects the severeburden faced by Mr. Schreibman in the instant litigation. The problem was underscored in a fascinatinghistorical account involving the amazing effort of Ben Franklin to foment a winning French alliance withthe American revolutionary war for independence. Franklin "acknowledged that a man plunging into alanguage not his own instantly sacrifices half his intelligence." Stacy Schiff, A Great Improvisation:Franklin, France, and the Birth of America 188-189 (2005).176 Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987); International Shoe Co. v.Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945).177 Burger King Corp. v. Rodriguez, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985).

80 The Court may exercise its discretion to assure the judicial language policy is notexpanded under the Court's "long-arm" jurisdiction to unduly impinge on the clear intentof the Language Act of Puerto Rico that the Legislature of Puerto Rico has repeatedlyapproved during the past century. This act established both Spanish and English as theofficial languages of the Government of Puerto Rico. This policy decision of thelegislature is obviously not contrary to the reality of the population of Puerto Rico as awhole.81 English speaking populations engaged in Puerto Rico, including thousands ofNuyoricans who began returning to the Island during the 1970s, 178 together with otherNorth Americans have a right to full and fair access to all Branches of the Government ofPuerto Rico. The Language Act guaranteed this.82. Any interpretation of the Language Act by Commonwealth Courts to impose adiscriminatory linguistic rule of legal pleadings, derived from a law allowing bothSpanish and English to be used "indiscriminately" in all departments including theJudicial Branch of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 179 is anomalous.83. Justice Negron Garcia has offered this explanation:“This rule is in response to clear judgments" the Supreme Court of Puerto Ricoexplained: "It is a fact not subject to historical rectification that the vehicle ofexpression, the language of the Puerto Rican people-integral part of our origin andof our Hispanic culture-has been and continues to be Spanish… [T]hat is a realitythat cannot be changed by any law. 18084. That expression of judicial language policy, overrules the Language Act of PuertoRico, 181 based on a sweeping declaration of cultural reality, which is clearly erroneousand without legal authority. The Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico, not the Courts,178 During 1978, the last year that Mr. Schreibman resided in Puerto Rico, he served as President of theExecutive Advisory Council of the Governor's Office of Cultural Affairs (Hon. Carlos Romero Barcelo,Governor). During this period Mr. Schreibman became intimately familiar with the trials and tribulations ofthe returning Nuyoricans. He recommended that Governor Barcelo issue an Executive Order authorizinglogistical support for this population by the Office of Cultural Affairs (Mr. Rafael Rivera-Garcia, Director).This was immediately approved.179 1 L.P.R.A. § 59.180 Hernández Torrez v. Hernández Colon, 127 D.P.R. 974, 994 n.1 (Mr. Justice Negron Garcia, dissenting1991), quoting, People v. Superior Court, 92 P.R.R. 580, 588-589 (1965).181 1 L.P.R.A. §§ 58-59f (1993).

has exclusive legislative. 182 Indeed, there is an express constitutional prohibition againstconstruing restrictively the Language Act enacted by the Legislative Assembly, 183 whichbody presumably has adequate knowledge concerning the culture of Puerto Rico.85. The legislature of Puerto Rico has wisely settled on a language policy to establisha bilingual government, which best reflects the reality of the political compact betweenPuerto Rico and the United States. Associate Justice Saldaña, has reflected on thisjudicial language policy:In truth, bilingualism is an economic necessity in Puerto Rico, and if we contemplatethe things of the spirit, two languages are not enough. But all this is irrelevant tothe point in issue. The Legislative Assembly rejected the narrowness of view andthe inadequacy for practical life, which is now sought to be imposed by judicial fiat,under the guise of good taste, of respect for tradition and of personal ideas on thephilosophy of culture. We can never repeal legislative standards by spuriousinterpretations. 18486. There are social, cultural, economic, poltical, and constitutional questions aboutthe Court’s declaration of language policy. Language policy true to the Spanish colonialheritage of Puerto Rico will certainly not help “form a more perfect Union.”87. Multinational diversity, innovation and creativity are the touchstones of socialand cultural progress. There are also significant brain-enhancing effects of “TheBilingual Brain.” 185 Regulating strict linguistic purity may, instead, disclose the onset of"institutional sclerosis" organizational and cultural hardening of the arteries. 18688. Princeton University Professor of Philosophy, Kwame Appiah, writes in his bookCosmopolitanism, the ideal of "Cultural purity is an oxymoron." 187 Any talk of “culturalpurity” under the circumstances of the existing situation is derived from a self-defeatingdenial of reality.182 1 L.P.R.A. Art. II, § 19, cl. 1; see P.R. Telephone Co. v. Tax Ct.; Secretary of theTreasury, Int., 81P.R.P. 347 (12960)..183 1 L.P.R.A. Art. II, § 19, cl. 2.184 RCA Communications, Inc. v. Registrar, 79 P.R.R. 73, 81 (1956) (Saldaña, J., concurring opinion).185 Elkhonon Goldberg, world-renowned neuropsychologist, The Wisdom Paradoxr 252-254 (2005).186 See Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (2002), reviewed online at URL:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html.187 KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH, COSMOPOLITAMNISM: Ethics in a World of Strangers 113 (2006).

89. An exceedingly low level of social trust, illustrated below in global terms, hinderseconomic development in Puerto Rico, indicating a high degree of social noncooperationthat can send society into a “poverty trap.” 188 This brings into grave question thecharacter of local and national leadership sharing responsibility for such debilitatingconditions suffered by the people of Puerto Rico. Any talk of “cultural purity” in thissituation is derived from a self-defeating denial of reality.188 Eric D. Beinhocker, The Origin of Wealth 432-33, figure 18-1 (2006).

90. The larger reality in which the people of Puerto Rico are nested is clearly notderived solely from the Island’s former existence as a colony of the Spain, but includesan integral compact with the American people whose native language is English.Leaving the English language citizenry without full and fair access to the Courts, bypretending they form no part of the linguistic and cultural realities of Puerto Rico, seversthe Commonwealth of Puerto Rico from its roots. 18991. The Owners of Las Colinas Properties have sought protection against the burdensof litigation in a distant or inconvenient forum by allowing the parties to write theircomplaints, pleadings, applications and motions in both Spanish and English "withoutdistinction" providing their own translations, if needed, consistent with the meaning ofthe Language Act. 190 No party in this case has suggested they will be burdened by thisnondiscriminatory alternative. There is no good reason why the Judicial Branch of theGovernment of Puerto Rico cannot organize itself in good faith to respect the officialbilingual language policy, which is sensitive to the whole reality of Puerto Rico.92. The judicial language policy, 191 and rules of procedure, 192 preclude use of Englishin any pleading in court without a Spanish translation. This burdens and denies access tocourt for English speaking litigants brought into court under the "long-arm" jurisdictionof the Court, when they seek to prosecute their fundamental interests in liberty andproperty but lack fluency in or have no knowledge of the Spanish language. 19393. This rule discriminates against the linguistic realities of large affectedpopulations, including Petitioners who must rely on the Commonwealth system of justiceto resolve their grievances. This rule unduly censors and burdens access to court toprosecute their fundamental interests in violation of the overbreath doctrine. 194189 1 L.P.R.A. Art. 1 (1999).190 MOTION TO PROTECT THE OWNERS OF LAS COLINAS PROPERTIES AGAINST THEBURDENS OF LITIGATION IN A DISTANT FORUM," presented to the CFI June 17, 2005.191 See authorities cited, infra, note 180, and accompanying text..192 32 L.P.R.A. App. III R. 8.5.193 People v. Superior Court, 92 P.R.R. at 589.194 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613 (1973); Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Benton, 980S.W.2d 425, 435 (Tex. 1998).

94. On the issue of Petitioners right to file their pleadings in the English language, theCourt of First Instance offered its advice in a scheduling Order in the English languagenotified July 19, 2005: "proceedings are conducted in Spanish." 195 The scheduling Orderwas notified more than four months before the hearing set for this matter on Dec 1, 2005,without any opportunity to submit supporting evidence and argument.95. All persons who are required to defend their liberty and property rights in thesystem of justice of Puerto Rico under the U.S. Constitution have a fundamental right todue process of law including the right to submit evidence. The scheduling Orderunconstitutionally violated that basic right and the same is a nullity. 19696. Moreover, the Court failed to resolve Petitioners' constitutional claim with regardto this issue, which is a mandatory duty of the Courts. 197 A dismissal prior to theresolution of that claim is unjustified. 198 Consequently, Petitioners constitutional claim ofa right to plead in the English language without Spanish language translation remainsundecided. 19997. In a timely appeal from the hearing held with regard to this matter, the AppellateCourt held that the petition for review of this Order was presented to the Appellate Courttoo late to be considered, 200 while failing and refusing to consider any of theconstitutional errors presenting by Appellants, which presently remain undecided.98. The “Big Money” institutions have a deep historical propensity to engage in suchpernicious behavior, threatening to wreck the democratic system of government of theUnited States. 201 They feed on irresponsible judicial bodies that are constituted without195 Record appendix Volume III, at p. 03.196 Chicago Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258, 265 (1924); 16B Am Jur2d Constitutional Law § 960.197 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetary Prot. Assn, 485 U.S. 439, 446 (1988).198 Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. at 209.199 In re Harmon, 250 F.3d at 1247); Commonwealth Aluminum Corp v. U.S., 19 Cl Ct. at 388; Santopadrev. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass'n, 937 F.2d at 273.200 Record appendix Volume VI, at p. 72, 77.201 "There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it," observed the greatest ancient Roman lawyerMarcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) ANTHONY EVERITT, CICERO 58 (2001); The Supreme Court ofthe United States frustrated by the "meltdown" of political campaign finance rules corrupted by thepernicious influence of "big money," has recently restated Cicero's axiom: "Money, like water, will alwaysfind an outlet." McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93, 129-130, 224 (2003).

accountability. 202 The volcanic shift in political powers and oppressive discriminatoryconduct of the American legal system can be remedied only by the sovereign powers ofthe citizenry. Only the power of citizen participation can make the Big Business legalsystem and the Big Government Judiciary Branch responsible institutions99. American courts grant an unsupportable ethical dependency upon the legalprofession. This regime discloses a misperception of the proper role of experts in ademocracy. Under the Republican form of government, “all power derives from thepeople.” 203 The power of citizens is connected with the values of the citizenry in ademocracy. Values drive the Knowledge Age. The content experts are the people whoselives are at stake. Information is secondary. Lawyers play only a "secondary role" in thejudicial process, which is not information-driven but rather value-driven, distinctlyfavoring "the political will of the many rather than the technical cleverness of the few." 204In this system and throughout the technological civilization democratizing the processwill likely have the most salient outcome. "(W)hen it comes to the design of social andsocietal systems of all kinds, it is the users, the people in the system who are theexperts." 205III.Conclusions100. The whole story about development of human culture evolves from SocialTechnologies, which made it possible to work collectively and build the great cities ofcivilization. Whenever Social Technology falls behind development genuine progressstops. Internet has simply raised the stakes.101. The wide spread yearning to return to a carefree life under maximum personalcontrol embraces personal Internet communications, which expands individual freedom202 Thomas Jefferson, "The Constitution-Endangered by the Federal Judiciary," Foundations of Liberty,James R. Patrick, ed., vol. 1 (1988), p. 27, online in FINS, at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Periodicals_and_Newspapers/Fins-PaN-52.htm203 City of Eastlake v. Forest City, 426 U.S. 668, 672 (1976).204 See YANKELOVICH & HARMAN, STARTING WITH THE PEOPLE 7-8 (1988).205 B.H. BANATHY, GUIDED EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY 288-291 (2000).

while radically altering all human life on the planet. Unless technological revolution ismatched with Social Technology human civilization will be drowned in unforeseenconsequences of the emerging shift in political power. The dire need of a Technology ofDemocracy, such as we describe in New Agoras of Philanthropolis inspires allcontemporary needs, exacerbated by Internet.102. Even the Courts of Law have been enfeebled; converted into Courts of Robberyserving “Big Money”! Reform of the Courts and Legal System should, I believe, startwith the overthrow of the self-defeating myth of self-regulation.103. A Court of Judicial and Professional Ethics, administered by KnowledgeManagement professionals to move away from litigation that is a right of combat towardmeaningful dialogue that can foster progressive human relations, 206 should be establishedto shape judicial power as provided by the Constitution. Palmore v. United States, 411U.S. at 401. Access to court of indigent litigants must be safeguarded against the inherentconflicts of interest of the judiciary and the felonious monopoly of lawyers.Revendication of property taken by resort to such illegitimate proceedings must beassured. Judges who obstinately violate the constitutional and fundamental interests ofindigent litigants while sanctioning a corrupt monopoly of lawyers should be impeachedand removed from office. Lawyers who engage in such corrupt practices should beswiftly prosecuted, disbarred, and required to pay damages authorized by law.206 V. Schreibman, “The Miracle of Cyprus,” in FINS, online at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/CyprusCivilSociety.htm ; V. Schreibman, The Doctrineson Race, Economics & Sex, part IIIC, “Informing Constitutional Doctrines Through A ParticipatorySynthesis of Valid Information” (Washington, DC: Amicas 1987) (4 th Essay in 5-volume set) ISBN 0-942539-03-6; citing: Hart v. Community School Board of Brooklyn, New York School District #21, 383F.Supp. 699 (E.D.N.Y. 1974), appeal dismissed, 497 F.2d 102 (2 Cir. 1974); New York State Ass’n forRetarded Children v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 962-963 (2 Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 277.

Vigdor Schreibman, Editor & Publisher.Fins Global Information Age Library at URL:http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS. All rights reserved.18 - 9th Street NE Apt. #206, Washington, DC 20002Phone, fax, and voice mail: (202) 547-8715.email to: omnicapital@verizon.netCornelia P. Atchley,artist.Portrait of Vigdor in Blue 2001