Lincoln V Daylight, Taitz, Etc.

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:1
FILED
Charles Edward Lincoln, III

2
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6 2010 OCT 15 AM 10: 33
Austin, Texas 78705
J'"' Telephone: (512) 968-2500
4 E-mail: charlcs.lincoln@;rockelmail.com
Plain tiff in propia persona
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.SANTAANA
7
Charles Edward Lincoln, III, §
8 §
Plaintiff,
9 § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
10 v. §
§ SACVIO-1573 AG(PLAx)
11 DayEght Chemical Information Systems, §
12 Incorporated, R.I.C.O. 18 U.S.C. §1964(c)
§
YosefTaitz, Complaint For Damages for
§
13
Appealing Dentistry, § Injury to Business & Property
14 Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., D.D.S.,].D., §
15 Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, § TRIAL-BY JURY DEMANDED
And allJOHN &JANE DOES 1-10, §
16
Defendants. §
17 §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
18 COMPLAINT FOR RACKETEERING, 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.
19 TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
20 1. Comes now the Plaintiff, vvith this Complaint for Racketeering in violation 0
21 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.) complaining of damages inflicted by Defendants herein

22 named above, as well as other defendants whose identity is not presently known,
23
identified only as DefendantsJohn &Jane Does 1-10.
24 2. This Court has jurisdiction as authorized by 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), Civil
~ 25
R.I.C.O., as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and 28 U.S.C. §1367 (Supplemental
~
26
Jurisdiction over inextricably intertwined California state claims, including but not
27
/ 28
limited to breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and
q Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., et al.
Cornplaintpursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.

~~
malicious prosecution against Orly Taitz (individually and dba a Racketeering

2 Enterprise known as the Law Office of Orly Taitz), and Defend our Freedoms
3
Foundations, Inc., as well as Tortious Interference with Contract and
4
Advantageous Business Relationship against YosefTaitz, Daylight Chemical
5
Information, and Appealing Dentistry, which latter two defendants are the true
6
primary sponsors of the RICO enterprise known as the Law Office of Orly Taitz).
7
3. Venue is proper because a large majority of the transactions and occurrences
8
giving rise to this lawsuit took place in or were orchestrated from Orange County,
9
within the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central
10
District of California. Furthermore, both named individual defendants reside in
11
Orange County and the named defendant entities have their headquarters or
12
principal place of business in Orange County.
13
4. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and add additional causes of action to
14
this complaint by regular amendment pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of
15
16
Civil Procedure as may be necessary to bring all issues before the Court concerning
17 the properties legal services were promised in California, Florida, Idaho,
18 Massachusetts, and Texas, among others.
19 BACKGROUND & HISTORY OF THE CASE

20 5. Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln was introduced to Dr. Orly Taitz by Kathy
21 Garcia-Lawson via telephone on Saturday, May 30, 2009, and afterwards was
22 hired by Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz to work as law clerk or litigation assistant in her
23 offices in Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, California, starting on June
24 9, 2009, on behalf of both herself, individually and dba Lavv Office of Orly Taitz,
25 and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc ..
26 6. Plaintiffs original agreement with Dr. Taitz was to be paid $10,000.00 to
27 serve as her law clerk or litigation assistant in research, drafting, and support on
28
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., et al. 2
Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S. C. §§1961 et seq.
Dr. Taitz' defense against a suit by one Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi, and Lisa Ostella
2
filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
3
7. Somehow Dr. Taitz quickly reduced this amount, without Plaintiffs actual
4
or implied consent or agreement, to $7,500.00, of which Plaintiff was expected to
5
pay his hotel bills in Mission Viejo while working with Dr. Taitz.
6
8. Nevertheless, Dr. Taitz rapidly piled on additional work, requesting that
7
Plaintiff review her submissions to the United States Supreme Court, U.S. District
8
Judge David O. Carter, and Plaintiff found himself working 24/7 almost without
9
sleep for Defendants Taitz et al. during this initial week.
10
9. On or aboutJune 24, 2009, Plaintiff flew to meet Taitz in Philadelphia for a
11
hearing before the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States DistrictJudge
12
for the E.D. Pennsylvania.
13
14 10. By this time, Defendants Dr. Taitz et al. had enlisted Plaintiff Lincoln in all 0
15 their litigation projects, for although the monetary compensation was not initially
16 increased, the Plaintiffs and Defendant's relationship had begun a surprising
17 evolution which led to Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz' ultimate infliction of extreme
18 emotional distress on the Plaintiff. Lincoln also accompanied Dr. Taitz to Missouri
19 the last week in June, 2009 and to New York City inJuly for an interview with
20 Steve Colbert and again in mid-October, but Dr. Taitz invited Lincoln to
21 accompany her on many other trips for various purposes during July, September,
22 and October 2010.
23 11. The Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln and Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz had
24 originally agreed reasonable legal support/litigation law clerk's fee of $1 0,000.00,
25 although never actually paid, would already have been more than used up and
26 exhausted by the approximately 250+ hours Plaintiff spent working for Dr. Taitz
27 and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc., between June 9 andJune 31, 2010.
28
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Inforrnation Systems) Inc.) et al.
3
Complaint pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §§1961 et seq.
12. By July 7, 2009, Plaintiff Lincoln was back in Orange County, California, at
2
Dr. Taitz' side, serving as her law clerk and assistant in a hearing before Judge
3
David O. Carter of the Central District of California.
4
13. Lincoln continued to work closely and continuously with Dr. Taitz
5
throughoutJuly, 2009, and on Saturday, while in Cambridge, Massachusetts, New
6
York City, and Rancho Santa NIargarita, August 1,2009, at 7:02 P.N!., Yosef
7
(Yosi) Taitz sent, apparently from his Daylight Chemical Information offices, a
8
certain e-mail which was destined to change the relationship and situation between
9
Plaintiff and Defendants forever, which should be considered the first of the key
10
"predicate acts" on which R.LC.O. is based, in that it was intended to advance a
11
scheme to defraud, aimed not merely at the Plaintiff but at the United States of
12
America, for purposes or with a state of mind that isl are difficult to decipher.
13
14. The final key "predicate act" was on the evening of Sunday, July 4,2010,
14
when Lincoln called Dr. Orly Taitz from Austin, Texas, and spoke to her at length
15
16
seeking a reconciliation or settlement of their differences and disputes which have,
17 finally, given rise to this lawsuit.

18 15. Dr. Taitz at that time suggested that reconciliation or future cooperation
19 were possible provided only that Lincoln perjure himself by retracting what he had
20 written in several affidavits defending himself against the false charges brought by
21 Dr. Orly Taitz, acting at all relevant times as the agent ofYosefTaitz and Daylight
22 Chemical Information, in the Court of the Honorable vVilliam P. Dimitrouleas in
23 Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
24 16. The attitude of callous disregard for truth and ethics of the most modest kind
25 shown by Dr. Orly Taitz in her conversation with Lincoln onJuly 4,2010, and by
26 YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information in continuing to fund Dr. Orly
27 Taitz~ through the activities of the Law Office of Orly Taitz, an enterprise
28 operating in and having an impact upon interstate and international commerce, as
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chelnical Infortnation Systelns, Inc., et al. 4
COlnplaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.
well as Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, each, jointly and severally, pose a
2
continuing threat of criminal activity is beyond reasonable doubt.
3
17. During July, September, and October of 2009, Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz
4
agreed to represent Plaintiff Lincoln in a wide variety of cases and to enter into a
5
partnership with him in property management and mortgage redemption.
6
18. Plaintiff alleges that the Law Office of Dr. Orly Taitz is the Racketeer
7
Influenced and Corrupt Organization or "RICO Enterprise" affecting interstate
8
commerce which stands at the heart of this lawsuit. The Law Office of Orly Taitz
9
has little or no legitimate legal business and its' activities are, according to Dr.
10
Taitz, entirely funded by YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information.
11
TWELVE CAUSES OF ACTION
12
19. First Cause of Action, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (direct, actual,
13
indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, and punitive damages sought in the
14
15
minimum amount of$600,000.00).
16
20. Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz, acting individually and/ or as agent for Yosef
17 Taitz and Daylight Chemical Information, falsely charged Plaintiff of forging her
18 signature (or signing without permission) on certain motions filed in the United
19 States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the Court ofJudge
20 William P. Dimitrouleas. After a hearing on "Order to Show Cause," these
21 charges were dismissed or dropped, so that the judicial outcome was favorable to
22 the Plaintiff.
23 21. Defendant Orly Taitz knew that the charges she brought or "made" or
24 attempted to make against Lincoln were false and she filed her affidavits or
25 declarations maliciously with intent to defame Lincoln and prevent him from
26 bringing actions against her such as the present lawsuit either by having him
27 wrongfully incarcerated or so disparaged and discredited that he would not bother.
28
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., et al.
Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 etseq.

22. Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz committed this malicious and false prosecution or
2
attempted prosecution because Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln had threatened to
3
bring suit against YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information for tortious
4
interference in Plaintiffs several agreements with Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz as
5
early as the last week or so in October 2009, and Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz also
6
wished (post facto) to disguise the true nature of her relationship and nascent but
7
abortive partnership with Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln.
8
23. Second Cause of Action, BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR LEGAL
9
REPRESENTATION, in re: 4 Via Corbina, Rancho Santa Margarita, California,
10
including, but not limited to 08-cv-0 1334-DOC, 09-cv-O 1072-DOC, and other
11
cases in California, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Texas (direct, actual,
12
indirect, consequential, special, exemplary and punitive damages in the minimum
13
amount of $4,800,000.00).
14
24. The contract was written; a true and correct copy of one of several finally
15
16 drafted and/or executed versions is attached here as Exhibit A (Dr. Taitz kept the
17 final version for herself at the termination of the relationship; Plaintiff believes that
18 . the version tendered is in fact the final version which she kept, having drafted and
19 revised several versions at Defendant's sole and demanding direction); the contract
20 drafted by the Plaintiff and, at Defendant Dr. Taitz' request, backdated to May 30,
21 2009, so that at all times during their relationship she would appear to have been in
22 a formal contractual relationship with Plaintiff, even though she never complied or
23 intended to comply with the terms of the contract.
24 25. Dr. Orly Taitz is an attorney, licensed to practice law in all state courts and
25 certain federal courts in the State of California, and before the United States
26 Supreme Court. Plaintiff is a relatively sophisticated consumer of legal services.
27 26. Plaintiff hired Dr. Orly Taitz to represent him in litigation in at least five
28 states. Dr. Orly Taitz agreed to provide legal services and either appeared or
1 attempted to appear in at least four distinct cases in California, Florida, and Idaho
2 and promised to appear in other cases, with no intention of ever carrying out or
3
performing her promises.
4
27. In fact, Dr. Orly Taitz never performed any meaningful legal services and in
5
fact by her complete non-performance injured the Plaintiff by every act which she
6
took or attempted to take on his behalf, including but not limited to the loss of 4
7
Via Corbina in Rancho Santa Margarita to Steven D. Silverstein.
8
28. Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln tendered five months of otherwise
9
uncompensated/radically undercompensated labor [including probably 2000
10
hours oflegal research and drafting) as well as actual expenses between June 9 and
11
November 4, 2010 and Defendant Orly Taitz accepted both his tender and the
12
agreement to represent him utilizing her California Law License.
13
29. (Although Dr. Orly Taitz never accomplished anything, and performed
14
significantly below the level of all other attorneys practicing in Orange County, it
15
16
must be admitted that she spoke passionately against the crookedness and
17 corruption of Steven D. Silverstein on several occasions).
18 30. Third Cause of Action, BREACH OF CONTRACT TO FORM REAL
19 ESTATE MANAGEMENT & REDEMPTION MANAGEMENT Company as a
20 partnership, LLP, or LLC (actual, direct, indirect, consequential, special,
21 exemplary, and punitive damages sought in the minimum amount of

22 $13,000,000.00). DuringJuly, August, September, and October, Plaintiff
23 requested and Dr. Orly Taitz agreed to assist Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln in
24 managing several distinct real properties in California, Florida, Idaho,
25 Nlassachusetts, and Texas, but Dr. Orly Taitz made these promises with no
26 intention ever meaningfully to do so.
27
28
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chem-icaIInJor1nation System-s, Inc., et al. 7
Com-plaint pursuant to 18 U.S. C. §§1961 et seq.
31. Plaintiff Lincoln tendered his time, toil, and talent (such as it was) to assist
2
Dr. Taitz for five months and then and there Dr. Taitz failed and refused to
3
perform and repudiated their agreements.
4
32. Dr. Taitz did all these things either at the behest of or while acting as agent
5
of and for YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information, who were her primary
6
sources of funding for all her activities, as Dr. Orly Taitz only revealed to Lincoln
7
in October 2009, having previously led him to believe that she and "Defend Our
8
Freedoms Foundation" functioned independently of her husband on account of her
9
dental, legal, and real estate activities.
10
33. Fourth Cause of Action: COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,
11
AND/OR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL TO PROVIDE OFFICE SPACE
12
(actual, direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary and punitive damages in
13
14
the minimum amount of $60,000.00).
15 34. In September and October 2009, Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz offered and
16 Charles Edward Lincoln accepted several rooms of space in and adjacent to her
17 Dental and Law Offices at 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, suites 100-300, Rancho
18 Santa Margarita, California 92688 for a term of 1-2 years to use as personal office
19 and as headquarters for his Tierra Limpia Trust/Deo Vindice Foundation.
20 35. Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln materially changed his position in direct
21 and reasonable reliance upon Dr. Taitz' promises, and began moving his
22 operations into Defendants' premises at 29839 Santa .Margarita Pkwy, ste 100,
23 Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688.
24 36. In November 2004, after Dr. Taitz terminated their working relationship,
25 Lincoln suffered loss of time and inconvenience and relocation costs in the
26 minimum amount of $30,000.00, to which special, consequential, exemplary, and
27 punitive damages should be added in the minimum amount of an additional
28
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Inform.ation Systems, Inc., et al.
8
$30,000.00, and (when considered part of the scheme to defraud and racketeering
2
acti\l~ty described below) should be trebled to $90,000.00.
3
37. Fifth Cause of Action: BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD
4
FAITH & FAIR DEALING (actual, direct, indirect, special, exemplary, and
5
punitive damages in the minimum amount of $2,000,000.00).
6
38. In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
7
each party not to do anything, which will deprive the other parties of the benefits of the
8
contract, and a breach of this covenant by failure to deal fairly or in good faith gives rise
9
to an action for damages. Sutherland v. Barclays Amen'can/Mortgage C01P., 53 Cal. App. 4th
10
299,314,61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 614 (1997); Harm v. Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405,415,5
11
Cal. Rptr. 367, 373 (1960); Seaman's DirectBuyingServ., Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 36 Cal. 3d
12
752,206 Cal. Rptr. 354 (1984), overruled on other grounds, Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher
13
14 Oil Co., 11 Cal. 4th 85, 102-03,44 Cal. Rptr. 420 (1995); see also Witkin, Summary of
15 California Law, Contracts, §743.
16 39. One of several drafted and/ or executed versions of the contract between Plaintiff
17 Charles Edward Lincoln and Dr. Orly Taitz is attached as Exhibit A. An action for
18 breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires an underlying
19 agreement of some sort (contract, letter of intent, preliminary agreement to use best
20 efforts to agree, etc.). Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Dep't rif Parks and Recreation, 11 Cal. App. 4th
21 1026, 1031-32, 1033 n.4, 14 Cal. Rptr. 335, 338-39, 340 n.4 (1992); Smith v. City and
22 County rifSan }"rancisco, 225 Cal. App. 3d 38, 49, 275 Cal. Rptr. 17,24 (1990); Peterson Dev.
23 Co. v. Toney Pines Bank, 233 Cal. App. 3d 103, 116,284 Cal. Rptr. 367,375 (1991).
24 40. The covenant imposed on Dr. Orly Taitz, as a party to the contract with Plaintiff,
25 the duty to refrain from doing anything which would render performance of the contract
26 impossible by any act of his O\vn, and also the duty to do everything that the contract
27 presupposes that each party will do to accomplish its purpose. April Enters., Inc. v. KTTV,
28
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Che1nicai bifoY1nation Syste1ns, Inc., et al.
9
C01nplaintpllrSliant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 etseq.
1
147 Cal. App. 3d 805, 816, 195 Cal. Rptr. 421, 425 (1983); Harm v. Frasher, 181 Cal. App.
2
2d 405, 417,5 Cal. Rptr. 367,374 (1960).
3
41. Dr. Orly Taitz in fact did everything she could to prevent Lincoln from receiving
4
any benefits from the contract, and she admitted in late October 2009 that she did this at
5
the behest and directions of Defendants Y osef Taitz and Daylight Chemical Information
6
who financed all her activities and those of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation.
7
42. Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
8
dealing by interfering with or failing to cooperate with the plaintiff in the performance of
9
the contract. vVitkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts, §744 (8th ed.); see also
10
Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage C01P., 53 Cal. App. 4th 299, 314, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d
11
614 (1997); Harm v. Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405,415,5 Cal. Rptr. 367, 373 (1960).
12
43. Defendants Dr. Orly Taitz, individually and doing business as the Law Office of
13
14
Orly Taitz, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, and Appealing Dentistry, is liable to
15 Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln for all damages proximately resulting from her extreme
16 and outrageous conduct. OJLiglry v. Pet) Inc., 162 Cal. App. 3d 877, 887-88, 208 Cal. Rptr.
17 394, 399-400 (1984); see also CACI 2423.
18 44. Defendants YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information are jointly and
19 severally liable to the Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln, to the extent that Yosef
20 Taitz and Daylight Chemical Information acted Principals who controlled,
21 directed, influenced, or manipulated the actions and conduct of Dr. Orly Taitz as
22 their agent or servant.
23 45. Sixth Cause of Action: DEFAJ\lIATION PER SE (ONGOING ON HER
24 BLOG and as quoted elsewhere online, actual, direct, indirect, consequential,
25 special, exemplary, and punitive damages accruing at $300,000.00/month).
26 46. Since approximately December 2009 or January 2010, Dr. Orly Taitz has
27 been regularly publishing innuendos, implications, and either explicitly or
28 implicitly per se defamatory and/ or false lights defamations of Plaintiff Charles
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Information Systems) Inc.) et al. 1()
Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.

1
Edward Lincoln in public speeches, private conversations, and on her blog:
2
http://www.orlytaitzesq.colll/
3
47. To wit, and only one example is necessary here because Defendant tends to
4
repeat herself consistently: Dr. Orly Taitz defamed Plaintiff Charles Edward
5
Lincoln in a private conversation in late January 2010 with someone who to her
6
was an (apparently) complete stranger as reported on-line at:
7
http:// toplObadguys. blogspot.colll/2010/01 I dr-orly-taitz-and-
8
charles-lincoln.htllll. This reported conversation serves as an alternative or
9
additional predicate act in furtherance of the RICO scheme to defraud.
10
48~ Seventh Cause of Action: LEGAL MALPRACTICE, 4 VIA CORBINA
11
MANAGEMENT & LITIGATION, DAMAGES $800,000.00.
12
49. Dr. Orly Taitz is an attorney licensed to practice in the state of California.
13
14
50. Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln is a consumer of legal services.
15 51. In the course of representing Lincoln in Orange County, California, Dr.

16 Orly Taitz failed to ascertain the existence of a lawsuit filed by Steven D.
17 Silverstein against Lincoln for Unlawful Detainer of 4 Via Corbina in Rancho
18 Santa Margarita, California, even while she was allegedly in regular contact and
19 negotiations with Steven D. Silverstein.
20 52. In the course of representing Lincoln in Palm Beach County, Florida, Dr.
21 Orly Taitz breached her fiduciary duty to her client by falsely accused Lincoln of
22 forging her signature or signing without her permission certain routine and
23 ministerial motions submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern
24 District of Florida.
25 53. During the course of representing Lincoln or promising to represent him in
26 several states, Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz engaged in an oppressive and exploitative
27 sexual "quid pro quo" relationship with Plaintiff Lincoln; Defendant Dr. Orly
28 Taitz sought effectively to enslave Plaintiff Lincoln, badgering him to move to live
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chnnicallnfonnation Systents, Inc., et al.
11
Contplaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.
at an Extended Stay Hotel within 5 minutes of her office in Rancho Santa

2
Margarita after losing 4 Via Corbina due to her extreme negligence instead of at a
3
resort down by the beach in San Clemente, California which required her to drive
4
20-30 minutes to see him each morning and evening in order to maintain their
5
relationship during the months of September and October 2009. DuringJune and
6
July 2009, Lincoln had stayed at other hotels also nearby her offices in Mission
7
Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, but Defendant offered basically to "keep"
8
Lincoln forever if he would stay close to her office to minimize suspicions arising in
9
her home and office due to her driving out of the way to San Clemente.
10
54. Plaintifrs refusal to completely subordinate himself to the Defendant was a
11
cause for Defendant's Malicious Prosecution and Defamation of Plaintiff, as well as
12
of her repudiation and breach of all Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz' contractual
13
14
obligations to Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln.
15 55. Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz filed but utterly failed to prosecute or take any
16 action other than withdrawing from a California Superior Court action against
17 Steven D. Silverstein for the wrongful seizure of 4 Via Corbina.
18 56. Eighth Cause of Action: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH DELEON
19 & ALDANA CONTRACTS (DR. ORLY TAITZ).
20 57. InJune of 2009, during the first week wherein Plaintiff Charles Edward
21 Lincoln first visited Rancho Santa Margarita to work with Defendant Dr. Orly
22 Taitz at her office, he made contact with certain prospective property
23 management/mortgage redemption clients including Dennis & Milenne DeLeon
24 and Herman and Olga Aldana.
25 58. Dr. Orly Taitz met these prospective clients with Lincoln in her office and
26 dramatically and enthusiastically urged Dennis & :Nlilenne DeLeon to hire Charles
27 Edward Lincoln as a property management consultantltrustee/mortgage
28
redemption client.
12
Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§I961 et seq.
1
59. Thereafter, the availability of Dr. Orly Taitz was always a factor in the
2
Plaintiffs contractual and business relationship with the DeLeons and the Aldanas.
3
60. Part of the series of written and oral agreements between Plaintiff Lincoln
4
and Defendant Orly Taitz was that Lincoln would be assisted at all times by Taitz
5
as an attorney in assisting Dennis & Milenne DeLeon and Herman and Olga
6
Aldana who were staunch anti-Communists and sometime admirers or Dr. Taitz'
7
public anti-Communist positions taken and articulated during 2009.
8
61. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Taitz' breach of contract and breach
9
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Lincoln, Dr. Taitz tortiously
10
interfered with Lincoln's contract and advantageous prospective business
11
relationship with the DeLeon and Aldana families, who were also subjected to
12
extreme emotional distress and otherwise injured and oppressed by Taitz false and
13
14
malicious prosecution and defamation of Lincoln in the months of November
15 2009-February 2010.
16 62. As a direct and proximate result of Taitz' breach with Orly, Lincoln was
17 unable to perform the contracts he had with Dennis & Milenne DeLeon, who had
18 accepted his services entirely or in part because of Dr. Orly Taitz' extravagantly
19 enthusiastic representations and endorsements verbally articulated to them inJune

20 2009, and this indirect interference constituted a tortious interference with contract
21 and prospectively advantageous relationships.
22 63. As a direct and proximate result, Lincoln lost the De Leon and Aldana
23 families as clients and thereby lost trusteeship and management of properties worth
24 in excess of 10 million U.S. dollars in South Pasadena and Corona, California, on
25 the one hand, and Gig Harbor, Washington, on the other, as well as the
26 management and trusteeship fees and the opportunity to obtain many other clients
27 and properties through these clients' good recommendation and offices.
28
13
64. Dr. Orly Taitz, because of her effulgent praise and support articulated and
2
expressed to Dennis & Milenne DeLeon, had assumed a special fiduciary or
3
constructively fiduciary relationship with the DeLeons and their relationship and
4
contracts with Charles Edward Lincoln, and for the loss of these specific contracts
5
and prospectively advantageous business relationships, Plaintiff Lincoln now sues
6
for actual, direct and indirect, special and consequential, punitive and exemplary
7
damages in the minimum amount of $3,000,000.00.
8
65. Ninth Cause of Action: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
9
CONTRACT (yOSEF TAITZ) & DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL INFORMATION)
10
(actual, direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, and punitive damages in
11
the minimum amount of$15,000,000.00).
12
66. Plaintiff realleges ~~1-64 and incorporates the same by reference as if fully
13
14
recopied and restated herein below.
15 67. At all relevant times, Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz acted as agent or servant of
16 YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information, in that she received all her
17 funding from these sources and neither the Law Office of Orly Taitz nor Defend
18 Our Freedoms Foundations had any regular or legitimate business, at least during
19 the five months during which Plaintiff Lincoln was associated with Dr. Orly Taitz.
20 68. In late October 2009, Defendant Taitz revealed to Lincoln that YosefTaitz
21 had ordered or instructed or threatened Taitz that she would have to surrender all
22 her rights to marital estate or property if she honored her several agreements or
23 continued her relationship with Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln.
24 69. Tenth Cause of Action: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE vVITH
25 PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS ADVANTAGE (yOSEF T AITZ & DAYLIGHT
26 CHEMICAL INFORMATION)(actual, direct, indirect, consequential, special,
27 exemplary, and punitive damages in the minimum amount of $30,000,000.00)
28
14
1
70. Plaintiff realleges ~~ 1-68 and incorporates the same by reference as if fully
2
recopied and restated herein below.
3
71. At all relevant times, Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz acted as agent or servant of
4
YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information, in that she received all her
5
funding from these sources and neither the Law Office of Orly Taitz nor Defend
6
Our Freedoms Foundations had any regular or legitimate business, at least during
7
the five months during which Plaintiff Lincoln was associated with Dr. Orly Taitz.
8
72. In October 2009, Defendant Taitz revealed to Lincoln that YosefTaitz had
9
ordered or instructed or threatened Taitz that she would have to surrender all her
10
rights to marital estate or property if she honored her several agreements or
11
continued her relationship with Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln.
12
13
73. Eleventh Cause of Action: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
14 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Dr. Orly Taitz, with all other Defendants acting in
15 agreement and conspiracy to Inflict Severe Emotional Distress Intentionally).
16 74. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates ~~ 1-7 2 the same by reference as if fully
17 copied and restated herein below.
18 75. During the course of representing Lincoln or promising to represent him in
19 several states, Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz engaged in an oppressive and exploitative
20 sexual "quid pro quo" relationship with Plaintiff Lincoln; Defendant Dr. Orly
21 Taitz sought effectively to enslave Plaintiff Lincoln, badgering him to move to live
22 at an Extended Stay Hotel within 5 minutes of her office in Rancho Santa
23 lVlargarita after losing 4 Via Corbina due to her extreme negligence instead of at a
24 resort dovvn by the beach in San Clemente, California which required her to drive
25 20-30 minutes to see him each morning and evening in order to maintain their
26 relationship during the months of September and October 2009.
27 76. DuringJune andJuly 2009, Lincoln had stayed at other hotels also nearby
28 her oDices in Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, but Defendant offered
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chelnical Infor1nation Systelns, Inc., et al.
15
COlnplaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.
basically to "keep" Lincoln forever if he would stay close to her office to minimize
2
suspicions arising in her home and office due to her driving out of the way to San
3
Clemente, even though Lincoln greatly preferred San Clemente to Rancho Santa
4
NIargarita, and the hotel facilities by the beach were incomparable.
5
77. Plaintifrs refusal to completely subordinate himself to the Defendant was one
6
cause, aside from the revelations made by Lucas Daniel Smith online in mid-
7
October 2009, for Defendant's Malicious Prosecution and Defamation of Plaintiff,
8
as well as of her repudiation and breach of all Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz'
9
contractual obligations to Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln.
10
78. Defendant further promised Lincoln a long list of benefits including
11
comprehensive dental care, special medical care and a "holistic" program of
12
therapy for which Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz would pay, plus all sorts of bizarre
13
14
promises about buying the Plaintiff fine furniture and a new stylish and expensive
15 wardrobe, complete with exotic items such as Vicuna jackets, none of which ever
16 materialized, needless to say.
17 79. Circumstantial evidence led Plaintiffs acquaintances to suggest that

18 Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz was merely trying to use emotional and sexual intimacy
19 to exploit Lincoln's various abilities, such as they were, without adequate payor
20 compensation or any intention whatsoever of follovving through on her promises
21 and agreements with Lincoln.
22 80. It is unclear whether Defendant YosefTaitz knew all along about Plaintiffs
23 association with Defendant Orly Taitz or not, but by the end of October 2009,
24 Defendants YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information vvere clearly and
25 directly instructing Dr. Orly Taitz, Appealing Dentistry, and Defend Our
26 Freedoms Foundation concerning all that needed and should be done.
27 81. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's conduct in this regard was extreme and
28 outrageous and utterly unacceptable in a civilized society.
16
Co'tnpiaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.
82. Wherefore Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln sues Defendants Dr. Orly
2
Taitz, YosefTaitz, Daylight Chemical Information, Appealing Dentistry, and
3
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation for a minimum amount of $30,000,000.00 in
4
actual, direct and indirect, consequential and special, punitive and exemplary
5
damages.
6
83. Twelfth Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. §§1962(a)-(d), 1964(c); R.LC.O.
7
84. Plaintiffrealleges ~~1-82 and incorporates the same by reference, as if fully
8
copied and restated herein below.
9
85. 18 U.S.C. §1962(a): Defendants YosefTaitz & Daylight Chemical
10
Information have each, jointly and severally, received income derived, directly or
11
indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity in which YosefTaitz (individually
12
and in his capacity as CEO of Daylight Chemical Information) has participated
13
and continues to participate as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18,
14
United States Code [18 USCS § 2], and for this reason it was therefore at all times
15
unlawful for Y osef Taitz and/or Daylight Chemical Information to use or invest,
16
17 directly or indirectly, any part of such racketeering income, or the proceeds of such
18 racketeering income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or
19 operation of the Law Office of Orly Taitz, an enterprise which was and remains
20 engaged in, or the activities of which affect, both interstate and foreign commerce.
21 86. Dr. Orly Taitz admitted in October 2009 that neither the Law Offices of
22 Orly Taitz nor Appealing Dentistry nor any of her real estate investments including
23 the offices offered to Plaintiff in Rancho Santa Margarita would exist or belong to
24 her but for the continuous investment and support ofYosefTaitz and his Daylight
25 Chemical Information Corporation.
26 87. Defendant YosefTaitz' first predicate act alleged in satisfaction of 18 U.S.C.
27 § 1961 was the e-mail sent by and through the electronic media of interstate
28 communications on August 1) 2009, intended for the joint receipt of Defendant Dr.
Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S. C. §§I961 et seq.
Orly Taitz and Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln, which transmitted over the
2
electronic wire facilities of interstate an apparently forged color birth certificate of
3
Barack Hussein Obama, allegedly obtained (apparently illegally) from Israeli Secret
4
Service aka "MOSSAD".
5
88. Yosef Taitz' motives or purposes for sending this e-mail from the offices of
6
Daylight Chemical Information are unknown, but may have related to certain
7
proprietary interests of Daylight Chemical Corporation.
8
89. Defendant YosefTaitz' second predicate act or series of predicate acts (each
9
taken or made both in his individual capacity and as CEO of Daylight Chemical
10
Information) was in or about late October 2009 to threaten Defendant Dr. Orly
11
Taitz, by telephone, e-mail, and in person, with physical harm and/or wrongful
12
deprivation of marital property and interests if she kept and honored her promises
13
14
and commitments to and contracts with Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln.
15 90. These acts on the part ofYosefTaitz (taken in his individual capacity and as
16 CEO of Daylight Chemical Information) constituted criminal extortion of Dr. Orly
17 Taitz (by threat of illegal physical and/ or economic injury) and Plain6ff Charles
18 Edward Lincoln was thereby influenced in his business or property thereby.

19 91. Wherefore by reason of Defendant's YosefTaitz' predicate acts and
20 violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(a), Plaintiff prays for treble his actual, direct and
21 indirect, special and consequential, punitive and exemplary damages against Yosef
22 Taitz and Daylight Chemical Information in the amount of $30,000,000.00.
23 92. 18 U.S.C. §1962(b): Plaintiffrealleges ~~1-90 and incorporates the same by
24 reference as if fully copied and restated herein below.
25 93. Defendants Dr. Orly Taitz, Appealing Dentistry, and Defend Our Freedoms
26 Foundation, through a pattern of racketeering activity unlawfully acquired or
27 maintained and still maintains, directly or indirectly, her interest in or control of
28
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical I1Iformation Systems, Inc., et al.

18
the Law Office of Orly Taitz, which is an enterprise which is engaged in, or the
2
activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
94. Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz' first predicate act was in forwarding the August 1,
4
2009, e-mail from Yosef Taitz to the Plaintiff and others, and then in sending a
5
series of e-mails from Israel during August 2009 supporting this first transmission of
6
the apparently forged Obama-Kenya birth certificate.
7
95. Defendant Orly Taitz' second predicate act was to send out and publish e-
8
mails, perjured declarations, and make telephone calls in furtherance of her scheme
9
to defraud, during November, December,January and February trying to cover up
10
her own anger or embarrassment (or whatever) in the wake of Lucas Daniel
11
Smith's mid-October 2009 disclosure of Plaintiffs relationship with Defendant.
12
13
96. These fraudulent communications made using the telephonic and other
14
electronic wires of interstate commerce including the Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz' per
15 se defamatory communication reported on-line at:
16 http://topIObadguys. blogspot.colll/2010/0 1 I dr-orly-taitz-and-
17 charles-lincoln.htllli.
18 97. Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz, either directly andlor indirectly placed or caused
19 to be placed a series of harassing telephone calls to a number of people in late
20 December 2009 and Early January 2010, including at least 130 calls placed to
21 Plaintiffs estranged wife Elena Kourembana Lincoln in Cedar Park, Texas, from
22 whom Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln had separated inJuly 2002 (this had the
23 certainly unintended effect of causing Plaintiff and his wife to become closer and
24 communicate better during 2010 than at any time in the pre\ious eight years).
25 98. Defendant Dr. Taitz' purpose in making these calls was to solicit negative,
26 perjurious, testimony against Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln.
27 99. As noted above, Dr. Taitz' final predicate act v,ras the use of the telephonic
28
wires to solicit, albeit in a call initiated bv, Charles Edward Lincoln, further '
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight ChelnicalInforrnation Systelns, Inc., et al.

19
COlnplaintpursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 etseq.
perjured testimony against himself as a condition for any sort of professional

2 reconciliation and future attorney-client cooperation between Lincoln and Taitz,
3
on the late afternoon or evening of Sunday,July 4, 2010, while Lincoln was in
4
Austin, Texas.
5
100. Wherefore by reason of Defendant Orly Taitz' violations of 18 U.S.C.
6
§1962(b), Plaintiff prays for all his actual, direct, indirect, consequential, and special
7
damages, as well as exemplary and punitive damages, trebled, in the amount of
8
$30,000,000.00.
9
101. 18 U.S.C. §1962(c): Plaintiffrealleges ~~1-99 and incorporates the same by
10
reference as if fully copied and restated herein below.
11
102. Dr. Ody Taitz was and remains employed by the Law Office of Orly Taitz
12
while Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, YosefTaitz, Appealing Dentistry, and
13
Daylight Chemical Information Corporation were all associated with the Law
14
Office of Ody Taitz, which was and remains enterprise with no regular or
15
16
legitimate business engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
17 commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the
18 Taitz' Law Office enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.
19 103. Defendants Dr. Orly Taitz, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Appealing
20 Dentistry, Daylight Chemical Information Corporation, and YosefTaitz each
21 jointly and severally were directly or indirectly employed by or associated with this
22 strange "fictitious" Law Office which generally refused to take clients except to the
23 degree necessary to fuel the Obama litigation (and promises were made to the
24 Plaintiff to regularize the law office's business to permit Plaintiffs participation).
25 104. All Defendants invested money in this law office and yet it appears, based on
26 Statements by Taitz herself, that donations to Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz' political-
27 litigation campaigns was minor or miniscule compared with the amounts invested
28 by YosefTaitz and Daylight Chemical Information Corporation.
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Che1nical bifor1nation Syste1ns, Inc., et al. 20
C01nplaint pursuant to 18 U.S. C. §§I961 et seq.
1
105. Wherefore by reason of Defendants Orly Taitz' and YosefTaitz' joint and
2
several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), individually and in their capacities as
3
managers/CEOs of Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, and
4
Daylight Chemical Information Corporation, Plaintiff prays for all his actual,
5
direct, indirect, consequential, and special damages, as well as exemplary and
6
punitive damages, trebled, in the amount of $30,000,000.00.
7
106. 18 U.S.C. §1962(d). Plaintiffrealleges ~~1-105 and incorporates the same by
8
reference as if fully copied and restated herein below.
9
107. Defendants Orly Taitz, YosefTaitz, Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our
10
Freedoms Foundation, and Daylight Chemical Information Corporation all agreed
11
and conspired together to violate the terms of §§1962(a), 1962(b), and 1962(c), in
12
particular, by agreeing to each of the predicate acts committed within the one year
13
period between August 1, 2009, andJuly 4, 2010, and by further agre~ing to inflict
14
15 wrongful and malicious injury on the Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln, at all times
16 using the electronic wire and telephonic facilities of interstate commerce and
17 communication.
18 108. Wherefore by reason of Defendants Orly Taitz' and YosefTaitz' joint and
19 several violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d), individually and in their capacities as
20 managers/CEOs of Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, and
21 Daylight Chemical Information Corporation, Plaintiff prays for all his actual,
22 direct, indirect, consequential, and special damages, as well as exemplary and
23 punitive damages, trebled, in the amount of $30,000,000.00.
24 JURY DEMAND AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln III prays that this Court
26 will summon the Defendants and set the above and foregoing complaint for trial-
27 by-jury at the earliest possible and practicable date, and that upon final trial-by-
28 jury of all facts so triable, demand for which is hereby made and tendered, that the
Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Che1nical Infor1nation Syste1ns, Inc., et al.
21
C01nplaint pursuant to 18 U.S. C. §§1961 et seq.
Court will enter judgment FOR the Plaintiff and AGAINST the Defendants and
2
that the Court will then and there award all ofPlaintifPs actual and direct,
3
consequential and indirect, particular and special, exemplary and punitive
4
damages in the minimum amount of$45,000,000.00, and will then and there
5
empower the Plaintiff to use all of the facilities of the Court and invoke its power to
6
execute said judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally.
7
Respectfully submitted,
8
Thursday, October 14, 2010
9
10
11
Pro se/in propia persona
12
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
13 603 Elmwood #6
14 Austin, TX 78705
Telephone: 512-968-2500
15 Email: lincolnforcalifornia@rocketmail.com
16
Alternative Telephone:
17 (512) 461-8192
18 E-mail Peyton Yates Freiman, Trustee:
Crcimanthird@gmail.com
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
.-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Exhibit A:
13
Copy of Written Contract
14
15 Between Lincoln & T aitz
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.c. §§1961 et seq.
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT:

TRUSTEE & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
CHARLES EDWARD UNCOLN, lIT,
Retains DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ., as Attorney & Counselor at Law
1. Charles Edward Lincoln, ITI, as Grantor/Beneficiary of the Tierra Limpia

Trust and Founder and Trustee of Deo Vindice, and many properties in California,
Florida, Idaho, and Texas, seeks to retain the services of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., to
represent him in real estate litigation in California, Florida, Idaho, and Texas (and
possibly other states) upon the following terms and conditions.
2. This agreement is required by the California Business and Professions Code

§6147 and is intended to fulfill the requirements of that section.
3. The Legal Services to be provided by Dr. Taitz are as follows:

Representation of Lincoln as title owner and/or as Trustee of real estate received
and managed in trust which is subject to third party mortgages or other
encumbrances; some of this real estate may even have been subject to nonjudicial
foreclosure and sale, and the nature of the suit to be filed in such cases shall be a
suit for redemption or monetary damages for wrongful foreclosure and/or eviction.
4. Lincoln's business is property management relating to properties in

foreclosure or eviction and it is the purpose of this agreement to employment Dr.
Orly Taitz his full time counselor and litigation attorney in the maximum number or
allotment of cases. The nature of the legal work to analyze title encumbrances and
to clear title by challenging the fundamental structure of modem mortgage finance
practice, which is at variance and in fact inconsistent with both traditional common
law relating to contracts and property and all modem consumer protection laws.
5. Other subjects of litigation will include, but not be limited to, the validity of
state laws purporting to grant immunity to mortgage trustees who institute non-
judicial foreclosures of property allegedly encumbered by securitized mortgages,
property damage, property loss, monetary damages for fraud or racketeering ("real
estate piracy" and bank fraud), declaratory judgments relating to securitization of
mortgage notes and the relationship of such securitization to common law doctrines
of "holder in due course" and "privity of contract".
6. Lincoln will provide technical and logistical support to all litigation but Dr.
Taitz will play no role in the management of trust estates and property managed
except to the extent of providing legal advice to Lincoln.
7. There may also be civil rights or constitutional aspects to the cases as against
State officers including Sheriffs, Sheriff's Deputies, Constables, and County Clerks
Legal Services Agreement between Charles Edward Lincoln as Trustee 1

And Property Management Consultant and Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., as Attorney-at-Law
who participate in the foreclosure or eviction of persons living in foreclosed

properties. Constitutional challenges to laws exempting real estate notes from
securities regulation are also likely.
8. Class Certification against Wells Fargo (relating to cases filed relating to

properties around the Country) will be sought at least in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho or in California or both.
9. Charles E. Lincoln for his part offers his technical (non-attorney) seIVices in
support of Dr. Orly Taitz' multi-district litigation arising from and touching upon
the citizenship of President Barack Hussein Obama as a non-cash retainer
tendered, paid and provided to Dr. Taitz for her seIVices.
10. The technical support and other Lincoln provides to Taitz in relation to the
Obama litigation will continue so long as necessary as will the services Taitz provides
to Lincoln in the mortgage and real estate-redemption related cases. I
11. t is acknowledged that Lincoln's sole income at the time of the making of this
agreement is his trusteeship and property management business which requires the
seIVices of an attorney, while Dr. Orly Taitz has alternative sources of income.
12. Any additional seIVices regarding non-Obama and non-mortgage cases will
require a separate written between Taitz and Lincoln will be required, but Dr. Taitz
acknowledges that Lincoln needs and will have to take time off, and cannot devote
full time to the Obama cases without her assistance in other mortgage and real
estate-related litigation (against Bank of America, for example) in California and
elsewhere, in addition to non-mortgage constitutional cases relating to Family Law
and Courts in Florida and Texas; Lincoln needs (eventually) to file for mandamus
relief from or other collateral attack against the sanctions imposed in 2008-cv-OOO 10-
WSS in Waco, Texas (U.S. District Court) for example.
13. Attorney Taitz will perform the legal seIVices called for under this agreement,
always keeping in close contact with client regarding details of litigation, including all
strategic decisions. Taitz promises to keep Lincoln informed of all progress and
developments, and promptly respond to Lincoln's inquiries.
14. Client Lincoln for his part will be truthful and cooperative with Taitz and
indemnify her for any false or misleading information which Taitz through no fault
of her own may introduce into court. Lincoln will also keep Taitz reasonably
informed of developments and of his telephone number, address, and whereabouts
generally on a weekly basis unless otherwise specifically agreed at sometime in the
future.

15. Lincoln will also be responsible for all basic legal research and technical
support of the litigation in which Taitz will represent him, including clerical duties
and trial preparation.
16. Attorney will be liable for making all arrangements to appear pro hac vice in
jurisdictions outside of the state of California, but Lincoln will endeavor wherever
possible to assist in the procurement of local counsel and the facilitation of
admission.
17. The amount Attorney Taitz will receive for her fees in this case for the legal
services to be provided under this agreement will be:
(a) 33% of any settlement amount (net of costs actually advanced by Dr.
Taitz, all of which shall be itemized and summarized to Lincoln on a
minimum 90 day/quarterly basis) obtained within 6 months of filing unless
Attorney has appeared for trial or more than 3 days of hearings within said 6
month (180 day) period.
(b) 40% of any amount recovered after a hearing on Motion for Summary
Judgment or trial, whether by settlement or judgment
(c) 50% of any amount received upon retrial or appeal of any case.
(d) H only possession or quiet title are awarded, without monetary

damages, Lincoln agrees that the minimum reasonable attorneys fees for
such cases as those proposed above is $25,000.00, and Lincoln agrees to do
all that is necessary to support Taitz' recovery of such fee, but this amount
may be adjusted by reference to "loadstar" bases for calculating reasonable
attorneys' fees based on hours invested, relative complexity of the case,
novelty of legal issues resolved, and complexity of facts.
(e) It is understood that Lincoln receives payment from certain Trust

grantors or beneficiaries for the management of trust property. To the extent
possible and practicable, Lincoln will advance the costs of litigation from
such fees received, but Lincoln's own fees as Trustee's will never be a source
of payment to Taitz and Taitz' attorneys' fees will never be a source of
payment for Lincoln's trustee's fees by Taitz.
18. Court filing fees, appellate paper and binding fees, costs of transcripts,
mediation, and travel will be charged to Lincoln's trusteeship clients (and not
deducted from any settlement or judgment amounts awarded as attorneys' fees) to
the degree possible.

19. All percentages and loadstar awards will be based on "net recovery" as
definted byt his agreement and all applicable law and court rules, and "net recovery"
shall be defined to mean the amount remaining after the total amount received
(whether by settlement, arbitration award, or court judgment), has been reduced by
all "costs" as defmed herein.
20. If payment of all or any part of the amount to be received or recovered will
be deferred, such as in the case of an annuity, structured settlement, or periodic
payments, "the total amount received" will be the initial lump sum payment plus the
present value, as of the time of settlement, fmal arbitration award, or final judgment,
of the payments to be received thereafter, but the initial award and subsequent
payments shall be divided precisely along the lines of the agreement herein, except
that payments received over time shall be administered with the framework of a
trust account by lincoln or his successor trustees at Deo Vindice and/or for any
particular properties.
21. Lincoln and Taitz agree that this agreement is governed by the law of the
State of California, but as such is negotiable or subject to reformation at any time by
an agreement of equal formality, subject to all applicable California Law including
lincoln's trust obligations to his trust beneficiaries/property management clients and
Taitz acknowledges that if there is no recovery of monetary damages or property,
there will be no recovery of attorneys' fees, even if Lincoln has previously received
payment as Trustee.
22. DIVISION OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. Attorney may divide the attorney's

fees received for the legal any services provided under this agreement with any other
licensed attorney, including local counsel, but such agreement or division must be
specifically approved by lincoln in writing that indicates the recipient of fees and
the terms of the division.
23. COSTS. As noted above, Lincoln will advance all costs of Litigation to the
extend possible from trust beneficiaries/property management clients. Attorney may
in her sole discretion and ad her sole convenience advance any and all other "costs"
in connection with Attorney's representation of Client under this agreement.
Attorney will be reimbursed out of the recovery for all costs itemized and billed
quarterly before any distribution of fees to Attorney or any distribution to Client
24. If there is no recovery, or the recovery is insufficient to reimburse Attorney

in full for costs advanced, Attorney will bear the loss. Costs include, but are not
limited to, court filing fees, deposition costs, expert fees and expenses, investigation
costs, long-distance telephone charges, messenger service fees, photocopying and
binding and all other document preparation expenses, and process server fees.

25. OTHER EXPENSES: Items that may be considered costs, if they are either
advanced or contributed to by Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, include, but are not limited
to, Client Charles Edward Lincoln's automotive, air, and other transportation
expenses, clerical staff, medical expenses, living expenses, and other parties' costs, if
any, if Client Charles Edward Lincoln should ultimately be required to pay.
26. REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE INTERESTS. Client Lincoln is

informed and aware that the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of
California require the Client's informed written consent before an Attorney may
begin or continue to represent the Client when the attorney has or had a
relationship with another party interested in the subject matter of the Attorney's
proposed representation of the client.
27. Attorney is not aware of any relationship with any other party interested in
the subject matter of Attorney's services for Client under this agreement. As long as
Attorney's services for Client continue under this agreement, Attorney will not agree
to provide legal services for any such party without Client's prior written consent.
Attorney Taitz specifically avers that she is not the owner of any direct or equity
interest nor a major creditor to any National Banking Association or Mortgage
Finance Company in the United States of America, and that she might be required
to withdraw from representation if she ever acquires such an interest in any banking
association or mortgage finance company.
28. Taitz will advise Lincoln regarding compliance with all relevant California
laws or administrative regulations relating to trusteeship or powers of attorney in
relationship to the properties managed and as relating to all litigation undertaken.
289. SETTLEMENT. Attorney will not settle Client's claim without the approval
of Client, who will have the absolute right to accept or reject any settlement.
Attorney will notify Client promptly of the terms of any settlement offer received by
Attorney.
30. ATTORNEY'S liEN. Attorney will have alien for Attorney's fees and
costs advanced on all claims and causes of action that are the subject of her
representation of Client under this agreement and on all proceeds of any recovery
obtained (whether by settlement, arbitration award, or court judgment).
31. DISCHARGE OF ATTORNEY. Client may, upon 45 days written notice,

discharge Attorney at any time by written notice effective when actually received by
Attorney Orly Taitz, Esq.. Unless specifically agreed by Attorney and Client,
Attorney will provide no further services and advance no further costs on Client's
behalf after receipt of the notice.

32. If Attorney Taitz is Client Lincoln's attorney of record in any proceeding,

Client will execute and return a substitution-of-attorney form immediately on its
receipt from Attorney. Notwithstanding the discharge, Client Lincoln will be
obligated to pay Attorney Taitz out of the recovery a reasonable attorney's fee for all
services provided and to reimburse Attorney out of the recovery for all costs
advanced. If there is no recovery, or the recovery is insufficient to reimburse
Attorney in full for costs advanced, Attorney Taitz will bear 10096 of her loss.
33. WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY. Attorney may upon 45 days written

notice withdraw at any time as permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct
of the State Bar of California, effective when actually received by Charles Edward
Lincoln. The circumstances under which the Rules permit such withdrawal include,
but are not limited to, the following: (a) The client consents, and (b) the client's
conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to carry out the
employment effectively.
34. Notwithstanding Attorney's withdrawal, Client will be obligated to pay

Attorney out of the recovery a reasonable attorney's fee for all services provided,
and to reimburse Attorney out of the recovery for all costs advanced, before the
withdrawal. IT there is no recovery, or the recovery is insufficient to reimburse
Attorney in full for costs advanced, Attorney will bear the loss.
35. RELEASE OF CUENTS PAPERS AND PROPERTY. At the termination

of services under this agreement, Attorney will release promptly to Client on request
all of Client's papers and property. "Client's papers and property" include
correspondence, deposition transcripts, exhibits, experts' reports, legal documents,
physical evidence, and other items reasonably necessary to Client's representation,
whether Client has paid for them or not.
36. DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTY. Although Attorney Taitz may offer an

opinion about possible results regarding the subject matter of this agreement,
Attorney Taitz cannot guarantee any particular result. Lincoln acknowledges that
Attorney has made no promises about the outcome and that any opinion offered by
Attorney in the future will not constitute a guaranty.
37. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement contains the entire agreement of

the parties. No other agreement, statement, or promise made on or before the
effective date of this agreement will be binding on the parties.
38. SEVERABIUTY IN EVENT OF PARTIAL INVAliDITY. IT any

provision of this agreement is held in whole or in part to be unenforceable for any
reason, the remainder of that provision and of the entire agreement will be
severable and remain in effect.

39. MODIFICATION BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT. TIlls agreement

may be modified by subsequent agreement of the parties only by an instrument in
writing or equal formality to the present document signed by both of them.
40. ARBITRATION OF FEE DISPUTE. If a dispute arises between Attorney

and Client regarding attorney's fees under this agreement and Attorney files suit in
any court other than small claims court, Client will have the right to stay that suit by
timely electing to arbitrate the dispute under Business and Professions Code
sections 6200-6206, in which event Attorney must submit the matter to such
arbitration. Arbitration may not be required as to issues other than attorneys' fees.
41. ATIORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS IN ACTION ON AGREEMENT.

The prevailing party in any action or proceeding to enforce any provision of this
agreement will be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in that
action or proceeding or in efforts to negotiate the matter.
43. EFFECfIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT. The effective date of this

agreement will be the date when, having been executed by Client, one copy of the
agreement is received by Attorney, to wit, by facsimile transmission on, Saturday,
May 30, 2009, originals to be exchanged at a later date. This agreement shall
continue in full vigor until modified by mutual agreement or terminated upon 45
days written notice by either party, as specified above.
43. Lincoln's Trustees, Co-Trustees, and Trust Beneficiaries are acknowledged

by Taitz as intended third-party beneficiaries of this agreement, but Lincoln and
Taitz agree that, except by separate agreement, there will be no other attorney-client
relationship under this agreement apart from Lincoln-Taitz, and that, except by
separate agreement of equal formality, Taitz will never represent any Trust
beneficiary or Co-Trustee directly, with the sole except of the degree to which
Lincoln's Tierra Limpia Trustee and Deo Vindice Co-Trustee Peyton Yates
Freiman may be involved directly or indirectly in any case, and in case of Lincoln's
death, Taitz will represent Freiman as successor trustee to all trusts according to
their terms, but to no other successor trustee.
44. Lincoln and Taitz agree that each of them owe each other non-severable
duties of confidentiality, loyalty, and trust, but within the confines of these reciprocal
fiduciary obligations, each party retains full and complete intellectual property
ownership of his and her work and ideas, and neither party shall ever endeavor to
restrict or restrain the ability of the other, or any third party such as Freiman or
Lincoln's son Charlie Lincoln, IV, from writing about their work either for
"newsworthiness", "historic", "economic", or "political significance", and each shall
retain full control over the rights to his or her identity and biography as a subject for

documentary or semi-fictionalized treatment, and each will back the other up against
any third-party attacks or infringement upon these rights, or any invasion of privacy.
45. All equitable benefits and use of the legal trademarks "Deo Vindice" and
"Tierra Limpia" belong to Lincoln and his trust beneficiaries, and are the property
of the trustees of the respective trusts. Taitz' "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" is
her own trademark. Lincoln and Taitz may engage in reciprocal fundraising and
shall act as trustees for each other if and to the extent that they do so.
The above-and-foregoing was agreed to and acknowledged by:
MAY 30,2009:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III
6102 Valleyview Drive
lago Vista, Texas 78645
(or, alternate)
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
Tierra Limpia Trust
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
(or second alternate)
2620 NATURE'S WAY
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410
512-968-2500//512-923-1889
May 30, 2009:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF DR. ORLYTAIlZ, ESQ.
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
949-683-6411//949-766-7687

\')1"~ 1. .a.:.-.., 01. '"' 1. .a.:.-I-.JI ..,J.!J' 1. 1.'\..1'-..,.. I '-''-'\.) ~'\.. .I , '-..-.a.:.-l., I J.~D ..,J.I-.JI • • '1'-..,... '-.I.' '-'~L.JII' '-.II'\..l" I~
CIVIL COVER SHEET

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing yourself D) DIifJfI)i~tliI§nicallnformation Systems, Incorporated,
Charles Edward Lincoln, III, pro se, in propia persona YosefTaitz, Appealing Dentistry, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., D.D.S. J.D., Defendant Our
Freedoms Foundation and all John & Jane Does 1-10
(b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you are representing Attorneys (If Known)
yourself, provide same.)
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6 UNKNo\VN
Austin, Texas 78705
Telephone (512) 968-2500
E-mail: charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com or
II. BASIS OF JlIRISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only
(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)
o I U.S. Government Plaintiff ~3 Federal Question (U.S. PTF DEF PTF DEF
Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 01 01 Incorporated or Principal Place 04 04
of Business in this State
02 U.S. Government Defendant 04 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State 02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 05 05
of Parties in Item III) of Business in Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 03 03 Foreign Nation 06 06
IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)

~I Original 02 Removed from 03 Remanded from 04 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from another district (specify): 0 6 Multi- o7 Appeal to District
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District Judge from
Litigation Magistrate Judge
V. REQlIESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes 0 No (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.)
CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P. 23: 0 Yes ~No o MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $45.000.000.00
VI. CAliSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only.)

---- -~-
--
\ OTHER STATUTES CONTRACT TORTS TORTS PRISONER - -LABOR'

-
0400 State Reapportionment 0110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL PETITIONS 0710 Fair Labor Standards
0410 Antitrust 0120 Marine 0310 Airplane PROPERTY 0510 Motions to Act
0430 Banks and Banking 0130 Miller Act 0315 Airplane Product 0370 Other Fraud Vacate Sentence 0720 LaborlMgmt.
0450 CommercelICC 0.140 Negotiable Instmment Liability 0371 Truth in Lending Habeas Corpus Relations
Rates/etc. 0150 Recovery of 0320 Assault, Libel & 0380 Other Personal 0530 General 0730 LaborlMgmt.
0460 Deportation Overpayment & Slander Property Damage 0535 Death Penalty Reporting &
~470 Racketeer Influenced Enforcement of 0330 Fed. Employers' 0385 Property Damage 0540 Mandamus/ Disclosure Act
and Corrupt Judgment Liability Product Liability Other 0740 Railway Labor Act
0340 Marine
Organizations 0151 Medicare Act BANKRUPTCY 0550 Civil Rights 0790 Other Labor
0345 Marine Product
D 480 Consumer Credit 0152 Recovery of Defaul ted 0422 Appeal 28 USC 0555 Prison Condition Litigation
Liability
D490 Cable/Sat TV Student Loan (Excl. 158 FORFEITURE / 0791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
0350 Motor Vehicle
D 810 Selective Service Veterans) 0423 Withdrawal 28 PENALTY Security Act
0355 Motor Vehicle
D 850 Securities/Commodities/ 0153 Recovery of Product Liability USC 157 0610 Agriculture PROPERTY RIGHTS
Exchange Overpayment of 0360 Other Personal CIVIL RIGHTS 0620 Other Food & 0820 Copyrights
D 875 Customer Challenge 12 Veteran's Benefits Injury 0441 Voting Drug 0830 Patent
USC 3410 0160 Stockholders' Suits 0362 Personal Injury- 0442 Employment 0625 Drug Related o 840 Trademark
] 890 Other Statutory Actions 0190 Other Contract Med Malpractice 0443 Housing!Acco- Seizure of SOCIAL SECURITY
] 891 Agricultural Act 0195 Contract Product 0365 Personal Injury- mmodations Property 21 USC 0861 HIA (1395ft)
] 892 Economic Stabilization Liability Product Liability 0444 Welfare 881 o 862 Black Lung (923)
Act o 196 Franchise 0368 Asbestos Personal 0445 American with 0630 Liquor Laws o 863 DIWCIDIWW
] 893 Environmental Matters REAL PROPERTY Injury Product Disabilities - 0640 R.R. & Truck (405(g))
] 894 Energy Allocation Act 0210 Land Condemnation Liability Employment 0650 Airline Regs 0864 SSID Title XVI
] 895 Freedom oflnfo. Act 0220 Foreclosure IMMIGRATION 0446 American with 0660 Occupational 0865 RSI (405(g))
] 900 Appeal of Fee Determi- 0230 Relit Lease & Ejectment 0462 Naturalization Disabilities - Safety /Health FEDERAL TAX SUITS
nation Under Equal 0240 Torts to Land Application Other 0690 Other 0870 Ta'Xes (U.S. Plaintiff
Access to Justice 0245 Tort Product Liability 0463 Habeas Corpus- 0440 Other Civil or Defendant)
] 950 Constitutionality of 0290 All Other Real Property Alien Detainee Rights 0871 IRS-Third Party 26
State Statutes 0465 Other Immigration USC 7609
Actions
-OR OFFICE liSE ONLY: Case Number: _ _ _S_A_C_V_IO_-_l_S_73_A_G_{_P_L_A_x_}_ _ _ _ _ _ __
AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV-71, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW.
V-71 (05/08) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page I of2

CIVIL COVER SHEET
VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed" ~No 0 Yes
[fyes, list case number(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
VIII(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present casco ~No 0 Yes
If yes, list case number(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:
:Check all boxes that apply) 0 A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
o B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions oflaw and fact; or
o C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or
o D. Involve the same patent trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.
lX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)
a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides.
] Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff If this box is checked, go to item (b)
County in this District:' California
. 'cr
County
. .
outside. of this
.
District;
•
State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
. •
IUll.LlH lla.>~ • • ~.~ .ll.> ,"J1U"""" III kV1V V"'''''''" ~lU1l5" ~vU"'h ~U'J1V"J1'"
Palm Beach County, Florida, Williamson County, Texas, and Los Angeles County,
California
b) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State ifother than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides.
] Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant If this box is checked, go to item (c).
County in this District:' California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
)range County---all Defendants
c) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.
Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.
County in this District:' California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
)range County, California
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PE ): -~",,",...9I4d~~I-7.A---"-44'.-h>!f-JL,7--=:!7--- Date Thursdav October 14 201 0
Notice to CounsellParties: The CV -71 (1S-44) Civi Cover Sheet and the i ormation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings
or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed
but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (Forrnore detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.)
ey to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:
Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action
861 HIA All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the
program. (42 U.s.c. 1935FF(b»
862 BL All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.
(30 U.Sc. 923)
863 DIWC All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as
amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.c. 405(g»
863 DIWW All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security
Act, as anlended. (42 U.s.c. 405(g»
864 ssm All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security
Act, as amended.
865 RSI All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act. as amended. (·n
U.S.c. (g))
V-71 (05/08) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Andrew Guilford and the assigned
discovery Magistrate Judge is Paul Abrams.
The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
SACV10- 1573 AG (PLAx)
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related
motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is
filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).
Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:
U Western Division [X] Southern Division U Eastern Division

312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8 411 West Fourth St., Rm.1-053 3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 Riverside, CA 92501
Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.
CV-18 (03/06) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
Charles Edward Lincoln, III

603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
Telephone: 512-968-2500
E-mail: charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER
Charles Edward Lincoln, IIIl
~
1
v.
PLAINTIFF(S)
,
(
SACVIO-1573 AG(PLAx)
Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Incorporated,
YosefTaitz, Appealing Dentistry, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.,
D.D.S., J.D., Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, All
SUMMONS
John & Jane Does 1-10
DEFENDANT(S).
TO: DEFENDANT(S): ~_:....:."----"'-y-_--_--_--_--_--_ _ __
A lawsuit has been fIled against you. ~a

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you re MI~jt, you
must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached !!I'complaint 0 amendedc3~int
o counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer
or motion must be served on the plaintiffs attorney, Charles Edward Lincoln, III , whose address is
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6, Austin, Texas 78705 . If you fail to do so,
judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file
your answer or motion with the court.
Clerk, U.S. District Court
Dated: ,I' By: ____________~~~~~~-
[Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States, Allowed
60 days by Rule 12(a)(3)}.
('V.OJ A (1?/07) SUMMONS

Lincoln V Daylight, Taitz, Etc.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lincoln V Daylight, Taitz, Etc.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:1

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

21 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.) complaining of damages inflicted by Defendants herein

q Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., et al.

Cornplaintpursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.

malicious prosecution against Orly Taitz (individually and dba a Racketeering

17 the properties legal services were promised in California, Florida, Idaho,

18 Massachusetts, and Texas, among others.

19 BACKGROUND & HISTORY OF THE CASE

16 increased, the Plaintiffs and Defendant's relationship had begun a surprising

17 finally, given rise to this lawsuit.

20 William P. Dimitrouleas. After a hearing on "Order to Show Cause," these

Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 etseq.

17 corruption of Steven D. Silverstein on several occasions).

18 30. Third Cause of Action, BREACH OF CONTRACT TO FORM REAL

19 ESTATE MANAGEMENT & REDEMPTION MANAGEMENT Company as a

20 partnership, LLP, or LLC (actual, direct, indirect, consequential, special,

21 exemplary, and punitive damages sought in the minimum amount of

15 California Law, Contracts, §743.

17 394, 399-400 (1984); see also CACI 2423.

Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.

15 51. In the course of representing Lincoln in Orange County, California, Dr.

at an Extended Stay Hotel within 5 minutes of her office in Rancho Santa

19 enthusiastic representations and endorsements verbally articulated to them inJune

15 agreement and conspiracy to Inflict Severe Emotional Distress Intentionally).

16 materialized, needless to say.

17 79. Circumstantial evidence led Plaintiffs acquaintances to suggest that

18 racketeering income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or

16 CEO of Daylight Chemical Information) constituted criminal extortion of Dr. Orly

18 Edward Lincoln was thereby influenced in his business or property thereby.

Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical I1Iformation Systems, Inc., et al.

15 se defamatory communication reported on-line at:

16 http://topIObadguys. blogspot.colll/2010/0 1 I dr-orly-taitz-and-

Charles Edward Lincoln v. Daylight ChelnicalInforrnation Systelns, Inc., et al.

perjured testimony against himself as a condition for any sort of professional

17 commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the

18 Taitz' Law Office enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.

20 Dentistry, Daylight Chemical Information Corporation, and YosefTaitz each

LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT:

1. Charles Edward Lincoln, ITI, as Grantor/Beneficiary of the Tierra Limpia

2. This agreement is required by the California Business and Professions Code

3. The Legal Services to be provided by Dr. Taitz are as follows:

4. Lincoln's business is property management relating to properties in

Legal Services Agreement between Charles Edward Lincoln as Trustee 1

who participate in the foreclosure or eviction of persons living in foreclosed

8. Class Certification against Wells Fargo (relating to cases filed relating to

Legal Services Agreement between Charles Edward Lincoln as Trustee 2

(d) H only possession or quiet title are awarded, without monetary

(e) It is understood that Lincoln receives payment from certain Trust

Legal Services Agreement between Charles Edward Lincoln as Trustee 3

22. DIVISION OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. Attorney may divide the attorney's

24. If there is no recovery, or the recovery is insufficient to reimburse Attorney

Legal Services Agreement between Charles Edward Lincoln as Trustee 4

26. REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE INTERESTS. Client Lincoln is

31. DISCHARGE OF ATTORNEY. Client may, upon 45 days written notice,

Legal Services Agreement between Charles Edward Lincoln as Trustee 5

32. If Attorney Taitz is Client Lincoln's attorney of record in any proceeding,

33. WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY. Attorney may upon 45 days written

34. Notwithstanding Attorney's withdrawal, Client will be obligated to pay

35. RELEASE OF CUENTS PAPERS AND PROPERTY. At the termination

36. DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTY. Although Attorney Taitz may offer an

37. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement contains the entire agreement of

38. SEVERABIUTY IN EVENT OF PARTIAL INVAliDITY. IT any