Saturday, September 19, 2020

Busted by Twitter for calling Kyle Rittenhouse a Hero and Martyr

Yeah, BUSTED! 

You see, I tweeted what you see below, whereupon one of Twitter's myriad leftist, limp-wristed, lame-brained, panty-waist, dilettante, hypocritical censor twits reacted in rancor, thusly:

My tweet was innocuous, and I'm not that much of a pushover, so I opted to appeal...



I responded by explaining that Kyle gave first aid to victims of terrorists who then attacked Kyle and got shot in self-defense, and now leftists are prosecuting him.

Implicitly, that makes Kyle both hero and martyr.  And note that my tweet did not glorify serial killing or violence.

Let the reader be the judge


A few minutes later I get this email from Twitter:

 
Twitter
 
Hello,
 
Thank you for your patience as we reviewed your appeal request for account, @bobhurt, regarding the following:
 

avatar
Bob Hurt
@bobhurt

Kyle Rittenhouse—Hero And Martyr https://[...]
Violating our rules against glorifying violence
 
Our support team has determined that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision.
 
You will not be able to access Twitter through your account due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around:
In order to restore account functionality, you can resolve the violations by logging into your account and completing the on-screen instructions.
 
Thanks,
Twitter


Twitter's censors obviously love Marxist terrorists who are doing their best to destroy America, and HATE anyone who puts up an effective defense (such as by killing terrorist attackers who badly need killing).  They thought Kyle Rittenhouse would cave in like nearly everybody else does in response to their onslaught, and they could beat him down and leave him bleeding, broken, and dead in the street. 

What a surprise they received instead!  Kyle shot three of them, two of them died, and the third had already drawn his pistol with intent to kill Kyle.  Kyle's actions of giving first aid, protecting others' property, and defending himself seem heroic to me.  He became a martyr for having to face prosecution for murder.  Those who censor Kyle for shooting his attackers in self-defense would change their opinion if terrorists attacked them with intent to kill.


--
Bob Hurt Signature
Bob Hurt

Bob Hurt
👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     📞 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
🔨 Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

QR Code

You can't get justice if you don't know how!

Learn how to win in court without a lawyer.
Costs less than an hour of lawyer time!

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Fwd: David Lester Straight and his affidavit purporting to renounce U.S. citizenship




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: David Lester Straight and his affidavit purporting to renounce U.S. citizenship
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 19:57:01 -0400
From: snoop4truth snoop4truth <snoop4truth@gmail.com>


ABOUT RENOUNCING U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

David Lester Straight seems sincere, well-meaning and acts as if he believes what he says about the law and government. But, he has a number of misconceptions about the law and government. So, he is misleading his followers.

Straight recommends using his form "affidavit" to renounce U.S. citizenship which he claims will render a person exempt from the application of U.S. laws, U.S. tax obligations and U.S. financial obligations. Straight does not know that his affidavit alone will not work to renounce U.S. citizenship in the first place and would not operate to absolve a person of U.S. law, U.S. tax obligations and U.S. financial obligations even if it did work to renounce U.S. citizenship..

In "IN RE YUSKA, Bankr. Court, Iowa 2017", the court held, " [The affiant's] attempt to unilaterally declare himself free of citizenship and its responsibilities WAS ... INEFFECTIVE. HE CANNOT CONTINUE TO RESIDE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF CITIZENSHIP WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING HE IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (setting forth the ways a citizen may renounce citizenship). AN AFFIDAVIT PURPORTING TO RENOUNCE CITIZENSHIP IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNDER 8 U.S.C. § 1481, because, among other things, "A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT UNDER THESE PROCEDURES IS THAT THE CITIZEN BE OUTSIDE THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES in order for his renunciation to take effect." Duncan v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 7:08-CV-00564, 2008 WL 4821323, at *1-2 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2008)." See the last 6 full paragraphs here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15933401354161493454&q=yuska+2017+iowa+%22He+cannot+continue+to+reside+here%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 

Further, the law applies exactly the same to citizens as non-citizens, state citizens or non-state citizens, U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens. Status changes nothing whatsoever. Travel.state.gov puts it this way, "Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship MAY HAVE NO EFFECT ON THEIR U.S. TAX OR MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATIONS (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, THE ACT OF RENOUNCING U.S. CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT ALLOW PERSONS TO AVOID POSSIBLE PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES WHICH THEY MAY HAVE COMMITTED OR MAY COMMIT IN THE FUTURE WHICH VIOLATE U.S. LAW, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.". https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html. So, there is no advantage in attempting to renounce U.S. citizenship whatsoever.

More importantly, Straight has fabricated at least part, if not all of his his background, credentials (former special forces, former secret service, former deputy sheriff, member of presidential task force, gets people out prison, etc.) and all of his legal alleged victories (personally recovered 250 children wrongfully kidnapped by the CPS and responsible for drafting the paperwork that resulted in 800 court victories, referring to his worthless affidavit). So, not only do we have a competence problem, we also have a character and integrity problem. Straight has a lot in common with other amateur legal theorists who make similar claims below.

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here
For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here

Best Value in Shears/Scissors for cleanly, quickly cutting UHMWPE, Dyneema, Kevlar

Best Value in Shears/Scissors for cleanly, quickly cutting UHMWPE, Dyneema, Kevlar, etc. cord/rope.

Klein Tools 544KV Utility Shear, 6-3/8-Inch 

These shears cut like a dream.

Micro-serrations on one blade firmly grip fabric/cord during the cut; the other non-serrated blade allows sharpening.

Klein forged the blades from carbon alloy steel and tempered them to Rockwell hardness = 62C (VERY HARD)

Pivot bolt allows tension adjustment.

Price:  $12 to $14 typical

* https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/industrial-utility-snips/utility-kevlar-shear-fiber-optics-6-38-inch
* https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073GCKNJ8
* https://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-6-3-5-in-Utility-Kevlar-Shear-544KV/302589187

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Delaware Refuses to Release Criminal Records Related to Joe Biden




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:  Delaware Refuses to Release Criminal Records Related to Joe Biden
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 08:04:35 -0400
From: Montgomery Blair Sibley <montybsibley@gmail.com>


Greetings,

This morning I posted on my Blog, Amos Probos, an interesting (I think) and relevant (I hope) story about when Joe Biden and I crossed paths.  Let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns. Here is the text of my post:

I have been trying since late last year to get the Delaware Office of the Prothonotary to release public records related to a criminal case which may well bear upon the fitness of Joe Biden to be President. However, if you are looking for a 280-characters explanation of the importance of the Prothonotary's refusal to produce the requested documents, you won't find it here as this is a complicated story.  Let's go to the timeline:

In the Fall of 2007, my client Larry Sinclair accused then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama of engaging with him in drug use and homosexual acts. Shortly after that accusation, Larry began to exchange Text Messages regarding Obama with Donald Young, who was the Choir Director at The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Junior's Trinity United Church of Christ. This is the Church where then-Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was baptized, married and was a long-time member. On December 23, 2007, Donald Young was found executed in his Chicago apartment

In Mid-January 2008, Larry posted a video on YouTube regarding his specific allegations of sex and drug use with Obama.

On February 8, 2008, the Attorney General of Delaware (and the late son of Joe Biden), Beau Biden, filed an Indictment against Larry charging theft of less than $1,000 and, anomalously, for an extradition warrant.

In Early-March 2008, Larry contacted me as he was afraid for his life as a result of the Donald Young "assassination" and for advice on what to do as he was receiving death threats. To protect Larry, we: (i) filed a federal lawsuit against the anonymous blogger "Oswaldo" threatening Larry and (ii) organized a rather bizarre press conference on June 18, 2008, at the National Press Club which is still on YouTube. The goals were to push back against those threatening Larry and also make a buffoon out of him so he would be relegated to a dustbin of history and no longer a threat to the Obama/Biden ticket. The strategy worked. The FBI identified the person making threats against Larry and me but refused to identify either him or the U.S. Attorney who told the the FBI not to tell us his identity.

Immediately after the June 18, 2008 Press Conference and while still at the National Press Club, Larry was arrested on the Delaware warrant and subsequently extradited to Delaware on June 23, 2008. According to the Docket, on August 28, 2008, Beau Biden filed a "nolle prosequi" or dismissal of the criminal case against Larry citing to the Court: "Insufficient Evidence".

In December 2019, I ordered the actual file of Larry's Delaware Criminal case and paid to have it retrieved from the Delaware Clerk's storage.  The Prothonotary of Delaware has refused to produce the file for my review despite my repeated requests. I believe that file will demonstrate that there was no evidence in support of the Delaware Warrant but rather it was a way for the Bidens to shut Larry up until after the election. It worked.

The circumstances surrounding Larry's indictment, arrest and the subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges against him for lack of evidence six months later by Beau Biden's office speak clearly to me of the heavy hand of Joe Biden utilizing the criminal justice system to silence an existential threat to Obama and by extension, to Joe Biden himself.

I don't know if Larry was telling the truth or not, nor do I particularly care if Barack Obama is gay and/or an addict; that is not the issue here. I do know and care that Joe Biden apparently had my client falsely arrested for making those accusations. Like so many in Washington D.C., Joe Biden has come to believe that if his has the "power" then whatever he does with it is "right". This is antithetical to our Nation's Founder's beliefs and significant sacrifices to achieve dominance for the rule-of-law that "what is right" flows from objective and agreed-upon sources of right and wrong, not from the possession of power alone.

For this reason, I do not believe Joe Biden is fit to be President of the United States of America because apparently to him the ends justify whatever means are used to obtain them. While I will admit to certain reservations about Donald Trump, in weighing the risks each man poses to the well-being of the United States of America, there is no question in my mind that Joe Biden is simply too morally untenanted to be a four-year tenant in the most powerful Chair in the World.

If you want to follow up: Delaware Office of the Prothonotary, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, Superior Court of Delaware, Suite 500, 500 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801| Email: Michele.Ashby@Delaware.gov | Phone: (302) 255-0775


Montgomery Blair Sibley

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Anti-SLAPP laws can protect whistleblowers

Here's a case of a patient who publicly criticized the patient's doctor. Doctor sued.  Patient defended with Anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation), and got case dismissed with prejudice, and attorney fees and costs paid.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200214/14254843921/doctor-suing-patient-over-negative-review-has-his-case-dismissed-under-tennessees-new-anti-slapp-law.shtml

Florida has a broad anti-SLAPP statute.

768.295 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) prohibited.
(1) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the right in Florida to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public issues, and the rights to peacefully assemble, instruct representatives, and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. It is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues. Therefore, the Legislature finds and declares that prohibiting such lawsuits as herein described will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of persons in Florida, and assure the continuation of representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed of by the courts.
(2) As used in this section, the phrase or term:
(a) "Free speech in connection with public issues" means any written or oral statement that is protected under applicable law and is made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work.
(b) "Governmental entity" or "government entity" means the state, including the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches of government and the independent establishments of the state, counties, municipalities, corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities of the state, counties, or municipalities, districts, authorities, boards, commissions, or any agencies thereof.
(3) A person or governmental entity in this state may not file or cause to be filed, through its employees or agents, any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, or counterclaim against another person or entity without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution.
(4) A person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of this section. A person or entity may move the court for an order dismissing the action or granting final judgment in favor of that person or entity. The person or entity may file a motion for summary judgment, together with supplemental affidavits, seeking a determination that the claimant's or governmental entity's lawsuit has been brought in violation of this section. The claimant or governmental entity shall thereafter file a response and any supplemental affidavits. As soon as practicable, the court shall set a hearing on the motion, which shall be held at the earliest possible time after the filing of the claimant's or governmental entity's response. The court may award, subject to the limitations in s. 768.28, the party sued by a governmental entity actual damages arising from a governmental entity's violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.
(5) In any case filed by a governmental entity which is found by a court to be in violation of this section, the governmental entity shall report such finding and provide a copy of the court's order to the Attorney General no later than 30 days after such order is final. The Attorney General shall report any violation of this section by a governmental entity to the Cabinet, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A copy of such report shall be provided to the affected governmental entity.
History.s. 1, ch. 2000-174; s. 1, ch. 2015-70.

--
Bob Hurt Signature
Bob Hurt

Bob Hurt
👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     📞 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
🔨 Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

QR Code

You can't get justice if you don't know how!

Learn how to win in court without a lawyer.
Costs less than an hour of lawyer time!

Friday, November 08, 2019

Tax/Financial Scammer Winston Shrout Nabbed and Headed for Prison


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Fugitive and Tax Fraud Promoter Captured and Set to Serve His 10 Year Prison Sentence

A fugitive and former Hillsboro, Oregon, tax fraud promoter, who had been on the run since he was supposed to start serving a 10 year prison sentence, was caught in Arizona and apprehended on Nov. 1, 2019, by the U.S. Marshals Service, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department's Tax Division.

Winston Shrout, 70, was convicted by a jury in April 2017 of submitting fraudulent financial instruments to banks and the U.S. Treasury, and failing to file income tax returns. According to the evidence presented at his trial and sentencing, from approximately 2008 through 2015, Shrout created and submitted more than 300 such fraudulent instruments. He also held seminars and private meetings to promote and market the use of these instruments to pay off debts, including federal taxes. Shrout sold recordings of his seminars, templates for fraudulent financial instruments and other materials through his website.

In addition, Shrout did not file his 2009 through 2014 tax returns despite earning substantial income from seminars, licensing fees associated with the sale of his products, and annual pension payments. Shrout admitted during trial that he had not paid income tax for at least 20 years.

On Oct. 22, 2018, Judge Robert E. Jones sentenced Shrout to 10 years in prison, to serve five years of supervised release, and to pay restitution to the IRS. Shrout failed to report to prison as ordered in March 2019, and was a fugitive until his arrest late last week. Shrout appeared in district court and will be transferred to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison term.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman commended the diligent investigation of the U.S. Marshals Service in Portland, Oregon, and Phoenix, Arizona, for bringing Shrout to justice. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman also commended special agents of IRS–Criminal Investigation, who conducted the investigation, Trial Attorneys Stuart Wexler and Lee Langston of the Tax Division, who prosecuted the case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon, and Assistant United States Attorney Ryan Bounds, for their support during the investigation, prosecution, and apprehension of the defendant in this case.

Additional information about the Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found on the division's website.

Topic(s): 
Financial Fraud
Tax
Component(s): 
Press Release Number: 
19-1198
Updated November 6, 2019
--
Bob Hurt Signature
Bob Hurt

Bob Hurt
👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     📞 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
🔨 Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

QR Code

Study civil litigation essentials on-line under Jurisdictionary developer Dr. F. Graves, Esq., and learn

(click button)
"It's actual, tested training, what Jurisdictionary always wanted to be, and beyond. Thanks, Dr. Graves. I kicked ass today in court, and the judge loved me!" Ganurem Smirgle

Friday, October 25, 2019

Attorney Professional Conduct

The below links guide attorney behavior.  The Court can sanction lawyers who violate the rules of professional conduct.

4-3. ADVOCATE 

RULE 4-3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

RULE 4-3.2 EXPEDITING LITIGATION A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

RULE 4-3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; RRTFB September 19, 2019 (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (b) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. (c) Ex Parte Proceedings. In an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. (d) Extent of Lawyer's Duties. The duties stated in this rule continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6.

RULE 4-3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL A lawyer must not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding; nor counsel or assist another person to do any such act; (b) fabricate evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness, except a lawyer may pay a witness reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending or testifying at proceedings; a reasonable, noncontingent fee for professional services of an expert witness; and reasonable compensation to a witness for the time spent preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings; (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; (e) in trial, state a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness unless the statement is authorized by current rule or case law, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused; (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a RRTFB September 19, 2019 client, and it is reasonable to believe that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information; (g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter; or (h) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present disciplinary charges under these rules solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.

RULE 4-3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL (a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other decision maker except as permitted by law or the rules of court. (b) Communication with Judge or Official. In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending except: (1) in the course of the official proceeding in the cause; (2) in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to the opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; (3) orally upon notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; or (4) as otherwise authorized by law. (c) Disruption of Tribunal. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. (d) Communication With Jurors. A lawyer shall not: (1) before the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with anyone the lawyer knows to be a member of the venire from which the jury will be selected; (2) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with any member of the jury; (3) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is not connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with a juror concerning the case; (4) after dismissal of the jury in a case with which the lawyer is connected, initiate communication with or cause another to initiate communication with any juror regarding the trial except to determine whether the verdict may be subject to legal challenge; provided, a lawyer may not interview jurors for this purpose unless the lawyer has reason to believe that grounds for such challenge may exist; and provided further, before conducting any such interview the lawyer must file in the cause a notice of intention to interview setting forth the name of the juror or jurors to be interviewed. A copy of the notice must be delivered to the trial judge and opposing counsel a reasonable time before such interview. The provisions of this rule do not prohibit a lawyer from communicating with members of the venire or jurors in the course of official proceedings or as authorized by court rule or written order of the court.

RULE 4-3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY (a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding. (b) Statements of Third Parties. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

RULE 4-3.7 LAWYER AS WITNESS (a) When Lawyer May Testify. A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client unless: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony; (3) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (4) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. (b) Other Members of Law Firm as Witnesses. A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 4-1.7 or 4-1.9.

RULE 4-3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (b) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial rights such as a right to a preliminary hearing; (c) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating RRTFB September 19, 2019 information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.

--
Bob Hurt Signature
Bob Hurt

Bob Hurt
👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     📞 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
🔨 Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

QR Code

Study civil litigation essentials on-line under Jurisdictionary developer Dr. F. Graves, Esq., and learn

(click button)
"It's actual, tested training, what Jurisdictionary always wanted to be, and beyond. Thanks, Dr. Graves. I kicked ass today in court, and the judge loved me!" Ganurem Smirgle