Friday, December 31, 2021

Why FL Officers Loyal to Government

 If you read my previous article Why FL Officers Loyal to Government, you know that the Florida Constitution requires Florida's public officers to swear loyalty to the US and Florida Governments, as well as their Constitutions. You also know that's a bad thing because a public officer will not remain loyal to the Constitutions if his Government boss threatens to fire him for it.

Now, I shall show how the words "and Government" became part of the public officer oath.

Read the brief History of Florida's Constitutions below.  It shows that the US military forced Florida's public officers to change the Constitution by adding the words "and Government" to the oath - to punish Florida for participating in the rebellion and joining the Confederate States of America during the Civil War era.

Now, read the actual Public Officer Oath text in Florida's Constitutions below.  Notice that the offensive wording "and government" exists in Florida's Constitutions of 1868, 1885, 1968, and the amended (current) version of 1998.  The constitutions themselves do not explain why Government added the text "and government" to the public officer oath.  But we now know why.  In spite of good intentions, the addition constituted an illegal act, violative of both US law and US Constitution, as the above-linked article proves.

You might wonder what binds public officers and registered voters, all of whom purportedly have sworn the oath, to behave with loyalty to their constitutions. People keep swearing loyalty oaths because nothing bad happens to those who later breach those oaths.  Furthermore, the loyalty oaths are lies to begin with because few if any who swear the oaths have bothered to read the constitutions they swore to support. To that end, you might enjoy reading additional considerations in my article Is Your Word Your Bond; Are Some Lies Good?

If you want to see the Public Officer oath stripped of its offensive "and Government" wording, become a vocal, annoying activist.  Call and write your legislators and other government officers and demand that they initiate legislation to remove the offending words "and Government" from all loyalty oaths.

History of Florida's Constitutions

Florida's constitution outlines its form of government, including the powers and responsibilities of state and county officials. The current constitution was framed by a constitutional revision commission and approved in 1968, but many of its provisions date back to the 19th century.

Included here are the original manuscripts or contemporary copies of each of Florida's 19th century constitutions, plus the 1812 constitution of the short-lived Republic of East Florida and the state's 1861 Ordinance of Secession.

"Patriot Constitution" of the Republic of East Florida, 1812

In March 1812, a group of Georgians and residents of Spanish East Florida attacked and occupied Fernandina on Amelia Island. Calling themselves the “Patriot Army,” they aimed to convince more citizens of East Florida to join their movement and overthrow the Spanish colonial government. Their hope was for East Florida to then be annexed to the United States as a territory. The so-called Republic of East Florida was short-lived and ultimately unsuccessful, but its leaders did produce this constitution.

Constitution of the State of Florida, 1838

Florida’s original state constitution was drafted by a convention of 56 prominent Floridians in the coastal town of St. Joseph in late 1838 and early 1839. The delegates drew inspiration for the document from neighboring states, especially Alabama. The people of Florida ratified the new constitution, but only barely, and Congress did not admit the territory as a new state until 1845.

Ordinance of Secession, 1861

Many Floridians interpreted the election of President Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 as a dangerous step toward the abolition of slavery. When the Florida Legislature convened later that month, the members passed a law calling for a “Convention of the People” to determine how the state would respond to the crisis. Delegates were elected by popular vote in December, and the convention met in Tallahassee in January 1861. The delegates voted 62-7 to withdraw Florida from the Union, making it the third state to secede. The convention also made numerous changes to the state constitution, altering the terms of office for many officials and deleting references to the United States.

Constitution of the State of Florida, 1865

Civil government was suspended when the Union military first occupied Florida in May 1865. Hoping to return the former Confederate states to the Union as quickly as possible, President Andrew Johnson appointed Judge William Marvin of Key West as provisional governor and directed him to call a constitutional convention. The delegates annulled the Ordinance of Secession and framed a new state constitution that recognized the end of slavery. The life of this document was a short one, however. The Republican majority in Congress, unsatisfied with the former Confederate states’ limited acceptance of freedom for African Americans, passed the Reconstruction Acts over President Johnson’s veto and reestablished military control in the South.

Constitution of the State of Florida, 1868

Under the Reconstruction Acts, Congress assumed control over readmission of the former Confederate states to the Union. The United States military reoccupied those states and caused all eligible men over 21, regardless of race, to be registered to vote. Each state’s newly enfranchised electorate then selected delegates to frame a new state constitution and submit it to Congress for approval. Florida’s constitutional convention met in January 1868, and the voters ratified the final document on May 4, 1868. Congress officially declared Florida back in the Union later that year on July 25.

Constitution of the State of Florida, 1885

The contents of Florida’s 1868 constitution were profoundly shaped by the dominance of the Republican Party and the enfranchisement of African Americans for the first time. By the early 1880s, however, conservative Democrats controlled state politics and wanted to reverse some of the old document’s provisions. A convention met in Tallahassee in June 1885 and drafted a new state constitution, which was ratified by the people in November 1886. Many offices that had previously been filled by appointment were made elective under the new document. Segregation of public schools was made mandatory, poll taxes were legalized and intermarriage between whites and African Americans was prohibited.

https://www.floridamemory.com/discover/historical_records/constitution/


Public Officer Oath in Florida's Constitutions

Florida Constitution of 1838 Article VI

Section 11. Members of the General Assembly, and all officers, Civil or Military, before they enter upon the execution of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do swear (or affirm,) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the office to which I have been elected, (or appointed) and will, to the best of my abilities, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of this State, and of the United States.

http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/CRC/CRC-1998/conhist/1838con.html


Florida Constitution of 1861 Article VI

Section 7. Members of the General Assembly and all officers, civil or military, before they enter upon the execution of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the office to which I have been elected (or appointed,) and will, to the best of my abilities, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State, and of the Confederate States of America.

http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/CRC/CRC-1998/conhist/1861con.html


Florida Constitution of 1865 Article VI

Section 7. Members of the General Assembly, and all officers, civil or military, before they enter upon the execution of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the office to which I have been elected (or appointed,) and will, to the best of my abilities, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States of America."

http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/CRC/CRC-1998/conhist/1865con.html


Florida Constitution of 1868 Article XVI

Section 10. The following shall be the oath of office for each officer in the State, including members of the Legislature: "I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States, and of the State of Florida, against all enemies, domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, loyalty, and allegiance to the same, and that I am entitled to hold office under this constitution. That I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of __________, on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/CRC/CRC-1998/conhist/1868con.html


Florida Constitution of 1885 Article XVI

Section 2. Each and every officer of this State, including the members of the Legislature, shall before entering upon the discharge of his official duties take the following oath of office: I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of _____________ on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.

http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/CRC/CRC-1998/conhist/1885con.html


Florida Constitution of 1968 Article II

Section 5. Public Officers.

(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am about to enter. So help me God.", and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until his successor qualifies.

http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/CRC/CRC-1998/conhist/1968con.html


Florida Constitution of 1998 Article II

Section 5. Public Officers.

(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of   (title of office)   on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.”, and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.


Bob Hurt






Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Strike These Words from Florida's Public Officer Oath?

Introduction

The Florida Constitution contains text in the Public Officer Oath that violates US Law and the US Constitution.  That text needs to be removed. 

Specifically, the US Law and US Constitution require public officers of the US and State governments to swear to support the Constitution.  But, Florida's Constitution requires public officers to swear to support BOTH the Constitutions and Governments of the US and Florida.  

This causes a dilemma when public officers make decisions and take actions that violate the constitutions, such as allowing unrestricted invasion by illegal aliens into our land, or requiring people to accept an experimental vaccination. Other public officers bind  themselves by oath to support Government, and thereby to support its illegal edicts and activities. 

AXIOM

One cannot remain loyal to the Constitution while loyal to a public officer in breach of the constitution.  And most public officers operate in breach of the constitutions from time to time, sometimes with horrible and enduring consequences.


Question

SO, do the words "and Government" in Florida's Public Officer Oath bother you?  Check out the provisions of law and constitution below to see proof that Florida's Constitution violates them.


Florida Constitution

(i) Article II General Provisions. SECTION 5. Public officers.—

    (b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of   (title of office)   on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.”,

    and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.

Florida Oath Form

See the Florida Public Officer oath of office form as of Dec 2021:  

https://files.floridados.gov/media/702653/dsde56-oath-acceptance-feb-2020.pdf


US Constitution

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VI, clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


United States Code

4 USC § 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers

Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”


YOUR ACTION REQUIRED

Note that loyalty to government over the constitution changes the form of government from a Republic to an oligarchy, and the US Constitution guarantees states a Republican form of government, as shown above.

If it bothers you that one cannot remain loyal to the constitution while loyal to Government (such as a public officer in breach of the Constitution), get the words "and Government" stricken from the Florida Constitution's public officer oath, for they violate both US law and the US Constitution, as shown above. 


Bob Hurt

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
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank 

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