Saturday, April 29, 2006

Challenge Jurisdiction

Imagine presenting this jurisdictional challenge at arraignment.

Your honor, I challenge your jurisdiction to hear this case. You are obligated under the law to prove your jurisdiction, once challenged, and if you do not prove it sufficiently, I shall challenge it further. In order to eliminate my concerns about jurisdiction, I need to see incontrovertible proof of the following:

  • that you and all other officers of and in this court have sworn an oath or otherwise affirmed your agreement to support the Constitution of the USA and of the State of Florida, as required, respectively, by those documents.
  • that your oaths include the agreement to support all historical forms of US and State constitutions that have not been specifically repealed by subsequent forms.
  • that you and all prosecutors are covered by surety bonds as required by the State Constitution.
  • that you have properly filed your personal and campaign financial disclosures, and that they are accurate and current.
  • that you did indeed graduate from an accredited college of law.
  • that you did indeed pass the bar examination of this state.
  • that you are a member in good standing of the bar association of this state.
  • that the State Supreme Court has licensed you as an attorney and counselor at law in this state.
  • that you have received an appointment by duly constituted authority or been elected to serve as a judge.
  • that you have accepted that appointment or elected position in writing.
  • that your membership in the bar association, your long time personal relationship with the prosecutor, and the fact that you both work for the state that now opposes me in this case, all of which taken together constitute probable cause of prejudice against me, thereby preventing me from receiving justice in this court, do not constitute prejudice against me or for the state.
  • that this is a court of common law, equity, admiralty, or otherwise.
  • whether this court operates under Article III of the US Constitution, or under statute pursuant to the US Constitution.
  • that this court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case.
  • that this court does in fact have territorial jurisdiction over the instant case.
  • that the court will say or do nothing to prevent the jury from being made fully aware of its constitutional and historical rights to the following:

  • examine and decide on both fact and law in this case,
  • determine the applicability of code, public law, case law, or history underpinning the law, to this case,
  • acquit in spite of judicial instructions if they believe that is necessary to see justice done,
    question witnesses themselves,
  • ask for additional witnesses or discovery,
  • overturn what they consider to be bad case law that might be offered as legal evidence
    block any gag order if they believe it is in the public interest to know the events of this trial
  • be composed of peers who, if possible, know or know of the defendant - people in his socioeconomic class from the neighborhood of his domicile.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Attorney Attestation for Client

Until recently, I thought all the derogatory attorney jokes were just jokes. My recent experiences have shown they aren't jokes at all, and that many attorneys are despicable examples of human beings.

I have decided to fight back against their arrogance and supercilious self-importance.

I have created a little document that I shall require any attorney who represents me to check affirmative boxes and sign BEFORE I pay him or her a penny or give up any information about me.

Read it and let me know what you think.

Bob Hurt



I, the undersigned attorney, hereby attest as follows, without any duress or mental reservation:

1. I accept ______________________________ (“Client”) as my law client.

2. I (shall / shall not) do my utmost in the tasks for which Client has retained me, as may be identified by separate agreement, to answer Client’s questions truthfully, aggressively advocate Client’s cause, defend Client’s rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions and laws pursuant thereto, and ensure that my employees and subcontractors fully support me in that effort.

3. I (shall / shall not) keep my agreements with Client, be punctual, and hand over to Client upon Client’s request all originals and copies of information provided to me by Client, including my own notes about Client, other than those that are of public record.

4. I (am / am not) a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

5. I currently (am / am not) licensed by the Florida Supreme Court as an attorney and counselor at law in Florida courts.

6. As a judicial officer, and in accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution Article and Article II Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution Article, I (do / do not) affirm my oath of admission to the Florida Bar, to wit: “I do solemnly swear: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval; I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice. So help me God.”

7. This attestation (does / does not) supersede all contrary agreements except by specific reference in writing to one or more provisions herein, acknowledged in writing by Client.

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________
Attorney Signature Printed Name or Stamp Date

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________
Witness or Notary Signature Printed Name, Stamp, or Seal Date

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Krauthammer's Humanity to Illegal Aliens Costs Inhumanity to Citizens

In his article First the Wall, then Amnesty sensibly advised erecting a wall between the USA and Mexico, but otherwise his proposals fail the commonsense test.

First, just like the people who claimed we were evil or wasting out resources to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, he claims we are evil or wasting resources to eject 11 million illegal aliens. He didn’t’ even mention the moral and possibly legal difficulty of tossing out illegal alien parents of children born in America. He didn’t mention a number of very legitimate reasons to toss Mexican nationals out of the USA.

  • Mexico has lost an enormous number of its working-age citizens, as well as the tax revenue those citizens would be providing were they still in Mexico
  • Illegal aliens in general pose a tremendous financial and physical burden on our infrastructures that deal with medicine, education, welfare, housing, and criminal justice
  • Illegal aliens drive many low-income Americans into welfare and crime because they seriously depress wages resulting from the surplus they impose on our menial labor pool
  • Illegal aliens cause factual loss of income tax revenue for USA because so many of them hide their income
  • Illegal aliens send a flood of actual USA cash to their impoverished families in Mexico.

In other words, the USA government is doing the job of Mexico’s government, and meanwhile is letting the corrupt Mexican government off the hook. I read one estimate that 40% of Mexico’s labor force has left the country for the USA. If that is true, I cannot think of a better reason either to slam the borders shut and throw out all illegal aliens. Maybe we could solve the problem easier by declaring war on Mexico, disbanding its miserably corrupt government, and depleting the bank accounts of the wealthy land owners in Mexico who keep that corrupt government in power.

The real cause of our problems with Mexico: low IQ and lack of organized utilization of low-IQ people. Mexico’s citizens have a low average IQ - 87, just two points higher than the average IQ of USA blacks. Social science pundits never say anything about that, do they? But note, that when millions upon millions of low-IQ people flood into the USA from Mexico, the USA is thereby importing Mexico’s problems – low-IQ to deteriorate the gene pool, and a corrupt culture that supports and legitimizes a corrupt government.

No government of smart, sane people would declare war on the government of a bunch of stupid people unless forced to by a hostile invasion. All that will do is accelerate the cross pollination and dumbing down of the USA. But let’s be frank. Mexico is invading the USA. And if you have any question as to their hostility, take a look at their incarceration rate. – nearly 3 times the rate of whites, albeit less than half the rate of blacks. But, start throwing Mexicans out of our country and watch how more hostilely they act.

Do you see our dilemma here? We will never eliminate the problem of Mexicans trying to enter the USA so they can feed off the fat of the land and largess of our government. Mexico will never do anything to improve the average IQ of its citizens. So, how much sense does it make for the USA to take on the problem when the USA won’t do anything to improve the average IQ of its citizens. In fact, it seems as though the USA now does everything in its power to guarantee that the average IQ of the land, and its productivity, falls ever lower with every passing day, week, month, year, and decade.

We have only one solution – a huge wall, absolutely slammed shut against any and all immigration from Mexico, including menial labor, guest workers, and so on. Last night I heard a funny suggestion from Bill Maher on HBO – instead of erecting a 1,951-mile WALL, out government should erect a 1,951-mile WAL-MART, right on the border. Mexicans can enter on one side to work in the store, and Americans can enter in the other side to buy goods.

Only isolation and highly selective immigration have any chance of granting our nation some relief. For the next 100 years, the USA should allow only productive, self-sufficient Mexicans with IQ above 125 to enter out country for any reason, including travel, vacation, or work. And, the USA needs to deport ALL illegal aliens, regardless of family circumstances. Illegal aliens who have American children can take those kids with them. Meanwhile, the USA needs to stop granting citizenship to anybody born here. The constitution should allow people to be born citizens of the USA only if at least one parent is a citizen. The law should require all people residing in America for more than 5 years to become citizens within one year or leave the country, regardless of family connections or any other reasons. And it should require all applicants to pass a literacy test and score at least 85 on an IQ test.

Of course, if the USA devises and implements some kind of eugenics program and method of utilizing low-IQ people in an effective and organized way, the nation will suffer far less from immigration from third-world countries.

Unfortunately, political correctness and denial of the realities of IQ make that impossible. So, let’s get that wall up fast and start the exodus of illegals from our land.

As for the wall, Krauthammer advised wisely, but his idea of humanizing our response to the millions of illegals who live here makes no sense, and I want to examine that a bit further than I did above.

Krauthammer writes of humanity to illegal aliens through the hypocrisy of inhumanity to real Americans.

This thinking reflects the disintegration of rational and humane thought brought about by America’s obsession with political correctness. Charles thinks it okay to screw over real Americans so we can let non-Americans enjoy the American Dream which they could have in Mexico if they stood up to their government and demanded it, even through violent revolution if need be.

We see the same corrupt thinking in our welfare laws. Since when should a government feel entitled to steal money from people (just because they happen to have some money) and hand it over to people who don’t have it (for any number of thousands of irrelevant reasons)? Charities hold the responsibility for doling out money they receive from charitable contributions, and Americans have shown the tendency toward greater voluntary charity than any people on earth.

Aside from facing the natural illegitimacy of legal plunder as reflected in our welfare system, we also face the unfairness of the redistribution of wealth. Even if enforced welfare had a legitimate side to it, our welfare system does not ensure that people who receive the money truly need it because of circumstances beyond their control. Redistributors should manage all such redistribution, whether by charity or government, locally, using local agents who know or know of the recipients, and can personally ascertain their worthiness, and deny those of proven unworthiness.

In other words, nobody actually “deserves” a free handout, particularly when the person giving the handout raised the money at gunpoint from an unwilling donor.

Similarly, no Mexican “deserves” any of the following:

  • To live in the USA, regardless of the hassle he will face by having to move back to Mexico.
  • A job that should belong to anyone of millions of indigent US citizens who should and could get off welfare to take that job.
  • A life of free support on our welfare or in our prisons.
  • Free medical care in our hospitals.
  • To enjoy American citizenship just because they are born here to illegal alien parents who intentionally moved here illegally in order to get that citizenship.
  • A free education at the expense of American citizens.

Charles needs to revisit the meaning of humanity and direct it to the millions of impoverished, decrepit American citizens who get the short end of the stick just because so many millions of illegal aliens reside here.

We need to boot those illegal aliens out of this country and keep them out.


Bob Hurt

How to Destroy or at Least Beat America

Colorado's ex-governor Lamm is reported as having delivered a speech explaining how to destroy America. His tenets included the following:

  • Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.
  • Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture.
  • Celebrate diversity rather than unity.
  • Make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated, and add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
  • Get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. Invest in ethnic identity, and establish the cult of 'Victimology.' Get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. Start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
  • Allow dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. Stress differences rather than similarities.
  • Place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' Find a word similar to 'heretic,' like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' to halt discussion and debate.
  • Censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia.

Minority groups only want to highlight their differences when laws protect them from oppression by majorities. Then, they often hope to become the majority group so they can oppress everyone else.

Smart people want wealth and power, and who can blame them for grabbing it when they can? If China and North Korea ever ditch their Communist bosses and unite with Japan and Singapore, nothing will be able to stop their rush for the brass ring.

Let's look at just a few advantages China has for a glowing future - the factors:

  • Massive manufacturing capacity
  • Modernized manufacturing technology
  • Well-organized, efficient industries
  • Nearly unlimited laborers
  • Low wage base throughout most of NE Orient
  • High average national IQ (I believe education may be responsible for China’s low 98 IQ)
  • Minimal influx of low-IQ people from third world countries
  • Strong cultural aversion to Blacks, Non-white Hispanics, and Whites, in that order
  • Strong family ties and ability to work harmoniously with one another
  • Very low percentage of other racial groups among their populations
Because most Northeastern Orientals rightly consider themselves superior to other races, they are likely to invite none but the best to live and work among them. I consider the feeble Chinese attempt at eugenics (limiting families to two children) as a step in the right direction because it get their people used to the idea that the government ought to have a say in the kinds and numbers of kids they spawn. Some day they’ll be IQ-testing everyone for eugenics purposes, and sterilizing the most inferior and degenerate of their gene pool. When that happens, they will quickly be able to amass such wealth as to enable them to take over the world’s leading industries through acquisitions and mergers.

During the early 80’s I lived in West Germany for nearly 5 years as a computer programmer. I met many academicians and some wealthy Germans. I noticed an attitude of disdain for America among college students and pride in the German way, mixed with envy for America, among business men, and arrogance toward any outsiders among ordinary people who look down their noses at people from neighboring towns who can’t speak their dialect. I concluded that Germans generally still have the same provincial mentality that bred such nationalism as to lead them into two world wars. I also concluded that their societies easily justified feelings of superiority. In general I found them superior to Italians, French, Spanish, and English, with Skandinavians running a close second.

Germans seemed to resent America because of slavery, killing off the Indians, the Hollywoodism of Ronald Reagan (who was president at the time), and so on. In fact, during my years living in Europe, the only pro-American evidence I saw was a sign board in a pedestrian zone in Denmark that read “Keep the US in the UN.” It stood beside an information table manned by members of Lyndon LaRouche’s political action group.

In those days, Germans were trying to figure out how to eject the post WWII Turks from the land. The government offered Turks one-way tickets back to Turkey. The only Blacks I saw in Germany were either American tank soldiers or wealthy asylum seekers from Africa. Germans simply did not want inferior people living in their country. The European Union has changed all that.

Now Western Europe is allowing a flood of third-world immigrants into their lands. On top of that, I read a BBC article a couple of weeks ago about European fears of dwindling population, and the measures the various governments have taken to reverse the trend – heavily taxing single adults, offering incentives for those who have more kids, child care in the workplace, and so on. They seem most concerned not about the dwindling population, but about the dwindling population of their most productive members of society – the white people.

Now Western Europe also faces a crisis of humanity. The viper of political correctness has injected all of their societies with the venom of reluctance to admit the genetic nature of IQ and other civilization-building qualities. So, they will never muster the moral and ethical courage to round up and oust third-world aliens, just as America will not oust interlopers from Mexico.

And, for both continents, that will continue to lay the foundation for economic and civilizational doom.

Since we can’t do anything to prevent it, we might as well say “So what,” and accept our fates. Maybe the genetic melting pot of the USA deserves to lose its pre-eminence to a superior race of people – the yellow race. Steve Sailer might want to believe that biodiversity of America will win out in the end, but he knows that can only be true if its citizenry does not continue its suicidal efforts to fire the bullet of political correctness into its own civilization’s brain.

By the way, here’s something that might interest you on the subject of races. Also, try this and this.

Bob Hurt

Do Illegals Create Jobs?

Uncle Bill (a nomme de plume) wrote:

There is a line of thinking that suggests so good will come from offering citizenship to currently illegal aliens. If they pay their taxes, obey the laws of the land and support their families, we all benefit. If they were required to pay a citizenship tax of say 2% to their families 'back home' for say 20 years, everybody wins. This also creates new jobs which provides revenues.

One additional benefit, this action is more in keeping with a forward progression of social action rather than resorting to elements of a police state.

I respond:

Bill, that is a baloney line of thinking because your big Ifs never materialize. For example, chasing Mexicans down to collect that citizenship tax costs more than the value of the tax.

Remember 1986? Our daffy duck congress legitimized 3 million illegal Mexicans then. Now, twenty years later their offspring, amounting to another 6 million Mexican-
“Americans” may vote. For whom do you think they will cast their ballots? Bush thinks he must pander to them out of fear that they otherwise will vote mostly for Democrats. That means both the Democrats and the Republicans have lost their minds and are pandering to Mexicans.

Mexicans don’t create jobs. They take jobs that 60 million other low-IQ Americans should have, and meanwhile, they lower the average wages of labor and servant class people, thereby diminishing the per-capita tax base. Our governments incarcerate Mexicans at nearly 3 times the rate of Caucasians. Considering that a result of the inability of Mexicans to speak English properly, integrate into the productive cut of American society, and effectively solve problems (because of their a low average IQ and corrupt cultural backgrounds), you might rightly conjecture that Mexicans have 5 to 10 times the likelihood of Caucasians to require welfare or commit crimes in order to get by. Their presence deteriorates our gene pool and reduces our national productivity. At least 45% of them don’t have the mental abilities needed to allow them to graduate from high school. Being barely more able than our nation’s Blacks to compete for the better jobs, many have no choice but to resort to crime and / or welfare.

Supporting such people costs much more than the benefits they give our society. They impose an enormous burden on our systems of welfare, medicine, education, and criminal justice. Allowing them to flood into and remain in our nation constitutes civilizational insanity.

We do not demonstrate a police state nature by throwing them out. We demonstrate a lawless and socially suicidal nature by allowing them to enter and remain. Letting them stay here might allow them some forward social progress, but it will certainly deteriorate America in the process, just as it already has.

# # #

Prager Confused about Low Jobless Rate

Prager's article about the low jobless rate (below) is good, but it misses the point. People have to work because their savings have disintegrated and their paychecks have dropped in value as a result of our corrupt congress’s hidden tax – inflation, and because our president refuses to lop off OPEC’s balls.

I have written for several years about the manner in which oil became the de facto backing for our currency, and you have seen some of those articles on your list, so I won’t rehash that now.

Here’s the upshot: when Saddam and Hugo began selling oil for Euros in 1999, the worldwide demand for US dollars plummeted, thereby devaluing the dollar. That combined with our staggering annual budget deficits to make our currency ever less valuable as the days roll by. If you don’t believe me, look at the price of gasoline. Expect it to hit $4 to $5 per gallon within a year. The collapse of the US dollar is in full bloom, right before our eyes, this very day.

Runaway deficit spending by the government always gives the apparency of plenty of money to go around. Employers can hire now because they know the dollars they pay their employees will drop in value fairly quickly, making the employees cheaper to have as months roll on. People know intuitively that they must buy houses NOW (if they can find fixed rate mortgages) because the house payments drop in value as inflation soars to double digits, even out of the teens.

Sure the economy is booming and employment is low. This is one of the best times in America’s history to mortgage yourself to the hilt and buy everything you can on credit.

Take my advice and buy precious metals or real estate. And if you work for a living, start demanding a bigger paycheck (low unemployment means your boss will have a harder time replacing you). Do anything you can to get rid of your increasingly less worthful dollars by exchanging them for something of intrinsic value.

By the way, if America contained no illegal aliens, it might enjoy a jobless of only 2%, and wages would hit all-time highs. Dennis Prager doesn’t seem to have a clue about the negative impact of illegal aliens on our country, and on Europe. He fails to mention of the main reasons for Europe’s failing socialism: the rate of immigration of low-IQ or criminal people from third world countries since the formation of the European Union and the dropping of border controls between the countries of Western Europe. Europe now receives floods of illegal immigrants from Africa and the Mideast, just as the USA does from Mexico.

Do you see the real issue here? We’re not talking about the mystery of the unemployment rate. We’re talking about the factors that KILL civilizations. Civilizations either grow or they die. It’s that simple. When we see illegal aliens streaming into the USA from Mexico or into Europe from Africa, we don’t see an enlightened civilization helping an unenlightened one. We see members of a depraved civilization wittingly (in the case of Muslims terrorists) or unwittingly (in the case of people looking for a better life) working to KILL an enlightened civilization by importing to it their corrupt cultures and gene pools. And we really shouldn’t care whether such interlopers do it wittingly or not. When somebody tries to kill that which you hold dear, you’d better take it seriously and do something to stop it dead in its tracks.

Before I get to the point of how to stop efforts to kill our enlightened civilizations, I want to address the problems of socialism. Philosophers devised socialism (government control of the means of production) in an effort to reconcile their consciences with the reality of mixed gene type pools in a society. It’s hard to see inferior people struggle to get by and not feel some pangs of conscience. Socialism intends to help those people. Unfortunately, such philosophers didn’t give much thought merely to moving the unproductive people outside of their society. Socialism depends upon the notion that at least some percentage of the population produces enough to feed those who can’t care for themselves. Thus, socialism like that of Europe, can only work if a huge percentage of the population produces high-value work. What big clues to this reality do you have? Consider these:

  1. The USA’s social infrastructures are swamped by illegal aliens and low-IQ people. The government cannot pay for social security, Medicare, Medicade, and all of the entitlement programs because the nation contains too many indigent, incarcerated, and non-productive people.
  2. Mexico – the reason low IQ people stream across the border: Mexico’s welfare system sucks.
  3. Sub-Saharan Africa – the reason so many Africans stream into Europe: African nations offer no welfare systems.

You see? The dwindling spiral of socialism works like this:

  • The more personal liberties people have,
  • The more the government spends what it does not have,
  • The higher the incentive to retain wealth,
  • The fewer the wealthy procreate,
  • The more the indigent procreate,
  • The more politicians pander to the indigent and stupid,
  • The lower the average national IQ,
  • The lower the productivity,
  • The poorer the people,
  • The lower the value of their work product,
  • The lower the tax base,
  • The less money available for socialist projects (like welfare checks, free medical care, free housing, food stamps),
  • The higher the crime rate for non-productive people,
  • The greater the loss of life and property for productive people,
  • The greater the infrastructure costs (prisons, medicine), and
  • The more people want to leave the land for a better life (and a free ride or socialist safety net) elsewhere.

I say it’s time to stop pussy-footing and dancing around this issue. It's time to stop conjecturing wildly about what scheme of social tolerance might or might not be the problem or solution. Our world has only two possible ways to terminate this horrible death-spiral of civilization:

  1. Eugenics programs to reduce the percentage of low-IQ people in the world’s population (yes, we need a form of benign genocide).
  2. Government mandated organization of all indigent, criminal, and low IQ people for controlled menial labor in both private and public enterprise.

Until then, we should throw every possible illegal alien out of our country, and slam the door against the entry of any more low-IQ people. Why? Because they are KILLING our civilization.

# # #

Why the low jobless rate challenges Left and Right
Apr 11, 2006
by Dennis Prager

The latest jobless rate -- 4.7 percent -- is at a
five-year low.

Yet, despite this and other good economic news, the
Left is frantic to repeal the Bush administration's
tax cuts. In fact, even if every single economic
indicator were better than at any time in American
history, the Left would still want to repeal the tax

The reason is that the essence of the Left is ever
bigger government for the purpose of controlling ever
more of the economic and social life of society. That
America is so much more economically efficient than
the major socialist countries of Europe, such as
France and Germany, is of no concern to Democrats and
others on the Left.

Even a child would readily understand that the more
of their money citizens are allowed to keep, the more
money they will spend and the more workers they will
hire. But liberals want high taxes not in order to
improve the economy, but in order to expand government
and reduce economic inequality. Therefore, the obvious
economic benefits of lower taxes do not much interest

The socialist economies of the major European
countries are failing -- the French and German
economies are stalled, and the entire socialist system
is unsustainable -- but this, too, has no impact on
the Left in America. The future they want for America
has actually been tried in fellow Western democracies
and is failing. To invert the famous statement of
Westerners who praised communism, "We have seen the
future and it doesn't work." One wonders if ever
before in history such a large number of people had
such a clear view of the consequences of their
policies, and despite the failure of those policies,
continued to devote their lives to enacting them.

And the Left thinks religious Americans are

That is why the language of liberal condemnation of
tax cuts is that they are "tax cuts for the rich"
rather than that they are "bad for the economy." It is
resentment of the wealthier -- and most productive --
sector of America that animates liberal opposition to
tax cuts, not concern about unemployment.

But the unemployment data not only challenge the
Left. The record low jobless rate also challenges a
widely held belief of many on the right -- that
illegal immigrants have been taking jobs away from

There are excellent reasons to be concerned about the
vast number of illegal immigrants in our society. But
their taking jobs from Americans is not one of them.
If we have historically low unemployment rates while
at least 11 million illegal immigrants are here, how
many jobs have these people really taken away from
Americans? What would our unemployment rate be if we
had no illegal workers here? One percent? And wouldn't
our inflation rate be higher without millions of
people working at such low wages helping to keep
consumer prices low?

It must be emphasized that while just about everyone
on the left is opposed to what they describe as "tax
cuts for the rich," many on the right do not argue
that illegal immigrants have taken jobs away from
Americans. But an energetic segment of the Right does.

And they do so despite what the conservative
Washington Times reports: "The economy appears to have
achieved what analysts call 'full employment' -- a
state where nearly every worker who wants a job can
get one fairly easily."

How, then, does the whole Left and a significant part
of the Right argue things that just aren't so -- that
tax cuts are bad for the nation and that illegal
immigrants have taken millions of jobs from Americans?

The answer is that passion often trumps reason. The
Left is passionate about inequality and ever larger
government. And the Right is passionate about America
remaining American.

I share the Right's passion and agree with the
conservative voices that argue for (1) building a
fence to prevent millions more from illegally entering
America, (2) creating a national ID card, (3) making
English the official language of the United States
(thereby ending, for example, ballots being printed in
myriad languages), and (4) ensuring that American
schools Americanize foreigners rather than celebrate
multiculturalism (if all cultures were equally
wonderful, millions of Mexicans wouldn't be leaving
theirs to live in ours).

But those of us who are very worried about the demise
of American national unity, identity and security need
to argue about those things, not about illegal
immigrants taking millions of jobs from Americans.

And those on the left need to cheer the unemployment
data. But they can't do that until they love the low
unemployment figures even more than they hate George
Bush and his tax cuts.

Dennis Prager is a radio talk show host, author, and
contributing columnist for

No Immigration Solutions from Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a good economist, gifted writer, and clear thinker, but as his Immigration Solutions article shows, he's woefully short on solutions.

Sowell pointed out the obvious realities about immigration and the demonstrations, plus the efforts of organizers to keep Mexican culture separate from mainstream American culture so as to manipulate it as a political tool and voting block. Numerous other pundits have made these same points. Then he went on to say, effectively that we might as well kiss your dreams of America good-bye, because Congress is going to push through the president’s phony substitute for amnesty that will end up being amnesty anyway. That seems to me like an under-the-table way of gloating over the joke of the Senate’s effete immigration reform efforts.

But, what does Sowell claim as his real position on this issue?

Well, he seems kind of Americanist, doesn’t he? But he actually adopts NO position, and proposes NO solution, in spite of the misleading title of his article: Imigrant “solutions”. In my opinion, Sowell should not have bothered to come into the office to write that article.

Why should I expect better from him? Sowell serves as a kind of pedagogical, quasi-conservative, sub-rosa apologist for American Blacks. For example, in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals he asserted, as Steve Sailer pointed out, that Blacks have absorbed too much self-defeating culture of poor Southern whites.

Yeah, sure. Southern White trash made Blacks invent disgusting jailhouse poetry called rap, refuse to speak proper English, impose nearly 8 times the incarceration rate of Caucasians on America’s criminal justice system, commit 3 times more violent crimes than Caucasians, commit crimes at more than double the rate of non-White Hispanics, fail massively (50%) to graduate from high school, and fail massively (70%) to provide live-at-home fathers their children. That’s the fault of Southern White trash? I don’t think so. That’s Africa, right here in America. And, since most American Blacks have enjoyed zero direct influence from modern-day Africa, we can only conclude that most of their problems have a genetic cause.

Sowell seems unaware of the number Blacks populating America’s inner cities who have never experienced a self-defeating Southern white culture, and in fact who seem to loathe and do their very best to avoid any semblance of absorbing the best white culture has to offer. For some strange reason, Sowell refuses to admit that the decrepit general condition of African-Americans comes more from their African genetic endowment and cultural heritage than from American culture. He seems to think American Blacks’ African characteristics contributed nothing to their problems.

In spite of his stature and pedagogical manner, Sowell still wants to “blame Whitey.”

He also seems powerfully reluctant to analyze situations to their logical conclusions.

For example, he refuses to discuss low IQ, low value of production, and corrupt homeland cultures as the root of America’s immigrant problems. Those seem to me to be the lowest common denominator of both Ibero-America and Sub-Saharan Africa. In general, the countries whose natives suffer most miserably in the world today have large low-IQ, low-productivity populations, and corrupt governments. For some clues about this, refer to the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, as well as La Griffe du Lion’s incisive statistical analyses of the matter here and here.

What else should we expect when the average IQ of America’s Blacks and Mexicans average nearly a full standard deviation lower than America’s Caucasians? Bottom line, third world immigrants cause problems for America because they are not very smart, and not very productive, and that allows crooked politicians to pander to them effectively, just as we see today in the USA. Stupid people result in low GDP and corrupt government. Sowell should have pointed this out in his analysis.

Furthermore, Sowell generally shows little aptitude for proposing workable solutions to problems. The subject article provides a striking example.

You won’t find that problem in my writing. I always try to propose sensible solutions. For example, try this proposal: when it comes to immigration issues, you’d be far better off subscribing to this source of information, rather than to Thomas Sowell’s do-nothing analyses.

We cannot get rid of the 65+ million American citizens who have IQs below 85, and cannot even graduate from high school. We will have to deal with that the best we can, and just suffer through it while they procreate in record numbers. However, we can do something to prevent millions upon millions of low-IQ Ibero-American illegal immigrants from joining their ranks. My solution to the illegal immigrant problem begins with this:

  1. Round up and deport all of them, and don’t bother apologizing for it because they won’t appreciate it or understand it.
  2. Slam the door shut on further immigration of low-achievement, low-IQ people from third world countries, especially from Africa and Ibero-America.

Yes, I know Sowell is less fractious than I, but then he sells his articles, doesn’t he? They must appeal to his black, Jewish, and liberal supporters, and to his family, or he’ll catch all kinds of hell, and they’ll call him an Uncle Tom the way they do Bill Cosby. That’s why his essays are so namby-pamby when it comes to solutions. As you know, I am not similarly hamstrung.

# # #

Guitar Picker Blues and Bringing the Dead Pinky to Life

I bought a klunker guitar from John Proios, my guitar buddy, so I could carry it around without a case and not worry about damage. It’s in the case while my Ramirez Flamenco sits on its little store-stand, just daring me to pick it up every time I walk by. I plan to buy a cardboard box for the klunker and send it to Carla, my ex wife Cheryl’s sister who put me up and gave me TLC while I was in Virginia for my son Robbie’s funeral back in October or whenever. Carla always had a crush on me, and probably still does, but seems to have sworn off men and sworn an oath to celibacy, poor woman. I should have married her instead of her sister way back when, but she was only 12 and I couldn’t wait.

And, I did pick up the Ramirez today, and spent an hour and a half stroking its sonorous strings, the base of which are silver-coated bronze wrapped around a composite fiber core so they don’t lose tuning. They’re new, so I’ve been tweaking them for the past few days, and they sound brilliant.

Speaking of stroking, I feel as though I’ve been hit with a stroke. The little fingers of both hands turn spastic on me when I try to play guitar with them. I’ve neglected most activities with them most of my life, so they are not as flexible and accurate as the others. That means I might as well have been hit with a stroke for all the good they do. I am going through something remotely similar to what a stroke victim goes through, trying to build neural pathways between my thoughts and my pinky fingers.

I once thought I could go a whole lifetime without ever really needing my right pinky, the one I stroke the strings with. Then I ran across the music of Heitor Villa Lobos, a Brazilian composer who died of lung cancer in 1959. Several years before he died, he wrote twelve Etudes, so called because each one demonstrates a different kind of mastery one must achieve in order to play it correctly.

Etude 1 became my challenge when I heard it. I plan to learn it, and I practiced on it today. Basically, it requires a kind of arpeggio plucking pattern while holding chords down with the left hand, and it has a haunting appeal to it.

Most arpeggios require TIMAMI – thumb-index-middle-annular(ring)-middle-index, or something like that, played quickly, and each finger plucks a different string. I can do that fairly easily. Why? Because I’m plucking only 4 stirings.

Etud 1’s arpeggio, however, requires you to pluck all 6 strings, and not in purely sequential order. The pattern: TITMIAMLALMAIMTI. I can’t even say it, let alone play it. And notice the Ls in the sequence? That’s the little finger, the pinky, the one I use only for boogers and ear wax.

The arpeggio calls upon it only twice, and it might as well call upon me to put my pinky toe on the string. I have to look at my pinky finger and will it to move independently of all other fingers, then watch it like it’s a stubborn, recalcitrant child to make sure it lands on that string and plucks it clearly.

A couple of weeks ago I got sick of my fingernails breaking, so I went to the Vietnamese nail salon outside my community and got the nails “wrapped” on my right hand fingers. The little man dipped his brush into a solvent, then into a powder, and daubed it on my fingernails, then smoothed it out. They dried fairly quickly and he sanded them down with his Dremel tool. No, he didn’t paint them. Now I have long, strong nails, particularly the pinky nail. So, now at least I have something on that pinky with which to pluck the string.

After an hour and a half of drudgery, the pinky began to do its job. I figure I’ll have to spend 20 or 30 hours of practice just to play Etude 1 smoothly, and another 20 to 30 hours to play it fast. Imagine spending a solid week, 10 hours a day, learning to play one little tune. Oh, well, it’s a beautiful piece and I’ll be proud of myself if I actually stick to it. We’ll see.

While I was doing all that boring practice, Maria lay quietly on the futon in the other room and watched TV, letting her mind drift to the tones coming from my Ramirez. She loves the sound of that instrument. So do I.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

What We Should Say to Oligarchies that Abuse Us

How does one nation say something like the below to another?

“You have violated our rights and we don’t like it. We do not like your hostile rhetoric and financial support to terrorists who intend to kill us. We believe your national behavior has resulted from your oligarchy government. We’re going to give you 2 years to change it into something more benign, not only to outsiders, but also to your own people.

“If you don’t do it in that time frame, we’re going to declare war upon your country, destroy your military forces, remove and exterminate your bad leadership, install a government of our choosing, and nationalize your natural resources to pay the cost of policing and transforming your nation into something more suitable for a modern, peaceful world. Most likely our forces will occupy your country for the next hundred years or so, and millions of your people will die in the associated fighting. We shall impose a eugenics program that will eliminate the most inferior and troublesome elements from your gene pool. We shall destroy all institutions that teach it is good to kill others or destroy their property, even if those are religious institutions. We shall imprison and execute all religious and secular leaders that advocate any kind of oppression or violence to further an ideology. We shall ruthlessly hunt down and execute all who oppose us, including their immediate families. We shall hunt down and capture all financial assets of your nation’s wealthiest families, even if those assets sit in secret Swiss bank accounts. And we shall make you pay the entire cost of our subjugation and occupation efforts, even if it takes you a thousand years.

“During the next two years, we shall monitor your activities, and we shall undermine and destroy any and every effort of yours to support entities hostile to our nation, our people, and our property. We shall in the middle of the night lob destructive bombs at targets we deem deserving, and as we see fit we shall destroy your military capability, assassinate your leaders, foment civil war, freeze your assets, disrupt your infrastructures, and impose embargos and other oppressive conditions on you, as we must to minimize your threat to our security. That’s before we invade your land and take full control of it.

“If you prefer a more enjoyable solution, you may petition for our help right now, and promise to abide by certain rules of relationship. In exchange, we shall send our advisors into your country to help you gather data and analyze what you can do to bring your nation peaceably and lawfully into the modern era, and then we will help you implement it. You will pay for this service, but you will eventually see it as the cheapest of all options available to you, certainly much cheaper than the terrible loss of life and property if we harass and invade you.

“Here’s a proposed constitution and bill of rights for your new limited constitutional republic. We patterned it somewhat after ours, taking into consideration your country’s history and social customs. Look it over and think about our proposal. Get back to us in one month with your decision. We will interpret no answer as a “no” answer, and we shall respond accordingly. You will not get a second chance.”

I believe America must help people governed by primitive oligarchies exercise responsibility for their own governments. Look at the relationship between the USA and Mexico for an example. They manage self-government pretty well, given the average IQ of their nation, and at least they have pretty much learned not send full-scale military invasion forces into the USA. Other primitive peoples can learn the same, particularly if our advisors hang around to help them.

I believe the most significant way to help primitive countries is to provide them with contracts to provide goods and services to the USA, and make it possible for them to manufacture or do R&D work under contract for USA companies and the government. This will force higher quality, broader education upon the land, and that will result in an increase in the wage base and standard of living. Whenever people feel free to pursue business interests, they work to support a government that prevents others from destroying their business.

We cannot approach such a significant help level without having boots on the ground to eliminate insurrection and terrorism.

I feel profound disappointment over Bush’s refusal to do anything effective to eliminate Afghanistan’s opium production. They have been delivering about 5000 tons of opium a year to international illegal drug markets, and none of the money they receive goes into government coffers. If it did, the USA would have to wage war against the government it just installed. Our military should destroy the opium business in Afghanistan and work with our industrialists to set up factories and international agriculture operations there. Afghanistan contains plenty of people who can work in factories, and their wage base is probably sufficiently low to allow them to be competitive in textiles and other labor-intensive operations. The president is strangely silent about this. I wonder why.

A Travesty of American Justice

Judge and Prosecutor Conspire to Deny a Citizen his Rights in Clearwater’s Florida State Court.

By Bob Hurt, 30 March 2006. License granted hereby for broad distribution intact.

A few months ago I attended a meeting of a group of “Lawmen” for the purpose of associating with people who are fighting the IRS, to see whether I could find any practical recourse to being keelhauled with the unconstitutional collection of a direct and unapportioned tax by our nation’s tax authorities every time I turn around.

One of the members sent me an email inviting me to attend a hearing in Judge David Seth Walker’s 6th circuit Florida court in Clearwater (the Pinellas county seat) about 20 minutes from my home. The hearing involved Jesse Toca, a native-born American descended from Tampa’s Cuban cigar factory owners. Yesterday I showed up to sit in the peanut gallery with about a dozen people from the “Lawmen” group. And there I witnessed what appeared to me to be an utter travesty of justice and stomping of constitutional rights.

Here’s a little background to the case. In 1997 the State of Florida charged Jesse with “practicing law without a license” under Florida statute 454. Judge Crocket Farnell, having earlier promised to Jesse “If you ever show up in my court, I’ll bury you!”, found him guilty, even though Florida’s government has no apparent licensing procedure for attorneys (no attorney can show you a “license” to practice law) and no effective law regarding Practicing Law without a License*. Jesse did two years of jail time, during which his attorney abandoned the appeal effort after trying to convince Jesse’s elderly parents to give him Jesse’s car. Later, Jesse discovered the reason: his attorney, an officer of the court, was then, and had all along been, a crack cocaine addict. A new judge granted Jesse probation to care for his ill and aging mother, on the condition that he report to the Salvation Army and give financial information to them so as to determine his ability to pay restitution.

Jesse took his probation, but refused to give any financial information. He said that would have constituted a yielding of his 5th amendment constitutional right to be free of self-incrimination. He knew the ruthless prosecutor might dig into his financial data and use the trail to find other information to use in contriving a criminal charge against him. The prosecutor is a 6-foot-something pin-striped Assistant State Attorney (ASA) named Frank Migliore who seems to me to look and behave like a henchman of Tony Soprano. Because of Jesse’s refusal to divulge financial information, Migliore charged Jesse with 4 counts of probation violation, intending to throw Jesse in jail for one year per count.

Since Jesse had no money to hire an attorney, the State made available two Public Defenders. Jesse consulted them to determine their ability to counsel and defend him effectively. Jesse concluded that both were incompetent. One of them created a conflict of interest by divulging Jesse’s confidential information to Migliore, information that was supposed to have been protected by the attorney-client privilege. Knowing that his Public Defender was colluding with the Prosecutor, Jesse rejected that counsel as “ineffective”. Meanwhile, Jesse was scheduled for a hearing on the state’s motion to quash Jesse’s subpoenas for hostile witnesses to prove his attorney was incompetent to represent him. Apparently the ASA had encouraged the witnesses to try to quash their subpoenas because he wanted to railroad Jesse into 4 years of prison. Why was this apparent? Because half a dozen submitted motions to quash. It seemed obvious that they intended to bury him.

29 March 2006, Jesse showed up in court without a defense counselor. In the court room, Jesse sat alone on the defendant’s side, and a gaggle of attorneys, including Migliore and his associate ASA Marie King, sat on the prosecutor’s side. Migliore presented his motion to quash. Jesse rose, stepped to the counsel lectern and presented his opposing arguments masterfully.

  1. He moved the court to permit a member of the news media to record the proceedings electronically. The judge denied the motion, in violation of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.170.
  2. He pointed to the empty defense counsel’s chair, said he had no counsel, and submitted constitutional and case law proving he had the right to counsel. He demanded counsel. The judge denied the motion, violating Jesse’s 6th Amendment constitutional right to effective counsel.
  3. He moved to continue the proceedings so he could find suitable counsel. The judge denied the motion.
  4. He went back and forth with the judge and State Attorney through dozens of arguments, accusing the judge of conspiring with the State to throw him under the bus and run him over, of violating his constitutional right to counsel. Jesse even accused the judge of violating the law by calling a sidebar conference, going off the record, and advising Jesse to cop a plea. The State accused the judge of mollycoddling the defendant through nearly 10 years of similar courtroom drama. Throughout this process the judge rolled his eyes, held his head in his hands, sighed repeatedly, and still talked in a reasoned and moderated voice.
  5. During all this time, when Jesse was arguing his points, he often turned to the peanut gallery, and frequently referred to us as his supporters (all were taking copious notes).
  6. Eventually the judge admitted that he had no intention of putting Jesse in jail, and the State went ballistic. The judge told Migliore to sit down.
  7. Jesse told the judge he was willing to pay restitution through some kind of judgment, and the State vehemently protested, saying only probation had any chance of getting any money out of Jesse.
  8. The judge sided with Jesse, who copped a plea of guilty on the condition that restitution be worked out in another court, that Jesse would not go to jail, and that Jesse would not have to give up his 5th amendment rights.

Afterward, Jesse and four of us who been observing from the peanut gallery met Jesse at Wendy’s for a quick lunch. Jesse was in a hurry to get home to attend to his mother. I asked him what he thought might have happened had we not been there. Jesse admitted he would probably be in handcuffs. He believes the presence of a support group helped convince the judge to rule as he did.

The judge had admitted several times that he was mightily impressed with Jesse’s oratorical skills, which he claimed were better than 95% of the attorneys who had ever appeared before him during his 35 years on the bench. Nevertheless, without a peanut gallery of supporters who might make noise in the press or serve as witnesses to judicial malfeasance, the judge would have railroaded Jesse even more than he did, and Jesse would have had no opportunity to cop a plea with conditions in his favor. Sure, he’ll have to pay restitution, but at least he will be free.

Multiply Jesse’s situation by the thousands of times such things happen every week day in American courts. Imagine if you were in Jesse’s shoes but did not possess his knowledge of your legal rights or his skill in thinking on his feet and combating both a ravenous State Attorney and a corrupt judge, both of whom were deadly intent on stomping your rights and either throwing you in jail or forcing you to pay outrageous and unjustified restitution. Jesse is surely one of the luckiest men alive to have faced such a dynamic duo of American injustice without doing jail time.

America’s judiciaries at all levels are hopelessly corrupt, and routinely exceed their authority and stomps our constitutional rights in cases just like Jesse’s. Aside from pounding on our legislators, the only possible thing we can do about it is just what I did. If you see or hear of court cases that interest you, take a day off from work now and then and join the defendant’s peanut gallery. Your little bit of support might do a world of good in the life of an everyday American.

Practicing Law without a License

Most people think you must be an attorney licensed by the state, and you must be a member of the Bar association in order to practice law in the state. I could not understand why an obviously very intelligent like Jesse Toca would knowingly break such a rule. So I set out to discover the truth by talking to knowledgeable people and reading the law for myself. First I spoke with ASA King, non-BAR member David Bosset (, and St. Petersburg attorney and Florida Bar member Frank Papa.

  • King directed me to Florida statute 454 under which Migliore charged Jesse. She admitted that the state does not license people to practice law. She harshly advocated the idea that a non-government, unregulated organization (the Florida Bar Association) rightly should permit and regulate the practice of law by people only it deems qualified, just as a state arm of the American Medical Association regulates the practice of medicine by medical doctors. She also told me that Judge Walker had given Jesse ample time to find counsel to represent him, but that Jesse had refused to do so.
  • Bosset told me that he practices law all the time without a license and it drives the Florida BAR crazy. They filed suit against him in Florida court, and Bosset seems to be enjoying his ongoing battle against them. He said he provides “limited assistance of counsel” to his clients under contract, and that the state government cannot limit his fulfillment of his obligations under the provisions of that contract. He cited the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts….”
  • Papa told me he does not have a license to practice law, but he showed me his Florida BAR Association membership card which declared him to be a member in good standing, and he claimed to have a Bar Membership certificate signed by the Florida Supreme Court.

I browsed the Florida statutes on line so that I could read and attempt to understand Statute 454. See my analysis below. After reading it and thinking about it, I understood why Jesse or anyone else would think it okay to sign a contract with someone, then under the terms of that agreement give the client legal advice or even act as counsel in a court of law. Florida law says people shall not practice law without a license or authorization, but it does not stipulate a means for being licensed. It indicates that the Supreme Court should be the proper entity to regulate that, but refers to no licensing or authorizing statutes or regulations, almost as though such rules should be taken for granted.

This leads me to believe that either the state legislature has ignored its responsibility to enact statutes any ordinary person can understand regarding authorization to practice law, or that it did enact understandable statutes in Title 454, and people may behave accordingly. I believe it is the latter. The Florida Bar Association is unregulated and could be manned by a pack of fools and charlatans with no accountability to the people or the government. Thus, it amounts to little more than a self-regulating “good old boys” network that the state legislature refuses to regulate or hold accountable for its harassment of citizens who lawfully give legal counsel under contract. And judging from the practices of Migliore and Walker that I witnessed, multiplied by thousands or millions in courtrooms across America, the Bar does a miserable job of regulating attorney behavior. Nothing in the family of Statute 454 entitles the Bar association to authorize the practice of law or to license attorneys. For all of these reasons, I have concluded that the judges and ASA Frank Migliore railroaded defendant Jesse Toca from the very beginning, over a period of nearly 10 years, colluding to have him thrown in jail and forced to pay restitution he did not owe.

I know that Jesse wants to put this whole episode behind him and get on with his life. And that is at the heart of this problem of a corrupt judiciary and corrupt government attorneys. Although some are really decent and competent professionals, many if not most seem insufferably arrogant and condescending elitists who consider the courtroom their domain and everyone else, even the jury, as their subjects, whom they can and do collude to deceive, manipulate, and strip of constitutional rights at their whim. Jesse is one of their victims, and judge-prosecutor conspiracies destroy the lives of millions of others like him across America. The conspirators do their best to imprison, fine, extort, and oppress their victims to death, while often letting violent criminals and rapists loose to have their way with innocent citizens. Afterward, defendants like Jesse wind up humiliated and shunned as felons, depressed, unable to feed their families, and too miserable and defeated to fight further. Were it not for that, perhaps more would file civil lawsuits and seek to have criminal charges filed against prosecutors and judges who conspire illegally to ruin their lives. As far as I am concerned, such conspirators deserve the worst of punishments they hand out to their innocent, hapless victims. But as it is, few people have the gumption to hold prosecutors and judges accountable for their inexcusable behavior.

The 5th and 14th amendments mandate due process for all judicial proceedings, and I witnessed that process being ignored in Judge Walker’s court room by both the judge and the prosecutor. All judges and prosecutors take an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has additionally held that government employees who violate any law in the performance of duties do not represent the government.

Therefore, we can rightly conclude that adjudication not within constitutional requirements nullifies any claim to jurisdiction. Only this guarantees that a court of admiralty, a star chamber proceeding, a kangaroo court, or an arbitrary proceeding by whatever name does not occur. The Supreme Court forcefully established that court proceedings must be within constitutional provisions (Muskrat v. United States (1911) 219 US 346; Smith v. U.S, (1959) 360 US.)

But apparently, Supreme Court rulings don’t make a dent in the armor of conspiratorial prosecutors and judges. Americans need a new branch of government charged with the responsibility of bringing corrupt politicians, judges, government attorneys, and other public servants to justice. That new branch would enforce rulings like the following:

  • “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability for they are deemed to know the law." Owen v. Independence, 100 S. Ct. 1398.
  • "Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate [abolish] them" Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises.
  • "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S. 262
  • "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights." Sherar v. Cullen 481 F. 945.
  • "The court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty." Boyd v. U.S. (1886) 116 U.S. 616.
  • "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection' it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, Quoting from Marbury v Madison (1803)
  • "The exercise of a constitutional right cannot be the basis of a crime." Marchetti v. U.S., 390 US 39,57; See v Seattle, 387 US 541.

But we have no such fourth branch of government, and so it is up to you, the reader of this article, to attack the corruption in our courts when and as you can, and to support defendants who are being hammered into oblivion by corrupt and collusive judges and prosecutors.

Note: You can reach Jesse Toca for comments or an interview at:

Jesse Toca
7937 Woodglen Circle
Tampa, FL 33615
206-350 6441

# # #


Bob Hurt’s Layman’s Analysis of Florida Statute 454

Fuzzy Law seems not to prohibit citizens from giving legal advice or acting as counsel in courts of law.

The Florida Constitution gives the state Supreme court full authority over the judicial branch of government and the regulation of attorneys. It lets the governor appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and it guarantees the people's right to determine (through the election process) who gets to serve as judges in the lower courts. It gives the legislature only one power over the judicial branch: the power to impeach judges. Otherwise, the judicial branch is "self-regulating."

The Supreme Court established an array of regulations describing procedures that must be followed in judicial proceedings and the qualifications and conduct of judicial officers, including both judges and attorneys. It authorized the Florida Bar to manage the qualification and selection of attorneys, and based on those qualifications, the Supreme Court "licenses" people to serve in state courts as attorneys and counselors at law. That big certificate on a lawyer's wall is a license to practice law, and it is signed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

The Bar regulations require a prospective attorney to graduate from an accredited college of law, pass a bar examination, be of good moral character, be a member of good standing of the state bar association, and swear to the following oath (required of all judicial officers by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution):

"I do solemnly swear: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval; I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."

Once these qualifications are in place, the bar examiner certifies to the Clerk of the Supreme Court that the prospect is qualified, and the Clerk issues the license.

That is all well and good, but serious flaws exist in the system. To begin with, Amendment IV to the U.S. constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to assistance of effective counsel of choice. That does not confer upon the government at any level the power to determine who that counsel may be nor what qualifications that counsel must have. And, Amendments IX and X specifically preclude the government from assuming any powers not specifically granted to it by the constitutions.

Thus, if defendant in a criminal proceeding has the constitutional right to enlist a topless dancer as counsel, and the government has no say whatsoever in the matter...

We wish. Unfortunately, the government very clearly tries to strongarm defendants into selecting only bar members as their counsel, and through the bar association, it works assiduously to prohibit the "practice of law" to anybody but bar members.

The below web site shows Florida Statute 454, the only one I can find that seems related to Attorneys.

I have indented all the Title 454 statutes below, and presented my comments regarding them below the relevant statutes. I have not found anything that requires a person to be a member of the Bar in order to practice law, and I have found nothing that says only the Supreme Court may decide who practices law. The language is obscure in the most relevant paragraphs that might be used to determine who may practice law, how one is licensed to practice law, or what the licensing requirements are.

454.021 Attorneys; admission to practice law; Supreme Court to govern and regulate.--

(1) Admissions of attorneys and counselors to practice law in the state is hereby declared to be a judicial function.

(2) The Supreme Court of Florida, being the highest court of said state, is the proper court to govern and regulate admissions of attorneys and counselors to practice law in said state.

This clearly says the Supreme Court of Florida is the proper court determine who practices law and regulate the practice. But it does not show requirements for the practice of law, it does not say the Supreme Court shall be responsible for those things, and it does not point to any corresponding statute that delineates and enumerates such requirements.

454.026 Authority of Department of Law Enforcement to accept fingerprints of, and exchange criminal history records with respect to, bar applicants.--The Department of Law Enforcement is authorized to accept fingerprints of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar and, to the extent provided for by federal law, to exchange state, multistate, and federal criminal history records with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners for licensing purposes.

Although the above paragraph mentions the Florida Bar, applicants for admission to the Bar, and the exchange of records, and it mentions licensing, it does not authorize or entitle the Bar to authorize or license people to practice law.

454.11 Powers of attorneys.--Every attorney duly admitted or authorized to practice in this state shall have the right to appear before any court of the state, or any public board, committee, or officer in the interest of any client, and may appear as amicus curiae when so permitted. All attorneys shall be deemed officers of the court for the administration of justice, and amenable to the rules and discipline of the court in all matters of order or procedure not in conflict with the constitution or laws of this state.

The above paragraph says what attorneys might do if they are duly admitted or authorized, but it does not stipulate the requirements for admission or authorization, nor does it prohibit anyone who is not an attorney from practicing law.

454.18 Officers not allowed to practice.--No sheriff or clerk of any court, or deputy thereof, shall practice in this state, nor shall any person not of good moral character, or who has been convicted of an infamous crime be entitled to practice. But no person shall be denied the right to practice on account of sex, race, or color. And any person, whether an attorney or not, or whether within the exceptions mentioned above or not, may conduct his or her own cause in any court of this state, or before any public board, committee, or officer, subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such court, board, committee, or officer. The provisions of this section restricting the practice of law by a sheriff or clerk, or deputy thereof, shall not apply in a case where such person is representing the office or agency in the course of duties as an attorney.

Interestingly, the above does not prevent you from practicing law UNLES you are a non-attorney court officer or a bad person.

454.19 Certain partnerships prohibited.--No judge of a court of this state who is permitted by the constitution and laws to practice law shall form any partnership with the prosecuting attorney of such court or become a partner in any firm in which he or she is a partner. No attorney who may be a law partner with any judge of any court who is permitted by law to practice law shall be allowed to practice before the court of which his or her partner is judge.

What about collusion between judges and prosecutors, which happens all the time? They frequently function as partners to railroad defendants accused of a crime. For example, prosecutors and judges routinely collude to prevent juries from knowing they are entitled to decide matters of law as well as matters of fact, and to nullify judicial rulings they believe are unjust. In so doing, they hamstring juries and prevent them from implementing just findings.

454.20 Attorneys not to be sureties.--No attorney shall become surety on the official bond of any state, county, or municipal officer of this state, nor surety on any bond of a client in judicial proceedings.

This does not limit any person from practicing law other than attorneys.

454.23 Penalties.--Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out to the public as qualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified, or recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

What does this mean? Obviously, the state does not issue licenses to practice law, and neither does the BAR association. Therefore, nobody, including attorneys hold a valid authorization (license) to practice law in Florida. So far, I have not seen any law that stipulates the requirements for qualification to practice law. So how can anybody other than those guilty of violation of one of the other paragraphs be charged with a felony?

454.31 Practice while disbarred or suspended prohibited.--Any person who has been knowingly disbarred and who has not been lawfully reinstated or is knowingly under suspension from the practice of law by any circuit court of the state or by the Supreme Court of the state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

454.32 Aiding or assisting disbarred or suspended attorney prohibited.--A person who knowingly aids or assists any person in carrying on the unauthorized practice of law, knowing that such person has been disbarred and has not been lawfully reinstated or is under suspension from the practice of law by any circuit court of the state or by the Supreme Court of the state, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and shall also be subject to disbarment.

The above two provision do not require an attorney to be a member in good standing of the Bar. They clearly say that a person who has been disbarred cannot practice law, or even say that he is entitled to practice law. However, they do not say that an ordinary human being cannot practice law.

Nothing in the above statutes properly defines “practice of law,” particularly not in terms of giving legal advice, or operating as limited counsel to a defendant or party to a lawsuit in a court of law.

Our Amendment I right to freedom of speech prevents the government from prohibiting our free discussion of all things, including legal matters. However, the bar association seems willing vigorously to prosecute anybody who presumes to give legal advice to a friend.

# # #