Sunday, February 27, 2011

Violence and Love as Solutions to Bad Government

Bob Hurt
I write now a brief note to you about  love or violence as solutions to problems in or with government, particularly in response to government abuse of the people.

I have said that most people I have met in government seem sincere about doing their jobs.  Even “BAD” people in government generally only occasionally behave badly.  And most people in government do not use  physical force in performing their duties.  This includes judges who sometimes have to deal with the worst kind of people.

I openly encourage people to learn the law, become disposed to using it, and to learn the ideals of good government and excise from government those who don’t conform to those ideals.

In the end, we tend to see the government as an inexorably grinding machine without humanity of emotion or sanctity of conscience.  Those who get caught in the so-called wheels of justice know only too well how easily the machinery can mistake the innocent for the guilty.

But let us look clearly at government.  It may have machinery functions, but real PEOPLE operate it.  And they have the same concerns, worries, personal ambitions, fortes and foibles that non-government people have.

How shall we interact with these people?  Shall we present them with the a citizenry that imposes inexorable grinding upon the people in government?

Perhaps so.  In other words, government has to operate by specific rules and within specific limits  When people in government escape those limits, should the machine grind them into mincemeat? 

I personally think it should grind away on government itself, but not in utter disregard of the people in government.  In other words, we only grind on bad government to correct it so that it becomes good.

It would make more sense to establish actual monitoring for machinery of government that will excise a government employee who errs, and evaluate the employee for correction. If uncorrectable, discharge the employee permanently and never again allow that person back into government service.  If correctable, retrain that employee to teach how not to err in the future, put the employee through certification testing, and upon successful completion and demonstration of absolute certainty of how not to err in the future, have the employee make effective amends to the injured party, then return the employee to service.  Every business and every government activity should operate this way for ordinary jobs.

In the case of jobs where the employee can easily cause great injury to the public, such as in a judgeship, government should subject the candidate for the job to rigorous psychological profiling and testing for stability, morality, ethical behavior, knowledge of the constitutions, knowledge of the law, and ability to function  safely and sanely in the face of horrific pressure from potential victims.  Rather than wait for trouble from such people, they should be pulled from service for a year every 5 years and put into a totally different, rehabilitative type of work, such as counseling or teaching..  During that time the system should further monitor, test, and retrain the employee.

Moreover, since punishment and violence never rehabilitates anyone, the People should encourage government to diminish or eliminate all possible violence from its protocols for dealing with people.

Courtrooms should have designs that prevent bailiffs from ever laying hands on anyone in court who does not ask or signal for personal help.  Bailiffs must have training to show them when judges violate the law or rules, and then Bailiffs should terminate the proceeding until the judge gets his right mind back, or till a new judge arrives. 

Most of all, we should treat our public servants with love and respect, even when they err, ESPECIALLY when they err.  We should help them to focus on the ideals of spiritual living by setting an ideal example for them, giving them notice when we intend to correct them, and then proceed with the corrective action (such as getting them fired) lovingly.

Yes, we SHOULD discuss with them the option of using physical force to remove them from their jobs in the event nothing else seems to work.  But we should realize that because we ourselves don’t want to become subjected to such treatment, and because we ourselves like others to treat us lovingly, we ought to treat others that way, and devise ever better ways to replace physical force with unselfish loving service.  People, especially those in government, find it mighty difficult to resist loving others who obviously love them.

When I suggest “ATTACK WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE” I refer to the warrior’s attitude toward the machinery of government which has gone berserk or become iniquitous.  We should have an attitude of zero tolerance for such machinery.  And that means we either get the responsible employees corrected or get them removed, FAST, lest they hurt others from their ignorance, negligence, or malevolence.   But we should not try to injure them when we have available other options against the efforts of the machine to grind us into hamburger.

So prepare yourselves with lawsuits, criminal complaints, petitions for writs of habeas corpus, and other tools to fend off and correct abusive government employees.  But always show them affection and love (the desire to do good for them), and encourage them to let the Father’s indwelling spirit guide them to fair and just action.

If you have a hard time mustering up a loving attitude, seek out some Hare Krishna followers or an equivalent group of happy, loving people,  and take a lesson from them.

Like Mama said, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”  No, I don’t mean to equate government employees with flies.

And remember to go through another persons stomach to get to the heart.  My brother Darryl (don’t worry, I have only one brother of that name) makes himself famous by taking a box of Krispy Kreme (or equivalent) donuts into government offices, setting it on the counter and greeting whoever’s there with a big smile, telling the person there to hand them out to other workers.  On a hot day, he might bring in a case of canned Ice tea.  He always gets good treatment from government employees.  

People just love feeling loved.

Bob Hurt 2007 tiny
Bob Hurt  • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511
Donate to my Law Scholarship fundLearn to litigate with Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to Law Newsletter Visit the Archive and Download FREE
Get 3+Gigabytes of SpiderOak online backup space for your data files - FREE!

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Senior Judge Candidate oath request

To:  Laura Rush, Counsel, Florida Office of State Courts Administrator
From:  Bob Hurt, Citizen of Florida

Greetings to you Laura.  Please forgive my not sending a Valentine Elf to hum tunes of appreciation to you while you work.

I write to request the 105.031 candidate oath with associated 876.05 candidate’s loyalty oath for each of these two Ft. Myers senior judges:

·         James Thompson
·         Hugh Starnes

I suspect you will not find them, but I ask that if you cannot, you tell me who does have them, and if nobody has them, why not.

I believe this: 

The Justices, the Governor, and the Judicial Nominating Commissions ALL flout 103.031 and 876.05 by refusing to require judicial appointment nomination candidates to swear both of those oaths PRIOR to having their names available for the ballot (consideration for appointment).  I have complained to Gary Holland about this and he has steadfastly maintained that the definition of candidate in chapter 97 means 105.031 and 876.05 does not apply to appointment nominees.  I have told him that it does because

  1. no other law but 105.031 requires judicial candidates to attest to having read the code of judicial conduct and file a financial report, and
  2. It makes no sense to require election candidates for judgeships to perform those two tasks and NOT require appointment candidates to do so -  those qualifications have equal importance for both types of candidates
  3. Black’s law Dictionary defines candidate like this, clearly indicating nominee means candidate:  candidate,n.[fr. Latin candidatus, “clothed in white”; fr. candidus, “white,” from the white toga worn by a can-didate for public office in ancient Rome as a symbol of clean government] An individual seeking nomination, election, or appointment to an office, membership, award, or like title or status.
  4. Chapter 97 definitions do not control chapter 876, so the candidate loyalty oath in 876.05 applies to appointment nominees as well as election candidates.
  5. The Governor, Justices, and Judicial Nominating Commissions all violate the law by suborning appointment nominees into flouting 876.05 by failing to require them to swear it.  See penalties in 876.06 and 876.08, which might apply.
  6. The Supreme Court’s September 2008 Sibley ruling, that they deemed that by swearing the public officer oath in the constitution judges had complied with the statute, cannot possibly apply to the issue of failing to swear 105.031 and 876.05 in the candidacy phase because they had not yet become judges under the associated term of appointment.

Please forward this message to Chief Justice Canady and State Courts Administrator Lisa Goodner.  I have reason to believe the two senior judges above have committed malfeasance, and I believe they also failed to qualify for office by virtue of failure to swear the candidate’s oath and associated candidate’s loyalty oath.

Now, today I spoke with my friend from Ft. Myers, Mr. Malcolm Doney, a naturalized US Citizen from England.  The US government and banking/finance industry conspired to do illegal acts that proximately caused destruction of his and many others’ fortunes.  Read the report at  The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission proved my assertion above and reported it there.  Of course all but the nearly dead already knew this.

So, now Mr. Doney faces summary judgment in which the two senior judges above have destined him to lose his real estate to charlatans in the finance industry.   And they have violated all kinds of rules doing so.  They violate chapter 38 and Rule 2.330 disqualification procedures, the 5th amendment to the US Constitution, and Florida Constitution sections 9 and 21, not to mention their crappy FCON Article II oaths.  By “crappy” I mean by that that they swear loyalty to government in the FCON oath, impossible to do if remaining loyal to the Constitutions.  I typed notes during our conversation and I provide them to you below.  The Chief Justice should call them on the carpet and defrock them forthwith for this behavior, SUA SPONTE.

This brings up a sore point.  The Justices bring in Senior Judges like the hired guns of the old wild wild west.  These people do anything and get away with it.  Bailiffs intimidate pro se litigants frequently.  They act belligerent, rude, and ignore judicial code of conduct canon 3 with impunity.  The bailiffs act like their lap dogs, and care nothing for the judge’s violation of law. I consider this inexcusable and intolerable.  So I want you to give the attached cert petition to them, ALL of them as a reminder of their duties and the fate they deserve when they fail to do it.  I present these points and the attachment out of respect for the law and utter disdain for the Florida Judiciary (for ignoring citizen complaints and retaining jackass senior judges like these two).  I make no threat and INTEND NO THREAT of harm to anyone hereby.

I have not reported this to the local media.  But if I don’t see fairly quick improvement, I shall make as big a stink in the media as I can about the Hired Gun Senior Judges of the Florida Supreme Court’s new Wild Wild West. O’Reilly might even spread the story.  No, this is not an isolated incident. I have seen similar behavior from Florida’s 6th circuit senior judges over the past 6 years. Someone needs to get these megalomaniacs under control and stop their abusive behavior.

-------------------- phone call notes with Malcolm Doney ( ------------

Senior judges
James Thompson
Hugh E. Starnes
motion to disqualify Thompson mid feb 2010.  Thompson never responded
filed motion to disqualify Starnes in numerous cases in august.
in each case he said he wouldn't recuse himself
He made decisions anyway
15 Nov 2010, motion to disqualify Thompson on homestead case
22 Dec 2010 denied because of legal insufficiency (8 days late claiming he'd never seen it before)
18 Feb 2011

28 Jan 2011 motion to disqualify Starnes
4 Feb 2011 Starnes has deficiency judgment against Valerie, had tried to disqualify him earlier but he did not leave.
Starnes asks for Mrs Doney.  Not here.  You can't speak.  I do have right to speak. Motion to strike because she was the only defendant on case.
I'm a defendant in this case too,.  Bailiffs tossed him out for speaking.  Outside court hiatus hernia acts up, two bailiffs observing him
Waiting for response by 2 march..
15 Feb 2011 in court before Starnes on homestead case.  whispering with opposing counsel.  Malcolm asks judge to have her speak up.  Starnes looked hatefully and gestured her.  She started and voice faded again.  Malcolm protested again and asked to speak up, and bailiffs approached Malcolm aggressively to intimidate him.Starnes asks again where's valerie.  She signed mortgage but this is the couple's homestead.  That's why I had to have you escorted from the court last time. You cannot speak in this case.  Yes I can.  I am a defendant.  Starnes turns on computer, "takes a long time to boot up," looks at docket and sees that Malcolm IS a defendant. Starnes recites his summary. case filed in 2008, default judgment against defendants, motion to set aside, Thompson reviewed and denied motion,   Malcolm says true, but he was disqualified at that time.  No he wasn't Yes he was, hand in air. Judge Starnes in invite you to put me under oath so I can swear to this court that at the time he took made the ruling he was disqualified.  No, I can see the docket.  Starnes said at next docket sounding I'll set the case for trial.  Malcolm said no you won't.  I haven't yet spoken according to my right.  May I speak?  Yes.  The docket soundings and appointment of magistrate and all that flowed from it is illegal.  My case not ready for trial because my motions to strike have not received evidentiary hearing according to rule 1.510a (sham pleading).  Judge looks at him  and said that's why we do trial.  Malcolm NO it isn't, you have 100 people lned up for the morning of the 18th.  You cannot hear my evidence in such a busy schedule and you have no right to set the trial anyway.

Malcolm looked and found Starnes had extended docket sounding to 14 April.

Sat. talking to client getting ready for hearing on Monday.

  Valerie showed him letters from Thompson.  In respect to homestead, motion filed in court 15 Nov 2010, thompson said he had not seen it and would not have disqualified because you didn't serve me with it.  He did the same thing in December, with same document.  What prompted this?  Starnes, of course.

Shannon Anderson works with ACLU will file lawsuit on Lee County for fraud within 10 days.  She might go to rally in Tallahassee.  She has documents on fraud, more than 10,000 of them filed in Lee County showing bank fraud.  Works with Rachel Goodman, Atty ACLU Tallahassee. Will nail Thompson and barnes, has investigated them.

Anderson said Starnes and Robert Hill had conversation in open court about valerie case afternoon of 14th.  He asked opposing counsel Hill “did I do the right thing in Doney's case?”  Hill answered “Of course you did your honor. Doney had no right to speak whatsoever in this case.” Caught this on the court record . 

Brian activist fighting foreclosure case, involved in spats with court and corruption.  has thompson and starnes and their lawyers into a mess, on the record. seems powerful to use against them.  Makes them complicit in frauds.  Needs to see it on public record.


2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511
Donate to my
 Law Scholarship Fund
Learn civil litigation with
Subscribe to
 Lawmen Newsletter FREE
 Fi l es FREE from the Lawmen Archive

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Florida's Judicial Oligarchy and its Heinous Tools: UPL and the Bar

UPL  (Unauthorized Practice of Law) destroys the lives of many, both actively and passively.

Actively, it makes anyone who practices law without authorization into a felon:

Florida Statute 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.
History.s. 21, ch. 10175, 1925; CGL 8133; s. 384, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 74-128; s. 184, ch. 97-103; s. 1, ch. 2004-287.

I know, from looking at this ridiculous statute you want to know the statutes that define the practice of law, establish licensing for it, and prohibit practicing law without the license.

Sorry, no such statutes exist in Florida.  Citizens have to scrounge through Supreme Court rulings to find their definitions of activities that constitute practice of law, and scrounge further to discover what “authorized” and “licensed” means.  In Florida, the Constitution gives the Supremes this authorityin Article V:

SECTION 15. Attorneys; admission and discipline.—The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.
History.—S.J.R. 52-D, 1971; adopted 1972.

From this you see the Supremes don’t discipline persons NOT admitted to the inscrutable "practice of law."   Thus, the State Attorneys harvest complaints from attorneys and prosecute non-attorneys who compete against them. Attorneys thus hope UPL prosecution will win a felony conviction and a 5 year jail term for the competitor.

So you see, only Florida Common Law (court rulings) has made it illegal to do what the Supremes whimsically determine constitutes practice of law.  The Florida Legislature has negleced to define practice of law.  That allowed State Attorneys (henchmen for the Florida Bar) to run roughshod over citizens who try to help one another with legal problems.  The government has thereby created a legal services monopoly.

Passively, UPL scaes people away from helping one another with legal problems.  It drives people to attorneys.  Unfortunately, the Florida Bar does not tell an inquiring consumer whether a referral attorney has good experience and competence, or has routinely cheated, overbilled, and failed his clients.  It does not tell consumers his win/loss ratio in court or whether his contracts have caused clients to lose fortunes.  And of course the Bar rules prohibit revealing the sins of other attorneys.  Thus the consumer might as well roll the dice when selecting an attorney.  Then, when attorneys lose cases they should win, the Bar pays no attention at all.

What will YOU do to repair the UPL outrage?

Jerry O’neil Lives in Montana.  He sponsored a bill to tone down the state’s tendency to attack non-lawyers for practicing law without authorization.  He sent Charles Lincoln this request, which Charles forwarded to me:

From: Jerry O'Neil []
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:46 PM
To: Jerry O'Neil
Subject: Practice of Law, bill on

Here is a link to LC1706, a bill I am going to present in the Montana Legislature to make it more clear what is the practice of law and what is permitted by the public and by licensed attorneys. I am open to criticism.

Jerry O'Neil

The link Jerry sent does not work.  I found the right link here:

HB 371
Primary Sponsor
(H) Tabled in Committee
Revise statutes on practice of law

2011 Montana Legislature



     Section 1.  Section 37-61-201, MCA, is amended to read:
     "37-61-201.  Who considered to be practicing law. (1) Any Except as provided in subsections (2) through (4), any person who holds out to the public or advertises as an attorney or who appears in any court of record or before a judicial body, referee, commissioner, or other officer appointed to determine any question of law or fact by a court or who engages in the business and duties and performs acts, matters, and things that are usually done or performed by an attorney at law in the practice of that profession for the purposes of parts 1 through 3 of this chapter is authorized by the Montana supreme court to practice before the courts of this state, in the course of that person's avocation, is considered to be practicing law.
     (2) An individual is not considered to be practicing law when acting:
     (a) on the individual's own behalf; or
     (b) in a neutral capacity as a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator, or facilitator.
     (3) An individual is not considered to be practicing law when, with the court's authorization, the individual acts:
     (a) on behalf of another party to whom the person is related by a second degree of consanguinity or affinity;
     (b) as a personal representative; or
     (c) as a guardian ad litem.
     (4) An individual is not considered to be practicing law when, with the permission of an administrative agency or tribunal, the individual acts as a lay representative."

     Section 2.  Section 37-61-210, MCA, is amended to read:
     "37-61-210.  Penalty for practicing without license. If Except as provided in 37-61-201, if any person practices law in any court, except a justice's court or a city court, without having received a license as attorney, the person is guilty of a contempt of court misdemeanor."

     Section 3.  Section 37-61-215, MCA, is amended to read:
     "37-61-215.  Allowance of attorney fees to unlicensed persons forbidden -- exception -- authorized paralegal fees. (1) It Except as provided in 30-14-133, it is unlawful for any court within this state to allow attorney fees in any action or proceeding before the court in which attorney fees are allowed by law to either party to an action or proceeding when the party is represented by anyone other than a duly admitted or licensed attorney at law.
     (2)  This section does not prevent the award of paralegal fees as a component of attorney fees as provided in 25-10-304."
- END -

Okay, pretty nice. It represents an improvement. I wrote these suggestions.

Jerry, your changes seem helpful, but fall WAY short of what society needs.  Practice of law does not include ANY behavior unless the alleged practitioner holds himself out as a licensed attorney.  A non attorney can do anything an attorney does, including representing people in court EXCEPT for one thing:  doing it AS A LICENSED ATTORNEY.  A licensed gives people only small advantages over non-attorneys:

  • ·         Knowledge of the legal landscape
  • ·         Falling subject to the discipline of the bar
  • ·         General knowle retained from law school (they forget much of that material)
  • ·         Fast access to legal research tools (anybody can by this with the money)
  • ·         IQ above 110 gives them better than average cognitive ability

The huge disadvantage they offer:

  • ·         Incompetence in areas where they don’t specialize
  • ·         Tacit support of the Bar’s legal services monopoly made possible by the UPL penalty statute
  • ·         Tendency to price-gouge through the Bar’s legal services monopoly
  • ·         Tendency to take too many cases at once and therefore to shirk some clients
  • ·         As members of the bar, they belong to the Supreme Court and fall subject to their discipline and therefore have split loyalty and cannot be trusted
Many non-attorneys have nearly all the advantages and none of the disadvantages, and because of their disconnection from government can do a better lawyering job for the client than an attorney could or would.  If allowed to represent people, draw up agreements and contracts for them, file court documents for them, give them legal advice (a topic soreley missing from your bill) without harassment from the bar, they could and often would hire attorneys for assistance of counsel.

The Supreme Court should not have the prerogative to define “practice of law,” and the UPL statute should not apply to non-attorneys.  We already have common law tort actions that give people relief and remedy for charlatanry in the realm of legal advice,  And otherwise, a person gets what he pays for when he knowingly chooses a non-attorney for help.  So long as the counselor / representative does not misrepresent his licensure status, the law should leave him alone.

Right now the UPL statute seems to make advising your children about the meaning and application of the Constitution into a crime.  THAT is civilizationally insane.  You might remember the case of Nancy Grant who supplied jailbirds the motion for emergency release for violation of speedy trial rights (you know, the scam of public defenders continuing a case and leaving the suspect to rot in jail for years without a single hearing).  The Florida 12th  Kangaroo Circuit convicted her of 19 counts of UPL.  See the story here  This kind of insanity has to stop.

I hope you will send similar comments to the legislators in your state.  Forward this message to them.  They need to know that UPL hurts the people, it does not protect them.  Incompetent, crooked attorneys abuse, cheat, and betray clients every day in every state, all over the USA.  Why?  Because UPL operates to create a legal services monopoly.  So, obviously a license to practice law, the enormous range of activities included in the meaning of “practice of law,” ambiguity about the meaning, and fear of getting convicted of UPL, all operate to chill freedom of speech.  It also encourages Americans to abandon one another to a crooked attorney rather than help them out.  It also stifles the study of law by the citizenry.

While you harangue your legislators, explain to them how the Bar constitutes a grave danger to mankind by encouraging the legal services monopoly and by creating a judicial oligarchy through integration with the Supreme Court.  The Florida Supremes integrated the Bar in 1949.

You see, the judiciary claims immunity for itself in judicial acts, and successfully extends it to ALL acts.  Only rarely does a judge feel the sting of prosecution for his real and rampant crimes.  Lawyers love that immunity, so they want to share in it by becoming judges (a profession open only to them) or belonging to the Supreme Court.  So, most state Supreme Courts integrated the bar with the Supreme Court as its “official arm.”

In a show of power, the Florida Supremes under Peggy Quince in September 2008, declared in the Sibley ruling that judges don’t have to obey the statute requiring them to swear a public employee oath that has radically different language than the public officer’s oath in the Constitution.  They "deemed" that by swearing the oath in the Constitution the judges had complied with the statute.

They did this two years after I raised holy hell with them for failing to have jurats on their oath forms, and not swearing the public employee oath in Florida Statute 876.05-10.  They did this a year after Chief Justice Fred Lewis chastened all the judges for that negligence and told them to go swear their 876.05 oaths anew, which all of them did.  THAT proved the Supremes deceitful in the 2008 Sibley ruling, a fact the  mainstream media totally ignored.  You can read my ebook on the oaths debacle at (Loyalty Oaths in Florida").

What UNMITIGATED GALL!  Actually, they did the same thing in the 1995 Times Publishing Company v. Ake ruling in which they declared that Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes don’t apply to judicial records.  They used this ruling to deny the St. Pete Times access to judicial records.

They claim they have constitutional authority to do this under Article I Section 24:

SECTION 24. Access to public records and meetings.—
(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution.
(b) All meetings of any collegial public body of the executive branch of state government or of any collegial public body of a county, municipality, school district, or special district, at which official acts are to be taken or at which public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed, shall be open and noticed to the public and meetings of the legislature shall be open and noticed as provided in Article III, Section 4(e), except with respect to meetings exempted pursuant to this section or specifically closed by this Constitution.
(c) This section shall be self-executing. The legislature, however, may provide by general law passed by a two-thirds vote of each house for the exemption of records from the requirements of subsection (a) and the exemption of meetings from the requirements of subsection (b), provided that such law shall state with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and shall be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law. The legislature shall enact laws governing the enforcement of this section, including the maintenance, control, destruction, disposal, and disposition of records made public by this section, except that each house of the legislature may adopt rules governing the enforcement of this section in relation to records of the legislative branch. Laws enacted pursuant to this subsection shall contain only exemptions from the requirements of subsections (a) or (b) and provisions governing the enforcement of this section, and shall relate to one subject.
(d) All laws that are in effect on July 1, 1993 that limit public access to records or meetings shall remain in force, and such laws apply to records of the legislative and judicial branches, until they are repealed. Rules of court that are in effect on the date of adoption of this section that limit access to records shall remain in effect until they are repealed.
History.—Added, C.S. for C.S. for H.J.R.’s 1727, 863, 2035, 1992; adopted 1992; Am. S.J.R. 1284, 2002; adopted 2002.

Naturally, they claim protection under item d above.  But by sneaking the provision into the constitution, they denied people protection of the section.

How could it happen that the Florida Legislature would put such a betrayal of the people into Article I Section 24?  Simple.  A lot of their members have bar membership and licenses to practice law.  They worked against the people and for the Supremes because they fell subject to discipline of the Supremes, and to disbarment (on trumped up charges of course) if they didn’t play along.

Unfortunately for Florida, most Floridians ignore Article II Section 3, just as do the election folks in the State Department:

SECTION 3.Branches of government.The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Hmm.  Attorneys (all of them) belong to the judicial branch.  That means the attorneys in the Legislature (both staff attorneys the 35 legislators who belong to the bar) should not perform duties in the Legislature because they do so only in violation of the above doctrine of separation of powers.  You might recall that Charlie Crist, governor for 8 years, functioned as Attorney General for 8 years under Jeb Bush and had bar membership, so he did not belong in the governorship, did he?  Furthermore we should remember that the Florida Bar does support political agendas.  They foster those agendas through their members (all judges and attorneys), sneaking them under the putative security blanket of the electoral process.  Thus, both the Bar and its members function as an official arm of the Supreme Court, and that reality constitutes a grave danger to the welfare of Florida and its people.

Clearly, Florida suffers under the tyranny of a Judicial Oligarchy established by stealth over the years under color of law.  Clearly, the people of Florida must make the necessary changes to constitution and law to excise bar members from the Executive and Legislative branches.  The Legislature should

  • 1.      Excise the bar from government altogether,
  • 2.     Strip government employees of bar membership as a condition of employment, and
  • 3.      Hand licensure and regulation of the practice of law to the Executive Branch.

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.
Anyone with half a brain knows that a state government cannot function as a judicial oligarchy and a republic at the same time.  Florida's bar and Supreme Court have destroyed the Florida Republic and established a judicial oligarchy in control of the residue.  Its members work as elected and staff attorneys of the  Executive branch (attorney general, state attorneys) and the Legislature (through the bar member legislators), and of course the Judicial Branch.  They never fired a shot to pull off this bloodless coup, but deputy sheriff bailiffs in all the courts keep the oligarchy in place.

WOE unto Florida.

Feel free to distribute this far and wide.

2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511
Donate to my
 Law Scholarship Fund
Learn civil litigation with 
Subscribe to 
Lawmen Newsletter FREE
Fi l es FREE from the Lawmen Archive

Monday, February 21, 2011

Adverse Possessor Joel McNair Arrested for Homeless Ministry

Bob Hurt, Freaked over Arrest
Dear Sarasota County Florida  Sheriff Thomas Knight:

I read your arrest press release regarding Joel McNair of Sarasota, Florida, for his alleged scheme to defraud and grand theft.

I also read articles in the Tampa Tribune and St. Pete Times about Mcnair.

One of these reports heralds McNair as a kind of homeless-savior, who yearned to help suffering people during his years in prison back in the 1980's.  To paraphrase Erin Sullivan, the reporter who wrote the last article above, you could characterize McNair's ambitions as

Joel McNair
"I Have a Dream..."

of providing affordable, available housing to the poor and destitute.  It looks like McNair has started living that dream, walking that talk, similar to the way Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., did just before an apparent agent of government assassinated him.  I guess helping others sometimes comes at a heavy price.

I understand from your press release and the news reports that McNair performed Adverse Possession of several abandoned houses, and helped others who needed a home to live in them.  Abandoned houses diminish neighborhood property values, become eyesores, and invite crime into a neighborhood.  Getting someone to live in them seems like a good idea.  One of the links above reads:

"The sheriff's office said he ran a business called "Homes for America" that finds houses in foreclosure and leases them out. The victims pay a membership fee to his company and money to lease the property, not knowing he does not own it.

"Investigators says McNair believed he could lay claim to abandoned land if he cares for the property and paid the taxes under a so-called "adverse possession" concept.

""There are a number of ways people try to manipulate the system and this legal doctrine has clearly been misused in this case," said Captain Jeff Bell. "The suspect has no right to these homes, no right to change the locks, and no right to lease them to anyone.""

Contrary to the opinion of Captain Jeff Bell, this kind of adverse possession seems in keeping with ancient tradition inherited from England.  It puts the property to its highest and best use.  It serves both the community AND the rightful owner.  It protects the real estate from infestation by termites and other vermin, invasion by gangs and vandals, and occupation by drug dealers, dope growers, or crack users.  It prevents deadly mold from growing in the house and ventilation system, and it keeps the house in good repair. 

How on earth could any State Attorney who someday might seek re-election endorse such a frivolous, misguided, abusive, and unjustified arrest?  It seems to me that you and the State Attorney would honor the principle of adverse possession for the good of the community, and you would EMPOWER men like Joel McNair, not harass them and jail them to take them away from their salvatory task.

By arresting Joel McNair, you actually thwarted the will of the Florida Legislature.  The adverse possession law and tradition exist for a reason.  And what Joel McNair does constitutes one of those reasons.  I feel amazed that you don't see that, but instead you howl in your press release like Rampage Jackson over one of his octagon conquests.

It struck me as curious that anyone would arrest a citizen for adverse possession without a complaint from the alleged rightful owner, particularly in these strange foreclosure times with thousands of abandoned houses in Florida.

So, I want to know why you or your deputies consider adverse possession equivalent to grand theft, and in what way McNair defrauded anyone with respect to the adverse possession.

Did McNair fail to submit the DR 452 form to the county property appraiser to serve notice of adverse possession?

Did you receive any trespass complaint from an alleged rightful owner?

If so, did you approach the occupant and order the occupant out of the house?

If so, did the occupant refuse to leave, or did the occupant leave peaceably and promptly?

Did you verify the title through a proper search to ascertain that the alleged rightful owner actually does rightfully own the property and that the title has no cloud kind on it?  You do know that a cloud on the title could mean the owner of record does not actually own, right?  For example, you will find MERS as having a lien on many if not most houses under mortgage loans, but MERS does not actually have any beneficial interest in the note, and therefore no right to foreclose for nonpayment.  You HAVE seen this in recent court rulings, right? 

And you do know that all foreclosed property has two claimants, the mortgage servicer and the previous buyer of the property, right?  That ought immediately to put you on guard that you should ignore a trespass complaint from an alleged but absent owner till you see proof of the unfettered ownership, and therefore of the right to complain.

Did McNair do as adverse possessors must in Florida Statute 95.18 by caring for the property, paying taxes on it, and so on?

Did McNair actually charge anyone RENT or a LEASE fee for the property, or did the occupants join some kind of Homes for Americans membership that entitled them to live in one of McNair's adversely possessed houses?

Have you received PROOF of such rent, such as a rental invoice or contract to rent?

Did you release McNair from your prison?

If you released him, did you charge him bail or did you drop or change the charges against him?  Explain, please.

What "probable cause" did you have for making the arrest?

Did someone complain formally and in writing to you that McNair committed fraud against someone? 

If so,  please send me a copy of the complaint.

Did anyone WITNESS McNair's alleged theft of real estate? 

If so, WHO?

Did anyone actually complain that McNair had actually STOLEN real estate?

If so, please send me a copy of the complaint.

How does one steal real estate when no one can pull out of the earth a huge wedge the size of the typical lot and carry it away?

I want a copy of the arrest warrant.  I also want a copy of the accusatory instrument showing the sworn statement, penalties of perjury statement, and signature of the accuser.  Please forward it to my address or by return email.  I want to write a proper article about this incident, so I make this request and ask these questions under chapter 119 of Florida Statutes and Article I Section 24 of the Florida Constitution.  I shall pay the appropriate 15 cents per page for the documents upon receipt.  Please send me an invoice for the cost.

If you cannot answer these questions and provide the documents, will you please assign a deputy to confer with me about the case?  I look forward to hearing from you immediately.

Thank you sincerely,

Bob Hurt - Home Page - +1 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763
Donate to my Law Studies
Learn to litigate:  Buy and Study JURISDICTIONARY
Stay up to date:  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter Now


Thursday, February 10, 2011

Florida Grandmother Nancy Grant Alieve and Well - Seeks Habeas for UPL Convictions

You might remember the articles in Alex Newman's 2007 Liberty Sentinel ( about Nancy Grant's August trial and conviction in Arcadia Florida's 12th Circuit Court  for Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL).  See the article in the inaugural issue of the Liberty Sentinel for October 2007 here: - "Florida grandmother convicted of jail minustry crime"

The circuit's Chief Judge Richard Haworth presided over the case.  The jury convicted Nancy of 19 counts of UPL.  She had helped DeSoto County prisoners get out of jail for violation of their speedy trial rights.  Nancy had discovered that circuit and county officials conspired systematically to deprive prisoners of speedy trials which the Florida and US Constitutions guarantee them.

For helping them, and thereby alienating their public defenders and other defense lawyers, the court fined Nancy $30,500 and convicted her to 15 years in prison.  Haworth graciously suspended the sentence in favor of probation.

Well, Haworth should have known better than to allow that conviction, according to Nancy.  The judge swore to support the Constitution of Florida, which contains these words in Article V:
"SECTION 15. Attorneys; admission and discipline.—The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted."
In fact, Nancy recently brought me up to date on her activities with this note:
"Hi Bob,
"Hope all is well with you. Thought I'd send you a few lines about my case. I filed my Petition for Habeas Corpus in the federal middle district court in Ft. Myers January 5. The court then issued a Order to Show Cause to the attorney general of Florida, Pam Bondi on Jan 24th. The AG's office has till March 24th to respond. The Order was 6 pages of demands, my transcripts, entire case, reason why they didn't hold an evidentiary hearing etc. My HC was about jurisdiction. I am claiming the trial court didn't have jurisdiction pursuant to Art. V Section 15 of the FL Constitution. The Florida Supreme court hold "exclusive" jurisdiction over UPL issues.
"That's it for now,
"Nancy  Grant"
In other words, the court made more errors in her case than simply trying a case over which only the Supreme Court may have had jurisdiction.  Regardless of those other issues, Nancy might face another leg of her uphill battle to exercise her First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.  Florida Statutes contain language prescribing penalties for UPL:
"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."
Accordingly, State Attorneys typically consider it their prerogtive to prosecute the above violations in Circuit Court.  Apparently Haworth agrees.

Obviously, the Florida Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to regulate admission of practice of law and discipline lawyers admitted.   Thus, the Supreme Court holds all kinds of disbarment proceedings.   But the Constitution does not appear to confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to mess with non-attorneys who practice law without a license.

I imagine Nancy fully knows that the Supreme Court also operates Kangaroo proceedings, as it demonstrated by disbarring Miami-area attorney Jack Thompson in October 2008, basically for turning in Howard Stern and getting the FCC to fine him for airing prurient content on the radio.  She might feel bad that she got convicted in Haworth's Kangaroo court, where he fed bogus instructions to jury.  But she would REALLY feel bad if she experienced identical treatment in the Supreme Court.  And, giving the Florida Supremes the benefit of the doubt, I have no doubt that she would.

Florida's Kangaroo Courts give all of us, particularly Nancy Grant, a hard Lesson in the Southern Tradition: 

When you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick.

Bob Hurt - Home Page - +1 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763
Donate to my Law Studies
Learn to litigate:  Buy and Study JURISDICTIONARY
Stay up to date:  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter Now

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Foreclosure and Confrontation in Court

A reader sent this message:

From: Beach RentalSent: Wed, February 2, 2011 12:03:22 PMSubject:  Re: Memorandum in Support of Oppose to MSJ
I have a friend in Florida who is able to stay in his house since 2006 by just try to delay the Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment. He filed so far 4 times discovery, try to depose the Bank Presidents and Trustee, robot signers who signs the affidavits and the assignments . So far so good. The Bank can't produce the Trustee and the Custodian for depositions so discovery is still in force. They can't get the Hearing for their MSJ. In many Florida courts, the Senior Judges won't listen to Prose in MSJ. They will grant the Bank MSJ and the house will be gone in couple months. Therefore I would try to avoid direct court confrontation as long as I can. The tide is turning favoring Homeowners, the longer I can stay in my house to fight, the better. 

The way to avoid Summary Judgment against you in Foreclosure:
  1. Do not wait for a foreclosure complaint to arrive.  File a quiet title action and ATTACK.
  2. Move to dismiss their complaint for failure to state a cause of action for which the court can grant relief.
  3. Challenge jurisdiction and standing, and HAMMER hard on these points.  It could take the Plaintiff years to correct this.
  4. Contradict the factual allegations in the complaint
  5. Press immediately for discovery to prove your contradictions
  6. In the discovery ALWAYS bring in corporate charter, articles of incorporation, and try to depose President, CEO, and treasurer.  Depositions can cost a lot of money, but they can stave off the other proceedings for months.
  7. Press for summary judgment in your favor. 
  8. Strategize two Dismissals - the second in Florida comes WITH PREJUDICE.  Fight like hell if they try to complain again after a second dismissal.
  9. Remind the judge of the obligations imposed by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
  10. Prepare to challenge the judge for Prejudice and ROGERS them immediately and explosively with loud complaining against the judge.  Read my article ROGER THE JUDGE at within the past week.

If you want to avoid court, you believe you cannot get justice there.  You MUST PREPARE FOR CONFRONTATION IN COURT, so get used to the idea.

One should never do discovery merely to delay the inevitable or drive up your opponent's cost of litigation.  To begin with, that violates court rules.  Secondly, it ends up costing you that much more when you lose.

Until the Court realizes and admits that we have a crooked impossibly corrupt money system, banks take ill-gotten gains through loans of credit or loans where the borrower's note actually funds it, that separation of the note from the mortgage without agency makes the note unenforceable through confiscation of the property, that the assignee owes the note maker for unpermitted conversion of the note through securitization, and that since the mortgage security instruments puts the property in the Lender's name, the lender therefore owes all taxes and insurance on it...

Until the courts grasp and admits all that, they will believe that you borrowed money and you either pay it back or forfeit the house.  Only ONE thing can reliably defeat such reasoning:  FRAUD in the transaction.

In every other instance, when you claim fraud, you don't win much even with treble damages because the fraud didn't cost you that much.  But in APPRAISAL fraud, you can get from a third to half of the property value, tripled, and that will typically pay for the property outright when added to return of your payments and other costs.

So if you have any sense at all, you will stop trying to litigate on the basis of anomalies in the paperwork and burn midnight oil to prove appraisal fraud, the most common of all real estate transaction frauds.

If you want me to explain why, let me know.

Meanwhile, call Mortgage Attack at 727 669 5511.  If you can get an overworked man on the phone, he will explain it to you.  And, if you do as he suggests, you will end up with proof of the fraud so that your attorney can win a dismissal, disgorgement of all funds, and treble damages for you.

If you cannot prove such fraud (something that justifies reversal of the purchase and loan), you should stay in the house as long as you can and then short-sell the property, pay what you can against the note, and go rent something.  You can look for a cheap house to buy sometime over the next couple of years when your credit rating improves.  Your family has probably outgrown your house anyway and it probably needs a new roof, paint, landscaping, flooring, nuisance repairs, and fence - tens of thousands in overdue maintenance.  So why feel glued to the old place on a principle you cannot win in court?

Yes, all this constitutes my general advice to anyone facing foreclosure, but you really should consult an attorney who has a reputation to protect and a vested interest in your success.  Since you did not pay me for this advice, naturally you cannot rely on it to solve YOUR SPECIFIC problems.   Almost certainly your attorney will give you different, more prudent advice based on your specific circumstances.  And you SHOULD stick your nose into everything the attorney does and get an explanation as to why he recommends any particular action or path.

Consider this good example to see why:

An attorney in XXX County Florida failed to show at his client's dismissal hearing.  The client had moved the court to dismiss the case for Plaintiff's lack of action on the case in the past year.  The attorney knew the court would grant the client's dismissal motion, and that the Plaintiff would probably re-file the case after correcting any errors in it, and then the Plaintiff would win in summary judgment, trial, or appeal, and the client would have to pay a lot more expenses and opponent attorneys fees.  So the attorney thought he did the client a favor by ending the misery of the lawsuit quickly, with the client losing it.    He said "I thought in the best interest of the client."

Well, Florida has a two strikes rule regarding foreclosures.  If the court dismisses an action for the plaintiff twice, the second occurs with prejudice, and the plaintiff cannot refile except with extreme justification.  So the Defendant will effectively get the house, and use homestead and/or bankruptcy protections to keep the place.

Therefore, if the Plaintiff screws up a second time, the court might dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  And the legal climate regarding foreclosure looks like a disastrous mine field for foreclosure mill attorneys who screw up lots of paperwork, BUY "original" notes/mortgages  printed by another company, and so on.  Any or all could provoke an honest judge to dismiss the case again.  And that would let the defendant move the court for a damages award, including payment of attorney fees.

So do YOU think the above attorney really acted in the best interest of the client?  I do not.  I told him so and he filed a frivolous UPL complaint against me.

Therefore, even if you hire an attorney, you have to MAKE CERTAIN that you understand and agree with his plans, and fire him and file bar complaints  and beg the judge to sanction him if he drives ahead on a plan that will eventually hurt your cause.  Act FAST to protect your rights and MAKE your attorney work for you.  Make sure the attorney does not miss any deadlines and shows up in person or by phone for every hearing.  The attorney is the pony, and you are the cowboy.  You have to RIDE THAT PONY, and sometimes you need a quirt and spurs, for the now-obvious reason.

Mortgage Attack

Mort Gezzam