Friday, October 26, 2012

US Sues BOA for $1B - How Might This Affect Your Foreclosure?

US Sues BOA for $1B - How Might This Affect Your Foreclosure?

Look at the value of your house.  Has it plummeted in the past few years so that you owe more on it than its present value?  If so, particularly if you face foreclosure because of job loss, the US Government's lawsuit against BOA for predatory lending practices of Countrywide, whose assets and liabilities BOA now owns, might give you the ammunition you need to demand a mortgage cram-down from the Court as a form of relief.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report generalized this reality in early 2010.  Now the Government's lawsuit will produce discovery that could provide you with factual evidence to prove that Countrywide/BOA behavior caused YOUR house to collapse in value, thereby injuring you and causing you specifiable damages.

Remember that Courts exist to give redress to injured persons.  The lender bank (mortgagee) claimed you (the mortgagor) caused an injury by failing to make the mortgage payment. 

But if the Government prevails in the lawsuit or proves the predatory lending accusation, then that could mean the bank cheated YOU (injured you) by selling you a loan for a possibly overpriced house that you did not qualify to buy.  The lawsuit might prove that the predatory lending schemes actually caused the collapse of your house value.  That could mean the bank injured you both when you bought the house AND while you owned it.

Of course, if you falsified your loan application, then YOU committed a federal felony under 18 USC 1001, so you should open your eyes before pursuing remedy for all your injuries.

Consult a competent attorney (ideally a "well-connected" law firm) about your legal rights in this matter. I would shy away from traditional foreclosure defenders because most of them seem only to want to bilk you out of money you should pay the lender, just to delay the inevitable foreclosure.

Bank of America sued by US for $1B

The prosecutor, Preet Bharara, said he was seeking more than $1 billion, but the suit could ultimately recover much more in damages.

“This lawsuit should send another clear message that reckless lending practices will not be tolerated,” Bharara said in a statement. He described Countrywide’s practices as “spectacularly brazen in scope.”

He also charged that Bank of America has resisted buying back soured mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought loans from Countrywide.

Read More:

The Justice Department is seeking $1 billion from Bank of America, alleging the bank committed fraud by selling defective mortgages from a program it says was known within the bank as "the Hustle."

Those mortgages were purchased by government-backed mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, resulting in over $1 billion in losses for taxpayers and countless foreclosures, according to the complaint announced Wednesday the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that "the Hustle" was a nickname for the bank's "High-Speed Swim Lane" or HSSL program, designed to streamline the mortgage origination process. But the government alleges it was "intentionally designed to process loans at high speed and without quality checkpoints, and which generated thousands of fraudulent and otherwise defective residential mortgage loans."

The government says the program was started by mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, but continued after it was purchased by Bank of America in 2008.

Read more:

Bob Hurt
P.O. Box 14712
Clearwater, FL 33766-4712
(727) 669-5511
Visit My Home Page  ·  Email Me  ·  Visit My Blog
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now)
Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now)
Donate to my Law Scholarship Fund.

Phone App
reads tag

Thursday, October 25, 2012

What Is the Law? To Whom Does it Apply? What Shall I Do?

What Is the Law?  To Whom Does it Apply? What Shall I Do?

What Is the Law?

Americans have every good reason to ponder and demand answers to this question BEFORE they get in trouble for not knowing:  What IS the law?

Let us start with a simple definition of law.  Wordnet says this:

1. the collection of rules imposed by authority (Freq. 50)
- civilization presupposes respect for the law
- the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order
• Syn: ↑jurisprudence
3. a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society

That pretty well puts it in a nutshell.  "Good" law enforces freedom in balance with order.  In a Republic the law equally binds the governed and those who govern. As I see it, law itself operates according to simple rules for both the governing and the governed:

  1. Validity - constitutional (within the legislative authority and enacted procedurally) and soundly principled
  2. General benefit to the governed
  3. Applicability
  4. Knowability (including comprehensibility)
  5. Enforceability
The governed (and often the governing) typically ignore or flout laws that do not comply with all of the above rules.

I now provide you with an example of unknowable law.

I have in my bookshelf an old book entitled Title 26 of United States Code (The Internal Revenue Code).  The book contains 7500 pages of Bible paper that state what the law IS.

First of all, nobody can read, understand, and remember all of that.  Further, salient areas of that code engender confusion in the minds of thousands of Americans.  Many  claim the IRS refuses to collect taxes according to it, and thousands of IRS agents claim millions of Americans disobey it.  In reality, many if not most who do not obey it claim it simply does not apply to them.

That brings up a corollary question:

To Whom Does the Law Apply?

We needn't concern ourselves with laws that don't apply to us.  But when our status changes, so might the laws that apply to us because of that new status.  For example, parents control their children with family laws, but when the children become adults, society controls them with society's laws.  And of course society's laws control parents so that they don't abuse their children.

I offer this example of a law of doubtful applicability to Americans in general.  Many who deny applicability of the law to their lives point to the fact that the Several States' legislatures never ratified the  16th Amendment, and that some sort of skullduggery in the Legislature caused its enrollment as a constitutional amendment.  The Supreme Court refuses to address the matter,denoting it as a "political" issue beyond the reach of their authority.  And of course, the vast array of imbeciles and ignoramuses in the electorate makes it virtually impossible for the wiser voters to put competent, noble, informed officials in power. 

Specifically, (to cite an example) those same imbeciles want to put a non-natural-born citizen into the Presidency again, a violation of the Constitution's credential requirements.  So we have virtually no hope that the government will correct the terrible body of law regarding internal revenue.

And that constitutes just one of 50 Titles of United States Code.  America has so many purported laws that nobody knows or can know even a reasonable portion of them or which ones apply to them.  To the federal laws we must add state, county, city, and community laws.  The people cannot possibly know all of them.  So, the people cannot possibly obey of them.  Fortunately not all laws apply to all people in all circumstances.

The Legal Process

In case you don't yet see the gravity of the law situation, though, consider how people argue over the law formally:  in court.  Rules of procedure and evidence govern court procedure.  I cannot imagine a more civilized means of bringing the truth to light and resolving controversies.  A trial court will determine facts in an adversarial dispute and apply the law to those facts in order to arrive at a "just" ruling.  Unfortunately, public schools do not teach the rules of procedure or evidence to school children.  So, most people cannot effectively litigate a court case without the help of an attorney.

An adversary who disagrees with the ruling will ask an appeal court to settle the matter by a new review of the issues or highlighting the procedural errors through an examination of the record.  Appellants may seek for a proper ruling in at least two levels of appeal at state or federal level.  The Supreme Court constitutes the court of last resort, IF it agrees to hear the case.

Most appeal courts consist of tribunals or panels of an odd number of justices/judges:  3, 5, 7, or 9, depending on the type of court.  Justices of these tribunals love to issue unanimous opinions, but often they do not.  In the case of split decisions, the majority opinion becomes a state of what the law means that issue and how it applies to the facts.  That opinion binds the parties.

Appeals court opinions also bind lower trial and appeal courts in the appellate jurisdiction.  We refer to such opinions as "case law" or stare decisis.  All other jurisdictions courts may consider those opinions advisory in nature.  No court must abide by the opinion if the case at hand contains sufficiently different circumstances or facts.  In general, an appeal court's statement of what the law means simply clarifies the legislative intent.  No court has authority to rule in opposition to legislative intent.  Such would constitute treason against the Constitution because it permits only the Legislature to make the laws.

Split decisions by panel courts reveal some disappointing realities:
  1. Some judges do not know what the law IS (otherwise they would agree with one another).
  2. Some judges do not know what the law MEANS (all could opine wrongly).
  3. Some judges do not know how the law should apply to the facts.
  4. Some judges do not care what the law IS or MEANS or how it applies - they opine out of political motives or ideological differences with lawmakers.

The foregoing realities apply to judges at every level in every branch of government.  Some do not know or agree with what the law is or means, or how it applies to the facts.  In the end judges are just people trying to figure out civilizational ideals and make society work according to related established laws.

Bottom line, split opinions mean the law is either inscrutable to those subject to it or just plain wrong.  Citizens could conclude that they do should have to obey it as written, that it has an advisory nature, and that they may flout it at will.  Common sense dictates that either the Legislature MUST revise it to clarify its meaning or eliminate because of its unworthiness, or the judges who don't get it must leave the job of judging to someone else.

All of this discussion might seem interesting to some, but law enforcers actually arrest, and District/State/US Attorneys actually prosecute some people who flout the laws.  The rubber of law ideals hits the road of hard reality right there, at the point of government persecution of lawbreakers, even for laws that make no sense under the circumstances.  For example, what does it matter if you break the speed limit on an otherwise empty highway in the desert in broad daylight?

This discussion might seem way too hypothetical and ethereal till you boil it down to some essential effects in your life. Let's boil it.

US Supreme Court Justice Roberts recently opined for his majority that the Obamacare insurance shirker penalty constitutes a tax, not an unconstitutional effort of Congress to force people to buy insurance policies they don't need or want.  Many wondered at the majority's cowardice.  Some considered it wisdom because now some Citizen or group must sue for a determination of whether that tax violates restrictions the Constitution imposes on the manner in which Congress may impose direct and indirect taxes.  Then the Supremes might well rule that the Insurance Avoider Tax exceeds the authority of Congress because it directly imposes the tax without apportionment among the states.  And the justices will have saved face. 

Meanwhile many, like you, might worry about having to pay an abusive tax disguised as health insurance premiums.  For the rest of your life.  Does that boil it down enough?

You see, the Supremes should have said the "General Welfare clause" of the US Constitution does not justify any legislation.  The clause does not bind Government.  It simply guides the motivation of all Government employees in all branches.  Why?  Because it does not exist in the main body of the Constitution.  It exists only in the preamble. 

If the Roberts court had said that, they would have thrown at least the Obamacare insurance avoidance penalty out as blatantly unconstitutionally - Government has no constitutional authority to force people to buy insurance or penalize them for not buying it.

In fact, Congress and the Courts use the General Welfare clause to justify all kinds of socialism, including the kind that caused 16 trillion dollars in national debt.  They rob from the rich what the rich does not have, but must ultimately pay for throughout hundreds of years in the future, in order to give largess to the inept, feckless, and undeserving poor, both in the USA and foreign lands.  And let us not forget billions squandered to keep failing corporations afloat, without a shred of constitutional justification.

In other words, Government uses the "General Welfare" clause to rob you.  Why do I say "you?"  Because you with the sense to read this probably do not fit into the category of people who depend on Government's legalized plunder (welfare)  for your subsistence.  I imagine no welfare recipient would have read past the headline.  So you must be one from whom the welfare money flows through government and into the hands of the recipient.  Poor you.

Back to the issue of the law and its application, I have concluded that judges usually try to do their best to render fair and just opinions.  But, being human and political, they have a hard time eliminating their political ideology and bias out of those opinions.  That remains particularly true for sticky issues like the right right to life and freedom from discrimination for gender, race, nationality, and religion.

The Supreme Court had to rule on the right of pregnant mothers to abort fetuses.  They had to determine whether a fetus is a human and whether Government must protect the lives of such humans while still part of and dependent upon the mother's body for subsistence.

The Supreme Court and Congress had to determine whether a Negro slave constituted a human being, whether as human the slave had the right to liberty and to suffrage and later whether Negroes had the same right as other Americans to bus seating, public toilets, public drinking fountains, and private restaurant seating, marriage outside the race, quality public school education, and access to the polls. 

Government still has not finished with those sticky issues.

The Gene Pool and Suffrage

Now, looming on the horizon, we have the elephant-in-the-room issue of universal suffrage, characterized by two serious civilizational problems:

  1. Excessive defective people in the gene pool
  2. Voting rights for people of low productivity value and low responsibility

I hinted above at the tendency of people to flout laws they consider inapplicable or unwise.  I heard in the news today a story about a letter sent to an array of people in Florida suggesting that they could not vote.

Only an ignoramus would believe such a letter, but that reality makes the point.  Ignoramuses and the not-so-bright probably wouldn't vote anyway unless a Democrat campaigner rounded them up and bused them to the polls.  But because they have the right to vote, and because they make notoriously wrong choices in life, they will reliably make wrong choices in political candidates.  Therefore people with common sense typically agree that such folks should not vote at all.

People of sense want to know what they must do to have the voice of sanity restored to the election processes, through honesty and fairness in campaigning, balloting, and voting rights.    Voting by the uninformed, unintelligent, irrational, irresponsible, criminal, and mentally incompetent effectively cancels out votes by more high-quality electors.  So, it shouldn't happen.  But the law permits it anyway, unwisely some think.

Many recognize the decline of the quality of the American gene pool through procreation and immigration of masses of people of low intelligence, and the attendant social and economic problems.  Upwards of 80 million Americans haven't the cognitive ability to graduate from high school.  Responsible Suffrage activists want government to acknowledge the right of the American civilization to future citizens of high average quality.  They want government to acknowledge the essential wrong to individuals and the society of knowingly procreating a physically or mentally defective child and expecting society to suffer the brunt of care for and protection from such defectives.  They want government to sponsor benign programs that elevate the quality of the gene pool.

Gerps - Perpetrators of Crime in Government

Many recognize the terrible consequences that happen when increasing numbers of mentally incompetent and irresponsible people vote.  They realize such voting will result in the elevation of crooks to positions of power in government.  They know from history what such crooks will do - destroy the honest, constitutional functions of Government by corrupting its ideals in the minds of those who govern.  In other words, they morph the USA into a third-world country.

Crooks in Government naturally pervert the functions of government, making them become elements of a criminal enterprise.  Some crooks do it out of misguided idealism, such as the Communist/Socialist altruists who want Government to steal from the rich and bestow the stolen money upon the poor.  Apparently they don't realize that such theft simply converts the poor into crooks too.

Other crooks in government may serve ulterior, conspiratorial purposes to destroy the United States of America as a republic and convert it to a Communist dictatorship, or a judicial oligarchy.  Yet others simply do the bidding of monstrously wealthy corporations like the Federal Reserve, with its secret owners, and banks, insurance companies, oil and other energy companies, or even foreign governments like China, Israel, or Saudi Arabia.

Such crooks manage to manipulate Congress and the courts to the extent needed to get onerous laws passed to suppress the rights of Citizens, like outlawing full-automatic military rifles in the hands of private citizens, requiring concealed carry permits, requiring gun registration, ignoring petitions for redress, suspending habeas corpus for frivolous reasons, invading cyberspace to destroy all semblance of privacy, putting people on no-fly lists or other government watch-lists, requiring reporting of money taken abroad, and so on.

  1. The first bone of contention about such laws arises when one tries to find justification in the US Constitution for them.  Typically, it does not exist.

  2. The second arises with respect to the manner of enacting the law.  Congress enacts some of the more egregious in violation of established procedures.

  3. The third arises with respect to the manner of applying the law in courts.  Political pressure causes many judges to flout law and procedure and rush issues to wrongful judgments that benefit the power structure, not the nation.
Apparently we suffer no shortage of Gerps.  Just as apparently, most Gerps don't recognize their true nature as Gerps.  Or do they?

What shall I do?

Obviously ALL Americans have a serious duty, possibly a divine duty, to make Government conform to ideals, specifically, and at a minimum, those which the US Constitution articulates.   Secondarily, Citizens must reform the Constitution in areas where crooks or misguided idealists have warped it into something the founders never intended.  I have somehow managed to distill these issues to their essence in terms of my duty to myself and others:
  1. Educate yourself about the ideals of good government and the facts of law, rules of court and of evidence, administrative and political processes, and obligations of citizenship.

  2. Accept responsibility for the federal and state Republics, with all their warts.  You must make each republic conform to ideals by whatever means you deem expedient, even if that means you have to gut it and start over.

  3. Read the statutes and case law, then interpret the Constitution and laws as you see fit.  If judges and Obama can do it, so can you.  In fact, you have the duty to do just that.

  4. Obey whatever laws make sense and seem constitutional to you, and encourage others to do the same.  Ignore the other laws at your peril.  Government agents might arrest you, and courts might convict you and turn you into hamburger, but so what?  You have immortality within you.

  5. Become a hard-core, steely-eyed, dyed-in-the-wool, high-octane administrative, legal, and political ACTIVIST OF UNBENDING INTENT.  Campaign hard for honest, constitutional, honorable, knowledgeable, intelligent, competent statesmen, and become one yourself.  Urge repeal of bad laws and passage of good laws that hold government employees accountable for disobedience of their loyalty oaths.

  6. NEVER tolerate crime in government.  NEVER.  NOT EVER. NOT IN ANY FORM.  Identify and illuminate the crime, the law broken, and crime's Government Pepetrators (Gerps).  Expose them broadly by blog, news media, PR campaigns, banners, picketing, street demonstrations, letters, and demands on ethics/oversight groups.  Excise Gerps one by one using administrative process, law, politics, ingenuity, common sense, and any means you deem expedient.  Replace Gerps  with with men and women of honor, integrity, and ability.

  7. Life is but a day's work.  Do it well.

Bob Hurt
P.O. Box 14712
Clearwater, FL 33766-4712
(727) 669-5511
Visit My Home Page  ·  Email Me  ·  Visit My Blog
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now)
Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now)
Donate to my Law Scholarship Fund.

Phone App
reads tag

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Crime Report Bozos Clueless about Suffrage Principles

Read the below comments by Ted Gest of The Crime Report.  Gest touts Florida Rights Restoration Coalition position (according to FRRC president Desmond Meade) that ex-offenders should have voting rights restored.

Advocates Try to Restore Voting Rights to 5.85 Million Ex-Offenders

With voter suppression a hot-button issue of Election 2012, a coalition of civil rights advocates and prison reformers is stepping up its campaign to restore voting rights to almost 6 million ex-offenders, says The Crime Report. Despite reforms over the past decades, advocates say the number of Americans disenfranchised by state laws barring ex-prisoners from voting has grown-with a disproportionate impact on people of color. "When you talk about the right to vote, you're not just talking about enfranchising an individual," says ex-offender Desmond Meade, president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. "Every day, in minority communities, you have people getting arrested [ ] As that individual loses [his or her] right to vote, that community loses another voice, to the point that that community becomes insignificant."

Meade's coalition is fighting to overturn a Florida law passed last year that denies automatic restoration of voting rights to those who've served their time. The law forces ex-offenders into "second-class citizenship," says Meade, a third-year law student at Florida International University School of Law, and a leading voice in the national effort for ex-offender re-enfranchisement. The Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project estimates that the number of non-voting, formerly incarcerated individuals is now 5.85 million, a roughly 9 per cent surge since 2004. Although some 23 states over the last decade have restored some or all voting rights-in some cases, even helping ex-prisoners register to vote-"the numbers are still awful," says Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project.

The Crime Report

Excuse me, Gest and Meade.  You two don't have a clue about suffrage principles, so please let me enlighten you.

250 years ago America was a huge swath of uncivilized territory sparsely populated by America Aborigines bordered to the East by a collection of British Colonies on their way to becoming a great nation.  Have you stopped to ponder WHY ONLY free white adult male property owners could vote in those colohnies?

The simple answer:  such people were demonstrably intelligent, informed, loyal, and  RESPONSIBLE.  Society could count upon them to make prudent choices by electing only able, righteous statesmen.  Even then they made mistakes, but nothing like the mistakes made today in political choices.  We have a non-natural-born citizen as President, flouting the Constitution in numerous ways ADDITIONAL to that, encouraging government welfare to giant corporations and monumental debt the nation will never repay.

How did such a reprobate get into office?  How could he possibly run for another term?

You guessed correctly - the dumbed-down, sufficiently irresponsible electorate, ably assisted by ballot-box stuffing, have had their say.   Laws deny federal voting rights only to formerly convicted felons, non-US Citizens, the insane, and children under 18 (yes, people under 25 are still children for practical purposes).

And now Meade, Gest, and  the FRRC, want to give voting rights to a huge, proven-irresponsible group: convicted felons, most of whom belong to an indigo or non-white Hispanic racial group that we can predict with virtual 100% accuracy will vote Democrat.  That's just another form of stuffing the ballot box.  And it constitutes insane civilizational suicide.

Voters should have the following minimum qualifications as indications of responsibility:

  1. The Mentally Competent - IQ above 85 and No judgment of mental incompetence.
  2. The Lawful - No felony history.
  3. The Informed - High School diploma or GED; Knowledge of American and world history, the ideals of good government, Citizen responsibilities, the background and political intentions of candidates, the initiatives on the ballot, and the rights and restrictions in the state and US constitutions.
  4. The Adult - Attained the age of 25.
  5. The Productive - Unfettered ownership of real estate, or gainful employment, or self-subsistence from earned income or inheritance,  or retirement/disability pension;  100% independence from unearned special government entitlement (welfare)
  6. The Loyal - sworn oaths to support the Constitutions and US or State Citizenship (native born or naturalized).

Whether the above ideals appear to discriminate against racial groups has no  relevance to the fundamental point that knowledgeable, intelligent, product, law-abiding, responsible Citizens should have a right to vote, but others should not.  The reason?  Irresponsible people and those with mixed loyalties will reliably make imprudent decisions in personal life and imprudent political choices.  They will vote for demagogues who promise to rob the productive people of the nation in order to bestow gratuities upon themselves.  In other words, they will turn Government into a Criminal Enterprise.

What?  You want to know how that differs from our present United States Government?  I guess you see my point.  IT DOES NOT DIFFER.  The present US Government has become a Criminal Enterprise that robs from the responsible and productive and gives to the irresponsible and unproductive, and in many cases bestows largess upon the wealthy who own or control the political process.

Meade and his FCCR should lobby to strip voting rights from everybody not in the above 6 categories.  Those sensibly prohibited from voting would include anyone in any of the following categories:

  1. The Mentally Incompetent - IQ of 85 and below, and other mental incompetents
  2. The Ignorant - those without a high school diploma, GED, or higher, or without knowledge  of Constitutional limits and rights.
  3. The Child  - people under 25 years of age
  4. The Unproductive - Welfare (public and private) recipients and the indigent
  5. The Unlawful - Felons (current and former)
  6. The Unloyal - those not born or naturalized Citizens of a US state or the federal zone, or who have not sworn to support the Constitution.
I have read the argument, enshrined in the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution, that because people 18 and older can join the military and go to war for the nation, therefore they should have voting rights.  I equate that to the junkyard dog has the right to decide who comes in the junk yard and who doesn't.  Congress apparently forgot that the 18-year-old soldiers have an older, wiser sergeant controlling them under a watchful eye virtually 24 hours a day.  Private Pile, famed in Full Metal Jacket for murdering his drill sergeant, characterizes the serious mistake of failing to exert that control. 

In fact, insurance actuaries have demonstrated the likelihood of automobile accidents dramatically increases for people under the age of 25.  For that reason, automobile insurance companies charge them double to quadruple the rates of people over 25.  This happens because emotions and hormones, more than common sense, motivate or drive people under 25.  So, I just summarize that group as "children."  Philippine law forbids them from voting. So should our law.

Bottom line, we should not allow irresponsible people to have any say in government, period, no matter how much we love them.  Irresponsible people (those in the above 6 categories) make stupid choices in Government.  The fact that laws have changed to allow them to vote, or (in the case of the current President) to enter government, has begun an exorable decline of the USA to third-world status.

If you still don't get it, consider that fully 1/4 of the US population has IQ below 85.  They make notoriously stupid choices in life.  They have such low value of productivity that they rob the productivity of smarter people.  They do this through street crimes and welfare abuse because most of them cannot subsist and fulfill the American Dream advertised on TV without some form of financial aid that they neither earned nor deserve.  They also do it through an unproportional burden on infrastructures for health care, law enforcement, housing, courts, prisons, and schools.  Who in his right mind could possibly conclude that such people should command government or chose its leaders?

As to felons, common sense dictates the recognition that if a person had such warped values to lead him to commit a felonious act, nothing in the prison sentence has ever guaranteed to correct the felon's thinking.  Prisons incarcerate people to remove them from society more than to rehabilitate them.  And most felons released from prison commit more felonies that result in conviction and incaration.  Why should law abiding citizens ever trust them to vote intelligently and with respect for law?

I guess that at most 5% of the US population ( probably no more than .5%) has read the US and state constitutions from cover to cover, much less studied them.  How can those who have read or studied them possibly trust the non-readers to make election choices that comport with those documents? 

The other day two Democrat campaign workers approached me to solicit my vote for Obama for a second term as President of the USA.  I asked them whether they would vote for Obama if they knew for an absolute fact that he does not have the natural-born citizen status required by the US Constitution.  They said "Absolutely, I would vote for him anyway," virtually in unison. 

How did US citizens become so immoral, unlawful, ignorant, and irresponsible as knowingly to put a non-natural-born citizen into the US Presidency in violation of the Constitution?  You'd think the candidate's political opponent must be a demon from hell, or the son of a Muslim British Citizen born in Kenya, or something.  What else could possibly justify flouting the Constitution like that?

To me, voting for a non-natural-born citizen as President pretty much equates to voting for a Yellow Dog as President.  From the loyalty viewpoint they pretty much have identical qualifications.  I have wondered whether the Democrat Party actually has any rules against voting for Yellow Dogs as Presidents, legislators, and the like.

This case-in-point illustrates the silliness and effective treason against the Constitution of allowing the irresponsible to vote.  They will put the utterly unqualified into office.  And the result will consist of the most recent four years of American political history - massive debt, runaway inflation, unparalleled unemployment, murderous Islamic coups in North Africa and the Mideast, and a socialist health care program that hasn't an iota of constitutional justification.

I believe I have adequately made the case that an increasingly large segment of the US population has no business at all voting in state or national elections, and that includes former felony convicts.

Bob Hurt
P.O. Box 14712
Clearwater, FL 33766-4712
(727) 669-5511
Visit My Home Page  ·  Email Me  ·  Visit My Blog
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now)
Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now)
Donate to my Law Scholarship Fund.

Phone App
reads tag

Monday, October 22, 2012

Violence against CRIMINALS in government? ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.

Preface, see comments from an unnamed correspondent way below, and Darren Michaels below.  I might post this in an array of very public forums so as to clarify my position once and for all.

I do not advocate violence against Government to solve problems with Government.  However, I point to the Civil War and American Revolution as examples of what people do when they find abuse by government employees intolerable.  People should never tire of explaining this to government employees who appear to misbehave under color of law.

I have not drawn attention to the hundreds or thousands of clandestine assassinations of and by government operatives (criminal and otherwise) over the past three centuries through fake suicides, suffocation, poison, travel accidents, abductions leading to burials, slipping into a river, lake, or ocean for quasi-accidental drowning, and the like.  Given a choice (if I had no other course available) of violent methods for dealing with the Gerp (Government Employee who Perpetrates crime), I would probably tend to favor remote or delayed assassination to outright rebellion.  But I imagine Gerps have murdered far more innocent citizens than vice versa.

Regardless of what kind of administrative, legal, or political action the People of America take to excise Gerps from government, the Peopld must remain steadfastly certain of two things:

  1. The Gerp must go, and
  2. Whoever stands the closest to opportunity and means MUST act decisively and effectively to excise that Gerp from Government.  PERIOD.  NO EXCUSES. 

Naturally, I favor the LEAST INJURIOUS MEANS, such as

  1. Administrative (e.g., letters to internal affairs),
  2. Legal (e.g., lawsuits), and
  3. Mildly Political (e.g., election and initiative campaigns, and "acting up" with Ghandi/King-style marches, demonstrations, and civil disobedience). 
As you well know from my history, I walk the talk.  I have used the administrative process competently to effect beneficial changes in Government.  Read my Loyalty Oaths in Florida document for details.

Naturally, assassinations and violent rebellion constitute the very last resort as a means of excising Gerps.  Citizens should avoid both because of
their tendency to err in judgment and the associated destructiveness, injury, and personal danger.  Government operatives will try to jail or kill Citizens who choose assassination and rebellion as means of excising Gerps.  Therefore Citizens should carefully consider the consequences and properly prepare for contingencies before undertaking such extreme methods of terminating abuse by government employees. 

In the end, each Citizen must understand, face, and make the choice of excising entrenched  crime and criminals from government, and embrace the consequences.  Dr. Edwin Vieira says the US Government always abides by the Constitution, and that when government employees violate the Constitution, they become ultra-vires.  That means they become Gerps - outlaws, no longer legitimate functionaries of Government.  They operate as fakes or imposters under "color of law."  Seeing the situation in that light, Citizens should have no compunction about taking swift, decisive, resolution action in removing Gerps from power.  Citizens owe Gerps less deference than they owe a mugger on the street.

Unfortunately, many Gerps have such an iniquitous, pernicious, malignant nature that they will injure or kill any Citizen who attempts to excise them from power.  The job of a Citizen becomes fraught with danger without aggressive support from the FBI and other watchers of public corruption.  And, as you know, the FBI and DOJ work under a political superstructure that often becomes ultra-vires and malignant itself.  You do remember the Fast and Furious gun-running program, right?  Imagine yourself standing in the way of the Attorney General while he spearheaded that criminal enterprise.

I point you to our government's own example of my attitude about the periodic need for a possiblity of use of violence to curb government crime.  Look at the language of this recent headline.

Obama: No options off table on Iran nuclear program | Reuters

Jan 25, 2012 – WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned Iran on ... on its disputed nuclear program with no options off the table but said the ...

You see?  Some behaviors, nationally or internationally, present such potent danger that NO option comes "off the table" for quelling them.

I have effectively said the same thing.  Citizens cannot take ANY options off the table when it comes to preserving America's limited constitutional republic and ensuring that government employees stand true to their loyalty oaths.  Since no law punishes violation of the loyalty oath, the People themselves must enforce those oaths using the administrative, legal, and political processes available to them, "with NO OPTIONS OFF THE TABLE."

Your correspondent below quoted some things I wrote in the past and then quoted some laws, apparently intending to make me look like a law violator.  I have not violated laws related to advocating violence against government.  Nevertheless, I ask you to consider the validity of any law proclaiming it illegal to remove crime and criminals from government when those criminals prevent the People from obtaining the just functions of government. 

The Constitution became only the most recent part of the ORGANIC LAW of America.  It came after the
Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Northwest Ordinance.  The Declaration itself lays out a past politically sound framework for rebelling against illegitimate behavior of the monarch at the time and his functionaries.  Those principles remain as true today as then.  No American should ever lose sight of them.  People of the world, particularly Americans,  have spilled much blood in behalf of those principles through recent centuries.

Dr. Vieira made a similar point in his recent Militia book.
entitled The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”.  In it he shows Americans how to stand fast against oppressors of Constitutional rights.  He suggests that Americans should not depend upon government employees alone to police other government employees.  WHAT is a militia of the several states?  A band of armed men and women throughout the United States of America, organized for the purpose of enforcing their Constitutional rights AND the structure of governments in and over the several states.  That implies the constant threat of legitimate force and violence against Gerps.  The Constitution itself contemplates that in the 2nd Amendment.  I am not the first to have dealt with the question of how to identify and excise Gerps when the FBI, DOJ, and Courts fail to do it.

Frankly, I see two kinds of Gerp situations that the public can recognize:

  1. A Gerp directly directly deprives a Citizen of one or more rights guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws pursuant thereto (abusive cop, deputy sheriff, prosecutor, clerk, judge, or administrative functionary);

  2. A Gerp fails to adhere to duty or commits broadly public act that exceeds Constitutional authority (certain provisions of the Patriot Act, NDAA, gun control laws, restrictions on the rights of felons after release from prison, interference with parental rights, legalized plunder through welfare programs, waging of illegal wars, loans and grants of aid to foreign nations, "nation building," CIA/DEA drug running, DOJ gun running, ballot box stuffing, eminent domain for private use, lobbying by corporations and foreign governments that deprive Citizens of access to legislators, failure to examine credentials of nominees for election/appointment, nearly universal suffrage that lets the ignorant, indigent, and incompetent vote, lack of laws to protect children from being born stupid, abusive income tax, stripping state legislatures of representation in US government, etc.,  ad nauseum).
#1 above naturally outrages individual victims of abuse by individual government employees.  But all the rest of the people who did not witness those isolated instances of government naturally assume government employees are good, and the abuse victims just complain for no reason, or deserved whatever bad treatment the Gerp dished out to them.

#2 above causes great alarm to students of history.  They understand the fact that the electors of America have grown profoundly irresponsible and stupid over the past century (through universal suffrage).  They know that individual voter ignorance and irresponsibility have resulted in impossibly lopsided elections, unconscionable debt, disgraceful welfare spending, and essentially destroyed the ability of informed, intelligent people to control who rises to power in Government.  This alone has resulted in having a President without constitutionally required natural-born-citizen status. 
Voters seem to have lost their minds and become like rudderless ships in a monsoon of ignorance and confusion. That alone could justify a groundswell of rebellion in the minds of those who understand the reason for constitutional limitations on government employee power. 

The intelligent and informed realize that the plethora of Gerps in government have largely arisen from demagogues or their minions who cultivate the good will of the stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible electorate.   So, because that portion of the electorate has become America's domestic enemy by electing and keeping in power career Gerps. 

#1 and #2 above constitute the backdrop of many of the "sovereign citizen" activities the SPLC, CBS, ABC, and even FOX News complain about.  No one should whine that informed and disgruntled Americans start turning to sovereign citizen and militia activities to restore sanity and Constitutionality to Government.  Many see America's crepuscular political horizon
and believe they must prepare for dark and stormy days ahead.

I hope you understand these realities, and read my writings more carefully in the context I have provided above.  I don't advocate violence against legitimate Government.  I discourage it.  And yet, regardless of the fact that I don't advocate violence, I recognize it as a historically legitimate last resort as determined by the individual Citizen, and then only against Gerps and their supporters.  And, because I can read, understand, and agree with the lessons of history, I don't rule it out.

Bob Hurt

On 10/21/2012 06:20 PM, darren michaels wrote:


I am concerned about your emails that may be misconstrued as promoting violence which is unacceptable to many law-abiding citizens or the sovereign people of this state and other states.

If you have ever read about positive civil changes of the past from some of the great people such as, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Marin Luther King, etc. you will understand the three
necessary components were in place within their movements, which are defined as:

  1. A right and just cause;
  3. had to contain the masses;

I, myself have never advocated violence but instead have attempted to educate myself on the law, ranging from Common law, Equity and statutory law. 
You know yourself that I have dealt with government officials that have operated outside their scope of duties.
The agencies that are to assist the people against such malice intent are sometimes in collusion with these rogue officials.

The key is education and not violence and the masses. I realize that our biggest problem we face today is the lack of government accountability that has placed us in the mess
that we are in. I realize that waiting for the enforcement power against these rogue officials can be trying and discouraging at times but you must persevere in the right conduct.

I hope though, you refrain from your current mind set of violence, is not good and its not right.

Under our Constitution, it is the People, who are sovereign, not the government bodies. The people have the final say. “We Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.” Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 122; 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) Mr. Justice Douglas dissenting. 

Stay in peace with all.


From: [name withheld]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:28 AM
To: 'Bob Hurt'
Subject: Please let me know what the Lawman Group says...




The reason why I don’t want you advocating violence is because it could be construed as a criminal offense.  While I don’t agree with many of your positions, I do see a guy who cares.  I want you to know that I care, too.  I am retired law enforcement and I served in a quasi-judicial position of public authority for seven years.  I know how the law can be applied to those the ‘system’ wants to silence.  Be open to constructive criticism.  Even if the state/feds didn’t prosecute you; with the statements you have sent to me below, you would be put on ‘watch’ lists – and you won’t like it.


For a citizen, self defense is the only time violence can be justified.  We are not back in the late 1700’s fighting a ruling British empire.  We are a country of law. 


[name withheld]


·         So when you, Doc and Montgomery and Jack, urge me to stop talking to you about violence, I begin to question your ethics, integrity, reasoning, and sanity, but I rather suspect you have a political motive – you don’t want anybody to accuse you of plotting to overthrow government because that will diminish your credibility in the minds of the crooks in government who cannot stand a challenge to their hegemony.


·         SO, PLEASE, try not to preach to me against violence. 


·         My point here:  You and I, to claim status as “responsible” Citizens, MUST hold gerps PERSONALLY responsible for their crimes, and make it a HUGE issue, ZERO tolerance..  If a cop or judge stomps someone’s liberties without a proper cause, a proper complaint should get him and his paycheck suspended till a grand jury  inquiry exonerates him, and if that becomes impossible, then let nature take its course for a lynching will often follow in short order.  We simply cannot escape these harsh realities.


·         I do understand your general reluctance to see Citizen violence against gerps as a fundamental method.


·         When the members of government who should defend your rights to the death become the violators of your rights, ONLY their physical removal from power can solve the problem.  And that is the central function of rebellions, assassinations, the FBI’s claim of interest in public corruption and the actual arrests, trials, convictions, and incarcerations that take place from time to time. 


·         Violence as an option for dealing with rogues in government is ALWAYS an option, whether you like it or not. 




The US Patriot Act defines conduct that would constitute ‘terrorism:’ 


(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended--

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;




Florida Statute Chapter 784.011  Assault.

(1)  An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to someone else, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.


A criminal threat is a threat made by one person to physically harm and/or kill someone else.  This threat must be made in such a way that the individual that the threat is against feels fear for their well-being, safety, and life; or feels fear for others.  This also implies that an individual who makes a serious and reasonable threat, even if they don’t intend to carry it out.  They key is that the individual or individuals on the receiving end of the threat feel that the threat is real and imminent.  The threat must be communicated to the individual for whom it is against either by writing, through a form of electronic communication (including the use of e-mail and text), and/or verbally.   A verbal threat does not have to be made by the individual who intends to do the harming; a third party can also deliver the threat and the first party can still be charged with making a criminal threat.   


Bob Hurt
P.O. Box 14712
Clearwater, FL 33766-4712
(727) 669-5511
Visit My Home Page  ·  Email Me  ·  Visit My Blog
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now)
Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now)
Donate to my Law Scholarship Fund.

Phone App
reads tag