Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Write-in Candidate Sibley Asks US Supremes to Make Obama Prove POTUS Eligibility

Obama’s POTUS Ineligibility…

 

Here’s one the mainstream media will ignore. See Montgomery Blair Sibley’s press release below regarding his Certiorari Petition to the US Supremes which starts with these words:

 

     ***** Question Presented For Review

 

Petitioner – a citizen of the United States and a Registered Write-In Candidate for President of the United States – filed on January 3, 2012, both as ex relator the United States and individually, a quo warranto suit against Barack Hussein Obama, II, challenging his Article II, §1 eligibility to hold the office of President in so much as his Father was not a United States Citizen. The District Court to date has refused to rule upon that Petition.

 

Accordingly, on February 14, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus in the Circuit Court seeking an order requiring the District Court to expeditiously rule one way or another upon the quo warranto petition. In response, on March 6, 2012, the Circuit Court ruled that: “The district court’s delay in ruling on the petition for writ of quo warranto is not so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” Accordingly, presented for review is the following question:

 

WHETHER the question of the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, II to be President presents a case of extraordinary constitutional moment demanding prompt resolution by the District Court, the Circuit Court and, ultimately, this Court.

 

     ************************

 

I have attached the Quo Warranto lawsuit (also see Sibley’s link below) that presents the evidence of the forgery/counterfeiting of the Birth Certificate Obama alleged that someone found in Hawaii, but which someone created in Adobe Photoshop by making a composite of other documents.  Sibley believes he has standing to bring a Quo Warranto action because his candidacy for US President suffers a threat from an imposter who has no right to hold the office of President.  Some believe Obama belongs in prison for deceiving the American voting public into thinking he was born in Hawaii, when in reality he was born in Mumbasa, Kenya, to a British citizen father, and for taking and holding the Presidency without having natural born citizen status the US Constitution requires.

 

 

***

 

Bob Hurt

 

Contact: Email  bh   f       t • 
Blogs: 
1 2 3 • 
Law: 
E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70,  Clearwater,  Florida 33763  •  
727 669 5511

 

 

***

 

 

From: Montgomery Blair Sibley [mailto:mbsibley@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:21 AM
To: Montgomery Sibley
Subject: POTUS Write-in Candidate Sibley Forces Supreme Court to Rule on Obama’s Eligibility to Be President of the United States

 

Greetings,

 

Please see the attached.  The ball is now in the Supreme Court to decide the issue once in for all or, perhaps, never, thereby confirming the status quo without ever addressing the issue:  Is Barack Hussein Obama, II, eligible to be President of the United States?

 

Montgomery Blair Sibley
202-643-7232  (voice)
202-478-0371 (fax)

 

 

 

 


PRESS RELEASE  #3

FOR IMMEDIATE  RELEASE

 

March 28, 2012


 

For More Information Contact:                     MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY through www.MontgomeryBlairSibley.com


 

 

 

POTUS WRITE-IN CANDIDATE  SIBLEY FORCE S SUPREME  COURT  TO RULE ON OBAMAS

ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

WASHINGTON  D.C. - POTUS Write-In Candidate Montgomery Blair Sibley today filed his Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That Petition presents the Supreme Court with record evidence that: (i) Barack Hussein Obama, II, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, §1 of the Constitution and thus is ineligible to be President and (ii) that the “Certificates of Live Birth released by Mr. Obama are in fact forgeries. Additionally, Sibley is filing a Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. By these documents, Sibley is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite the resolution of his  Quo Warranto lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court before the Honorable John D. Bates. Significantly, though eighty-five (85) days have passed since Sibley’s filing of the lawsuit on January 3, 2012, Judge Bates has refused to rule upon any of the pending matters in that suit.

 

Sibley’s filings procedurally forces the Supreme Court to declare whether they will take up the question of Obamas eligibility to be President or allow the question to be relegated to a judicial process that would not reach the Supreme Court until well after the November 6, 2012, election, let alone before the September 3, 2012, Democratic Convention.

 

Sibley stated: Obama’s eligibility to be President is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. I have properly invoked the federal statute which authorizes challenges to the eligibility of federal office holders and procedurally have now moved that question from the District Court through the Circuit Court of Appeals and now, with these filings, to the Supreme Court. If they deny my Petition to expedite resolution of the significant and fairly-posed question of Obamas eligibility, it is a clear statement that they will refuse to allow that matter to be properly and promptly adjudicated. In that case, I fear “We the People” will have lost “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.1  For if the Supreme Court will not take up the issue of whether the Government is being administered according to the rule of law, then the government is clearly being administered instead by the rule of whim and caprice.”

 

Sibley concluded: “Thus I call upon the Supreme Court to forthwith resolve this heretofore unresolved question: Is Barack Hussein Obama, II, eligible to be President of the United States?”

- E n d -

 

 

 

1                        Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922)

 

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Foreclosure Defense Advice, plus Templates for Florida

 

http://gingolaw.com

 

 

Titusville, Florida lawyer George Gingo has done some good work in providing foreclosure defense templates at the above web site.  Apparently he wants to toss pro se litigants a bone because he knows they cannot afford an attorney if they cannot make mortgage payments. You can get a hint about the quality of George’s work from his incredibly tolerant and patient appellate brief for the Lytles whose house the plaintiffs wanted to steal, a theft the lower court ordered.  See it here:

 

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/LyttlevBankUnited.pdf

 

I saw from the docket report that the George filed the Appellant brief on 12 Jan 2012 Appellee only filed an answer, ungodly late, on 15 Mar 2012.   I have not seen it but I imagine the Appellee brief reads like drek.  I hope George learns how to demand sanctions of the plaintiffs and their attorneys for their lies, delays, and shenanigans.

 

Some of my law expert friends claim you cannot make standardized legal documents.  I consider that utter nonsense.  Sure, you can take a standardized document for a starting point, and adapt it to your particular situation.  Of course on template does not fit all circumstances perfectly, but it can fit MANY circumstances NEARLY perfectly.  Lawyers use prior pleadings/responses/motions/notices/petitions ALL THE TIME for similar cases.  They would be idiots NOT to because, like a recipe for cake, you DON’T NEED TO REINVENT A RECIPE FROM SCRATCH EVERY TIME.  You just need to make sure the standard recipe produced a good result the first time.

 

And note that if you face off against a crooked “CONNECTED” attorney before a crooked “CONNECTED” or hateful judge, your legal documents might not have the proper effect anyway.  But, you can still base an appeal on them and timely objections, timely exceptions, and timeliness within the rules.

 

So, I “fan my fumes” at those who denigrate legal templates.  You can fare best with an honest, competent, diligent attorney, but it you don’t have one, and must do it yourself, templates can save you a lot of distress and give you good guidance, particularly if from a reputable source.  Remember that even the Rules of Civil Procedure contains templates for certain kinds of complaints (like foreclosure complaints in which the plaintiff must affie to owning and holding the note).  So, ignore people who denounce templates, but make sure you flesh them out with the proper information, adapt them to your court and situation, and consult reliable documents like the Florida Litigation Guide.

 

 

REMINDER TO USE COMMON SENSE:

 

1.       Foreclosure Defense Wastes Time.  I generally consider foreclosure defense a waste of time because a defendant who borrowed money on a mortgage note, bought a house with it, and did not pay it back accordingly, MUST forfeit the house to foreclosure auction in order to repay the note with the proceeds.  AND usually, these days, the defendant will end up owing a HUGE judgment lien because the house always auctions for far less than the loan balance.  The mortgagee can sue any time for damages respecting the judgment lien, and typically will if the defendant’s financial fortunes improve such as through winning a lottery, inheriting a fortune, or landing a well-paying job.  The judgment lien endures for 20 years.  And courts/trustees nearly always end up ordering a foreclosure auction.  Meanwhile the defendant will rack up ever more obligations in accrued interest and legal fees. For that reason, it makes no sense to defend against foreclosure.

 

2.    Drag Out the Foreclosure for CASH.   It makes far more sense to PAY NO MONEY TO AN ATTORNEY. Delay as long as possible while putting the money into savings or a growth investment that you would pay a lawyer or servicer every month.  Pretend to do a loan mod to drag things out (NEVER actually do a loan mod).  Then try to sell through a realtor, offer it for short sale, or do a keys for cash deal with the lender.  Demand zero judgment lien, or simply offer the lender your deed in lieu of foreclosure.  Many foreclosure victims using this method would have enough cash to buy a house at a real estate auction or short sale within the year to 3 years the foreclosure takes.

 

3.    Sue the Predatory Lender.   It makes MOST sense to attack the lender for the tortious conduct, contract breaches, and other violations underlying the mortgage.  If you get a proper examination done, you might find appraisal or loan fraud for which the court will award treble damages.  This money could pay down the loan or you could end up with the house free and clear.  You would find a personal injury attorney to get the lender to offer settlement, and if the lender refuses, find a personal injury attorney to take the case on contingency.  The litigation will take 2 or 3 years to complete (with you in the house the whole time).  In a jury trial, you could win PUNITIVE damages amounting to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.  Your lawyer would get 40% of the total take, but you’d get your house free and clear and a wad of money.  Wouldn’t your prefer that to suffering through a foreclosure?

 

Do you want help finding the torts, breaches, and violations underlying your mortgage?  If so, DO NOT GO TO A LOAN AUDIT OR SECURITIZATION AUDIT company, as most of them cheat you.  Instead, scan in and zip all of your mortgage, closing, and foreclosure related documents, then CALL ME at 727 669 5511 or E-mail me.  I shall give you the guidance you need.  As most of  you know by now, I do not run a business and I do not charge money for consultations (though that could change soon).  So, call or write NOW.

 

DISSEMINATE THIS MESSAGE

 

Feel free to disseminate this message to all of your friends, family, associates, law buddies, service providers, and especially to people suffering from foreclosure, and also to people with mortgages who don’t face foreclosure but want to do something about being “under water” with their loans.  I try to take or return calls/email for all who try to contact me.

 

  

***

WARNING:  I do NOT function as  law practitioner, lawyer, licensed attorney-at-law, or legal advisor.  Construe my comments ONLY as speculation or general information, and NOT as legal advice for you or anyone else.  Consult a well-qualified attorney (good luck finding one) in all questions of legality or law.

 

Bob Hurt

Contact: Email  bh   f       t • 
Blogs: 1 2 3 • 
Law: 
E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70,  Clearwater,  Florida 33763  •  
727 669 5511

 

***

.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Bob Hurt Critiques News Reporting of George Zimmerman shooting of teen Trayvon Martin in Florida

Ted Gest:
I appreciate your justice story summaries at http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news.  Thank you. 

Today I address the following summaries of stories on the teen shooting in Florida below (George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin fought, and Zimmerman shot Martin to death).

FL Teen Shooting Overstepped Neighborhood Watch Protocols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neighborhood watch programs have long been the eyes and ears of local law enforcement, keeping tabs on suspicious behavior. The shooting death of unarmed Trayvon Martin by a watch volunteer may incite debate over how to balance vigilance and action, NPR reports. Recordings of a 911 call by George Zimmerman to police in Sanford, Fl., suggest he overstepped basic protocols set down by the National Sheriffs' Association's manual for such watch groups. Zimmerman shot and killed the 17-year-old in what he said was an act of self-defense during a patrol.
"Although Mr. Zimmerman apparently was not part of any official neighborhood watch organization, even if he had been, these folks don't have any more power than ordinary citizens," says law Prof. Paul Butler of George Washington University. "They are not law enforcement officials." About 25,000 watch groups are registered with the sheriffs' association, which started its program in 1972. Other groups are registered with local law enforcement. The association called Zimmerman a "self-appointed neighborhood watchman," and it is unclear whether he would have been familiar with NSA guidelines. Most neighborhood watch programs have functioned safely and helped reduce crime, says a 2009 federal report. There have been other cases of surveillance escalating into violence. A man in Utah was shot dead in 2009 by the father of a teenage girl who apparently mistook the community watch member's questioning of his daughter for an incident of stalking. Chris Tutko, who runs the sheriffs' association's neighborhood watch group, says the manual his organization distributes says that citizens should never take action on their observations. This message has been harder to get out as budget cuts to local law enforcement have forced some departments to curtail their support for watch groups. "It used to be that departments had an officer assigned specifically to the local neighborhood watch program, but there's not much money for that anymore," Tutko says. He says one problem with unsanctioned programs is that without police aid and member screening, "you have no way of knowing if you're letting the bad guys in." For neighborhood groups, "firearms are definitely out," Tutko says.

Calls Grow To Reassess "Stand Your Ground" Law In Florida
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seven years after Florida enacted a landmark "stand your ground" gun rights law that became a model for other states, calls are mounting from the public and some state officials, including Gov. Rick Scott, to reassess it after the fatal shooting of unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch captain who apparently confronted him after deeming that he looked suspicious, says the Christian Science Monitor. In another development yesterday, Bill Lee, police chief in Sanford, Fl., where the Martin killing occurred, said he would temporarily step aside.
The law's expansiveness could cause problems for prosecutors and law enforcement officials trying to determine the credibility of evidence and witnesses. A coalition of black Florida legislators asked House Speaker Dean Cannon to open hearings on the law, which removes any duty by an armed citizen to retreat from danger and allows the use of deadly force if there's a reasonable fear of death or grave harm. Cannon says he wants to wait until more facts are known about the incident, and until state and federal investigations are wrapped up. State Sen. Chris Smith is writing a bill that would bar a shooter from claiming self-defense if he or she is at any point the aggressor or provocateur.

I have these comments.
1)      America's Black and liberal media pundits have universally expressed outrage at the self-defense shooting, demanding the ouster of the police chief, and the arrest of George.
2)     Travon Martin wore a "hoodie" that made him look suspiciously like a gang thug.  Florida has laws (below) against wearing hoods that descended from the anti-KuKluxKlan eara, but many people, particularly gang thugs, wear "hoodies," more to cloak their identities than to stay warm.
a)     876.11 Public place defined.
b)     876.12 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way. No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state. History.—s. 2, ch. 26542, 1951.
c)      876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.
d)     876.14 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on property of another.
e)     876.15 Wearing mask, hood, or other device at demonstration or meeting.
f)       876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.
g)     876.16 Sections 876.11-876.15; exemptions.
h)    876.17 Placing burning or flaming cross in public place.
i)       876.18 Placing burning or flaming cross on property of another.
j)       876.19 Exhibits that intimidate.
k)     876.20 Wearing mask and placing exhibit to intimidate.
l)       876.21 Sections 876.11-876.20; penalty.
3)     The cops received over 400 alert and help calls from the neighborhood the preceding year, and 8 robberies had occurred there.  That created a heightened sensitivity of the residents to the presence of suspicious-looking people on foot.
4)     Police had notoriously taken so long to respond to calls that many criminals had gotten away.
5)     Neighborhood Watch, while a good organization, cannot and does not train ite members in the use of firearms, and to avoid actions it warns members NOT to carry firearms or get into a confrontation with crime suspects.  This waters down the effectiveness of any neighborhood defense program because it lets criminals know they can have a good chance of getting away with their crimes.  Therefore, people like George feel naturally inclined, out of common sense, to arm themselves and pursue suspicious people who look like intruders.
6)     If the gated community is largely a white community, and Trayvon walked through it looking like a thug, and then acted even more suspicious/guilty by running away instead of speaking forthrightly and politely to George, then punched George in the face, no one should feel surprised that George shot Trayvon.  Death often results from physical combat.  Trayvon behaved stupidly and it cost him his life.  The fault lies with him, not George.
7)     Anyone has the right to patrol his neighborhood under arms and on the lookout for thugs, burglars, carjackers, and other crooks.  If more people did that, fewer neighborhood crimes would occur because the bearing of arms deters would-be criminals from trying to victimize the innocent.
8)    If Trayvon had a pop can in his pocket, the bulge might have resembled that of a weapon, and that might have alarmed George.
9)     Occasionally "relatively" innocent (stupid, untrained, or inattentive) people would get shot if more people bore arms.  However, dangers exist all over the world.  The innocent die daily from accidents and mistakes arising stupidity and inattentiveness.  Such deaths or injuries would occur anyway through traffic accidents, bee stings, dog bites, falling off roof, stepping into holes, etc, whether or not people bear arms and patrol neighborhoods.
10) Trayvon's father Tracy Martin should have done a number of things as a responsible parent – Such advice would have included an admonition
a)     Drive Trayvon to the store instead of making him walk.
b)     Train Trayvon in principles of self-defense and in not unduly alarming others or making them fear for their safety in his presence.
c)      Warn Trayvon about how to behave when walking through the neighborhood, including all of the following.
i)       Show respect to neighbors and others who might accost him.
ii)    Don't dress like a gang thug, specifically don't wear baggy, low-slung pants or a hoodie
iii)  Don't wear a hood on his head
iv)   Walk on the sidewalk or left side of the street,
v)     Don't  jaywalk,
vi)   Don't shortcut through or trespass on people's property
vii)Keep your head up
viii)     Don't carry a boom box or wear ear pieces, or listen to hip-hop music to the extent of distraction
ix)   Remain alert and attentive to surroundings and to hints of danger, but don't suspiciously do so
x)     Stay out of confrontations, altercations, and harm's way
xi)   Understand the Florida "Justifiable Use of Force" laws (Florida Statutes Chapter 776, below)
xii)Understand the right of non-felon adults to obtain permits and carry concealed weapons
xiii)     Understand that members of different racial groups harbor inherent distrust of one another and will feel more concern about personal and property safety in the presence of members of other races.
11)   Trayvon, a minor child, needed such advice, because under a hoodie he could (and did) pass for an adult and a thug with evil intentions, because such an appearance does not typify the appearance of those who walk down the streets in that neighborhood.
12) Sadly, many young Blacks dress and talk like thugs because so many of their rap and hip-hop role models dress and talk like thugs, and so few have sufficient male parental guidance at home.  The bulk of the American population society knows this and sees it daily on national television, on the streets, and in mixed-race interactions.  This has created an American mindset containing an image in which Blacks generally loathe, resent, or disrespect Whites for no reason other than racial differences, and Whites generally fear, distrust, and/or keep their distance from Blacks.  People cannot tell by looking at attire and behavior whether a young Black male has malicious intent.
13) The news media seems reluctant to interrogate the father and his "fiancĂ©" in order to discover why neither of them had the adult caring and common sense to give Trayvon advices like those above, nor to inspect Trayvon's appearance before Trayvon left the house.  They are legally responsible for him and any damage or trouble he caused.  They are responsible for his death because their negligence laid the groundwork for the altercation between Travon and George, and for the shooting.
14) Black thugs seem to prefer White victims.  Read mathematical proof in the 1999 La Griffe du Lion article "Crime in the Hood" based on US Government data regarding crime in America.  Additionally, in a declining economy where competition for jobs and commodities becomes tougher, crime tends to increase, adding to natural racial tensions. Informed people have good reason to fear and arm themselves against thugs, particularly in communities where police traditionally delay showing up in answer to alarm calls.
15)  All public schools should, but don't, teach children the basics of laws of self-defense, such as the below Justifiable Use of Force laws.
16) The Mainstream Media did not report any of the above issues to any meaningful extent.  Even though news stories mention the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, actually called the "Justifiable Use of Force" law, none of the stories provide links to on-line references, and they seem to pick a name for it that makes looking it up difficult if not impossible.  I provide below the actual statutes in question.  The typical reader should see them as impeccably sensible because people ought to arm themselves to defend themselves and their property and communities through the use of force.
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776 
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.
776.06 Deadly force.
(1) The term "deadly force" means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term "deadly force" does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term "less-lethal munition" means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person's body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term "forcible felony" shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney; however, the losing party's attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.



------------------ UPDATE 27 March 2012 --------------------

Today Ted Guest released these news summaries:



Zimmerman Told Sanford FL Police Martin Punched, Pummeled Him
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Martin climbed on top of Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, Zimmerman told police, according to the Orlando Sentinel. Much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. Zimmerman says he shot in self-defense.
Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Martin a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante. Martin was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

The National Media Circus Turns Against Trayvon Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The media circus surrounding the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case is taking "decidedly ugly turn," says Tampa Bay Times columnist Eric Deggans. As protests spread and celebrities from Sinbad to M.C. Hammer weigh in, supporters of Zimmerman, including some conservative websites are attempting to turn Martin's image from innocent kid to dangerous thug. The website the Daily Caller featured tweets from the dead 17-year-old's now-closed account under the name NO_LIMIT_NIGGA.
Another website, Wagist, complained that the widely-circulated photo of Zimmerman was a mug shot from a 2005 arrest, while photos from Martin's family showing him as a younger, less threatening youth. The site posted pictures from a Twitpic account featuring what it says are Martin's multiple tattoos, concluding he "may have been a small time drug dealer." In a media world where everything is political, Martin's killing has become a tug-of-war between those who see his case as an example of the dangers of racial profiling and those who contend liberal activists have hijacked the process for their own ends. Deggans asks, "Even if Martin dabbled in drugs, carried himself like a gangsta and wore tattoos, did Zimmerman have the legal right to kill him that night?"

How NRA Spread "Stand Your Ground"--An Issue In Martin Case
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In 2004, the National Rifle Association honored Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley with an award. Then, he worked closely with the NRA to enact Florida's then-unprecedented "stand your ground" law, which allows citizens to use deadly force if they "reasonably believe" their safety is threatened in public settings, reports the Center on Public Integrity. Florida's law is under a cloud as a result of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, 17. The 28-year-old shooter, George Zimmerman, who was licensed to carry a gun, said he acted in self-defense after a confrontation with Martin.
Baxley contends that his law shouldn't shield Zimmerman because he pursued Martin. The NRA is silent on the issue, but its silence contrasts with its history of activism on stand-your-ground legislation. Since the Florida measure passed, the NRA has flexed its considerable muscle and played a crucial role in the passage of more than 20 similar laws nationwide. The Florida law is rooted in the centuries-old English common-law concept known as the "Castle Doctrine," which holds that the self-defense right is accepted in one's home. The Florida law and others like it expand that to venues beyond a home. "This train keeps a rollin' - Castle Doctrine Sweeps America," an NRA message said in 2006. he campaign, the group said, "is turning focus from criminals' rights to those of the law-abiding who are forced to protect themselves."




Holy Smokes, where there’s smoke there’s fire.  Have you seen the latest disclosures about Trayvon.  Tracy’s backpack had a baggie in it with traces of weed.  Caught with woman’s jewelry he couldn’t explain and a “jimmy” screwdriver at school.  Suspended 10 days for being in “unauthorized area,” a pretty extreme punishment the day of his death.  Sported gold teeth, tattoos, and a “No-limit nigga” twitter account which his daddy (or someone) deleted right away after his death, apparently to hide the truth about the gangland image of Trayvon.

As the investigation proceeds and details come to light, George looks ever better and Trayvon ever worse. George and an eye witness said George stopped chasing Trayvon when the cops told him too on the 911 call, and then he returned to the truck.  Trayvon had circled around and approached him form the other side of the truck, asked “You got a problem?” George said “no” Traybon said “You do now” and punched George in the face, breaking his nose, then jumped on him and slammed George’s head backwards onto the concrete.  Then, George shot Trayvon.

So do you see?  At the end Trayvon became the real predator, tracking down George to beat him up, possibly to death, and George shot Trayvon in self=defense, as he originally claimed.


It appears that Trayvon had become a headstrong thug who dressed and behaved like a thug, not an innocent, baby-faced teen.  He probably wouldn’t have listened to parental advice such as “don’t go around looking like a thug.”  And this means parental training failed early in Trayvon’s life.  What a shame. Tracy was, after all, responsible for his son’s behavior. Only, he turns out to have been irresponsible.   I would not blame George for suing Trayvon’s father Tracy for Negligence.   I imagine George as too nice a man for that, but it would really give his detractors something to howl about and Americans in general something to think about.  



This incident shows up the mainstream liberal media as fools who want to highlight white on black violence wherever possible to make whites seem cruel, repressive, and racist, and to warp incidents of self-defense shootings, particularly of black thugs, to make gun owners and users seem like  power-crazed maniacs. As one commentator pointed out in the non-liberal media, George is half white and half South American Hispanic (mestizo), like millions of Mexican and South Americans.  If George had won a Nobel Prize, the pundits would have identified him only as Hispanic, not as a "white" Hispanic the way they did.

This time, maybe George Zimmerman did the world a favor by excising Trayvon Martin from the planet before he could do much more serious damage, like murdering innocent white people.






***

Bob Hurt

Contact: Email  bh   f       t 
Blogs: 
1 2 3 
Law: 
E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70,  Clearwater,  Florida 33763  • 
727 669 5511


***