Saturday, May 24, 2014

Why private Common Law Courts are a BAD IDEA

You want to start a Common Law Court?

Bad idea.  Here's why. Look into the case of Susan Mokdad and Emilio Ippolito in Tampa.!topic/Lawmen/5aAzUiHo9TM

They got jailed in 1996 for common law court nonsense.  She died in prison.  If I were you I would ignore the political philosophy of "Sir David Andrew," but here are some pages of interest.  Pass this message on to others contemplating common law courts.

This web site shows some of the history of the Ippolito case:

Florida Common Law Court

Emilio Ippolito sits in the Coleman, Florida, Federal Correctional Facility. Although convicted and sentenced to most of the rest of his life for speaking out, Emilio has not lost the spirit that led him to begin the Common Law Court, back in 1992. He has filed a Complaint against the government agents who hand fed the Federal Grand Jury as well as some of the Grand Jury members.

The phrase " Obstruction of Justice" has begun to bounce around the Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida. Interestingly, those who have begun using the phrase seem to be the most guilty of the crime. This series will enlighten you on how a trail that was filled with outright lies by government operatives has now begun to unravel in its own misdeeds.

Obstruction of Justice #1
Obstruction of Justice #2
Obstruction of Justice #3
Obstruction of Justice #4 
Obstruction of Justice #5 
Obstruction of Justice #6


Ippolito juror failed to tell criminal past 

Actual FBI reports on Finch - as requested by Judge Merryday when he found out Finch might be a felon.

The six defendants who were imprisoned by this charade of justice (injustice) appealed the decision of the District Court. Over one year ago, their appeal was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It has taken this long for that court to determine how to continue the charade. These recent events warrant a new series of articles entitled  Obfuscation of Justice.

Phil Marsh, of California, and Douglas Carpa, of Arizona, are among the defendants in this trial. Like Manuel Noriega, being " present at the scene of the crime" is no longer a requisite for commission of a crime. Carpa was in federal custody, pending trial on other charges, at the time the crime is alleged to have taken place. opf

" Let me tell you about a man named Quigley"

by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom, July 1, 1997
The story about an IRS undercover agent in Central Florida

Tainted Jury on Tampa Common Law Court trial
A series of articles and documents pertaining to the jury in the recent conviction of alleged conspirators in the Tampa Common Law court.
Motion before the court

The government, in an effort to stifle descent, has chosen, in the Tampa Trail, to list a number of Unindicted Co-conspirators. This court document could serve no other purpose.

Newspaper accounts of the story

The Orlando Sentinel -- Friday, June 6, 1997
"Charge" of treason rings in court...

The Orlando Sentinel -- Sunday, June 22, 1997
An agent spent about a year undercover recording meetings of the
anti-government group.

The Orlando Sentinel -- Sunday, June 24, 1997
Inspector: Anti-government group had threatened grand jury foreman
The conspiracy trial of a group accused of having 4 judicial targets in Orlando continues in Tampa.

The Orlando Sentinel -- Wednesday, June 25, 1997
Jurors hear tape of plot to kidnap an Orlando judge

The Orlando Sentinel, Wednesday, July 2, 1997
Magistrate wanted protection, witness says
Official among those threatened by anti-government group

mail to:Gary Hunt

Take note that the Florida Constitution, like the constitutions of the US and other states, created the Judicial Branch of government and, along with related laws, establish the judicial and administrative court systems.  Anyone attempting to set up a common law court has to worry about subpoena power, judge and prosecutor competence and integrity, juror qualification selection, broad publication of opinions, agreement of the parties to abide by court opinions, and enforcement of opinions.  This non-trivial undertaking.  Such courts could play a role of arbitration proceedings, and then seek the assistance of the state court system to resolve problems as the final arbiter.

All of this explains why I see common law courts as a pipe dream concocted by people with no clue about the ideals of good government.

The ADL has a good article on Common Law Court movement,, showing that a Texas Appeals Court said this in 1992:

"We hold that the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas, if it ever existed, has ceased to exist since February 16, 1846."

Florida's courts operated according to a combination of common and statutory law from its various historical antecedents under under requirement of this Florida Statute:

2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

History.s. 1, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.

Florida has roots in a variety of law sources as described in Volume III of the 1941 Florida Statutes

Readers can see the common law rules of court in the 1941 edition of the Florida Statutes:

The Common Law rules start on page 43:
They end on page 12 in this document:

So, of COURSE Florida's courts operated by common law rules.  And the Supreme Court has integrated them into the present array of rules by which the courts operate today.  You could say THESE constitutional courts ARE the common law courts, modernized for the needs of society today.  Therefore you don't need to run around and set up your own.

If you don't like them, use your organizational and campaigning skills to start a political movement to change them.


Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary


Commendation: Bay Pines VA Healthcare System near-FIVE-STAR rating from Vet

To:  Suzanne Klinker, Director of Bay Pines VA Healthcare System:
cc:  US Congressman (FL, Republican) David Jolly
cc:  Bob Hurt blogs and mailing list
Date: 24 May 2014

Please give this to any VA detractors.  No gigantic organization can avoid warts and wrinkles in its operation.  But, as organizations go, I could not have a better perception of any organization than I have of the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I give the VA as I have personally experienced it over the past 10 years these ratings:

Going all-out for the patient ****
Quality of care when administered *****
Effectiveness of care administered *****
Vet-centric Attitude *****
Quality of Facility
Maintenance of Grounds
Access to facility of crippled vets
Cost of care
Cost of prescriptions
Repleteness of medical testing
Police services
Responsiveness to Vet complaints
Cafeteria, canteen, PX services
Educational and library services
Internet services and web site
Accessibility of care providers via internet
Telephone Call in service
Scheduling of care

I see no point in explaining what I consider the "Balls-Out" 5-star excellence of the Bay Pines VAHCS.  But I shall explain why I gave less than excellent ratings for some items.

1.  Cafeteria, canteen, PX - Located at the edge of the facility and a long and exhausting walk for me.  Otherwise, I like it, like the variety of food and items for sale, and reasonable prices.  But for the long walk, I'd give it 5 stars.

2.  Access to facility of crippled vets - the access is good because of the new parking garage and the fact that a vet can catch the trolly cars to the front door and call for a wheel chair.  Publix has electric riding shopping carts, and these could make navigating the facility easier.  Maybe a valet service would help.  But I don't see how it could be improved cost effectively.  Some things will just never get better than 4 stars.  I could rate life with only 4 stars because someday we die.  Oh well...

3.  Going all-out for the patient - Some things the VA just won't do for a patient, even though the patient needs it.  For example, I could use prolastin infusions weekly, but I resist because it's a pain in the neck to have to go to the facility twice a week for infusions I could handle myself.  And they cost the VA $50K to $100K a year.  And, I need a lung transplant.  The experts in the VA in DC told my pulmonologist that they figured I'd live longer without it.  They said that when I was 64, I believe.  They wouldn't consider me past 65.  Now I turn 71 in 6 days.  Three years ago this coming August my brother got a double lung transplant on private insurance, and now goes everywhere with no problem.  He's a year younger than I am.  I have about 15% lung capacity.  It has gotten noticeably worse.  A bout of pneumonia could easily kill me, and I feel lucky to have survived it when I met you in person while I was isolated with MRSA following pneumonia in February-March 2013.  Dr. told me then I should call Hospice.  Freaked my wife out, but I figured I had it coming.  We don't last forever.  My arteries entering the heart have shrunk to half the ideal size, but I've started on megadoses of vitamin C (which YOUR VA DOCTORS SHOULD FORCE PATIENTS TO TAKE), and L-proline and L-Lysine amino acids and fish oil supplements to clear them up.  I should not need to explain this to doctors.  But the point is, my lung condition will kill me because the VA refused me a lung transplant.

That might not matter much if I lived a typical slug's life.  But I am otherwise healthy, bright, and energetic, and with good lungs I could exercise and get fit and strong again.  I spend much of my time studying law, writing legal commentary (see, for example) to guide people, and answering calls for help from people all over America, sometimes 4 or 5 a week, and sometimes 2 or 3 a day because people read what I write.  I charge nothing for this service.  You could consider it philanthropic.  And I am a prolific writer.  See, for example.

In other words, my staying alive longer will provide a measurable benefit to mankind.  So, the VA should provide me with a lung transplant NOW.  I have just given you what I consider a salient clue as to how to evaluate whether to go the extra mile to save someone's life the only way it could be saved.  From what I can tell, the VA does not consider that in the evaluation of whether to give lung transplants.

Furthermore, I cannot travel on planes because I do not have a portable oxygen concentrator, except with a loaner from Respitek for the purpose, which the VA pays for once a year for up to 30 days.  But that means I do without one all the rest of the time, and so I cannot go on car or train trips or cruises meanwhile because of oxygen budget constraints.  The VA should buy a portable concentrator and extra battery for people like me so we won't stay hogtied to the home oxygen.  But so far no one has even suggested it, out of fear, perhaps, that seniors in management superstructure outside the facility will condemn the idea as wasteful.

Now this boils down to money, as usual.  THIS is what the non-vet public fears about Obamacare.  Anybody over 76 (will I live that long without a lung transplant?) will get abandoned because that is the average life expectancy for men.  I don't need to tell you what an attitude like that will do for mortality statistics.

So, if the surgery is too costly, WHY DOESN'T THE VA TURN MORE AGGRESSIVELY TO NON-MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, such as phytonutrients, minerals, vitamins, and WATER?  Read the book "Your Body's Many Cries for Water."  I have yet to hear a doctor act concerned about my daily water intake or advise as Dr . Batmanghelidj did.  Put simply, a proper water regimen and diet prevents and cures many diseases.  If you don't have the book, read the transcript of his Lecture at the 2003 Government Health Forum in Washington D.C.  He said:

"So, in twenty-first century medicine, the new truth is that dehydration is the primary cause of painful, degenerative diseases, including cancer and AIDS... water is actually a primary nutrient in the body that your body depends on, on a regular basis for its performance and functions... "

"So, histamine is actually a pain-producing system directly and indirectly through its subordinate systems, and that is why we get the dyspeptic pain and that’s why the pharmaceutical industry uses Tagamet and Zantac to block it. Migraine headaches, anginal pain, rheumatoid joint pain, back pain, fibromyalgic pain, colitis pain, false appendicitis pain.  I have seen a number of people who came to me in the prison with typical appendicitis symptoms, but they didn’t have a temperature, they didn’t have nausea, so I gave them two glasses of water because by then I knew the pain was a sign of dehydration. I gave them two glasses of water and in three minutes their ‘appendix’ pain disappeared. So, these people would normally end up on the table of the surgeon and have their appendix taken out."

"Complications of dehydration raise cholesterol. Obesity is the first complication of dehydration. Raised cholesterol, heart failure, chronic fatigue, cancers, neurological disorders that I explained to you, strokes, and so on, they’re all produced by dehydration."

His books go on to explain the vital necessity of periodically consuming proper amounts of water throughout the day to prevent cancer, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular dysfunction, and many other maladies.  The books should become required reading for every doctor in the VAHCS. 

I already receive vitamins under VA doctor's orders because the doctor knows the benefit.  But, let me explain why you should take even more of a broad spectrum upper hand in this.
  1. It will increase the effectiveness of medical care.
  2. It will DEcrease the cost of medical care.
  3. It will make vets healthier and happier, and thereby give the VAHCS an even better reputation than it already enjoys.
By upper hand I mean you could require all primary care physicians to put their patients on a water regimen AND balanced multivitamin-mineral supplements including megadoses of vitamin C (10 to 20 grams daily).  And have them read Dr. Johanna Budwig's works on the effect of certain diets on blood chemistry and degenerative diseases.

I do not mean to seem presumptuous in giving you directions.  I only mean that I have studied these issues for quite a long time, and everyone knows one needn't be a doctor to recognize the health benefits of adequate water and nutrients.  See this website which I produced from partial research in 1997:

There you will see that I don't treat medical practitioners with much kindness because they generally insist on surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy (all outrageously expensive and ineffective) to treat cancer and those generally have a less beneficial effect than other approaches like Dr. Budwig's diet, an array of cleanses, etc.

I'll give you another example of medical blindness.  My doctor prescribed Atorvastatin Calcium (Lipitor) to help my arteries to stop reducing in size where they enter my heart.  Statins help the liver to slow production of cholesterol and the body to reabsorb cholesterol so it doesn't clog arteries.  Statins also destroy the antioxidant co-enzyme Q10 and increase risk of liver injury, memory loss, diabetes, and muscle damage, and they impair the function of sterols (sex hormones, cortisone, dolichols, and vitamin D), they cause cataracts, anemia, sexual dysfunction, immune depression, nerve damage in hands and feet - see Mercola for reference.  So doctors think they must choose between a patient dying with heart disease and prescribing statins to control cholesterol, ignoring vastly cheaper and more effective alternatives. FYI, I had one cataract replaced two years ago, and go for surgery in early June to replace the  other.  Did the statins I have taken for years cause me to have cataracts?

The body produces cholesterol to patch lesions which oxidants punch in arterial walls because of a lack of vitamin C.  So it makes no sense to remove the cholesterol without stopping arterial lesions which the cholesterol patches.

Read Why Animals Don't Have Heart Attacks, but People Do by Dr. Matthias Rath.  This link gives you chapter 2 of his book which shows the effect of his protocol.

He summarized:

"Animals don't get heart attacks because they produce vitamin C in their bodies, which protects their blood vessel walls. In humans, who are unable to produce vitamin C, dietary vitamin deficiency of this nutrient weakens the blood vessel walls. Cardiovascular disease is an early form of scurvy. Clinical studies document that the optimum daily intake of vitamins and other essential nutrients halts and reverses coronary heart disease naturally. These essential nutrients supply vital bioenergy to millions of heart and blood vessel cells, thereby optimizing cardiovascular function. An optimum supply of vitamins and other essential nutrients can prevent and help correct cardiovascular conditions naturally. Heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, heart failure, circulatory problems in diabetes and other cardiovascular problems will be essentially unknown in future generations."

"The eradication of heart disease is the next great goal uniting all mankind. The availability of vitamins and other essential nutrients needed to control the global cardiovascular disease epidemic is unlimited. The eradication of heart disease is dependent on one single factor: how fast we can spread the message that vitamins and other essential nutrients are the solution to the cardiovascular disease epidemic."

"This book presents the world’s first patented therapy for the reversal of atherosclerotic deposits without angioplasty or bypass surgery. Once the artery wall is weakened by vitamin deficiency, the body mobilizes its repair mechanisms. Millions of fat particles (lipoproteins) are deposited in the artery wall by means of biological “adhesives,” which eventually leads to atherosclerosis, clogging of the arteries, heart attacks and strokes. Atherosclerotic deposits can now be largely prevented and reversed with natural “Teflon” agents, which neutralize these adhesive properties. The first generation of artery wall “Teflon” agents are the natural amino acids lysine and proline, which become even more effective in combination with other vitamins. Thus, an old dream of mankind becomes reality: the natural reversal of cardiovascular disease — without angioplasty or bypass surgery."

"Dr. Rath’s Cellular Health recommendations include a selection of essential vitamins, minerals and natural amino acids used in combination with a healthy lifestyle."

His protocol:

Cellular Health Recommendations for Patients With Coronary Heart Disease

In addition to my Basic Cellular Health Recommendations (page 25), I recommend that patients with existing coronary heart disease or a high risk for this condition take the following cellular micronutrients in higher dosages.

• Vitamin C: provides protection and the natural healing of the artery wall and reversal of plaques
• Vitamin E: provides antioxidant protection
• Vitamin D: optimizes calcium metabolism and the reversal of calcium deposits in the artery wall
• Folic acid: provides a protective function against increased homocysteine levels together with vitamin B6, vitamin B12 and biotin
• Biotin: provides a protective function against increased homocysteine levels together with vitamin B6, vitamin B12 and folic acid
• Copper: supports stability of the artery wall with the improved cross-linking of collagen molecules
• Proline: supports collagen production, stability of the artery wall and reversal of plaques
• Lysine: supports collagen production, stability of the artery wall and reversal of plaques
• Chondroitin sulfate: supports the stability of the artery wall as a "cement" for connective tissue
• N-acetyl-glucosamine: supports the stability of the artery wall as a "cement" for connective tissue
• Pycnogenol: acts as a biocatalyst for improved vitamin C function and improved stability of the artery wall

I want to know why my doctor put me on Lipitor instead of the protocol above.  Actually, I don't really care why.  The dangerous side effects don't justify statins when the nutrient formulation above can accomplish a better result without the danger.

The VET-CENTRIC thing to do is to change protocols to the above recommendation of Dr. Rath.  Don't you agree?

I realize the medical center has to answer to Washington DC leaders and to the AMA and FDA to some extent.  But you have the position that allows you to effect an accelerated change to a protocol that saves money and lives and makes everybody but pharmaceutical giants happy.  If it weren't for the inertia that binds your hands and feet into inactivity on this point, I'd rate "Going all out for the patient" with 2 stars because I consider it INSANE bordering on criminal to ignore brilliant, cheap solutions like those of Drs. Batmanghelidj, Rath, and Budwig.

Please do pass this around to your Chief of Medicine and the various chiefs and other doctors and nurse practitioners of cancer, cardiovascular, diabetic, and pulmonary care and pain management.  We're not talking about turning Veterans into guinea pigs here, for the research is done and conclusively proven - proper water and nutrition makes people healthy, but pharmaceuticals, radiation, and surgery put them at terrible risk and often sicken or kill them.

So why not earn the Bay Pines VA Health Care System a 5-star rating by steering doctor attention and commitment to solutions like those above? Just think of how the VA could save money prescribing vitamins instead of dangerous drugs.

And by the way, if you can get me a lung transplant or portable oxygen concentrator, I'll sincerely appreciate it.  And I might live long enough to thank you over, and over, and over, and...

Thank you for having the patience to read this message. And thank you for being an excellent director.


Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary


Wednesday, May 07, 2014

Finding and Using a Lawyer to Win

Finding and Using a Lawyer to Win

Copyright (C) 7 May 2014 by Bob Hurt.  All rights reserved.  Distribute freely.

Disclaimer for idiots:  this is an academic, personal opinion commentary.  Do not construe it as legal advice. Consult a competent lawyer (good luck finding the right one) in all questions of law and legality.

In Case You Wondered...

The so-called "patriot" community contains a lot of charlatans and earnest truth seekers.  "Patriot Myth Mongers" cause untold damage to others who want to learn how to prevail in a struggle against con artists, thieves, crooks, malfeasors, and abusers.  They dream up nonsense about redemption, accepted for value, birth certificate bonds, defeating taxes with a 1099-OID, civil liens against judges, and stupidest of all,  attorneys you cannot trust because they swore an oath to the Queen of England.

One thing seems certain to me.  Lawyers, as humans, do protect their self interest, do have human vices and addictions, and have no more trustworthiness than a hired gunfighter.  They are, in fact, nothing more or less than hired gunfighters.  People with no knowledge or skill in legal matters hire lawyers to fight their legal battles for them.  Court battles have become the civilized substitute for combat with fists, knives, guns, and drones. Kids don't learn the law and litigation practice in high school.  So, our society needs lawyers.

The Supreme Courts and Bar organizations try to keep lawyers honest and righteous, but lawyers get greedy or desperate, arrogant or angry, stupefied on drugs and drink, and they shipwreck their lives just like other professionals sometimes do.    So you cannot trust them to know what they should OR to do a good job.  But...

US Lawyers do NOT swear oaths to the Queen or any foreign power.  They swear the bar oath (see attestation below), bar regulations bind them somewhat to ethical performance, and you should demand and encourage them to operate accordingly.

Some lawyers operate better or worse than others, but lawyers are not stupid unless they suffer from brain anomalies or abuse substances that make them stupid.  Lawyers generally have good educations, good intelligence, and a good work ethic.  I believe a lawyer needs at least 115 IQ to make it through college and law school and pass the bar exam. And each has sworn to support the constitutions of the State and the US.

All of that means hiring a lawyer gives most people a better chance of winning legal combat than fighting it on their own.

What Makes You a Good Client

When I help people identify the nature of injuries others have inflicted upon them, they often ask me how to find a lawyer to help them in the case.  Generally I know the prospect has no competence in the law, a subject on which all primary educators should focus.  And the question brings several problems to mind:
  1. Finding a lawyer with all of these characteristics
    1. competence and winning record in the area of concern (the MOST important)
    2. affordable (or will work on contingency or free)
    3. good work ethic
    4. timely (not overloaded with clients or case work)
    5. honest (will not overbill you, lie to you, mislead you, do slippery deals behind your back, ruin your reputation with the judge, promise services and not deliver)
    6. Has malpractice insurance
  2. Client having a just cause worth all the effort and cost
  3. Client litigation management competence - having the ability to police the case and make sure the lawyer does the job and does not miss critical events of deadlines
  4. Client able and willing to pay as agreed
  5. Client having the mental and physical stability for the ordeal
  6. Client having the requisite support of family and friends

I say if you don't have all of the above things in order, you thereby beg for trouble in the case and set yourself up to lose.  Most people reading this do so too late.  Most don't think to prepare for the litigation challenges they will have in life.

How to Get Prepared

Try to see this in proper perspective.  In our civilization we have no guarantee that we won't become embroiled in a national war that will destroy lives and property in and out of the country.  We have no guarantee that a drunk or drugged driver will not run us down, or vice versa, or that a mugger will not knock us out and steal our wealth, or that spouse won't run off with a stranger and the kids or pillage the bank account and waste it on gambling, or become addicted or disabled and need special care, or that we won't get sued or get into an unavoidable fistfight or gun battle to defend our families, or that a natural disaster like hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or flood won't drive us out of hour home. 

But we know that these challenges do arise for ourselves and others, and we become fools by not preparing for them, for we know that "good luck" happens when opportunity meets preparation.

How shall we prepare?  We can

  1. work hard and smart,
  2. save 20% in a cash reserve,
  3. have a safe house,
  4. have a passport and prepaid tickets abroad,
  5. have several sources of income,
  6. have a sensible escape and survival plan and resources,
  7. choose healthy, strong, sane, humane, "ready" mates, friends, and associates,
  8. stay out of unnecessarily risky situations,
  9. become proficient in self-defense, hand-to-hand combat, weaponry, and combat strategy and tactics,
  10. have a couple of go-to attorneys available,
  11. have a last will and testament in safe hands, 
  12. have assets in one or more impenetrable trusts,
  13. have a reserve of precious minerals in case cash becomes worthless, 

  14. have a working knowledge of emergency medical care and foods/herbs that heal, 
  15. have a stash of non-perishable food, 
  16. have weaponry for protection, 
  17. have an home impenetrable and under personal surveillance, and 
  18. have a round knowledge of litigation practice, evidence code, and rules of civil and criminal procedure.

Do you have all that?  How many of us DO have it all?  I'd say few.  Most of us live risky lives.

So when we have to prepare suddenly, we know it will become a tough, tiring, emotionally draining task, and it will cost us, and if we don't have the money, we'll have to do the work ourselves.

How to Find a Competent Attorney

I deal with litigation and wealth strategies more than anything else, and that's why people come to me with questions and problems.  Aside from understanding the situation and developing a game plan, they have one central difficulty:  finding a decent attorney to help them get out of trouble and stay out, or to cause legal trouble for someone who caused wrongful injury to them.  I suggest this method for finding a good lawyer.

  1. Realize that many lawyers specialize in areas other than your area of interest. Such lawyers might help you, but most won't.  So don't ask those lawyers for help.  Find out the area of interest of the lawyer before taking the lawyer's time to discuss your case.
  2. Go to Google Scholar
  3. Select Case Law
  4. Select your state's appellate courts if a state issue or federal courts and circuit if a federal issue.  Note that I suggest searching for cases in your lower state appellate or state supreme court area first.
  5. Click Done
  6. Now type in your search term like
    1. police misconduct
    2. police abuse
    3. warrantless search
    4. dui dwi or drunk driving
    5. assault
    6. battery
    7. reckless driving
    8. breach of contract
    9. mortgage fraud
    10. appraisal fraud
    11. loan application fraud
    12. TILA
    13. RESPA
    14. HOEPA
    15. bankruptcy
    16. medical malpractice
    17. legal malpractice
    18. tortious conduct
    19. fraudulent inducement
  7. Note that you might not know the best term for a search, and in that case you might need to use general Google searching in an effort to find the most popular terminology for an issue.  You could call a local law college law library and ask the librarian for suggestions.
  8. Click Search
  9. The search engine will display an array of cases for the search term and courts you entered.  Select these one at a time and look for the ones that most closely match the issue of your concern.  Notice the outcome and who won.  Notice the names of the attorneys involved.
  10. You might also look in the most recent issue of the Florida Litigation Guide (or Florida Causes of Action) for the area that fits your situation, take note of the associated case law, look up the cases and attorneys involved, and take note of the winners.
  11. Call the winning attorney and ask for help in your case.
  12. If you cannot find one, contact the local (county) bar and ask for some referrals.
  13. When interviewing the lawyer, ask the questions in the below Attestation to Client, and don't hire the lawyer who fails to give you satisfactory answers. 
  14. Make sure the lawyer shows you convincing evidence of having won cases like yours in the past - ask for the lawyer's pleadings and court opinions, and read them carefully.  Don't hire a lawyer who stonewalls you or tries to pull the wool over your eyes.

How to Keep Yourself and Your Lawyer Out of Trouble

Once you have a lawyer, you can follow some rules to keep yourself out of trouble with the lawyer or because of the lawyer.

  1. Never assume the lawyer knows or believes something or understands or knows what you need and want you unless you have verified that he knows it.  Never assume YOU know what the lawyer needs or wants from you until you have asked and the lawyer has told you orally or in writing.  Tell the lawyer what you need and want, and make sure he knows it and agrees with it.
  2. Never give the lawyer or the court original documents unless needed as proofs and the lawyer promises in writing to return it, or unless you accompany it.  Give COPIES ONLY.
  3. Create a written record (log) of every related document you send or receive, every phone call, every visit, and every conversation.  You might consider wearing an audio/video recorder in eyeglasses or pocket pen/brooch for to record your interactions with the lawyer and anyone else connected to your case.
  4. Make a weekly copy of the clerk's docket and any new documents filed in your case, and photograph or get a copy of everything in your evidence file.  Important things can go missing, so check periodically to see that nothing has gone missing, and complain to the clerk and judge if it does, and demand that the court sanction file criminal charges against whoever alters documents or evidence items or removes them without returning them.
  5. Make certain that you have a copy in your files of everything in the lawyer's files, and that the lawyer knows everything he did not develop belongs to you and will give it up to you when you demand it. Clarify this in writing before hiring the lawyer.
  6. Take time to study and learn the rules of evidence and procedure and judicial administration, and keep track of the timing of past, present, and future events in your case.  Always be ready for events and an hour EARLY for court.
  7. Don't do anything on your own that has a remote chance of adversely affecting your case UNLESS you inform your lawyer and get his rationale and approval.  Otherwise you could jeopardize your chance of winning.
  8. Consider hiring a litigation consultant to coach your lawyer, make sure the lawyer does the right things, help the lawyer win for you, and inform you if the case starts going wrong. Look at, for example.
  9. Remember that one and only one person bears ultimate responsibility for the progress of your case and the performance of your team:  YOU.

Tools You Should Have Anyway

Your lawyer, a human, might die in a car crash, become really sick, or run off to Tahiti with the legal assistant to learn French.  If that happens, you will need to pick up where the lawyer left off.  To that end, you should start learning the following, RIGHT NOW.
  1. Florida Evidence Code
  2. Florida Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure
  3. Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
  4. Florida Practice and Procedure by Henry Trawick
  5. Florida Causes of Action by Marc A. Wites
  6. Other rules of court
  7. Local court rules

Attorney Attestation to Client

Ask your attorney to answer these questions, and note the answers.
  1. I (am / am not) currently licensed by the Florida Supreme Court as an attorney and counselor at law in Florida courts.
  2. I (am / am not) a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.
  3. I (do /  do not) acknowledge my status as officer of the court and, in accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution affirm my oath of admission to the Florida Bar, to wit: “I do solemnly swear: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval; I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice. So help me God.”
  4. I (am / am not) protected by surety bond / malpractice insurance $_­_______­____. (Carrier info attached)
  5. I (shall /  shall not) accept ______________________________ (“Client”) as my law client in exchange for fee, in accordance with separate agreement which shall not supersede any provisions of this Attestation.
  6. I (shall / shall not) in my relationships with Client, the Courts and its officers, abide by my oath above by giving my first loyalties, without compromise, to the Constitutions of the US and Florida and law pursuant thereto, to securing Client’s constitutionally guaranteed rights, and to abiding by the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar .
  7. (shall / shall not) in the tasks for which Client has retained me fulfill my promises to Client, be punctual, answer Client’s questions truthfully, aggressively advocate Client’s cause, defend Client’s rights guaranteed by the relevant Constitutions and laws pursuant thereto, bill fairly and only for actual services rendered, treat retainers as advance pay for services, and ensure that my employees and subcontractors fully support me in that effort.
  8. I (shall / shall not) refund Client’s fees for any portion of work for which Client hired me that I fail to perform substantially with high quality, diligence, and integrity.
  9. I (shall / shall not) hand over to Client upon Client’s request, and retain none of:  all originals, copies, and derivatives of information provided to me by Client, other than items of public record, and all unused retainer money.
  10. This attestation (does / does not) supersede all contrary assertions except by specific written reference to one or more provisions herein, acknowledged in writing by Client.
  11. I have worked _____________ cases like Client’s case and won ___________ (__________%) of them.

Regarding Lawyer Loyalties

Lawyers should remain loyal first and foremost to the court.  The reasoning behind this boils down to a solemn belief that the court's primary interest is justice and equity in comportment with the constitutions and the laws, regulations, and rules that descended from them.  UNFORTUNATELY, the human officers of the court, and their seniors, often have masters OTHER than the Constitution, the laws pursuant thereto, equity, and the common good.  That means you, the litigant, cannot trust them any more than you can trust your attorney.  Higher courts can cheat you out of justice too, so appeals won't necessarily avail you of any benefit. 

Thus, you cannot believe the substance of the loyalty oaths all of them have sworn.  In the end, if they contrive or conspire to deprive you of equity and justice in favor of some other loyalty or to threats and bribes, YOU will still have lost in spite of their high-sounding rhetoric.  So when the going gets bad, you want your lawyer to remain loyal to you, not to them.  If you ever doubt this, you need to clear it up in a come-to-Jesus meeting with the lawyer, and dump the lawyer who gives loyalty to you short shrift.

You must remain aware that the law means only what the highest court of competent jurisdiction says it means in its opinions.  ANYTHING you do that causes the court rule in your favor puts the LAW ON YOUR SIDE.  So, assuming you have the most just cause, you must do whatever becomes necessary to get the court to rule in your favor.  That includes behaving with the highest integrity and sense of fairness, and then, figuratively speaking, hitting your adversary in a crippling blow below the belt with all your might.

You can expect your adversary to use every available artifice, ruse, rule violation, outright lie, and dirty trick to beat you. You must insist that your counsel hammer the court for sanctions and contempt citations to punish an unruly adversary.

In a legal battle your first loyalty goes to your OWN cause, and you must marshal all your resources, legal advocates, witnesses, and champions in that effort to win for your cause.


I generally want people to know that a lot of pieces must fall into place in order to prevail in a  battle against smart, tough, organized opponents.  It simply won't suffice to have a meritorious case.  You need good timing, and legal skills, even with a lawyer doing the work for you.  Otherwise you cannot monitor the lawyer and pick up where he left off if he abandons you.  And you need a competent lawyer, or you need to develop the competence yourself.  You must possess the financial resources to hire and the time to manage the lawyer.  And you must keep records expressly for the purpose of proving what happened if things go wrong, so as to minimize the negative impact.

Human life and related struggles in our society on our world do not come easy for the stupid, the ignorant, the feckless, or the indolent.  Otherwise, the Creator would have put puppies here to live it for us. 

The law of survival of the fittest still applies.  Become and remain "fittest" if you want to survive well.


Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary


Tuesday, May 06, 2014

FL 5th DCA allows foreclosure to escape statute of limitations

This US Bank v Bartram appellate opinion really displeased Florida's foreclosure pretender defender legal community.  The 5th DCA reversed the trial court's opinion that the statute of limitations bars the bank from foreclosing after tolling on a prior part of the loan.  It doesn't and it shouldn't.  The court explained by reminding everyone of Singleton, 882 So. 2d at 1006):

"We must also remember that foreclosure is an equitable remedy and there may be some tension between a court's authority to adjudicate the equities and the legal doctrine of res judicata. The ends of justice require that the doctrine of res judicata not be applied so strictly so as to prevent mortgagees from being able to challenge multiple defaults on a mortgage. See deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 1973) (“[T]he doctrine [of res judicata] will not be invoked where it will work an injustice . . . .”). We can find no valid basis for barring mortgagees from challenging subsequent defaults on a mortgage and note solely because they did not prevail in a previous attempted foreclosure based upon a separate alleged default.
"We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata does not necessarily bar successive foreclosure suits, regardless of whether or not the mortgagee sought to accelerate payments on the note in the first suit. In this case the subsequent and separate alleged default created a new and independent right in the mortgagee to accelerate payment on the note in a subsequent foreclosure action. Thus, we approve the Fourth District’s decision in Singleton, and disapprove of the Second District’s holding in Stadler. "

"Because we believe the issue we resolve is a matter of great public importance,  we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

"Does acceleration of payments due under a note and mortgage in a foreclosure action that was dismissed pursuant to rule 1.420(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, trigger application of the statute of limitations to prevent a subsequent foreclosure action by the mortgagee based on all payment defaults occurring subsequent to dismissal of the first foreclosure suit?"

We might guess that Florida Supremes will agree with Florida's 5th DCA.  I can think of two reasons for the Supremes to opine that the right to collect payments extends without time limit until the borrower has paid.

  1. Common sense and equity dictate that note holders have the right to repayment of the debt, and so a rightful plaintiff may sue for every breach of the note until the court awards the foreclosure.
  2. The US and Florida Constitutions, in Article I Section 10, provide that "no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."  The 5-year statute of limitations on foreclosures constitutes just such a proscribed law, impairing the obligation to repay the loan defined in the note and mortgage, collectively a contract. To the extent that rules of court operate like laws, the constitutions proscribe rules like res judicata to the extent they impair the obligation of contracts.

I wonder when a lender will propound argument 2 above to a foreclosure court upon hearing an argument that the Statute of Limitations has expired.  That pretty much shoots equity in the foot.  After all, the Legislature set the limit during a time when foreclosure didn't jam the courts for years.

On the other hand, maybe the courts will opine that all contracts get made in the climate of existing laws, and that those laws may impair contracts with impunity.  It all depends on what the words impair, obligation, and contracts mean.  Go here to learn what the US Supreme Court has opined about them:

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t 
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Florida's Grand/Petite Jury Emasculation NIGHTMARE

I have given a good bit of attention to Florida's Grand Jury issues recently, interacting with people who want to form a Common Law Grand Jury.  SO I thought I'd review and summarize some related history. 

I shall explain how disenfranchisement of Negroes and women led to the  corruption, emasculation, and disenfranchisement of the jury systems throughout America.  And I shall propose a solution that will restore their former luster.

For reference look at lawmen group articles mentioning grand jury here.

Take special note of one of those articles, appended below, from 2007.  I pored over the several constitutions of Florida and noticed an devolution of the powers of the grand jury.  By what common sense principle did the governments strip grand juries of their power?  Well I believe common sense will tell us why:


Prosecutors cannot possibly tolerate a pack of dunces sitting on a grand jury.  No wonder they and the judges lobbied the legislature to minimize GJ involvement in prosecutions.  No wonder judges and prosecutors manipulate the juries now.

If I had my way,

  1. I'd let ONLY college graduates sit on the grand jury panel,

  2. I'd force them to study the constitutions till they can pass a  related competency test,

  3. I'd not let them out of jury duty except under the direst of circumstances with strict proof, and

  4. I'd make sure they get paid the average prosecutor wage for their duties.

There.  I have given you the solution to our grand jury system, and to the petite jury system as well.  Pack it with sensible, intelligent, productive people and it will produce rational, appropriate results without becoming the "bitch" of either the judge or the State Attorney.

Bottom line, if you want fix a problematic system, make sure your fix retains the same benefits of the system you fixed.

Try to understand this clearly.  Misguided idealists lobbied for the liberation of and suffrage by several classes of people:

  1. indigents, losers and neer-do-wells, the cognitively impaired (stupid, unable to graduate from high school) and other ignoramuses, welfare recipients and social derelicts, and other irresponsibles

  2. children (people under 21)

  3. women (including ignorant housewives)

  4. former slaves (see category 1 above)

  5. the impoverished (non-land-owners, see category 1)

In order to make all of these SEEM like legitimate voters, those idealists required that voters to swear a fraudulent and meaningless oath to support the constitutions of the US and Florida, without requiring any of them to read those constitutions.

The idealists did not mandate an IQ test, a responsibility test, a test of the responsibilities of citizenship, or a test of competency in the constitutions.

THAT resulted in (a SWAG here) upwards of 90% of the AVAILABLE jurors for the jury pool (those too stupid to get out of jury duty) comprised of people in the above 5 categories who should NEVER under ANY circumstances have suffrage rights.  No, I don't include all women in those groups, but I do include MANY women, not because of lack of intelligence, but because of lack of competent knowledge of the constitution that occurs as a consequence of a life mostly at home and caring for children (where most of the fecund women of America SHOULD be).

Without any means of qualifying people in the jury pool to guarantee a modicum of intelligence, education, and ability to make rational decisions and evaluate relative importances within the scope of constitutional obligations, idealistic do-gooders destroyed the validity and value of the jury systems, making judges and prosecutors see jurors as a pack of bumbling, incompetent bozos.

And so, we ended up with incompetent juries.

Losing respect of prosecutors and judges, jurors eventually lost the respect of legislators, and so the Legislature and courts contrived to diminish the power of the jury system, particularly the grand jury system, as follows:

  1. Judges do not allow juries to know they can nullify the judge's orders

  2. Judges discharge and sometimes persecute jurors who don't go along with the judge's orders

  3. Grand juries act only in capital felony cases now, whereas they originally acted in all felony cases.

  4. The power structure (courts, prosecutors, county commissioners, and clerks) have gutted the power of grand juries to investigate extraneous evidence of crimes - ONLY THE PROSECUTORS can bring that evidence to the grand jury, and that means grand juries virtually never indict crooks in government.

I'll echo Pogo:

We has found the enemy and he is US.

WE (actually the liberal idealistic do-gooders), by dumbing down the voter and juror pools, conspiratorially destroyed the jury system in America.  I would not feel surprised to learn that was part of a Communist plot to destroy America and its system of government.  Because NOW the incompetent juries result in NO jury-based investigations of government criminals, so crooks now run amok in office.  Just look at State Attorneys and County Commissions for example.

Maybe THAT is the price of disenfranchising Negroes and women.  The backlash effort to re-enfranchise them has certainly put utterly irresponsible people in the voter base and therefore the jury pool, that led to irresponsible juries, the courts and their officers said HELL NO you will NOT mess up our efforts, and they conspired to strip juries of their power.

Therefore, WE, must genetically re-engineer the jury pool or government will NEVER allow restoration of  jury powers.

Like it or not, I agree with the judges, prosecutors, and legislators in stripping juries of their power.  I AGREE WITH IT BECAUSE JURIES ARE BY AND LARGE STUPID AND INCOMPETENT.

You've heard the old computer programmer saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out" haven't you?  That means if you feed garbage irresponsibles into the jury system, you get such a garbage, corrupt result from the jury's work that judges and prosecutors find it unacceptable.  It's like letting a 10-year-old drive the family car unsupervised.  It's stupid to do that.

We (WE!) have to FIX it by imposing very stiff requirements for jurors, and we can only do that with a change to the Florida Constitution.  We Cannot do it with the Common Law Grand Jury because IT has the identical problems to the existing jury system (or worse).

Okay, now for the article...

Florida Petit and Grand Jury Powers

Copyright © 17 October 2007 By Bob Hurt


I write this short article to give you a glimpse into the petite and grand jury powers and how the evolving Florida Legislature, controlled by the Florida Bar through its membership which comprises the bulk of the legal staff and about a third of the legislators, manipulated it to strip the powers from the petite and grand jury. 


In reading my comments, refer to  the excerpts from all of Florida's Constitutions (hereinafter "fcon") and Grand Jury statutes below.


 According to fcons from 1838 through 1868, petit juries judge both the law and the facts.  Since 1885, the fcons have ignored the right of the jury to judge the law.  Now in all trials, the judge will tell the jury what the law means, and the judge will sanction anybody who tries to tell the jury it still has the right to judge the law.

We should work to get the word to all jurors that they still have that right. 


 The very first fcon, that of 1838, made to qualify for statehood, does not mention a grand jury at all.  However, it uses the term "presentment" and "indictment".  Webster's 1828 Dictionary define those as:


2. In law, a presentment, properly speaking, is the notice taken by a grand jury of any offense from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the king; as the presentment of a nuisance, a libel or the like, on which the officer of the court must afterwards frame an indictment, before the party presented can be put to answer it.


3. In a more general sense, presentment comprehends inquisitions of office and indictments.


In the United States, a presentment is an official accusation presented to a tribunal by the grand jury in an indictment; or it is the act of offering an indictment. It is also used for the indictment itself. The grand jury are charged to inquire and due presentment make of all crimes, &c. The use of the word is limited to accusations by grand jurors.


My WordWeb Dictionary defines them as:


Presentment - An accusation of crime made by a grand jury on its own initiative


Indictment - A formal document written for a prosecuting attorney charging a person with some offense


Wikipedia and Wictionary say this:


Presentment - (law) In the past, a statement made by a grand jury to a court of law

Indictment - In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: /ɨnˈdaɪtmənt/) is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense. In those jurisdictions which retain the concept of a felony, the serious criminal offense would be a felony; those jurisdictions which have abolished the concept of a felony often substitute instead the concept of an indictable offence, i.e. an offence which requires an indictment.  Traditionally an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries.


So, you see, a grand jury creates the presentment on its own initiative without the instigation of the prosecuting attorney, and the grand jury writes an indictment for a prosecuting attorney based on the prosecutor's charge that the accused committed a serious crime.


Therefore, even though the 1838 fcon does not mention grand jury, it nevertheless refers to a grand jury indirectly through the words presentment and indictment.  And that means a grand jury had to decide from its evidence that the prospectively accused man, woman, or child had "likely" committed a crime of some kind, typically an infamous or serious crime. 

Purpose of Grand Juries

Why do you suppose the People would ever need a grand jury?  Do you think the prosecutors have the competence to indict a perpetrator of a crime based on the evidence?  Well, of course the prosecutors have such competence, but consider this question:  WHY should the People trust a prosecutor to come after one of their own fairly?  Very simply, prosecutors have terrible, awesome power in their jobs, and they can on a whim completely destroy the fame, fortune, life, liberty, and property of one of the People.  People have learned down through the ages, such as through the story of Robin Hood against the Sheriff of Nottingham, and through real life, that only a fool will trust a prosecutor to behave honorably.  Prosecutors prosecute, just as snakes and bad dogs bite, regardless  of the innocence or guilt of the accused.


So, We People require a grand jury of our own People to take a good hard look at the evidence before we allow a rabid prosecutor lay into one of our own.  Therefore, for ALL serious crimes, we need the grand jury to protect the people from overzealous prosecutors, lest we find ourselves in the clutches of the prosecutor some day.

The Meaning of "Crime" and "Infamous" - Felony

Now, what do I mean by "serious" crime?  Well, I mean something serious like stealing or embezzling a lot of money, beating somebody senseless, robbing a convenience store at gunpoint, running or working in a crime syndicate, blowing up somebody's house on purpose, or raping or killing somebody.  By convention the law has considered such serious crimes so infamous as to refer to them as felonies.  In other words, a serious or infamous crime constitutes a felony.


Actually, the word crime traditionally means felony, and misdemeanor means a lesser offense like petit (petty) theft or giving somebody a black eye.  Webster’s 1828 says this:

CRIME, n. [L., Gr. , to separate, to judge, to decree, to condemn.]

1. An act which violates a law, divine or human; an act which violates a rule of moral duty; an offense against the laws of right, prescribed by God or man, or against any rule of duty plainly implied in those laws. A crime may consist in omission or neglect, as well as in commission, or positive transgression. The commander of a fortress who suffers the enemy to take possession by neglect, is as really criminal, as one who voluntarily opens the gates without resistance.

But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offense, or violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offenses against the laws made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c. The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors. Crimes and misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured. But in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.

2. Any great wickedness; iniquity; wrong.

MISDEME'ANOR, n. Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.

1. In law, an offense of a less atrocious nature than a crime. Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous terms; but in common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors.

FEL'ONY, n. [See Felon.] In common law, any crime which incurs the forfeiture of lands or goods.

Treason was formerly comprised under the name of felony, but is now distinguished from crimes thus denominated, although it is really a felony. All offenses punishable with death are felonies; and so are some crimes not thus punished, as suicide, homicide by chance-medley, or in self-defense, and petty larceny. Capital punishment therefore does not necessarily enter into the true idea or definition of felony; the true criterion of felony being forfeiture of lands or goods. But the idea of felony has been so generally connected with that of capital punishment, that law and usage now confirm that connection. Thus if a statute makes any new offense a felony, it is understood to mean a crime punishable with death.

A grand jury has traditionally had  the business of investigating the evidence for felony crimes, not misdemeanors.  And felony crimes include murders and other felonies  And our fcons show this tradition.  They start off demanding specifically that the grand jury will investigate ALL crimes. 

Apparently the Legislature had difficulty understanding the above facts, so the Convention for the 1865 fcon required a grand jury for all capital crimes (any for which the penalty would take the perpetrator's life).  The 1868 fcon required a grand jury for "capital and other infamous crimes."  The 1885 fcon required the grand jury for any "capital crime or other felony." 

Florida Supreme Court Uses Florida Bar to Run Oligarchy

Then in 1949 the Florida Supreme Court absorbed the Florida Bar, and after that the grand jury powers went to hell in a handbasket.  As a consequence the 1968 fcon said "No person shall be tried for a capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court."  And the right to trial by jury had become so watered down that it contains NO reference to the jury judging law and fact. 

Bar Members Try to Steal YOUR Grand Jury

 So now, the State Attorney will assert that the constitution does not require him to consult the grand jury before bringing a felony charge against one of their People (we the people from whom all sovereignty flows).  By 1968, the voting population had become so dumbed down, ignorant, and derilect, that it didn't even notice the destruction of their most important safeguard from malicious and whimsical prosecution:  the Grand Jury.

Rights of Accused

 Notice that the 1968 fcon Article I Section 16 specifically gives the victims and their family the right to attend ALL proceedings.  That article does not except the grand jury proceedings.  And yet Florida Statute 905.17 (1) does does not allow victims to attend.  Do you see a problem with that statute?

Summary and Conclusion

I have not done a full study of the constitutionally compliant process for amending the Constitution, nor to find which sections the Constitutional Convention delegates actually repealed.  However, I believe the 1838 Constitution still stands except where specifically repealed.  And I do not believe the conventions ever repealed the foregoing requirements for grand juries to investigate all felony allegations for validity, and for juries to judge matters of law as well as fact.

So, I encourage all of you to challenge those matters vociferously and hard, in court if you must.  I encourage you to seek out the grand jury and present evidence of public employee crimes to the foreman, for even Florida Statutes require them to investigate all crimes reported to them.

And, as God knows oh-so-well, plenty of people in our government do indeed commit plenty of crimes.

Truly and sincerely,


Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary