Busted by Twitter for calling Kyle Rittenhouse a Hero and Martyr

Yeah, BUSTED! 

You see, I tweeted what you see below, whereupon one of Twitter's myriad leftist, limp-wristed, lame-brained, panty-waist, dilettante, hypocritical censor twits reacted in rancor, thusly:

My tweet was innocuous, and I'm not that much of a pushover, so I opted to appeal...

I responded by explaining that Kyle gave first aid to victims of terrorists who then attacked Kyle and got shot in self-defense, and now leftists are prosecuting him.

Implicitly, that makes Kyle both hero and martyr.  And note that my tweet did not glorify serial killing or violence.

Let the reader be the judge

A few minutes later I get this email from Twitter:

Hello,

Thank you for your patience as we reviewed your appeal request for account, @bobhurt, regarding the following:

Bob Hurt @bobhurt Kyle Rittenhouse—Hero And Martyr https://[...]

Violating our rules against glorifying violence

Our support team has determined that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision.

You will not be able to access Twitter through your account due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around:

Violating our rules against glorifying violence

In order to restore account functionality, you can resolve the violations by logging into your account and completing the on-screen instructions.

Thanks,

Twitter

Twitter's censors obviously love Marxist terrorists who are doing their best to destroy America, and HATE anyone who puts up an effective defense (such as by killing terrorist attackers who badly need killing).  They thought Kyle Rittenhouse would cave in like nearly everybody else does in response to their onslaught, and they could beat him down and leave him bleeding, broken, and dead in the street. 

What a surprise they received instead!  Kyle shot three of them, two of them died, and the third had already drawn his pistol with intent to kill Kyle.  Kyle's actions of giving first aid, protecting others' property, and defending himself seem heroic to me.  He became a martyr for having to face prosecution for murder.  Those who censor Kyle for shooting his attackers in self-defense would change their opinion if terrorists attacked them with intent to kill.

--

⚓ Bob Hurt 👓 Blog 1 2   f   t   ✉ Email     📞 (727) 669-5511 ☕ 2460 Persian Drive #70 ✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA ＄ Donate  to Law Scholarship ✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter 🔨 Learn How to Win in Court ⚡ Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

You can't get justice if you don't know how!

Learn how to win in court without a lawyer.
Costs less than an hour of lawyer time!

Fwd: David Lester Straight and his affidavit purporting to renounce U.S. citizenship

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	David Lester Straight and his affidavit purporting to renounce U.S. citizenship
Date:	Wed, 16 Sep 2020 19:57:01 -0400
From:	snoop4truth snoop4truth <snoop4truth@gmail.com>

ABOUT RENOUNCING U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

David Lester Straight seems sincere, well-meaning and acts as if he believes what he says about the law and government. But, he has a number of misconceptions about the law and government. So, he is misleading his followers.

Straight recommends using his form "affidavit" to renounce U.S. citizenship which he claims will render a person exempt from the application of U.S. laws, U.S. tax obligations and U.S. financial obligations. Straight does not know that his affidavit alone will not work to renounce U.S. citizenship in the first place and would not operate to absolve a person of U.S. law, U.S. tax obligations and U.S. financial obligations even if it did work to renounce U.S. citizenship..

In "IN RE YUSKA, Bankr. Court, Iowa 2017", the court held, " [The affiant's] attempt to unilaterally declare himself free of citizenship and its responsibilities WAS ... INEFFECTIVE. HE CANNOT CONTINUE TO RESIDE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF CITIZENSHIP WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING HE IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (setting forth the ways a citizen may renounce citizenship). AN AFFIDAVIT PURPORTING TO RENOUNCE CITIZENSHIP IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNDER 8 U.S.C. § 1481, because, among other things, "A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT UNDER THESE PROCEDURES IS THAT THE CITIZEN BE OUTSIDE THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES in order for his renunciation to take effect." Duncan v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 7:08-CV-00564, 2008 WL 4821323, at *1-2 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2008)." See the last 6 full paragraphs here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15933401354161493454&q=yuska+2017+iowa+%22He+cannot+continue+to+reside+here%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 

Further, the law applies exactly the same to citizens as non-citizens, state citizens or non-state citizens, U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens. Status changes nothing whatsoever. Travel.state.gov puts it this way, "Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship MAY HAVE NO EFFECT ON THEIR U.S. TAX OR MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATIONS (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, THE ACT OF RENOUNCING U.S. CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT ALLOW PERSONS TO AVOID POSSIBLE PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES WHICH THEY MAY HAVE COMMITTED OR MAY COMMIT IN THE FUTURE WHICH VIOLATE U.S. LAW, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.". https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html. So, there is no advantage in attempting to renounce U.S. citizenship whatsoever.

More importantly, Straight has fabricated at least part, if not all of his his background, credentials (former special forces, former secret service, former deputy sheriff, member of presidential task force, gets people out prison, etc.) and all of his legal alleged victories (personally recovered 250 children wrongfully kidnapped by the CPS and responsible for drafting the paperwork that resulted in 800 court victories, referring to his worthless affidavit). So, not only do we have a competence problem, we also have a character and integrity problem. Straight has a lot in common with other amateur legal theorists who make similar claims below.

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here

.http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here

.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here

.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016

Best Value in Shears/Scissors for cleanly, quickly cutting UHMWPE, Dyneema, Kevlar

Best Value in Shears/Scissors for cleanly, quickly cutting UHMWPE, Dyneema, Kevlar, etc. cord/rope.

Klein Tools 544KV Utility Shear, 6-3/8-Inch 

These shears cut like a dream.

Micro-serrations on one blade firmly grip fabric/cord during the cut; the other non-serrated blade allows sharpening.

Klein forged the blades from carbon alloy steel and tempered them to Rockwell hardness = 62C (VERY HARD)

Pivot bolt allows tension adjustment.

Price:  $12 to $14 typical

* https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/industrial-utility-snips/utility-kevlar-shear-fiber-optics-6-38-inch
* https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073GCKNJ8
* https://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-6-3-5-in-Utility-Kevlar-Shear-544KV/302589187

Delaware Refuses to Release Criminal Records Related to Joe Biden

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Delaware Refuses to Release Criminal Records Related to Joe Biden
Date:	Wed, 09 Sep 2020 08:04:35 -0400
From:	Montgomery Blair Sibley <montybsibley@gmail.com>

Greetings,

This morning I posted on my Blog, Amos Probos, an interesting (I think) and relevant (I hope) story about when Joe Biden and I crossed paths.  Let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns. Here is the text of my post:

I have been trying since late last year to get the Delaware Office of the Prothonotary to release public records related to a criminal case which may well bear upon the fitness of Joe Biden to be President. However, if you are looking for a 280-characters explanation of the importance of the Prothonotary's refusal to produce the requested documents, you won't find it here as this is a complicated story.  Let's go to the timeline:

In the Fall of 2007, my client Larry Sinclair accused then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama of engaging with him in drug use and homosexual acts. Shortly after that accusation, Larry began to exchange Text Messages regarding Obama with Donald Young, who was the Choir Director at The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Junior's Trinity United Church of Christ. This is the Church where then-Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was baptized, married and was a long-time member. On December 23, 2007, Donald Young was found executed in his Chicago apartment. 

In Mid-January 2008, Larry posted a video on YouTube regarding his specific allegations of sex and drug use with Obama.

On February 8, 2008, the Attorney General of Delaware (and the late son of Joe Biden), Beau Biden, filed an Indictment against Larry charging theft of less than $1,000 and, anomalously, for an extradition warrant.

In Early-March 2008, Larry contacted me as he was afraid for his life as a result of the Donald Young "assassination" and for advice on what to do as he was receiving death threats. To protect Larry, we: (i) filed a federal lawsuit against the anonymous blogger "Oswaldo" threatening Larry and (ii) organized a rather bizarre press conference on June 18, 2008, at the National Press Club which is still on YouTube. The goals were to push back against those threatening Larry and also make a buffoon out of him so he would be relegated to a dustbin of history and no longer a threat to the Obama/Biden ticket. The strategy worked. The FBI identified the person making threats against Larry and me but refused to identify either him or the U.S. Attorney who told the the FBI not to tell us his identity.

Immediately after the June 18, 2008 Press Conference and while still at the National Press Club, Larry was arrested on the Delaware warrant and subsequently extradited to Delaware on June 23, 2008. According to the Docket, on August 28, 2008, Beau Biden filed a "nolle prosequi" or dismissal of the criminal case against Larry citing to the Court: "Insufficient Evidence".

In December 2019, I ordered the actual file of Larry's Delaware Criminal case and paid to have it retrieved from the Delaware Clerk's storage.  The Prothonotary of Delaware has refused to produce the file for my review despite my repeated requests. I believe that file will demonstrate that there was no evidence in support of the Delaware Warrant but rather it was a way for the Bidens to shut Larry up until after the election. It worked.

The circumstances surrounding Larry's indictment, arrest and the subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges against him for lack of evidence six months later by Beau Biden's office speak clearly to me of the heavy hand of Joe Biden utilizing the criminal justice system to silence an existential threat to Obama and by extension, to Joe Biden himself.

I don't know if Larry was telling the truth or not, nor do I particularly care if Barack Obama is gay and/or an addict; that is not the issue here. I do know and care that Joe Biden apparently had my client falsely arrested for making those accusations. Like so many in Washington D.C., Joe Biden has come to believe that if his has the "power" then whatever he does with it is "right". This is antithetical to our Nation's Founder's beliefs and significant sacrifices to achieve dominance for the rule-of-law that "what is right" flows from objective and agreed-upon sources of right and wrong, not from the possession of power alone.

For this reason, I do not believe Joe Biden is fit to be President of the United States of America because apparently to him the ends justify whatever means are used to obtain them. While I will admit to certain reservations about Donald Trump, in weighing the risks each man poses to the well-being of the United States of America, there is no question in my mind that Joe Biden is simply too morally untenanted to be a four-year tenant in the most powerful Chair in the World.

If you want to follow up: Delaware Office of the Prothonotary, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, Superior Court of Delaware, Suite 500, 500 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801| Email: Michele.Ashby@Delaware.gov | Phone: (302) 255-0775

Montgomery Blair Sibley

Kyle Rittenhouse—Hero And Martyr

Kyle Rittenhouse—Hero And Martyr

Anti-SLAPP laws can protect whistleblowers

Here's a case of a patient who publicly criticized the patient's doctor. Doctor sued.  Patient defended with Anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation), and got case dismissed with prejudice, and attorney fees and costs paid.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200214/14254843921/doctor-suing-patient-over-negative-review-has-his-case-dismissed-under-tennessees-new-anti-slapp-law.shtml

Florida has a broad anti-SLAPP statute.

768.295 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) prohibited.—

(1) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the right in Florida to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public issues, and the rights to peacefully assemble, instruct representatives, and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. It is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues. Therefore, the Legislature finds and declares that prohibiting such lawsuits as herein described will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of persons in Florida, and assure the continuation of representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed of by the courts.

(2) As used in this section, the phrase or term:

(a) "Free speech in connection with public issues" means any written or oral statement that is protected under applicable law and is made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work.

(b) "Governmental entity" or "government entity" means the state, including the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches of government and the independent establishments of the state, counties, municipalities, corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities of the state, counties, or municipalities, districts, authorities, boards, commissions, or any agencies thereof.

(3) A person or governmental entity in this state may not file or cause to be filed, through its employees or agents, any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, or counterclaim against another person or entity without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution.

(4) A person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of this section. A person or entity may move the court for an order dismissing the action or granting final judgment in favor of that person or entity. The person or entity may file a motion for summary judgment, together with supplemental affidavits, seeking a determination that the claimant's or governmental entity's lawsuit has been brought in violation of this section. The claimant or governmental entity shall thereafter file a response and any supplemental affidavits. As soon as practicable, the court shall set a hearing on the motion, which shall be held at the earliest possible time after the filing of the claimant's or governmental entity's response. The court may award, subject to the limitations in s. 768.28, the party sued by a governmental entity actual damages arising from a governmental entity's violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.

(5) In any case filed by a governmental entity which is found by a court to be in violation of this section, the governmental entity shall report such finding and provide a copy of the court's order to the Attorney General no later than 30 days after such order is final. The Attorney General shall report any violation of this section by a governmental entity to the Cabinet, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A copy of such report shall be provided to the affected governmental entity.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2000-174; s. 1, ch. 2015-70.

--

⚓ Bob Hurt 👓 Blog 1 2   f   t   ✉ Email     📞 (727) 669-5511 ☕ 2460 Persian Drive #70 ✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA ＄ Donate  to Law Scholarship ✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter 🔨 Learn How to Win in Court ⚡ Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

You can't get justice if you don't know how!

Learn how to win in court without a lawyer.
Costs less than an hour of lawyer time!