Florida 6th Judicial Circuit Corruption Report

Dear Chris Tisch, Reporter, St Petersburg Times:

I have discovered a systematic conspiracy in the 6th Judicial Circuit to deny constitutional rights to the public in the matter of obtaining audio recordings of court proceedings. The laws of the state command the courts to provide audio records to public who request them. I requested them of Public Information Officer Ron Stuart who denied them, then I requested again, and Judge Demers denied them. Both cited an administrative order that Demers wrote a couple of years ago that neither denies nor allows the audio recordings. In so doing, both support one another in violating the law. That justifies my allegation of conspiracy.

I know what you’re thinking. “Come on, say something that moves me. Tell me about a judge who watches porn at work and sends salacious emails to attorneys, or spends half his time fishing when he should be working, or pulls drunken panty-raids on business junkets. Who cares about audio recordings? You can order a transcript. Isn’t that good enough? “

You’re missing a crucial point if you think that.

The public can determine and prove what really happened in the court room only with a reliable audio and video recording of the proceedings. The state legislature thought it so important that they used the constitution and statutes to command court officials to make court room records available in whatever form the public wants them, and to do so with a spirit of facilitation.

Written transcripts cause lots of injustice because they so often inaccurately reflect the truth. Sometimes they don’t reveal many minutes of important comments. Judges can tell the reporter to lose a couple of pages, and if the reporter does, no one will know. In fact, judges and prosecutors can and do pull all kinds of shenanigans in the courtrooms, and in the end they always stomp on defendants’ or the public’s rights. A tamper-proof audio / video recording provides the only means of verifying that the transcript accurately reflects the spoken words.

And it does even more than that. It reveals tone and timbre of voice, emotion, tension, drama, body language, placement of people and exhibits, and things that happen which one can only see or hear and which one cannot obtain from a written transcript.

Judges don’t like anyone invading their domains or snooping on them, and they seem to hate the presence of recording devices in the peanut gallery. They routinely deny the public’s right under rules of judicial administration to bring and use audio and video in the courtroom. For example, I sat in Judge David Seth Walker’s court on 29 March 2006 and watched him deny a member of the press the use of any electronic recording devices.

Why do they do this? Just to be high-handed? I don’t think so, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I believe they do it because they want to hide the truth from the public, and they want to control what goes into the record so nobody can get evidence to submit against them in a complaint to the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Fortunately, all Florida State Courts use an audio and video recording and compression system called CourtSmart that saves the recordings onto a hard drive and makes the recordings available via the court’s computer network to interested parties in the courthouse, but not to the general public. It is reasonably tamper-proof – a person would have to be a computer programmer to alter the recordings in any undetectable way.

Unfortunately, it has two glaring deficiencies:

The court reporter can turn the recorder off and forget to switch it back on. Judges occasionally ask them to do this so they can go off record for sidebar discussions.
A court reporter can omit areas of commentary when transcribing from the recording to the typewritten copy. Just because the reporter “certifies” it does not mean it will necessarily be accurate, particularly if the reporter knows the judge will not let anybody listen to the recording subsequently.

Bottom line, Chief Judge Demers now engages in clearly illegal behavior by denying public access to the audio recording. He has done it for years, and he will keep on doing it for years unless there is a public outcry against his egregious violation of our right to obtain copies of audio recordings. Or, unless he is hauled before the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

This is a serious charge of a serious injustice. By violating the constitution, Chief Judge Devers also violates his oath of office, and in that respect engages in rebellion against the government, and deprives himself of jurisdiction.

Right now, I am waiting for Judge Demers to tell me he will relent and order the clerk to hand over the audio recordings I have requested. I have asked him to change his administrative orders so as to require the clerk to provide copies of audio recordings when the public requests them. I believe he will continue to obfuscate.

I also have requested and now wait for him to produce his oath of office and his surety bond. Without them he is an imposter lacking judicial authority. That might explain why he works to defeat the very constitutions he allegedly swore to support, protect, and defend.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Florida Constitution, Article II, Section 5(b)
Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.", and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.

My issue with Judge Demers forms just the tiny tip of an enormous iceberg of systematic and unlawful denial of access to public records, in particular the audio and video recordings, and unlawful denial of public’s right to make its own electronic recordings of court proceedings. God only knows what other systematic flouting of the law a diligent investigator will turn up. I see myself as indeed fortunate that I have not had to appear before a judge in the 6th Judicial District, for I know that my rights would be stomped mercilessly into the dust at the very time I most desperately need a righteous judge to uphold them.

In view of the rising swell of public outrage over the public servants’ high-handed deprivation of and disregard for citizens’ rights, I consider this issue much more important than judges flirting with attorneys. I’m guessing you do too. I ask that you investigate and write a series of articles exposing this systematic corruption in the 6th Judicial Circuit. I shall help you in any way I can. If you’re not the right writer for this, please pass it to the right one.

I have attached the correspondence between me, Ron Stuart, and David Demers for your reference. I believe Jose Cardenas is writing about the case of Jesse Toca (see attached article on Travesty of Justice). Although I discovered the records violations while researching violations of Toca’s rights, the records issue seems of greater importance than Toca’s case because it affects every defendant who appears in the circuit’s courts. Thus, the separate matters deserve separate treatment in the news.

Sincerely,

*************************
Bob Hurt
*************************

May 1, 2006
Ron Stuart, Public Information Officer, Circuit Court of Florida 6th Judicial Circuit
14250 49th Street North, Clearwater, FL 33762
727-453-7176 (Phone), 727-453-7166 (Fax), rstuart@jud6.org (E-mail)


Re: Audio record of courtroom proceedings, Case #CTC97-32728-MMANO, State of Florida versus Jesse Toca.


Dear Ron Stuart:

I have recently become interested in the proceedings of the above case, and I wish to obtain the audio recordings made of the courtroom activities for the below dates, in accordance with my rights under the laws of the State of Florida.

If this request does not sufficiently comply with the law and I must fill out any specific forms or follow any other procedures, please let me know what law applies, and tell me what I must do to obtain the recordings.

I want the audio recordings in order to corroborate written transcripts, and to understand the emotion and various other elements of the proceedings that transcripts do not reveal.

I want the recordings for these dates:

Day-Month-Year-Title-Name of Judge
9-March-2005-Judge-Donald Horrox
14-April-2005-Judge-Donald Horrox
30-June-2005-Sr. Judge-Gerard O’Brien Jr.
16-August-2005-Judge-Bradford Smith
9-November-2005-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker
22-November-2005-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker
9-January-2006-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker
28-March-2006-Judge-Crockett Farnell
29-March-2006-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker

Please provide me with the full names and contact information of any and all State Attorney, Assistant State Attorney, Judge or other person who orders you not to provide these recordings to me, or who obfuscates or encumbers the process in any way other than by requiring me to follow procedures according to law and pay any cost of duplicating the records. I shall consider any such effort as an attempt to violate my rights, and I shall proceed through proper channels to ensure my rights are protected and the law is enforced.

Sincerely, Bob Hurt
******************************

Administrative Office of the Courts
The Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida
14250 49th Street North, Suite 2000
Clearwater, Florida 33762
(727) 453-7176
Suncorn: 8-525-7176
Fax: (727) 453-7166

Gay Lynne Inskeep
Trial Courts Administrator
Public Information Office



April 3, 2006

BOB HURT

Re: Request by e-mail for audio record of courtroom proceedings

Dear Mr. Hurt,


I am responding to your e-mail correspondence requesting" Audio recordings of courtroom proceedings, Case #CTC97-32728-MMANO, State of Florida versus Jesse Toca."

The release of official records of court proceedings is governed by The Sixth Judicial Circuit's Administrative Order 2004-18.That administrative order does not authorize the release of electronic recordings. If you would like to review that administrative order, here is an Internet link:

http://www.jud6.org/LegalPractice/AOSAndRules/aos/aos2004/2004-018.htm

The official record of any court proceeding "is a transcript produced by the Administrative Office of the Courts or other qualified independent contractors obtained by the AOC." We will be happy to produce a transcript of the proceeding at the normal rate charged for such transcriptions. A form for ordering a transcript can be accessed at this Internet link:

http://www.jud6.org/courtreporterreg/transcriptform.html

Sincerely,

Ron Stuart
Public Information Officer
******************************
My Response to Ron Stuart via rstuart@jud6.org on 5 April 2006

Thanks, Ron.

I can tell from your reaction to me and the issue at hand that you are really fed up with the case. You didn’t need to threaten to have the bailiff throw me out of your office because I merely wanted to get some answers from you to my questions. I still insist that I be allowed access to those audio recordings, and I think you are holding them back in violation of my right of access.

Your behavior did not please me, even though I can understand your being infected by the attitudes of prosecutors and judges over the past 8+ years of litigation of Jesse’s case.

Here’s my problem. I personally know of cases wherein the judge told the reporter to omit information from the official record, and knowing the history of Crockett Farnell’s attitude and behavior toward Jesse, such monkeying with the official record would not surprise me. Only the audio record, much more difficult than a reporter’s record to doctor up in reaction to a whispered aside from the judge, can by comparison with the official reporter’s record show the truth, in the event of any doubt. And since this issue concerns the integrity and honesty of the judges and prosecutors themselves, no judge should prevent the public from having access to the audio recordings.

Naturally, I don’t want to embroil someone innocent like you in a dispute over access to public records, but when the state attorneys and judges make themselves unavailable for direct questioning, you are the next most likely person for me to talk to. That’s why I appreciate direct and informative answers, not a summary brush-off, from a public servant like you.

I’ll continue my efforts to get the audio recordings. I see them as crucial in verifying the accuracy of the court reporter’s record. I believe denying access to such public records as the audio recordings of court proceedings oversteps judicial authority and violates constitutional rights of the public to know what goes on in courtrooms.

This is particularly true in a case like Jesse Toca’s. Jesse knows the law and argues his position much better than do typical defendants. For that reason, the criminal case against him seems to go on forever. Why? Because the legal system, as implemented in Judicial District 6, tends to resemble a kangaroo court system, and so many egregious violations of defendants’ rights occur that a savvy defendant is bound to make the prosecutor and court look ridiculous.

Maybe you think this is none of your business. I think it is the business of everyone who works in your building. Everybody, without exception. It is also the business of the Florida Attorney General, Governor, and Supreme Court.

I want you to know that you have no obligation to obey orders from your seniors that violate the law or overstep legal authority for the convenience of judges. I intend to hold people in your building personally accountable for any such violations I detect, regardless of who commits them.

Thank you for spending the few minutes you did with me today. I know you’re busy, and I appreciate your graciousness, to the extent you were able to express it.

Bob Hurt

******************************

CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF FLORIDA
DAVID A. DEMERS, CHIEF JUDGE
J DENNIS BRIGGS JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
545 - FIRST AVENUE NORTH, ROOM 400
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33701
(727) 582-7882

April 11, 2006
Mr. Bob Hurt


Re: Request by e-mail for audio record of courtroom proceedings

Dear Mr. Hurt:

I have received your April 1, 2006 and April 5, 2006 e-mails to Ron Stuart, the public information officer for the Sixth Judicial Circuit. In those e-mails you request digital recordings of various court proceedings in the case of State of Florida v. Jesse Toca.
The production of the records you have requested is governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051. That rule provides:

The custodian shall be solely responsible for providing access to records of the custodian's entity. The custodian shall determine whether the requested record is subject to this rule and, if so, whether the record or portions of the record are exempt from disclosure. The custodian shall determine the form in which the record is provided.

I have determined that as a general rule, the form in which the record of court proceedings will be provided is an official transcript. In his April 3 correspondence to you, Mr. Stuart correctly pointed out that release of official records of court proceedings is governed by Administrative Order 2004-18. That administrative order outlines procedures for requesting official written transcripts, the form in which records of court proceedings are generally provided.

For most proceedings – including the ones you have requested – any citizen could have attended the hearings. And any citizen can secure all of or any part of the proceedings in the form or a written transcript, upon proper designation to the court reporter and financial arrangements being made for payment of the transcripts.

I have on occasion authorized the release of the electronic record when specific circumstances have justified deviating from the general rule that only the transcript will be released. I do not find any basis in your correspondence that would justify release of the electronic record.

Your correspondence contains provocative statements concerning judges, prosecutors and other officials of the Sixth Judicial Circuit. When a matter before the court is decided in a way that is unfavorable to a party in that proceeding, it does not indicate "egregious violations" of anyone's rights. Lawyers and judges are sworn to uphold the law, and their commitment to this principle is evident each day. If a party does not agree with the ruling of a trial court, that party may appeal that ruling to an appellate court.

Administrative Order 2004-18 provides: "the official record of the proceeding is a transcript produced by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) or other qualified independent contractors obtained by the AOC." The written transcripts for the proceedings you requested will be made available to you upon proper designation to the court reporter and financial arrangements being made with the court reporting office.

(signed) Chief Judge David A. Demers

*****************************************

April 13, 2006
Ron Stuart, Public Information Officer, rstuart@jud6.org (E-mail)
David Demers, Chief Judge, courts@jud6.org, ddemers@jud6.org (E-mail)

State of Florida 6th Judicial Circuit Court
14250 49th Street North
Clearwater, FL 33762
727-453-7176 (Phone)
727-453-7166 (Fax)

Re: Third request for audio record of courtroom proceedings, Case #CTC97-32728-MMANO, State of Florida versus Jesse Toca.

Dear Ron and David:
On 1 April 2006 by e-mail and hand delivery I from Ron the audio recordings for the below proceedings of the subject case, and I now reiterate that request.

Day-Month-Year-Title-Name of Judge
9-March-2005-Judge-Donald Horrox
14-April-2005-Judge-Donald Horrox
30-June-2005-Sr. Judge-Gerard O’Brien Jr.
16-August-2005-Judge-Bradford Smith
9-November-2005-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker
22-November-2005-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker
9-January-2006-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker
28-March-2006-Judge-Crockett Farnell
29-March-2006-Sr. Judge-David Seth Walker

I told Ron:
“…provide me with the full names and contact information of any and all State Attorney, Assistant State Attorney, Judge or other person who orders you not to provide these recordings to me, or who obfuscates or encumbers the process in any way other than by requiring me to follow procedures according to law and pay any cost of duplicating the records. I shall consider any such effort as an attempt to violate my rights, and I shall proceed through proper channels to ensure my rights are protected and the law is enforced.”

On 5 April 2006 I received Ron’s response by mail and hand delivery. The letter denied my request, saying:

“The release of official records of court proceedings is governed by The Sixth Judicial Circuit's Administrative Order 2004-18. That administrative order does not authorize the release of electronic recordings. If you would like to review that administrative order, here is an Internet link:
http://www.jud6.org/LegalPractice/AOSAndRules/aos/aos2004/2004-018.htm”

I immediately emailed a protest and second demand to Ron, explaining that the above AO in question does not prohibit him from providing the audio recording, and that state law entitles me to it. He did not respond to me.

On 15 April 2006 I received David’s response by mail. The letter denied my request, saying:

“I have on occasion authorized the release of the electronic record when specific circumstances have justified deviating from the general rule that only the transcript will be released. I do not find any basis in your correspondence that would justify release of the electronic record.”

David also saw fit to scold me for making provocative statements about “sworn” officers of the court. I had claimed that I knew of past instances wherein a judge told a reporter to remove some text from the record, and an audio recording is necessary to validate the written transcript. David said:

“When a matter before the court is decided in a way that is unfavorable to a party in that proceeding, it does not indicate "egregious violations" of anyone's rights. Lawyers and judges are sworn to uphold the law, and their commitment to this principle is evident each day.”
It so happens that I, not you, David Demer, was in the court room on 29 March 2006. I watched and heard the prosecutor push the judge vigorously to deny Jesse Toca’s rights, demanding that the judge “take control of his courtroom.” I watched and heard the judge deny the public its right electronically to record the proceedings, and deny Jesse Toca’s right to assistance of counsel, an inviolable right guaranteed by the 6th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. So, I’m not a party to the proceedings, but I witnessed that with my own eyes and ears, and so did upwards of two dozen other witnesses.

As to whether other sworn officers of the court might be corrupt, Jesse Toca told me that in 1997 when attending a Bar association convention, Judge Crockett Farnell approached him and told him if he ever saw Jesse in his or his wife’s courtroom, “I’ll bury you.” And as it so happens, on 28 March 2006, Farnell denied any opportunity for Jesse to subpoena or call witnesses in his defense, or even to mount a defense.

In fact, for 10 years, next month, the court and its sworn officers seem to have conspired to deprive Jesse Toca of his rights.

• To begin with ASA Mogliare got the judge to order Jesse to answer questions about himself under the protection of immunity from prosecution, then Mogliare used the information he received to build a case against Jesse, thereby violating the whole principle of immunity, in flagrant violation of his rights against self-incrimination under the 5th amendment of the US Constitution.
• And the lengths to which the prosecution has gone in dragging out the case for nearly 10 years clearly shows a violation of Jesse’s 6th amendment right to a speedy trial and to have compulsory process for witnesses in his favor.
• In fact, the most recent two proceedings were all about denying Jesse’s constitutional right to call witnesses. The prosecution worked prodigiously to get the judge to quash Jesse’s subpoenas for witnesses that would prove his public defenders were either incompetent or in collusion with the prosecutor (yes, collusion – the most recent P.D. actually gave Jesse’s confidential information to Migliore). Farnell immediately granted the motion to quash, and the next day the prosecutor badgered both the judge and Jesse so horrendously, and they argued so extensively over the judge’s denial of Jesse’s motion to continue till he could get a competent public defender, that the court never ruled on the next motion to quash. Basically, they beat Jesse down and virtually forced him to plead guilty to probation violations.
• And let’s not forget that the prosecutor wanted to throw Jesse in jail for 4 years for 4 counts of violating probation. How did Jesse violate probation? The court tried to force Jesse to violate his 5th amendment rights again by ordering him to turn over private financial records and other data to the prosecutor. Knowing their history, Jesse refused on 4 occasions, so Migliore charged him with violating probation. Like I said – Kangaroo Court.
• Let’s also not forget that Jesse’s first attorney, a “sworn officer of the court,” failed to defend him properly and, after trying to extort Jesse’s mother into giving him Jesse’s car while Jesse was in jail, and abandoning Jesse during preparation for his appeal, was found to be a hard-core abuser and user of cocaine, as was his live-in girlfriend. So much for the integrity of “sworn officers of the court.”
  

In other words, David, the 6th Judicial Circuit seems to be running a systematic, apparently well-orchestrated array of highly prejudiced and corrupt Kangaroo Courts. Thanks only to Jesse’s ability to think on his feet and use the law in his favor (lauded by Judge Walker), Jesse is not rotting in jail like so many less-skilled victims of prosecutorial and judicial abuse have over the years. I do not say all officers of the court are corrupt, but I believe in my heart, and my eyes and ears testify to the reality, that some certainly are.

Now, on top of that, you chime in by asserting I don’t have any entitlement to the audio recordings so as to determine whether the corruption runs all the way into the written transcripts. Apparently you are not so familiar with the state law you are supposed to uphold in your circuit.

From Florida Statute Chapter 119 :
(http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0119/ch0119.htm)
(1) It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person. Providing access to public records is a duty of each agency.
(2)(a) Automation of public records must not erode the right of access to those records….
(2)(f) Each agency that maintains a public record in an electronic recordkeeping system shall provide to any person, pursuant to this chapter, a copy of any public record in that system which is not exempted by law from public disclosure. An agency must provide a copy of the record in the medium requested if the agency maintains the record in that medium, and the agency may charge a fee in accordance with this chapter.
Surely you know the above law. You have not cited any law that exempts the record from public disclosure. Your implication that the written transcripts accurately reflect the audio recordings proves that the transcripts have already disclosed those records. Therefore, the law binds you to prepare and deliver the copies of the audio recordings, as I requested.

I remind you that you and other officers of the court are bound by oath and bond to loyally fulfill your duties to uphold the law, administer it fairly, and defend the rights of the individual people of our state when they appear in your courts.

You have violated that oath by drafting an Administrative Order and issuing an interpretation that unlawfully and high-handedly seeks to deny my rightful and lawful access to the audio recordings I requested. As a result you, David, stand in jeopardy of bond forfeiture, disciplinary action by the state ethics commission, and prosecution. And you, Ron, knowing the law, also stand in jeopardy if you continue to violate it.

Now, therefore, I repeat my request for the above listed audio recordings, and I encourage you to consider this request a very polite, respectful, and firm demand:

Please give me a total of the charges for making the copies, and give me a delivery time within the 30 days after receipt of this letter.

Also, please note that I am sending this by e-mail. I know that you, Ron, receive them, and that you ensure the parties hereto (specifically, David) receive them. I do not consider it necessary to send such letters by registered mail, for if I had to in order to prove I sent it, that would mean the judiciary and its staff really is corrupt and is doing its best to deny my rights.

Accordingly, I expect an acknowledgment from you, Ron, by e-mail, within one business day after my date of transmission.



Sincerely,
Bob Hurt

********************

No answers received from Ron or David as of 2 May 2006

Challenge Jurisdiction

Imagine presenting this jurisdictional challenge at arraignment.

Your honor, I challenge your jurisdiction to hear this case. You are obligated under the law to prove your jurisdiction, once challenged, and if you do not prove it sufficiently, I shall challenge it further. In order to eliminate my concerns about jurisdiction, I need to see incontrovertible proof of the following:

• that you and all other officers of and in this court have sworn an oath or otherwise affirmed your agreement to support the Constitution of the USA and of the State of Florida, as required, respectively, by those documents.
• that your oaths include the agreement to support all historical forms of US and State constitutions that have not been specifically repealed by subsequent forms.
• that you and all prosecutors are covered by surety bonds as required by the State Constitution.
• that you have properly filed your personal and campaign financial disclosures, and that they are accurate and current.
• that you did indeed graduate from an accredited college of law.
• that you did indeed pass the bar examination of this state.
• that you are a member in good standing of the bar association of this state.
• that the State Supreme Court has licensed you as an attorney and counselor at law in this state.
• that you have received an appointment by duly constituted authority or been elected to serve as a judge.
• that you have accepted that appointment or elected position in writing.
• that your membership in the bar association, your long time personal relationship with the prosecutor, and the fact that you both work for the state that now opposes me in this case, all of which taken together constitute probable cause of prejudice against me, thereby preventing me from receiving justice in this court, do not constitute prejudice against me or for the state.
• that this is a court of common law, equity, admiralty, or otherwise.
• whether this court operates under Article III of the US Constitution, or under statute pursuant to the US Constitution.
• that this court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case.
• that this court does in fact have territorial jurisdiction over the instant case.
• that the court will say or do nothing to prevent the jury from being made fully aware of its constitutional and historical rights to the following:

• examine and decide on both fact and law in this case,
• determine the applicability of code, public law, case law, or history underpinning the law, to this case,
• acquit in spite of judicial instructions if they believe that is necessary to see justice done,
  question witnesses themselves,
• ask for additional witnesses or discovery,
• overturn what they consider to be bad case law that might be offered as legal evidence
  block any gag order if they believe it is in the public interest to know the events of this trial
• be composed of peers who, if possible, know or know of the defendant - people in his socioeconomic class from the neighborhood of his domicile.
  

Attorney Attestation for Client

Until recently, I thought all the derogatory attorney jokes were just jokes. My recent experiences have shown they aren't jokes at all, and that many attorneys are despicable examples of human beings.

I have decided to fight back against their arrogance and supercilious self-importance.

I have created a little document that I shall require any attorney who represents me to check affirmative boxes and sign BEFORE I pay him or her a penny or give up any information about me.

Read it and let me know what you think.

Bob Hurt

----------------------------------

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION TO CLIENT

I, the undersigned attorney, hereby attest as follows, without any duress or mental reservation:

1. I accept ______________________________ (“Client”) as my law client.

2. I (shall / shall not) do my utmost in the tasks for which Client has retained me, as may be identified by separate agreement, to answer Client’s questions truthfully, aggressively advocate Client’s cause, defend Client’s rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions and laws pursuant thereto, and ensure that my employees and subcontractors fully support me in that effort.

3. I (shall / shall not) keep my agreements with Client, be punctual, and hand over to Client upon Client’s request all originals and copies of information provided to me by Client, including my own notes about Client, other than those that are of public record.

4. I (am / am not) a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

5. I currently (am / am not) licensed by the Florida Supreme Court as an attorney and counselor at law in Florida courts.

6. As a judicial officer, and in accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution Article and Article II Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution Article, I (do / do not) 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.”

7. This attestation (does / does not) supersede all contrary agreements except by specific reference in writing to one or more provisions herein, acknowledged in writing by Client.

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________
Attorney Signature Printed Name or Stamp Date


______________________________ ______________________________ ______________
Witness or Notary Signature Printed Name, Stamp, or Seal Date

Krauthammer's Humanity to Illegal Aliens Costs Inhumanity to Citizens

In his article First the Wall, then Amnesty sensibly advised erecting a wall between the USA and Mexico, but otherwise his proposals fail the commonsense test.

First, just like the people who claimed we were evil or wasting out resources to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, he claims we are evil or wasting resources to eject 11 million illegal aliens. He didn’t’ even mention the moral and possibly legal difficulty of tossing out illegal alien parents of children born in America. He didn’t mention a number of very legitimate reasons to toss Mexican nationals out of the USA.

• Mexico has lost an enormous number of its working-age citizens, as well as the tax revenue those citizens would be providing were they still in Mexico
• Illegal aliens in general pose a tremendous financial and physical burden on our infrastructures that deal with medicine, education, welfare, housing, and criminal justice
• Illegal aliens drive many low-income Americans into welfare and crime because they seriously depress wages resulting from the surplus they impose on our menial labor pool
• Illegal aliens cause factual loss of income tax revenue for USA because so many of them hide their income
• Illegal aliens send a flood of actual USA cash to their impoverished families in Mexico.

In other words, the USA government is doing the job of Mexico’s government, and meanwhile is letting the corrupt Mexican government off the hook. I read one estimate that 40% of Mexico’s labor force has left the country for the USA. If that is true, I cannot think of a better reason either to slam the borders shut and throw out all illegal aliens. Maybe we could solve the problem easier by declaring war on Mexico, disbanding its miserably corrupt government, and depleting the bank accounts of the wealthy land owners in Mexico who keep that corrupt government in power.

The real cause of our problems with Mexico: low IQ and lack of organized utilization of low-IQ people. Mexico’s citizens have a low average IQ - 87, just two points higher than the average IQ of USA blacks. Social science pundits never say anything about that, do they? But note, that when millions upon millions of low-IQ people flood into the USA from Mexico, the USA is thereby importing Mexico’s problems – low-IQ to deteriorate the gene pool, and a corrupt culture that supports and legitimizes a corrupt government.

No government of smart, sane people would declare war on the government of a bunch of stupid people unless forced to by a hostile invasion. All that will do is accelerate the cross pollination and dumbing down of the USA. But let’s be frank. Mexico is invading the USA. And if you have any question as to their hostility, take a look at their incarceration rate. – nearly 3 times the rate of whites, albeit less than half the rate of blacks. But, start throwing Mexicans out of our country and watch how more hostilely they act.

Do you see our dilemma here? We will never eliminate the problem of Mexicans trying to enter the USA so they can feed off the fat of the land and largess of our government. Mexico will never do anything to improve the average IQ of its citizens. So, how much sense does it make for the USA to take on the problem when the USA won’t do anything to improve the average IQ of its citizens. In fact, it seems as though the USA now does everything in its power to guarantee that the average IQ of the land, and its productivity, falls ever lower with every passing day, week, month, year, and decade.

We have only one solution – a huge wall, absolutely slammed shut against any and all immigration from Mexico, including menial labor, guest workers, and so on. Last night I heard a funny suggestion from Bill Maher on HBO – instead of erecting a 1,951-mile WALL, out government should erect a 1,951-mile WAL-MART, right on the border. Mexicans can enter on one side to work in the store, and Americans can enter in the other side to buy goods.

Only isolation and highly selective immigration have any chance of granting our nation some relief. For the next 100 years, the USA should allow only productive, self-sufficient Mexicans with IQ above 125 to enter out country for any reason, including travel, vacation, or work. And, the USA needs to deport ALL illegal aliens, regardless of family circumstances. Illegal aliens who have American children can take those kids with them. Meanwhile, the USA needs to stop granting citizenship to anybody born here. The constitution should allow people to be born citizens of the USA only if at least one parent is a citizen. The law should require all people residing in America for more than 5 years to become citizens within one year or leave the country, regardless of family connections or any other reasons. And it should require all applicants to pass a literacy test and score at least 85 on an IQ test.

Of course, if the USA devises and implements some kind of eugenics program and method of utilizing low-IQ people in an effective and organized way, the nation will suffer far less from immigration from third-world countries.

Unfortunately, political correctness and denial of the realities of IQ make that impossible. So, let’s get that wall up fast and start the exodus of illegals from our land.

As for the wall, Krauthammer advised wisely, but his idea of humanizing our response to the millions of illegals who live here makes no sense, and I want to examine that a bit further than I did above.

Krauthammer writes of humanity to illegal aliens through the hypocrisy of inhumanity to real Americans.

This thinking reflects the disintegration of rational and humane thought brought about by America’s obsession with political correctness. Charles thinks it okay to screw over real Americans so we can let non-Americans enjoy the American Dream which they could have in Mexico if they stood up to their government and demanded it, even through violent revolution if need be.

We see the same corrupt thinking in our welfare laws. Since when should a government feel entitled to steal money from people (just because they happen to have some money) and hand it over to people who don’t have it (for any number of thousands of irrelevant reasons)? Charities hold the responsibility for doling out money they receive from charitable contributions, and Americans have shown the tendency toward greater voluntary charity than any people on earth.

Aside from facing the natural illegitimacy of legal plunder as reflected in our welfare system, we also face the unfairness of the redistribution of wealth. Even if enforced welfare had a legitimate side to it, our welfare system does not ensure that people who receive the money truly need it because of circumstances beyond their control. Redistributors should manage all such redistribution, whether by charity or government, locally, using local agents who know or know of the recipients, and can personally ascertain their worthiness, and deny those of proven unworthiness.

In other words, nobody actually “deserves” a free handout, particularly when the person giving the handout raised the money at gunpoint from an unwilling donor.

Similarly, no Mexican “deserves” any of the following:

• To live in the USA, regardless of the hassle he will face by having to move back to Mexico.
• A job that should belong to anyone of millions of indigent US citizens who should and could get off welfare to take that job.
• A life of free support on our welfare or in our prisons.
• Free medical care in our hospitals.
• To enjoy American citizenship just because they are born here to illegal alien parents who intentionally moved here illegally in order to get that citizenship.
• A free education at the expense of American citizens.

Charles needs to revisit the meaning of humanity and direct it to the millions of impoverished, decrepit American citizens who get the short end of the stick just because so many millions of illegal aliens reside here.

We need to boot those illegal aliens out of this country and keep them out.

Bob

Bob Hurt

How to Destroy or at Least Beat America

Colorado's ex-governor Lamm is reported as having delivered a speech explaining how to destroy America. His tenets included the following:

• Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.
• Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture.
• Celebrate diversity rather than unity.
• Make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated, and add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
• Get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. Invest in ethnic identity, and establish the cult of 'Victimology.' Get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. Start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
• Allow dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. Stress differences rather than similarities.
• Place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' Find a word similar to 'heretic,' like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' to halt discussion and debate.
• Censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia.

Minority groups only want to highlight their differences when laws protect them from oppression by majorities. Then, they often hope to become the majority group so they can oppress everyone else.

Smart people want wealth and power, and who can blame them for grabbing it when they can? If China and North Korea ever ditch their Communist bosses and unite with Japan and Singapore, nothing will be able to stop their rush for the brass ring.

Let's look at just a few advantages China has for a glowing future - the factors:

• Massive manufacturing capacity
• Modernized manufacturing technology
• Well-organized, efficient industries
• Nearly unlimited laborers
• Low wage base throughout most of NE Orient
• High average national IQ (I believe education may be responsible for China’s low 98 IQ)
• Minimal influx of low-IQ people from third world countries
• Strong cultural aversion to Blacks, Non-white Hispanics, and Whites, in that order
• Strong family ties and ability to work harmoniously with one another
• Very low percentage of other racial groups among their populations

Because most Northeastern Orientals rightly consider themselves superior to other races, they are likely to invite none but the best to live and work among them. I consider the feeble Chinese attempt at eugenics (limiting families to two children) as a step in the right direction because it get their people used to the idea that the government ought to have a say in the kinds and numbers of kids they spawn. Some day they’ll be IQ-testing everyone for eugenics purposes, and sterilizing the most inferior and degenerate of their gene pool. When that happens, they will quickly be able to amass such wealth as to enable them to take over the world’s leading industries through acquisitions and mergers.

During the early 80’s I lived in West Germany for nearly 5 years as a computer programmer. I met many academicians and some wealthy Germans. I noticed an attitude of disdain for America among college students and pride in the German way, mixed with envy for America, among business men, and arrogance toward any outsiders among ordinary people who look down their noses at people from neighboring towns who can’t speak their dialect. I concluded that Germans generally still have the same provincial mentality that bred such nationalism as to lead them into two world wars. I also concluded that their societies easily justified feelings of superiority. In general I found them superior to Italians, French, Spanish, and English, with Skandinavians running a close second.

Germans seemed to resent America because of slavery, killing off the Indians, the Hollywoodism of Ronald Reagan (who was president at the time), and so on. In fact, during my years living in Europe, the only pro-American evidence I saw was a sign board in a pedestrian zone in Denmark that read “Keep the US in the UN.” It stood beside an information table manned by members of Lyndon LaRouche’s political action group.

In those days, Germans were trying to figure out how to eject the post WWII Turks from the land. The government offered Turks one-way tickets back to Turkey. The only Blacks I saw in Germany were either American tank soldiers or wealthy asylum seekers from Africa. Germans simply did not want inferior people living in their country. The European Union has changed all that.

Now Western Europe is allowing a flood of third-world immigrants into their lands. On top of that, I read a BBC article a couple of weeks ago about European fears of dwindling population, and the measures the various governments have taken to reverse the trend – heavily taxing single adults, offering incentives for those who have more kids, child care in the workplace, and so on. They seem most concerned not about the dwindling population, but about the dwindling population of their most productive members of society – the white people.

Now Western Europe also faces a crisis of humanity. The viper of political correctness has injected all of their societies with the venom of reluctance to admit the genetic nature of IQ and other civilization-building qualities. So, they will never muster the moral and ethical courage to round up and oust third-world aliens, just as America will not oust interlopers from Mexico.

And, for both continents, that will continue to lay the foundation for economic and civilizational doom.

Since we can’t do anything to prevent it, we might as well say “So what,” and accept our fates. Maybe the genetic melting pot of the USA deserves to lose its pre-eminence to a superior race of people – the yellow race. Steve Sailer might want to believe that biodiversity of America will win out in the end, but he knows that can only be true if its citizenry does not continue its suicidal efforts to fire the bullet of political correctness into its own civilization’s brain.

By the way, here’s something that might interest you on the subject of races. Also, try this and this.

Bob Hurt

Do Illegals Create Jobs?

Uncle Bill (a nomme de plume) wrote:

There is a line of thinking that suggests so good will come from offering citizenship to currently illegal aliens. If they pay their taxes, obey the laws of the land and support their families, we all benefit. If they were required to pay a citizenship tax of say 2% to their families 'back home' for say 20 years, everybody wins. This also creates new jobs which provides revenues.

One additional benefit, this action is more in keeping with a forward progression of social action rather than resorting to elements of a police state.

I respond:

Bill, that is a baloney line of thinking because your big Ifs never materialize. For example, chasing Mexicans down to collect that citizenship tax costs more than the value of the tax.

Remember 1986? Our daffy duck congress legitimized 3 million illegal Mexicans then. Now, twenty years later their offspring, amounting to another 6 million Mexican-
“Americans” may vote. For whom do you think they will cast their ballots? Bush thinks he must pander to them out of fear that they otherwise will vote mostly for Democrats. That means both the Democrats and the Republicans have lost their minds and are pandering to Mexicans.

Mexicans don’t create jobs. They take jobs that 60 million other low-IQ Americans should have, and meanwhile, they lower the average wages of labor and servant class people, thereby diminishing the per-capita tax base. Our governments incarcerate Mexicans at nearly 3 times the rate of Caucasians. Considering that a result of the inability of Mexicans to speak English properly, integrate into the productive cut of American society, and effectively solve problems (because of their a low average IQ and corrupt cultural backgrounds), you might rightly conjecture that Mexicans have 5 to 10 times the likelihood of Caucasians to require welfare or commit crimes in order to get by. Their presence deteriorates our gene pool and reduces our national productivity. At least 45% of them don’t have the mental abilities needed to allow them to graduate from high school. Being barely more able than our nation’s Blacks to compete for the better jobs, many have no choice but to resort to crime and / or welfare.

Supporting such people costs much more than the benefits they give our society. They impose an enormous burden on our systems of welfare, medicine, education, and criminal justice. Allowing them to flood into and remain in our nation constitutes civilizational insanity.

We do not demonstrate a police state nature by throwing them out. We demonstrate a lawless and socially suicidal nature by allowing them to enter and remain. Letting them stay here might allow them some forward social progress, but it will certainly deteriorate America in the process, just as it already has.

# # #

Prager Confused about Low Jobless Rate

Prager's article about the low jobless rate (below) is good, but it misses the point. People have to work because their savings have disintegrated and their paychecks have dropped in value as a result of our corrupt congress’s hidden tax – inflation, and because our president refuses to lop off OPEC’s balls.

I have written for several years about the manner in which oil became the de facto backing for our currency, and you have seen some of those articles on your list, so I won’t rehash that now.

Here’s the upshot: when Saddam and Hugo began selling oil for Euros in 1999, the worldwide demand for US dollars plummeted, thereby devaluing the dollar. That combined with our staggering annual budget deficits to make our currency ever less valuable as the days roll by. If you don’t believe me, look at the price of gasoline. Expect it to hit $4 to $5 per gallon within a year. The collapse of the US dollar is in full bloom, right before our eyes, this very day.

Runaway deficit spending by the government always gives the apparency of plenty of money to go around. Employers can hire now because they know the dollars they pay their employees will drop in value fairly quickly, making the employees cheaper to have as months roll on. People know intuitively that they must buy houses NOW (if they can find fixed rate mortgages) because the house payments drop in value as inflation soars to double digits, even out of the teens.

Sure the economy is booming and employment is low. This is one of the best times in America’s history to mortgage yourself to the hilt and buy everything you can on credit.

Take my advice and buy precious metals or real estate. And if you work for a living, start demanding a bigger paycheck (low unemployment means your boss will have a harder time replacing you). Do anything you can to get rid of your increasingly less worthful dollars by exchanging them for something of intrinsic value.

By the way, if America contained no illegal aliens, it might enjoy a jobless of only 2%, and wages would hit all-time highs. Dennis Prager doesn’t seem to have a clue about the negative impact of illegal aliens on our country, and on Europe. He fails to mention of the main reasons for Europe’s failing socialism: the rate of immigration of low-IQ or criminal people from third world countries since the formation of the European Union and the dropping of border controls between the countries of Western Europe. Europe now receives floods of illegal immigrants from Africa and the Mideast, just as the USA does from Mexico.

Do you see the real issue here? We’re not talking about the mystery of the unemployment rate. We’re talking about the factors that KILL civilizations. Civilizations either grow or they die. It’s that simple. When we see illegal aliens streaming into the USA from Mexico or into Europe from Africa, we don’t see an enlightened civilization helping an unenlightened one. We see members of a depraved civilization wittingly (in the case of Muslims terrorists) or unwittingly (in the case of people looking for a better life) working to KILL an enlightened civilization by importing to it their corrupt cultures and gene pools. And we really shouldn’t care whether such interlopers do it wittingly or not. When somebody tries to kill that which you hold dear, you’d better take it seriously and do something to stop it dead in its tracks.

Before I get to the point of how to stop efforts to kill our enlightened civilizations, I want to address the problems of socialism. Philosophers devised socialism (government control of the means of production) in an effort to reconcile their consciences with the reality of mixed gene type pools in a society. It’s hard to see inferior people struggle to get by and not feel some pangs of conscience. Socialism intends to help those people. Unfortunately, such philosophers didn’t give much thought merely to moving the unproductive people outside of their society. Socialism depends upon the notion that at least some percentage of the population produces enough to feed those who can’t care for themselves. Thus, socialism like that of Europe, can only work if a huge percentage of the population produces high-value work. What big clues to this reality do you have? Consider these:

1. The USA’s social infrastructures are swamped by illegal aliens and low-IQ people. The government cannot pay for social security, Medicare, Medicade, and all of the entitlement programs because the nation contains too many indigent, incarcerated, and non-productive people.
2. Mexico – the reason low IQ people stream across the border: Mexico’s welfare system sucks.
3. Sub-Saharan Africa – the reason so many Africans stream into Europe: African nations offer no welfare systems.

You see? The dwindling spiral of socialism works like this:

• The more personal liberties people have,
• The more the government spends what it does not have,
• The higher the incentive to retain wealth,
• The fewer the wealthy procreate,
• The more the indigent procreate,
• The more politicians pander to the indigent and stupid,
• The lower the average national IQ,
• The lower the productivity,
• The poorer the people,
• The lower the value of their work product,
• The lower the tax base,
• The less money available for socialist projects (like welfare checks, free medical care, free housing, food stamps),
• The higher the crime rate for non-productive people,
• The greater the loss of life and property for productive people,
• The greater the infrastructure costs (prisons, medicine), and
• The more people want to leave the land for a better life (and a free ride or socialist safety net) elsewhere.

I say it’s time to stop pussy-footing and dancing around this issue. It's time to stop conjecturing wildly about what scheme of social tolerance might or might not be the problem or solution. Our world has only two possible ways to terminate this horrible death-spiral of civilization:

1. Eugenics programs to reduce the percentage of low-IQ people in the world’s population (yes, we need a form of benign genocide).
2. Government mandated organization of all indigent, criminal, and low IQ people for controlled menial labor in both private and public enterprise.

Until then, we should throw every possible illegal alien out of our country, and slam the door against the entry of any more low-IQ people. Why? Because they are KILLING our civilization.

# # #

---

Why the low jobless rate challenges Left and Right
Apr 11, 2006
by Dennis Prager

The latest jobless rate -- 4.7 percent -- is at a
five-year low.

Yet, despite this and other good economic news, the
Left is frantic to repeal the Bush administration's
tax cuts. In fact, even if every single economic
indicator were better than at any time in American
history, the Left would still want to repeal the tax
cuts.

The reason is that the essence of the Left is ever
bigger government for the purpose of controlling ever
more of the economic and social life of society. That
America is so much more economically efficient than
the major socialist countries of Europe, such as
France and Germany, is of no concern to Democrats and
others on the Left.

Even a child would readily understand that the more
of their money citizens are allowed to keep, the more
money they will spend and the more workers they will
hire. But liberals want high taxes not in order to
improve the economy, but in order to expand government
and reduce economic inequality. Therefore, the obvious
economic benefits of lower taxes do not much interest
liberals.

The socialist economies of the major European
countries are failing -- the French and German
economies are stalled, and the entire socialist system
is unsustainable -- but this, too, has no impact on
the Left in America. The future they want for America
has actually been tried in fellow Western democracies
and is failing. To invert the famous statement of
Westerners who praised communism, "We have seen the
future and it doesn't work." One wonders if ever
before in history such a large number of people had
such a clear view of the consequences of their
policies, and despite the failure of those policies,
continued to devote their lives to enacting them.

And the Left thinks religious Americans are
irrational.

That is why the language of liberal condemnation of
tax cuts is that they are "tax cuts for the rich"
rather than that they are "bad for the economy." It is
resentment of the wealthier -- and most productive --
sector of America that animates liberal opposition to
tax cuts, not concern about unemployment.

But the unemployment data not only challenge the
Left. The record low jobless rate also challenges a
widely held belief of many on the right -- that
illegal immigrants have been taking jobs away from
Americans.

There are excellent reasons to be concerned about the
vast number of illegal immigrants in our society. But
their taking jobs from Americans is not one of them.
If we have historically low unemployment rates while
at least 11 million illegal immigrants are here, how
many jobs have these people really taken away from
Americans? What would our unemployment rate be if we
had no illegal workers here? One percent? And wouldn't
our inflation rate be higher without millions of
people working at such low wages helping to keep
consumer prices low?

It must be emphasized that while just about everyone
on the left is opposed to what they describe as "tax
cuts for the rich," many on the right do not argue
that illegal immigrants have taken jobs away from
Americans. But an energetic segment of the Right does.


And they do so despite what the conservative
Washington Times reports: "The economy appears to have
achieved what analysts call 'full employment' -- a
state where nearly every worker who wants a job can
get one fairly easily."

How, then, does the whole Left and a significant part
of the Right argue things that just aren't so -- that
tax cuts are bad for the nation and that illegal
immigrants have taken millions of jobs from Americans?


The answer is that passion often trumps reason. The
Left is passionate about inequality and ever larger
government. And the Right is passionate about America
remaining American.

I share the Right's passion and agree with the
conservative voices that argue for (1) building a
fence to prevent millions more from illegally entering
America, (2) creating a national ID card, (3) making
English the official language of the United States
(thereby ending, for example, ballots being printed in
myriad languages), and (4) ensuring that American
schools Americanize foreigners rather than celebrate
multiculturalism (if all cultures were equally
wonderful, millions of Mexicans wouldn't be leaving
theirs to live in ours).

But those of us who are very worried about the demise
of American national unity, identity and security need
to argue about those things, not about illegal
immigrants taking millions of jobs from Americans.

And those on the left need to cheer the unemployment
data. But they can't do that until they love the low
unemployment figures even more than they hate George
Bush and his tax cuts.

Dennis Prager is a radio talk show host, author, and
contributing columnist for Townhall.com.

No Immigration Solutions from Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a good economist, gifted writer, and clear thinker, but as his Immigration Solutions article shows, he's woefully short on solutions.

Sowell pointed out the obvious realities about immigration and the demonstrations, plus the efforts of organizers to keep Mexican culture separate from mainstream American culture so as to manipulate it as a political tool and voting block. Numerous other pundits have made these same points. Then he went on to say, effectively that we might as well kiss your dreams of America good-bye, because Congress is going to push through the president’s phony substitute for amnesty that will end up being amnesty anyway. That seems to me like an under-the-table way of gloating over the joke of the Senate’s effete immigration reform efforts.

But, what does Sowell claim as his real position on this issue?

Well, he seems kind of Americanist, doesn’t he? But he actually adopts NO position, and proposes NO solution, in spite of the misleading title of his article: Imigrant “solutions”. In my opinion, Sowell should not have bothered to come into the office to write that article.

Why should I expect better from him? Sowell serves as a kind of pedagogical, quasi-conservative, sub-rosa apologist for American Blacks. For example, in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals he asserted, as Steve Sailer pointed out, that Blacks have absorbed too much self-defeating culture of poor Southern whites.

Yeah, sure. Southern White trash made Blacks invent disgusting jailhouse poetry called rap, refuse to speak proper English, impose nearly 8 times the incarceration rate of Caucasians on America’s criminal justice system, commit 3 times more violent crimes than Caucasians, commit crimes at more than double the rate of non-White Hispanics, fail massively (50%) to graduate from high school, and fail massively (70%) to provide live-at-home fathers their children. That’s the fault of Southern White trash? I don’t think so. That’s Africa, right here in America. And, since most American Blacks have enjoyed zero direct influence from modern-day Africa, we can only conclude that most of their problems have a genetic cause.

Sowell seems unaware of the number Blacks populating America’s inner cities who have never experienced a self-defeating Southern white culture, and in fact who seem to loathe and do their very best to avoid any semblance of absorbing the best white culture has to offer. For some strange reason, Sowell refuses to admit that the decrepit general condition of African-Americans comes more from their African genetic endowment and cultural heritage than from American culture. He seems to think American Blacks’ African characteristics contributed nothing to their problems.

In spite of his stature and pedagogical manner, Sowell still wants to “blame Whitey.”

He also seems powerfully reluctant to analyze situations to their logical conclusions.

For example, he refuses to discuss low IQ, low value of production, and corrupt homeland cultures as the root of America’s immigrant problems. Those seem to me to be the lowest common denominator of both Ibero-America and Sub-Saharan Africa. In general, the countries whose natives suffer most miserably in the world today have large low-IQ, low-productivity populations, and corrupt governments. For some clues about this, refer to the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, as well as La Griffe du Lion’s incisive statistical analyses of the matter here and here.

What else should we expect when the average IQ of America’s Blacks and Mexicans average nearly a full standard deviation lower than America’s Caucasians? Bottom line, third world immigrants cause problems for America because they are not very smart, and not very productive, and that allows crooked politicians to pander to them effectively, just as we see today in the USA. Stupid people result in low GDP and corrupt government. Sowell should have pointed this out in his analysis.

Furthermore, Sowell generally shows little aptitude for proposing workable solutions to problems. The subject article provides a striking example.

You won’t find that problem in my writing. I always try to propose sensible solutions. For example, try this proposal: when it comes to immigration issues, you’d be far better off subscribing to this source of information, rather than to Thomas Sowell’s do-nothing analyses.

We cannot get rid of the 65+ million American citizens who have IQs below 85, and cannot even graduate from high school. We will have to deal with that the best we can, and just suffer through it while they procreate in record numbers. However, we can do something to prevent millions upon millions of low-IQ Ibero-American illegal immigrants from joining their ranks. My solution to the illegal immigrant problem begins with this:

1. Round up and deport all of them, and don’t bother apologizing for it because they won’t appreciate it or understand it.
2. Slam the door shut on further immigration of low-achievement, low-IQ people from third world countries, especially from Africa and Ibero-America.

Yes, I know Sowell is less fractious than I, but then he sells his articles, doesn’t he? They must appeal to his black, Jewish, and liberal supporters, and to his family, or he’ll catch all kinds of hell, and they’ll call him an Uncle Tom the way they do Bill Cosby. That’s why his essays are so namby-pamby when it comes to solutions. As you know, I am not similarly hamstrung.

# # #

Guitar Picker Blues and Bringing the Dead Pinky to Life

I bought a klunker guitar from John Proios, my guitar buddy, so I could carry it around without a case and not worry about damage. It’s in the case while my Ramirez Flamenco sits on its little store-stand, just daring me to pick it up every time I walk by. I plan to buy a cardboard box for the klunker and send it to Carla, my ex wife Cheryl’s sister who put me up and gave me TLC while I was in Virginia for my son Robbie’s funeral back in October or whenever. Carla always had a crush on me, and probably still does, but seems to have sworn off men and sworn an oath to celibacy, poor woman. I should have married her instead of her sister way back when, but she was only 12 and I couldn’t wait.

And, I did pick up the Ramirez today, and spent an hour and a half stroking its sonorous strings, the base of which are silver-coated bronze wrapped around a composite fiber core so they don’t lose tuning. They’re new, so I’ve been tweaking them for the past few days, and they sound brilliant.

Speaking of stroking, I feel as though I’ve been hit with a stroke. The little fingers of both hands turn spastic on me when I try to play guitar with them. I’ve neglected most activities with them most of my life, so they are not as flexible and accurate as the others. That means I might as well have been hit with a stroke for all the good they do. I am going through something remotely similar to what a stroke victim goes through, trying to build neural pathways between my thoughts and my pinky fingers.

I once thought I could go a whole lifetime without ever really needing my right pinky, the one I stroke the strings with. Then I ran across the music of Heitor Villa Lobos, a Brazilian composer who died of lung cancer in 1959. Several years before he died, he wrote twelve Etudes, so called because each one demonstrates a different kind of mastery one must achieve in order to play it correctly.

Etude 1 became my challenge when I heard it. I plan to learn it, and I practiced on it today. Basically, it requires a kind of arpeggio plucking pattern while holding chords down with the left hand, and it has a haunting appeal to it.

Most arpeggios require TIMAMI – thumb-index-middle-annular(ring)-middle-index, or something like that, played quickly, and each finger plucks a different string. I can do that fairly easily. Why? Because I’m plucking only 4 stirings.

Etud 1’s arpeggio, however, requires you to pluck all 6 strings, and not in purely sequential order. The pattern: TITMIAMLALMAIMTI. I can’t even say it, let alone play it. And notice the Ls in the sequence? That’s the little finger, the pinky, the one I use only for boogers and ear wax.

The arpeggio calls upon it only twice, and it might as well call upon me to put my pinky toe on the string. I have to look at my pinky finger and will it to move independently of all other fingers, then watch it like it’s a stubborn, recalcitrant child to make sure it lands on that string and plucks it clearly.

A couple of weeks ago I got sick of my fingernails breaking, so I went to the Vietnamese nail salon outside my community and got the nails “wrapped” on my right hand fingers. The little man dipped his brush into a solvent, then into a powder, and daubed it on my fingernails, then smoothed it out. They dried fairly quickly and he sanded them down with his Dremel tool. No, he didn’t paint them. Now I have long, strong nails, particularly the pinky nail. So, now at least I have something on that pinky with which to pluck the string.

After an hour and a half of drudgery, the pinky began to do its job. I figure I’ll have to spend 20 or 30 hours of practice just to play Etude 1 smoothly, and another 20 to 30 hours to play it fast. Imagine spending a solid week, 10 hours a day, learning to play one little tune. Oh, well, it’s a beautiful piece and I’ll be proud of myself if I actually stick to it. We’ll see.

While I was doing all that boring practice, Maria lay quietly on the futon in the other room and watched TV, letting her mind drift to the tones coming from my Ramirez. She loves the sound of that instrument. So do I.

What We Should Say to Oligarchies that Abuse Us

How does one nation say something like the below to another?

“You have violated our rights and we don’t like it. We do not like your hostile rhetoric and financial support to terrorists who intend to kill us. We believe your national behavior has resulted from your oligarchy government. We’re going to give you 2 years to change it into something more benign, not only to outsiders, but also to your own people.

“If you don’t do it in that time frame, we’re going to declare war upon your country, destroy your military forces, remove and exterminate your bad leadership, install a government of our choosing, and nationalize your natural resources to pay the cost of policing and transforming your nation into something more suitable for a modern, peaceful world. Most likely our forces will occupy your country for the next hundred years or so, and millions of your people will die in the associated fighting. We shall impose a eugenics program that will eliminate the most inferior and troublesome elements from your gene pool. We shall destroy all institutions that teach it is good to kill others or destroy their property, even if those are religious institutions. We shall imprison and execute all religious and secular leaders that advocate any kind of oppression or violence to further an ideology. We shall ruthlessly hunt down and execute all who oppose us, including their immediate families. We shall hunt down and capture all financial assets of your nation’s wealthiest families, even if those assets sit in secret Swiss bank accounts. And we shall make you pay the entire cost of our subjugation and occupation efforts, even if it takes you a thousand years.

“During the next two years, we shall monitor your activities, and we shall undermine and destroy any and every effort of yours to support entities hostile to our nation, our people, and our property. We shall in the middle of the night lob destructive bombs at targets we deem deserving, and as we see fit we shall destroy your military capability, assassinate your leaders, foment civil war, freeze your assets, disrupt your infrastructures, and impose embargos and other oppressive conditions on you, as we must to minimize your threat to our security. That’s before we invade your land and take full control of it.

“If you prefer a more enjoyable solution, you may petition for our help right now, and promise to abide by certain rules of relationship. In exchange, we shall send our advisors into your country to help you gather data and analyze what you can do to bring your nation peaceably and lawfully into the modern era, and then we will help you implement it. You will pay for this service, but you will eventually see it as the cheapest of all options available to you, certainly much cheaper than the terrible loss of life and property if we harass and invade you.

“Here’s a proposed constitution and bill of rights for your new limited constitutional republic. We patterned it somewhat after ours, taking into consideration your country’s history and social customs. Look it over and think about our proposal. Get back to us in one month with your decision. We will interpret no answer as a “no” answer, and we shall respond accordingly. You will not get a second chance.”

I believe America must help people governed by primitive oligarchies exercise responsibility for their own governments. Look at the relationship between the USA and Mexico for an example. They manage self-government pretty well, given the average IQ of their nation, and at least they have pretty much learned not send full-scale military invasion forces into the USA. Other primitive peoples can learn the same, particularly if our advisors hang around to help them.

I believe the most significant way to help primitive countries is to provide them with contracts to provide goods and services to the USA, and make it possible for them to manufacture or do R&D work under contract for USA companies and the government. This will force higher quality, broader education upon the land, and that will result in an increase in the wage base and standard of living. Whenever people feel free to pursue business interests, they work to support a government that prevents others from destroying their business.

We cannot approach such a significant help level without having boots on the ground to eliminate insurrection and terrorism.

I feel profound disappointment over Bush’s refusal to do anything effective to eliminate Afghanistan’s opium production. They have been delivering about 5000 tons of opium a year to international illegal drug markets, and none of the money they receive goes into government coffers. If it did, the USA would have to wage war against the government it just installed. Our military should destroy the opium business in Afghanistan and work with our industrialists to set up factories and international agriculture operations there. Afghanistan contains plenty of people who can work in factories, and their wage base is probably sufficiently low to allow them to be competitive in textiles and other labor-intensive operations. The president is strangely silent about this. I wonder why.