HERE’S WHY FLORIDA’S PUBLIC OFFICERS CAN IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONS

Note: Please email/mail this to Florida legislators, Florida judges, the Florida Governor, news media, and political activists who want government to obey and operate within the constraints of the US Constitution and US Law.

Why to remove “and Government” from Florida Loyalty Oaths IMMEDIATELY

Dear Florida Public Officer:

The Florida Constitution contains text in the Public Officer Oath that violates US Law and the US Constitution (see below). That text needs to be removed.

Specifically, the US Law and US Constitution require public officers of the US and State governments to swear to support the Constitutions (not the Governments) of the US and Florida. However, Florida’s Constitution requires public officers to swear to support BOTH the Constitution and Government of the US and of Florida.

This is a remnant of the strict control the US Congress took of the Governments of the Confederate States of America after the Civil War. The words “and Government” first appeared in the oath text within Florida’s Constitution of 1868 (Article XVI Section 10). For more information see this article:
https://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2021/12/why-fl-officers-loyal-to-government.html

This causes a dilemma when public officers make decisions and take actions that violate the constitutions, such as allowing unrestricted invasion by illegal aliens into our land, or requiring people to accept an experimental vaccination. Florida’s public officers bind themselves by oath to support Government (particularly the people running Government) and thereby to support its unconstitutional illegal edicts and activities. See a smattering of proof of unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, laws that public officers created and enforced here:
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

AXIOM

One cannot remain loyal to the Constitution while loyal to a Government employee (such as a public officer) operating in breach of the constitution. And many, if not most, public officers operate in breach of the constitutions from time to time, sometimes with horrible and enduring consequences.

Note that loyalty to government over the constitution changes the form of government from a Republic to an oligarchy, and the US Constitution guarantees states a Republican form of government, as shown below.

YOUR ACTION REQUIRED

If it bothers you that one cannot remain loyal to the constitution while loyal to Government (such as a public officer in breach of the Constitution), get the words “and Government” stricken from the Florida Constitution’s public officer oath, for they violate both US law and the US Constitution, as shown below.

Check out the provisions of US Constitution and law below to see proof that Florida’s Constitution and law violates them. I have highlighted the words “and Government” in the offending text. In particular, remove those words from FL Statute 350.05, the Florida public officer oath form, and the Florida Constitution Article II Section 5b.

Sincerely,

— Originally authored on 2/2/22 by…

US Constitution

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VI, clause 3

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.

United States Code

4 USC § 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers

Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

Florida Constitution Article II. SECTION 5. Public officers.—

(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 Constitutionand Governmentof 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.

Florida Oath Form

See the Florida Public Officer oath of office form as of Feb 2022:

Click to access dsde56-oath-acceptance-feb-2020.pdf

Excerpt:

Florida Loyalty Oath Laws

99.021 Form of candidate oath. (Candidates)—

(1)(a)1. Each candidate, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to any office other than a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or a federal office, shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A copy of the oath or affirmation shall be made available to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:

Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared (please print name as you wish it to appear on the ballot) , to me well known, who, being sworn, says that he or she is a candidate for the office of ; that he or she is a qualified elector of County, Florida; that he or she is qualified under the Constitution and the laws of Florida to hold the office to which he or she desires to be nominated or elected; that he or she has qualified for no other public office in the state, the term of which office or any part thereof runs concurrent with that of the office he or she seeks; that he or she has resigned from any office from which he or she is required to resign pursuant to s. 99.012, Florida Statutes; and that he or she will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida.

105.031 Qualification; filing fee; candidate’s oath; items required to be filed. (Non-Partisan Candidates)—

(4) CANDIDATE’S OATH.—
(a) All candidates for the office of school board member shall subscribe to the oath as prescribed in s. 99.021.
(b) All candidates for judicial office shall subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing to be filed with the appropriate qualifying officer upon qualifying. A printed copy of the oath or affirmation shall be furnished to the candidate by the qualifying officer and shall be in substantially the following form:

Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared (please print name as you wish it to appear on the ballot) , to me well known, who, being sworn, says he or she: is a candidate for the judicial office of ; that his or her legal residence is County, Florida; that he or she is a qualified elector of the state and of the territorial jurisdiction of the court to which he or she seeks election; that he or she is qualified under the constitution and laws of Florida to hold the judicial office to which he or she desires to be elected or in which he or she desires to be retained; that he or she has qualified for no other public office in the state, the term of which office or any part thereof runs concurrent to the office he or she seeks; that he or she has resigned from any office which he or she is required to resign pursuant to s. 99.012, Florida Statutes; and that he or she will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida.

350.05 Oath of office.— (Public Service Commission)

Before entering upon the duties of his or her office each commissioner shall subscribe to the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitutionand Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state, and that I will well and faithfully perform at all times the duties of Florida Public Service Commissioner, on which I am now about to enter in a professional, independent, objective, and nonpartisan manner; that I do not have any financial, employment, or business interest which is prohibited by chapter 350, Florida Statutes; and that I will abide by the standards of conduct required of me by chapters 112 and 350, Florida Statutes, so help me God.” In case any commissioner should in any way become disqualified, he or she shall at once remove such disqualification or resign, and upon his or her failure to do so, he or she shall be suspended from office by the Governor and dealt with as provided by law.

876.05 Public employees; oath.—

(1) All persons who now or hereafter are employed by or who now or hereafter are on the payroll of the state, or any of its departments and agencies, subdivisions, counties, cities, school boards and districts of the free public school system of the state or counties, or institutions of higher learning, except candidates for federal office, are required to take an oath before any person duly authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments for public record in the state in the following form:
I, , a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.

(2) Said oath shall be filed with the records of the governing official or employing governmental agency prior to the approval of any voucher for the payment of salary, expenses, or other compensation.

11.9336 Oath. (Delegates to Constitutional Convention)—

Each delegate and alternate delegate shall, before exercising any function of the position, execute an oath in the state and in writing that the delegate or alternate delegate will:
(1) Support the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution.
(2) Faithfully abide by and execute any instructions to delegates and alternate delegates adopted by the Legislature.
(3) Otherwise faithfully discharge the duties of a delegate or alternate delegate.

# # #

Remove 2 Words from Oath

Strike These Words from Florida’s Public Officer Oath?

Introduction

The Florida Constitution contains text in the Public Officer Oath that violates US Law and the US Constitution. That text needs to be removed.

Specifically, the US Law and US Constitution require public officers of the US and State governments to swear to support the Constitution. But, Florida’s Constitution requires public officers to swear to support BOTH the Constitutions and Governments of the US and Florida.

AXIOM

One cannot remain loyal to the Constitution while loyal to a public officer in breach of the constitution. And most public officers operate in breach of the constitutions from time to time, sometimes with horrible and enduring consequences.

Question

SO, do the words “and Government” in Florida’s Public Officer Oath bother you? Check out the provisions of law and constitution below to see proof that Florida’s Constitution violates them.

Florida Constitution

(i) Article II General Provisions. SECTION 5. Public officers.—

(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.

Florida Oath Form

See the Florida Public Officer oath of office form as of Dec 2021:

Click to access dsde56-oath-acceptance-feb-2020.pdf

US Constitution

Article IV, Section 4

Article VI, clause 3

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.

United States Code

4 USC § 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers

YOUR ACTION REQUIRED

If it bothers you that one cannot remain loyal to the constitution while loyal to Government (such as a public officer in breach of the Constitution), get the words “and Government” stricken from the Florida Constitution’s public officer oath, for they violate both US law and the US Constitution, as shown above.

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, , regarding the following:

Bob Hurt

Kyle Rittenhouse—Hero And Martyr https://[object 0]

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.

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

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

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.

Tax/Financial Scammer Winston Shrout Nabbed and Headed for Prison

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fugitive-and-tax-fraud-promoter-captured-and-set-serve-his-10-year-prison-sentence
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

Attorney Professional Conduct

The below links guide attorney behavior. The Court can sanction lawyers who violate the rules of professional conduct.

4-3. ADVOCATE

RULE 4-3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

RULE 4-3.2 EXPEDITING LITIGATION A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

RULE 4-3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; RRTFB September 19, 2019 (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (b) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. (c) Ex Parte Proceedings. In an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. (d) Extent of Lawyer’s Duties. The duties stated in this rule continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6.

RULE 4-3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL A lawyer must not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding; nor counsel or assist another person to do any such act; (b) fabricate evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness, except a lawyer may pay a witness reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending or testifying at proceedings; a reasonable, noncontingent fee for professional services of an expert witness; and reasonable compensation to a witness for the time spent preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings; (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; (e) in trial, state a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness unless the statement is authorized by current rule or case law, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused; (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a RRTFB September 19, 2019 client, and it is reasonable to believe that the person’s interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information; (g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter; or (h) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present disciplinary charges under these rules solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.

RULE 4-3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL (a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other decision maker except as permitted by law or the rules of court. (b) Communication with Judge or Official. In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending except: (1) in the course of the official proceeding in the cause; (2) in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to the opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; (3) orally upon notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; or (4) as otherwise authorized by law. (c) Disruption of Tribunal. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. (d) Communication With Jurors. A lawyer shall not: (1) before the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with anyone the lawyer knows to be a member of the venire from which the jury will be selected; (2) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with any member of the jury; (3) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is not connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with a juror concerning the case; (4) after dismissal of the jury in a case with which the lawyer is connected, initiate communication with or cause another to initiate communication with any juror regarding the trial except to determine whether the verdict may be subject to legal challenge; provided, a lawyer may not interview jurors for this purpose unless the lawyer has reason to believe that grounds for such challenge may exist; and provided further, before conducting any such interview the lawyer must file in the cause a notice of intention to interview setting forth the name of the juror or jurors to be interviewed. A copy of the notice must be delivered to the trial judge and opposing counsel a reasonable time before such interview. The provisions of this rule do not prohibit a lawyer from communicating with members of the venire or jurors in the course of official proceedings or as authorized by court rule or written order of the court.

RULE 4-3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY (a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding. (b) Statements of Third Parties. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

RULE 4-3.7 LAWYER AS WITNESS (a) When Lawyer May Testify. A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client unless: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony; (3) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (4) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. (b) Other Members of Law Firm as Witnesses. A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 4-1.7 or 4-1.9.

RULE 4-3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (b) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial rights such as a right to a preliminary hearing; (c) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating RRTFB September 19, 2019 information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.

Statutory Construction, Juries, and Staying Out of Trouble (rev. 1)

Why Patriots Get Into Legal Trouble

Patriots often make huge mistakes in their estimation of the meaning and applicability of laws of any and all kind, from the Constitutions of the US and States, through the statutes of legislatures, to administrative rules. As a consequence, they run afoul of government and find themselves in trouble. Many of their errors come from not knowing the rules of statutory construction and interpretation while thinking that they have perfect ability to read and comprehend. Many suffer from cognitive delusion, overestimating their own ability and underestimating the ability of law makers and jurists.

I have provided four links in item 1 below to an education on the rules of statutory construction/interpretation, the item 2 link to a Florida Bar Journal on Florida Common Law Jurisprudence. I encourage all with an interest in law to read the articles at those links, and to use the other links for reference.

A CASE IN POINT – COMMON LAW / CITIZEN GRAND JURIES.

A few years ago, a court in Dixie County Florida sentenced septuagenarian Terry Trussell to over 8 years in prison for simulated service of process – serving a Citizen Grand Jury indictment to the local sheriff.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Bob Hurt <bob> wrote:

Terry Trussell just got sentenced to 105 months in prison for his citizens grand jury actions, which the government and a jury of 6 considered crimes.

Trussell and his enablers and supporters believed that they had the right, descended from the Magna Carta, to form a common law grand jury to petition for redress and do the job that the real grand jury would not do, and thus to operate the common law grand jury outside the control of the Chief Judge of the Circuit. Trussell learned the hard way that no such right exists. He died in prison.

The US and Florida Constitutions acknowledge the power of, but do not specifically authorize grand juries. Yet, grand juries have been connected to courts throughout their history in English and American law. Chapter 905 of the Florida Statutes delineate the powers and duties of Florida grand juries. Florida Statute 2.01, one of the first laws enacted by the Florida Legislature, provides this:

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

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

The foregoing make it crystal clear that Florida Statutes Chapter 905 supersedes corresponding provision of English statute and common laws regarding grand juries. Thus, Florida law, by providing for formal grand juries, excludes and disallows a separate, spurious “common law grand jury” or “citizen grand jury” put together by people of a local community. A basic grasp of the rules of statutory construction would have made this clear, had Trussell studied them.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT CROOKED GOVERNMENT

If the citizenry feels the spunk to create their own grand juries outside the reach of the courts and the prosecutors, then they ought to feel spunky enough to do it right.

DO NOT listen to your all-knowing chums, for they will get you in trouble.
Beware of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (see link below) in yourself or your advisors.
Start by finding and reading law related to the issue.
Continue by finding binding appellate court opinions regarding the issue.
Call your county’s Bar association, get a referral to an attorney competent in your area of concern, then pay the attorney his hourly rate for a written opinion regarding your rights/powers in the issue. If you act according to the opinion and get hauled before the court, you can show the judge that you followed the opinion of an expert in the law and therefore did not intend to commit a crime.
File a declaratory judgment lawsuit asking the court to declare your rights/powers in the issue, then behave accordingly.

Had Terry Trussell and his compatriots followed the above commonsense procedure, they would have long abandoned their dreams of a common law grand jury. The would have realized that they should use the political process for improving Florida’s grand jury system.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT YOUR DUNNING-KRUGER PATRIOT MYTH MONGER FRIENDS

Patriot Myth Mongers typically suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, grandly overestimating their competence in law, history, litigation practice, government, etc. Many are scammers who sell their cockamamie legal theories via books, memberships, and lectures. And many truth-hungry patriots waste time, attention, and money on frivolity, nonsense, and “cow plop” disguised as legal truth. See Problems for examples.

If you were to ask me what to do about them, I’d tell you to disconnect from them and put much distance between you and them because associating with them or following their teachings will get you in trouble and make you look like an idiot.

FIXING THE JURY SYSTEM

Florida’s early constitutions permitted private right to prosecute criminal defendants, acknowledged the power of petite juries to judge both fact and law, and acknowledged the power of grand juries to investigate all felony crimes.

After the Civil War era, Florida’s constitutions gave prosecution rights only to State Attorneys, and acknowledged the power of petite juries to judge only the facts, but not the law, and of grand juries to investigate capitol crimes.

State officials have taken those changes to mean petite juries may determine only the facts of a case, with judges determining the law, and grand juries may investigate only capitol crimes (albeit the related statute 905.20 permits grand jurors to investigate any offense of which they have knowledge within the county).

I have theorized that the foregoing changes occurred because the 15th Amendment gave Negroes the right to vote, which meant Negro men would sit on juries, and that meant the Negro jurors would automatically vote for Negro defendants and against Caucasian defendants because of their inherent racial prejudice, and naturally, Negroes would jump at any chance to prosecute Caucasians for any imagined offense. In other words, sitting on juries would give Negroes a way finally to get even with Caucasians for mistreatment during and since slavery. I believe this put fear into the minds of the Caucasian men in government that Negro jurors would turn trials into a laughing stock, so they intentionally stripped juries of important powers.

The people of the land can use the political process to restore full jury powers – to eliminate judicial and prosecutor interference in grand jury proceedings, to allow private prosecution, to allow the citizenry to present evidence of crimes to grand juries, and to let petite juries judge both law and fact.

Culling and Training of Prospective Jurors

People of good sense in government intuitively know that the citizenry has a huge responsibility to gain the knowledge necessary to understand the ideals of good government and the importance of an educated, intelligent electorate to the advancement of good government and civilization.

Unfortunately the USA population includes about 80 million people too stupid to graduate from high school, many of whom have the right to vote. Axiomatically, the vast majority of them, and many millions nearly as stupid as them, will make stupid choices at the polls, and stupid decisions as jurors. Therefore, they should not have the right to become electors or jurors.

The court clerks, in selecting jurors, cull out those too ill or feeble to serve. For petite jurors, the judge culls out biased jurors. So we already have rules showing that some electors should not and may not sit on the jury. But even more electors should be culled from the jury pool.

Electors should demand that clerks administer IQ tests to all prospective jurors, and cull out those with IQ below 90 or 100.

Electors should also demand that the clerks administer training courses in which prospective jurors learn the ideals of good government, the constitutions of the US and the State, and the power of petite juries to nullify bad or inscrutable law and of grand juries to investigate any and all crimes.

PRIVATE RIGHT OF PROSECUTION

Electors should further demand restoration of the private right of prosecution and acknowledge the power of all grand jurors to receive evidence from crime victims and other citizenry and to indict according to the evidence. Finally, electors should demand that private parties may prosecute any indicted defendant in the event the government prosecutor declines to prosecute. Private prosecuting attorneys should undergo additional training and testing to minimize waste of court resources.

Helpful Links

Rules/Canons of Statutory Construction/Interpretation

Florida Common Law Jurisprudence

https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/constitution-annotated – SCOTUS opinions about the US Constitution.

https://www.govinfo.gov/browse-a-z – browse for US Code, CFR, opinions, etc.

https://constitution.org/ – Huge repository of law, Constitution, historical documents

http://leg.state.fl.us – Florida Constitution, Laws, and Statutes

https://www.flrules.org/ – Florida Administrative Code

https://scholar.google.com/ – Case law (court opinions)

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ – See Problems for Patriot Myth Monger fake law/history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect – Dunning-Kruger Effect

###

(No, I’m not a lawyer)

Statutory Construction, Juries, and Staying Out of Trouble

Why Patriots Get Into Legal Trouble

A CASE IN POINT – COMMON LAW / CITIZEN GRAND JURIES.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Bob Hurt <bob> wrote:

Terry Trussell just got sentenced to 105 months in prison for his citizens grand jury actions, which the government and a jury of 6 considered crimes.

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

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

WHAT TO DO ABOUT CROOKED GOVERNMENT

If the citizenry feels the spunk to create their own grand juries outside the reach of the courts and the prosecutors, then they ought to feel spunky enough to do it right.

DO NOT listen to your all-knowing chums, for they will get you in trouble.
Beware of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (see link below) in yourself or your advisors.
Start by finding and reading law related to the issue.
Continue by finding binding appellate court opinions regarding the issue.
Call your county’s Bar association, get a referral to an attorney competent in your area of concern, then pay the attorney his hourly rate for a written opinion regarding your rights/powers in the issue. If you act according to the opinion and get hauled before the court, you can show the judge that you followed the opinion of an expert in the law and therefore did not intend to commit a crime.
File a declaratory judgment lawsuit asking the court to declare your rights/powers in the issue, then behave accordingly.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT YOUR DUNNING-KRUGER PATRIOT MYTH MONGER FRIENDS

FIXING THE JURY SYSTEM

Helpful Links

Rules/Canons of Statutory Construction/Interpretation

Florida Common Law Jurisprudence

https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/constitution-annotated – SCOTUS opinions about the US Constitution.

https://www.govinfo.gov/browse-a-z – browse for US Code, CFR, opinions, etc.

https://constitution.org/ – Huge repository of law, Constitution, historical documents

http://leg.state.fl.us – Florida Constitution, Laws, and Statutes

https://www.flrules.org/ – Florida Administrative Code

https://scholar.google.com/ – Case law (court opinions)

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ – See Problems for Patriot Myth Monger fake law/history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect – Dunning-Kruger Effect

###

(No, I’m not a lawyer)

CFPB Sues CFLA for Scamming Mortgagors, and…

CFPB v CFLA Complaint 20190906

As the above-linked complaint shows, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued Certified Forensic Loan Auditors (CFLA) and its owner Andrew Lehman, and its so-called securitization auditor Michael Carrigan in federal court for violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act and its supporting regulation, Regulation O, by charging advance fees for foreclosure rescue services, and for selling worthless services like securitization audits.

It seems to the Maven of Mortgage Attack that the CFPB read the CFLA Scam Report of March 2019 and decided to act on it by trying to put CFLA out of the business of scamming troubled mortgagors. THANK YOU, CFPB!

Another Freedom of Speech misunderstanding

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gibsons-bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/

Here’s a story showing a gross misunderstanding of the freedom of speech and a horrible college student body tort that the college administrators wrongfully endorsed. Employees of family-owned bakery local to Oberlin college caught three Negro Oberlin students trying to steal goods from the bakery store, and called the police. Antagonistic, race-baiting Oberlin and student activists engaged in public protests and boycott efforts that defamed the bakery as racists and dramatically reduced bakery income. College officials claim they only allowed students to exercise their right to freedom of speech, and had nothing to do with damaging the bakery’s business.

The bakers sued Oberlin college and won a ruling that Oberlin College committed libel and disrupted the bakery’s business, AND an award of $11 million in compensatory damages. A punitive damages trial might yield more money for the bakery’s owners.

While it remains possible that an appellate panel will overturn all or part of the trial court’s ruling and award, the college administrators could and should have put a stop to the damaging student protests. The US Constitution does not protect otherwise protected speech when the speakers intend to use it as an instrument of libel and business disruption. The right to free speech comes with commensurate responsibility, a fact that delusional, contemptible, vociferous demonstrators typically fail to consider.

Time for a terminology change – “INVADER,” not “illegal or undocumented alien or… immigrant”

I write to encourage all of you to change your terminology when you refer to “undocumented alien,” or “illegal immigrant”. From now on, use the term “INVADER” to refer to any non-US-Citizen without a visa or residence permit inside the United States or its territories.

INVADERS include the trickles or floods of Ibero-Americans, Caribbean Islanders, Africans, Mid-Easterners, and others entering the USA and its territories, particularly across land borders, afoot, or by a vehicle like car, truck, boat, or aircraft.

They are not mere undocumented aliens or illegal immigrants. They are INVADERS who INVADE or INVADED the USA and its territories by the process of INVASION.

You will see from the definitions below that to invade means to encroach, possibly under arms. An invasion is an unwanted or unlawful entry into your personal space, your home, your community, your land, your state, or your nation.

The US Constitution provides the following references to invasion:

Article I Section 8, Clause 15 – Powers of Congress

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I Section 9, Clause 2 – Powers prohibited to Congress (and therefore to the Judicial and Executive branches)

2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article I Section 10, Clause 3 – Powers prohibited to States

3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV Section 4 – US guarantees to States

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Many people, particularly Democrats, seem to think that people the world over have the natural, God-given right to settle wherever they wish, including inside the USA without permission of Government. AND, US law, pursuant to treaty, protects so-called refugees by allowing them to enter the USA to escape persecution in their homeland. Wikipedia provides this data:

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year, but in an emergency situation, the President may change the number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to Congress and be limited to 5,000 people.

That means the government of the alien refugee’s home country persecutes the alien refugee or refuses to punish those who would persecute the alien refugee. It does NOT mean an alien has the right to become a refugee in order to better his economic or social or political status. Such putative refugees are in fact INVADERS.

The American mantra for INVADERS should be this: if you want to enter the USA to improve your economic or social condition, to get a well-paying job, to avoid hardship, etc., GO BACK TO YOUR HOMELAND and USE YOUR POLITICAL POWER TO IMPROVE IT.

The USA cannot absorb more than a trickle of refugees or lawful immigrants without subjecting the nation to forceful change of American culture into a distinctly alien culture. Americans should NEVER invite more immigrants than US culture can absorb without change. NEVER FAIL to understand this principle: REFUGEES ARE INVADERS. They are jumping to the head of the line of lawful immigrants, sidestepping normal statistical controls over immigration. They are tricking the system, and therefore bringing about unwanted changes to our American culture, for refugees almost never intend to become true Americans, learning literacy in English, and folding into American culture. In fact, they almost universally intend to warp American language and culture, not to mention government corruption, to match that of their homelands. We see clear examples of this in the Muslims who have become members of Congress and insist on wearing Muslim garb to press others with their cultural convictions. In due course, Muslims, particularly Muslim refugees will, given the opportunity, change governments of their communities, states, and the United States from limited constitutional republics into Islamic caliphates ruled by Shari’a law.

History shows that INVADERS, whether or not by force of arms and military conquest, do in fact accomplish the same result by gradual invasion as by sudden invasion, IF they invade in large enough numbers. Either way, American society cannot absorb the invaders without a change in culture and government. Invaders always bring the practices of graft, corruption, and lawlessness from their homelands into the USA, and they ALWAYS seek to make the USA like their homeland to gratify their feelings of nostalgia.

Universally, we must tell them: “STAY in your homeland and reform your government, your religion, and your culture so that they become more advanced and civilized. DO NOT bring your homeland backwardness, your homeland language, your homeland culture to the United States of America. We do not need or want the changes with which you intend to infect us, our culture, our language, and our governments.”

YES, I include Islam in the array of cultures Americans do not need or want. Why? Because Islam as both a religion and political force is brutal and corrupt – AND, its adherents seek to impose medieval social regulations upon people of the community through primitive and irrational “Shari’a law.” Shari’a is absolutely incompatible with the principals of a limited constitutional republic and with American culture. Wikipedia provides this:

Traditional theory of Islamic jurisprudence recognizes four sources of sharia: the Quran, sunnah (authentic hadith), qiyas (analogical reasoning), and ijma (juridical consensus). Different legal schools—of which the most prominent are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Jafari—developed methodologies for deriving sharia rulings from scriptural sources using a process known as ijtihad. Traditional jurisprudence (fiqh) distinguishes two principal branches of law, ʿibādāt (rituals) and muʿāmalāt (social relations), which together comprise a wide range of topics. Its rulings are concerned with ethical standards as much as with legal norms, assigning actions to one of five categories: mandatory, recommended, neutral, abhorred, and prohibited. Thus, some areas of sharia overlap with the Western notion of law while others correspond more broadly to living life in accordance with God’s will.

In the modern era, traditional laws in the Muslim world have been widely replaced by statutes inspired by European models. Judicial procedures and legal education were likewise brought in line with European practice.While the constitutions of most Muslim-majority states contain references to sharia, its classical rules were largely retained only in personal status (family) laws. Legislators who codified these laws sought to modernize them without abandoning their foundations in traditional jurisprudence. The Islamic revival of the late 20th century brought along calls by Islamist movements for full implementation of sharia, including hudud corporal punishments, such as stoning. In some cases, this resulted in traditionalist legal reform, while other countries witnessed juridical reinterpretation of sharia advocated by progressive reformers. Some Muslim-minority countries recognize the use of sharia-based family laws for their Muslim populations. Sharia also continues to influence other aspects of private and public life.

The role of sharia has become a contested topic around the world. Introduction of sharia-based laws sparked intercommunal violence in Nigeria and may have contributed to the breakup of Sudan. Some jurisdictions in North America have passed bans on use of sharia, framed as restrictions on religious or foreign laws. There are ongoing debates as to whether sharia is compatible with democracy, human rights, freedom of thought, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and banking.

In spite of the Constitution’s putative protections of the states against alien invasions, Democrats seem to LOVE having millions of alien invaders flooding into the country. Why? Because they know that all the children born to those alien invaders will presume US Citizen status and register to vote, AND virtually all of those invaders will vote for Democrat candidates. In other words, Democrats want the alien invasion in order to win elections and turn the US Government into a socialist/communist enterprise that robs from the responsible, productive people of the land in order to give subsistence to the relatively irresponsible and non-productive invaders.

Looking back at the provisions in the US Constitution regarding alien invasion, AND at the nature of the mostly non-militant invasion by border jumpers and so-called refugees, it becomes crystal clear that the governments of neither the Several States NOR the United States have fulfilled their constitutional duty to protect the territory of the US, the States, and American communities from culture-destroying, government-wrecking INVASION by ALIEN INVADERS from wretched third-world countries.

Part of the reason for this failure lies in the apparent heart-breaking plight of the invaders who just want a better life for themselves and their children than they had in their homelands.

WE should recognize the reality that the low intelligence and the citizen-incompetence of those invaders constitute the central reason that the invaders had miserable lives back in their home countries. If they had the ability to create an advanced civilization back home, they would have. Instead of ousting the criminals from government in a violent rebellion, they want to bring their mentality of civil incompetence and corruption here to the USA and foster here the same kind of criminal governments under which they suffered at home. For that reason, if no other, we must slam the door in their faces and deny them entry into the USA now and forever.

The United States, average IQ 98 with the UK as the 100 IQ standard, contains about 80 million people with IQ below 85, the minimum level required to graduate from High School. Their numbers increase daily with the influx of refugees from low-IQ lands. The average IQ of Mexico is only 88, of Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua is only 81, and of Guatemala is only 77. The brightest people of Ibero-America and the Caribbean islands stay there to run businesses and government. The dregs of society try to escape to the USA. We do not get their best and brightest as refugees.

Stupidity is a life-long genetic disease. Stupid children inherit their stupidity from their stupid parents. The USA does not need more stupid people. Stupid people gravitate to crime and welfare abuse to get by because they cannot compete for the better jobs and mates. Stupid people have very low value of productivity. They become a net drain on the infrastructures and productivity of the more intelligent, productive people of the land. Our near-socialist governments hand out billions of dollars annually in various forms of welfare, and spends a fortune on health care, criminal justice, prisons, and wasted education on the stupid. Instead of imposing a ban on the procreation of stupid children by stupid parents and a ban on the immigration of stupid people from corrupt 3rd world lands, the leftist liberal “bleeding hearts” of the US and state governments seem to invite burgeoning of the lowest possible class – the abjectly irresponsible and unproductive, all through legalized plunder of the responsible and productive people of the land. Such support for the stupid could come through charitable donations, but Democrats who foster welfare know that intelligent people will not hand out charitable gifts to those who waste it or do not really need it or act arrogantly like they have a God-given right to it.

You might not know it, but the US President has the power right now to slam the borders shut, and deny entry to all immigrants, including invaders like refugees. Congress delegated that authority to the President in 8 USC 1182(f) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182):

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Also read this analysis of the federal power over invading aliens:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-4/aliens

I know of only two ways to stimulate government into taking action to stop the present invasion dead in its tracks: CHANGE the way we talk about it and DEMAND that our President and Congress and Judiciary STOP it.

To begin with, we must call the invaders what they are: INVADERS. We must STOP calling them by other terms. They are INVADERS, not immigrants, not illegal immigrants, not undocumented aliens, and not undocumented workers. They are INVADERS. We must use this terminology, INVADERS, in all emails we write, in all discussions with friends, family, associates, adversaries, and in all articles we write. We must take extreme offense at the use of any other terms in reference to the invaders and their invasion other than INVADE, INVADER, INVADERS, and INVASION, just as Negroes typically take offense at a white person for referring to them as niggers. We must insist that all participants in public dialogue referring to illegal/undocumented aliens/immigrants MUST refer to them “INVADERS.” We insist on the term INVADER as a term of alarm and shock, because invade, invader, and invasion are the ONLY acceptable terms for the aliens who enter or remain in US territory unlawfully, or for their unlawful entry or residence in US territory. By changing our terminology, we turn all public discourse on the topic into a politically persuasive tool to encourage action by government to stop the invasion for it makes them perceive the invaders as dangerous enemies to the US and State interests. Make no mistake in thinking about this. The invaders are a dire danger to the citizens of the USA.
Second, we must demand of our governors, legislators, and the President a total halt to the invasion and an accelerated ejection of all invaders from the US and its territories forthwith.
Third, we must deny US citizenship to anchor babies. We must demand a constitutional amendment to declare that no child born to invaders and other non-US-Citizens in the USA becomes a US Citizen by birth. The Constitution should mandate that all ALL such children become US Citizens ONLY through the naturalization process.
Forth, we must aggressively inform the President of his power to terminate the invasion under 8 USC 1182(f), and demand that he use it, for it seems apparent from his public comments that he thinks he can block and eject invaders only through a declaration of national emergency. For reference, also see Trump v. Hawaii, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii.

Definitions of invade:

From Babylon English
invade

in·vade || ɪn’veɪd
enter for conquest or plunder, occupy; penetrate; intrude; infringe, encroach

From Oxford (En)
invade

v.tr. (often absol.)
1 enter (a country etc.) under arms to control or subdue it.
2 swarm into.
3 (of a disease) attack (a body etc.).
4 encroach upon (a person’s rights, esp. privacy).
Derivatives:
invader n.
Etymology: L invadere invas- (as IN-(2), vadere go)

From WordNet
invade

invade
v 1: march aggressively into another’s territory by military
force for the purposes of conquest and occupation;
“Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939” [syn:
{occupy}]
2: to intrude upon, infringe, encroach on, violate; “This new
colleague invades my territory”; “The neighbors intrude on
your privacy” [syn: {intrude on}, {obtrude upon},
{encroach
upon}]
3: occupy in large numbers or live on a host; “the Kudzu plant
infests much of the South and is spreading to the North”
[syn: {overrun}, {infest}]
4: penetrate or assault, in a harmful or injurious way; “The
cancer had invaded her lungs”

From Merrian Webster 10th dictionary
invade

transitive verb
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Invade

Invade \In*vade”\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Invaded}; p. pr. &
vb.
   n. {Invading}.] [L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
   to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
   {Wade}.]
1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
enter; — used of forcible or rude ingress. [Obs.]
Which becomes a body, and doth then invade The state
of life, out of the grisly shade. –Spenser.
2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. –Milton.
3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
the king invaded the rights of the people.
4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See {Attack}.
Invade \In*vade”\, v. i.
To make an invasion. –Brougham.

CFLA Scam Report – beware of purveyors of securitization audits

Scam Report:

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC.

By Bob Hurt, http://MortgageAttack.com

Subject of this report:

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC (CFLA) 13101 West Washington Blvd. Suite 444 Los Angeles, CA 90066 310-579-7422 Andrew Lehman, CFLA President/Owner

Warning to Borrowers Facing Foreclosure: In my opinion, a securitization audit or chain of title audit will not help mortgagors who defaulted on their loan win a foreclosure battle in court and such audit services are therefore virtually worthless. Numerous pundit and court opinions, cited below, support this warning. You might agree with me after you finish reading this article and following its links to other text.

First, understand the concept of securitization and chain of title audits from this article of denunciation I wrote years ago:

https://livingliesthetruth.com/2015/06/04/how-a-securitization-audit-wastes-foreclosure-victim-money/ Furthermore, see how and why securitization trust beneficiaries can ratify violations of the securitization trust pooling and servicing agreement, and that the borrower has no standing to dispute or enforce such violations. Pay particular attention to the explanation by Storm Bradford in this article: http://mortgageattack.com/2014/07/27/securitization-audits-worthless-in-spite-of-glaski/

CFLA is a major purveyor of such audit services and conducts training courses to teach others to perform and sell the audits. CFLA aggressively promotes its loan audit, securitization audit, and chain of title audit services to home loan borrowers (mortgagors) who have defaulted on their loans and feel desperate to prevent foreclosure. CFLA gives such desperate borrowers false hope that the borrowers can use their audits and expert witness testimony to avert foreclosure, even though borrowers breached the terms of their loan contracts and really ought to lose their homes to foreclosure. A mortgagor in foreclosure who purchases a loan-related audit from CFLA or any other company has little to no chance of averting foreclosure because of information contained in the audit. The following statements by experts show why.

Florida Foreclosure Defense Attorney Matthew Weidner warned the public against securitization audits in his blog:

MORTGAGE LOAN SECURITIZATION AUDITS ARE A CRIME!

VIOLATIONS.””A person who violates any provision of this section commits an unfair and deceptive trade practice as defined in part II of this chapter. Violators are subject to the penalties and remedies provided in part II of this chapter, including a monetary penalty not to exceed $15,000 per violation.

Just this week I had another client in my office who almost lost their home because they had given thousands of dollars to a loan audit/securitization “expert” who told the to ignore the lawsuit that was filed against them. They did not respond to the lawsuit and the bank was prepared to set a sale. The judge did not have to let my new client defend the case, but the judge recognized that this old, immigrant family had indeed been the victim of a widespread and rampant fraud so the judge allowed them to defend their case and their home is safe…for now. Good call by the judge. Fair. Balanced. So now, I’m going to bust my hump to make sure this client fills out all their paperwork and gets the modification done. Here’s the thing….with their income, they could have had the modification done months ago….if only the scammer had not sold them up the river.

I get variations of the loan audit scam in my office nearly every single day. Hapless consumers are either directly approached by companies or they respond directly to any one of the hundreds of websites that have sprung up everywhere. Here’s the rap: The company or expert will audit their loan, show them how the bank committed fraud or their documents are bad or whatever and the homeowner can use that information to get a free house….for a small upfront fee of several thousand dollars…and maybe a small monthly fee if the mark can swing it.

ANY REPRESENTATIONS LIKE THIS ARE A VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW!

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has warned mortgagors that forensic loan audits are a scam:

“there is no evidence that forensic loan audits will help you get a loan modification or any other foreclosure relief, even if they’re conducted by a licensed, legitimate and trained auditor, mortgage professional or lawyer.”

California’s Department of Real Estate warned borrowers against forensic loan audits.

This alert and warning is issued to call to your attention the often overblown and exaggerated “sales pitch(es)” regarding the supposed value of questionable Forensic Loan Audits. It is critical to note that a loan audit (audit report) has absolutely no value as a stand-alone document.

Whether they call themselves Forensic Loan Auditors, Certified Forensic Loan Auditors (there are no such certifications in the State of California), Mortgage Loan Auditors, Forensic Attorney-Backed Foreclosure Prevention Auditors, or some other official, important or lofty sounding title(s), there are thousands of individuals and companies that have popped up and appeared all over the State of California. Most of these individuals and companies are unlicensed, and some were previously engaged in illegal foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams.

The DRE has seen a wide variety of claims and sales pitches, where impressive sounding loan review services are offered with the goal of taking your money. Quite simply, the bad players market hope – and all too often, it is false hope.

A Georgia US District Court in Demilio v US Bank issued a scathing indictment of Demilio’s effort to subvert a foreclosure with a CFLA securitization audit.

Having reviewed the Complaint and all appropriate exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts to show he is entitled to relief on any of his asserted claims. In fact, rather than alleging any material facts in his pleading, Plaintiff attempts to “lodge” “[t]he facts and statements made in the securitization audit attached herein.”¹³Frankly, the Court is astonished by Plaintiff’s audacity. Instead of providing the “short and plain statement” of facts required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,¹⁴ Plaintiff requires the Court to scour a poorly‐copied, 45‐page “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” in an attempt to discern the basic facts of his case. This alone would be sufficient for dismissal.¹⁵ However, the Court is equally concerned by Plaintiff’s attempt to incorporate such an “audit,” which is more than likely the product of “charlatans who prey upon people in economically dire situation,” rather than a legitimate recitation of Plaintiff’s factual allegations.¹⁶As one bankruptcy judge bluntly explained, “[the Court] is quite confident there is no such thing as a ‘Certified Forensic Loan Audit’ or a ‘certified forensic auditor.’”¹⁷In fact, the Federal Trade Commission has issued a “Consumer Alert” regarding such “Forensic Loan Audits.”¹⁸ The Court will not, in good conscience, consider any facts recited by such a questionable authority.¹⁹

16 In re Norwood, 2010 WL 4642447, at *2.

17 Id.

18 Id. at *2 n.2; see (Mar. 2010), http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0130‐forensic‐loan‐audits. The State of California Department of Real Estate issued a similar alert entitled Fraud Warning Regarding Forensic Loan Audits (Feb. 2010), http://www.dre.ca.gov/Consumers/ConsumerAlerts.html.

19 See, e.g., Fidel, 2011 WL 2436134, at *1 (disregarding a “Securitization Audit and Forensic Audit” attached as exhibits to plaintiff’s complaint); accord Hewett v. Shapiro & Ingle, No. 1:11CV278, 2012 WL 1230740, at *4, n.4 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2012) (discussing various “audits” and noting that such documents “confirm the empty gimmickery of these types of claims.”).

State and federal courts across the land have denounced securitization and chain of title audits, and have uniformly ruled against the clients of CFLA or those who relied on “CFLA” audits to save their homes from foreclosure. The end of this report lists 27 court opinions which borrowers should read BEFORE deciding to spend money on a CFLA loan/securitization/chain-of-title audit. None of the judges in those case ruled in favor of the borrower. The Leadbeater v JP Morgan opinion provides this comment in footnote 9:

“Judge Madeline Cox Arleo has previously cautioned that she has “concern over the dubious nature of such reports [prepared by Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC.]“Hicks v. The Bank of New York, et al., Civil Action No. 15-1620, Letter Order, D.E. 22 (Feb. 22, 2016). The FTC has recently warned consumers to be wary of “forensic mortgage loan audits.” Federal Trade Commission, Forensic Loan Audits, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0130-forensic-loan-audits (last visited September 13, 2017) (“According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency, the latest foreclosure rescue scam to exploit financially strapped homeowners pitches forensic mortgage loan audits.”).”

Blogger and mortgage pundit Martin Andelman wrote this about one of CFLA’s attorney-instructors:

Patricia Rodriguez, Attorney at Law –Patricia is another of CFLA’s instructors. She also has been very active representing homeowners. Going back to June of 2012,Westlaw shows her handling 20 cases, (and you can find a list of her cases at that link).

None were any sort of win for the homeowners… in one she was sanctioned by the court and the 19 others were dismissed, many with prejudice or without leave to amend… the three quiet title cases were all dismissed.She also filed a mass joinder lawsuit that was also dismissed.But it’sMcGough v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 6019108 (U.S. DC N.D. Ca. 12/3/12), that deserves to be highlighted because in this case, Ms. Rodriguez ended up being sanctioned by the court for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and ordered to attend 20 hours of continuing legal education. Here’s what the court said about Ms. Rodriguez…

The Court is disheartened by counsel’s failure in this case, even in responding to the present motion, to recognize that she has erred. If she had approached her practice with a measure of common sense, Counsel might have reconsidered her position…

And on a very basic level, the Court wishes to remind counsel that if an ordinary person cannot understand what she is saying in her pleadings—a neighbor, friend, or family member—then it is very likely that the Court and opposing counsel will not be able to either. The kind of garbled pleading that counsel has three times submitted to this Court imposes a burden that all involved would like to avoid in the future.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders counsel, Patricia Rodriguez, to attend a minimum of twenty (20) hours of MCLE-accredited legal education courses, apart from any compliance hours regularly required by the California Bar Association. These hours shall include a minimum of eight hours in complaint-drafting or other legal writing, eight hours addressing the substantive law of foreclosure, if indeed it is an area in which Ms. Rodriguez wishes to continue practicing, and two hours of legal ethics training.

And remember that Patricia is a CFLA Instructor, training lawyers and others around the country in how to represent homeowners in quiet title cases and how to use CFLA’s securitization audits in foreclosure defense.

Look, I understand that foreclosure defense has been incredibly difficult even for the most dedicated and experienced attorneys. So losing is not necessarily a bad thing all by itself. But the way CFLA markets the company’s instructors, experts and seminars as leading the industry is at least misleading.

Andelman wrote a monumental expose of CFLA at this web page, exhaustively detailing numerous reasons to doubt the validity of CFLA audit services and technical competence of its instructors. See it here: https://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2014/10/homeowner-alert-mortgage-investors-fraud-recoverys-50-2-40-program-cflas-quiet-title-audits-and-experts/ Apparently, CFLA owner Andrew Lehman threatened to sue Andelman for exposing CFLA. Andelman ended his article with this challenging rebuke:

And Andrew, don’t bother sending me another letter telling me how powerful you are, and how you’re going to sue me for whatever you think you can sue me for… I’ve got an idea of how big and powerful you are… and yet, I still wrote this… so that should clear up any questions you might have as to the nature of my response to such threats. On the other hand, if you want to present any facts that would show me that what you’re doing is actually doing some good, you’ll find me both open and a very reasonable person with whom to converse. I don’t need much, by the way. How about a couple of cases where homeowners were awarded quiet title when they still owed on their mortgages? Or, how about even one such case? How about any sort of favorable outcome based on the use of your products and services… or based on your experts testifying Anything, Andrew… can I see anything at all?

Mortgagors facing foreclosure might wonder why they cannot find more consumer complaints against CFLA at sites like RipoffReport.com. Upon visiting that site a search for CFLA under its full name will reveal multiple pages of advertising showing CFLA to be a model company, but no complaints at all. The reason: CFLA’s principal has apparently paid the principal of RipoffReport to remove all complaints against CFLA from the site and replace them with advertisements making CFLA seem honorable. It seems apparent to me that CFLA and its minions have earned so much money selling useless services to troubled mortgagors that CFLA can afford to pay bribes or issue threats to get webmasters to remove complaints and to get angry customers to retract their complaints. The court opinions that follow prove foreclosure victims cannot rely upon CFLA securitization, chain-of-title, and loan audit services. Why? Because the borrowers who tried to rely on them lost in court. Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)…

Court Opinions Showing Borrowers LOSE by Relying on CFLA Audits

Google Scholar search for “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” and “Certified Forensic Loan Auditors” produced 27 results 2019-03-04

DEMILIO v. CITIZENS HOME LOANS, INC. Dist. Court, MD Georgia, 2013
Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, NA 885 F. Supp. 2d 964- Dist. Court, ND California, 2012
Blanchard v. FREMONT HOME LOAN TRUST 2005-D Dist. Court, WD Washington, 2017
BARRIONUEVO v. CHASE BANK, NA Dist. Court, ND California, 2013
JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Galloway NM: Court of Appeals, 2018
WAN v. PULTE MORTGAGE Dist. Court, D. Nevada, 2014
MANTOVANI v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA Dist. Court, D. New Jersey, 2018
GILARMO v. US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR CSAB MORTGAGE BACKED TRUST 2006-1 Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2016
Sarkar v. WORLD SAVINGS FSB Dist. Court, ND California, 2014
VIERA LOPEZ v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2017
IM v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2018
Dumas v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dist., 2014
McGough v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA Dist. Court, ND California, 2012
Hernandez v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC. Dist. Court, ND California, 2016
English v. RYLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY Dist. Court, D. Maryland, 2016
Cox v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2016
LEADBEATER v. JP MORGAN CHASE, NA Dist. Court, D. New Jersey, 2017
Hylton v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA Dist. Court, SD New York, 2018
Sanders v. SUTTON FUNDING, LLC Dist. Court, SD California, 2014
Sylvester v. INTERBAY FUNDING LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2017
Suggs v. M & T BANK 230 F. Supp. 3d 458- Dist. Court, ED Virginia, 2017
Avila v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC. Dist. Court, SD Texas, 2012
Williams v. Ward Md: Court of Special Appeals, 2016
Stephens v. BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, INC. Dist. Court, North Carolina, 2017
Baker v. CitiMORTGAGE, INC. Dist. Court, Minnesota, 2018
GONSALVES-CARVALHAL v. AURORA BANK Dist. Court, ED New York, 2014
Kennedy v. WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB Dist. Court, ND California, 2015

* * *

CFLA scam report, rev 2

Winston Shrout still not in prison, but soon, maybe

A The Jury convicted arch scammer and tax cheat Winston Shrout on 19 counts 21 months ago. Now, in early February 2019, Judge Robert E. Jones of the Portland Division for the Oregon US District Court still has not managed to get Winston Shrout imprisoned. According to the docket report, Shrout appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit, and moved the court to allow him to remain out of prison on bond, pending the final outcome of the appeal. Judge Jones denied the motion and ordered Shrout to show up at the federal prison in early January 2019, but Shrout appealed that order to the 9th Circuit which ordered Judge Jones to explain why he denied the motion. Judge Jones explained that Shrout poses a danger of continuing to scam people, that the only reason for the appeal is to delay going to prison, that the appeal raises no new issue of law or fact, and that even if he succeeded in winning on some element of the appeal, he would end up in prison anyway.

Now we wait to discover whether the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and affirm Judge Jones’ ruling, sending Shrout to prison where he has belonged for the past 12 years.

I have attached some items from PACER. Notice the dreck from Winston Shrout in documents 9, 10, 13, 23, and 31. That cockamamie nonsense typifies the kind of content Shrout advised others to file in their court cases.

The docket report
The superseding indictment
Doc 185 – Judge Jones explanation of his denial of Shrout’s motion for release on bond
Several idiotic filings by Winston Shrout

Shrout_Doc_9_WS_apptmt_&_lien_&_invoice.pdf
Shrout_Doc_10_WS_liquidation.pdf
Shrout_Doc_13_WS_status.pdf
Shrout_Doc_23_WS_plea_bill_of_particulars,_invoice.pdf
Shrout_Doc_31_WS_mtn_dismiss_for_treaty_viol.pdf
Shrout_Doc_185_Reasons_for_Denying_release_on_Bond.pdf
Shrout_superseding_indictment.pdf
Shrout_docket.pdf

Does the Koran claim Jesus was a Son of God?

According to the Koran (Qur’an), Muhammad went to great lengths denying that Jesus was a son of God AND asserting that a Trinity or other deity multiplicity does not exist and that there is only one supreme deity, Allah (God).

And yet some people assert, “God has taken unto Himself a son!” Limitless is He in His glory! [96] Nay, but His is all that is in the heavens and on earth; all things devoutly obey His will. – 2:116 (Asad)
O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God’s Apostle – [the
fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary – and a soul created by Him.[181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, “[God is] a trinity”. Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. – 4:171 (Asad)
the Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him – since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? – 6:101 (Asad)
AND THE JEWS say, “Ezra is God’s son,” while the Christians say, “The Christ is God’s son.” Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [44] [They
deserve the imprecation:] “May God destroy them!” [45] How perverted are their minds! [46] – 9:30 (Asad)
[And yet] they assert, “God has taken unto Himself a son!” Limitless is He in His glory! [89] Self-sufficient is He: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth! No evidence whatever have you for this [assertion]! Would you ascribe unto God something which you cannot know? – 10:68 (Asad)
and say: “All praise is due to God, who begets no offspring, [133] and has no partner in His dominion, and has no weakness, and therefore no need of any aid” [134] -and [thus] extol His limitless greatness. – 17:111 (Asad)
Furthermore, [this divine
writ is meant] to warn all those who assert, “God has taken unto Himself a son.” – 18:4 (Asad)
It is not conceivable that God should have taken unto Himself a son: limitless is He in His glory! [26] When He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it “Be” -and it is! – 19:35 (Asad)
As it is, [75] some assert, “The Most Gracious has taken unto Himself a son„! [76] – 19:88 (Asad)
Indeed, [by this assertion] you have brought forth something monstrous, – 19:89 (Asad)
whereat the heavens might well-nigh be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins! – 19:90 (Asad)
That men. should ascribe a son to the Most Gracious, – 19:91 (Asad)
although it is inconceivable that the Most Gracious should take unto Himself a son! [77] – 19:92 (Asad)
And [yet,] some say, “The Most Gracious has taken unto Himself a son”! Limitless is He in His glory! [33] Nay, [those whom they regard as God’s “offspring” are but His] honoured servants: [34] – 21:26 (Asad)
Never did God take unto Himself any offspring, [52] nor has there ever been any deity side by side with Him: [for,
had there been any,] lo! each deity would surely have stood apart [from the others] in whatever it had created, [53] and they would surely have [tried to] overcome one another! Limitless in His glory is God, [far] above anything that men may devise by way of definition, [54] – 23:91 (Asad)
He to whom the dominion over the heavens and the earth belongs, and who begets no offspring, [2] and has no partner in His dominion: for it is He who creates every thing and determines its nature in accordance with [His own] design. [3] – 25:2 (Asad)“God has begotten [a son]”; and, verily, they are lying [too, when they say], – 37:152 (Asad)

Had God willed to take Unto Himself a son, He could have chosen anyone that He wanted out of whatever He has created – [but] limitless is He in His glory! [4] He is the One God, the One who holds absolute sway over all that exists! – 39:4 (Asad)
Say [O Prophet]: “If the Most Gracious [truly] had a son, I would be the first to worship him!” – 43:81 (Asad)

Utterly remote, in His glory, is the Sustainer of the heavens and the earth – the Sustainer, in almightiness enthroned [58] from all that they may attribute to Him by way of definition! [59] – 43:82 (Asad)

for [we know] that sublimely exalted is our Sustainer’s majesty: no consort has He ever taken unto Himself, nor a son! – 72:3 (Asad)

However, he did confess that God created Jesus as a spirit from himself:

[4:171] O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, and do not say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is the Messenger of God, and His Word that He conveyed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say, “Three.” Refrain—it is better for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him—that He should have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, and God is a sufficient Protector.”

Clearly, Muhammad admitted that Jesus was God’s (presumably the UNIVERSAL Father’s) SPIRIT OFFSPRING.

We should interpret that as Muhammad asserting that, while God bore no physical offspring (that he knew of), God did produce Jesus’ person (or personality) as God’s SPIRITUAL offspring, albeit Mary actually bore the physical body of Jesus in her womb.

Muhammad also confessed that Jesus performed miracles with the support of the Holy Spirit. He did not explain the nature, origin, or presence of the Holy Spirit – obviously, he did not consider the Holy Spirit a deity co-ordinate of God (the Universal Father), but what else could she be?

[2:87] We gave Moses the Scripture, and sent a succession of messengers after him. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. Is it that whenever a messenger comes to you with anything your souls do not desire, you grew arrogant, calling some impostors, and killing others?
[2:253] These messengers: We gave some advantage over others. To some of them God spoke directly, and some He raised in rank. We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear miracles, and We strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Had God willed, those who succeeded them would not have fought one another, after the clear signs had come to them; but they disputed; some of them believed, and some of them disbelieved. Had God willed, they would not have fought one another; but God does whatever He desires.
[5:110] When God will say, “O Jesus son of Mary, recall My favor upon you and upon your mother, how I supported you with the Holy Spirit. You spoke to the people from the crib, and in maturity. How I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel. And recall that you molded from clay the shape of a bird, by My leave, and then you breathed into it, and it became a bird, by My leave. And you healed the blind and the leprous, by My leave; and you revived the dead, by My leave. And recall that I restrained the Children of Israel from you when you brought them the clear miracles. But those who disbelieved among them said, `This is nothing but obvious sorcery.'”

Lomachenko vs Pedraza, Dec 2018 – WOW!

Vasyl Lomachenko vs Jose Pedraza

Vasyl Lomachenko is THE most exciting boxer of this century, so far, and maybe the best of all time. In four of his last six fights, his opponents have simply given up and failed to answer the bell part way through the fight. His only loss in 14 professional fights, the referee and judges were obviously prejudiced in favor of Orlando Salido who fouled incessantly throughout the bout.

In his December 2018 contest against Pedraza (top link above), Lomachenko scored two knockdowns late in the fight, then won a decision to become the unified WBA and WBO lightweight champion of the world.

See these highlights of past fights.

Letter to my Florida Representative Chris Latvala – fix the criminal contempt law

Dear Florida Legislator:

I write to ask you to sponsor legislation to change the way Florida’s courts deal with criminal contempt. The courts assert that criminal contempt is not a crime, and that under the common law the contemnor has no right to trial by jury for a criminal contempt trial. However, Article I of the Florida Constitution clearly articulates the right of criminal defendants to trial by jury. And the rules for trying criminal contempt appear in Rules 3.830 and 3.840 (appended below) of the Florida Rules of CRIMINAL Procedure. Convicted contemnors must serve jail time and pay a fine, so clearly Criminal Contempt is a crime.

Additionally, the judge charging someone with criminal contempt may try the case himself, even though he is a party to it as the accuser, clearly prejudicial, and a violation of Article I Section 16 requirement of trial by impartial jury. Furthermore, the convicted contemnor who appeals the conviction must sit in jail during pendency of the appeal, so that he has completed his sentence when the court hears the appeal. The Florida Constitution Article I Section 17 forbids this cruel punishment.

The Florida Constitution supersedes the Common Law that the courts rely upon in their crooked determination that the criminal contemnor has no right to a jury trial.

As to trials, the speedy trial right is meaningless if lengthy incarceration destroys the defendant’s life, causes him to lose his job, home, vehicle, family, etc. The speedy trial must be reduced to a more practical period. The Legislature should not hand over its responsibility in this matter to the Supreme Court of Florida.

I recommend the following improvements to Florida Statutes chapter 38, 908.15, and Rules of Criminal Procedure:

1. Criminal Contempt, whether Direct or Indirect, is a MISDEMEANOR CRIME triable under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and Florida Statutes.
2. The Florida Constitution Declaration of Rights supersedes and takes precedence over any and all common law related to contempt proceedings.
3. The trial courts must try Criminal Contempt as a crime and, at defendant request, provide a jury of the defendant’s peers, the jurors of which determine both the law and the facts of the case.
4. The judge who charged the defendant with Criminal Contempt shall not try the case, but another judge selected by lottery in the trial courts shall try the case.
5. The court in which the judge serves who charged the defendant with Criminal Contempt shall not try the case. The County Court shall try a Circuit Court criminal contempt defendant, and the Circuit Court shall charge a County Court, District Court, or Supreme Court criminal contempt defendant. Only Circuit and County Courts local to the defendant shall try criminal contempt cases, irrespective of whether the charge originated in the Florida Supreme Court or District Court of Appeals or any other court.
6. In the event the criminal contempt defendant accuses the trial judge of prejudice in a motion to disqualify, and therein expresses fear that he cannot get a fair trial, the trial judge shall disqualify himself as prescribed in the rules of judicial administration and Florida Statutes chapter 38. In the event the trial judge refuses to disqualify himself, claiming the motion to disqualify is not legally sufficient, the defendant may file an interlocutory appeal or petition for writ of prohibition, and shall remain free from incarceration pending the outcome of the appeal or petition.
7. Convicted criminal contemnors shall remain at liberty pending their appeal and shall not be incarcerated unless and until all appeals have been exhausted and the conviction affirmed in the final appellate proceedings.
8. Speedy Trial shall constitute 30 days for a misdemeanor and 90 days for a felony. In no case shall a defendant remain incarcerated beyond those time limits, regardless of the reason, unless the trier has found the defendant guilty.
9. The Florida Constitution should empower grand juries to investigate all felonies, and not leave that up to the State Attorneys. It should empower petite juries to judge both the law and the facts of the case. And the court should be required to notify jurors of their powers.
10. The courts shall have no power to denominate litigants as “vexatious” or deny them the right to appear pro se and file motions and pleadings without the assistance of an attorney.

I hope you will convene fellow area legislators to discuss the foregoing changes. I’ll happily bring a law expert with me to your meeting to lay out the fundaments so they can see how the Courts use contempt charges highhandedly to thwart the exercise of constitutional rights.

I have appended below an excerpt from the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with criminal contempt for your reference. Please read the absurd justifications for denying a contemnor a fair trial by an impartial jury.

918.015 Right to speedy trial.—
(1) In all criminal prosecutions the state and the defendant shall each have the right to a speedy trial.
(2) The Supreme Court shall, by rule of said court, provide procedures through which the right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by subsection (1) and by s. 16, Art. I of the State Constitution, shall be realized.
History.—s. 195, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(202); s. 6, ch. 71-1(B).
Note.—Former s. 916.01.

XVI. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
RULE 3.830. DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based. Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court.

Committee Notes
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 284 The Florida Bar
1968 Adoption. This proposal is consistent with present Florida practice in authorizing summary proceedings in direct criminal contempt cases. See Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 334, 141 So. 185 (1932); also see State v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 481, 129 So. 818 (1930), holding that the defendant is not entitled to notice of the accusation or a motion for attachment. Fairness dictates that the defendant be allowed to present excusing or mitigating evidence even in direct criminal contempt cases.
Much of the terminology of the proposal is patterned after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a) with variations for purposes of clarity. What may be considered a significant change from the terminology of the federal rule is that the proposal provides for a “judgment” of contempt, whereas the term “order” of contempt is used in the federal rule. Both terms have been used in Florida appellate cases. The term “judgment” is preferred here since it is consistent with the procedure of adjudicating guilt and is more easily reconciled with a “conviction” of contempt, common terminology on the trial and appellate levels in Florida. It also is consistent with appeals in contempt cases. See, e.g., State ex rel. Shotkin v. Buchanan, 149 So. 2d 574, 98 A.L.R.2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), for the use of the term “judgment”.
1972 Amendment. Same as prior rule.

RULE 3.840. INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
A criminal contempt, except as provided in rule 3.830 concerning direct contempts, shall be prosecuted in the following manner:
(a) Order to Show Cause. The judge, on the judge’s own motion or on affidavit of any person having knowledge of the facts, may issue and sign an order directed to the defendant, stating the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and requiring the defendant to appear before the court to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt of court. The order shall specify the time and place of the hearing, with a reasonable time allowed for preparation of the defense after service of the order on the defendant.
(b) Motions; Answer. The defendant, personally or by counsel, may move to dismiss the order to show cause, move for a statement of particulars, or answer the order by way of explanation or defense. All motions and the answer shall be in writing unless specified otherwise by the judge. A defendant’s omission to file motions or answer shall not be deemed as an admission of guilt of the contempt charged.
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 285 The Florida Bar
(c) Order of Arrest; Bail. The judge may issue an order of arrest of the defendant if the judge has reason to believe the defendant will not appear in response to the order to show cause. The defendant shall be admitted to bail in the manner provided by law in criminal cases.
(d) Arraignment; Hearing. The defendant may be arraigned at the time of the hearing, or prior thereto at the defendant’s request. A hearing to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall follow a plea of not guilty. The judge may conduct a hearing without assistance of counsel or may be assisted by the prosecuting attorney or by an attorney appointed for that purpose. The defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel, have compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses, and testify in his or her own defense. All issues of law and fact shall be heard and determined by the judge.
(e) Disqualification of Judge. If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, the judge shall disqualify himself or herself from presiding at the hearing. Another judge shall be designated by the chief justice of the supreme court.
(f) Verdict; Judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge shall sign and enter of record a judgment of guilty or not guilty. There should be included in a judgment of guilty a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which the defendant has been found and adjudicated guilty.
(g) Sentence; Indirect Contempt. Prior to the pronouncement of sentence, the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation and judgment against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced. The defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances. The sentence shall be pronounced in open court and in the presence of the defendant.

Committee Notes
1968 Adoption.
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 286 The Florida Bar
(a)(1) Order to Show Cause. The courts have used various and, at times, misleading terminology with reference to this phase of the procedure, viz. “citation,” “rule nisi,” “rule,” “rule to show cause,” “information,” “indicted,” and “order to show cause.” Although all apparently have been used with the same connotation the terminology chosen probably is more readily understandable than the others. This term is used in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b) dealing with indirect criminal contempts.
In proceedings for indirect contempt, due process of law requires that the accused be given notice of the charge and a reasonable opportunity to meet it by way of defense or explanation. State ex rel. Giblin v. Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496, 26 So. 2d 509 (1946); State ex rel. Geary v. Kelly, 137 So .2d 262, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
The petition (affidavit is used here) must be filed by someone having actual knowledge of the facts and must be under oath. Phillips v. State, 147 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); see also Croft v. Culbreath, 150 Fla. 60, 6 So. 2d 638 (1942); Ex parte Biggers, 85 Fla. 322, 95 So. 763 (1923).
(2) Motions; Answer. The appellate courts of Florida, while apparently refraining from making motions and answers indispensable parts of the procedure, seem to regard them with favor in appropriate situations. Regarding motions to quash and motion for bill of particulars, see Geary v. State, 139 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); regarding the answer, see State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, 80 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1955).
Elsewhere in these rules is a recommended proposal that a motion to dismiss replace the present motion to quash; hence, the motion to dismiss is recommended here.
The proposal contains no requirement that the motions or answer be under oath. Until section 38.22, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1945 there prevailed in Florida the common law rule that denial under oath is conclusive and requires discharge of the defendant in indirect contempt cases; the discharge was considered as justified because the defendant could be convicted of perjury if the defendant had sworn falsely in the answer or in a motion denying the charge. The amendment of section 38.22, Florida Statutes, however, has been construed to no longer justify the discharge of the defendant merely because the defendant denies the charge under oath. See Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 So. 755 (1923), re the common law; see Dodd v. State, 110 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) re the construction of section 38.22, Florida Statutes, as amended. There appears, therefore, no necessity of requiring that a pleading directed to the order to show cause be under oath, except as a matter of policy of holding potential perjury prosecutions over the heads of defendants. It is recommended, therefore, that no oath be required at this stage of the proceeding.
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 287 The Florida Bar
Due process of law in the prosecution for indirect contempt requires that the defendant have the right to assistance by counsel. Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 So. 185 (1932), adhered to, 107 Fla. 858, 143 So. 436 (1932).
(3) Order of Arrest; Bail. Arrest and bail, although apparently used only rarely, were permissible at common law and, accordingly, are unobjectionable under present Florida law. At times each should serve a useful purpose in contempt proceedings and should be included in the rule. As to the common law, see Ex parte Biggers, supra.
(4) Arraignment; Hearing. Provision is made for a pre-hearing arraignment in case the defendant wishes to plead guilty to the charge prior to the date set for the hearing. The defendant has a constitutional right to a hearing under the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. State ex rel. Pipia v. Buchanan, 168 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). This right includes the right to assistance of counsel and the right to call witnesses. Baumgartner v. Joughin, supra. The defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Demetree v. State, ex rel. Marsh, 89 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1956).
Section 38.22, Florida Statutes, as amended in 1945, provides that all issues of law or fact shall be heard and determined by the judge. Apparently under this statute the defendant is not only precluded from considering a jury trial as a right but also the judge has no discretion to allow the defendant a jury trial. See State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, supra, and Dodd v. State, supra, in which the court seems to assume this, such assumption seemingly being warranted by the terminology of the statute.
There is no reason to believe that the statute is unconstitutional as being in violation of section 11 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution which provides, in part, that the accused in all criminal prosecutions shall have the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. Criminal contempt is not a crime; consequently, no criminal prosecution is involved. Neering v. State, 155 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1963); State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Section 3 of the Declaration of Rights, providing that the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever, also apparently is not violated. This provision has been construed many times as guaranteeing a jury trial in proceedings at common law, as practiced at the time of the adoption of the constitution (see, e.g., Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350 (1926)), i.e., it is applicable only to cases in which the right existed before the adoption of the constitution (see, e.g., State ex rel. Sellers v. Parker, 87 Fla. 181, 100 So. 260 (1924)). Section 3 was never intended to extend the right of a trial by jury beyond this point. Boyd v. Dade County, 123 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1960).
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 288 The Florida Bar
There is some authority that trial by jury in indirect criminal contempt existed in the early common law, but this practice was eliminated by the Star Chamber with the result that for centuries the common law courts have punished indirect contempts without a jury trial. See 36 Mississippi Law Journal 106. The practice in Florida to date apparently has been consistent with this position. No case has been found in this state in which a person was tried by a jury for criminal contempt. See Justice Terrell’s comment adverse to such jury trials in State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, supra.
The United States Supreme Court has assumed the same position with reference to the dictates of the common law. Quoting from Eilenbecker v. District Court, 134 U.S. 31, 36, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801 (1890), the Court stated, “If it has ever been understood that proceedings according to the common law for contempt of court have been subject to the right of trial by jury, we have been unable to find any instance of it.” United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 696, 84 S.Ct. 984, 12 L.Ed.2d 23 (1964). In answer to the contention that contempt proceedings without a jury were limited to trivial offenses, the Court stated, “[W]e find no basis for a determination that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, contempt was generally regarded as not extending to cases of serious misconduct.” 376 U.S. at 701. There is little doubt, therefore, that a defendant in a criminal contempt case in Florida has no constitutional right to a trial by jury.
Proponents for such trials seemingly must depend on authorization by the legislature or Supreme Court of Florida to attain their objective. By enacting section 38.22, Florida Statutes, which impliedly prohibits trial by jury the legislature exhibited a legislative intent to remain consistent with the common law rule. A possible alternative is for the Supreme Court of Florida to promulgate a rule providing for such trials and assume the position that under its constitutional right to govern practice and procedure in the courts of Florida such rule would supersede section 38.22, Florida Statutes. It is believed that the supreme court has such authority. Accordingly, alternate proposals are offered for the court’s consideration; the first provides for a jury trial unless waived by the defendant and the alternate is consistent with present practice.
(5) Disqualification of Judge. Provision for the disqualification of the judge is made in federal rule 42(b). The proposal is patterned after this rule.
Favorable comments concerning disqualification of judges in appropriate cases may be found in opinions of the Supreme Court of Florida. See Pennekamp v. State, 156 Fla. 227, 22 So. 2d 875 (1945), and concurring opinion in State ex rel Huie v. Lewis, supra.
(6) Verdict; Judgment. “Judgment” is deemed preferable to the term “order,” since the proper procedure involves an adjudication of guilty. The use of “judgment” is consistent with present Florida practice. E.g., Dinnen v. State, 168 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); State ex rel. Byrd v. Anderson, 168 So .2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 289 The Florida Bar
The recital in the judgment of facts constituting the contempt serves to preserve for postconviction purposes a composite record of the offense by the person best qualified to make such recital: the judge. See Ryals v. United States, 69 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1934), in which such procedure is referred to as “good practice.”
(7) Sentence; Indirect Contempt. The substance of this subdivision is found in present sections 921.05(2), 921.07 and 921.13, Florida Statutes. While these sections are concerned with sentences in criminal cases, the First District Court of Appeal in 1964 held that unless a defendant convicted of criminal contempt is paid the same deference the defendant is not being accorded due process of law as provided in section 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Neering v. State, 164 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
Statement concerning the effect the adoption of this proposed rule will have on contempt statutes:
This rule is not concerned with the source of the power of courts to punish for contempt. It is concerned with desirable procedure to be employed in the implementation of such power. Consequently, its adoption will in no way affect the Florida statutes purporting to be legislative grants of authority to the courts to punish for contempt, viz., sections 38.22 (dealing with “all” courts), 932.03 (dealing with courts having original jurisdiction in criminal cases), and 39.13 (dealing with juvenile courts). This is true regardless of whether the source of power is considered to lie exclusively with the courts as an inherent power or is subject, at least in part, to legislative grant.
The adoption of the rule also will leave unaffected the numerous Florida statutes concerned with various situations considered by the legislature to be punishable as contempt (e.g., section 38.23, Florida Statutes), since these statutes deal with substantive rather than procedural law.
Section 38.22, Florida Statutes, as discussed in the preceding notes, is concerned with procedure in that it requires the court to hear and determine all questions of law or fact. Insofar, therefore, as criminal contempts are concerned the adoption of the alternate proposal providing for a jury trial will mean that the rule supersedes this aspect of the statute and the statute should be amended accordingly.
1972 Amendment. Same as prior rule.