CONTENTS

last updated: Monday, April 28, 2008

Below are just a few of the Nancy Grant news-related stories:

• Florida Grandmother Charged Criminally To Life In Prison For Jail Ministry
• Grant's Trial On Trial - Update 2
• Grant's Trial On Trial - Update 1
• Racketeering Court To Try Whistle Blowing Accuser
• Florida JIC, Nancy Grant, on Trial
• County Officials Claim Courts Are A Private Enterprise
• Judicial Qualifications Commission Dismisses Grant's Complaint About Closed Door Hearings
• Grant Responds to Chief Justice Lewis of Florida Supreme Court
• Nancy Grant Interview
• Grant's Motion to Dismiss Denied
• Why Is Grant's Bond So High?
• Civil Rights Advocate Arrested For Teaching Civil Rights
• Activist Rips DeSoto Justice System
• County Jail Faces Issues Of Age, Sanitary Conditions

Grant's Trial On Trial - Update 2

Aug 23, 2007

Arcadia, FL

From: Gary
To: glw717@comcast.net

The following are only excerpts. For full details and downloads of the full case history go to http://www.NancyGrant.info :

"I’ll have no 1st Amendment Arguments in My court!" Judge Lee Haworth, Sarasota's Twelfth Circuit Acting Chief Judge Said.

Did Judge Lee Haworth suspend the 1st amendment free speech provision of the US and Florida Constitution today? Or… if he suspended the 1st amendment, did he suspend the entire Constitution? When Andy Mooney, Ms Grant’s defense counsel requested testimony from John Good, testify on 1st Amendment freedom of speech issues pertaining to Ms. Grant’s defense, Judge Lee Haworth responded, "I’ll have no 1st Amendment Arguments in My court!" John Good, an attorney licensed in a state other than Florida had been prosecuted for misdemeanor Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) violations while working with Mr. Mooney as a paralegal. Although Mr. Good clearly advised clients that he was not licensed to practice law in Florida, but was licensed in a different state, the inclusion of his name on a small sign in their office front was enough to convict Mr. Good of UPL. Mr. Mooney describes to the court that Ms. Grant’s efforts to educate inmates of their legal rights by sending pre printed copies of US Constitution, Bill of rights and Declaration of Independence and like manner is exercise of free speech, not giving legal advise. 

Doesn’t our government want us to learn of our rights? How are we supposed to comply with the laws when we are treated like mushrooms? The state claims we cannot discuss law amongst ourselves. If these so called UPL laws pass constitutional muster, then does it follow that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington and James Madison could be arrested for UPL today? Many claim these laws are overbroad and unenforceable.

Federal Court Intervenes

The Federal Court DENIED Judge Parker and Prosecutor Don Hartery’s Motion to Dismiss Nancy Grant’s Second Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court August 13, 2007 naming Prosecutor Don Hartery and Judge Parker as defendants. Nancy’s complaint alleges Selective Prosecution and Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights all based on Florida Statute 454.23 a statute repealed in 1968, but later enhanced to upgrade UPL violations to a third degree felony about the same time Ms. Grant ran for Judge in the State of Florida. Ms. Grants cites a Florida Bar v Norman (download here) where the Florida Supreme court granted a Writ of Prohibition requiring the Florida Seventeenth District to cease and desist prosecution of Mr. Norman in a UPL case:

"The Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit is exceeding its jurisdiction and usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law in Florida"

Yet, apparently the Florida Supreme Court has not applied the same standard in Ms. Grant’s case by allowing this case to continue. Another inconsistency here is that Mr. Good above was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, not a felony like they are prosecuting Ms. Grant for multiple counts. This Federal action may bring this trial to a halt. Can you spell SELECTIVE PROSECUTION?

Four Hundred Eighteen Days in Solitary Confinement

Robert Masters testified today he was held four hundred eighteen days (418) in solitary confinement in the Florida Civil Commitment Center while waiting four hundred eighty days (480) for trial. Again represented by a public defender. He was given more charges for allegedly assaulting an officer. Robert testified that his PD refused to accept phone calls or answer letters, causing indefinite delays. Robert had been nearly blind until only recently when he received an operation on his eyes for glaucoma and cataracts. When Ms. Grant got involved, Robert filed a Florida Bar complaint, which got his lawyer to at least respond. Is this cruel and unusual?

Florida Pro Se Bar Officers Testify

The recorded prison conversations direct those in need of services to State Certified Law Clerk Paralegals Mack Ritchie. Mack completed his legal education by way of correspondence from Blackstone University and is currently as State Certified Law Clerk, which by law allows Mack to engage in certain legal services. Mack explained that his work includes generation of many forms available on computers in the computer lab for the resident population; compensation for his work is not allowed nor accepted. Both Aaron Shaw and Mack detailed the working relationship between Nancy and them where she acted as a go between to acquire documentation and mailings as though she were a mail clerk.

Mack also detailed other inmates legal issues where intimidation and threats may have taken place. The reader should note the tightrope these inmates who testify in this case walk between DOC staff and inmate. Numerous Writs of Mandamus were filed in an attempt to request the appellate court to require action on the part of the lower court since delays beyond constitutional limits are or were common. Since delays went beyond constitutional limits, many inmates filed Motions to Dismiss - Pro Se. Most of these Motions were ignored by the court and never responded to with the exception of a few. The stated intent of the Florida Pro Se Bar is to educate and inform. 

Big Trial and Big Buck$
Six officers were present in the court today for the entire day. The State had no less than 3 attorneys present at all times as well as several assistants. Several more officers were always present outside the courtroom. Another friend of Nancy’s explained the enormous fees for probation De Soto county takes in by extremely long probation times for relatively minor traffic offenses.

Grant's Trial On Trial - Update 1

Aug 22, 2007

Arcadia, FL

by Jerry Pitts

Hold on to your belts. 

As reported by men and women who were at the courthouse today.

Prosecutor, Donald H. Hartery, went into a rage when he realized that his primary witnesses, inmates from across the State of Florida, were testifying for Nancy Grant. Hartery at one point was speaking harshly and loudly toward his witnesses. Another of the witnesses, spoken in the Jury's' presence, testified how Judge Parker, during this witnesses conviction, told [him] that if he did not accept the plea deal of 15 years, that he would receive 150 years. 

WHOA ! Was that a mouthful for the Jury to swallow.

Nancy returned home this evening a little after 7PM EST. For the rest of the evening, she spent time with her elderly, yet compassionate father, a resident of this county for a large number of years. Her father is proud of the stance that his daughter is taking, as should be any good American man that has raised a child to respect and honor Justice and at the same time, not allow the man-made laws to stand in their way of Gods' Law.

Tomorrow will be the conclusion of the prosecutions opportunity to present EVIDENCE of some wrongdoing on the part of Nancy Grant. More prisoners are scheduled to give testimony in favor of the state. We will have to wait until tomorrow evening to find out how that chapter ends.

 Jerry Pitts

special researcher to FloridaJAIL4Judges.org

PRESS RELEASE

Racketeering Court To Try Whistle Blowing Accuser

August 8, 2007

Arcadia, FL


My name is Nancy Jo Grant. On March 22, 2006 I blew the whistle on the racketeering, closed door hearings, forced plea deals, bogus trials and the warehousing of inmates in the DeSoto County Courthouse, the 12th Judicial Circuit, and the DeSoto County Jail in Florida. As a result, I was arrested three months later on June 29, 2006 and a gag order was placed on me. Judge James S. Parker ordered that I was not allowed to talk to any inmates or any inmate's family members about anything going on at the jail or courthouse as condition of my bond, which was set extremely high at $50,000. 

For six years I collected evidence that proves: 1- All who pass through the criminal justice system have no defense prepared in their behalf; 2- The innocent and guilty go the same route, they are kept in jail until they break down and take plea deals. In 100% of the cases I researched, not one person had a defense prepared by the private retained attorneys, or the public defenders. The only information in their case files was prosecution side only, the attorneys are all getting paid for doing nothing, hence the racketeering behind closed doors forcing inmates to accept plea deals and until they do they are warehoused.

In 2005 I formed a non-profit corporation called the FPB, Florida Pro se Bar, Inc. (with the State of Florida's approval) to educate individuals who choose to represent themselves, (inside and outside the jail walls). Then the State of Florida charged me with (UPL), Unlicensed Practice of Law pursuant to Florida Statute 454.23 , which is a felony with a penalty of five years in prison. The Florida Bar is using this statute to attack any person in Florida that interferes in their prison system commerce.

I am being maliciously prosecuted for blowing the whistle on the illegal activities by the court and jail. The assistant state attorney created jury instructions just for my case and when these jury instructions are used at my trial, August 20, 2007 they will restrict our First Amendment Rights to speak and write. These jury instructions, for example make it against the law for a private person to contact an official, such as a clerk of court, for information on behalf of an incarcerated person.

 Click here for a copy of page 1 of the Jury Instructions. (JPEG image file)

 Click here for page 2 of the Jury Instructions. (JPEG image file

 Try here for the PDF file version (must have Adobe Acrobat to read it)
  (use your browser's back button to return to this page)

Historically (and ironically), the same judge who I blew the whistle on was the same judge who illegally took my four children from me in 1984. My story reached a national level when it was aired on a televised documentary and Judge Parker returned my children the next morning. That experience made me what I am today, a civil rights advocate. I am to be tried by the same court that I accused of racketeering, holding the closed door hearings, forcing plea deals, bogus trials and warehousing inmates.

For further information please contact:
Nancy Jo Grant
803 E. Magnolia Street, 

Arcadia, Florida 34266
ngrant@strato.net,  863 - 494 - 0363

Florida JIC, Nancy Grant, on Trial Monday 8/20/07

TRIAL INFORMATION RELEASE:

Date: Monday August 20, 2007

Time: 9:00 AM

Place:  Desoto County Courthouse

Address: 115 Oak St .

City: Arcadia , Fl 34266

Phone: 863-993-4876

Second Floor

 reposted from the Ron Branson Newsletter - Sat, Aug 18, 2007

Jury selection has been accomplished.   M. Andrew Mooney of Bradenton , Fl is representing Ms. Grant.  As  Judge Lee Haworth instructed the jury candidates “there is no victim to this crime”, some potential jury candidates smelled something gone awry in this one and backed out, saying “there’s something wrong here, I don’t want to be a part of this.”   State Attorney Hartery repeated ^3 that Ms. Grant received no compensation which raises more questions in jurists minds.   Ever hear of the “clean hands doctrine?”. 

August 8: Judge Lee Haworth enters an ORDER FOR LIMINE on its own initiative.  See the following excerpts and download it: 

Download: Order in Limine.pdf 

Download Hartery’s jury instructions:   CCF11302006_00000.pdf   He claims even though she received no compensation that is no defense.

“A. Introduction in the Jury's Presence of a "Racketeering" or Necessity Defense is Prohibited

Defendant is charged with 28 counts of the unlicensed practice of law (UPL). The state claims to have evidence that for a period of time spanning the seven months of March through September of 2006, Mrs. Grant engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by recruiting "clients" for the Florida Pro Se Bar, Inc., a corporation the prosecution says was created by defendant for the purposes of facilitating the illegal practice of law.:  and…

B. The Introduction of Issues Previously Argued or Ruled Upon by the Court Is Prohibited in the Presence of the Jury

Since the filing of the information, defendant has asserted a number of legal issues by argument, motion or pleading. Some of these are impertinent, such as her "Affidavit of Criminal Complaint" filed against prosecutor Don Hartery and others, and defendant's "Notice to Prosecutor to Prove Claim or Dismiss." …and

C. Other Prohibited Subjects

In addition to the foregoing, the following in limine provisions are in effect at trial.

NO REFERENCE TO POSSIBLE PENALTY: There shall be no comment by counsel to the jury regarding the possible penalty that may result from a conviction. In other words,       , statements that a conviction would subject a defendant to prison or ruin are not permitted. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) (1985), Kocsis v. State, 467 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1985), and Coleman v. State, 484 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1^st DCA 1986). For the defense to insinuate penalties into argument is to suggest an improper basis for the jury's decision. The jury should decide a case according to the law and the evidence presented and disregard the consequences of its verdict. See Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336 ( Fla. 1990).

Mrs. Grant is particularly vexed with the Hon. James S. Parker, Desoto County's resident circuit judge, who she sees as her main nemesis and the target for her most vitriolic and inflammatory accusations. Their paths first crossed in 1984 when in response to a petition filed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Judge Parker took judicial action on a dependency case involving her children, something that was not warmly received by her. Much later, in 2003 he sentenced one of her sons to state prison for arson, and in 2006 another son pled before Judge-Parker to the offense of sexual battery on an underage female relative and is currently in prison. In light of this history, a fair minded person could conclude her assumed pose as a muckraker and whistleblower is not that of an impartial, public spirited citizen.

In any event, Mrs. Grant claims Judge Parker in combination with other officials are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive inmates of the Desoto County jail of their civil rights. They do this, she alleges, by warehousing prisoners in jail for lengthy periods, depriving them of public hearings, then conducting "secret hearings" at which time they are threatened with long prison sentences until they agree to plead guilty. She accuses local attorneys who are appointed to represent these jailed defendants, both public defender and private, of doing nothing for their clients except sell them out, leaving them with "no defense." Collectively she refers to this potpourri of criminality as "racketeering," and for simplicity's sake, the court will refer to it as the "Racketeering Defense… and

NO JURY NULLIFICATION ARGUMENTS: Defense may not encourage the jury to disregard the law. Harding v. State. 736 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Such arguments weaken the court system and encourage jurors to violate their oaths, and accordingly "have no place at trial." Id; United States v Trujillo . 714 F.2d 102, 105 (11^th Cir. 1983) ("neither the court nor counsel should encourage jurors to violate their oaths").

NO SPEAKING OBJECTIONS: Both the defense and State shall refrain from making legal arguments in the presence of the jury in the form of "speaking objections" and shall object by stating legal grounds based on the Florida Evidence Code. If additional time is required to argue an objection, the movant may request a bench conference.

NO GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENTS: Counsel are prohibited from making statements to the jury suggesting that jurors put themselves in defendant's or a victim's position, such as "If this criminal prosecution happened to you, how would you (a juror) feel."

NO PANDERING TO GAIN SYMPATHY: Neither party shall seek to elicit sympathy for themselves or a victim by attempting to get the jury to pity or feel sorry for them. For example, statements by a defendant to the jury such as "I could not afford an attorney or the cost of discovery, so I was prevented from preparing a decent defense," are prohibited.

D. Rules for Self-Represented Parties

At the pre-trial conference, the court reviewed its Rules for Self-Represented Parties with Mrs. Grant. A copy is attached. The defendant is ordered to read, understand, and comply with the Rules, and the provisions of this Trial Order In Limine. If confused about any rule or prohibition in limine, defendant should ask the court for clarification before trial. Criminal contempt sanctions, including incarceration, may be employed by the court for willful violations.

Therefore, the court orders that while in the presence of the jury, without prior consent of the court the defendant shall make no reference to the subject matter or issues raised in any motion or filings made by her in this case since the filing of the original information on June 26,2006, nor shall she comment on the court's rulings on such subjects.”

Ever read the Supreme court’s opinion? (See quote from the Florida Bar’s web site:)  

“UPL is a product of Florida Supreme Court case law. A broad, general definition and a three ­part test were outlined in the State of Florida v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 ( Fla. 1962).
"We think that in determining whether the giving of advice and counsel and the performance of services in legal matters for compensation constitute  (emphasis mine) the practice of law it is safe to follow the rule that if the giving of such advice and performance of such services affect important rights of a person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and property of those advised and served requires that the persons giving such advice possess legal skill and knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the performance of such services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of law."

Nancy’s (selective prosecution?) trial opens up the whole UPL can of worms, which several states have repealed the same laws. 

George C. Leef is president of Patrick Henry Associates and an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He earned a J.D. from Duke University in 1977 

County Officials Claim Courts Are A Private Enterprise

Arcadia, FL

Aug 21, 2007

story credit: Jerry Pitts

special researcher to FloridaJAIL4Judges.org

reposted with permission

Desoto County Officials Make Admission that Its’ Court System is part of

A Private Law Corporation

The first question that comes to mind when we enter into a Courthouse is whether or not Justice is going to be administered fairly.  We all have a basic understanding of the Law (the Constitution) and based on that understanding, we rely on our judges and attorneys, and other government officials, to also abide by the Law.  Never would we suspect that the courts’ officials would bring into the courtroom, a foreign set of laws to be used against us.

The thought of this Notice in front of our “halls of justice” stayed in mind all day.  That evening, I found it necessary to delve deeper into the possible meaning of what was being ‘noticed’.  I have also seen this same ‘notice’ placed in other locations in and around the State, mostly in front of business establishments who are attempting to reserve a special parking area for the sake of promoting business and therefore enhancing that business’ opportunity to make a profit on the activities of the business.

Upon closer examination, I discovered that the meaning of ‘customer’ has the following definitions:

customer definition

n.

1. One that buys goods or services.

2. Informal An individual with whom one must deal: a tough customer.

customer synonyms

noun

1.       One who buys goods or services: buyer, client, patron, purchaser. See transactions

2.       One who consumes goods and services: consumer, user. See give, used

I have heard tale, that ‘justice’ can be bought, or that ‘we have the best judicial system that money can buy’.  I always thought these were simply someone expressing, in a cynical manner, their personal displeasure with the Florida Judicial system.  Never would I have imagined that the County Officials would blatantly and with prideful, arrogant boasting, make such a declaration for the whole world to see, with their own eyes, the TRUTH of these ‘old sayings’.

OK!. The Desoto County officials have openly declared that when you enter into these “halls of Justice”, make sure that you possess a notable amount of cash on hand, that will enable you to purchase or buy the services that they offer.  Well what services do they offer?  They offer you the opportunity to pay fines and penalties imposed on you by other members of their corporation/business/enterprise; they offer you the opportunity to purchase marriage licenses; they offer you the opportunity to purchase a space within their recordings (Public Records) that will enable you to ‘put on public record’ matters that have legal significance to you and or your family; and Oh Yes!; they allow you the opportunity to purchase the decision of the judge in a matter wherein you have been named as ‘defendant’ or ‘plaintiff’.  Is the ‘customer always right’?  No! All too often, we have seen what has been said to be a ‘travesty of Justice’.  But then again, that would be dependent upon who entered the courtroom with the greater amount of cash on hand.

All of the above points my mind toward another thought.  With the Judicial system openly admitting that they are operating a business where ‘Justice’ (the primary purpose of the Judiciary) is sold on the open market, then it would stand to reason that the Judiciary system is also conducting what is known as a ‘Commercial’ operation. 

Now we must ask ourselves; “What is Commerce?”  To answer this question, let me again reference the dictionary found at www.yourdictionary.com . In this definition we find another amazing concept which is also advanced and promoted with the Bouviers’ 1856 Legal dictionary.

commerce definition

n.

1. The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations. See Synonyms at business.

2. Intellectual exchange or social interaction.

3. Sexual intercourse.

commerce synonyms  

noun

1. Commercial, industrial, or professional activity in general: business, industry, trade, trading, traffic. See action

This modern day definition, seems to be a bit broad, in that it encompasses anything and everything that a man or woman could be seemingly engaged in while inhabiting any particular station in this society. When viewing this definition, we find it includes anything from a casual conversation with a friend (social interaction) to going to church (another social interaction) to sexual intercourse or the buying and selling of goods.  Comparing this modern day definition, to that of the Bouviers’ 1856 Legal definition of ‘commerce’ we find that they are not so dissimilar.

  COMMERCE, trade, contracts. The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. 2. Congress have power by the constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. 1 Kent. 431; Story on Corst. 1052, et seq. The sense in which the word commerce is used in the constitution seems not only to include traffic, but intercourse and navigation. Story, 1057; 9 Wheat. 190, 191, 215, 229; 1 Tuck. Bl. App. 249 to 252. Vide 17 John. R. 488; 4 John. Ch. R. 150; 6 John. Ch. R. 300; 1 Halst. R. 285; Id. 236; 3 Cowen R. 713; 12 Wheat. R. 419; 1 Brock. R. 423; 11 Pet. R. 102; 6 Cowen, R. 169; 3 Dana, R. 274; 6 Pet. R. 515; 13 S. & R. 205.

These Judicial companies as shown in the inserted photo above, seem to be operating under a presumption, that they have a ‘reciprocal agreement’ with anyone that ventures into their premises.

Another interesting find, regarding such entities as government, doing business is found in a decision of the Untied States Supreme Court, in the case of Clearfield Trust Co. v the United States: A paraphrase of what was said follows:

"Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the

characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial

paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For

purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities

entirely separate from government." – Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318

U.S. 363-371

The actual language used is :

“The fact that the drawee is the United States and the laches those of its employees are not material. Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 398. The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee. As stated in United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U.S. 527, 534 , 46 S.Ct. 388, 389, 'The United States does business on business terms.' It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees 'by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt.' Id., 270 U.S. at page 535, 46 S.Ct. at page 389.”

The inference to be drawn from either source (the actual language or the paraphrased language) is the same, to wit. ‘If the government engages in business and utilizes ‘commercial paper’, that government is bound by the same rules and subject to the same penalties, as any other business entity.

My Goodness!  This would mean that, because this State of Florida Judiciary system is accepting ‘checks’ and ’securities’ and other ‘commercial paper (Federal Reserve Notes and Bonds) in return for their services, that they have descended to the “Level of a mere private corporation” or “The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee” .  Having committed this act of descending (using the various forms of commercial paper), they have also admitted to being a ‘mere private corporation’ and are using ‘private corporate’ law as opposed to Constitutional LAW.  The Judiciary in consort with other State officials, such as the Senate and House of Representatives, have blatantly converted the organic Constitution of the Florida Republic into a Corporate Charter, and the Florida Statues are nothing more than the By-Laws of the Corporate State and are applicable only to those that choose to be in reciprocity to the terms set forth by the corporation.

Being in reciprocity simply means that you have consented, either by a written document, or through what the corporation refers to as ‘usage’.  In other words, if you ‘use’ their private corporate law, then you are bound by those private corporate laws; if you have signed any paper that can be construed by the corporation as a ‘consent’, then you are also bound by your consent to abide by those private corporate laws. If you desire to not be bound by those 'private corporate laws', then it is necessary that you 'revoke' those previous agreements and assure yourself that you will not enter into those agreements ever again.  Thus, the real problem!  According to the definition of 'commerce' it is impossible for us to exist within this society without being in commerce on a daily basis unless we all become hermits and live off the fat of the land, with absolutely no interaction occurring with one another.  Therefore, seeing the unlikelihood of that scenario, it becomes necessary for us to advance our intellect to be able to work within the commercial realm, at the same or greater level of knowledge than what they possess.

There are 10 primary rules of Commerce;

1. A workman is worthy of his hire;

2. All are equal under the law (both moral and natural law);

3. In commerce truth is sovereign;

4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit;

5. An un-rebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce;

6. An un-rebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce;

7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved;

8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default;

9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (if one has neither been damaged nor incurred a risk, and is unwilling to swear an affidavit -- i.e., "true, correct, and complete," the commercial equivalent of, " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" -- on his unlimited commercial liability for the veracity of his statements and the legitimacy of his action, he has no credibility, and therefore no basis for asserting claims/charges or claiming authority);

10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment.

Because of the above information, it is clear that :

1: we are all engaged in commerce due merely to the simple fact that we are exchanging through intellect, various pieces of information, and also because we are engaged in social interaction;

2: because we are all engaged in commerce, then the 10 laws of commerce touch and affect each and everyone of us;

3: in order for us to not be engaged in commerce, it is necessary that we not communicate with one another; that we not engage in the sharing of intellectual processes; that we not engage in sexual intercourse, even with our wives…

Seemingly we are in a pickle. We can do nothing without being in commerce. Then if we decide that we are to be engaged in commerce, then it becomes necessary to have these fundamental rules of commerce and that these same rules be adhered to by all parties that are involved in commerce. If commerce ceases, or if those rules are not adhered to equally by all parties then an advantage is set up in favor of one above the other, then those that were dependent upon equality in commerce would suffer calamity within their lives; they would be irreparably harmed financially, socially, and intellectually.

Equality is not the equivalent of Equity.

Where ‘equity’ primarily concerns itself with the nature of  ‘value’ (in a monetary sense), equality primarily concerns itself with the nature of ‘sameness’.  After examining the definitions and etymology of the two terms, it is apparent that there is an impossibility of two things, people, or other entities being equal.  They may be approximately the same (equal) but the physical reality assures that they are merely approximations giving similarity.  Therefore, it is similarly appropriate to state that the courts operating under a so-called ‘law of equity’ or a doctrine of ‘equality under the law’ are impossibilities, as the mere definitions refute that possibility.  The concept of ‘equality’ or ‘equity’, as they are used in the courthouse, are further repudiated by the nature of the laws of this State, wherein one group of men and women are granted more rights and privileges than another group based upon a biased and prejudicial point of view; the group I reference is the Florida Bar members. They control and regulate the commercial activities of the courthouse, and anyone attempting to conduct a similar activity, are prosecuted under that law which gives only the members of the Florida Bar, the right to conduct their business within those courthouses.  Other such, laws of Florida, also regulate other trades wherein there is a presumed quality or ability within one person performing a task as compared to another person performing the same task.

The most profound repudiation of the concept of ‘equality under the law’ or ‘law of equity’, rests within this communication from the Department of State for the State of Florida, concerning the bonds required by the Constitution for Public Officials.

“From: Bronson, Kristi R. KRBronson@dos.state.fl.us

Sent :    Wednesday, August 8, 2007 11:59 AM

To:        Jerry

Subject: RE: Oaths of Office

Dear Mr. [name omitted]:

Judges are not required to file bonds.  I hope this information is helpful.  Please let me know if you need additional information.

Sincerely, 

Kristi Reid Bronson, Chief Florida Bureau of Election Records (850) 245-6240

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:45 PM
To: Plain Language
Subject: Oaths of Office

I would like to know, what State office should I contact in order to retrieve a copy of a bond for any particular judge operating within the State of Florida?

Your assistance in this matter would be deeply appreciated.

Jerry

All Rights Reserved “

Based upon the above communication, it is evident that the State has either, allowed the judiciary to assume a ‘nobility’ status that the Constitution has forbade, else the Judiciary has usurped the Title of Noble status, placing itself above the law of the land.  This action of the Corporate State in placing, or allowing to be placed, the Judiciary in a position that enables the Judiciary to not be affected by the laws that are applicable to all others in the corporation, places the Judiciary holding a Status of Nobility.  The Judiciary now appears to be immune from the law, as they are not required to adhere to the law.

TO BE CONTINUED

Judicial Qualifications Commission Dismisses Grant's Complaint About Closed Door Hearings

April 28, 2008

By website admin  

The following is a copy of a letter Nancy Grant received dated October 11, 2006 from the State of Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission concerning Grant's complaint about closed door hearings:

STATE OF FLORIDA

JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION

1110 Thomasville Road

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224

(850) 488-1581

October 11, 2006

Ms. Nancy Grant

(address omitted)

Arcadia, FL

Re: Complaint No. 06253

Dear Ms. Grant:

          The members of the Investigative Panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission met on Thursday, October 5, 2006 and considered your complaint filed in the above-styled matter. After full review and consideration of the complaint, the Commission concluded that the matter does not warrant further proceedings by the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission has requested I advise you that the complaint has been dismissed and the file closed.

Sincerely yours,

James R. Wolf (signed)

Chair

JRW:bsk

Grant Responds to Chief Justice Lewis of Florida Supreme Court

April 28, 2008

By website admin  

Nancy Grant
Arcadia, Florida

October 10, 2006

R. Fred Lewis, Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice
500 S. Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925

Mr. Lewis,

Enclosed is a newspaper article about the 400 civil and family court cases along with an unknown number of criminal cases that disappeared from public view. I sent this article because what I have been exposing going on in the DeSoto County Court is just as bad or worse. For exposing what is going on I was arrested June 29th and am being threatened with 5 years in prison for blowing the whistle on what is going on here.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission sent an investigator from Tampa. I spent four hours talking about everything. The JQC is reviewing the investigative report, I believe October 17th. Our local circuit judge, Judge Parker has been holding hearings inside his chambers, behind closed doors for everyone inside the DeSoto County Jail. Inmates do not have hearings until they're ready to take plea deals. Inmates are threatened with life sentences or 30 year for every charge if they try to represent themselves when they are tired of being warehoused. There is racketeering going on where defense attorneys file two papers, a notice of appearance and a demand for Discovery. After that they do nothing for their clients but let them sit in the jails until they break and take plea deals then collect the fees. Private attorneys do the same but collect their fees prior to sending their clients to prison. The conditions in the DeSoto County Jail were brought to the attention of the local paper but nothing seems to remedy the deplorable conditions there, once the media goes away they return back to the same status quo. The plea deals are forced because men and women sit in jail until they eventually take a plea. However long that takes. NO Defendants Discovery is ever filed, that makes a one sided case- Prosecution only.

This same judge that is presiding on my case placed a gag order on me during booking when I was arrested, telling me that I could not talk to any inmates and any inmates family members or my bond would be revoked, which was set at $50,000. I have appealed to the Florida Supreme Court but my cries are turned away.

Judge Parker is the same judge that took my children in 1984. My story went out on a national documentary and written up in T.V. Guide. After the broadcast, Parker returned my children the next morning. Last year I found for the first time hand written notes from my case worker in 1984 saying that Judge Parker called and told her there was no reason to have taken my children.

Earl Moreland, the District State Attorney, 12th Circuit has issued subpoenas for over 100 people just 10 days after I received Discovery. I am about to file my Defendants Discovery, Pro se. Earl Moreland subpoenaed all these people for a trial for October 30th and there hasn't been a court order nor a verbal order for a trial. The state is trying to rush me to trial to silence me. I have never been in trouble in my life. I am a Christian and have spent time in Central America as a missionary. I found out about these closed door hearings when my son was locked up so his ex-wife could sell his property valued at almost a half a million dollars that was given to him by his grandfather. My son was reporting no hearings being held month after month after month, he also reported how inmates were being threatened with life sentences forcing plea deals on them. 

"I am living in Nazi Germany. Not the United States of America."

August 23, 2006

By website admin

Arrest

On July 29, 2006, Nancy Grant went to the DeSoto County Jail to visit her son. She went there to sign up to visit him but the jailers would not let her leave. “I was there about 20 minutes, they wouldn’t let me leave, so I asked ‘what’s going on?’ They wouldn’t tell me.” Why? Because Grant was being arrested for “Unlicensed Practice of the Law” more commonly known as UPL.

 “When they handcuffed me, [the arresting officer] tried to put the handcuffs around my right arm, and due to a recent motorcycle accident my right arm doesn’t bend that way, so I went down toward the floor in extreme pain when she tried to bend my arm behind my back. I told her it was extremely painful, so she removed the hand cuffs, and recuffed me in the front.”

They said Grant could call her husband on the pay telephone. The phone, owned and maintained by PayTel, a company contracted with the jail to provide public pay phones at that location, charges $2.25 to use their phones for 15 minutes, instead of the usual 25 cents per local call.

Grant told them her husband would not accept the charges from that telephone, so they eventually let her use the phone in the Lieutenant’s office. So her husband called the bondsman to get her out. The jail still sent Grant the $2.25 phone bill.

After booking and fingerprinting, Grant appeared before the 12^th Judicial Circuit judge James “Smiley” Parker, who coincidentally was the same judge who had previously taken Grant’s children away from her 20 years ago, based upon an anonymous claim that she abused her children, which was never proven, and thus after her story was published in the TV Guide and broadcast on national television, judge Parker released her children back into her custody the very next day. Ever since then Grant has been fighting against judge Parker.

During Grant's first court appearance, Parker cited a letter sent to Grant on September 13^th 2005 from the UPL committee in Sarasota, that cautioned her concerning allegations that she was providing certain unlawful legal advice and preparing legal documents, signing and filing them on behalf of detainees in the jail, which “constitute the unlicensed practice of law in Florida. Please be advised that it constitutes a contempt of the Supreme Court of Florida as well as a third-degree felony under the Florida statutes for a non-lawyer to draft legal documents, give legal advice, or represent the interests of another in legal matters." Parker asked Grant about the letter, then told her that if she does anything that is stipulated in that letter concerning what not to do, he would revoke her bond.

The Letter

The letter sent to Grant was simply an attempt by an attorney to threaten Grant with jail time if she did any of the allegations stipulated therein. Again, this reporter must emphasize that they are allegations, not fact. YET, Parker cited this “threatening” letter as though it were a fact. The letter was originally sent to a judge Bennett, who previously presided over a lawsuit hearing against Grant that was filed by Drake Buckman, an Arcadian attorney, months earlier, who claimed Grant should not be allowed to run for the office of Circuit Judge because she was not a member of the Florida Bar, which is contrary to what is written in Florida’s state Constitution. Judge Bennett then sent the letter to Judge Parker and to Grant. “The UPL committee did not receive a copy of this letter,” Grant said "when they should have." “Buckman’s name was never on the Certificate of Service, to get a copy of the results of the hearing,” Grant said. When Grant asked the UPL committee why his name was not cited on the Certificate of Service, their response to Grant was “That information is not available.”

Each UPL committee, set up in each judicial circuit, is supposed to be comprised of attorneys and non-attorney members of the public. Yet all of the committee members are voted into the committee by The Florida Bar, not by the general public. So which part of the public is voted on to serve as a UPL committee member? Retired attorneys? Retired judges? No one knows or is willing to say. The Florida Bar refused comment.

“Drake Buckman did not go back to the UPL committee to file another complaint against me. Instead he went to the sheriff’s department. No where in the Florida Bar rules does it state that he can do that,” Grant said. “Since we were sending these Motions to Dismiss to the jail, these men were finding out that they didn’t have to sit in jail for years, that they could exercise their due process rights, and demand their release; because the courts did not take them to trial within 6 months. And once Buckman realized this, it had already started to disrupt the county court system here. I’m accusing these attorneys and judges of Racketeering,” Grant said.

“One of the things that stuck in my mind” Grant said “was that there was a lot of cash flowing around in there. The officer that was inside the booking area had two giant wads of cash bulging out of his pockets, and he was bragging about how much cash he had in plastic bags. ‘Look how much I got’ he said to a fellow guard as he pulled out a giant wad of $100 bills,” Grant said.

Grant continued “They told me I was going to spend the night in the booking area. Normally once you have your First Appearance they put you in a POD,” [where all of the days arrested inmates are kept until another decision is made to move them to a regular cell]. Grant said they told her “if you don’t bond out by morning, then we’ll figure out what we’re going to do with you” because they didn’t want Grant talking to the women in the POD. “They don’t want them to know their rights” Grant said. She said she was there from 2pm till 6pm when she finally bonded out. Her husband paid $5,000 for a $50,000 bond.

It Was A Setup

Grant maintains that her arrest was a setup. Her defense claims that after Grant formed a legal non-profit corporation, the Florida Pro’ Se Bar Inc, she hired two paralegals, [certified by The Florida Bar], to provide legal consultation and write legal forms and legal papers, to help regular people defend themselves in court. One of the paralegals, Mack Ritchie, provides paralegal consultation services at the Florida Commitment Center, a temporary minimum-security prison for sex offenders who have already served their sentences.

“99% of the sex offenders have gone thru the same plea deal system as everyone else. They sat in prison until they broke down and took plea deals. Little did they know they would be warehoused in concentration camps after they served their court ordered prison sentence,” Grant said. “This is what Nazi Germany was doing and the people ignored it [then] just like people are ignoring it [now] here in this country,” Grant said.

Grant learned of Ritchie from her son, who was charged, by his ex-wife, with molesting his sister, because his ex-wife is seemingly bent on trying to get his million-dollar property taken from him. Grant’s son maintains he never molested his sister. Grant’s daughter maintains her brother never molested her. Yet Grant’s son is still being held in jail on these trumped up charges.

Grant said Ritchie is the one who prepares all of the legal documents, which includes “An Emergency Motion to dismiss charges, demanding the release of the prisoners due to the court’s failure to exercise due process.” Right on the last page of the forms Ritchie has his name, address, phone number, and that he is a member of the Florida Pro’ Se Bar Inc, and a statement attesting that he had prepared the documents. This should leave no question in anyone’s mind as to who wrote and prepared these documents.

Another document he prepared was an authorization form that was mailed with the Motion to Dismiss document, where the prisoner would sign the form giving authorization to the Florida Pro’ Se Bar Inc to assist them in filing pro’ se free of charge. Pro se is a Latin term meaning "on behalf of oneself." The phrase refers to a person who is not a lawyer, but who chooses to represent himself in court. The waiver also contains a disclaimer showing that the Florida Pro’ Se Bar Inc and it’s staff are non-lawyers.

Grant said her company got the names of the inmates from the DeSoto County Jail’s website, http://www.desotosheriff.org, “We found 55 inmates that were kept in the DeSoto County Jail over 180 days, waiting . . . for nothing. The attorney’s for these people were doing nothing except waiting for the inmates to take a plea deal so the inmates could move on - either to prison or probation. All we did was provide them an option to file pro’ se to exercise their right to a speedy trial and due process as provided in the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We were giving them an alternative,” Grant said. The 14^th Amendment clearly states that no one will be kept in jail longer than 180 days prior to a trial and must be given a speedy trial.

According to another interview conducted by DeSoto-Sun’s Greg Martin on May 5 2006, Lon Arend, assistant state attorney, claims “Grant is mistaken in her claim that the defendants have not waived their speedy trial rights. They waived those rights when their attorneys requested continuances on their behalf,” he said. "Under the law, anytime the defendant asks for a continuance, (the speedy trial right) is deemed to be waived," Arend said. “Defendants can reinvoke speedy trial rights after giving notice to the court,” Arend said.

Grant maintains that the inmates are not told about the waiving of the speedy trial right when their attorney requests a continuance. Grant continues that the reason why their attorney’s file for a continuance is to get them to wait for many months without any trial, to convince them to take a plea deal. “Non of the men we sent these documents to had knowingly waived their right to a speedy trial. It has to be done in writing, and non of them had waived that right,” Grant said. “We also sent them The Citizen’s Rule Book, a little booklet you can stick in your pocket. It teaches the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, it has holy scripture in it, statements from our forefathers. We sent them these Rule Books so the inmates can start learning their rights,” Grant said.

“All I was doing was mailing the documents to the inmates and taking the documents signed by the inmates to the courthouse. I was acting as a courier,” Grant said.

“I discovered that Buckman has been double-dipping, from the client AND from the state,” Grant said. “The attorneys don’t collect from their client until after they take a plea deal, so the attorneys feel obligated to wait until their client breaks down and takes a plea,” Grant said. “After they file a Notice of Appearance, and a Motion to Participate & Discovery, they stop filing motions on their client’s behalf. There’s like two papers he files, and that’s it,” Grant said. “And then the inmate sits there, for months and months and months on end, without a hearing,” Grant said. “This is just a little drop in the bucket of what’s going on in the entire state,” Grant said.

“Typically, judge Parker may assign 70 defendants to Drake Buckman per day. And he’s filing 2 pieces of paper on them, and they sit. Even if they bonded out, he’s still not doing anything for them. And he still collects money from them AND the state,” Grant said. Are these inmates dangerous people, should they be locked up? Most of these people are arrested on charges of domestic abuse, drug charges, cruelty to animals, drunk driving, etc. Most are misdemeanors, only a small handful are felonies. Grant contends that if there really are people in jail that really did do something wrong, and there’s evidence to prove that, then they should go to trial ASAP.

“In most cases, if there are witnesses to the alleged crimes, the witnesses are never contacted by the defense attorneys," Grant said. "The attorneys are not building defenses. The proof is in the paperwork at the courthouse. You will never find any defense filed on behalf of the defendant,” Grant said.

“This is why our jails are filling up. They go to prison and sit there until they take a plea deal. If they go on probation, the county makes money on that probation. Everybody that goes into that jail is [assumed to be] guilty no matter what,” Grant said. And that’s just wrong. Whatever happened to “You’re innocent until proven guilty”???

Grant noted that prisoners who wish to take advantage of the Florida Pro' Se Bar Inc's services must dismiss their attorneys.

"I founded it so people, especially people who are incarcerated, could learn to file legal papers in court for themselves, without the aid of an attorney," Grant said.

For more information on the Pro’ Se, you may contact them directly at:

Florida Pro' Se Bar Inc.

P.O. Box 402

Arcadia, FL 34265

Grant, 53, declared that the court, by not acknowledging the established procedures for investigation and prosecution, holds the Florida Bar in contempt and labeled its rules "a mockery." Grant, who works as a dental assistant in Arcadia, also argued she was illegally arrested without due process. Grant was arrested in late June and charged with practicing law without a license following an investigation by the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office.

Grant has not attended law school. She has a high school diploma and says she has some taken some college courses. Practicing law without a license is a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison. Grant was released on $50,000 bond. Against the judge's advice, Grant insisted on representing herself in Wednesday's proceedings. "I do suggest you be represented by an attorney," Parker told Grant. Grant chose to waive her right to be represented by an attorney.

Grant declared that the court not only did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, but that the court was "throwing the Florida Bar Association and the Supreme Court out the door." Prosecutor Donald Hartery argued that the court did have jurisdiction over the case. "She (Grant) didn't get it. She doesn't get it now. She is subjecting herself to a possible five years in prison," he told the court. The case could go to trial following a docket sounding Sept. 5. A defiant Grant said Wednesday that she could not be taken to trial until she was ready. "I'm going to file for a change of venue," she said. "I'm going to submit a complaint to the Florida Supreme Court. I'll file an appeal of Judge Parker's ruling denying the motion to dismiss."

[edited for brevity]

After hearing Grant's brief rebuttal to Hartery's arguments, Parker was quick to rule. "The motion to dismiss will be denied," he said. Grant started to object, but was stopped short by Parker, who said, "Miss Grant, the way it works, you get to have your argument, Mister Hartery has his argument, you have a brief rebuttal, and then the argument is over and the court rules. That's the way the rules go."

You can e-mail John Lawhorne at jlawhorne@sun-herald.com.

 In the Charlotte Sun, July 1, is a report about Nancy Grant, perhaps Public Enemy No. 1, who has been a "thorn in the side of DeSoto County judges and attorneys...!" Her crime must be a high crime, indeed!

The $50,000 bond she had to post to get out of jail is higher than drivers with multiple offenses of driving with suspended licenses (about $500), not paying child support ($200 to $500) possession of drugs ($1,000) or sale and delivery of drugs ($2,500).

Several points become apparent. 1) Lawyers have protected the field of law irrespective of how incompetent a lawyer is or how competent an interested citizen may be; 2) The bond requirements have little to do with the seriousness of the crime. Nancy Grant crossed the lawyers: $50,000 bond; 3) Other lawbreakers, lawyers call them clients, have low bonds by comparison.

Wake up America! If you don't raise hell, why should Congress change?

Based upon an investigation by the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office, Grant was arrested Thursday and charged with practicing law without a license, a third-degree felony. Grant was released on $50,000 bond.

Sheriff's Office Lt. Curt Mays received a sworn complaint from Arcadia attorney Susan Germann Wright on May 1 stating she had learned from a client -- Richard Stewart, who was incarcerated in the DeSoto County Jail -- that he had received unsolicited legal forms and a letter misrepresenting the law. Wright told Mays that she considered the legal advice in the letter incorrect.

Wright said in her complaint that the letter sent to Stewart contained a document called an "emergency motion to dismiss" that stated that Stewart had received the document because he had been incarcerated more than 180 days, in violation of his due process rights. The letter, according to Wright, went on to say that a corporation called Florida Pro Se wanted to help Stewart by filing legal motions on his behalf.

Wright could not be reached for comment Friday.

The forms and a letter were from the Florida Pro Se Bar, which was founded by Grant, who is also president of the organization. "I founded it so people, especially people who are incarcerated, could learn to file legal papers in court for themselves," Grant said, "without the aid of an attorney. The powers that be don't like that."

Pro se is a Latin term meaning "on behalf of oneself." The phrase refers to a person who is not a lawyer, but who chooses to represent himself in court. The nonprofit organization was incorporated March 6 by the Florida Secretary of State. Grant, 54, who works as a dental assistant in Arcadia, said Pro Se Bar includes two paralegals. 

Assistant State Attorney Cliff Ramey said Friday that because Grant was well known in DeSoto County, and her relationship with local judges was often acrimonious, the state attorney's office wanted to avo