last updated: Tuesday, May 13, 2008

To view news stories specific to your county, 

please visit your county page.

• Justice O'Connor Criticizes Judicial Accountability Legislation

• Bad Prosecutors Should Face Prison - an Editorial

• Supreme Court Rules: Cops May Search Even if Arrest Invalid

• U.S. Prison Population Dwarfs Other Nations

• White House Asked DOJ How Bush Could Sidestep 4th Amendment

• J.A.I.L. Sues Florida Bar in U.S. Supreme Court

• NIU: ONCE AGAIN, NOBODY HAD A GUN

• Corrupt Florida Judiciary Makes International Headlines

• Perjury Charge Looming For District Judge

• County Officials Claim Courts Are A Private Enterprise

• We Do Not Have Civil Rights

• Florida Bar Sees JAIL4Judges As A Threat!

• Independence Panel Concerned By Threats - The Florida Bar's Judicial Independence committee twisted view on JAIL4Judges & our website admin's notes.

• RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION - Why the original 13th Amendment is missing.

• The Story of the Buck Act - How the Federal Government Deceitfully Gets Jurisdiction Over You and Everything You Own.

       2007 News Archive (in zip file. Right click, choose "Save As" to download) 

        contains the following:

• C-Span Judicial Accountability Briefing

• 'Demanding Justice' March on Washington DC - Nov 14-16, 2007

• 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

• Nancy Grant's Press Release

• Nancy Grant On Trial

• County Officials Claim Courts Are A Private Enterprise

• Pro se Litigant sues 764 judges

• Broward Judge Retires After Getting Caught Smoking Pot - read the comment

• A review of Judge Korda's recent pot-smoking arrest

• Prosecutors Seek OK To Create Phony Files

• Broward Judge Faces Ethics Charges

• U.S. Marine Vietnam Vet Seeks Judicial Reform

• We Do Not Have Civil Rights

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

• Grant Responds to Chief Justice Lewis of Florida Supreme Court

• Florida JAIL4Judges Interviews Nancy Grant

• Grant's Motion To Dismiss Denied

• Why is Grant's bond so high?

• Civil Rights Advocate Arrested

• Activist Rips DeSoto Justice System

• County Jail Faces Issues Of Age, Sanitary Conditions

• Florida Bar Sees JAIL4Judges As A Threat!

• Independence Panel Concerned By Threats

• RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION - Why the original 13th Amendment is missing.

• The Story of the Buck Act

2006 News Archive (in zip file. Right click, choose "Save As" to download) 

        contains the following:

• JAIL4Judges Election Debriefing 2006
• Hard Evidence of Press Bias
• South Dakota's Election Results
• The Opposition Makes The Case For Amendment E
• California Judiciary Frightened Over J.A.I.L.
• Gross Prosecutorial Misconduct Blown Over By Justice Dept
• Accountability Initiative Attacks Legislature, Citizens - from someone who didn't even bother to read what the initiative is.
• Please Read The Initiative, Mr. Barnett - a rebuttal.

reposted from:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=748473

 Justice O'Connor Criticizes 

    Judicial Accountability Legislation
 Retired Justice Says Public Is Becoming Cynical About Courts

Journal Sentinel
By GEORGIA PABST
gpabst@journalsentinel.com
May 7, 2008

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor urged more than 700 members of the legal and business community Wednesday afternoon to help educate the public about the need for an accountable and independent judiciary.
Speaking at the Midwest Airlines Center at the 150th anniversary luncheon of the Milwaukee Bar Association, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court decried the "avalanche of advertising money" spent by special interest lobbies in states (such as Wisconsin) where judges are elected. "Often these ads misrepresent the facts and scare voters by talking about criminal, not civil, cases, and everything is subordinated to a sound bite," she said.

"They're what french fries are to nutrition - fattening, but not helpful," she said. "It's important that the judiciary be completely independent. Unfortunately, three-fourths of Americans are not familiar with this concept."

As a result, the public has become more cynical about the courts and is less likely to believe in a judiciary that's fair and impartial, she said. "Accountability and independence are two sides of the same coin, and judges have to avoid pressures and uphold the law."

She said the judiciary faces attack, such as in South Dakota, where voters considered a "Jail4Judges" measure in which an unsuccessful litigant could file a complaint and judges could be fined or jailed because of their rulings. The measure failed, she said.

A recent survey showed that two-thirds of Americans could name at least one judge on the Fox television show "American Idol," while less than one-tenth could identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, she said.

To try to build a better understanding of the court system, she said, she's working with Arizona State University and Georgetown University on an interactive program that would show how courts work, who judges are, what they do and why they matter. Students would get to play the role of a judge and be given cases to consider based on the law and Constitution to build understanding and knowledge of the courts and their important roles, she said.

O'Connor lives in Arizona but said she spends July 4 holidays in Wisconsin, fishing near Cable.

She was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981 by President Reagan and served on the court for 24 years before retiring in 2006.

She was often a decisive swing vote on major legal issues such as abortion and the death penalty.


- 30 -

reposted from:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-watkins_06edi.ART.State.Edition1.46a3df7.html


  EDITORIAL
   Bad Prosecutors Should Face Prison

06:41 AM CDT
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Dallas Morning News

Craig Watkins has had a few misses amid many hits in his first term as Dallas County district attorney, but it's hard to argue with his there-oughta-be-a-law sentiment on prosecutorial misconduct.

Mr. Watkins has pushed as hard to free the innocent as he has to convict the guilty. In that spirit, he now wants Texas to increase punishments - up to and including prison time - for prosecutors who intentionally withhold evidence from defendants.

Today, Texas law allows cash compensation to those wrongfully convicted but has no criminal sanctions for prosecutors who intentionally commit "Brady violations." The term stems from a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brady vs. Maryland that held that defendants' constitutional rights are violated if prosecutors intentionally or accidentally withhold evidence favorable to the defense.

A sanction from the State Bar of Texas is the worst penalty a prosecutor currently can expect, and such instances are so rare as to be noteworthy when they occur.

Even the most egregious recent example of U.S. prosecutorial misconduct - Durham County, N.C., District Attorney Mike Nifong and the so-called Duke lacrosse case - resulted in only a day in jail, a fine and disbarment. If that sounds stiff, consider the potential life ruination from his attempts to prosecute three college students on rape charges he knew to be false.

Few cases are as heinous or as obvious. Ferreting out this type of injustice is far from as clear-cut as a DNA exoneration. It can be years or even decades before legal teams can dig up the evidence needed to bring such a charge.

If time - in effect, a statute of limitations - is a potential obstacle, Mr. Watkins also knows that degree is another. Every bit of evidence, from a witness to a document to a fiber found at a crime scene, carries a different weight. This must be considered in any new law.

Since he's not a state legislator, Mr. Watkins needs someone to carry a bill for him in Austin. We would think he would have the support of the vast majority of his DA colleagues. They know as well as he does that any prosecutor who cheats the system and cuts corners makes all of them look bad.

- 30 -

reposted from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search;_ylt=Ao3i9tdcyQSFSrgmzj9PkFGs0NUE

  Supremes: Cops May Search Even if Arrest Invalid

By PETE YOST, 

Associated Press
Wed Apr 23, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law. 

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go.

Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.

State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.

Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.

The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency.

Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.

-30-

reposted from:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php

  U.S. Prison Population Dwarfs Other Nation's

By Adam Liptak
International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes - from writing bad checks to using drugs - that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China's extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)

San Marino, with a population of about 30,000, is at the end of the long list of 218 countries compiled by the center. It has a single prisoner.

The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)

The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England's rate is 151; Germany's is 88; and Japan's is 63.

The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

There is little question that the high incarceration rate here has helped drive down crime, though there is debate about how much.

Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America's extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges - many of whom are elected, another American anomaly - yield to populist demands for tough justice.

Whatever the reason, the gap between American justice and that of the rest of the world is enormous and growing.

It used to be that Europeans came to the United States to study its prison systems. They came away impressed.

"In no country is criminal justice administered with more mildness than in the United States," Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured American penitentiaries in 1831, wrote in "Democracy in America."

No more.

"Far from serving as a model for the world, contemporary America is viewed with horror," James Whitman, a specialist in comparative law at Yale, wrote last year in Social Research. "Certainly there are no European governments sending delegations to learn from us about how to manage prisons."

Prison sentences here have become "vastly harsher than in any other country to which the United States would ordinarily be compared," Michael Tonry, a leading authority on crime policy, wrote in "The Handbook of Crime and Punishment."

Indeed, said Vivien Stern, a research fellow at the prison studies center in London, the American incarceration rate has made the United States "a rogue state, a country that has made a decision not to follow what is a normal Western approach."

The spike in American incarceration rates is quite recent. From 1925 to 1975, the rate remained stable, around 110 people in prison per 100,000 people. It shot up with the movement to get tough on crime in the late 1970s. (These numbers exclude people held in jails, as comprehensive information on prisoners held in state and local jails was not collected until relatively recently.)

The nation's relatively high violent crime rate, partly driven by the much easier availability of guns here, helps explain the number of people in American prisons.

"The assault rate in New York and London is not that much different," said Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group. "But if you look at the murder rate, particularly with firearms, it's much higher."

Despite the recent decline in the murder rate in the United States, it is still about four times that of many nations in Western Europe.

But that is only a partial explanation. The United States, in fact, has relatively low rates of nonviolent crime. It has lower burglary and robbery rates than Australia, Canada and England.

People who commit nonviolent crimes in the rest of the world are less likely to receive prison time and certainly less likely to receive long sentences. The United States is, for instance, the only advanced country that incarcerates people for minor property crimes like passing bad checks, Whitman wrote.

Efforts to combat illegal drugs play a major role in explaining long prison sentences in the United States as well. In 1980, there were about 40,000 people in American jails and prisons for drug crimes. These days, there are almost 500,000.

Those figures have drawn contempt from European critics. "The U.S. pursues the war on drugs with an ignorant fanaticism," said Stern of King's College.

Many American prosecutors, on the other hand, say that locking up people involved in the drug trade is imperative, as it helps thwart demand for illegal drugs and drives down other kinds of crime. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, for instance, has fought hard to prevent the early release of people in federal prison on crack cocaine offenses, saying that many of them "are among the most serious and violent offenders."

Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists. If lists were compiled based on annual admissions to prison per capita, several European countries would outpace the United States. But American prison stays are much longer, so the total incarceration rate is higher.

Burglars in the United States serve an average of 16 months in prison, according to Mauer, compared with 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England.

Many specialists dismissed race as an important distinguishing factor in the American prison rate. It is true that blacks are much more likely to be imprisoned than other groups in the United States, but that is not a particularly distinctive phenomenon. Minorities in Canada, Britain and Australia are also disproportionately represented in those nation's prisons, and the ratios are similar to or larger than those in the United States.

Some scholars have found that English-speaking nations have higher prison rates.

"Although it is not at all clear what it is about Anglo-Saxon culture that makes predominantly English-speaking countries especially punitive, they are," Tonry wrote last year in "Crime, Punishment and Politics in Comparative Perspective."

"It could be related to economies that are more capitalistic and political cultures that are less social democratic than those of most European countries," Tonry wrote. "Or it could have something to do with the Protestant religions with strong Calvinist overtones that were long influential."

The American character - self-reliant, independent, judgmental - also plays a role.

"America is a comparatively tough place, which puts a strong emphasis on individual responsibility," Whitman of Yale wrote. "That attitude has shown up in the American criminal justice of the last 30 years."

French-speaking countries, by contrast, have "comparatively mild penal policies," Tonry wrote.

Of course, sentencing policies within the United States are not monolithic, and national comparisons can be misleading.

"Minnesota looks more like Sweden than like Texas," said Mauer of the Sentencing Project. (Sweden imprisons about 80 people per 100,000 of population; Minnesota, about 300; and Texas, almost 1,000. Maine has the lowest incarceration rate in the United States, at 273; and Louisiana the highest, at 1,138.)

Whatever the reasons, there is little dispute that America's exceptional incarceration rate has had an impact on crime.

"As one might expect, a good case can be made that fewer Americans are now being victimized" thanks to the tougher crime policies, Paul Cassell, an authority on sentencing and a former federal judge, wrote in The Stanford Law Review.

From 1981 to 1996, according to Justice Department statistics, the risk of punishment rose in the United States and fell in England. The crime rates predictably moved in the opposite directions, falling in the United States and rising in England.

"These figures," Cassell wrote, "should give one pause before too quickly concluding that European sentences are appropriate."

Other commentators were more definitive. "The simple truth is that imprisonment works," wrote Kent Scheidegger and Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in The Stanford Law and Policy Review. "Locking up criminals for longer periods reduces the level of crime. The benefits of doing so far offset the costs."

There is a counterexample, however, to the north. "Rises and falls in Canada's crime rate have closely paralleled America's for 40 years," Tonry wrote last year. "But its imprisonment rate has remained stable."

Several specialists here and abroad pointed to a surprising explanation for the high incarceration rate in the United States: democracy.

Most state court judges and prosecutors in the United States are elected and are therefore sensitive to a public that is, according to opinion polls, generally in favor of tough crime policies. In the rest of the world, criminal justice professionals tend to be civil servants who are insulated from popular demands for tough sentencing.

Whitman, who has studied Tocqueville's work on American penitentiaries, was asked what accounted for America's booming prison population.

"Unfortunately, a lot of the answer is democracy just what Tocqueville was talking about," he said. "We have a highly politicized criminal justice system."


-30-

reposted from:
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1344

  White House Asked DOJ How Bush Could Sidestep 4th Amendment

        DOJ, Pres.  consider suspending 4th Constitutional Amendment !

by Jason Leopold
Online Journal
April 7, 2008

Last week, the Pentagon declassified an 81-page memorandum John Yoo, a former deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, drafted in March 2003 that authorized military interrogators to use brutal techniques to obtain information about terrorist plans from prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The memo was publicly released as part of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Pentagon.

Buried deep within that legal document is a footnote that refers to an Oct. 23, 2001, legal memorandum written by Yoo.

"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," the footnote states, referring to a 37-page document titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States."

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said the Bush administration has never argued publicly that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to military operations within the U.S..

But an investigation has found that this controversial policy, adopted by the White House in October 2001, took shape 10 days after 9/11. It was then that Yoo drafted a 20-page memorandum offering up suggestions on how Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures would be applied if the U.S. military used "deadly force in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens."

Yoo came up with a number of different scenarios. He suggested shooting down a jetliner hijacked by terrorists; setting up military checkpoints inside a U.S. city; implementing surveillance methods far more superior than those available to law enforcement; or using military forces "to raid or attack dwellings where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire," says a copy of the little known Sept. 21, 2001, memo.

Yoo, the author of an August 2002 legal opinion widely referred to as the "Torture Memo" that gave CIA interrogators the legal authority to use brutal methods against suspected terrorists to extract information, drafted the memo in response to a question posed by Timothy E. Flanigan, the former deputy White House counsel, who wanted to know "the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States," according to a copy of Flanigan’s memo.

Yoo wrote that his ideas would likely be seen as violating the Fourth Amendment. But he said the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the prospect that future attacks would require the military to be deployed inside the U.S. meant President Bush would "be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."

"We think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection," Yoo’s memo stated.

Yoo also wrote in the Sept. 21, 2001, memo that domestic surveillance activities, such as monitoring telephone calls and without a court’s permission, might be proper notwithstanding the ban in the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Sept. 21, 2001, memo Yoo sent to Flanigan was referred to in a lengthy story published in the New York Times on October 24, 2004. The Times story said Yoo’s suggestions for suspending the Fourth Amendment was hypothetical at best.

Yoo based his opinion on the 1990 drug case, US v. Verdugo-Urquide, in which the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit brought against the United States by a Mexican citizen whose home was searched by federal agents without a search warrant. In rejecting the Fourth Amendment claim, the court said aliens could not claim the benefit of the Constitution for conduct outside the United States - such aliens were not part of the "we the people" who benefited from the Fourth Amendment. Further, the Court found that allowing such claims would have significant and deleterious consequences for the United States in conducting activities beyond its boundaries, not just in drug cases . . . but in the use of armed forces abroad "for the protection of American citizens or national security."

Yoo refers to the case in his 2006 book, "War by Other Means: An Insider’s Account of the War on Terror," where he argues in more than 23 separate pages about the various legal reasons local and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as a sitting U.S. president, could ignore the Fourth Amendment. Yoo’s legal theories revolve primarily around domestic surveillance activities.

"If Al-Qaeda organizes missions within the United States, our surveillance simply cannot be limited to law enforcement," Yoo wrote in his book. "The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement should not apply, because it is concerned with regulating searches, not with military attacks."

The Bush administration accepted Yoo’s legal theory as policy for more than one year, beginning in late October 2001.

Still, Congress said it has spent a considerable amount of time trying to pry loose the memo from the Department of Justice.

Last Thursday, John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey saying he was rebuffed on two previous occasions - February 12 and 20 - when he wrote the DOJ requesting the Oct. 23, 2001, memo be turned over to his committee

"Based on the title of the October 23, 2001, memorandum, and based on what has been disclosed and the contents of similar memoranda issued at roughly the same time, it is clear that a substantial portion of this memorandum provides a legal analysis and conclusions as to the nature and scope of the Presidential Commander in Chief power to accomplish specific acts within the United States," Conyers wrote.

"The people of the United States are entitled to know the Justice Department’s interpretation of the President’s constitutional powers to wage war inside the United States," Conyers added. "There can be no actual basis in national security for keeping secret the remainder of a legal memorandum that addresses this issue of Constitutional interpretation The notion that the President can claim to operate under ’secret’ powers known only to the President and a select few subordinates is antithetical to the core principles of this democracy. We ask that you promptly release the October 23, 2001, memorandum."


-30-

Unfortunately, your mail was not delivered to the following address:

<victoryusa@jail4judges.org>:
208.109.80.149 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, relaying denied from your location [64.136.55.15] (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 208.109.80.149.

THIS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CLEARED UP, but still festers on.

- 30 -

Northern Illinois University Shooting

NIU: ONCE AGAIN, NOBODY HAD A GUN

Feb 16, 2008
Carl F. Worden
wolfeyes@hisurfer.net

reposted with permission

Once again, a "Gun Free Zone" has proven to be a place where everybody there is gun free except the psychopath with the gun. As the bodies were being scraped up and the wounded hauled away screaming, the college staff and campus police of Northern Illinois University declared the incident to be one tremendous success. They had planned and trained for this event after the massacre at Virginia Tech, and by golly, all the systems worked and police responded within 2 minutes!

Wow!

So if everything worked as planned, how come five people are dead and around 15 more are screaming in local hospitals?

What exactly is this elusive form of "success" these bright souls want everyone to appreciate? Two minutes is an astonishingly fast police response time, but in a close-quarters mortal combat environment like what happened at Virginia Tech and now NIU, two minutes just doesn’t cut it, especially when the victims are completely defenseless and their only hope is that the psycho shoots their friends instead of them.

Now hear this, all you self-righteous and deluded University denizens of higher learning: The only effective defense against a gun in the wrong hands is a gun in the right hands, and only if the good guy has immediate access to a gun. The only way to accomplish that goal is to allow eligible students and faculty to carry guns concealed on campus.

Utah allows its school teachers to carry guns concealed on campus and in the classroom if they qualify for a concealed gun permit, and with all the guns in Utah (I know because I was born there) you’d think at least one school shooting would have taken place, but that is not the case. If you listen to the Brady Bunch, guns cause people to shoot other people, therefore more guns creates more gun crimes, ergo, less guns or no guns means less or no gun crimes committed. Such solid logic leads to the creation of "Gun Free Zones" so popular on most American college campuses, because if nobody on campus has a gun, nobody will get shot on campus, right? Oh yeah, that worked for Virginia Tech!

And we let these idiots teach our young? If they are this pathetically stupid about basic survival issues, why do we employ them and allow them to teach anything at all? Surely their other areas of study and theory ought to be examined if they are that damned stupid.

Within two hours of the Virginia Tech massacre, I obtained the e-mail address for the school’s top dog and sent him this message:

    Congratulations, Jackass!

I sent that because it was none other than that man who lobbied the Virginia Legislature to bar guns on the VT campus after another gun incident at VT created a call for eligible students and faculty to carry concealed guns on campus. Alas, the legislature bowed to the man’s wishes and 32 more people died in yet another "Gun Free Zone".

So the capable folks at Northern Illinois University got their police and emergency response times down to two minutes, and only 22 kids were shot instead of the 32 killed at Virginia Tech -- and we’re all supposed to congratulate them? Try placing yourself in the position of huddling under a desk for a full two minutes while a madman casually picks and chooses who gets the next fatal bullet, and tell me how long 120 seconds is. An eligible student or faculty member with a concealed gun can return fire in less than two seconds! In every school shooting case where a shooter finds himself facing another person with a gun to stop him, he surrendered immediately. A good guy with a concealed gun can cause the shooter to take cover or run away, at least saving the lives of those students in his immediate area and dramatically slowing the onslaught down.

But when nobody but the shooter has even 30 seconds to kill unarmed and defenseless students, the only equation is how many fatal bullets he can pump into people in the least amount of time.

Congratulations, Northern Illinois University! Now which college campus is next?

Carl F. Worden

Unle ss otherwise indicated on a particular blog or article, you have my permi ss ion to reprint articles I post on the internet.

- 30 -

reposted from
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3334948.ece

Corrupt Florida Judiciary Makes International Headlines

Weird Cases: Judges At War

Times Online
Feb 8, 2008
England, UK
Gary Slapper

Guns, sex, corruption: a hearing in the US exposes a raft of jaw-dropping tales of judicial misbehavior

As Lord Atkin said in 1936, "Justice is not a cloistered virtue". It can be strongly criticized provided its critics are "respectful". Respect, though, was not what Judge Brad Thomas got when he went to discuss a judgment with someone. "Get out of my f***ing office", he was told, before being ejected. The outburst might have been less startling if the person shouting the abuse wasn’t Judge Charles J. Kahn Jr. of the 1st District Court of Appeal in Florida.

In testimony at a recent preliminary hearing of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, Judge Kahn (formerly Chief Judge until deposed by his brethren) explained his loss of temper. Thomas had gone to see him to disagree with a judgment he’d given and this riled Kahn because, he said, "I had been on the court for 14 or 15 years and he had been on the court for a week or two".

The hearing has involved a jaw-dropping sequence of testimony in which senior judges have accused each other of being "volatile" and "schizoid", of lying, having hotel sex with court employees, and of threatening behavior.

Don Brannon, court marshal for 27 years at the Florida courthouse, said that he thought Judge Kahn was unstable and he became worried when he seemed set to apply for a concealed weapons permit and a handgun. Anxiety deepened when two other judges decided to get guns. Brannon arranged for extra police security at a judicial ceremony. Other evidence about Judge Kahn involved stories of his affairs with female court staff, including liaisons with a clerk and photos of them in a South Florida hotel.

But it isn’t Judge Kahn who is on trial. For that we need to swing 180 degrees to face one of his critics. It is Judge Michael E. Allen. He’s charged with "conduct unbecoming of a judge". It breaks down like this. Judge Kahn had allowed the appeal of a politician convicted of corruption. But the judge’s former law partner was close to the reprieved politician, so it looked like Judge Kahn might not have been neutral. Judge Allen was charged with "conduct unbecoming" after he wrote an opinion critical of Judge Kahn for sitting in the case.

The evidence of up to 15 senior judges will be relevant at the forthcoming full hearing. Acrimonious threats among them to sue and complain have abounded. I guess any judge entering the hearing with a gavel in his hand will be required to disarm.

Professor Gary Slapper is Director of the Centre for Law at The Open University

- 30 -

reposted from
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/08/State/Perjury_charge_loomin.shtml#rants

Perjury Charge Looming For District Judge

Judge Michael E. Allen is accused of lying about his feelings toward a fellow judge.

By LUCY MORGAN
Published February 8, 2008
St. Petersburg Times


TALLAHASSEE - District Court Judge Michael E. Allen is now facing perjury charges for telling the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission [JQC] he held no animosity for a fellow judge he criticized in a written opinion last year.

Facing initial charges of "conduct unbecoming a judge" in the fall, Allen appeared before the commission in October to explain the reason he criticized Judge Charles J. Kahn Jr. for attempting to overturn the criminal conviction of former Sen. W.D. Childers.

"I didn't want to do this. This was no vendetta by me," Allen insisted when accused of harboring animosity toward Kahn. "Judge Kahn and I don't agree on everything. But if this has to do with animus leading to this opinion, there was none."

Now the commission is accusing Allen of lying during that appearance and ordered him to appear before it Feb. 28 to face the new charges. Allen had been scheduled to face trial on the original charges March 10 but lawyers for both sides have agreed to postpone the trial until the new charges are considered.

A former public defender appointed to the court by Gov. Bob Martinez in 1990, Allen said he criticized Kahn's participation in the Childers case because he feared the public would lose confidence in the court. Kahn, Allen pointed out, was once a law partner of Fred Levin, a Pensacola lawyer who is one of Childers' closest friends.

Bruce Rogow, the Fort Lauderdale lawyer who represents Allen, said in a prehearing statement filed Thursday that other judges and court officials will testify that Allen's concern over the Childers opinion was based on his concern for the integrity of the court and not personal animus.

The new charges indicate the level of hostility toward Allen has dramatically escalated since members of the court were questioned last week in preparation for Allen's trial.

Several of Allen's fellow judges labeled Kahn as mentally unstable and given to temper tantrums as they described life inside a 15-member court where collegiality seems to have vanished.

Thirteen of the 15 judges filed a formal complaint against Kahn for having extra marital affairs with court employees, but the commission dismissed the charges against Kahn and voted to pursue Allen because he criticized Kahn.

Several of the judges have expressed outrage over the commission's decision to charge Allen with wrongdoing while exonerating Kahn.

Testifying last month, Kahn admitted making a telephone call to Levin on the day Allen's opinion was released. The call apparently led Levin's son, Martin, to file the formal complaint against Allen.

In a written request filed with the commission Thursday, Rogow said he needs time to explore the conversations between Kahn and Levin, especially since lawyers for the commission have asked the commission to prohibit any testimony about wrongdoing by Kahn or any other judges.

OPINIONS POSTED:

by Gordon 02/10/08 
The JQC seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill and missing the more egregious violations by Kahn, but then again, what do you expect from them? The fact JQC is corrupt is the elephant in the room: Everyone knows it's true but no one admits.

by JT 02/08/08 
Just one class example of what is a judiciary here in Florida that is rife w/ "issues" regarding judicial integrity.

by Brant 02/08/08 
How can you be charged with perjury for rendering a subjective opinion as to your own state of mind at a certain point in time? This JQC prosecution of Judge Allen stinks to high heaven.

by TheProtester 02/08/08 
this would be funny if it was not so pathetically sad. This Judge Allen case and Judge Cliff Barnes case proves a judiciary gone wrong, the shield is being used as a sword. TheProtester.com proving corruption is alive and well.

by Suzy 02/08/08 
So, the Judicial Qualifications Commission was allegedly established to INCREASE respect for the courts and law? It seems some have forgotten their mission.

by Gilbert 02/08/08 
Just think, these Judicial Officials have to rule over the ordinary citizens life everyday. I am embarrassed to tell my friends I am a Floridian. This is the most disheartening thing, I have ever been witness to as a 25 year Law Enforcement Veteran!

by frank 02/08/08 
they both need to go. society is losing respect for all 3 branches of government.

by Donna 02/08/08 
I thought it was against the rules to have intimate relationships with court employees? what gives? and the charges should not have been dismissed. sounds like a payoff to me.

by HCB 02/08/08 
It is this kind of farce that destroys us as a society from within.

by A Citizen 02/08/08 
Lawyer's ain't allowed to criticize judges, because judges make-up the rules. How come the rules that work for every other aspect of society-openness and public discussion, don't apply to judge's performance: self-serving, self-protection.

by americanwhocares 02/08/08 
Something is rotten in the judicial system in this town. The person who appears to be unstable and removed is instead cleared and his accuser is on trial. Smells like politics rather than justice is the name of the game with these judges.

by Haven 02/08/08 
I say get rid of them all & start over with a clean slate!

- 30 -

County Officials Claim Courts Are A Private Enterprise

Arcadia, FL

Aug 21, 2007

story credit: Jerry

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.

Well, a few days past, I was passing along the Courthouse square in Arcadia Florida, when I looked down at the pavement between the Courthouse and the Administrative Building, and noticed some rather strange writing (painted in bold letter as a notice) there on the pavement facing the Courthouse.  The notice read “Customer Parking Only”. See inset below:

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