Law Enforcement in America: Pretty Uniforms, Ugly Demeanor

Most of my adult life I lived and worked in the ever changing world of law enforcement. I feel I put in my time and have the right to provide my analysis on law enforcement in America, and their effectiveness in fighting Islamic based terrorism and their lack of support of the American Patriots who love our country and Constitution.

I will break the various categories of U.S. law enforcement down into four groups:

Group 1: Local and County law enforcement officers
Group 2: State law enforcement officers
Group 3: The dozens of 1811 federal law enforcement officers excluding the FBI.
Group 4: The FBI
Group 5: U.S. Military

Our country has always needed law enforcement officers at all levels of government to enforce the laws of our land in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. For the most part they have been effective … up until the sad day on 11 September 2001.

On 911 I was an active (1811) U.S. Federal Agent. I fell into Group 3. It is my honor to say I did not fall into Group 4. On 911 I saw our country change, and not for the better. This is the day I saw the early stages of a wide separation of the Group 1 officers and the FBI (Group 4).

Group 1: Group 1 officers have always been the backbone of our country. Over our young history they have always been the ones with their eyes on the ground and an inner loving and respect for America. They handled law enforcement matters for the most part with a firm, heavy hand when needed, but knew when to back off when required. Their training normally consisted of ‘on the job training’. They were the American citizens best friend, the true defenders of our U.S. Constitution, and a menace to lawbreakers.. They were not always right, but their intentions normally were. They are often the lowest paid and hardest worked. These officers have a Police Chief, Sheriff, but more often than not there were only a couple of officers assigned to a small town area. In other words their management oversight was low. They worked together as one unit protecting America.

Groups 2 and 3: These officers were normally trained to a higher level and their pay was higher. These two groups had more oversight than group 1 officers. Their organizations were often led by people who were career managers and not law enforcement officers. Politics and pleasing politicians were an every day occurrence. Before 911 these officers worked hard days and nights and did their best to stay out of the media and politicians line of view. These officers put the U.S. Constitution ahead of politics, but often their higher management became politician ‘pleasers’ instead of supporting their street level officers.

Group 4: The FBI. Since it’s founding in 1935 it has always been managed by non elected politicians. The first duty of FBI management has always been to fight for the attention from the media, and to do their best to please their masters (Senior U.S. Government politicians all the way up to the White House). FBI Agent were taught directly from the academy that they were America’s super investigators. They had the money allocated to them that was always in excess of what they truly needed. The egos of most FBI Agents is way higher than their true value to America. Many great street level Agents, but they are taught to be glory hounds. The FBI routinely take over local, county, and state investigations when there is even a hint of nationwide media attention. 1811 Federal Agents who fall into Group 3 attend the same academy and receive the same training, but with the help of the media and politicians (through continuous butt kissing) they are portrayed as a more clever investigator. In actuality they are not. They just have more government money to look pretty. The FBI often get involved in military cases and overseas investigations, although they have no authority to do so.

Group 5: The U.S. military. This group of several hundred thousand are not supposed to be involved in U.S. law enforcement activities. Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 Prior to 911 they seldom were. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was intended to prevent U.S. military from enforcing U.S. civilian law. The role of the military was to defend our country from outside forces. For 200 plus years they have been very honorable.

AFTER 11 September 2001: Prior to 911, the dividing lines between each of the five groups has always been well laid out. Each of the groups knew their roles and duties in enforcing civilian law in America. I noticed a major change after 911. All of the groups have seen an increase in department funding, primarily due to counter-terrorism money granted by the federal government.

Their lines now overlap one another. Even small police departments have been provided money they never knew existed. They now have the money to buy military style uniforms, military style weapons, and many now have the egos of FBI Agents (both undeserved). Their goals are no longer to protect the citizens in their communities, they now have the media, politicians, and federal money dispatchers to please. Group 1 now want to look like highly trained combat military soldiers. Their departments have new patrol cars, expensive SWAT gear, RV’s for HQ operations, and they are now 10 times more likely to be seen giving news conferences on trivial matters.

Nice equipment, authoritative combat gear, tanks, drones, and other costly equipment does not make any of the groups any better in handling Islamic based terrorism events if they do not have the proper training. Current none of the groups (1 -5) are being properly trained to defend our country against Islamic based terrorist groups. Few are ever taught Arabic or can even use the term Islam in their investigations.

Our former leaders never intended for our local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers to be U.S. military personnel. The lines were drawn over 200 years ago and for a reason. Our forefathers have always known that the closer law enforcement are to senior government officials their mindset changes. We do not need our local law enforcement who police a community of 500 to have the type of equipment our U.S. military have. Why? Because the higher you get to the top of the federal government, the more corrupt people become.

As the non commissioned officers are the backbone of our military (ask any commissioned officer), the backbone of defending America from within as the first-line defenders are the local and county law enforcement officers. The more political and ego driven they become, the less prepared they are to fight Islamic based terrorism.

Another lesson: We could help resolve our country’s high debt ceiling if we were to abolish the FBI. This agency costs billions a year to fund, and the vast majority of cases could be handled by Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5.

A Dirty Little Judicial Secret


A practice has grown among the judiciary to reserve, exclusively, to a trial judge, the power of judging the law. This is not to say that judges, per se, refuse all knowledge of the Jury’s right to judge the law. Many courts have recognized this right. However, what the judicial branch, per se, does, is refuse to tell a jury of their rights, while at the same time not allowing an attorney to do so either (Sparf & Hansen v. U.S. 1895, 156 U.S. 102).

There are two primary reasons judges insist on being the only definer of the law. 1) Because they believe common jurors are just that – regular people that are not sophisticated enough to understand the law unless a judge explains it to them; 2) Judges do not want to surrender their self-granted power to attorneys.

Judges, officiate in criminal jury trials for the primary purpose of ensuring a fair trial. They are referees or umpires whose duties lie in making sure the playing field is level – not to pass judgement. Judgements are reserved to the jury. Juries decide facts, and when appropriate, judge the law as well.

When a jury judges the law it has been commonly called Jury Nullification. It could be better labeled, Jury Prerogative, a recognition of the juror’s right (duty) to judge the law as well as the facts of a case. Judging the law means comparing a law in question against an accepted standard. In America, the only standard to which a law can be assessed is a constitution, either state or federal.

Jurors do not have the license to judge a law to their personal standard or opinions. To allow one to whimsically decide whether a law is good or bad based upon a personal view would be inviting judicial lawlessness.

Jury Prerogative (nullification) is the right and power of a jury to decide the facts of a case and determine the validity of a law by judging the subject law against a state or the federal constitution.


The 6th Amendment to the U.S. constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury….” It doesn’t say by a judge; it specifies an IMPARTIAL jury. A government employee, using his or her powerful position to ‘charge’ or ‘instruct’ a jury, is violating the 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. A jury that has been subjected to this usurpation of power is no longer impartial – it has been influenced to the judge’s uncontested bias.

Our Constitution, our rule-of-law, was written by laymen for laymen. No where in its articles or amendments is the judicial branch empowered to TELL a jury anything, much less how to apply a law. Some states, in open confrontation to the Constitution, have even gone so far as to require jurors to report fellow jurors who refuse to follow the law as directed by a judge!

Our fore fathers realized that judges, being human, carry their own prejudices. Because of this, the framers of our Constitution did not require judges, during a jury trial, to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In all criminal proceedings witnesses who are going to testify before a jury must swear, under penalty of perjury, to tell the truth. This rule applies to everyone including lawyers, police officers and other government employees even though they have sworn an oath to their office and the Constitution. The judge is immune to this rule of law because he is not expected to testify. Unfortunately, a practice has evolved where judges do testify in the form of their ‘instructions’ or ‘charges’ to the jury. It is during this ‘testimony’ – this propagation of their own power – that the judge will NOT tell the whole truth. The whole truth being a jury’s right and power to decide the constitutionality of a law.

Many precedent setting rulings, dating from the decade of this country’s inception to as late as 1972, have confirmed that Jury Prerogative is a bono fide right and power of a jury.


Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that Public Law X makes it a crime to speak or write anything derogatory about any federal employee. Soon thereafter, your car is struck by a vehicle negligently operated by a FBI agent. In the heat of the moment and outraged that this bozo had damaged your new BMW, you call the agent an incompetent jerk whereas you are immediately arrested for violation of Public Law X.

You’re an honest person and do not deny that you made those comments. You place your faith in the fact that Public Law X is obviously in direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. However, and for whatever reason the judge in your trial denies your attorney’s motions for summary judgement, i.e., that Public Law X is unconstitutional. At the conclusion of the trial the judge ‘instructs’ the jury that if they find that you did utter derogatory comments to a federal employee they, the jury, MUST find you guilty as charged. Of course, the jury has the right and power to determine that Public Law X is in violation of the First Amendment. However, if the judge refuses to tell the jury that they have this right and your attorney is not allowed (ibid, Sparf & Hansen) then that leaves you in a shooting war – and without a gun.


Circa 1988, a group of citizens formed a grassroots organization, The Fully Informed Jury Association ( Their intention was to inform jurors of their right to judge laws. However the FIJA misinterpreted the meaning and definition of Jury Nullification/Prerogative and have skewered, twisted and misapplied this 200 year old concept. They promote the notion that juries have the right to decide if a law is good or bad as judged against their own (individual juror’s own) standards of good and bad. (

In a recent case, the California Supreme Court (People v. Williams, S066106, 2001), found that a juror who told a trial judge, “I simply cannot see staining a man, a young man, for the rest of his life for what I believe to be the wrong reason.” This juror raised no issue of constitutionality – he was applying the law to his own personal standards. The juror was replaced by an alternate in what has been called a “Jury Nullification” case. It was not. There was no issue of constitutionality at bar.

The California Supreme Court correctly upheld the dismissal of the juror for applying his own standard to what the law meant. To evoke Jury Prerogative, a juror must believe the law under which a defendant is charged is unconstitutional. For example: if a defendant is charged with violation a law “A” and a juror votes for acquittal because this juror believes that law “A” is unfair, defective, unjust, not a good law or the law is stupid, the juror is not doing his duty. However, if the juror is convinced that law “A” is in violation of a state or a federal constitutional guarantee, then the juror is obligated to vote not-guilty.

Jury Prerogative (nullification) is the right and power of a jury to decide the facts of a case and determine the validity of a law by judging the subject law against a state or the federal constitution.


  • Demand a full legal representation. Forcing a defendant to become his own lawyer just for the sake of arguing the law’s constitutionality is a clear violation of the 6th Amendment right to counsel. In other words, it is well established in case law, that the accused is entitled to representation at ALL levels of trial including even pre-trial interrogation and post-trial sentencing. Therefore, how can the courts continue to support Sparf (ibid) which clearly forbids representation at a most critical stage of a trial – the “instructions/charge” to the jury? This quirk of forbidding attorneys to argue the law before the jury, but permit pro se testimony seems to have escaped the logic of the judicial system. By this same reasoning, if the courts are permitted to bar an attorney from presenting evidence, testimony and/or summation concerning the constitutionality of a law, then what is to prevent the court from forbidding an attorney from arguing the credibility of a witness or any other issue before the jury? No doubt the trial judge will deny your request thus allowing you to appeal to a higher court where this matter should be settled.
  • Join the JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE LAW organization. J.A.I.L. is working to enact Special Grand Juries to sanction judges by levying fines, forfeitures and possible removal from the bench against judges who usurp their powers. (
  • Consider filing suit against your local Jury Commissioner to require the Jury Prerogative option be disseminated to prospective jurors.
  • If you are charged with a crime and you can show the law under which you are charged is in violation of your state’s or the Federal Constitution, demand a jury trial and mount a challenge to Sparf & Hansen v. U.S.
  • If you are not successful with your challenge to Sparf & Hansen at the trial level, have Plan ‘B’ ready: Consider acting as co-counsel. Because the judge will not advise your jury of their right to judge the law and also refuses your attorney that power, your only option might be to tender the summation yourself.

Acting pro se, you can say almost anything to a jury as acknowledged by the 1972 case, U.S. vs Dougherty (473 F.2d, pg 1137):  “Thus, a defendant’s ability to present his demeanor and often even a kind of testimony, without exposure to impeachment or cross-examination, may be a tactical consequence of pro-se representation, and even a moving cause of its invocation….”

Sidebar: “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court (1941). “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge….” (U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1139 [1972]). “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court (1789).

The jury does and always has had, in the words of Justice Holmes, “the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts” (Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53,54,65 L.Ed. 185 [1920]).

© 2014 Chuck Klein

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is a screenshot of “A dirty little secret” from Frasier episode, “The Show Where Sam Shows Up” in 1995 courtesy of Paramount Television and Grub Street Productions.

Woman targeted by TSA Agent for reading The Jewish Press newspaper


Phyllis Chesler, author of “An American Bride in Kabul”

I just read an article about a Jewish woman Phyllis Chesler who was at John F. Kennedy International Airport waiting for a flight to Florida (my home state) last Wednesday and she was notified there would be a delay because of the ice storm. So, not being inclined to be bored Ms. Chesler pulled out a newspaper called the “The Jewish Press” and went about reading it.

Paul Joseph Watson from writes:

Award winning Jewish author Phyllis Chesler was questioned and had her bag searched at New York’s JFK Airport as a result of a TSA agent’s suspicions over the fact that she was reading a conservative newspaper.

The incident happened on Wednesday afternoon after Chesler’s flight to Florida was delayed due to the recent ice storms.

As soon as Chesler pulled out a copy of The Jewish Press, a popular English language weekly with a conservative political bent, a TSA agent eyed her with suspicion, approached the author and asked to see the newspaper.

Read more.

Upon reading this article I immediately called the TSA at JFK in New York. I waded through all the press 1 for Spanish and 2 for Mandarin Chinese and then got hold of the TSA Special Agent in charge and laid down the law like Senior Chief’s are supposed to do. I don’t take prisoners.

He told me the phone call was being recorded and he wanted me to spell my first and last name and give him my phone number. No problem said the senior Chief here you go. I told him I am on so many lists adding me to yours at JFK is a badge of honor and make sure he records what I have to say. Do it !!

I then told him that we the people are watching them the government and how they treat Americans. I also added that I understand they are trying to keep us safe but not at the expense of the US Constitution. No way was this lady a threat to anyone and we are not putting up with it. I told the TSA agent that they are now on my list and we are watching like hawks.

I then stated that effective immediately all patriots that fly will be carrying a copy of the newspaper “The Jewish Press” I told him that tomorrow I will take my copy of the “Jewish Press” and stand in front of the TSA agents at Okaloosa Regional Airport and will read it. If they don’t like it well tough crap. Suck it up.

The TSA agent (Name withheld by me) said he was really sorry this happened he gave me directions to pass onto the lady how to file a discrimination charge against the agents that harassed her. He said he will initiate an investigation and find out what happened too. He got worried when I refused to stand down and I refused to stop my offensive posture. I was the castle crushing the pawns swooping across the chess board like a chess master on steroids.

The TSA Agent then surrendered to me emotionally told me that in accordance with TSA rules, Section 504 articles of rehabilitation Section 15.3b and 15.3d, Mrs Chesler has 90 days to file a discrimination complaint. The TSA Agent in charge thanked for me for my 30 years in the US Navy and again apologized for what happened. I think the man thought I was friends with Ms. Chesler or that I was an attorney but I am not.

I just stood up for her, the US Constitution and her freedom to travel freely unmolested at any airport in the United States.

EDITORS NOTE: Phyllis Chesler is the author of An American Bride in Kabul.


“American Bride in Kabul” Wins National Jewish Book Award

An American Bride in Kabul: My Life in Hell in an Afghan Harem

Marie Winkelman guardianship: A Test Case to Lower the Bar on Incapacity in Florida?

The above photograph shows Willi Berchau  (seated front row center) at his guardianship freedom celebration party in January 2014.

At least 100 pages of Florida law, Chapter 744, are devoted to “Guardianship,” which may or may not be imposed upon a person who is determined to be incapacitated. Holocaust Survivor Marie Winkelman is now a Ward of the State of Florida, based upon the order of the Sarasota County Probate Court, which adopted a mediated settlement agreement that denied Marie her due process rights. This is the fourth part in an investigative series on the involuntary guardianship of author and acclaimed painter Marie Winkelman.

What is incapacity supposed to be?

According to the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1997), an “Incapacitated person” is an individual who, for reasons other than being a minor, is unable to receive and evaluate information or make or communicate decisions to such an extent that the individual lacks the ability to meet essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care, even with appropriate technological assistance.

So what was Marie’s status before she was put into State guardianship? Until July 2013, Marie lived independently in a lovely residence in Sarasota, Florida, where she cleaned her apartment immaculately everyday, organized her papers and closets effectively, dressed herself beautifully, prepared her meals, entertained guests frequently, did all of her own shopping, talked with her bankers and financial advisors regularly in person and by telephone, made and received calls multiple times per day, read the daily newspaper, paid her own bills by check and by telephone, and carried on conversations for hours, switching from Polish to English, depending upon the recipients with whom she was speaking.

Why Marie Winkelman’s guardianship is a test case …

Can Marie receive and evaluate information? Absolutely. Can Marie make and communicate decisions? Assuredly. Does Marie have the ability to meet essential requirements for physical health, safety, and self-care? Yes. By lowering the bar of “incapacity,” the State of Florida has created a substantially larger pool of affluent persons whose lives and fortunes are under the authority of the probate courts that increasingly operate in secrecy by closing hearings to the media and the public and removing court records from the public sphere.

Why is Marie in Florida state guardianship?

As a Ward of the State, Marie’s assets – millions of dollars – are no longer in her control. They can be and are being spent on hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney bills, guardian fees, service provider charges, and other such costs that Marie never had before she was forced into guardianship. In other words, Marie’s assets are feeding dozens of professionals in a distressed economy. Only a few individuals are permitted to see the enormous bills being paid by the Sabal Trust Company from Marie’s assets, without Marie’s consent and without any court records of them.

How does Marie’s case affect you?

Have you ever left your checkbook on the table? Marie’s visiting nurse decided that this was a sign of financial incapacity. Do you have paintings on your walls? Marie’s visiting nurse testified in court that someone could take the paintings or the checkbook; so she determined that Marie must be financially incapacitated. Are you?

Can Marie ever escape guardianship?

Marie could litigate her incapacity and guardianship order, but so far, her attorney, Audrey Bear, has only asked the court for yet another mediation (scheduled for January 28, 2014), with which Marie disagrees.

Although Marie has repeatedly asked to have her rights restored, so far Ms. Bear has not filed a restoration of rights petition with the court. On December 15, 2013, Marie passed her examination of four consecutive hours by Dr. Eric Weinstock, the psychiatrist whose positive restoration of capacity evaluation promptly resulted in the freedom from guardianship of Florida Ward, Willi Berchau, who, like Marie, lived independently and successfully managed his wealth until he was forced into guardianship for many years; but, finally, at age 99, Willi is free.

Marie’s guardianship is a test case for the American people to speak out before more of us lose our life savings because we left our checkbooks lying on tables. Lowering the bar for incapacity is opening the floodgates of total state control of elders.

ABC Action News interview with Willi Berchau:


Are “We The People” really members of “The Union”?

Recently, in my court battle with the State of Florida, the lawyer for the State argued that, although I am the sole owner of and stockholder in my company, that I was not “personally injured” when the State of Florida forcibly removed money from my company bank account. He argued that “only the company was injured and that I suffered no injury”, and the judge agreed.

Sorry, but the money they took was headed straight for my pocket so I’m pretty sure, in some circles, that would be considered a mugging. That battle is continuing and I am going to have to reconfigure some paperwork so a jury can decide that, but it made me think something this judge and lawyer may regret later.

The preamble of The Constitution Of The United States starts out “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union……..” So, who exactly is a “member” of the Union and who is not? Does the administration of this “Union” have any power or authority over an individual or group that is not a “member” of this Union?

The answer to the second question should be easy, NO.

Here is an example: My brother is an electrician and a member of the electricians union. They can make him, under their agreement to be a member of the union, to pay dues (taxes) to support the union and to participate in the union’s retirement plan. They could also declare that immediate family members of the members of the union “shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities” that the members of the union receive, but it still would not have the authority to require those immediate family members to also pay dues and participate in the retirement plan, as they are not the actual members of the union.

The first question is the real big one; who exactly is a “member” of the Union and who is not?

Once you read and understand the document, or as I like to call it “The Contract”, that formed the Union, “The Constitution Of The United States” the simple answer is The States and only The States are the members of the Union. This is important because if this is the case, The Union and the Administration of The Union, can NOT impose anything on an individual that is not a member of The Union. Only the States, under the authority of their State Constitution, can impose anything upon an individual citizen of their State. One point to note is the pure abstract and limited authorities and boundaries of The Union, is the FACT that we are the only country on the planet that does not have boundaries that are legally defined. The States are the ones with legally defined boundaries and the borders of the country are defined by the joining of the boundaries of the States when they become members of The Union. The fact is that the borders of our country have changed several times by the act of States joining and seceding from The Union.

Here is how I came to this conclusion:

  • Article. VII. “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States” This is the enacting clause of The Constitution. It was done with the “Consent of the States” not the consent of “The People”.
  • The signers who did so were sent by the legislatures of the States with the authority to act on behalf of The States, not The People.
  • Article I Section 2. “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers”. The direct taxation addressed is to the several States, not “The People” because it’s the States that are the members of the Union, not The People.

So I know what you are saying “What about the 16th Amendment smart guy?” Well let’s look at what the 16th Amendment ACTUALLY says: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Does anyone see the words “direct taxes” in the 16 Amendment? Nope!

The 16th Amendment only gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from “Members of the Union”. It never gave Congress the authority to bypass the States and Directly tax “Citizens of the Member States” as the Citizens of the Member States are not themselves “Members of the Union”. We the People have been duped by a word game.

If Congress could actually tax people that are not actually members of the Union because this Amendment declares “from whatever source derived” then they could lay and collect taxes on people from Canada, Mexico and every place on the planet, so I demand these people start paying “THEIR FAIR SHARE!”

Now let’s continue with more supporting evidence that “The States” are the members of the Union and not “The People”:

  • Article. IV. Section. 2. “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” First note that if “The People” were the members of the Union, this section would have no reason to be written. Second “The People” are referred to as “The Citizens of each State” further indication that The People or The Citizens are not actually members of The Union.
  • Article I Section 8 declares that Congress shall have the power To “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. Please note the “not exceeding ten Miles square” The Congress has no power or authority to “exercise exclusive Legislation” Outside of this ten square mile area. It only has the power and authority to exercise legislation on the Members of the Union, and only with the consent of the representatives of those members.

The last thing we are going to consider is how we elect a President.

As you know, we use a system known as the “Electoral College”. We don’t actually cast votes directly for the President. Instead we are casting votes for our “Preference” in candidates for President and those votes actually elect delegates to represent The State and its those delegates that actually cast the votes as “representatives of the State.” In addition, each State, through the legislature of that State, makes it’s own rules as to how the delegates are awarded. Some are “winner take all” and some are divided based on the percentage of votes cast for each candidate. In the end, the delegates, who are technically not bound to vote a certain way, cast the vote on behalf of the legislature of the State, not on behalf of the Citizens.

Some believe it was done this way to make it easier to count the votes for President in the days before modern electronics, but that is a false conclusion. It’s because we are a “Representative Republic”, not a Democracy and because The People are not the members of the Union, only the States. This process is a way to let their preference be known to the legislature, but the legislature is still not technically bound because The Citizens of the State are not members of the Union. This is also why changing the voting to count the popular vote of the citizens would be unconstitutional, as only members of the Union have standing in the process.

The final conclusion is this:

The People are not members of the Union, so the Administration of the Union cannot impose anything on The People. In addition, the Union was formed by The States and the Administration of the Union was created specifically to perform tasks outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

Anything outside of these delegated powers is wholly unauthorized, but unfortunately exists because the States have taken their eye off the ball and allowed these actions to happen, partially from ignorance, but mostly from being co-conspirators with the administration of the Union, letting the Administration of the Union be the muscle to pilfer the coffers of The People and then accepting bribes and payoffs from the Administration of The Union to the legislature of the State to allow the pilfering to happen.

FL Rep. Keith Perry’s attack on term limits stirs controversy in his hometown

In Sunday’s Gainesville Sun, I make the case in an op-ed that Rep. Keith Perry’s (R-Gainesville) bill to weaken Florida term limits from eight to 12 years is an effort to benefit legislators at the expense of citizens.

“The results during Florida’s term limits era have been good. Legislatures are like marriages, in that they are all dysfunctional in their own special way. But some are definitely better than others — and Florida’s is pretty good. In a 2013 ranking of states by their fiscal condition — an outcome highly influenced by government policy — the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranked Florida as sixth in the nation. Incidentally, five of the top 10 states in this ranking have eight-year term limits on their legislatures. So, it must be asked again, why is Rep. Perry launching this attack on eight-year term limits?”

The answer isn’t flattering to Rep. Perry. Perry is a successful businessman who got the opportunity to run because Speaker Larry Cretul reached his 8-year limit in the House. Now, it appears Rep. Perry wants to cut the ladder off beneath him.

Perry rationalizes this in a straight piece in today’s Gainesville Sun.  He claims eight years isn’t sufficient to master the complexities of being a Florida legislator. Eight-year limits are, however, the most common in the United States from the president, to governors, to state legislatures, to county commissioners and mayors. He does not explain what makes being a Florida legislator so particularly daunting.

Hint: It isn’t.

Fortunately, I was provided a chance to respond. “Blumel said that when politicians say eight years is too short, people should keep in mind that the Florida Senate is made up of many former members of the state House of Representatives who possess considerable legislative experience, while the lower chamber has more political newcomers who provide better representation of the citizenry.”

Instead of focusing on the centerpiece of the legislation, the weakening of term limits, Perry instead focuses on the fact the bill also lengthens the terms themselves from two to four in the House and four to six in the Senate. But these are just window dressing. Legislators have tried to loosen their limits numerous times and continue to test new angles to slip this idea by voters.

Perhaps the best quote in the article isn’t by Rep. Perry or me. It is by Alachua County Democratic Party Chairman Robert Prather.

“We’re disappointed that Rep. Perry seems more interested in protecting jobs in Tallahassee… than … Gainesville, Alachua County and Dixie,” Prather said.

For the complete articles, see Blumel op-ed and Perry news article.

“IMPEACH OBAMA” T-Shirts and Displaying American Flag Deemed Illegal by Town

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Town of Campbell, Wisconsin’s ordinance which police are enforcing to prohibit citizens from displaying the American Flag and wearing t-Shirts which call for the impeachment of President Obama on the highway overpass managed by the Town. Joining TMLC as local co-counsel is La Crosse, WI lawyer Bernardo Cueto.

At issue is the enforcement of the Town of Campbell’s ordinance, 9.12, which prohibits the display of signs and flags on, or within 100 feet, of the only pedestrian overpass managed by the Town of Campbell. The Town enacted the ordinance on October 8, 2013 in response to some angry calls about the “Impeach Obama” expression on the t-shirts and the resulting media attention.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of La Crosse residents Gregory Luce and Nicholas Newman against the Town of Campbell, its police chief, and one of his officers. Luce and Newman were participating in a nationwide movement called “Overpasses for America.”

Click here to read entire Federal Lawsuit

Erin Mersino, a TMLC attorney handling the case, said, “Viewpoint discrimination is one of the most harmful threats to our freedom of speech. The answer to contempt of a certain viewpoint is not to silence that viewpoint, but to invite more speech and create a discourse. That is one of the most fundamental tenets of our Republic. The ordinance at issue turns the public sidewalk on the overpass, which is otherwise open to the public into a dead speech zone.”

The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly have been violated and that the Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and as applied by the police. Because the Plaintiffs wish to continue their constitutionally protected speech, they asked the Court to enter a Preliminary Injunction banning further enforcement of the ordinance during the pendency of the lawsuit.

Gregory Luce is a Catholic who is pro-life and opposes President Obama for many reasons including the President’s actions in support of abortion. On October 24, 2013, Luce along with a few of his supporters appeared on the pedestrian overpass wearing t-shirts that collectively spelled out “IMPEACH” on one side and “OBAMA” on the backside. A Town of Campbell police officer confronted Luce and his supporters and ordered them to leave or receive citations. Luce and his supporters left as ordered. This police action also thwarted a similarly planned demonstration by Luce on public land 100 feet from the overpass in question, which was also prohibited by the challenged ordinance.

Plaintiff Nicholas Newman is a patriotic American. On October 27, 2013, Newman appeared on the overpass in question carrying an American Flag to express his pride for his country and the ideals on which it was founded. Police issued Newman a citation for displaying the American Flag in violation of the ordinance, which carries a fine of $139.00.

The pedestrian overpass consists of only a sidewalk with a fence on either side. Sidewalks are considered by the courts as traditional public forums.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that a bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that government cannot ban the expression of ideas just because some find it offensive. In fact, the Supreme Court has allowed the burning of the American Flag on the grounds that it is matter of free expression. So I’m astonished that the Town of Campbell and the police department think it can ban a citizen from displaying the American Flag.”

Muslim Prison Inmates Demand “Islamically Permissible Food”

Judicial Watch reports:

Should Americans pay the extra cost of providing Muslim prison inmates with special meals prepared according to Islamic law? The federal government does it and so do a few states, but not Florida and a U.S.-based terrorist front group is demanding a change.

It’s one of those only-in-America stories that tarnish the country’s image, not to mention diminish its dignity. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which pretends to be a Muslim civil rights group, is ordering Florida prison officials to offer Muslim inmates halal meals, which would cost taxpayers in the Sunshine State a lot more than the regular jailhouse cuisine.

Federal inmates already get the accommodation and so do convicted felons in some states, such as Pennsylvania and California, which spends an additional half a million dollars a year to purchase the halal meals for Muslim prisoners. Florida has resisted any religious meal accommodation so the Obama administration sued the state on behalf of Jewish convicts demanding Kosher meals, which cost four times as much.

“By refusing to offer Kosher meals the Florida Department of Corrections forces hundreds of its prisoners to violate their core religious beliefs on a daily basis, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act of 2000,” according the Department of Justice (DOJ) complaint. The Clinton-era law protects the religious exercise of persons confined to institutions and prohibits a state or local government from “substantially burdening” that right.

Not surprisingly, a Clinton-appointed federal judge agreed with the Obama administration and ordered Florida to “provide a certified Kosher diet to all prisoners with a sincere religious basis for keeping Kosher” no later than July 2014. In the order the judge, Patricia Seitz, mentions the “number and diversity” of organizations that urged the state to provide inmates with a Kosher diet “further demonstrates the strong public interest at stake in this litigation.” Among them are the usual suspects like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other less known groups like the Hindu-American Foundation and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

CAIR celebrated the ruling and used it as an opportunity to call for “Islamically permissible” food to be served to all Muslim inmates in Florida. In a statement issued this month, the executive director of CAIR’s Florida headquarters says the Kosher ruling is “an important step in protecting the religious rights of incarcerated individuals” and that it’s only “fair and equitable” that if Jewish inmates get Kosher food, Muslim inmates should have access to halal meals. Florida officials needn’t worry about a thing because CAIR says in its press release that Muslim businesses are ready to provide “advice and services needed to provide halal meals to inmates.”

How convenient. Halal is an Arabic term for lawful under Islamic code. This means that pork is prohibited and all meat must come from animals that are ritually slaughtered. Allah must be pronounced during the kill and animals must be properly nourished, well rested and not stressed or excited prior to slaughter. A few years ago the Obama administration launched a special program to deliver halal meals to home-bound seniors in Detroit, a city known for its thriving Muslim population.

If Florida prison officials don’t start giving Muslim inmates halal meals, they should prepare for another DOJ lawsuit. CAIR, which has proven to be very influential in the Obama administration, will undoubtedly demand it. The group was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) and was a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation.

Read more about .


Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities. Read more.

Feds to seek death penalty for Boston Marathon jihad mass murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

This is a face-saving gesture. The clueless, politically correct, willfully ignorant Feds discounted intel they received from Russia about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and failed to investigate the mosque the Tsarnaev brothers attended in Boston, despite the fact that it has numerous ties to jihad terrorists. Now, when it is far too late, they’re trying to look tough on jihad terror.

“Feds to seek death penalty against accused Boston bomber Tsarnaev,” by Pete Williams for NBC News, January 30 (thanks to Kenneth):

The Justice Department has notified a federal judge that it intends to seek the death penalty if a jury convicts Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for last April’s bomb attacks at the Boston Marathon.

Tsarnaev is awaiting trial on charges that he and his brother built and planted two pressure-cooker bombs that killed three people and injured at least 260 others. He is also charged with killing an MIT campus police officer.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement: “After consideration of the relevant facts, the applicable regulations and the submissions made by the defendant’s counsel, I have determined that the United States will seek the death penalty in this matter. The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision.”

Among the factors listed by the government were that the killings were intentional, resulted from acts calculated to cause grave risks to public safety, and were committed in a cruel manner. And prosecutors said the defendant has demonstrated no remorse….

Of course. It was his jihad. A mujahid does not feel remorse for his jihad.

IRS Probe: A Disgraceful Investigation

 How do you hide from an obvious scandal?  Pretend it isn’t there and let the time run out the clock.

Benghazi, Fast & Furious, harassing news agencies, and the IRS targeting select groups because of their conservative politics. The list goes on.

When Nixon and Clinton were slammed with serious questions concerning possible crimes and the integrity of a sitting president, independent special prosecutors were rightfully assigned to conduct the investigation and , if necessary, reach a legal conclusion holding the guilty parties accountable for their egregious actions.

This will not happen in the Obama administration. We, the people, are not privileged to basic honesty in government.

Consider this:  The humongous IRS investigation – in which evidence exists that the government was ordering special targets for non-profit status and audits based on conservative leanings – has been assigned to a top trial lawyer in the Justice Department for investigation. Her name is Barbara Kay Bosserman. She works directly under Eric Holder.

So what? You say?

Barbara Kay Bosserman is a major contributor to the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012, now with personal donations of over $6000 invested in assuring her a $160,000 a year job. Is this not the ultimate in conflict of interest? As a loyal presidential bootlicker, there is NO WAY she can conduct an independent and objective investigation into the actions of the IRS, and hold the guilty parties accountable, particularly if they are close to the president, or the president himself.

That would be like assigning a lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) the role of prosecuting the Muslim Brotherhood. They’re all part of the same ideology.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to echo the democratic mantra that these are all “phony” scandals. The administration says they have more important and pressing issues to attend to.  In other words, let’s all drop it. That’s old news. Forget about it. Let time pass. “What difference does it make?” (Shhh – maybe it will go away)

We can let time pass but it doesn’t make the people in the administration and less culpable in their roles of obstructing justice. If anyone has been obstructing justice, it has been the Attorney General himself, who has been caught lying to congress more than once in his efforts to protect the president.

It is eight months since the scandal became public. So far, zilch. No one is being held responsible.

For the American people, this is a simple act of arrogance: A classic, ‘In Your Face.’ The appointment of  Barbara Kay Bosserman is one of the most audacious acts perpetrated by Holder. She is a devout follower and contributor of Barack Obama who at the very least, cannot be objective and neutral, and at the worst, can rightfully be perceived as a protectorate who will go to all lengths to prevent disgrace to cloak the White House.

The disgrace, in fact, belongs to the White House for approving a grossly biased investigation. This is not seeking justice. It’s obstructing it.

Americans: Where are your voices?

Click here: 2013 IRS scandal – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here: JUSTICE: Feds pick Obama supporter to lead probe into IRS tea party targeting – Washington Times

Supreme Court Brief filed Supporting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga and Religious Liberty

Claiming “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty,” the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) yesterday filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in two separate cases, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. In both cases, the plaintiffs are devout Christians who built their businesses from the ground up.  They object on religious grounds to providing certain contraceptives which are mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services headed by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both cases are scheduled for oral arguments on March 25, 2014 and the Court’s decision is expected sometime before the end of June.

TMLC’s brief focuses on religious liberty, “This case is not about competing rights; there is only one right at issue here − the right to religious freedom.”  The brief goes on to explain that there is no constitutional right to “free” contraception or abortion.  Moreover, that “The employers are not objecting to their employees’ private decision to use these drugs, they are objecting to being forced by the government to pay for insurance plans that facilitate or contribute to these decisions. The employers object to being used to further a government objective that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

TMLC’s brief appealed to the foundations upon which our country was built:

“The United States was founded upon a set of noble and workable principles that formed the basis for the Bill of Rights. Paramount was the recognition that for a citizenry to be truly free, they must be allowed to think, to speak, and to worship God without government interference or unjustified restriction.”

The brief referred to our Founding Fathers:

“They risked their fortunes and their lives to create a country where people could be free to live and to worship consistent with their own conscience, and to provide for their families without unnecessary and crippling burdens created by an all-powerful government. The citizens currently before the Court challenging the Mandate can appreciate the struggles those early patriots faced. They too cannot allow injustice to prosper and are risking their fortunes and their livelihoods to defend the constitutional freedoms that define this country.”

Click here to read the TMLC’s entire 16-page brief

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) is a national public interest law firm located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  It has filed 11 federal cases involving 33 different plaintiffs challenging the HHS Mandate.  One of those cases, Eden Foods v. Sebelius et al, is currently in the U.S. Supreme Court, but not scheduled for argument.  The Government has suggested to the Court that the Eden Foods case be held in abeyance pending the decision in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The religious liberty of every American is at stake.  If we lose these cases, the guarantee of religious liberty under our constitution and laws becomes a farce.”

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby represented by the Becket Fund in June 2013, arguing that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to corporate entities, thereby shielding Hobby Lobby founder David Green from providing insurance plans that abide by the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate.

However, in August 2013, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the same arguments, forcing the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, to offer health insurance to their employees in a grave violation of their religious beliefs.

Manatee County, FL Commissioners served with Writ of Mandamus

On January 29, 2014 the Common Law Grand Jury in Manatee County served the Manatee County Commissioners with a Writ of Mandamus. A Writ of Mandamus is defined as:

A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporationMunicipal Corporationor individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.

The Manatee County Board of Commission Consent Agenda Item #6 lists the presentation of a Writ of Mandamus. Below is the full text of a speech given by Rodger Dowdell, Administrator for the Common Law Grand Jury, to the Manatee County Board of Commissioners. The Writ of Mandamus, which may be read by clicking here. To learn more about the history of Common Law Grand Juries click here.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today, Jan 28, 2014

My name is Rodger Dowdell , I have lived in Manatee County for over 12 years. I come in front of you today as an Administrator for the Manatee County Common Law Grand Jury, which was reestablished by We the People on Nov 26, 2013.

The first handout you have received is simply a copy of the Manatee County Common Law Grand Jury paperwork filed with the Clerk of the Court. It is important that you all understand that our country was founded with a Common Law system of Justice, not a civil law system. Additionally, our State was also founded with a Common Law system of Justice.

The first Common Law Grand Jury in history sprung to life after the Magna Carta was signed in 1215AD. It is an investigatory body that has 3 main purposes:

Protect the common people from unjust charges from those in power

To collect its own evidence and take evidence from the people to make sure the right people

stand trial for criminal behavior

To reach into both elected and unelected government to root out corruption

When our country was founded, every county had its own Common Law Grand Jury. In fact, before the bullets started flying in our Revolutionary War, our best Patriots were arrested for harassing the British troops and merchants. Simply put, our best Patriots would have been rotting in jail if it had not been our Common Law Grand Juries refusing to indict them.

So why, might you ask, are We the People, the highest ranking sovereign in our system of government, now investing the time and effort to reestablish our Manatee County Common Law Grand Jury ? Our Common Law Grand Jury is the primary tool our Founders gave us to keep our Governments centered on our Constitution.Not even the US Supreme Court can review decisions made by our Common Law Grand Jury ! That’s right, let me say that profundity once again…NOT EVEN THE US SUPREME COURT CAN REVIEW A DECISION MADE BY OUR MANATEE COUNTY COMMON LAW GRAND JURY ! I know it sounds unbelievable, but it is true !

So what are the problems your constituents face that can be solved by the Manatee County Common Law Grand Jury ?

Well, simply stated, there are a lot of unconstitutional injustices being done by our justice system here in Manatee County every day. In fact, you will probably be surprised at how many of YOUR constituents have been injured unconstitutionally by our Manatee County justice system.

Some of the worst injustices today are happening in our Family Court system. These injustices are documented for all to see in the newly released movie, Divorce Corp. I urge you all to see this impactful film for yourselves.

Furthermore, We the People are daily being injured by the Unconstitutional initiatives coming from our Federal and State governments including Obamacare, Common Core, NDAA, NSA spying, abuse of power by the IRS, and Federal gun laws.

With Obamacare, we are witnessing very sick people losing their doctors and their medical insurance, and then finding that they cannot afford the new insurance costs offered through the exchanges. As Commissioners, you probably thought you can not help your constituents with this matter . This is NOT TRUE ! You have the power to enable our Manatee County Common Law Grand Jury to restore these people straightaway.

What about the thousands of parents here in Manatee County that are furious that they are being forced to pay more and more money into our public education system while getting worse and worse results, and while at the same time our Federal Government is unconstitutionally forcing Socialism into our young kids heads while teaching them what a rotten place our country is ? A solution is now in your hands, our Manatee County Common Law Grand Jury, which can nullify unconstitutional Federal and State laws, rules, regulations, and Executive Orders at our county’s borders.

We the People in Manatee County can no longer accept and will no longer tolerate the destruction of our Constitution and the trampling of the rights of the People that is being allowed by our runaway justice system.

We come humbly forward as stewards of our great Constitution. With Justice, Honor, and Mercy, we intend on restoring the rights of the injured straightaway.

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in a 1992 decision in the US v Williams case,
” …the Grand Jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside.” Additionally, he referred to is as a Constitutional fixture on its own, like a fourth branch of our government. It is owned by We the People for the benefit of We the People.
After speaking, I will deliver to you the Common Law Grand Jury Writ of Mandamus. This Writ is your moral duty to your Constituents. Also,

It is your duty according to our US Constitution
It is your duty according to our Supreme Court decisions It is your duty according to our Florida Constitution
It is your duty according to Florida Statutes

It is your duty according to your oath of office !

And, let me remind you in closing, you have the duty to bring our Common Law Grand Jury into our courthouse so we can do our job. In this stressful hour, while our President is threatening Unconstitutional unilateral actions, help us end this tyranny NOW by giving our Manatee Common Law Grand Jury access to our courthouse.

Please don’t let this great experiment called “American Exceptionalism” die on your watch.

Thank you !!

This video explains how to form Common Law Juries and Grand Juries:


RELATED DOCUMENT: Common Law Grand Jury: You are KING ! The government is your servant

Exposed: Florida’s Judicial Star Chamber

I have written about ordinary citizens who have had their liberty and property taken from them. One of the common threads is the inextricable link between the judiciary and lawyers, who in case after case, appear to represent not their client but rather “the system.” Their mission is to protect and defend “the System” rather than the liberty and property of the people.

In some startling cases I have found that judges and lawyers are in effect ignoring the Florida and US Constitutions to do inextricable harm to the people. Two cases which highlight this “Star Chamber” like system in Florida are that of Holocaust Survivor Marie Winkleman and Florida small businessman Don Baldauf.

The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The following is yet another “Star Chamber” like case involving Nancy Grant from the small town of Arcadia, FL. Because of her personal experiences Nancy became the Chairperson for Florida Jail4judges  in 2003 when the Sherree Lowe, the then Chairperson moved to Oregon. According to Grant, “It is because of my being involved in J4J’s, I think they took my license. I was doing a lot of traveling collecting signatures on our petitions so they had to stop that.” The following is Nancy’s story:

In 2006 I discovered that our local courthouse and county jail were working simultaneously keeping people incarcerated for up to three years without hearings. These people were held incognito forced to take plea deals behind closed doors by audio visual from the judge’s chambers. Family members and friends were not allowed to attend hearings.

I reported this to the local clerk, and to the administrator of our district. Nothing was done to correct the matter. I reported the activities to the Judicial Qualifications, who sent a representative to meet with me but afterwards nothing was done.

It was then that I decided to have a certified paralegal prepare a document titled, (EMD) “Emergency Motion to Dismiss” which contained state and federal law pertaining to speedy trial rights. Basically, the document showed that if a person isn’t taken to trial within a 90 day time for misdemeanors and 180 days for felonies then the person according to law must be released, providing the proper paperwork was filed.

I mailed this document to 55 inmates who had been in the jail over 180 days up to three years. This mailing went into the DeSoto County jail, certified mail/return receipt. These documents were read, signed and filed by the inmates. They began demanding their speedy trial rights and it created a disruption in the illegal commerce of the court.


Judge James S. Parker, 12th Circuit Court of Florida.

Soon after this I was arrested and charged with UPL, Unlicensed Practice of Law. My bond was set at $50,000 and the condition of my bond as instructed by Judge James S. Parker: I was not allowed to communicate directly or indirectly to any inmates or any inmate’s family members about anything going on at the jail or court house.

After 16 months I had a mock trial, prosecution side only, with a special set of jury instructions created just for my case. All 19 witnesses for the state stated I never held myself out to be an attorney or charged. Recently one of the jury members came to where I was living. She said the jury was instructed that they could not leave the room unless they had a guilty verdict. The jury previously had been removed from the courthouse and placed in a special room at the county commissioners building. This lady was the only jury member that held out until she was threatened with harm if she didn’t agree with the guilty verdict.

One month after my trial I was sentenced. I was placed on 15 yrs. probation. Other special probation orders are:

• I am not allowed to file, Pro se on any case.
• I am not allowed to communicate with any inmate in the state of Florida directly or indirectly.
• I am not allowed to drive, the court suspended my license.
• I was fined $22,600. My victim impact score is “0”.

I have no criminal background prior to this event and my driving record is clean. I haven’t driven a vehicle on state highways since July of 2008. I was told by a reliable source that because of my case changes at the courthouse have occurred. Inmates do not stay in jail over a year.

Letters are sent to me from inmates from other states who are being held in county jails for indefinite period of times and forced to take plea deals under threats but I do not respond to them.

lawyer donald h hartery

Donald H. Hartery, Jr.

EDITORS NOTE: You may view Nancy Grant’s case docket at It is docket number 2006 CF 335. There were nineteen people who didn’t testify against Grant brought to her trial by the State Attorney. The prosecuting state attorney was Donald H. Hartery, Jr. from Sarasota, FL. The nineteen witnesses were not interviewed before the trial. When they were put on the stand but they did not say one unkind word against Grant. According to Grant, “Hartery got so angry. He was actually screaming at witnesses during my trial. It was kind of comical because he is a heavy man with a round face and it would get so red when he was shouting. Hartery was no longer a state attorney after my trial.” Hartery is no longer a state attorney and has a private law firm in Sarasota, FL.

The Secret meeting that changed Holocaust Survivor’s Life – Hopefully not Forever!

Cloaked in secrecy, a mediation meeting in a lawyer’s office was held on November 25, 2013, under order of the Sarasota County Probate Court, to determine whether or not 89-year-old Holocaust Survivor Marie Winkelman was or was not capacitated and if or if not she needed to be put into Florida’s vast guardianship system, which controls the lives of scores of thousands of elders. This is the third part of an investigative series on Marie’s guardianship case. Please go here to read Part I and Part II.

Although Marie escaped death in the Warsaw Ghetto, where everyone in her large family (except one baby) was murdered, she has thus far not been able to be freed from a guardianship where most believe she never belonged.

What could possibly go wrong with court-ordered mediation?

The litany of answers to this question is nearly endless, beginning with something akin to “blackmail,” as one of the participants in Marie’s mediation described the circumstances under which the fateful Mediated Settlement Agreement was signed after hours of lawyer talk. Unlike litigation in an open courtroom, with a precise record made of the day’s actions and discussions, under oath or not, mediation is the antithesis of due process. There is no record even allowed of the mediation proceedings. A confidentiality statement must be signed by every participant. No judge is present, and the public is excluded. No witnesses testify. No evidence is presented. No appeal is possible once an agreement has been signed by all of the participants.

So how can you mediate someone’s incapacity, which, of necessity, requires due process protections?

Although this question was posed to a former Chief Judge in Sarasota, no legal citation was provided by him. After five attorneys and three of Marie’s distant family members met for a day, at Marie’s expense, just before Thanksgiving, their Thanksgiving gift to Marie was that they had decided amongst themselves that Marie was incapacitated and that she should not be allowed to remain living independently without two guardians being appointed to make her health decisions and a trust company chosen to control Marie’s fortune of millions.

The legal document produced by the signatories completely excluded Marie, a vibrant and brilliant accomplished woman (acclaimed artist and author), from the entire process. Indeed, Marie was not present at the mediation determining her life’s circumstances. Her then-attorney, Barry Spivey, did not even provide her with a copy of the Agreement either before or after it was signed. Likewise, Marie was never given copies of the releases signed as part of the Agreement. In other words, the secret meeting is still a secret from Marie herself.

Simply put, the product of the secret meeting was a done bad deal for Marie, whose multi-million-dollar trust was wrongfully included as part of her guardianship proceeding and was mysteriously converted from “revocable” (able to be revoked by Marie) to “irrevocable,” thereby forever sealing the future fortunes of the named beneficiaries.

Who are the beneficiaries of the trust made irrevocable in mediation?

The primary beneficiaries of Marie’s multi-million-dollar trust are Robert Szychowski’s wife and sister-in-law, who are the stepdaughters of Marie Winkelman. Robert Szychowski, a fiscal administrator at Rutgers University, initiated the guardianship proceedings against Marie and is a signatory to the Agreement. To accomplish his ends, Szychowski used at least three different attorneys at Marie’s expense, presumably costing Marie hundreds of thousands of dollars to have her stepson-in-law fight her.

Another signatory to the Agreement and major beneficiary of Marie’s now-irrevocable trust is Marie’s cousin and sole blood relative, Alina Koren, who hired two attorneys in order to become Marie’s Guardian of the Person. Per the Agreement, all of Szychowski’s legal and travel expenses plus all of Koren’s legal and travel expenses (and a host of other fees charged by service providers) will be submitted to the Sabal Trust Company to pay out of Marie’s trust without any oversight or input by either Marie or the Probate Court.

How can a trust company agree to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Ward’s trust for purported guardianship bills without court oversight?

In sum, the sums of the secret mediation about Marie continue to toll to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, despite the glaring absence of any of the court oversight mandated by the State of Florida to protect its Wards’ assets. Why did Sabal Trust, the company chosen by Szychowski and located in his attorney’s same building, accept such payment provisions of the Agreement, devoid of court input?

Once more, Marie’s Constitutional right to due process is evaporating with the prospect of her second court-ordered mediation behind sealed doors scheduled by Judge Deno Economou for February 28, 2014, as requested by Marie’s new attorney, Audrey Bear, for what purpose?

Gun Control for Dummies – It’s Common Sense

This video gives a further explanation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the context of why the Bill of Rights was included along with the establishment of the Federal Government. Please share this with your friends so that they can help educate America.

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Ratified in 1791, the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets forth two basic requirements. During times of peace, the military may not house its troops in private residences without the consent of the owners. During times of war, the military may not house its troops in private residences except in accordance with established legal procedure. By placing these limitations on the private quartering of combatants, the Third Amendment subordinates military authority to civilian control and safeguards against abuses that can be perpetrated by standing armies and professional soldiers.

The Third Amendment traces its roots to English Law. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights prohibited the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament. Less than a century later Parliament passed the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774, which authorized British troops to take shelter in colonial homes by military fiat (order). During the American Revolution, British Red Coats frequently relied on this authorization, making themselves unwelcome guests at private residences throughout the colonies. By 1776 the Declaration of Independence was assailing the king of England for quartering “large bodies of troops among us” and keeping “standing armies without the consent of our legislature.”

Against this backdrop, a number of colonies enacted laws prohibiting the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers. The Delaware Declaration of Rights of 1776, for example, provided that “no soldier ought to be quartered in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such a manner only as the legislature shall direct.” Similar expressions also appeared in the Maryland Declaration of Rights of 1776, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of 1780, and the New Hampshire Bill of Rights of 1784. Originally drafted by James Madison in 1789, the Third Amendment embodies the spirit and intent of its colonial antecedents.

Primarily because the United States has not been regularly confronted by standing armies during its history, the Third Amendment has produced little litigation. The Supreme Court has never had occasion to decide a case based solely on the Third Amendment, though the Court has cited its protections against the quartering of soldiers as a basis for the constitutional right to privacy (griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 [1965]). In lower federal courts, Third Amendment claims typically have been rejected without much discussion.

However, in 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued the seminal interpretation of the Third Amendment in Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (1982). Engblom raised the issue of whether the state of New York had violated the Third Amendment by housing members of the National Guard at the residences of two correctional officers who were living in a dormitory on the grounds of a state penitentiary. The governor had activated the guard to quell disorder at the penitentiary during a protracted labor strike.

Although the Second Circuit Court did not decide whether the Third Amendment had been violated, it made three other important rulings. First, the court ruled that under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Third Amendment applies to action taken by the state governments no less than it applies to actions by the federal government. Second, the court ruled that the two correctional officers were “owners” of their residences for the purposes of the Third Amendment, even though they were renting their dormitory room from the state of New York. Any person who lawfully possesses or controls a particular dwelling, the court said, enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling that precludes the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers. Third, the court ruled that members of the National Guard are “soldiers” governed by the strictures of the Third Amendment.

No federal court has had the opportunity to reexamine these Third Amendment issues since Engblom.

Further readings

Fields, William S. 1989. “The Third Amendment: Constitutional Protection from the Involuntary Quartering of Soldiers.” Military Law Review 124.

Levy, Leonard Williams. 1999. Origins of the Bill of Rights. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.