Florida Senate votes 24 to 14 to approve American Laws for American Courts legislation

The Florida Senate has approved American Laws for American Courts legislation which would prohibit Sharia and other foreign laws.  The full senate voted voted 24 to 14 in favor of SB 386 titled Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases at the third reading during the Monday, April 28, 2014 session.

Joseph Abruzzo No Democrat
Thad Altman Yes Republican
Aaron Bean  Yes Republican 
Lizbeth Benacquisto  Yes Republican 
Rob Bradley  Yes Republican 
Jeff Brandes  Yes Republican 
Oscar , II Braynon  No Democrat 
Dwight Bullard  No Democrat 
Jeff Clemens  No Democrat 
Charles S. Dean Sr. Yes Republican 
Nancy C. Detert  Yes Republican 
Miguel Diaz de la Portilla  Yes Republican 
Greg Evers  Yes Republican 
Anitere Flores  Yes Republican 
Don Gaetz  Yes Republican 
Bill Galvano  Yes Republican 
Rene Garcia  Yes Republican 
Andy Gardiner  Yes Republican 
Audrey Gibson  No Democrat 
Denise Grimsley  Yes Republican 
Alan Hays  Yes Republican 
Dorothy L. Hukill  Yes Republican 
Arthenia L. Joyner  No Democrat 
Jack Latvala Republican
Tom Lee  Yes Republican 
John Legg  Yes Republican 
Gwen Margolis  No Democrat 
Bill Montford  No Democrat 
Joe Negron Republican
Garrett Richter  Yes Republican 
Jeremy Ring  No Democrat 
Maria Lorts Sachs  No Democrat 
David Simmons Yes Republican
Wilton Simpson Yes Republican
Christopher L. Smith No Democrat
Eleanor Sobel No Democrat
>Darren Soto No Democrat
Kelli Stargel Yes Republican
Geraldine F. Thompson No Democrat
John Thrasher Yes Republican

 

The official Florida Senate vote history for SB 386 is posted here.  

This legislation, commonly known as “American Laws for American Courts”, would prohibit Florida courts from considering certain provisions of foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law, if such provisions are inconsistent with the Florida and United States of America Constitutions.

If Florida courts accept provisions of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign laws or legal codes which are inconsistent with American laws it will undermine public policies enacted by our representative form of government and change our value system.

Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases:

Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy on application of foreign law, legal code, or system in proceedings relating to dissolution of marriage, support, time-sharing, UCCJEA, & UIFSA; provides that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void; provides that certain contracts & contract provisions are void; provides for construction of waiver by natural person of person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by state or federal constitutions; provides that claims of forum non conveniens or related claims must be denied; provides that act doesn’t require or authorize court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters in violation of specified constitutional provisions or to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which U.S. is party to specified extent.  Full text of SB 386.

A vote by the full Florida House of Representatives on HB 903 Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases is pending.

Florida Senate Allows Law Licenses for Illegal Aliens

Floridians for Immigration Enforcement in an email states, “If College Tuition Subsidy for Illegal Aliens (SB 1400) were not bad enough, the Florida Senate in under 24 hours passed an amendment to allow law licenses for illegal aliens. The bill now goes to the House for a vote. The session ends Friday, May 2nd, 2014.”

On April 24th the Florida Senate took a bill that had nothing to do with state bar admission and amended it on the floor of the Senate to make illegal aliens eligible to practice law in Florida.

“Proponents of illegal aliens practicing law in Florida amended the bill, House Bill (“H.B.”) 755, on the Senate floor to avoid scrutiny or critiques of the legislation. The bill passed the Senate on Friday without any opportunity for public debate or participation. H.B. 755, which passed the House of Representatives March 23 by a vote of 117-0 as a family law bill, will now return to the House for consideration of the Senate amendment,” reports Dale L. Wilcox, State & Local Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Florida citizens did not have any opportunity to voice their concerns, call their representatives, or testify for or against the bill.

FAIR points out:

  • Illegal Aliens, by Definition, Do Not Uphold Our Laws. Admission to the Florida bar involves taking an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution-an oath that illegal aliens cannot, in good faith, take because they reside in the United States continuously in violation of federal law.
  • Illegal aliens do not only have past violations of the law to address on their bar applications, but current violations of the law as well. An illegal alien bar applicant is very different from an applicant who committed a prior bad act and subsequently rehabilitated or demonstrated law-abiding behavior after the misconduct.
  • H.B. 755 Conflicts with the Rationale Behind the Good Character Requirement for Bar Admission. Public interest requires that the public be secure in its expectation that those who are admitted to the bar are worthy of the trust and confidence clients must place in their lawyers. Bar admission and Florida’s ethical rules were adopted to protect the public and promote respect and confidence in the legal profession. However, no member of the public cannot reasonably expect his lawyer to obey the law if immigration laws are considered fair game for breaking.
  • The Indefinite Nature of An Illegal Alien’s Presence in the Country Fundamentally Impairs His Ability to Responsibility Represent Clients.Because illegal aliens have no legal right to remain in the United States, the representation of a client could be suddenly cut short by an order of removal. A lawyer who is removed from the country will not have enough time to act with reasonable diligence and promptness to resolve ongoing client matters and may not be able to give his clients adequate notice to terminate the representation.
  • Illegal Aliens Are Not “Otherwise Law-Abiding.” Even the average illegal alien, who some claim is “otherwise law-abiding” despite violating our duly established immigration law, violates numerous laws, including, but not limited to, laws prohibiting identity theft, forgery, and driving without a license or insurance, often creating real victims.

Wilcox notes, “Florida should demand that its lawyers be honest and law-abiding. Illegal aliens are neither.”

H.B. 755 was amended at the last minute to include the provision making illegal aliens eligible to practice law in Florida. As a result, the issue was never considered in any committee and never provided a public hearing.

Concerned citizens may call or email their Florida Representative and voice their opinion on H.B. 755.

Why the United States should adopt Mexico’s Immigration Laws

Members of Congress are harming our society by overwhelming us with legal and illegal aliens. Perhaps they should consider adopting Mexico’s immigration laws? Since the majority here are Mexicans they should understand and appreciate being judged under Mexican rules.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”

Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.”

The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.”

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

  1. Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
  2. A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity.
  3. A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number.
  4. Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be Imprisoned. Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.
  5. Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different is subject to fine and imprisonment.
  6. Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as Felons. Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.
  7. Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
  8. Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison . Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population States…”A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.”

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. Foreigners who have contempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported.

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals .Under the law, A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.

Florida Public Service Commission to the Disabled – Get a Lawyer and Sue Us!

As reported here earlier, the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) has rejected all arguments of health, safety and privacy in our protest of the Florida Power & Light (FP&L) smart meter and FP&Ls Non-Standard Meter extortion fees. The FPSC has determined that they will only allow costs issues to go forward into the hearings set for September. In our Petition for Reconsideration, we requested that they at least consider medical exemptions to be heard as a term and condition of the tariff.

Specifically we wrote:

Petitioners also believe the Commission overlooked the evidence provided through public comments received in this case, as well as some of the Martin Petitioners claims, which cite doctors advice to avoid RF radiation. The Petitioners believe adequate evidence exists in this case, which was overlooked by the Commission, to require a determination as to whether medical exemptions due to existing medical conditions or medical implants, should be required. Considering special provisions for medical reasons is not outside the scope of this proceeding. The Petitioners note that such considerations have been addressed in the past with matters such as collection tariffs where customers utilizing certain medical equipment are afforded special provisions.

In addition Petitioners ask the Commission to reconsider the American With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) dispute raised, which was not addressed. By the nature of utilizing a postpone list FP&L effectually granted an accommodation to those requesting the meter not be installed or be removed under the ADA laws. By the Commission approving this tariff which requires a penalty charge for refusal of the smart meter, without any consideration for medical exemptions, the approved tariff violates the ADA rights of the disabled to that accommodation, without charge and without retaliation or coercion.

Yesterday, the Florida Public Service Commission Staff submitted their recommendation to the Commission on the Petition’s for Reconsideration.  Regarding those disabled or with notes from doctors to avoid wireless and RF radiation they state:

With regard to ADA compliance terms and conditions, customers of FPL who believe that the terms and conditions of the NSMR tariff violate their ADA rights are able to sue in federal district court for both exemption from the tariff and recovery of any monetary damages incurred as a result of the violations of the ADA. Neither the Commission nor any other state agency is the proper forum for the relief that the Protestors appear to be seeking.

It is simply amazing that the staff of the Public Service Commission would write this stuff. Many FP&L customers are legally disabled with multiple conditions and have doctor’s notes stating to avoid wireless and they tell them to go sue! Problem is – when you are disabled, you are usually poor. They know this. Perhaps there is an attorney out there with some compassion that would be willing to take this on.

Notice they avoid the doctors note and medical exemption argument altogether. That is how they operate. They ignore things that they don’t have an answer for.

The Commission rules on this issue on May 9th in their Agenda Conference. If you have some compassion for others, tell them what you think. Do you agree? Can the Commission have authority to mandate a product and then not allow a medical exemption for those whose doctors tell them to avoid that product? You can voice your opinion with the Commission at  http://www.floridapsc.com/consumers/complaints/index2.aspx.

UK Lord Justice wanted age of consent to 4 years old — news blackout in America

Lord Justice Fulford, pictured in his full legal regalia, actively campaigned to support a pedophile group that tried to legalize sex with children.
Photo courtesy of the UK Daily Mail.

Read: High Court judge and the child sex ring: Adviser to Queen was founder of paedophile support group to keep offenders out of jail

  • Lord Justice Fulford was named last year as an adviser to the Queen
  • He was a key backer of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange 
  • Police suspect the group of abusing children on an ‘industrial scale’
  • He is revealed as a founder member of campaign to defend PIE
  • At the time it was calling for the age of consent to be lowered to just four

I clashed with Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) global leaders at the Wales conference in Swansea in 1977.

Tom O’Carroll is still accepted and active on a sexnet chat group of experts in “sexology” although he writes openly as a pedophile. And the scholarly organizers of the Swansea conference at the University were part of his efforts. Below a summary of my intro to him in my book, Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence, 2013. This academic pedophile lobby has continued and grown, training second generation and third generation supporters as “scholars” for pedophile equality and “rights.” In 1981 I realized they were global. See the B4UAct conference with Johns Hopkins keynoter, here and here.

From my book:

Another turning point came in 1977 when I went to Wales to deliver a research paper on women and pornography at the British Psychological Association International Conference on “Love and Attraction” at Swansea University. When I arrived in London, I heard that Tom O’Carroll, the leader of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), had been blanketing England on a public relations tour, promoting sex with children on his way to speak at my Swansea conference.

All of England was in an uproar over the daily press reports describing the aims of PIE and O’Carroll. It was reported that PIE specialized in providing specific lists of places where pedophiles could locate and seduce children. When they heard O’Carroll was to speak from their college podium, the Swansea University housekeeping staff went on strike. He speaks and your beds will not be made, nor food cooked, nor clothes washed, they promised. They would not have the conference give place to a man promoting sex with their children.

I brought eighty slides for my presentation as evidence supporting my findings of child pornography in Playboy and Penthouse. I had already clashed with an American professor, Larry Constantine, a Penthouse board member advocating child pornography in his paper on “The Sexual Rights of Children.” [Tulane University professor at the time]

So, when Constantine sent out a harried bulletin for a meeting of conference speakers, I hastened to join the group. Constantine was urging all international attendees to sign a “free speech” petition demanding that PIE’s O’Carroll speak—and that our beds be made. I urged the group to reconsider. We were guests here and would leave in a few days, I reasoned. What right had we to leave behind a community undone by our having given place to a proselytizing child molester?  I was the only speaker to refuse to sign the petition. Ultimately, the Swansea University president ruled that O’Carroll was not credentialed to speak. Housekeeping service resumed.

How and Why, I wondered… was the university’s domestic staff able to aggressively protect their children, while trained academicians remained apathetic, even sympathetic toward this pedophile, O’Carroll? My old dissatisfaction with the university community increased as these men and women exhibited such indifference to their hosts, contemptuous of what I saw as very legitimate public concerns for their children’s safety.

41Esvd-DXoL._SY300_O’Carroll was whisked safely out of Wales. I was leaving for the London train when a Canadian psychologist took me quietly aside. Certainly I was right, he said. The images I screened of children in Playboy/ Penthouse would cause harmful sexual acting out on children. But if I was looking for the cause, he directed me not to neglect reading about Kinsey in The Sex Researchers, by Edward Brecher.

“Why?” I asked. “I worked with Kinsey and Pomeroy,” he said. “ One is a pedophile and the other a homosexual.” Which is which, I asked? “Read and discover,” he replied. As I flew back to the States, I pondered the events of the last few weeks. Certainly, I now knew because I had witnessed it, that there was a growing and proselytizing “international academic pedophile movement” which was on record as wanting sexual access to children of all ages. I had stumbled right into their midst at the conference. Again I wondered what kind of academic training was producing such a coarsened and predatory intelligentsia?

Taking up the Canadian psychologist’s charge, as soon as I got home I did read The Sex Researchers.

Skipped to next section in my book…

I was unsure which stunned me more at the time, Kinsey’s use of infants in sex experiments, or Brecher’s acceptance of their abuse as a research methodology. Speechless, I went back to Kinsey’s original book to check Brecher. Yes, he was quoting Kinsey accurately. Now I finally knew there was a “source,” an authority for children’s increasingly being viewed sexually. For me, personally, the question from years before was answered. My aunt and Carole somehow learned that “children were sexual from birth” from Kinsey and his modern disciples throughout the sex profession.

In March 1981 I received a reply to my letter to The Kinsey Institute from Kinsey’s coauthor, Dr. Paul Gebhard. I had written to ask about the child data in Tables 30-34. Gebhard, who succeeded Dr. Kinsey as the Kinsey Institute Director, wrote to me that the children in Kinsey’s tables were obtained from parents, school teachers and male homosexuals, and that some of Kinsey’s men used “manual and oral techniques” to catalog how many “orgasms” infants and children could produce in a given amount of time.

Armed with Gebhard’s letter and admissions, on July 23, 1981, I created an uproar in Jerusalem at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology when I lectured on Dr. Kinsey and his child data. I was confident my sexology colleagues would be as outraged as was I by these tables and the child data describing Kinsey’s reliance on pedophiles as his child sex experimenters. Perhaps worst of all for me, as a scholar and a mother were pages 160 and 161 where Kinsey claimed his data came from “interviews.” How could he say 196 little children— some as young as two months of age—enjoyed “fainting,” “screaming,” “weeping,” and “convulsing”? How could he call these children’s responses evidence of their sexual pleasure and “climax”? I called it evidence of terror, of pain, as well as criminal.

One of us was very, very sexually mixed up.

I was positive that the international, educated, sexuality community would react as I did. Certainly this revelation about Kinsey, his team, and all of these infant and child data would electrify a conference of global Ph.Ds, and many would agree to my call for an investigation of Kinsey. The human sexuality brain trust worldwide was in attendance at the Jerusalem conference: Great Britain,the United States, France, Denmark, Israel, Norway, Canada, Scotland, Holland, Sweden and scores of other nations were represented. All attendees knew of my paper. It had been the talk of the convention, receiving even more notice than Xaviera Hollanders’ (“the Happy Hooker”) address on “Out of Touch With Sex.” People were abuzz about the issue of Kinsey’s children during the entire conference.

My paper, titled, “The Scientist as A Contributing Agent To Child Sexual Abuse; A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations,” had been released in the Abstracts. The result was no less than I expected—a standing-room only session. I was gratified that so many people were as concerned as I was. After screening my slides of Tables 30 to 34 which described Kinsey’s report of rates and speeds of ‘orgasms” of at least 317 infants and children (again, the youngest a mere two-months old), I rested my case and looked out over the audience. The room was totally silent. Finally, a tall, blond, Nordic type who had been standing near the podium stepped forward and fairly shouted at the audience:

I am a Swedish reporter and I never have spoken out at a conference. That is not my role. But, what is the matter with all of you? This woman has just dropped an atomic bomb in this very room and you have nothing to ask? Nothing to say?

That broke the ice, and hands shot up to speak. Although a Kinsey Institute representative protested that none of this was true, and comments from those in attendance were limited by the conference moderator, (there was a tacit agreement that an investigation would take place). The reaction in the room was heavy: it was numbing for some, discomforting for others. Later, the director of sex education for Sweden approached to tell me she was shocked that children were used without consent. However, she hastened to assure me that children could be sexually stimulated by adults, even parents, were this for strictly therapeutic reasons, of course. Late that afternoon my young assistant from Haifa University returned from lunch visibly shaken.

She had dined at a private table with the international executives of the conference. My paper was hotly contested and largely condemned, since everyone at her table of about twelve men and women wholeheartedly agreed that children could, indeed, have “loving” sex with adults.

I began to realize that the entire field of sex research therapy and education relied on Kinsey’s human sexuality model for authority, and I was there to tell his key disciples Kinsey was a fraud. While I was very disappointed to witness the fear and protectionism of the attendees, with so many international agencies present with vested economic and emotional interests in Kinsey’s credibility, I understood why the promised investigation of Kinsey never would take place.

RELATED STORIES:

Media Accused of Hollywood Sex Ring Cover-up
EXPOSED: The US and British “Sex Industrial Complex”
The Faces of Pedophilia in America: Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow
Porn, lewdness alleged in Blue Angels
VIDEO: Calipornica

Florida Term Limits: Appellate court sides with Pinellas scofflaws

“Affirmed.”

That is the only explanation that the Second District Court of Appeals gave voters for their acquiescence to Pinellas County commissioners to ignore the 8-year term limits law approved overwhelmingly by voters in 1996.  The decision was rendered on April 16.

Of the 20 charter — or “home rule” — counties that have the power to customize their county government structure, 12 so far have passed term limits, mostly of the 8-year variety.  Most have enforced their term limits from day one, but a couple of recalcitrant county commissions (Sarasota and Broward, to be specific) fought them in court claiming they were unconstitutional. However, in 2012, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously decided that county commission term limits are indeed constitutional. For good measure, they also decided that constitutional officer term limits are constitutional, overturning an earlier split decision.

As a result, every term-limited county in Florida except one is enforcing their voter-approved term limits. The exception is Pinellas, and so far they are getting cover from the courts.

Why? The appellate court wouldn’t say. Perhaps this is because there is nothing to say.

It appears the courts so far have taken the position that the term limits were approved so long ago, they have never been enforced in Pinellas County, it would upset the political apple cart, it would be far easier to just let the status quo stand. Can’t we just all move on?

That is not a legal argument, of course.

The scofflaw incumbent commissioners named in the case rest their legal hat on the shaky premise that the Supreme Court effectively overturned Pinellas’ term limits law in its 2002 Cook decision which ruled constitutional officer term limits unconstitutional. That’s why the commissioners refused to place the voter-approved amendment in their charter.

Well, yes, the Pinellas law did include constitutional officers and this provision was clearly shot down, if only temporarily.

One of the problems with that argument is that the court never explicitly overturned the Pinellas law, and indeed the Cook decision didn’t even mention the issue of county commission term limits. Moreover, three other counties in which courts explicitly overturned the term limits (Sarasota, Broward and Duval) are now enforcing their limits due to the unanimous Supreme Court decision of 2012 deeming them constitutional. That includes Duval County, which was part of the Cook decision case!

How can that be squared with last week’s decision in Pinellas? It can’t — which means that the last chapter of this story is not yet written. Patrick Wheeler, who — along with Maria Scruggs — is leading this lawsuit on behalf of voters, has vowed to take this case to the next, and last, step.

Will the Supreme Court of Florida let a handful of corrupt local politicians defy its unanimous decision as well as the will of a large majority of Pinellas County voters?  I can’t imagine it. But we will find out due to the courage, honesty and persistence of citizens Wheeler and Scruggs.

The appellants are soliciting donations for legal expense. Please help. Checks can be sent to John Shahan, PA, 536 East Tarpon Avenue #3, Tarpon Springs, FL, 34689 please mark check “For Term Limits Expenses.”

Defendant asks judge to postpone lawsuit seeking to impose same-sex marriage on Floridians

Judge Sarah ZabelHomosexual activists and progressive liberals filed the following lawsuits this year seeking to impose same-sex marriage on Floridians:

  • On January 21, 2014, six same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in state court against Harvey Ruvin, Clerk of the Court in Miami-Dade Circuit, for refusing to issue marriage licenses to the couples.   The case styled as Pareto v. Ruvin was assigned to Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel.
  • On February 28, 2014, a same-sex couple from Florida who married in Canada in 2009 filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.  The case styled as Brenner v. Scott was assigned to Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle.
  • On March 13, 2014 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Miami-Dade LGBT group SAVE [50] and eight same-sex couples married in other states asking the courts to order Florida to recognize their marriages.  Governor Rick Scott and three other state officials are listed as defendants.  The case was assigned to Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle.
  • On April 3, 2014, Aaron Huntsman and William Lee Jones filed suit against the County Clerk of Monroe County after they were denied a marriage license.   The case has been assigned to Monroe County Chief Judge David Audlin.

These lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the Florida Constitutional amendment which defines marriage as only between one man and one woman as well as F.S. 741.212 entitled Marriages between persons of the same sex which prohibits same-sex marriage.

Floridians voted 4,890,883 (61.92%) to 3,008,026 (38.08%) on November 4, 2008 to amend the Florida Constitution with:   SECTION 27 of the Florida Constitution states:  Marriage defined. — Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.   

Harvey Ruvin, Clerk of the Court in Miami-Dade, (defendant in the first case) filed a Motion to Abate the lawsuit.  The motion to abate states in part:

  • This action, like the Federal Litigation, involves questions of federal law, in particular, whether the provisions of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Constitution that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This action, like the Federal Litigation, was brought pursuant to federal law, i.e., 42U.S.C.§ 1983.  There are no state law questions raised in this action that can be resolved independently of the federal law questions, the same questions that have been advanced in the Federal Litigation.
  • Like the Plaintiffs in this action, the plaintiffs in the Federal Litigation seek to have the court enter a declaratory judgment that § 741.212, Fla. Stat and Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27 violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Based on the identical federal law questions raised in this action and the Federal Litigation, the subject matter of this action is essentially the same as the subject matter of the Federal Litigation.
  • The Clerk, a County officer, is the only defendant named in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint in this action. In contrast, the Grimsley Litigation names state officials Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Surgeon General/Secretary of Health John Armstrong and Department of Management Services Secretary Craig Nichols.  Similarly, the Brenner Litigation names as defendants the Governor and the Attorney General.
  • Unlike the Clerk, the named defendants in the Federal Litigation are state officials who have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter of the Federal Litigation.
  • Unlike the Clerk, the named state defendants are not ministerial County officers and have standing to challenge or defend the validity of a provision of a Florida Statute or the Florida Constitution.
  • Therefore, unlike the Clerk, the defendants in the Federal Litigation are in a position to fully brief the federal law questions at issue in both the Federal Litigation and this action.
  • By abating this action pending resolution of the Federal Litigation, this Court will benefit from the full briefing of these important Constitutional issues by governmental advocates representing the State of Florida, instead of having only the Plaintiffs’ briefing on the merits of their arguments that the challenged provisions of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Constitution violate the United States Constitution.

Additionally, abating this litigation will save hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars by eliminating duplicitous lawsuits that require a government legal defense.

7,898,909 Floridians voted on this important public policy.  Therefore, the fullest Due Process should be afforded this matter.  Denying the fullest Due Process would only diminish a fair image of the court by the public.  The Motion to Abate is scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2014.

If Circuit Court Judge Sara Zabel grants the Motion to Abate in Pareto v. Ruvin then this case will not be litigated in her court until after the challenge is thoroughly vetted in federal court and U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle issues his ruling.

HOWEVER, if Circuit Court Judge Sara Zabel denies the motion to abate then in all likelihood she intends to strike down the Florida Marriage Protection Act.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Circuit Court Judge Sara Zabel to grant the Clerk of the Court’s motion to abate.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

If you wish click here to send your email urging Circuit Court Judge Sara Zabel to grant the Clerk of the Court’s motion to abate.

Pro-life bill overwhelmingly passes Florida House with bipartisan support

The Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF), Florida’s premiere human rights and social justice advocacy organization issued the following statement upon passage by the Florida House of one of its two legislative priorities:

“We are proud to announce that the Offenses Against the Unborn Bill, one of two CFCF legislative priorities for the 2014 session, was overwhelmingly approved by a bipartisan majority of the Florida House on Friday, April 11th.

It is historic to see an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans, 64%, voted to adopt this common-sense legislation. During our 2014 Day at the Capitol, our CFCF citizen lobbyists identified thirteen (13) co-sponsors and supporters for the Offenses Against the Unborn Bill.

CFCF states, “We know these efforts contributed to passage of this much-needed legislation. We would like to thank Rep. Larry Ahern (R – District 66) for his courageous effort in sponsoring this legislation in the House.”

Click here to see vote: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/floorvote.aspx?VoteId=14746&BillId=51169

About the Christian Family Coalition (CFC)

The Christian Family Coalition (CFC) is a widely acclaimed human rights and social justice advocacy organization serving Florida’s children and families for over 10 years. Through its daily community outreach, political education programs, and voter registration, CFC effectively mobilizes thousands of fair-minded voters across the state and actively works with municipal, county, state, and federal elected officials to advance common sense, family-friendly, non-discriminatory values and public policies. The CFC is highly respected for its sought-after, educational voter guides consulted by thousands of houses of worship and their voters all across Florida.

Mainstream U.S. Muslim Jurists Association Sanctions Female Genital Mutilation

According to the World Health Organization, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

The African Women’s Health Center of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, report that approximately 228,000 women and girls in the U.S. have either suffered the procedure or are at risk of having it done to them. Many of these young girls are subjected to FGM when they vacation in a country that sanctions the practice. In other cases, circumcisers are brought into the U.S. – even though FGM is illegal in this country.

ACT! for America has been working diligently at the state level to see legislation passed so that no girl ever suffers the horrors of FGM – either on U.S. soil or elsewhere.

Mainstream U.S. Muslim Jurists Association Sanctions Female Genital Mutilation

By Andrew Bostom

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA [1]’s) mission statement maintains the organization was,

…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…

A report in The Muslim Observer [2] published October 21, 2010 highlighting AMJA’s “seventh annual American conference of imams,” confirmed that the organization is accepted [2] as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its “training” conference for American imams were described [2] in these banal terms:

The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia’s Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American–because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA’s American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield’s Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that “the event was the 7th annual imam workshop…” Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is “a fiqh council basically,” with “scholars who live abroad and inside the US; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the US–fatawa are based on life in the US.”

AMJA rulings also support the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), which the United Nations has called [3] “a dangerous and potentially life-threatening procedure that causes unspeakable pain and suffering.” Fatwa #1639 [4] from Dr. Hatem al-Haj justified the horrific practice, by citing the canonical hadith [5] in which Islam’s prophet Muhammad endorsed its practice, stating:

[…] Some extremists from the west and their devout followers in the Muslim world like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM). For those, we say, why is male circumcision not MGM? Male circumcision is widely practiced in the west. Yet it would be considered by the Chinese MGM (Male Genital Mutilation).

The benefits of male circumcision are beginning to be more recognized in the medical societies, even though still contested by a few. Fifty years ago, no one knew that male circumcision has medical benefits. The same could be true with female circumcision. They may figure out the benefits of the practice in fifty or five hundred years. […]

Al-Haj then went on to implicitly sanction [4] the practice of taking a Muslim female outside of her American milieu to have the procedure performed—in violation of the US “TRANSPORT FOR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION [6]” act.

The question is not to ban female circumcision because of the position of certain nations, but How do we regulate it as Muslims? What should we -western Muslims- do? For Muslims who live in the west, since it is not mandatory and it is at the same time illegal in the west, and would bring about harm to the people who practice it, I wouldn’t advise having it done, as long as you are a resident/citizen of the west. We however should never doubt anything in our religion because of the bad publicity the media creates about it.

A concordant fatwa [7] issued in Arabic (translation by Al-Mutarjim [8]) on the website [9] of the Secretary-General of AMJA and the chief member of its Resident Fatwa Committee, Dr. Salah Al-Sawy, declares that FGM is “an honor” for women, Al-Sawy also acknowledges that the procedure—in accord with a continuum of Islamic rationale [5] from al-Jahiz in the mid-9th century, to former Muslim Papal equivalent, i.e., Al-Azhar University Grand Imam Jad al-Haq through 1996—is explicitly implemented to reduce a woman’s otherwise unbridled “concupiscence,” i.e., lust:

But for the woman, the purpose [of circumcision] is the benefit that it has in lessening her lust, which is a wholesome request. There is no harm in removing it. In short, female circumcision is an honor (which) does not rise to the level of a duty, in clear language. Stated another way, it is neither forbidden nor required.

The Truth About the BLM: The Bundy Ranch Dispute Explained

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 –http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/tex… BLM Energy Page – http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/ener…

[youtube]http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8[/youtube]

 

BLM Whistleblower Rusty Hill Interview: Harry Reid, Bunkerville and real estate vultures at Bundy Ranch:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/BNGJXDuLkdI[/youtube]

 

Related links to documents referred to by Rusty Hill in the video. Note: No records are available for on the Clark County government website prior to 1999.

http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/openweb/?getParcel=00225601021
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/depts/assessor/pages/recordsearch.aspx

RELATED STORIES:

Democrats awash in ‘green’ energy deals on public land
Why does federal government own 84% of Nevada and what can Ried do to give it back?
Oregon Clear Cutting
BLM Misuse and Abuse of Wildlife Funds
Abuses of Wild Horses
A Tactical Retreat

EDITORS NOTE: NO LEGAL ADVICE is intended in any way by the content of this video. Consult your local laws and local licensed attorney for any legal matters.
­

Miami, FL: Language arts teacher simulates Orgasm, Masturbates and gives Massages to students

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Christine Jane Kirchner

Ms. Christine Jane Kirchner is a language arts teacher and union steward at Coral Reef Senior High School, Miami-Dade public schools. Ms. Kirchner in 2008 was appointed by the Miami-Dade School Board to the Lesson Plan Development Task Group. Kirchner was elected Vice President At-Large and sits on the Executive Board of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD).

So what’s so special about Christine Jane Kirchner?

According to the April 4, 2014 DOE Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida report:

  1. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent [Kirchner] discussed inappropriate topics, such as sex, virginity and masturbation, with her language arts class. The conversations made several students feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.
  2. During the 2012-2013 school year, during a lesson with her language arts class, Respondent [Kirchner] simulated having an orgasm. The simulation made several students feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.
  3. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent [Kirchner] gave massages to students of her language arts class. The massages made several students feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.

Kirchner was found guilty of “gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude” and that she violated “the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession.” Kirchner was found to have violated Florida State Statute 1012.795, paragraphs (1)(d) and (1)(j), respectively.

What is the punishment given Kirchner?

The Florida Department of Education accepted a “Settlement Agreement”. The settlement agreement consists of a letter of reprimand and placing Kirchner on two years probation. Kirchner accepted the Settlement Agreement.

Kirchner will return to her classroom at Coral Reef High School and retain her position on the Executive Board of the UTD.

Does the punishment fit the crime? We report, you decide.

RELATED STORIES:

Middle School Teacher Accused Of Giving Lap Dance To Student In Front Of Class – CBS Houston
Couple have become Britain’s youngest parents aged 12 and 13 | The Sun |News
Troubling Jurisprudence in Miami-Dade: The Tale of Two Teachers
Miami-Dade Schools: Whistleblower involuntarily transferred, test cheater returns to scene of the crime
Police pore through council files on Cyril Smith’s special school

Florida: How many Hispanics in each District of Republicans who voted for SB 1400? You will be surprised!

Republicans have repeatedly blocked any bills to encourage illegal aliens to self deport since taking legislative power in 1996 to protect their major campaign contributors many of whom are criminal illegal alien employers. So, I was curious as to why now they would start voting for in-state tuition for them.

Is their Hispanic population now such a significant part of their electorate that those who voted no in the past now feel pressured to vote yes?

What I found is pretty interesting as I used  the most current figures from the 2010 census demographic data and subtracted out Cubans and Puerto Ricans who are not affected. Not one of them has a significant Hispanic population and if the truth be known the number of legal Hispanics other than Puerto Ricans and Cubans registered as Republicans is probably tiny to practically non-existent.

The Republicans who voted so far for SB 1400 and the Hispanic percentage in their district of legal residents and illegal aliens:

Senator Gardiner: 6.2%
Senator Latvala: 6.0% (Bill Sponsor)
Senator Legg: 8.8%
Senator Richter: 14.5%
Senator Thrasher: 3.7%

After looking at the numbers it is pretty obvious none would be getting pressure from constituents to support legislation that increases costs and possibly deprive their children from attending the school of their choice due to being displaced by an illegal alien. I’m positive not one RINO promised if elected they would vote for in-state tuition for illegal aliens. In fact, I am sure the overwhelming majority oppose it so it begs the question of why?

I’m left with the far fetched plan the republicans are trying to win the Hispanic vote but most come from socialist countries and so the idea of voting for a smaller government type is contrary to their beliefs. The republicans have had over a century to win a sizable percentage of the black vote and you can see how that has turned out.

The most important question is how many of their constituents are they willing to lose while pandering to Hispanics and why has no one mentioned the fact the are all citizens of another country they want to educate? Go to Mexico and demand a similar discount to attend a university and see how long it is before they stop laughing.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Florida State Senator Jack Latvala courtesy of MediaTrackers.org.

Massachusetts: Bill filed in State House to free Justina Pelletier

Bill to immediately free Justina Pelletier from state custody filed in Massachusetts Legislature, despite reluctance among politicians. The goal: Get Justina home by Easter! Everyone’s help is needed!

This past Friday, April 4, bill HD 1412, written by MassResistance, was filed in the Massachusetts Legislature. It will free Justine Pelletier from state custody immediately and return her to her parents’ custody. It is a simple and unambiguous solution to a situation that has become a national nightmare.

The goal is to have Justine back in Connecticut with her family for Easter — the end of next week. This could theoretically happen very quickly. But everyone’s help (even outside Massachusetts) is needed.

The battlefield will be here between now and Easter!

Passing a bill like this ought to be a “no-brainer.” But unfortunately in the Massachusetts State House it’s not. As usual, the politicians are full of fear and inertia. There is a disturbing reluctance to get involved, a stark contrast to the people across the country wringing their hands over this.

But as a famous US Senator once said, “When I feel the heat, I see the light.”We must make that happen on Beacon Hill!

National outrage over girl being taken from her parents by the state

Justina Pelletier’s shocking story has caused enormous outrage around the country and across the political spectrum. This nightmare needs to stop now.

Justine, a 16-year-old girl from West Hartford, CT, was being treated for a rare genetic disorder last year at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. At one point, a doctor from Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston examined her and decided that she instead had a mental disorder. When her parents and the Tufts doctors disagreed, Children’s Hospital and the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) took her into state custody and put her in a psychiatric ward, where she has been for 14 months. It is outrageous.

Left: Before being taken by the state, Justine was very athletic. Below: After being taken by the state, she’s confined to a wheelchair.

A hostile Superior Court judge has repeatedly refused to release her. The judge even put a “gag order” on her parents. The parents are now only allowed to see Justina for an hour each week, and are not allowed to talk to her new doctor, according to her father. Since Justina has not been getting proper medical treatments, her health has deteriorating terribly, according to reports. There is fear that she may even die.

On Feb. 24, 2014, there was a hearing in Boston where the family’s lawyers were attempting to get Justina back from state custody. The judge would not budge. The emotion was so intense that Justina’s mother collapsed in the hallway outside the courtroom and had to be taken to an ambulance.
[MassResistance photos]

Attempts by well-meaning pro-family groups haven’t worked

Pro-family groups from around the country and even conservative politicians have been trying for months to help Justina. There have been petitions, rallies, prayer vigils, press conferences, appearances on national TV shows, calls for investigations into DCF, and endless venting on radio talk shows. So far none of this has worked. There is now talk about possible court appeals, lawsuits, and even funding cuts by Congress.

Justina and her family have waited too long. We must get her home by Easter. The time has come for action.

Above and right, supporters of Justina stood outside the courthouse in downtown Boston all day during February 24, 2014, hearing.
[MassResistance photos]

This approach WILL get it done.

The Legislature has the ultimate authority to act on this. It has the constitutional power to free Justina. And it could get it done very quickly – if it chooses to.

Most bills take months to work their way through the Legislature. But in fact, a bill can get passed in as little as one day. It happens more frequently than many people realize. For example, a few weeks ago the Legislature wrote, filed, and passed an anti-“upskirting” bill all in one day, after an SJC court decision came down that offended the Legislature. And there are many other examples.

But it takes the will to do it. That’s where all of us come in.

Fear and inertia in the State House

When we started this process at the State House, even we were surprised at how reluctant so many politicians — even Republicans — are to touch this issue Democrats are afraid of crossing the Governor, who apparently supports the DCF’s actions. Republicans are afraid of antagonizing their leadership, which isn’t interested in rocking the boat over this. Politicians in general are afraid of offending judges. And then there’s the fear of angering certain DCF special interests.

“It’s an unpleasant situation, but let it work its way through by itself,” seems to be the sentiment in the State House.

Rep. Lenny Mirra (R-West) agreed to file the bill.

Getting this bill filed at all wasn’t easy. Rep. Lenny Mirra (R-West Newbury) said he’d file it “by request” — which means that a constituent wants the bill filed but the rep is reluctant to file it as his own. Luckily, the constituent in this case is Lonnie Brennan, an outstanding pro-family activist and friend of MassResistance who runs the VoteCoreValues political website and was determined to see it through, or it might not have made it. Even then, it took two days to get the bill filed.

It gets down to the same old story: Citizens must make legislators MORE afraid of them than they are of the leadership and special interests. That’s how things get done!

HOW TO HELP GET JUSTINA HOME BY EASTER!

We don’t have much time, so we must get started immediately. Everyone can get involved on some level, even if you don’t live in Massachusetts.

There are 40 senators and 160 state representatives. They need to hear your anger and outrage. (see below)

We are creating a special Free Justina status page on our website. It will have all the current information on the bill and also a link to the list of all 200 reps and senators showing where they currently stand on this.

1. Can you go to the State House on Monday? (Or another day this week?) We need people to go to the State House and personally visit the offices of the reps and senators. And then get back to us exactly where they stand, so we can post it on the website. These personal visits are very important.

Handout to give reps and senators: The one-page text of the bill.

2. Call and email the reps and senators. This is very critical. And the ones who do not support Justina need to be contacted again. There cannot be too many calls and emails. And let us know what their response is.

3. Get the word out. Post this on websites and Facebook, etc. Call talk shows and get them to discuss this. Anything you can to spread the word. We will be posting and updating all the necessary information on www.MassResistance.org/justina

4. Regularly check our Free Justina Status Page. We will be updating it constantly during this week and next — until she gets home! www.MassResistance.org/justina 

5. Keep fighting. Don’t give up.

LET’S GET JUSTINA HOME BY EASTER!

This sign held outside the courthouse on Feb. 24 pretty much says it all.
[MassResistance photo]

Florida: Judge blasts FBI for failing to produce records on Saudi family in touch with 9/11 hijackers that fled U.S. just before 9/11

Why is the FBI dragging its feet and not producing the requested records about this wealthy Saudi family? (Pictured is the home they abandoned suddenly just before 9/11 — a sumptuous mansion in a Florida gated community.) Could someone high up be implicated in some illegal activity? Clearly something is happening here, and we don’t know what it is. I expect that if a comprehensive history of the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks is ever written, or ever could be written, it would contain more than a few surprises, if it revealed exactly why the U.S. government and the mainstream media has been so unanimously against facing the problem realistically and doing anything genuinely effective to defend basic principles of human rights, particularly the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people before the law. I expect it has more to do with stupidity than complicity, although in this particular case, there does seem to be more than a hint of a cover-up. In any case, I doubt that such a history will ever be written.

“Judge blasts FBI over Saudi family investigation,” by Michael Pollick for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 4 (thanks to Kenneth):

A federal judge on Friday chided the FBI for failing to produce records tied to a prominent Saudi Arabian family who seemed to abandon their Sarasota home suddenly just prior to the 9/11 terror attacks.

U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch ordered the FBI to conduct a much more thorough search than it had previously done and deliver all pertinent documents — uncensored — to him by April 18 for review.

The judge said the FBI must comply using its most advanced document search system, called Sentinel, to search for records pertaining to a year-and-a-half old Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by the Fort Lauderdale news site Broward Bulldog. The Herald-Tribune Media Group joined the suit earlier this year as a “friend of the court.”

Under the judge’s order, the FBI also must search for documents related to the Saudi family, a home in Sarasota’s gated Prestancia subdivision and the investigation following the 2001 attacks using Sentinel and multiple other search systems.

The agency initially refused to search for the family’s names, claiming that would result in an invasion of privacy.

Judge Zloch ordered the FBI to also inform the court of any documented communications between it and other government agencies concerning the investigation.

That information, and an explanation of how the FBI is complying with the judge’s order, is due by June 6.The 23-page order Friday was Judge Zloch’s second in favor of the Bulldog and its editor, Dan Christensen.

In the latest order, Zloch takes the FBI to task for failing to exhaustively produce documents pertaining to the case.

He describes the agency’s initial search as “preemptively narrowed in scope based on agency decisions that categories of documents are exempt and thus, will not even be sought.”

He called one of the government’s characterizations of the Bulldog’s requests “literal to the point of being nonsensical.”

Tom Julin, the attorney for the Bulldog, praised the judge’s action.

“That is just exactly the kind of order a federal judge should render when the FBI refuses to acknowledge the existence of important documents like this,” Julin said. “I hope the FBI will follow his order to a ‘T’ and we will finally get to the bottom of this controversy.”

In joining the case in mid-March, the Herald-Tribune and the Miami Herald cited articles written about the Prestancia case and described ways in which a further search would be in the public’s interest.To date, the FBI has turned over 35 pages of heavily redacted documents — out of the 15,000 files it has acknowledged were part of its Florida inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.

Last summer, Zloch asked Julin to explain in writing how an FBI search could be done better. The FBI, the lawyer noted, did not even search for documents using the names of the family members residing in, or owning, the Prestancia home.

The home was owned by Saudi businessman Esam Ghazzawi and his wife, Deborah. Ghazzawi is known to have connections to the Saudi royal family.

For the six years before the terror attacks, the home was occupied by their son-in-law, Abdulaziz Al-Hijji, and their daughter, Anoud.

The Al-Hijjis came to the FBI’s attention after the couple apparently returned abruptly to Saudi Arabia two weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., leaving behind clothes, food, children’s toys and cars.

Federal agents also linked phone calls from the Prestancia home — some dating to a year before the attacks — to known 9/11 suspects, the Bulldog has reported.

The calls were made to, or received from Mohamed Atta, fellow pilots and 11 other terrorist suspects, the Bulldog reported.

Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi had learned to fly at Huffman Aviation at the Venice Municipal Airport. Ziad Jarrah also took flying lessons nearby, at the Florida Flight Training school.

RELATED STORY:  5 Things You Should Know About the Latest Military Jihadist

Florida: Threat of Force to Stop Attackers PASSES

House Bill 89 by Representative Neil Combee and Senator Greg Evers is on its way to the Governor. On April 3rd, 2014, HB-89 passed the Florida Senate by a vote of 32-7. In the Senate, 6 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against the bill:

Republicans voting against the bill were:   John Legg (R-Lutz)

Democrats voting against the bill were:  Oscar Braynon (D-Miami Gardens), Dwight Bullard (D-Cutler Bay), Arthenia Joyner (D)-Tampa), Gwen Margolis (D_Miami), Jeremy Ring (D-Margate), Chris Smith (D-Fort Lauderdale)

Having previously passed the Florida House by a vote of 93-24, the bill  is now making its way to the Governor’s desk.

According to Marion P. Hammer, USF Executive Director and NRA Past President, “HB-89 is a bill to stop abusive prosecutors from using 10-20-LIFE to prosecute people who, in self-defense, threaten to use deadly force against an attacker as a means to stop an attack. Some anti-gun, anti-self-defense prosecutors have been abusing the 10-20-LIFE law to prosecute average citizens who displayed a weapon or gun in self-defense to make an attacker back off. Average citizens who never would have been in the system if they had not been attacked and in fear for their own safety, are being persecuted and prosecuted for defending themselves.”

“Because citizens took responsibility for their own safety, some prosecutors treat them like criminals and make them victims of a judicial system. 10-20-Life was passed to stop prosecutors and judges from slapping gun-wielding criminals on the wrist so they could quickly clear cases. The 10-20-Life law was never intended to be used against citizens who, in an act of self-defense, threatened the use of force to stop an attacker, including the unwise use of a warning shot. Yet, that’s what some prosecutors are doing. They are willfully and knowingly violating the intent of the law,” notes Hammer

RELATED STORY:

It’s Not About Warning Shots — The 10-20-Life law is being misused By Marion P. Hammer December 7, 2013

Nothing in SB-448 and HB-89, the House Companion, allows warning shots nor do they promote or encourage warning shots.

Warning shots are not safe. Nonetheless, when people are in fear for their lives or the lives of loved ones, they might fire a warning shot rather than shoot someone. People make mistakes and do irrational things when in fear of death or injury. That doesn’t mean they should go to prison for 20 years when there was no injury or harm done.

Warning shots are an unsafe result of the glorification of such conduct in movies and on TV. No one is recommending warning shots.

Nonetheless, a father should not be prosecuted under 10-20-Life for firing a warning shot. No harm was done yet a father was sent to prison for 20 years for firing a warning shot to stop an attacker from harming his daughter.

A mother should not be charged under 10-20-Life for firing a warning shot to stop an attack by an abusive ex-husband. It caused no injury and no harm yet she was prosecuted and sent to prison for 20 years. These are not isolated cases.

The simple truth is the intent of the 10-20-Life law is being violated. The law was intended to be used to lock up criminals who use guns during the commission or attempted commission of crimes.

It was intended to stop prosecutors and judges from slapping gun-toting criminals on the wrist so they could quickly clear cases.

The 10-20-Life law was never intended to be used against citizens who, in an act of self-defense, threatened the use of force to stop an attacker, including the unwise use of a warning shot. Yet, that’s what some prosecutors are doing. They are willfully and knowingly violating the intent of the law.

The cold hard reality is that some prosecutors are treating law-abiding people like criminals. People who never would have been in the system had they not been attacked and in fear for their own safety are being prosecuted. Self-defense is not a crime, it is a right and prosecutors are trampling those rights.

The threat of force in self-defense should have the same protection as actually shooting someone in self-defense. You should not be required to shoot an attacker to have the protection of the law.

The issue is not warning shots, it’s about protecting people from the abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Marion P. Hammer is a past president of the National Rifle Association and executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida.

The 10-20-LIFE Law is a Minimum Mandatory law that mandates specific penalties for criminals who use guns to commit crimes:

10 years in prison for pulling a gunduring the commission of a crime.

20 years in prison for shooting a gun during the commission of a crime.

25 years to Life in prison if you shoot someone during the commission of a crime.

For more information on Florida’s 10-20-Life go here:  10-20-Life – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia