Re: National and Local Reaction to Grand Jury “No Bills” in Regard to Recent Police Killings


Quite Simply, Grand Juries are instructed in the law by Prosecutors, and Prosecutors, like Police and judges, claim either absolute or qualified immunity from prosecution, even for the most outrageous violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights, even though neither form of immunity has ever been authorized by any constitution or statutory law.  In the U.S. Constitution, for example, ONLY Legislative Immunity is authorized, and then ONLY for members of Congress actually participating in, or on their way to or from actual participation in Congressional Debates or Votes.

Legislative Immunity is found in Article I, but no executive of judicial immunity can be inferred from any section or clause of Articles II or III. The Eleventh Amendment was enacted to support some forms of State Sovereign Immunity but the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to cut back on that.

I have, for twenty years now, ever since the 7 cases I launched in Texas against the City of Lago Vista Police Department (especially Police Chief Frank Miller, the Policy Formulator, and Bart Turek, a very abusive Police Officer) and the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, been campaigning for a “rule of reason” in evaluating police actions: always ask, and permit jury review of the single question: “were the officer’s actions reasonable under the circumstances?” To implement this rule, we must amend the Civil Rights Action, 42 USC Sections 1983, 1988, expressly to abolish the Court created doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity. We must disarm the police (and prosecutors and judges) of these unjust shields and hold the Police to a higher standard of responsive and reactive conduct rather than a lower standard compared to ordinary citizens.

One response to “Re: National and Local Reaction to Grand Jury “No Bills” in Regard to Recent Police Killings

  1. I agree the Justice system is out of control I filed with Florida Supreme court in 14-242 about the injustice in the 5th DCA and the supreme court simply sent the complaints to the same judges in the 5th DCA that were in question to rule on their ethical behavior…. The Florida supreme court did provide some guidance in the lecture to the Judges noted in April at the Hilton But the lecture had little to no impact on the 5th district.
    Ms. Torrey is a parent that was sued as an act to cover-up repeated acts of child abuse in a Child in Marion County Public Schools. This lawsuit occurred after the school district had received a ruling from Honorable State Law Judge TH Weatherall in a due process hearing to protect the child from further acts of abuse by the school district. Two month later again engaged in medical endangerment where the child collapsed from a heat stroke in the School Gym at school. Prompting the Child’s doctors filing a DCF report as required under FS 39.201.
    As an act of retaliation the School district formed a lawsuit a former principal posed as a straw man for the school district in a defamation lawsuit. FS 39.203 protects reporters of child abuse from such acts. It has not been upheld in the 5th Circuit Courts.
    The lawsuit is a SLAPP suits in violation of Fla. Stat. 768.295 which the government and its agents and 768.295 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits by governmental entities prohibited.–(1) This section may be cited as the “Citizen Participation in Government Act.” (2) It is, the intent of the Legislature to protect the right of Florida’s citizens to exercise their rights to peacefully assemble, instruct their representatives, and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits are expeditiously disposed of by the courts. In the statute, the Legislature declared “that prohibiting such lawsuits by governmental entities will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of Florida citizens, and assure the continuation of Representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits are to be expeditiously disposed by the courts.
    This has not happened in any case in the State of Florida according to records request response by Pam Bondi office. “In May 2010, the court in this case ruled that it could not grant a motion for summary judgment on the SLAPP defense “because the record is not yet crystallized so that the court can determine as a matter of law that Defendant is entitled to judgment” But yet recused Judge Lambert would not allow for discovery. The school paid attorney Mr. Haldin claimed this is a simple defamation suit. It is not. This case is a SLAPP suit and meets every criterion of said Florida Statutes under Fla Stat. 768.295, although this court fails to address and consider the motions granting summary judgment as called for in item (5) of Fla. 768.295.
    Although evidence of the funding source was withheld, many parts to this are still withheld by the school district and Attorney Mr. Haldin. We now have evidence it is funded with public school board funds, a governmental entity, the interrogatories from the Plaintiff indicates this case is without merit and is aimed at chilling the right to free speech and the readdress of issues as entitled to the United State Constitution and s. 5, Art I of the State Constitution. Under the SLAPP suit statue 768.295, the claim must conclude in order to invoke a counter claim.
    Contrary to Attorney Mr. Haldin’s claims there are valid reasons for both prior Judges being removed from the case, otherwise these judge’s would not have recused themselves. There have been now 4 judges that ruled in conflict and the 5th Judge, Judge Rogers, is under a motion for Recusal / Disqualification and he has to respond to his JQC complaint. Since the 5 DCA still has not ruled and we need a complete change in venue with the conflicts I have a multitude of documents that clearly show on-going conflict in the 5DCA involving Ms. Torrey

    Subsequent to filing Judge number 5 was recused as he volunteered and was involved with Marion County Public School district. So in effect all judges ruled in conflict. Judge Sawaya in the 5th DCA has a sister employed with the Marion School district and was allowed to ruled in this case with a clear conflict again there is no justice.
    As Judges make there own rules to follow. The FOX watching the Hen HOUSE
    My email is courtcase001@gmail.com I am open to suggestion for justice.

    http://www.ocala.com/article/20140404/ARTICLES/140409845/0/search?tc=ar
    The timing and the Subject matter matches our complaints to the JQC, FLA BAR and SC 14-242.
    Supreme This is prompted by our Supreme Court Case, the Fla Bar and jqc judicial complaints —- Supreme Court SC and 5th DCA 1004. Bar complaints and JQC complaints are clearly because match our complaint to the Supreme Court. SC 14-242
    ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE
    WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014
    CASE NO.: SC14-242
    Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2002-4655-DRFJ;
    2008-6397-CAG

    Florida Supreme Court chief justice speaks at legal conference

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s