The Legal Research

Journal
February 1,2011

Remember our Children

Honorable Officials

Sheriff McKeithen
Panama city, Florida.
RESEARCHED
Police Investigation
Reports.
 Panama City, Florida
WE THE PEOPLE

THE LEGAL
RESEARCH JOURNAL
This Monthly Journal; is designed to point out areas of Law
and Rights of Citizens that are violated every day by Law
Enforcement, or overlooked by Court Officials. Is it all because
some Citizens lack the aptitude of Law and Rights, or do not
possess the financial means to obtain competent attorney?
We will have a chance to decide.
This Journal is to ensure that less fortunate individuals will
have an understanding of His or Her Rights, curve the long arm of
the law towards protecting the Rights of Citizens, and to decline
them away from Illegal Searches and Seizures.
This Journal; is not a Lawyers manual, nor intended for legal
advise.( For such advice please seek Attorney)

WE ARE NOT LAWYERS

WE ARE RESEARCHERS:
IN GOD IS OUR TRUST, OUR LORD
DECIDE THOU BEWEEN US,
AND OUR PEOPLE IN TRUTH
FOR THOU ART THE BEST TO DECIDE!
Copyright©2011 Citizens Bar Association:
Contents
/ Page No

Missing Children --------------------------------------------------------------- -4

Honorable Government Officials ---------------------------------- -6

Fourth Amendment Right! -------------------------------------------------- -7

Researched Police Investigation Reports...

STOPPED, DETAINED! Ten Pair of Sunglasses ----------------------------- -10
The Epidemic ------------------------------------------------------------------ -24
The Citizens Reports ------------------------------------------------------- -27

Supreme Court of Florida...

Judge J Kogan ---------------------------------------------------------------- -31
The secret 3.850 --------------------------------------------------------------- -33
Legal Glossary------------------------------------------------------------------ -36
The Editor(s)-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Constitutional Convention

MISSING CHILDREN

It is disturbing as
parents, when we notice
our justice systems'
concentration is focused
towards capturing an individual who are
engaged in lesser offenses, rather than
the capture of criminal mined sex offenders who are
responsible of kidnapping, or killing or children.

IF YOU HAVE SEEN ANY OF THESE CHILDREN PLEASE

CONTACT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

James Ashley Harris. Caylee Anthony.
Robert Manwill Aaron Louis Gallant Armarion Hargrove
 HONORABLE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS

Reminder:

America's Constitution contains Bill of Rights to

enforce Government to protect our Citizens' Rights.
THE ACTIONS AND PERFORMANCES OF THESE
OFFICIALS ARE HONORABLE...

Honorable
Judge
Pittman

Honorable Deputy Sheriff

Judge Anthony Peter
Grammer

Honorable
Judge
Smiley

Deputy
Eric Sean

LIFE AND LIBERTY

 TO BE FREE FROM
ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES

FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT!

 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
The Fourth Amendment is designed to
protect your Rights of persons,property,papers
private information, effects, and anything
that would require an officer to have Probable
Cause to search.

PROBABLE CAUSE:
(1) Officer has to believe a crime is
being committed (or)
(2) A crime was about to be committed.
(3) A crime was in the process of being
committed.

This has to be determined by an Officer be

for he has the authority to stop, detain or
search your persons and private information.
(see Terry vs Ohio 88s.ct 1860,20)
If an Officer cannot prove in his police
investigation report at least one out of the
three Probable Cause standards above, then all
the evidence he finds during the illegal
detention and arrest cannot be used in court
to uphold conviction. The case has to be
dismissed as “FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE”
 FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE

Anything illegal that was discovered

during an illegal search or an illegal arrest.
Meaning; the fruit is the evidence found in
the search, and the poisonous tree is the
officer doing the search. Those fruits cannot
be used to support a conviction
(see) Exclusionary Rule.
Most Citizens do not understand the law
because its language is usually written in
phrases or words not commonly used in
Webster's New World Dictionary.
If an Illegal Search and Seizure exists in
a police investigation report, it is the Duty
of the Attorney or (Public Defender) to advise
of rights to file motion to suppress.

If Attorney fails to advise of such motion

then He, or She falls under Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel(see in coming
subscription).
 Police investigation report APRIL, 26,2010
Osborn, Hansel,Eugene.

Arrest Location:3rd Ct/HWY98

Arresting Officer: Officer M. Mccrary.
Charge:POSS. MARIJUANA.
Charge:Poss of Drug Paraphernalia.

While patrolling the area of Auto Zone, on S. Tyndall

Parkway,
I observed a blue Ford, 4 door sitting in the middle of the
parking lot. The time was approximately 0015 hours and I
knew the business was closed.
I turned around in an attempt to make contact with the
person in the vehicle.
When I turned around and approached the store, I noticed
the vehicle was gone.
I noticed a vehicle matching the description was driving at
a high rate of speed south on Tyndall Parkway.
I caught up with the vehicle at the intersection of
Tyndall Parkway and E. Highway 98. At that time I conducted
a investigatory stop on the vehicle,
and the driver stopped in the area of 3rd Court and E.
Highway 98. The driver, identified as Hansel Osborne was
very nervous. I told Mr.Osborne why I stopped him and he
said he was just at the store because he dropped his cell
phone. At the time I called for another unit and returned
to my vehicle.
I checked Mr. Osborne in the past files and notice he had
several grand theft charges in the past. When Deputy Jones
arrived I retrieved a Miranda form and read Mr.Osborne his
Miranda warnings from that piece of paper. Mr.Osborne
stated that he understood and agreed to speak with me. I
ask Mr.Osborne what he was doing in the parking lot of Auto
Zone. Mr. Osborne only said that he was only looking for
his cell phone he had dropped in his car.
I explained to Mr. Osborne that I had to drive in
excess of 80 miles per hour to catch up to him and he
stated ,"no I was only driving 51 mile per hour". I ask Mr.
Osborne if he possessed any weapons, burglary tools or
drugs in his vehicle and he stated that he did not. I
 looked through the window of his vehicle and noticed
approximately 10 pair of sunglasses on the passenger
floorboard. I requested a K9 be in route and began issuing
Mr. Osborne a uniform traffic citation for failure to
change address on his driver license. A short time later,
when I finished the citation, Deputy David Jones arrived
with his K9. Deputy Jones K9 alerted on Osborn vehicle.
I ask Mr. Osborne for consent to search his person and
he refused,however, I noticed a bulge in his left pocket,
therefore, I explain to him that I was going to conduct a
safety pat down. Based on my training and experience, I
felt what I knew to be a pill bottle in his left shorts
pocket. It is also known to me that drug users and dealers
tend to carry drugs
inside pill
bottles, therefore,
I pulled out the
pill bottle to
confirm that the
pills inside the
bottle were in fact
Mr. Osbornes'. When
I pulled out the
pill bottle, I
immediately noticed
what I noticed to
be marijuana inside
the bottle.
I placed Mr. Osborne under arrest. Inside the pill
bottle were 5 burnt marijuana roaches, approximately 1/2
grams of marijuana inside a plastic baggie. A search of the
vehicle revealed rolling papers in the center console of
the vehicle . No other items of evidentiary value were
located inside Mr. Osbornes' vehicle or on his person. Mr.
Osborne was soon transported to the Bay County Jail and all
items of evidence were turned into the Bay County Sheriffs'
Office.
 Panama City, Florida

WE THE PEOPLE

OSBORNE,HANSEL,EUGENE

VS.

Bay County Deputy

Michael McCrary
Deputy Jones

Did Officer McCrary violate Mr. Osborne's

4th Amendment Rights when requesting K-9
unit, when he observed 10 pair of
sunglasses?
\

YOU DECIDE!
Cases are subjected to review upon proper remedy
 In the police report you can see that
Officer McCrary noticed Mr. Osborne's truck in
the parking lot at about twelve in the
morning.
Officers do have the authority to
investigate potential criminal activity. When
the Officer turned his vehicle around to
investigate the parking lot, Osborne had left.
At that time the Officer didn’t conclude any
criminal activity in the parking lot or to the
Auto Zone center; so there was no further
reason to investigate.
Officer McCrary then stated, he later saw
the vehicle allegedly traveling at a high rate
of speed. In order to make such statement
factual the officer should had initiated a
traffic citation for speeding.

(In determining if stop of vehicle for minor

traffic infraction was pretexual, it is
relevant consideration that the motorist was
not issued a traffic citation)
(Pedro vs State 578 So2d 870)
(Powell vs State 649 So2d 888)
Officer further stated that he issued
Osborne a uniform traffic citation for failure
to change address on his drivers license.

THE QUESTION:
Is failure to change address on his drivers
license relevant to validate a traffic stop?
 CASE LAW:
(Nothing that transpires after initiated
unlawful stop can be used to validate the
stop:)
(Ward vs State 453 So2d 517)
(State vs Nurock 680 So2d 629)

Whatever the Officer should have

discovered after he stopped the vehicle,
cannot be used as a reason for pulling over
the vehicle.
For a well respected officer to travel 80
miles per hour, risking the lives of other
citizens to Illegally Detain Mr. Osborne
traveling 51 miles per hour, is consistent
with mere suspicion.
(Mere suspicion is no better than random
selection Sheer Quest-Work or hunch, and has
no objective justification)
(Terry vs Ohio)
(Thomas vs State 250 So2d 15)
Furthering the detention for purposes of
en routing a K-9 unit after Officer McCrary
noticed 10 pair of sunglasses, is only
continuing a Fourth Amendment Violation.

TO BE FREE FROM ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Should the questions and answers in this
case all point towards motion to suppress
YOU DECIDE! freedomwrit2010@gmail.com.
subject=Mr. Eugene Hansel
 POLICE INVESTIGATION REPORT
Gleason, William, H

APRIL 3,2010

ARRESTING OFFICER: D. Sullivan

CHARGE: Non moving violation driving while
license susp
CHARGE: Resist Officer w/o Violence
CHARGE: Traffic offense other violation financial
responsi
CHARGE: Probation violation of commty cont.

On April 3rd, 2010 at about 2336 hrs I was patrolling the area of Front Beach
Rd. near 14th street, when I noticed the defendant's vehicle pass me on Front Beach
Rd. traveling west . I was traveling east on Front Beach Rd. and turned around on
the defendant's vehicle. The defendant turned north on 14th street. He turned into
113 ,14th street which is Laguna Beach ---- as I pulled behind him, he exited his
vehicle quickly, and walked behind the corner. I exited my vehicle and approached his
vehicle to see if there was any one else the vehicle. I could see him running away and
jumping a fence by the pool. I ordered him to stop to no avail.
I grabbed the keys out of his ignition and drove my patrol vehicle two streets
away (16th street). As I turned onto 16th street, the defendant ran out of some bushes,
saw me , and ran back into the bushes that were in someone's yard. I exited my
vehicle and began to chase him through the yards and over fences. I caught the
defendant as he exited a yard onto Front Beach Rd. between 16th and 16th street. I
ordered him to the ground and he complied with my order.
I lawfully arrested the defendant and read him his Miranda rights from a pre-
printed card. He understood his rights and agreed to speak to me. He apologized the
entire time for making me chase him. He stated that he was just scared that he was
going to go to prison this time. He knew he had a suspended driver's license and that's
why he ran. He also stated he knew he didn’t have insurance on his vehicle. He stated
he was just coming back from the hospital because he had a dry socket in his mouth
that hurt him. I issued the defendant a criminal citation for dwlrs with knowledge and
a criminal citation for having no insurance on his vehicle, driver's license and having
an expired tag less than 4 months.
I asked him who he wanted to tow his vehicle and he wanted a rotation wrecker.
Gulf County Towing arrived and towed is vehicle to their yard. The defendant was
then transported to Bay County Jail.
 Panama City, Florida

WE THE PEOPLE

GLEASON,WILLIAM, H

VS

Bay County Sheriff Officer

Officer D. Sullivan

Did Officer D Sullivan fail to conduct a

valid traffic stop before he exited his police
vehicle, and began to chase him through yards
and over fences, leading to a violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment RIGHT?
\

YOU DECIDE!
Cases are subjected to review upon proper remedy
 The Fourteenth Amendment is our Right for
“Due Process”. Due Process provides that Law
Enforcement and any Judicial Body to follow
certain guide lines in Due Order, or Process.
As you can see in the police report,
Officer Sullivan, noticed Mr. Gleason's
vehicle pass him on Front Beach Rd. traveling
West. Sullivan was traveling East on Front
Beach Rd. The Officer further stated he turned
around on Mr. Gleason’s vehicle.
When this case is examined it should be
understood that the police investigation
report is the foundation, or fundamental
element of any charge and arrest. Officers are
sworn to protect and serve. The sole question
we must ask ourselves is “turned around on
Gleason’s vehicle” relevant to protecting and
serving?
Case Law

(stopping a automobile and detaining the

driver in order to check his driver's license
and registration of the automobile are
unreasonable under Fourth Amendment)
(Delaware vs Prouse,440 us 663)

The Fourteenth Amendment awards us the

process of first committing a crime and then
being chased and apprehended by law
enforcement.
 This does not permit first being chased
and apprehended, and then being charged with a
crime. As you can see in this case, this was
the first violation of Mr. Gleason’s RIGHT for
Due Process.
As you read further in the police
investigation report you can see that the
Officer never conducted a traffic stop.

(In order to conduct traffic stops of

automobiles, police vehicles are equip with
sirens and lights to safely apprehend
suspects)

Officer Sullivan further stated that he

ordered him to stop. If we examine this
statement closely by asking ourselves; Can an
officer order him to stop running when the
officer does not have a valid reason for
chasing?
(The defendant then fled; did not validate
police officer's actions in arresting
defendant:)
(Vollmer vs State 337 so2d 1024).

In the report, Officer Sullivan never

stated a reason for chasing Mr. Gleason.
Anything that the Officer would have found
after the Illegal detention cannot be used as
a condition for the stop.
 Case Law:
(Distinguishing consensual police-citizens
encounter in which the Citizen may voluntarily
comply with the Officers request or choose to
ignore it from investigatory stops which
requires the Officer to have a Well-founded
articulable suspicion of criminal activity
before detaining the Citizen
(Brooks vs State 745So2d 113)

Mr. Gleason had a right to choose to

ignore the Officers request when the Officer
stated for him to stop; Because Officer
Sullivan has not shown in his report a Well-
found articulable suspicion of criminal
activity before Detaining Mr. Gleason.

The Question:
Should Mr. Gleason be Awarded Motion to
Suppress?

YOU DECIDE!
freedomwrit2010@gmail.com?subject=Mr. William Gleason
 POLICE INVESTIGATION REPORT
HAMILTON, RYAN,T: STANLEY,RAMON,L

April4 /06 /10

Arrest Name :Hamilton, Ryan Stanley, Ramon
Arrest Location Flight and 7th possession or marijuana
Arresting Officer: . Llorens
Dep. M. McCrary

On 04/05/10 while on patrolling the parking lot of Wal-Mart shopping

center I observed a tall black male with dreadlocks enter a gray in color
Pontiac Grand Am bearing tags xxx. After running the registration via FCIC /
NCIC the vehicle came back to Mr. Leroy Dorsett whose driver's license was
suspended at the time of observation. The driver who resembled Mr. Dorsett
entered the vehicle and traveled west on E. 7 th Street. Based on said
information I conducted a traffic stop and made contact with the driver who was
ultimately identified as Mr. Ryan Hamilton. Upon initial contact, Mr. Hamilton
openly admitted to driving the vehicle with suspended license. Mr. Hamilton
apologized and stated that he was aware of the fact his license was suspended
and drove the vehicle to the store simply to buy a movie.
Based on this I placed Mr. Hamilton under arrest for DWLS with
knowledge. During this time, Deputy McCrary had made contact with the
passenger of the vehicle, Ramon Stanley, who was observed making furtive
movements upon approach. Dep. McCrary then observed what appeared to be
a digital scale on the floor board of the vehicle. Mr. Stanley was detained for
officer safety purposes and during an inventory Dep. McCrary and I located a
quantity Marijuana, plastic baggies, and a digital scale.
Contact was again made with both subjects and Mr. Stanley without
questioning stated that the Marijuana found underneath the passenger seat
belonged to him. In a post Miranda interview, Mr. Hamilton admitted to owning a
small amount of Marijuana which was located during the inventory on the
driver's door compartment. Based on the amount of narcotics located the on-call
SID investigator was notified and Inv. Saint responded to the scene. Upon his
arrival Inv. Saint made contact with Mr. Stanley and based on further
information the matter was turned over to him. Both subjects were transported
to Bay County Jail.
 Panama City, Florida

WE THE PEOPLE

HAMILTON,RYAN,T.

STANLEY,RAMON,L.

VS

Bay county officer(s)

Officer Llorens
Deputy M.McCrary

Did Officer Llorens racially profile Mr.

Hamilton when he stated,“I observed a
tall black male with dreadlocks?”
\

YOU DECIDE!
Cases are subjected to review upon proper remedy
 After reading the police investigation
report, the first inquiry we must ask; is
“Tall Black Male With Dreadlocks”, a solid
reason of criminal activity to allow Officer
Llorens the authority to investigate personal
information, when running the registration via
FCIC?

(Investigatory stops require the Officer to

have a well-founded articulable suspicion of
criminal activity before detaining the
Citizen)FL Jur2d799.
Looking further in this case, we must
conclude that Officer Llorens must have
thought that a “Tall Black Male with
Dreadlocks is a well-founded articulable
suspicion of criminal activity.
Case Law:
(Stopping a automobile and detaining the
driver in order to check his driver's license
and registration of the automobile are
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
(Delaware vs Pouse 440.us 663)

The Fourth Amendment protects its Citizens

in a way that doesn't allow law enforcement to
stop and detain without reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion was absent in this case.
Looking into the police report you can see
that Officer Llorens stated, “After running
registration via FCIC/NCIC the vehicle came
 back to Mr. Leroy Dorsett whose driver's
license was suspended at the time of
observation.” The Officer further stated that
the “driver” resembled Mr. Dorsett, entered
the vehicle and began traveling West on 7th
Street.”
In this case, the Officers interpretation
of a Well-found articulable suspicion of
criminal activity is insufficient because
these laws are to protect us from law
enforcement depriving into our Constitutional
Rights over False Calls and Hunches such as
this one.
The word pretexual in this sense derives
from police having an objective in a
particular stop, but have not found a basis
for the stop, but some how comes up with
incoherent reasons. In the midst of these
pretexual stops, officers tend to get carried
away in there searching that they never
initiate a traffic citation for the initial
stop. A traffic infraction is the sole basis
for all traffic related stops that would allow
an officer to discover that ones license is
suspended.

(In determining if stop of vehicle is

pretexual, it is relevant consideration that
the motorist was not issued a traffic
citation(Pedro vs State 578 So2d 870).
Majority of the time our justice system allows
its Citizens to believe that the Traffic
citation issued for driving under suspended
license was the reason for the stop.
Anything that Officer Llorens would have
discovered after the Illegal stop of the
vehicle cannot be used as a reason for the
stop.(Ward vs State 453 So2d 517).
Mr. Stanley was a passenger of the vehicle
and confessed to part ownership of the
Marijuana discovered. Therefore; the driving
while license suspended, the marijuana, and
the confession all should have been discovered
after a Legal stop. Since these fruits were
discovered through pretexual reasoning, and
Officer Llorens has not shown in his police
investigation report a basis for a legitimate
traffic infraction prior to the detention.

(Evidence may not be introduced if it was

discovered by means of seizure without
articulable justification for its initiation)
(Terry vs Ohio 88.s ct 1868)

Should evidence be suppressed?

The Question:
Is racial profile the number one motive in
this pretexual stop?

YOU DECIDE!
freedomwrit2010@gmail.com?subject=Mr.Ryan Hamilton, Ramon Stanley
 The EPIDEMIC of the
ILLEGAL SEARCH and SEIZURE

It frustrates the mind of some individuals

when trying to analyze the decisions made in
Arizona. The Boy Cott, and confusion in
Arizona has only open the doors for
recolonization of Fourth Amendment laws that
are
violated
everyday.
Not just in
a sense to
mere
Immigrants,
but for
nationalized born citizens of our country.
Such as children seized, or slain by
psychologically deficient predators; Men, and
woman seized by law enforcement without any
articulable justification. We have noticed
that this has been an epidemic for decades in
certain states, and counties. To the extreme,
that it has been overlooked or standardized in
our Justice System.
The comprehension of the Law is so complex
that it is extremely difficult to understand,
or interpret to the average citizen.
In 1780, Citizens of Massachusetts pleaded
with the legislators who were writing their
Constitution to discuss about Rights in a
language they could understand. This conflict
still exist today, therefore it becomes easy
for well-versed law interpreters to persuade
citizens into believing certain context of the
law over others.
Facts and researched material has
conclusively revealed in the Constitution and
case law that a well-founded articulable
suspicion
of
criminal
activity
is not
determined
through
race, creed, or religion.
Its determination derives from information
leading to a solid belief of criminal activity
before detaining the individual.
Its not sure whether law enforcement will
construe the law into believing that they have
the authority to ascertain information from
immigrants without probable cause, as you can
see, law enforcement has misconstrued its
interpretation in numerous of ways to its own
citizens.
The Question:
Does the conclusion to defuse the relic in
Arizona lie beneath the skins of its own
Citizens?
 The Citizens Reports
Reports are written by individual citizens.

THE QUESTION:

Will an officer enter your home when asked to wait at the

door after requesting identification?
Bay county Florida Sheriffs Office: Deputy Goodson

THE ANSWER:

I was waiting for a taxi cab to come pick up my son, and his
father after a weekend visitation. There was a knock at the
door. I Assumed it was the taxi cab driver. I opened the door
to tell the cab driver to wait, only to find out that it was a
Bay County Sheriff's Officer. The Officer asked me my
name. I told him, and then asked the Officer what was the
problem. The Officer told me that there was a call stating
that the welfare of my children was in danger. I told the
Officer that it was impossible because my children wasen't
living with me at the time. The Officer then requested for
my identification. I told the Officer to “wait right here”, left
the door slightly cracked and walked to the back of my
house where my identification was. With identification now
in my hand, I walk to my front door, when I noticed the
Officer walking through my kitchen. nervous because I have
an intruder in my home, I asked the Officer what is the
problem ? The officer said that he saw toys in my kitchen. I
 told the officer that my children still do come home to visit,
but was currently not living there.
The officer walked past me, and into one of my three
bedrooms, and stating I seen toys everywhere. I informed
him, again, that my children still came home to visit. The
officer decided to walk into one of the other bedrooms,
when the officer heard a noise in my bedroom. The officer
asked me what the noise was, and I told him that I had
company over at
the time. The
officer then
opened my
bedroom door,
with no consent,
and observed
my son, who was not even walking at the time, and his
father. My son's father asked the officer, who was keeled
down at this point, if my son looked like he was abused or
in danger while holding my son in front of the officer. My
son then smiled at the officer, and then the officer stood up
to ask the father of my son who he was. He explained to the
officer that he was my son's father. The officer then asked
my son's father what his name was. He told the officer his
name and the officer ran his name through the data base.
The officer then received information that there was a
warrant for my son's fathers' arrest, and instructed him to
place his hands behind his back.
 My son's father told the officer that the warrant had been
dismissed, and that paperwork signed by the judge was in
his wallet. My son's father asked me to find his wallet and
to give the officer the paperwork. The wallet happened to be
in his pocket, so I asked the officer if I could get the wallet
out of his pocket, the officer said nothing, so I decided to go
for the wallet. The officer allowed me to go into one of his
pockets, and it wasn't in that pocket, so I tried to go into the
other pocket, when the officer then physically pushed me
away from the both of them. By the officer pushing me,
caused me to fall over my sons car seat, and onto the floor,
nearly landing on my seven month old son. I then stood up
and tried to show him the wallet. The officer then physically
pushed me again, only this time the officer scratched my
neck and chest area well enough to leave marks from his
nails. The officer proceeded into walking down the hallway
with my son's father. The officer then instructed me to stop
and to move away. When at the patrol car, with my son in
my arms, the officer got the paper out of his wallet himself,
and called in the paperwork. While waiting for a response,
the officer placed my son's father in the back seat of his car
and then me to place my hands behind my back because I
was going to jail too. I asked the officer for what, and he
told me for resisting officer without violence, and placed my
son with my neighbor, and me into the backseat of his car,
soon to Jail.
 THE QUESTION:

Does age matter when it comes to criminals?

THE ANSWER:

I was driving on fifteenth street, when I came upon the

intersection of fifteenth, and MLK. With three cars in front
of me, I stopped at a red light, I was suddenly rammed from
behind by another vehicle. My car rolled forward and nearly
hit the car in front of me. When the light turned green, I
pulled over in the abandoned Burger King parking lot, to
assess any damages on my vehicle. Expecting the driver who
hit me to pull over too, When I looked he kept driving. So
I decided follow him, and call the police from my cell
phone. While on the phone with the police, the driver
turned into the parking lot of Golden Coral. I told the
dispatcher our location and then walked over to the car
knocked on the window. I asked the driver if he was aware
that he just hit me. He stated he knew that he had hit my car
but didn’t think it was important, because his car was nicer
than mine. I told him that I had to call the police, and that
they were on the way. When the police arrived, I told them
what happened. They then walked over to the man and
talked to him. When they came back, they looked for any
damages on my vehicle, and informed me that they did not
see any, and further stated that “I didn’t want the old man to
go to jail, for HIT and RUN. I asked the officer had it been a
younger individual, would he have taken them to jail for hit
and run? He said nothing as he continued to walk over to
his car, where he did an
incident report and sent us about our way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you feel your Rights have been violated by Law Enforcement

please contact
Mr. Frank McKeithen
At Bay County Sheriffs Office.

(850) 747-4700.
You can also send your complaints to us and we will publish
them for you, to ensure Liberty and Justice for All.
The Supreme Court of Florida
Kogan, J.
As the history of this century all too plainly
shows, a society is foolhardy when it tries to cure one evil by
replacing it with a greater one. If the zeal to eliminate drugs
leads this state and nation to forsake its ancient heritage of
constitutional liberty, then we will have suffered a far graver
injury than drugs can ever inflict upon u s . Drugs injure some of
us. The loss of liberty injures all. And when liberty finally
has fallen, there will be nothing to protect us from a threat of
a different kind--people who, as history teaches, sometimes abuse
positions of authority in government and its agencies.
 ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SEIZUERS
Is a violation of the law, and our Constitution; and
deserves the best representation, please be advised of
such Attorney(s) in the area.

Micheal Hunter & Lord,P.A.

Attorney(s) at Law
29 East 5th Street Panama City, FL 32401.
850)784-1812: www.hunterandlord.com

Ben Bollinger
Attorney at Law
315 E 4th Street Panama City, FL 32401:(850)763-8003
www,PCNOTGUILTY.com

Appleman Shepard & Trucks

Attorney(s) at Law
405 Oak Ave 32401.
850)230-5550.

If you would like to be Advertised please notify

THE LEGAL RESEARCH JOURNAL.
 THE SECRET OF THE
3.850 POST CONVICTION RELIEF
Its cruel,and unusual punishment to some individuals, when confronted
with criminal traffic offenses. Deep down in there soul they know, their either
innocent, or they believed that law enforcement has infringed upon them. The
only way for us to return safely to our families, without gambling with a nullified
jury are to accept the terms of probation. With
all these collective thoughts lingering in ones
mind, how is it humanly possible to present
these facts to court officials, who are less
concerned in human relations other then there
own . We as a people acknowledge human
rights. Just through instance of “I have a right to
feel as I please”, and “say as I know.” I have a
right to defend my feelings, thoughts, and
sayings, against any who's desires are to
trample over them. No person has such right to
invade our homes, or persons without permission in purposes of searching and
seizing illegal, or non illegal property, without
just cause. These sequences of phrases are
imbedded in our hearts and souls when some
injustice has been employed. Why is it so hard
to deliver such thesis in our defense in court?
The Justice System has monopolized the
understanding into a belief system; that they
are the only ones who know, and can help!
Believe in me, and you shall be saved.
Americans will continue believing these implications, long as the relief of these
instances are kept hidden and buried deep inside legal material, unknown to the
average citizens. Ask yourselves;

THE QUESTIONS:
Why are the very foundations' of the constitutional
rules of American existence, not significant in our high schools of curriculum?
Why are the emphasis only focused on the historical views of con corers that
have inherited our civilization?
 POSTCONVICTION RELIEF 3.850
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 9.141)

This procedure is not commonly used by Attorneys', the reasons, are

because the attorney has already satisfied their interest in the case. Sealed the
deal of conviction, or probation by our own signatures with the false ideologies
that we accepted in the presents of a Judge.
Reminder: Do you accept the terms of the Plea?
are you satisfied with the representation of your
attorney or public defender, "yes I do your Honor".
don’t we all say? After that instance, we walk away
in regret, but in relief that we haven’t met the evil
jury that our attorney tried to avoid. What do we do
now continuing paying the price financially and
probation-ally. Research has indicated that 65% of
individuals are on probation or incarcerated, and
should be free based on the exclusionary rule.
this rule is clean, cut, and dry. The red tape that’s
surrounding this rule is the proper remedy which we have discovered in Post-
conviction Relief 3.850 .
Florida rules of Appellate procedure(9.141) is designed to appeal cases after we
have plead guilty or nolocontender. Majority of the time we are unaware of illegal
searches and seizures where the exclusionary rule must apply. If a illegal search
and seizure has been discovered in a case where the defendant has entered a
plea bargain and sealed his conviction ,so as they say; we have the ability up to
two years to file 3.850 motion, stating Ineffective Assistance of Counsel...
Meaning that, had my attorney made me aware of the stop and search by law
enforcement had been illegal, then I would had directed my attorney to filed
motion to suppress and insisted on trial. Using the law that counsel are to
investigate cases and advise of facts in relation to the law and if fails to
advise of such facts can render him ineffective and such plea involuntary.
This is the reason why this motion is rarely filed by attorney(s), because its
design is to obtain relief from courts when Attorneys fail to
represent there clients to the best of there legal ability. The Sixth Amendment
provides that in criminal cases, defendants are entitled to an attorney, not just
any Attorney, but Effective Attorney. If a person cannot afford an Attorney, then
one shall be appointed. This is to ensure poor defendant(s) receive a fair trial.
This form of relief is usually filed by prisoners' already convicted, because the
only way to understand these procedures is to utilize the prison law libraries
which takes years of studies and implications.
 CONCLUSION
Our studies, and research have determined that this
same vehicle for relief can be utilized effectively for
indigent defendants on probation that have not
exceeded the two year limitation.
Our job as Researchers, will collect all information on the
face of the record from individuals that request our FREE
services. If determined the plea to be involuntary we shall file
such motion(s) to relieve individuals from unconstitutional
probation or incarceration to help ensure our citizens liberty
and justice for all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TUNE IN TO 101.1 FM WEEKDAY

MORNINGS WITH BURNIE THOMPSON

FOR INSPIRING NEWS TALK

 LEGAL GLOSSARY
Amendment:
A change in (or) addition to a document.
Appeal:
A request for review by a higher court or lower
courts decision.
Appellate Court:
A judicial body that hears Appeals from lower
court.
Apprehend:
To take somebody suspected of wrongdoing into legal
custody.
Ascertain:
To find out information with certainty.
Bill of Rights:
The first ten amendments to the constitution which
restrict the federal governments power to interfere
with certain basic rights of the people.
Conclusive:
Providing information beyond all doubt.
Consensual-encounter:
In which the citizen can voluntarily comply, or
choose to ignore it.
Confession:
A voluntary written or verbal statement admitting
commission of a crime.
Constitution:
A set of customs, traditions, rules, and laws that
sets forth the way a government is organized and
operated.
Constitutional:
A law or act that is in accord with and does not
violate the constitution.
Construe:
To interpret or understand the meaning of a word,
gesture, or action in a particular way.
 Counsel:
A person who gives legal advice and represents
those accused of a crime(or)crimes;
Attorney/Lawyer.
Detain:
to restrain or keep somebody or something in
custody.
Dreadlocks:
long strands of hair that have been twisted closely
from the scalp down to the tips(hairstyle).
Due process of law:
As interpreted by the courts, this law in the fifth
and fourteenth amendments requires that a person be
treated fairly by the government in proper process.
Epidemic:
A rapid and extensive growth or development,
usually of something unpleasant.
Exclusionary rule:
Meaning any evidence gained by law enforcement
officers, as a result of violating ones Fourth
Amendment Right should not be allowed as evidence
in court against the defendant.
Fourth Amendment:
Freedom from Illegal searches and seizures.
Fundamental:
Serving as an essential structure of something
Hunch:
A rushed or feeling about something.
Incoherent:
Unable to express thoughts or feelings clearly or
logically.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
A representation in which the defendant is deprived
of a fair trial; which the lawyer handles the case
unreasonable.
Infraction:
Failure to follow a certain agreement required by
law.
Inquire:
To ask a question when determining the facts of a
case.
Insufficient:
Not enough in amount or quality to satisfy the
purpose of a case.
Investigatory stop:
In which requires the officer to have a solid
belief of criminal activity before detaining the
citizen.
Involuntary
Plea Bargain made without understanding facts in
relation to the laws.
Justice System:
The legal system, or the act of applying or
upholding the law.
Justification:
To give somebody an acceptable reason or
explanation why something was done.
Legislator
One who makes laws within a given jurisdiction; a
member of a legislative body.
Jury Nullification
A jury's willfulness of rejecting evidence, or
refusal to apply the law, because of the result of
the case is contrary to the jury's sense of
justice.
Objective:
Related to the foundation of police officers
perceptions, feelings, or intentions.
Obtain:
To receive, or take into evidence.
Probable cause:
A good reason for suspecting a person of breaking
the law. Required in cases in which a law
enforcement officer needs to conduct a search and
seizure and cannot, for practical purposes, obtain
a search warrant.
Pretexual:
An arrest of a person for a minor offense to create
an opportunity to investigate the person's
involvement in a more serious offense.
Profile:
A set of characteristics or qualities that identify
a type of a category of person or thing.
Plea Bargain:
A negotiated agreement between a prosecutor and the
accused; whereas the defendant pleads guilty for a
lesser punishment.
Quest-Work:
Investigation by a Police Officer, in which a bases
is motivated by hunch.
Reasonable suspicion:
particular reasoning in supporting a well-found
fact of criminal activity.
Relic:
A surviving trace of something
Resembled:
To be alike or similar to one or another.
Searches and Seizures:
The detention of an individual in purposes
searching and taking to hold in evidence.
Standardize:
To choose or establish as code of ethics.
Suppress:
to exclude evidence taken by law enforcement when
violating ones Fourth Amendment.
Transpires:
To be revealed or come into existence.
Validate:
Authorization or approval from a higher body of
authority.
 About the Editor(s)
The Editor(s) are a collective group of
educated researchers of Law, and Constitution.
Researchers, who acknowledge that the
Constitution has been built from the History of
our Country. In order for our country to continue
its path of
LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR
ALL, we as
Citizens must
acknowledge the
Rights that we all have.
Our Editors have traveled to distant lands
researching other cultures, and consciences.
Have came to such conclusion that Americas
Laws, and Constitution are Best to protect
Human Rights, and Liberties. In 1789 James
Madison introduced to their government that just
because rights are printed on paper with
government seals does not mean that Officials
will not violate them .soon proven true.
Copyright©2011 Citizens Bar Association: