The death threats are simply a consequence of his violating his oath and the rights of the people he's sworn to protect. This is the 2a operating as designed.
Death threats my butt! How dumb can a person be to make a death threat to a law enforcement officer that has the power and authority of his office to go after them and make life uncomfortable?! Get rid of the city council people and Chief Hagan! This is a perfect example of why citizens don’t trust government. The Constitutional Rights of the people were violated and the citizens of Okeechobee deserve police stand for their Rights no matter what the situation.
Whenever a law enforcement agency or official makes a statement anymore, I assume they're lying until proven otherwise. It's easier and more often correct.
You made me laugh Lvikingr! It isn’t a far jump to make that assumption anymore! We are often treated as guilty until proven innocent by those who police us which is how the law works in other countries like France and I believe Japan, and the UK too. Our legal system is nonpareil in the world, but sadly we have been forced to fight to retain it. A presumption of possible guilt and of the citizenry’s inability to police themselves was how this chief decided to operate.
As a ColdWar Navy I’m sick of these liars! They’re attempting to infringe on our inalienable rights. Provided to us by GOD! And our Bill of Rights! Most of these fools have never even read the Constitution! And they try to call us “The Conservatives Out” on misinformation and disinformation! They’re nothing but trolls 🧌 and a cancer upon our Republic 💯🇺🇸! Get the hell out of our way!
I HAVE A ILEGAL GUN TAKING,TRYING TO REACH U,COURT ON 11/6 930AM JUDGE MCPHEE IS MY TAKER,U DID A STORY ON HIM showmethemoneypg@gmail.com
(A)
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B)
restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii)
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would be reasonable expected to cause bodily injury:
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
You advised me that you never had any hearing on the issue of the Order Of No Contact, nor did you have any notice of such a hearing, after which you then failed to attend. Further, no intimate partner or child of an intimate partner is in any way involved in your case, and there was no finding that I saw in any of the documents that you provided that there was any finding by the court that you represented a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or child, or nor do any of the terms or conditions of the Order of No Contact prohibit you from the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would be reasonable be expected to cause bodily injury. In short, and again, there is no intimate partner nor the child of an intimate partner involved in any way in your case, and thus I see no basis for the applicability of that US Code section to your case.
In other words, since nothing in your case in any way involves an “intimate partner nor the child thereof” I don’t see where US Code section 922 (g) (8) has any applicability whatsoever in your case, and, if possession of firearms and ammunition is not prohibited by the very statute apparently relied upon by the court in even mentioning firearms or ammunition in the order, what was the legal rationale for requiring you to hand over property to the sheriff that the law does not prohibit you from possessing???
Now, as regards the Order of Probation, again the three crimes which you plead no contest to and for which the court withheld adjudication of guilt, DID NOT INVOLVE ANY VIOLENCE NOR ANY THREAT OF VIOLENCE ! !
Numbered provision (4) of the Order Of Probation reads: "You will not possess, carry or own any firearm, You will not possess, carry, or own any weapon without first procuring the consent of your officer (and, as I have previously said, I believe it reasonable to assume that the word “officer’ here means your probation officer.) While, under the terms of this provision your probation officer can give you permission to possess and carry weapons, such permission can not include firearms nor ammunition. Here is the problem with all this:
1. This is a “form” order which this court has likely been using for years prior to both the Bruen and the Rahimi US Supreme Court decisions, and not only does provision (4) of the order conflict with both those cases, but it is also in conflict with the US Supreme Court cases of McDonald and Heller.
2. There are no allegations, much less any credible evidence that you ever committed any violence against anyone, nor threatened any violence against anyone, much less Mr. Bonderud, and it should be clear now under the law that such findings are required in order to deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms.
3. Following is portion of the Supreme Court holding in the Rahimi case:
Held: When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Pp. 5–17. (a) Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition. The right to keep and bear arms is among the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 2 UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI Syllabus U. S. 742, 778. That right, however, “is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626. The reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the Founding. Heller, 554 U. S., at 582. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” Ibid. By that same logic, the Second Amendment permits more than just regulations identical to those existing in 1791. Under our precedent, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin the Nation’s regulatory tradition. Bruen, 597 U. S., at 26–31. When firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 597 U. S., at 24. A court must ascertain whether the new law is “relevantly similar” to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, “apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.” Id., at 29, and n. 7. Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. As Bruen explained, a challenged regulation that does not precisely match its historical precursors “still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” Id., at 30. Pp. 5–8.
4. I am, therefore, of the opinion that very simply, since there was no evidence of violence presented anywhere in your case, nor even any allegations of violence in any of the proceedings involved in your sentencing or in the process of the Order Of No Contact, it is difficult to see how any court or judge could constitutionally justify taking away your firearms and ammunition.
5. It is my advice to your that you, or your lawyer, if you can obtain one, redraft your current pending motion which I understand will be heard sometime in November, and would suggest you re-title the motion to read “Amended Motion To Strike Certain Provisions In This Courts Order Of No Contact and Order Of Probation”, and I also suggest that much of the language from the Rahimi holding (see #3 above) be incorporated into your amended motion.
If you have any further questions for me I will be pleased to respond.
C. Gary Moody, Esq.
352-262-6791
In a message dated 10/14/2024 5:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, andrewbsheets@yahoo.com writes:
I HAVE A ILEGAL GUN TAKING,TRYING TO REACH U,COURT ON 11/6 930AM JUDGE MCPHEE IS MY TAKER,U DID A STORY ON HIM showmethemoneypg@gmail.com
Andrew:
Here are a few things for your consideration, should you, or any lawyer you may engage to assist you, decide to file an amended motion to strike the firearms and ammunition prohibition aspects of both your Order Of Probation and the Order Of No Contact (your current motion addresses ONLY the Order Of No Contact, and NOT the firearms/ammunition prohibition of your Order Of Probation.)
The withheld adjudication of guilt in your criminal case is NOT a conviction under Florida law, irrespective of whether your plea to the charges was “no contest” or “guilty”. This is important, and the cases, both Florida and Federal that address this very issue are: Clarke vs United States, 184 So. 3rd, 1107 (Fla 2016) and Clarke vs United States, 822 F. 3rd 1213 (11th Cir. 2016), meaning that under both Florida and under Federal law, you have not been “convicted” of any of the three offences you pled “No Contest” to, and which are listed in your Order Of Probation. Further, none of those violations involve violence, nor any threat of violence. Thus, none of the laws or regulations related to prohibition of felons being in possession of firearms or ammunition are applicable to you.
It is also important to point our (assuming this allegation is true – as per what you have told me) that there have been no allegations raised against you in your criminal case nor in any matters related to the Order Of No Contact restraining order, that you were ever violent nor that you ever threatened to commit any violence. This is a critical point allowing you to take advantage of the Rahimi case.
One area of the law that have very little knowledge about, is the law governing the matter of how much discretion or leeway a judge has in setting the terms and conditions of a person’s probation, and that is just one of the reasons why I highly recommend you engage a competent criminal defense lawyer to represent you in this matter, but I believe that the position you should take in your amended motion (should you elect to file one) as regards both the Order Of Probation and the Order Of No Contact, is that both of those orders prohibit you form being in possession of firearms and ammunition, and that such prohibition is simply unconstitutional and clearly violates you second amendment rights. While there is a world of difference between you and Mr. Rahimi, the constitutional guarantees of the second amendment apply to you, but not to him, for the reasons set forth in the Supreme Court’s factual analysis in Rahimi.
The court announced basis for provision number 5 of the Order Of No Contact is that possession of either firearms or ammunition MAY be a violation of 18 U.S. Code, section 922 (g) (8). However, I do not see where such possession by your would be a violation of that law (keep in mind that the actual Order of No Contact only requires you to turn over all your firearms and ammunition to the custody of the Sheriff within 24 hours of your release, but does not appear to prohibit your possession of either firearms or ammunition that might legally come into your possession after the initial delivery to the Sheriff, but merely WARNS you that such possession may violate 18 US Code section 922 (g) (8), which U S Code section reads as follows:
USC 922 (g) reads: It shall be unlawful for any person –
State should make an example of him.
The death threats are simply a consequence of his violating his oath and the rights of the people he's sworn to protect. This is the 2a operating as designed.
Death threats my butt! How dumb can a person be to make a death threat to a law enforcement officer that has the power and authority of his office to go after them and make life uncomfortable?! Get rid of the city council people and Chief Hagan! This is a perfect example of why citizens don’t trust government. The Constitutional Rights of the people were violated and the citizens of Okeechobee deserve police stand for their Rights no matter what the situation.
Whenever a law enforcement agency or official makes a statement anymore, I assume they're lying until proven otherwise. It's easier and more often correct.
You made me laugh Lvikingr! It isn’t a far jump to make that assumption anymore! We are often treated as guilty until proven innocent by those who police us which is how the law works in other countries like France and I believe Japan, and the UK too. Our legal system is nonpareil in the world, but sadly we have been forced to fight to retain it. A presumption of possible guilt and of the citizenry’s inability to police themselves was how this chief decided to operate.
As a ColdWar Navy I’m sick of these liars! They’re attempting to infringe on our inalienable rights. Provided to us by GOD! And our Bill of Rights! Most of these fools have never even read the Constitution! And they try to call us “The Conservatives Out” on misinformation and disinformation! They’re nothing but trolls 🧌 and a cancer upon our Republic 💯🇺🇸! Get the hell out of our way!
I could not agree more, David.
Hard to feel bad for someone attempting to take away civil rights.
My guess is this guy votes Democrat too. No way a Republican would try this.
He could be a FUD/RINO
CIVIL RIGHTS
just now,PART 2
I HAVE A ILEGAL GUN TAKING,TRYING TO REACH U,COURT ON 11/6 930AM JUDGE MCPHEE IS MY TAKER,U DID A STORY ON HIM showmethemoneypg@gmail.com
(A)
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B)
restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii)
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would be reasonable expected to cause bodily injury:
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
You advised me that you never had any hearing on the issue of the Order Of No Contact, nor did you have any notice of such a hearing, after which you then failed to attend. Further, no intimate partner or child of an intimate partner is in any way involved in your case, and there was no finding that I saw in any of the documents that you provided that there was any finding by the court that you represented a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or child, or nor do any of the terms or conditions of the Order of No Contact prohibit you from the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would be reasonable be expected to cause bodily injury. In short, and again, there is no intimate partner nor the child of an intimate partner involved in any way in your case, and thus I see no basis for the applicability of that US Code section to your case.
In other words, since nothing in your case in any way involves an “intimate partner nor the child thereof” I don’t see where US Code section 922 (g) (8) has any applicability whatsoever in your case, and, if possession of firearms and ammunition is not prohibited by the very statute apparently relied upon by the court in even mentioning firearms or ammunition in the order, what was the legal rationale for requiring you to hand over property to the sheriff that the law does not prohibit you from possessing???
Now, as regards the Order of Probation, again the three crimes which you plead no contest to and for which the court withheld adjudication of guilt, DID NOT INVOLVE ANY VIOLENCE NOR ANY THREAT OF VIOLENCE ! !
Numbered provision (4) of the Order Of Probation reads: "You will not possess, carry or own any firearm, You will not possess, carry, or own any weapon without first procuring the consent of your officer (and, as I have previously said, I believe it reasonable to assume that the word “officer’ here means your probation officer.) While, under the terms of this provision your probation officer can give you permission to possess and carry weapons, such permission can not include firearms nor ammunition. Here is the problem with all this:
1. This is a “form” order which this court has likely been using for years prior to both the Bruen and the Rahimi US Supreme Court decisions, and not only does provision (4) of the order conflict with both those cases, but it is also in conflict with the US Supreme Court cases of McDonald and Heller.
2. There are no allegations, much less any credible evidence that you ever committed any violence against anyone, nor threatened any violence against anyone, much less Mr. Bonderud, and it should be clear now under the law that such findings are required in order to deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms.
3. Following is portion of the Supreme Court holding in the Rahimi case:
Held: When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Pp. 5–17. (a) Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition. The right to keep and bear arms is among the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 2 UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI Syllabus U. S. 742, 778. That right, however, “is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626. The reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the Founding. Heller, 554 U. S., at 582. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” Ibid. By that same logic, the Second Amendment permits more than just regulations identical to those existing in 1791. Under our precedent, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin the Nation’s regulatory tradition. Bruen, 597 U. S., at 26–31. When firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 597 U. S., at 24. A court must ascertain whether the new law is “relevantly similar” to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, “apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.” Id., at 29, and n. 7. Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. As Bruen explained, a challenged regulation that does not precisely match its historical precursors “still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” Id., at 30. Pp. 5–8.
4. I am, therefore, of the opinion that very simply, since there was no evidence of violence presented anywhere in your case, nor even any allegations of violence in any of the proceedings involved in your sentencing or in the process of the Order Of No Contact, it is difficult to see how any court or judge could constitutionally justify taking away your firearms and ammunition.
5. It is my advice to your that you, or your lawyer, if you can obtain one, redraft your current pending motion which I understand will be heard sometime in November, and would suggest you re-title the motion to read “Amended Motion To Strike Certain Provisions In This Courts Order Of No Contact and Order Of Probation”, and I also suggest that much of the language from the Rahimi holding (see #3 above) be incorporated into your amended motion.
If you have any further questions for me I will be pleased to respond.
C. Gary Moody, Esq.
352-262-6791
In a message dated 10/14/2024 5:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, andrewbsheets@yahoo.com writes:
I HAVE A ILEGAL GUN TAKING,TRYING TO REACH U,COURT ON 11/6 930AM JUDGE MCPHEE IS MY TAKER,U DID A STORY ON HIM showmethemoneypg@gmail.com
Andrew:
Here are a few things for your consideration, should you, or any lawyer you may engage to assist you, decide to file an amended motion to strike the firearms and ammunition prohibition aspects of both your Order Of Probation and the Order Of No Contact (your current motion addresses ONLY the Order Of No Contact, and NOT the firearms/ammunition prohibition of your Order Of Probation.)
The withheld adjudication of guilt in your criminal case is NOT a conviction under Florida law, irrespective of whether your plea to the charges was “no contest” or “guilty”. This is important, and the cases, both Florida and Federal that address this very issue are: Clarke vs United States, 184 So. 3rd, 1107 (Fla 2016) and Clarke vs United States, 822 F. 3rd 1213 (11th Cir. 2016), meaning that under both Florida and under Federal law, you have not been “convicted” of any of the three offences you pled “No Contest” to, and which are listed in your Order Of Probation. Further, none of those violations involve violence, nor any threat of violence. Thus, none of the laws or regulations related to prohibition of felons being in possession of firearms or ammunition are applicable to you.
It is also important to point our (assuming this allegation is true – as per what you have told me) that there have been no allegations raised against you in your criminal case nor in any matters related to the Order Of No Contact restraining order, that you were ever violent nor that you ever threatened to commit any violence. This is a critical point allowing you to take advantage of the Rahimi case.
One area of the law that have very little knowledge about, is the law governing the matter of how much discretion or leeway a judge has in setting the terms and conditions of a person’s probation, and that is just one of the reasons why I highly recommend you engage a competent criminal defense lawyer to represent you in this matter, but I believe that the position you should take in your amended motion (should you elect to file one) as regards both the Order Of Probation and the Order Of No Contact, is that both of those orders prohibit you form being in possession of firearms and ammunition, and that such prohibition is simply unconstitutional and clearly violates you second amendment rights. While there is a world of difference between you and Mr. Rahimi, the constitutional guarantees of the second amendment apply to you, but not to him, for the reasons set forth in the Supreme Court’s factual analysis in Rahimi.
The court announced basis for provision number 5 of the Order Of No Contact is that possession of either firearms or ammunition MAY be a violation of 18 U.S. Code, section 922 (g) (8). However, I do not see where such possession by your would be a violation of that law (keep in mind that the actual Order of No Contact only requires you to turn over all your firearms and ammunition to the custody of the Sheriff within 24 hours of your release, but does not appear to prohibit your possession of either firearms or ammunition that might legally come into your possession after the initial delivery to the Sheriff, but merely WARNS you that such possession may violate 18 US Code section 922 (g) (8), which U S Code section reads as follows:
USC 922 (g) reads: It shall be unlawful for any person –
USC 922 (g) (8) reads:
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
,NO GUNS.pdf