Judicial Corruption

Whistleblower Nancy Jo Grant in Florida, Charged With the Unauthorized Practice of Law, is Found Guilty

My name is Nancy Jo Grant, on March 22, 2006 I blew the whistle on the racketeering, closed door hearings, forced plea deals, bogus trials and the warehousing of inmates in the DeSoto County Courthouse, 12th Judicial Circuit, and DeSoto County Jail in Florida. Three months later, June 29, 2006 I was arrested and a gag order placed on me. Judge James S. Parker ordered that I was not allowed to talk... George C. Leef, President of Patrick Henry Associates in East Lansing, Michigan, says that prohibitions against the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) must end.


The Verdict Is In
Jerry-Carlos of the family Pitts,

Nancy was found guilty on all 19 remaining charges. Not all is so dismal however. The Judge Haworth, unable to look her in the eye after the verdict was delivered, stated that he is withholding adjudication, pending a presentence investigation hearing which will be held on September 26. Nancy indicated that the primary discussion right now is that they are looking at a probation as opposed to prison time.

Praise the Lord. Now Nancy can pursue the federal end. Oh, By the way. Two days ago, she recieved an order from the Federal District Court, wherein the defendants of that case, the judge and the prosecutor now have less than a week to give their response to her complaint.

We are actively looking for the support of any and all, so that this travesty cannot have an ill effect on the entire nation. Imagine the school teachers that will no longer be allowed to teach civic classes... imagine no politicians being able to discuss hot item legal issues as a basis for their campaign... and the list goes on.


Mr Lawhorne:
Your article listed below, is almost a near representation of the TRUTH. I say almost, due to the fact that you did not report all of the facts regarding the case.

As an example: You failed to report to the private sector (sometimes referred to as the Public), the fact that the jury was denied opportunity to hear any defense information by order of Judge Haworth; You also failed to report to the same private sector, the fact that the Judge Haworth, utilized a definition of UPL that has not been approved by the Legislature of the State of Florida (see the US Supreme Court case entitled “Connolly v General Construction. Also do the research on cases that have depended on that decision of the Supreme Court) also see (Clearfield Doctrine another Supreme Court decision wherein the Supreme Court clarifies that the use by governments of commercial instruments makes those governments nothing more than corporations and are thereby bound by commercial laws, rules, and regulations).
You, Mr Lawhorne, also failed to tell the private sector, that during the first three days of the trial, the prosecution witnesses denied the allegations by which Ms Grant was charged. In fact, one of the prosecution witnesses, also pointed out that the prosecutor had in fact committed a violation of law, by entering personal information relative to the jurors into the record of the trial.
You, Mr Lawhorne, also failed to report to the private sector, the fact that the complainant, Susan German Wright, has been listed, by public record, of being in violation of Florida Law for the past 14 years, and that she has never been prosecuted for the criminal violations to which she is guilty by virtue of Public Record. See records available at
Do your homework Mr Lawhorne, and quit taking the word of those that profane Justice. I am certain that your editors would prefer that the writers for this News media maintain the integrity of the Sun Herald by printing the TRUTH.
Jerry-Carlos of the family Pitts
All Rights Reserved

Grant guilty on all 19 counts

A DeSoto County jury convicted activist late Friday on charges of practicing law without a license

DESOTO COUNTY -- A six-member jury found civil rights activist Nancy Grant guilty Friday evening on all 19 counts against her of practicing law without a license. Each count is a third-degree felony and is punishable by up to five years in prison.

She remains free on bail pending her sentencing hearing, which is set for Sept. 25.

The 19 counts filed against Grant each involved an inmate incarcerated in the DeSoto County Jail. Grant denied giving legal advice to these inmates. She said the organization she founded, called Florida Pro Se Bar, helps people, especially people who are incarcerated, learn to file legal papers in court for themselves. "Pro Se" is a Latin term meaning "on behalf of oneself." The phrase, Grant said, refers to a person who is not a lawyer, but who chooses to represent himself in court.

Grant said she and Pro Se Bar are not giving legal advice, but just doing typing and performing courier services to move legal papers from the jail to court, and to share information.

During testimony Friday, Grant said she would be suing the Public Defender's Office for racketeering. She said lawyers were paid to represent inmates, but did nothing. "Being paid to represent a client, but not doing anything is racketeering," she told the jury.

Grant, 55, was arrested June 29, 2006, and charged with practicing law without a license. She was released on $50,000 bond shortly thereafter.

The case began when an Arcadia attorney, Susan Germann Wright, filed a complaint against Grant alleging that she (Wright) had learned from a client of hers in the county jail that he had received unsolicited legal forms and a letter misrepresenting the law. Wright said she considered the legal advice promoted in the letter incorrect.

Wright said the letter sent to her client came from a corporation called Florida Pro Se and contained a document called an "emergency motion to dismiss" that stated the client had received the document because he had been incarcerated over 180 days in violation of his due process rights.

The letter, according to Wright, went on to say Florida Pro Se wanted to help the client/inmate by filing legal motions on his behalf.

You can e-mail John Lawhorne at

By JOHN LAWHORNE, Staff Writer

Florida JAILer-In-Chief on Trial for Whistleblowing
Trial Date: August 20, 2007


August 8, 2007

My name is Nancy Jo Grant, on March 22, 2006 I blew the whistle on the racketeering, closed door hearings, forced plea deals, bogus trials and the warehousing of inmates in the DeSoto County Courthouse, 12th Judicial Circuit, and DeSoto County Jail in Florida. Three months later, June 29, 2006 I was arrested and a gag order placed on me. Judge James S. Parker ordered that I was not allowed to talk to any inmates or any inmate's family members about anything going on at the jail or courthouse as condition of my bond, which was set at $50,000.

For six years I collected evidence that proves: All who pass through the criminal justice system have no defense prepared in their behalf. The innocent and guilty go the same route, they are kept in jail until they break down and take plea deals. In 100% of the cases I researched, not one person had a defense prepared by the private retained attorneys, or the public defenders. The only information in their case files was prosecution side only, the attorneys are all getting paid for doing nothing, hence the racketeering behind closed doors forcing inmates to accept plea deals and until they do they are warehoused.

In 2005 I formed a non-profit corporation called the FPB, Florida Pro se Bar, Inc. to educate individuals who choose to represent themselves, (inside and outside the walls). The State of Florida charged me with (UPL), Unlicensed Practice of Law pursuant to Florida Statutes 454.23 a felony with a penalty of five years in prison. The Florida Bar is using this statute to attack any person in Florida that interferes in their commerce.

I am being maliciously prosecuted for blowing the whistle on the illegal activities by the court and jail. The assistant state attorney, created jury instructions just for my case and when these jury instructions are used at my trial, August 20, 2007 they will restrict our First Amendment Rights to speak and write. These jury instructions, for example make it against the law for a private person to contact an official, such as a clerk of court, for information on behalf of an incarcerated person.

Historically, the same judge who I blew the whistle on was the same judge who illegally took my four children in 1984. My story reached a national level when it was aired on a televised documentary and Judge Parker returned my children the next morning. That experience made me what I am today, a civil rights advocate. I am to be tried by the same court that I accused of racketeering, holding the closed door hearings, forcing plea deals, bogus trials and warehousing inmates.

For further information please contact:
Nancy Jo Grant
803 E. Magnolia Street, Arcadia, Florida 34266
HYPERLINK "", (863) 494-0363

From: Nancy Grant
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Bob Hurt
Subject: corrections just made on No. 8 and 11

CASE NO.: SC06-1791
Lower Tribunal
Case No. : 2006CF335

Nancy Jo Grant v

The State of Florida and The Florida Bar


The Plaintiff, Nancy Jo Grant filed a Motion to Reinstate and Amend Complaint filed 9/01/06 along with a Second Petition for a Writ of Prohibition against the State of Florida, specifically the Twelfth Judicial
Circuit for reasons as follows:

1. The State of Florida/Twelfth Judicial Circuit has charged Plaintiff with violation of Florida Statutes 454.23; pertaining to the Unlicensed Practice of the Law and is being threatened 28 Counts totaling 140 years in prison. (Exhibit A)

2. Plaintiff has been arrested three times for the same indictment, June 29th 2006, March 5th 2007 and May 17th 2007. (Exhibit B)

3. For the June arrest Judge James S. Parker ordered a $50,000 bond. Plaintiff paid $5,000 to be released from jail. (Exhibit C) During the March and May arrests Plaintiff was not read her rights, but was released on ROR (Released on Own Recognizes); for the third arrest in May, Plaintiff was arraigned at before she was arrested.

4. Conditions of Plaintiff release where stipulated pertaining to a response letter from the Florida Bar dated 9/13/05. (Exhibit D)

5. Pursuant to this Court's the recent order dated May 18, 2007 Case No.: SC06-2370 The Florida Bar vs. Norman Elliot Kent, "the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit is exceeding its jurisdiction and usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law in Florida." (Exhibit E)

6. The Twelfth Judicial Circuit thru its agents arrested and are prosecuting Plaintiff (Case No. 006CF000335) for the unlicensed practice of law and are exceeding jurisdiction and usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law in Florida.

7. Plaintiff claims the Florida Bar is not respecting the authority of this Court by not bringing Plaintiff's case to this Court for obvious reasons: (1) Plaintiff has been a civil rights activist due to the severe
civil right violation committed upon Plaintiff by the State of Florida for taking her four children "illegally" in 1984. After a 6 month long battle with the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Judge James S. Parker was forced to
returned Plaintiffs children after her story reached a national level (Exhibit F) (Plaintiff holds evidence which exonerates her from the false allegations in 1984); (2) Plaintiff is active in providing educational
resources for those (inside and outside the walls) who choose to represent themselves "pro se" more correctly as "pro persona" or "sui juris" thru a non-profit corporation called the Florida Pro se Bar, Inc. (3) Plaintiff is "Jailer In Chief" (Director) of the Florida Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, which is registered with the Florida Department of State as a P.A.C., Political Action Committee commonly known as "Florida
JAIL4judges"; (4) Plaintiff ran for DeSoto County judge in 2004, then was sued for qualifying and placed on the ballot, (Case No.:142004CA000335).

Plaintiff in turn challenged Florida Statute 34.021,as unconstitutional in federal court (Case No.: 2:04-cv-290-FtM-29DNF) that a citizen should not have to be a member of the Florida Bar to run for a judicial office: (5) Plaintiff has challenged the legality of the Bar's corporate operations, (the Florida Bar is registered with the United States Patent Office, wherein it is shown that the Florida Bar (an arm of the Florida Supreme Court) is operating in commerce) (Exhibit G); (6) a lawsuit was recently filed against
the Florida Bar SC07-400 in lieu of the fact that the Florida Bar was publishing negative propaganda against J.A.I.L., (7) Plaintiff collected information since the year 2000 which gave evidence of racketeering, closed door hearings, forced plea deals, bogus trials and warehousing inmates by
the DeSoto County Court. March 22, 2006 Plaintiff went on record claiming the described illegal activities where being conducted in the DeSoto County Courthouse in conjunction with the DeSoto County Sheriff Office. Plaintiff further claimed the described illegal activities are repetitive throughout the State of Florida and the entire United States Criminal Justice System, therefore Plaintiff believes this is contributing to the Florida Bar not bringing an action to this Court for the Florida Bar is working in conjunction with the Twelfth Judicial Circuit to silence Plaintiff's complaints.

8. Three months after "blowing the whistle" on the corrupt practices of the court Plaintiff was arrested. A gag order was placed on Plaintiff by Judge James S. Parker, Plaintiff was told before audio visual in the booking room of the DeSoto County Sheriff's office, that Plaintiff "was not allowed to-speak to any inmates or any inmate's family members about anything going on at the jail or courthouse". If he (Judge Parker) received word that Plaintiff had spoken to any inmates or any inmate's family members Plaintiff
would be immediately jailed. Plaintiff's arrest directed attention away from the corrupt practices of the court; and was strategically orchestrated to prevent exposure, as to why county jails are so full, state prisons are growing at such a rapid pace, and "secret" civil commitment centers (concentration camps, such as Florida Civil Commitment Center in DeSoto County) are springing up all over America.

9. Another trial date is set for August 20, 2007. Two other trial dates were attempted October 30, 2006 and March 5, 2007, but no trials ensued.

10. Assistant State Attorney Donald Hartery created, "The States Proposed Jury Instructions" (Exhibit H) Plaintiff petitioned to have them dismissed, due to a number of civil right violations and a separation of powers issue violation, but was denied.
11. The United States Supreme Court, in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908), stated that "Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.
Citing Old Wayne Mut. Life Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 14 S.Ct. 1108 (1894); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877). Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting as a judge under the law. He/she is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge. Any judge utilizing 'private corporate law' as opposed to the law of the Constitution of the United States is also in violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution of the United States.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff petitions this Court to allow Plaintiff to Amend/Reinstate her case to be heard; for relief thru issuance of a Writ of Prohibition upon the State of Florida (Twelfth Judicial Circuit) prohibiting
its agents' to utilize selective and malicious prosecution against the Plaintiff; Or Order the Florida Bar bring this case to be heard in the Florida Supreme Court as mandated by the Florida Constitution Article V sec.

15, and this Court in The Florida Bar vs. Norman Elliott Kent, May 18, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________ Dated this _____ day of May, 2007.
Nancy Jo Grant, Pro se
803 E. Magnolia Street
Arcadia, Florida 34266
(863) 494-0363


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to by USPS to
the following:

Judge Lee E. Haworth, 12th Judicial Circuit
2002 Ringling Blvd.
Sarasota, Florida 34237
(941) 861-7950

Earl Moreland, State Attorney, 12th Judicial Circuit
Criminal Justice Building
2071 Ringling Blvd. Suite 400
(941) 861-4400

George Waas
Special Counsel
Office of the Attorney General
PL-01 The Capitol
Tallahasee, Florida 32399-1050
(850) 414-3662

Andrew Mooney, President
Florida Bar Association, Inc.
512 12th Street W.
Bradenton, Florida 34205

Henry Cox III, President,
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Donald H. Hartery, Assistant State Attorney 12th Judicial Circuit
Office of the State Attorney
Criminal Justice Building
2071 Ringling Blvd. 3rd FL
Sarasota, Florida 34237-7000
(941) 861-4323

State of Florida
Division of Risk Management
C/O Florida Department of Financial Services
200 E. Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

State of Florida
Office of the Governor, Charlie Crist,
PL-05, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Nancy Jo Grant

The Case for a Free Market in Legal Services
by George C. Leef

George C. Leef is president of Patrick Henry Associates in East Lansing, Michigan, and adjunct professor of law and economics at Northwood University.

Executive Summary

Every state except Arizona prohibits the unauthorized practice of law (UPL); a person must possess an attorney's license to hold himself out as a lawyer. UPL prohibitions restrict the right to pursue a legitimate occupation and the right to contract with others. By imposing a costly barrier to entry, they distort the market for legal services. Consequently, consumers face higher prices and fewer choices.

UPL prohibitions are part of a wider phenomenon: governmental limitations on freedom to engage in voluntary economic transactions. Before the New Deal, the Supreme Court regarded economic liberty as worthy of constitutional protection. Since 1937, however, the Court has drawn a distinction between "fundamental" and "nonfundamental" liberties, with economic liberties consigned to the latter category.

Governmental interference with fundamental liberties faces "strict scrutiny" from the courts and is frequently invalidated, whereas interference with economic liberties receives only minimal scrutiny, implying that legislatures may do virtually anything in the field of economic regulation. That distinction is without any constitutional basis.

UPL prohibitions are neither necessary nor sufficient to protect consumers from incompetence. A competitive market, reinforced by remedies for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, offers the optimal combination of price and quality.

Because they infringe upon individual freedom and serve no legitimate public purpose, UPL prohibitions should be repealed or struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 322 (PDF, 48 pgs, 148 Kb)

Florida Bar Watch

Judicial Horror Stories