Awww | Pam Bondi and Kathleen Passidomo are BFF

From the article titled Attorney General Pam Bondi Juggles Home life, Sudden Celebrity Status and Catering to The Banks

During the legislative session, Bondi would occasionally have weeknight dinners with Young and Rep. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples. Both legislators are attorneys, and Passidomo and Bondi share a love for the Yankees.

“That’s the good thing about session is some of my friends are here,” she said. “Kathleen will cook at her house, or we’ll go to some little, out-of-the-way place. “

Yea, an out of the way place to talk about throwing out those damn deadbeats who refuse to pay their mortgages…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
14 Responses to “Awww | Pam Bondi and Kathleen Passidomo are BFF”
  1. Jeff Davis says:

    sorry – you Florida hicks voted right wing. It’s a shame when your Republican Government starts to give you all a hard time, the way they have the poorest in society forever. Florida has an impressive number of people locked up, and an impressive number of prisons. Yet, when the hicks are done in by Bankers they want to get rid of their right wing heros. And no, Democrats are just as bad. They simply represent another right wing pro banker party.

  2. lvent says:

    Bloomberg reporting FHFA REGULATORS to sue Banks for BILLIONS FOR BUNDLING OF BAD MORTGAGES…….I Have been saying for months that this is the KEY and PROVES THEY INTENTIONALLY SET MAINSTREET UP TO FAIL…..Bill Cohen who has written books about the Ponzi Scheme was speaking today on Bloomberg today and said the BIG BANKS ARE LUCKY THEY ARE SO FAR NOT BEING SUED CRIMINALLY AND ONLY CIVILLY..BUT THIS SHOULD GO CRIMINAL…..CHASE IS CRYING THEY ARE BEING SUED UP THE WAZOO…..BLOOMBERG ALSO REPORTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE MAY BE FAILING AS WELL…….TIME FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE OUR OWN CURRENCY……..

  3. Civil Rights Act of 1871
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan by providing a civil remedy for abuses then being committed in the South. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts.
    This legislation—also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act and formally titled An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes—was asked for by President U.S. Grant, and passed within one month of the president’s request for it to Congress. Grant’s request was as a result of reports he was receiving of widespread racial terrorism in the Deep South, particularly in South Carolina. He felt that he needed to have his authority broadened before he could effectively intervene. After the act’s passage, the president had the power for the first time to both suppress state disorders on his own initiative and to suspend the right of habeas corpus. Grant did not hesitate to use this authority on numerous occasions during his presidency, and as a result the first era KKK was completely dismantled and did not resurface in any meaningful way until the first part of the 20th century.[1] Several of its provisions still exist today as codified statutes, but the most important still-existing provision is 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
    Contents [hide]
    1 History
    1.1 Use during Reconstruction
    2 As Later Amended and Placed in U.S. Code as Section 1983
    3 Notes
    4 External links
    [edit]History

    Main article: Ku Klux Klan
    In January 1871, Republican Senator John Scott of Pennsylvania convened a congressional committee to hear testimony from witnesses of Klan atrocities. In February, Congressman Benjamin Franklin Butler of Massachusetts introduced his anti-Klan bill, intended to enforce both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Butler’s bill was narrowly defeated in the House, whereupon Rep. Samuel Shellabarger, of Ohio, introduced a substitute bill—only slightly less sweeping than Butler’s original. This bill brought a few holdout Republicans into line, and the bill narrowly passed the House, sailed through the Senate and was signed into law on April 20 by President Ulysses S. Grant.[2]

    Benjamin Franklin Butler drafted the initial version of 1871 Klan Act.

    Samuel Shellbarger wrote the final version that passed and was signed into law.
    [edit]Use during Reconstruction
    Main article: Reconstruction era of the United States
    Under the Klan Act during Reconstruction, federal troops were used rather than state militias to enforce the law, and Klansmen were prosecuted in federal court, where juries were often predominantly black. Hundreds of Klan members were fined or imprisoned, and habeas corpus was suspended in nine counties in South Carolina. These efforts were so successful that the Klan was destroyed in South Carolina and decimated throughout the rest of the former Confederacy, where it had already been in decline for several years. The Klan was not to exist again until its recreation in 1915, but it had already achieved many of its goals in the South, such as denying voting rights to Southern blacks.[2]
    In its early history, under the Grant Administration, this act was used—along with the Force Act—to bring to justice those who were violating the Civil Rights of newly freed African Americans. After the end of the Grant Administration, and the dismantling of Reconstruction under Rutherford B. Hayes, enforcement of the Act fell into disuse and few cases were brought under the statute for almost a hundred years.
    [edit]As Later Amended and Placed in U.S. Code as Section 1983

    42 U.S.C. § 1983 now reads:[3]
    Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
    Section 1983 essentially made equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by an actor acting under State authority. Normally constitutional rights violations are remedied by specific performance including injunctions by the courts. For example, if a person’s right to due process was violated by a prison guard who was said to be acting under the authority of the state, then that person could bring suit for monetary damages against the prison guard. Without Section 1983, that person would have to seek an injunction by the courts for the due process violation. The problem with such an action by the court is that injunctions cannot apply to past harm, only future harm. So, essentially the person would have an actionable cause-the constitutional violation-with no adequate remedy. Most Section 1983 claims are brought against prison officials by prisoners, but prisoner claims are usually dismissed as being without merit. Claims can be brought by anyone stating a proper cause of action.
    Circumstances changed in 1961 when the Supreme Court of the United States articulated three purposes that underlay the statute: “1) ‘to override certain kinds of state laws’; 2) to provide ‘a remedy where state law was inadequate’; and 3) to provide ‘a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice.'”[4] Blum & Urbonya, Section 1983 Litigation, p. 2 (Federal Judicial Center, 1998) (quoting Monroe v. Pape). Pape opened the door for renewed interest in Section 1983 among American legal scholars.
    Now the statute stands as one of the most powerful authorities with which state and federal courts may protect those whose rights are deprived. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provides a way individuals can sue to redress violations of federally protected rights, like the First Amendment rights and the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Section 1983 can be used to enforce rights based on the federal Constitution and federal statutes, such as the prohibition of public sector employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion.
    In some jurisdictions, 1983 has been applied directly to private employers when litigants have sued under this act. It can also be applied in virtually all jurisdictions in a more indirect manner to private employers if they are acting under state or federal authority. For example, if an additional private security company is hired by the police for an event and are given authority by the police, and, during the event, the security company violates a participant’s First Amendment right, they can be sued under section 1983.
    Although some provisions were ruled unconstitutional in 1882, the Force Act and the Klan Act have been invoked in later civil rights conflicts, including the 1964 murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner; the 1965 murder of Viola Liuzzo; and in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), in which the court ruled that “The first clause of 1985(3) does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics.”
    It was also utilized in the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines. By the time Beth Tinker was in school, the law had expanded to make even school boards liable if they stood in the way of people’s federally-protected rights.
    Today, the Civil Rights Act can be invoked whenever a state or local government official violates a federally guaranteed right. The most common use today is to redress violations of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Such lawsuits concern false arrest and police brutality, most notably in the Rodney King case.
    The Act was invoked in the 2010 Robbins v. Lower Merion School District case, where plaintiffs charged two suburban Philadelphia high schools secretly spied on students by surreptitiously and remotely activating webcams embedded in school-issued laptops the students were using at home, violating their right to privacy. The schools admitted to snapping over 66,000 webshots and screenshots secretly, including webcam shots of students in their bedrooms.[5][6]
    [edit]

  4. Constitutional ChrisYAHan says:

    It MAY be worth NOTING, in hte Interest of CAUTION: where the Word TERM ATTORNEY emanates from Etymologically?

    From the Ancient Sanscrit, the Oldest Language, on the Earth: from “AH” meaning TO and “TORN” meaning to: TURN ABOUT [ may equal TWIST,] or CHANGEhense AH TORN ey onwho turns Twists Or Changes the Law to Suit his SELF most Favorably!

    Additionally the Law Merchants Code states that: “FRAUD” is termed / presumed to be: “LEGAL,” NOT Lawful!

    Hense the source of the COLORABLE-Changeable Thing called LAW, but Lawfully: a mere Fiction, of that which IS LAW:
    See: jus “fetiales,” Black’s Law Dictionary/ Lexicon, 7th Edition Abridged! Not We are IN WAR see “Silent WEAPONS for Quiet WARS” by Rothschild around 1939, Note Rothschild is a mere ASSUMED, Alias, [psedunym- false name, Their REAL NAME IS; Meyer Amschel Beyer,, the ROTHSCHILD maens RED SHIELD from the Red Shield hanging out side their Gold/ Pawn Shop in: ANTWERP BELGIUM!

    Many THINGS are NOT what they seem,

    Many men Know Many THINGS! No man Knows EveryTHING! Some men know Some THINGS? Whom KNOWS?

  5. debi p says:

    When is the investigation of Pam Bondi and the new yahoo
    Going to start?? This is insanity. Between
    Scott, Bondi and this new yahoo we r all
    Just Fed. They need investigating now to
    Bring the scum to justice. Debi. 5613899339
    One more thing– I thought these people were
    Public sevants not public Serpants!! They all blend
    Together in a nest of snakes now… Can’t we
    Just have off with their heads already??
    This is for the serpants of course — we can’t
    Locate the servants any more.

  6. lies says:

    i know everyone is mad at the siruation look what i have been through with wells fargo i am i foreclosure and the have theaudacity to send a hamp applicatio fools i say fools. I am no sucka. i am the voice of reason we need to find out how to recall rick and pam. I dont how im the nurse. Other states have done it florida is in trouble and we need to act quick

    • debi p says:

      We have to recall them and need a plan for such
      Anyone— how do we do this it is the only way
      Can we give them a cease and desist like yesterday? They are destroying Florida as if
      It were a game. These are corrupt and self serving liars and must be removed before
      Florida is dead as we know it. Who in their right mind would ever buy anything form a bank in florida or any where ever again??? The trust is irrevokeably broken and cannot be bought from us. The damage they are doing is the worst in history and will completely eliminate our rights. Do they really want to be the ones in history responsible for that? Nice legacy serpants. Way to go. Bring back the death penalty for purgery or cut out their tongue what do serpants do without their tongue?? Now, That might work. Debi 5613899339

      • lies is all they tell says:

        hi debi i will call you tomorrow after work about 430pm we need aplan if we need to spear hesd then we spear head but sitting around waiting for something to happen is stressing me out.

  7. Readdocs says:

    There’s no reason to hide bigotry, political bias, or enforcement of the laws
    when you’re immersed in governmental lawlessness.
    Who is going to investigate them?

    • housemanrob says:

      Yea…They have the prisons and the automatic weapons……like Tombstone…..when IKE CLANTON — USED TO SAY………..”WE DON’T LIKE THE LAW AROUND HERE…WE DON’T NEED NO LAWDOGS AROUND HERE!”

    • debi p says:

      Okay I see your point. Recall then investigate…it won’t take much to see their lies its all public record for now… Debi

  8. leapfrog says:

    How putrid.

  9. housemanrob says:

    THERE YOU GO! TWO IDIOTS……WHO MANAGED SOMEHOW TO GET THROUGH LAW SCHOOL! MAYBE THEY WOULS BE BETTER OFF STARTING THEIR OWN CLOWN ACT FOR CHILDREN BECA– USE….FOR THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED! I WOULD HIRE THEM….NOT FOR ANYTHING LEGAL OR SERIOUS BUT……AS PRETTY GOOD CLOWNS! MAYBE THEY SHOULD TRY THE CARNIVAL CIRCUIT!

Leave a Reply