Bundy Judge Composting the Constitution
By Shari Dovale
The pretrial release hearing for Ammon and Ryan Bundy was held Monday, July 18th in Portland. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones ruled Tuesday that they must remain in custody pending trial.
The judge claimed that he could not ensure that the Bundy brothers would return to court, therefore they need to stay locked up.
The prosecution put on a farce of a hearing, claiming, first of all, that Ryan Bundy attempted to escape his jail cell back in April. It was so apparent to the LEO’s that they did not bother to charge him with attempted escape, though their ‘evidence’ seems enough to convince them.
There is no way they are going to get me, and a large part of this country’s citizens, to believe that, if they had proof of a Bundy jail break attempt, they would not be pushing for the maximum punishments allowed, if not more. After all, these are right-wing extremist terrorists, right?
It was made obvious that the intent behind their actions was to have a peaceful political protest. They took control of the Malheur Refuge property under an “adverse possession” claim. Basically, they don’t believe the federal government has constitutional control of the Refuge land. Adverse possession is the occupation of land to which another person has title with the intention of possessing as one’s own. In layman’s terms, they were squatting on the land.
If anyone believes that this is not commonplace in the US, they should google it. It happens more often than one might think. Generally, the squatters are given rights in which the property owners must fight through the court system. It is not a given that the squatters will be removed.
The fact that the Bundy’s were never, officially, asked to leave the Refuge should make clear that the law understood this. Even Harney County Sheriff David Ward stated that the only laws that he thought may have been broken was ‘possibly’ trespassing.
Federal prosecutors were forced to admit that the FBI didn’t formally order the occupiers to leave the refuge.
The question begs to be asked: Name the federal employees that actually attempted to go back to work after January 2nd. Were there any? Or were they told to stay at home by their superiors? Who actually stopped them?
“My ruling is there was no lawful adverse possession available to them,” Judge Jones said. “They may very well have thought they were within the law. They weren’t.”
This sounds like the “Hillary Defense.” They thought they were within the law, but they weren’t. So there was no intent. It used to be that ignorance of the law was no excuse, however, the FBI director, James Comey, altered that premise forever, when he claimed that Hillary had no intent, therefore it was okay to not prosecute.
Jones also had a chance to shred the First amendment with Shawna Cox, earlier Monday. Though he allowed her a small amount of freedom from the restrictions she had been placed under during her release, he did still oppress her Freedom of Speech rights.
Stating that Cox’s beliefs were “screwball views,” “legal garbage” and “horribly distorted view of the law and procedures,” Jones required Cox to agree to suspend her first amendment rights by not repeating her beliefs to anyone, especially the jury.
I wonder if she will be allowed to discuss Jury Nullification, as it is allowed by law? Yet, so many legal-beagles attempting to wrongly convict make every effort to pretend that does not exist.
These procedures just show the next chapter of beating down the citizens. The people have no rights under the NEW United Nations of America.
If you are not part of the government elite, like Hillary, then you have no rights. You have no Freedom of Speech to express your views. You have none of the protections that the government class enjoys. You have the few bones that the Feds are willing to throw your way.
That may be their vision, but remember this…
The Americans Are Coming!
If one reads the US Constitution – the source of all authority that was delegated to the branches and/or to specific named offices within a branch that those that serve within our governments are allowed to use – one will see that it says (in writing)within Article 3, Section 1 that “… Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,shall hold their offices during good Behaviour, …”. The US Constitution says what “good behavior” is for judges which is doing their duties as constitutionally assigned, taking and keeping their Oaths.
Throughout American history judges have been removed from the courts for not using good behavior. But the requirement is that they get charged with the crimes committed. (Remember the US Constitution and all state Constitutions are LAW, the supreme law of the land and highest law of the state, not just the definers of our government put into writing.)
It is important to realize how ‘dumbed down’ we all have been regarding our duties under the US Constitution. Like Grand Jury Investigation is a tool of the PEOPLE, not the courts, as are Grand Juries. We do not even have to have a judge call them, it is just a courtesy we use. They are NO located within any of the first three articles, but are separate retained authority of the people. Same for juries, Second Amendment, etc.
Grand Jury – “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)
“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”
“Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
“The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”
“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) (End Grand Jury quote)
Isn’t it time we started using our retained powers – read the Tenth Amendment and notice the little word “or” that is used instead of “and” which makes the meaning a bit different then those serving within our governments try to make it seem to be: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.
Lets not forget https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQqT4BjGxY0
Good job Shari