THUS SAITH THE LORD:
THE UNQUESTIONED POWER OF A FEDERAL JUDGE
When a prophet wanted the people to know that he was speaking with divine authority and that his words were to be unquestioningly obeyed, he would use the words, “Thus saith the Lord”, indicating that his words came from a higher source, and would be enforced by mortal agents of that deity. These words triggered immediate compliance and performance.
“And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” Exodus 32:27
THE ROYAL WE
In a similar manner, federal judges, when issuing an order, never speak in the first person, but speak in the third person, the Court. It is similar to the Royal We, the language style of royalty in Europe wherein the King or Queen never referred to themselves in the first person but in the third person, inferring that “We” included divine approval in company with God.
Attorneys and the parties before “the Bench” are expected to address “the Court” and not refer to Judge by name. In fact, on numerous occasions, Judge Navarro of Nevada, in rendering a decision, would say, “the Court finds….”, not “I find…”
While there is no conclusive evidence that the word Court was meant to substitute for the word Lord, there is plausible reason to believe that it evolved from similar thought patterns. Judges in ancient Israel were divinely appointed and their edicts were thought to reflect the word of God. Lord is a common designation for judges in Great Britain. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the judge was expected to make decisions under a near godlike authority, thereby making their decisions difficult to challenge.
When the federal judges made the decision to arrest and to incarcerate the several Bundy, et. al. defendants for the Oregon and Nevada trials, they did so under the power of their discretion as a judge. Broad discretion is granted to judges. The discretion of a judge to take action is widely held to be difficult to overturn unless there is a clear showing of egregious error.
Appellate courts, consisting of former trial judges from lower courts, tend to protect each other in this Royal hierarchy of judges, and are reluctant to reverse a judge’s decision unless that judge has fallen out of favor with “the Team”.
Judge Robert Clive Jones, who presided over the Hage ranch case in which the BLM sought to bully the Hage’s into submitting to their authority, was punished by the Ninth Circuit for daring to take on a member of the federal team, the BLM.
THE ROYAL HIERCHY OF LOWER AND HIGHER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE EACH OTHER’S BACKS
A review of the government’s Bundy, et. al. case in recommending pretrial detention as provided for in the Bail Reform Act of 1984, provided scanty and insufficient evidence to support a claim that the Bundy, et. al. defendants were 1) flight risks and 2) a danger to society. However, lacking clear and convincing evidence to justify pre-trial detention, the judge, armed with near unlimited authority, merely needed to declare something like this:
“The Court finds that (insert name) is likely to be a flight risk and that there is clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure that he will not be a danger to society. Therefore, the Court orders detention of (insert name) pending trial. It is so ordered, (name of judge)”
Unfortunately, the defendants did not appeal the judge’s decision to imprison them pre-trial and pre-conviction. However, had they appealed, the panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit appellate court, most likely would have affirmed the lower judge’s decision, as they tend to have each other’s backs, especially when it involves a group of people who are an intelligent and lawful threat to the federal team (judge, prosecutors, BLM employees, federal law enforcement).
MAN WHO BEHEADED 5 YEAR OLD SON IS ALLOWED SUPERVISED RELEASE
In a shocking display of inconsistency and upside down, twisted logic, the court recently decided to release a man who beheaded his 5 year old son, based on the recommendation of court psychiatrists that he could enjoy release from prison under specified conditions. Disregarding the heinous nature of his crime and the potential for future dangerousness, the court decided to err on the side of liberty and granted him release under close supervision.
Contrast that decision to the decision to not release Dave Bundy who had hundreds of favorable testimonies from friends and associates, and whose sheriff offered to take full responsibility in guaranteeing that he did not flee nor do anything dangerous. Known as a wonderful family man and a pillar of the community, Dave Bundy was as far from being dangerous as anyone can be. The court laughed off the sheriff’s offer and proceeded with the imprisonment of Dave Bundy who now has over 470 days of prison time without being found guilty.
Did I mention that Dave Bundy never beheaded his son?
FEDERAL JUDGE OMNIPOTENCE
A Hollywood or a fiction writer could not have made up something so fantastic as the true case of Judge Royal (his real name) Furgeson versus Jeff Baron.
Judge Ferguson declared, “I have the full force of the Navy, Army [and] Marines behind me. . . You are a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it.”
What is most terrifying, is that Ferguson is correct. He does have the full faith and credit of the federal government behind him, enforced by all the assets and resources, including military (if necessary), of the federal government. The courts, in collusion with congress, have given themselves unprecedented powers not even seen in the days of ancient Egypt or ancient Rome, given that the physical powers of the USA to impose its will on others far exceeds that of any government or dictatorship that has previously existed.
The above article points out that judges have immunity from the consequences of their abuse of discretion, never having to pay, through money or prison, for their abuse of discretion unless it involves violation of criminal code. Even then, the immunity from prosecution is an almost impenetrable barrier.
Professor Ben Stein recently commented to Fox News that Americans are becoming powerless against abuse of power by Stalinist, liberal judges who are “dictators in black robes.”
“The judiciary is out of control, not bound by anything except themselves.” said Stein.“Judges don’t have to be bound by the Constitution or the law.”
Therefore, the scales weigh heavily in favor of federal judges to have near Stalinist like powers in the courts and little fear of the consequences for their actions.
GARY HUNT VERSUS THE OMNIPOTENT POWER OF FEDERAL JUDGE ANNA BROWN
When Gary Hunt, received a cease and desist order from Anna Brown in the Oregon district and a subsequent order to appear at a show cause hearing in her Oregon District court, Gary Hunt rightfully and correctly chose not to acknowledge jurisdiction over his body given that Judge Anna Brown does not have jurisdiction in California where Gary Hunt resides.
Additionally, Brown does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter given that Hunt was not named as a party in the protective order issued by Brown. Hunt, a self taught student of the law and of the constitution, with a specialty in the freedom of the press, knew that there was an abundance of common law (stare decisis) which supports his position.
However, did jurisdiction really matter to Brown? Employing the same arrogance as Ferguson in the Baron case, Brown knew two things:
- The U.S. Marshalls, FBI and any other federal law enforcement, would unquestionably obey her order to arrest Gary Hunt, all she had to do was issue it, and
- That immunity for her from any error or abuse of discretion was nearly absolute.
Consequently, Brown dispatched the Marshals to arrest Hunt resulting in 7 days of prison, and all the horrors that come with prison (bad food, bad smells, bad company, mean staff, control of phones by prison gangs, sexual abuse, diesel therapy, loss of privacy and much more).
It is this writer’s opinion that the majority of the 320 million Americans are ignorant and indifferent as to how bad prison life is which in turn gives judges and prisons so much autonomy to commit atrocities.
IF YOU ARE NOT TERRIFIED, YOU SHOULD BE
The article cited above, correctly states, “What happened to Baron, can happen to anyone”. This writer adds, what happened to the Bundys and the other defendants, what happened to the Hammonds, Joe Robertson and what has happened to thousands of other wrongfully imprisoned victims of federal courts, can happen to anyone.
After reading this article, you should begin calling your elected officials. Make an appointment to discuss an action plan for reigning in the near absolute power of the federal judges. Join other like minded groups to get this changed. Prepare model legislation and hand it to your congressional representative for introduction at the next legislative session. Grade them on their performance and then make that grade go viral.
It was ignorance and apathy by the populace that led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. Apathy and ignorance are the tyrant’s best friends.