A DISHONEST MAN!! By Don A. Bright

Editor’s Note: This is the true story of how a liberally activist (and dishonest) judge by the name of Jimm Larry Hindren (Who, incidently, was appointed through the efforts of a now Republican Senator, John Boozman) imprisoned an innocent man on charges of owning an “illegal” firearm. It happened several years ago in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I was present at the trial. This is further evidence of how our 2nd Amendment is being destroyed by all three branches of government.       Don A. Bright

Jimm Larry Hendren

U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren is a dishonest man. Hendren practices dishonesty in the most devious and destructive form there is. Hendren lies for the State. Hendren lies in order to keep the benefits of power: Power for himself and power for others of his ilk who use their power to strip others of their freedom. It takes a powerfully warped ego to make a person so arrogant as to lead that person into the corruptness that is manifested in Hendren’s judicial vacuousness.
Jimm Hendren is the antithesis of “honorable”, a term that is attached to his black robe and, in this case, not the man. I have been in many courtrooms in my life and have always performed as instructed by the phrase “all rise!” On January 12, 2007 I stayed in my seat when that call came to announce the judge’s leaving the courtroom. I did that because after being exposed to the gangrenous demagoguery and arrogance that flowed so eloquently from the lips of this man I felt no need to “rise!”. It felt good.
What I had just witnessed was the behavior of the generic target of our forefathers when they defined the danger of the state without boundaries. Our Constitution was written for the sole purpose of stopping men like Hendren. Most troubling is the fact that Hendren is well aware of that. His fear of being exposed as the power groping statist he is was, I am sure, the very reason he took the actions and made the declarations he did during the trial I witnessed.
The trial I am writing of was The United States vs. Hollis Wayne Fincher. Mr. Fincher was subjected to a “no knock” assault from the minions of the federal, state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies and arrested for having “illegal” guns in his possession. The raids (there were warrants for 13 other friends of Wayne) themselves were of little note here. Although more “illegal” guns were confiscated from others who were raided, only Wayne was arrested. Why? I’ll let the officer that was part of one of the raids where the person involved was not placed under arrest speak on that. That officer, when asked by the victim of the raid why he (the victim) was not being arrested, made the following statement, “we’re after Wayne Fincher”.
This startling revelation made the reasons behind the “get Wayne Fincher” raids very clear to all of us who follow local politics in the Washington County area. Wayne was a very brilliant and formidable opponent of those in power in the area. His imposition of constitutional guidelines and laws into the give and take of Washington County politics frightened his opponents. It made sense that they would stop at nothing to get rid of this man. They did. I’ll let the reader fill in the blanks here… I want to get back to that Hendren fellow.
It is no secret that our federal government is exercising more and more power over the individual is the last half of this century, give or take. And one does not need to have an IQ in 3 digits to know that the Constitution is an offense to those whose thinking is statist. They hate it. Thus it has become necessary for these elitists to make the Constitution irrelevant. How best to do that? Simple. Instruct the judiciary to exercise control of it.
This they have done. The simple exerting of two fictions is all that is necessary for this task. (1.) Instruct the populace that only they (the judiciary) can interpret the meaning of the Constitution, and (2.) buttress that fiction by excising the Constitution from the courtroom.
That is how we end up with lapdogs the likes of Hendren.  He will resort to any kind frightening rhetoric and gavel thumping arrogation to protect his naked regalia and that of his fellow travelers. To exercise control over the commons is commonplace in these exalted waters. Let’s take a look at how Hendren did just that in ruling over the Fincher trial. With inordinate comfort and a hubristic smile “judge” Hendren did the following:
* Refused to “allow” the use of Fincher’s ultimate and necessary defense, i.e. the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas.
* Refused to “allow” Fincher his inalienable and constitutional right (6th Amendment) to be tried by a jury. Hendren would only “allow” Fincher to give testimony in front of Hendren, himself, and then denied Fincher the right to be heard by a jury of his peers.
* Intimidated the jury by telling the jury it could not think outside the box the judge defined.
To back up these charges, I offer the following quotes from Hendren’s instructions to the jury:
“You are the sole judges of the facts: but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.”  (Editor’s note: Simply a lie. All jurors in the United States have the right to acquit if they think the judge is incorrect in his definition of the law, if they think the law is a bad law, or if their conscience tells them the defendant is being abused by the prosecution or judge.( http://www.fija.org)
“It is your duty to find from the evidence what the facts are. You will then apply the law, as I give it to you, to those facts. You must follow my instructions on the law, even if you thought  the law was different or should be different.” (Editor’s note: See above notation.)
Compare the above quote from earlier ones in his instructions to the jury:
“Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors.”
“You are entitled to consider that evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in the affairs of life”). Emphasis is mine.
About the defense introducing and interpreting the Second Amendment as evidence Hendren had this to say: “…and I don’t know that I’ve got a problem with that, but I think that there would be a problem if the matter were going to be submitted to the jury about whether they think that is what the First Amendment – the Second Amendment – says or not, because that’s not a matter for the jury to decide. The Court will tell it what the law is, the applicable law.”
On the role of the judge and that of the jury Hendren makes this arrogant and errant barrage of effluent:
“The judge, being myself in this case, is tasked with determining issues of law, evidence, (sic) and procedure. Those matters are not for the consideration of the jury. It would be unfair to put it to them. They are not legally trained. They’re not judges. They’re not trained and hopefully experienced (sic). They’re not experienced in such things.”

In other words, according to Hendren, American citizens who sit on a jury are too stupid to be there. Why, then, I ask, do we even have juries? Hendren, obviously, considers juries one of life’s burdens put upon judges.

So what to think?

I think that Hendren’s chicanery, evasion and ambivalent stratagem points to the existence today of the very thing that our forefathers sought to avoid through the Constitution – a dictatorial judiciary that sets the rules for the other two “co-equal” branches of government and the citizenry at large.
I think that there are men who are so unlimited in ego and self delusion that they not only break the rules and laws of society…they indeed break the bonds of humility that must govern civilized society.

Jimm Hendren does not judge…he cheats.

Don A. Bright

NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZES JURY NULLIFICATION

By Chuck Baldwin
August 9, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

One of the last (and very best) true investigative journalists is William Norman Grigg. I have admired his work for years. A report he recently wrote was covered by one of the very best (if not THE BEST) newspapers in the country, The Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Journal. Grigg writes, “When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification.

“New Hampshire’s jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: ‘In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.’

“There is nothing novel about the principle and practice of jury nullification, which dictates that citizen juries have the right and authority to rule both on the facts of a case, and the validity of a given law. This is widely recognized in judicial precedents in both American history and in Anglo-Saxon common law dating back to the Magna Carta (or earlier). At the time of the American founding it was well and widely understood that the power of citizen juries–both grand and petit–was plenary, and that their chief function was to force the government to prove its case against a defendant–and the validity of the law in question.”

Grigg also writes, “The fact that the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, which is supposedly sacrosanct, has become all but extinct illustrates the extent to which the U.S. ‘justice’ system has become Sovietized.”

See Grigg’s report in the Eau Claire Journal (you must subscribe).

When one wants to discuss the particular pillars protecting liberty, jury nullification must be ranked near the top of the list. Trial by jury should be regarded as one of America’s most precious and sacred rights. Rightly did America’s founders enshrine the right of trial by jury in Article VII of the Bill of Rights. I encourage readers to read all of Will Grigg’s report mentioned above, as he very astutely describes the manner in which today’s judges and prosecutors have virtually expunged the true meaning of–and have taken the teeth out of–a jury trial.

Yet, the right of a citizen jury to sit in judgment–not only of the one accused of a crime, but also of the law that accused him–is supremely important to the survival of a free republic. And as Grigg properly notes, this doctrine of law and jurisprudence was commonly understood by America’s founders–and by many subsequent generations.

First of all, the right to a trial by one’s “peers” is, all by itself, a sacred doctrine with almost no meaning to modern jurists. One of America’s most influential attorneys at the time of America’s founding was none other than Patrick Henry of Virginia. He said this about the right to a trial by one’s peers: “By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life.” (Elliot, The Debates in The Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution)

Secondly, the rights and power of a citizen jury is also mostly lost in modern courts. Such was not the case in Colonial America. John Jay, America’s first US Supreme Court Chief Justice said, “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Samuel Chase, signer of the Declaration of Independence and a US Supreme Court justice said, “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

As late as 1902, US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Even later, in 1941, US Supreme Court justice Harlan Stone said, “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”

And, of course, earlier courts have consistently ruled that unconstitutional laws have no merit and citizens are under no obligation to submit to them. The famous Marbury vs. Madison decision in 1803 determined that “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Other court decisions agreed.

In Miranda vs. Arizona, the court ruled, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” In Norton vs. Shelby County, the court decided, “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

On the other hand, modern courts have all but eviscerated the time-tested and honored tradition of the right of citizen juries to sit in judgment of the law. Judges do everything in their power to dissuade juries from exercising their right to overturn prosecutions that are based on unjust and unconstitutional laws.

In the above-mentioned report, Will Grigg illustrates how juries are able to protect people from unjust prosecution: in Houston, Texas, police found a man in possession of less than a gram of cocaine–an amount equivalent to roughly half a sugar packet. He was arrested and charged with felony narcotics possession. According to Grigg, “The jury eventually acquitted [the accused] of the charge.” Jurors later said that the evidence against the man was “weak,” but the defense attorney was a little more blunt. He said that “[jurors] weren’t going to make somebody a felon and ruin their lives over a gram of cocaine.”

Grigg notes, too, that, two years ago, right here in my home State of Montana, a jury refused to convict a man for marijuana possession. Grigg concludes his report by saying, “Hopefully this kind of principled rebellion will become a nationwide epidemic.”

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Neither Will Grigg nor I are advocating for violent criminals to escape justice. But the truth is if we emptied America’s prisons of all of the inmates who are incarcerated for “crimes” in which no one–not a single person–was harmed, we could close a sizeable percentage of prisons in this country. And one of the chief reasons for the explosion of incarcerations in this country must be laid at the doorstep of uninformed and ignorant juries who allow judges and prosecutors to blind them regarding their responsibility to protect their neighbors and fellow citizens from unjust, unconstitutional laws. And there is no greater abuse of justice to be found today than in federal drug laws–especially the marijuana laws. But, alas, that is a subject for a later day.

For now, the great State of New Hampshire officially recognizes jury nullification. In the interest of the preservation of freedom in America, the rest of the “several states” should quickly follow suit.

SO YOU THINK YOUR PROPERTY IS YOURS? 

Well. you better think again!

Don A. Bright 

Okay, all you people out there who think your taxes are too low hold up your hands. The rest of you are excused. Both of you. 

Well (and this won’t come as a surprise to most of you) the people in government today don’t think you are paying enough.  In fact, the grotesque idea that Americans are stingy and should be forced to “donate” more of their rightful possessions to the Government is held as moral truth by most of the members of the liberal ruling class.

Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) says it best: “These members believe today’s taxpayers are perpetrating an injustice by not paying more taxes, and that most of the money you make presumptively belongs to the government. Since your money really belongs to the government, tax cuts represent a government “giveaway.”

Several attempts have been made to put a figure on the total amount of each American’s income that is confiscated by the government and none of them have been completely successful.  It is, however, accepted by most experts that over 60 per cent of your income is lost to the government when you add up all the various forms of taxation.  (That includes the so-called “fees”, “fines”, “service charges”, “TIF extractions”  and all the other euphemisms for taxes used by politicians.) But is that all?  No. Do you actually own any of the rest?  Or, better put, do you actually own anything?

A wise man once said the power to tax is the power to destroy.  I agree.  Power to lay claim to our possessions is the power to destroy every “inalienable” right that we have claimed to be ours.

Is there a limit?  Do we, as free citizens, have any right to say, “Enough is enough”? Yes, we do.  That is, we do if the government abides by the law.  Does the government follow the law?  No!

The Constitution of the State of Arkansas (my home state) prohibits the government from confiscatory behavior.  Article 2, Section 22 says: “The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use, without just compensation.”

Article 2, Section 28 of our Constitution states unequivocally that the government has no right to attach any restraints on and must recognize unfettered ownership of real property:  “All lands in this State are declared to be allodial; and feudal tenures of every description, with all their incidents, are prohibited.”  According to the dictionary allodial is described as: “A system of land ownership in which land is held free and clear of any rent or service due to the government; commonly contrasted to the feudal system.”  Under a feudal system the person does not own the land but is considered a “serf” or squatter subject to forced dislocation by the government if certain demands placed on the serf are not forthcoming; in other words, a slave of the government.

Amendment 47 to the Arkansas Constitution makes it even clearer.  The entire amendment consists of only 12 words: “No ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon property by the State.”  Ad valorem means a duty (read tax) placed on property “according to the value”.  So the Constitution forbids the State from imposing any tax based on the value of property.

Why did the authors of our Constitution go to such great lengths to keep the concept of private property so sacrosanct?  To prevent the citizens of the state from ever being made to suffer 100 percent taxation.  These wise men knew that the best way to prevent total government control and provide the people freedom from slavery was to exempt property from government’s reach.

If a government is allowed to pirate possessions at will, that government is evil at best and tyrannical at its worst.

Earlier in this commentary I asked the question, “Do we own anything?”  The answer to that question is no, because the Government, aided and abetted by a growing judicial malignancy, has chosen to exempt itself from control by “the people”.  And it does so by blatant disregard of the law. We no longer own anything; we rent everything from the government.  If you do not believe me I suggest that you try going a couple of years without paying your rent (property tax) and see who ends up with the property.

We must remember that the concept of owning property is not some modality of capitalism or for that matter any other “ism”.  Owning property and the concept of private property is not a privilege; it is an absolute necessity for the existence of freedom. Government cannot grant us rights.  Government can only – through use of the threat of physical violence – steal our rights.  We, as human beings, are born with our rights.

So it’s more than an issue of oppressive taxation.  It is a matter of civil rights.  If the government is not prevented from keeping a completely hands-off approach to our property then we have no civil rights.

If you think you have the right to free speech, try handing out leaflets on government property.  If you think you have the right to be free from “unreasonable seizures” carry an ounce or so of an “illegal” substance in your car.  The government will seize your car.

If you think you have freedom of religion try reading the Bible or Koran or giving a sermon on the steps of a post office. If you think you have the freedom of assembly try having your own parade without government permission. You will be arrested and charged because the government owns the street, you don’t.  If you think you have freedom of expression try entering a courtroom with the symbol of your heritage, the confederate flag.

I am not saying any of the restrictions cited above are necessarily bad.  What I am saying is that there is a difference between where you can and cannot exercise liberty.  You have no liberty or freedom on property the government owns.  And you probably don’t know it but the federal government owns more than 50% of the land in this country.  Add in that property owned by municipalities, counties and states and the rent we pay to use it and you can see that “we the people” own none of it.

And as long as we allow the government to extort a monetary bribe in exchange for government controlled use of our personal property we have no liberties at all.  We own nothing and have no freedom.  As Henry David Thoreau put it:

“Talk about slavery! It is not the peculiar institution of the South. It exists wherever men are bought and sold, wherever a man allows himself to be made a mere thing or a tool, and surrenders his inalienable rights of reason and conscience. Indeed, this slavery is more complete than that which enslaves the body alone.”

I think it time we stand up and rattle our chains until they are removed

Social Security

Social Security is on its last leg
and at the empty gauge its hit  the peg.
They were completely inept,
With the money they kept.
And now our nest is minus the egg.

Don A. Bright