Elias Alias: Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged

Elias Alias: Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged

Jury selection/rejection began today, Wednesday, September 07, 2016, in Portland, Oregon, for the Bundy trial. I am not surprised to read accounts of the judge’s bias against jury nullification. The Oregonian/OregonLive website posted an article which quotes a few of judge Anna J. Brown’s opinions about protecting the government’s assumed power to railroad defendants. <active link: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/oregon_standoff_trial_for_ammo.html >

A passage from the article:

“Jury selection is something of a misnomer,” said Jeffrey T. Frederick, director of jury research services for the National Legal Research Group. “It really is jury rejection.” That’s because the practice is meant as a filter, to keep unqualified people from sitting in judgment, he said.

Further down the article we read:

Potential jurors will almost certainly face questions on their opinions about federal control of public land, militias, law enforcement, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and whether they believe a person exercising their First or Second Amendment rights must observe lawful limitations on those rights.

 

That judge has had ample opportunity to learn the truth regarding jury nullification. Her refusal to see that truth robs her soul of dignity and makes of her a robotic agent of government force, indifferent to the spirit of the Constitution, ignorant of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of “Unalienable Rights”, and repugnant to every principle of individual freedom. She is a willing agent of what we old hippies used to call “The Establishment” or “The System“.

Recall, another judge has already ruled that the Bunkerville, Nevada, trials will be shrouded in secrecy. See my article of July 25, 2016, on that —

My God! The Judge Wants Total Secrecy In Bundy Trial!

https://www.oathkeepers.org/my-god-the-judge-wants-total-secrecy-in-bundy-trial/

So judge Brown is not the only one willing to defend government’s sins. But she is tying up the hands of justice in her own way by her denial of Jurors’ rights to judge of the law as well as of the facts of the case.

We are looking directly into the face of governmental tyranny unabashedly displaying itself with cold cruelty in a theatrical abomination of the very purpose of “justice”.  The infrastructure of power now has its own evil momentum and will lay to waste any dissent, in order to protect the gigantic fraud which the mechanism of government has asserted through “code” and “statute”, through “color of law” and “rules of the court”. States’ Rights be damned; Jury Nullification be damned; it’s full steam ahead for the soul-less, ego-driven hunger of authoritarian power dressed appropriately in the black robes of darkness and death.

Readers may wonder why I speak this way about our corrupt court system, and some may feel that I’m condemning all judges. I am not condemning all judges, just most of them. I am happy to show an example of a true judge who sat on the Washington State Supreme Court and honored his Oath. I’ve written about the man, and his message of jury nullification, many years ago. It is right here on the Oath Keepers website. I would encourage any reader who has not read that article to pause here and do so now. And someone needs to show the article to Judge Brown. The opening of that article —

In a small but powerful booklet which was copyrighted in 1996, former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe gives an accounting of the origin and establishment of our present-day jury powers. I would like to share with you some passages from his essay entitled:

Jury Nullification: Empowering The Jury As The Fourth Branch Of Government
~
Quoting former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe:

“Of all the great trials in history tried at Old Bailey in London only one is commemorated by a plaque. Located near Courtroom Number Five it reads:

“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury. Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others, who refused to give a verdict against them although they were locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the court which established the Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their conviction.”

“The case commemorated is Bushell’s Case, 6 Howell’s State Trials 999 (1670). This case is a good beginning for tracing the roots of a legal doctrine known as jury nullification.” (End quoted passage by Justice William Goodloe, ret.)

Justice Goodloe’s article builds from there, giving context, founders’ commentary on the subject, court cases concluded favorably on jury nullification, and, as his intelligence shown through brilliantly, his booklet shows the proper place for common sense and moral uprightness in the American court system. So the question remains — why do not all judges care enough about their duties, and their Oaths, to educate themselves about our rights as embodied in jury nullification?  This judge Brown is positioning herself as the antithesis of what our court system is supposed to be. Here are some passages from the bottom of the OregonLive article linked above.

The judge also said she intends to question each juror on whether they were handed a flier outside court about jury nullification, and to instruct them that they must follow the law even if they disagree with it. Judge Brown said deputy U.S. marshals indicated there may be people outside court distributing such fliers.

Ryan Bundy and Ammon Bundy’s lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the judge’s proposed instructions to prospective jurors. Ryan Bundy argued that they will “rob a juror” of the right to serve as a “check and balance” on the federal government’s power.

Mumford asked that the judge not suggest that any of the defendants were responsible for such fliers.

“A jury’s place is to be able to use their common sense, their intellect, their conscience, whether the law is proper or not proper,” Ryan Bundy argued.

Judge Brown dismissed his objection.  

“It’s overruled,” she responded.

Jurors take oaths, the judge said, and she plans to advise them to “follow the law whether they agree with it or not.”

“I’m not going to say they have the option,” the judge said.

So there we have it.  Damn what’s right. Damn the people. Damn the purpose of the law in the first place; and damn moral duty to our fellow man. Damn everything when the authority of Statism might be threatened by the truth.

The cowboys never shot at a cop, never killed an agent, never shot at anyone. Instead, they merely made a conscientious stand to raise the question in public about who Constitutionally is authorized to manage public lands within the boundaries of a State in this Union. They are correct, and the Federal government is wrong. The American Lands Council has that information,  < here >

One of the phrases in my culture when I was growing up was — “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” My question today is why do most judges insist on remaining ignorant of the highest uncontested law of the land? It must be something like a fervent and worshipful passion for that un-named religion called “Statism”, the philosophy of worshiping authority over all else in the name of Statism; the theology of which was encapsulated accurately by one Adolf Hitler, who put it this way [1]:

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual…”

That is a classic example of Statism, and that is exactly the mindset of modern judges who deny a jury’s right and duty to nullify according to their consciences in any criminal case.

FIJA_courtesy_Webster_County_Nebraska

There is a wonderful article at the Fully Informed Jury Association website which plainly shows why We The People, when confronted with this sort of corruption coming from a damned judge, are morally justified in outright lying to the prosecuting attorneys and the judge during Voir Dire (the process of screening jurors with, by, and for bias favoring the government).  Read it here — http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_surviving_voir_dire.pdf

 

Salute!

Elias Alias, editor

See also: “Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking It To Leviathan”, co-authored by Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, and Don Doig, co-founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association > HERE <

1 – Page 13 in  The Ominous Parallels  by Leonard Peikoff; copyright 1982 by Leonard Peikoff; published by the Penguin Group, Penguin Putnam, Inc., 275 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014; foreword by Ayn Rand; no ISBN in my paperback copy; Library of Congress number: 83-60247.

About Author

Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net

Comments

  1. Elias Alias Author 7 September, 2016, 21:10

    One bright ray is relative to this article. The court could not find any way to prosecute citizen-journalist Pete Santilli, so charges against him have been dropped.

    http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/malheur-pete-santilli-prosecutors-case-dismiss-request/

    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor

    Reply this comment
    • Pontus 7 September, 2016, 23:11

      Now Santilli is off to Nevada for prosecution for the Bundy Ranch stand-off.

      Reply this comment
      • Elias Alias Author 8 September, 2016, 01:56

        Yes….Bundy Ranch, where, I’m told, he had, OMG! … a G_U_N!
        OMG! The criminality never ceases!

        And btw, I can’t recall, so maybe you can help me. What, after all, might be Santilli’s, or anyone else’s, “Crime” at Bundy Ranch? Was their crime the fact that they armed themselves AFTER the government drew down on them with snipers? Was it the fact that they were peacefully assembled, while exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?
        Who died there? What was the “crime”? Was it just the fact that a bunch of cowboys and militiamen stood up to two hundred BLM thugs and contractors and just said “No” to the berserk government? Help me recall what the “crime” was please.
        Thank you,
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor

        Reply this comment
        • Elmo 8 September, 2016, 12:02

          ‘Impeding a Federal Officer while engaged in the performance of his/her/it’s official duties’ seems to be the standard charge here (which I note incudes ‘opposing’ or ‘intimidating’ said special snowflake federal officers).

          Reply this comment
          • Josie 9 September, 2016, 21:10

            Actually, the place was shut down for the Winter months. Also, there is a Bunkhouse there for those traveling through and hiking. It’s a public use facility. Those “employees” are pretty useless actually. Our tax dollars at work in the middle of nowhere.

        • Bryce Canyon 8 September, 2016, 15:02

          Elias it seems to me, based on past memory, that Pete didn’t even have a weapon when he was at Bundy ranch. I could check with Deb to verify but that’s just what I recall having been stated in the past. I could be mistaken.

          But what the feds seem to be hanging their hats on is their claim that Pete put out a Call to Action for Patriots across the nation to head to Bundy ranch to defend it against the feds. They are also accusing him of casing the local motels to report where the feds were staying and thus acting on behalf of the Bundy cause due to his intelligence gathering contribution. Seems to me that would fall under the umbrella of being a journalist but the feds won’t let the facts interfere with their corruption.

          Their claim is that Pete was simply a mouthpiece for the Bundy cause. Interesting to hear that that’s now a crime in the good old USA.

          The feds HAD TO drop the charges against Pete up in Oregon, as I’ve been saying since day one, because Pete hadn’t committed any crimes. I for one listened to perhaps every word Pete spoke over the air during the occupation, up through his arrest, and it was obvious that all Pete ever was was a journalist and commentator. His 1st Amendment rights clearly protected both.

          I’ve said since day one that Pete would be a wealthy man as a result of his unlawful persecution by the feds. He’s been jailed for 7.5 months as a result of Oregon charges. He’s now being held for Nevada.

          The fed’s ONLY objective here has been to shut Pete up because he’s acted as the eyes and ears of the Patriot movement. They’ve wanted to cut him out of the equation in their effort to kill the cause. It’s an act of tyranny and corruption in its most overt form. It’s caused me to lose any respect that I once had for the FBI and federal system before any of this came to pass, a true eye-opener.

          The next in line will be whether they drop the baton with the other defendants in Oregon as well. Time will tell. Ammon Bundy gave a video statement which was posted on Facebook in which he stated that only last week the feds had offered Pete Santilli a plea deal in which they were going to reduce all charges to misdemeanor status. Pete REFUSED, for which Ammon offered great respect.

          The fed behavior in both of the Bundy events is egregiously despicable. .It’s an absolute banner of shame on the federal system. It’s an undeniable account of evidence of federal abuse and corruption. My prayer is that the general public will wake up and become educated in what the state of our nation has truly come to.

          Jury nullification may be our greatest ally in our cause. Let’s pray that that seed is planted deeply with any of those whom sit in judgment of our fellow Patriots. Elias has posted some great details regarding nullification. Now let’s do all we can to saturate the jury with their freedoms and options.

          Regarding Pete Santilli, regardless of the possible consequences against the feds, you can bet family money that they’ll keep him locked up in Nevada until AFTER the trial and AFTER the November elections. The last thing on the planet that they want to see is to give Pete Santilli a voice in any of this as it continues to unfold.

          This is political persecution at the highest level. What an amazing treat it would be to see Pete back on the air in the weeks to come as all of this unfolds.

          The Wrath of Pete Santilli would be such a JOY to be a part of…

          Reply this comment
      • don sheets 8 September, 2016, 17:11

        We have mindless morons spraying us like bugs, why wouldn’t we want to have kangaroo
        courts run by more morons( truly brainless ones at that) to lie to everyone about our “laws”.
        Will the treason ever stop?

        Reply this comment
    • ZebBlanchard 8 September, 2016, 06:47
    • Let it loose 8 September, 2016, 21:04

      That is good news. I hope Santilli will unleash the info that the judges and feds would not want the people to hear. The road is narrowing greatly and leading to rebellion and civil war.

      Reply this comment
    • Rick 9 September, 2016, 10:19

      Judge Brown should be asked to step aside in this one.

      Reply this comment
    • Josie 9 September, 2016, 21:06

      The judge seemed “concerned” as to whether or not any of the jurors are Mormons. I guess in her narrow view, Mormons aren’t qualified for jury duty. Amazing, isn’t it.

      Reply this comment
    • Norton II 10 September, 2016, 13:06

      Yes, it was bittersweet to see Pete leave. he’ll have to be elsewhere when we flatten the house of cards they call the Malhure Case. Withal, the seven of us left are the “All Ins” and are spoiling for the fight. Note that even hearing the “N” word – nullification – spoken by the judge in open court is an advance. Judge Brown is carrying our water for us. I’m about as informed in this case as anyone, including the prosecution, and doubt that we’ll even need jury nullification. The entire affair is so shot through with hyperbole , contradictions of fact and tenuous leaps of reasoning that we;ll make monkeys out of those three sacrificial lambs – the prosecutors.

      Reply this comment
  2. LInda 8 September, 2016, 07:12

    Folks can try lighting up the Judge’s phone lines with comments about her un-Constitutional (and dishonorable) behavior:

    Chambers (503) 326-8350

    Administrative Law Clerk:
    Sandra Dixon (503) 326-8350

    Courtroom Deputy: Bonnie Boyer (503) 326-8053

    Court Reporter: Amanda LeGore (503) 326-8184

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 8 September, 2016, 17:55

      Plus do not forget that breaking the Oath that she was REQUIRED to take and keep is also a felony plus the crime of Perjury.

      Dr. Vieira puts it this way: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

      … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”. What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do.

      Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion.

      But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.” (end Dr. Vieira quote)

      So how does this apply? Is this judge doing the duty required of her by (both) the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution, both of which she is Oath bound to.

      The Oregon Constitution is the HIGHEST LAW of that state (except where if might conflict with the US Constitution which is supreme).

      Preamble to the Oregon Constitution: “We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution.”

      Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people: “We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.”

      Section 10. Administration of justice: “No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation.”

      Section 11. Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; provided, however, that any accused person, in other than capital cases, and with the consent of the trial judge, may elect to waive trial by jury and consent to be tried by the judge of the court alone, such election to be in writing; provided, however, that in the circuit court ten members of the jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, save and except a verdict of guilty of first degree murder, which shall be found only by a unanimous verdict, and not otherwise; provided further, that the existing laws and constitutional provisions relative to criminal prosecutions shall be continued and remain in effect as to all prosecutions for crimes committed before the taking effect of this amendment.
      [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 4, 1931, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1932; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 4, 1931 (2d s.s.), and adopted by the people May 18, 1934]
      Note: The leadline to section 11 was a part of the measure submitted to the people by S.J.R. 4, 1931.”

      Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; POWER OF THE JURY IN CRIMINAL CASE: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases. (caps are mine)

      Section 26. Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature: “No law shall be passed restraining any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their Representatives; nor from applying to the Legislature for redress of greviances [sic].”

      Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]”

      Section 33. Enumeration of rights not exclusive: “This enumeration of rights, and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.”

      Section 1. Separation of powers: “The powers of the Government shall be divided into three separate branches, the Legislative, the Executive, including the administrative, and the Judicial; and no person charged with official duties under one of these branches, shall exercise any of the functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly provided. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 44, 2011, and adopted by the people Nov. 6, 2012]”

      Section 5. Juries; indictment; information. [Created through initiative petition filed July 7, 1910, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1910; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 23, 1957, and adopted by the people Nov. 4, 1958; Repeal proposed by S.J.R. 1, 1973, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 1974 (present section 5 of this Article adopted in lieu of this section)]

      Section 5. Juries; indictment; information; verdict in civil cases.: “(1) The Legislative Assembly shall provide by law for:
      (a) Selecting juries and qualifications of jurors;
      (b) Drawing and summoning grand jurors from the regular jury list at any time, separate from the panel of petit jurors;
      (c) Empaneling more than one grand jury in a county; and
      (d) The sitting of a grand jury during vacation as well as session of the court.
      (2) A grand jury shall consist of seven jurors chosen by lot from the whole number of jurors in attendance at the court, five of whom must concur to find an indictment.
      (3) Except as provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person shall be charged in a circuit court with the commission of any crime punishable as a felony only on indictment by a grand jury.
      (4) The district attorney may charge a person on an information filed in circuit court of a crime punishable as a felony if the person appears before the judge of the circuit court and knowingly waives indictment.
      (5) The district attorney may charge a person on an information filed in circuit court if, after a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, the person has been held to answer upon a showing of probable cause that a crime punishable as a felony has been committed and that the person has committed it, or if the person knowingly waives preliminary hearing.
      (6) An information shall be substantially in the form provided by law for an indictment. The district attorney may file an amended indictment or information whenever, by ruling of the court, an indictment or information is held to be defective in form.
      (7) In civil cases three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. [Created through S.J.R. 1, 1973, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 1974 (this section adopted in lieu of former section 5 of this Article)]”

      Section 6. Incompetency or malfeasance of public officer: “Public officers shall not be impeached; but incompetency, corruption, malfeasance or delinquency in office may be tried in the same manner as criminal offenses, and judgment may be given of dismissal from office, and such further punishment as may have been prescribed by law. [Created through initiative petition filed July 7, 1910, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1910]”

      Section 7. Oath of office of Judges of Supreme Court: “Every judge of the supreme court, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe, and transmit to the secretary of state, the following oath:
      “I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Oregon, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of a judge of the supreme court of this state, according to the best of my ability, and that I will not accept any other office, except judicial offices, during the term for which I have been elected.” [Created through initiative petition filed July 7, 1910, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1910]”

      Section 8. Removal, suspension or censure of judges: ” (1) In the manner provided by law, and notwithstanding section 1 of this Article, a judge of any court may be removed or suspended from his judicial office by the Supreme Court, or censured by the Supreme Court, for:
      (a) Conviction in a court of this or any other state, or of the United States, of a crime punishable as a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude; or
      (b) Wilful misconduct in a judicial office where such misconduct bears a demonstrable relationship to the effective performance of judicial duties; or
      (c) Wilful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties; or
      (d) Generally incompetent performance of judicial duties; or
      (e) Wilful violation of any rule of judicial conduct as shall be established by the Supreme Court; or
      (f) Habitual drunkenness or illegal use of narcotic or dangerous drugs.
      (2) Notwithstanding section 6 of this Article, the methods provided in this section, section 1a of this Article and in section 18, Article II of this Constitution, are the exclusive methods of the removal, suspension, or censure of a judge. [Created through S.J.R. 9, 1967, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 1968; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 48, 1975, and adopted by the people May 25, 1976]”

      Section 9. Juries of less than 12 jurors: “Provision may be made by law for juries consisting of less than 12 but not less than six jurors. [Created through S.J.R. 17, 1971, and adopted by the people Nov. 7, 1972]”

      Highest law in the state of Oregon and we can see by the Oath requirement that the judge is BOUND to support both the US Constitution, supreme law of this land, and the Oregon Constitution.

      Reply this comment
      • dave 9 September, 2016, 02:30

        Has not the states “so-called” judge Tampered with the Jury Pool?

        Reply this comment
        • Elias Alias Author 9 September, 2016, 02:51

          Indeed, she has. That is to her shame, and to our nation’s detriment. These men are political prisoners because they made a stand to get valuable information about federal management of public lands being unlawful. The government will do anything to shut them up, make them look like fools, and use them to set an example for the rest of us, so that we know to keep our mouths shut and accept our slavery. This judge is an abomination.
          Thank you for pointing out that the judge is guilty of jury tampering.
          Salute!
          Elias Alias, editor

          Reply this comment
      • James on Oregon 9 September, 2016, 09:47

        Thank you for your great research and insights!

        Reply this comment
  3. finter 8 September, 2016, 08:19

    Yes Mr Alias you are correct. I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar but I feel that I have the jist of it. The constitution after all, means what it says. I do not see that any of these people have violated it, nor have any of them committed any crime. Club fed on the other hand has committed the ultimate crime of not recognizing their constitutional rights. All of those involved have sworn the oath and broken it. They are the ones who need to be on trial and the judge in this case needs to be held accountable for her obviouse crimes and jailed accordingly.
    Will it happen…? not likely but we all know what is happening here and it will not stand forever. It cant stand forever. One day….Perhaps not in our lifetimes, true justice will prevail and it will end.

    Reply this comment
    • Elias Alias Author 8 September, 2016, 14:55

      I do not personally see much hope while the American people are addicted to television. I do not see much hope while the American people worship the government over their own powers of reason and conscience. Some, like you, are seeing clearly, but I notice that any time a damned president walks into a room in WDC the people all stand and applaud, like he is some kind of god. Everyone seems to be looking for a “leader”, instead of looking inside their own souls and realizing that therein reside those “Unalienable Rights” to which Thomas Jefferson alluded — rights which come from a higher authority than any “authority” claimed by any damned man-made government. I would say that once Americans figure out that the whole “Left-Right” paradigm is a false illusion put in place by powers they never see, and throw out the televisions and step outside to interact with their good neighbors, at that point consciousness could, and probably would, correct this nation’s course.
      A self-owner is the opposite of a slave. Group-think diminishes individuality, whether roaring in a football stadium for “one’s team”, or screaming frenzied support for some stupid politician who by the very act of running for office announces his belief in the power of government. May I say this please? Every election cycle the same cry goes up — “I know he has flaws, but he must win or we’ll get the worst of two flawed candidates”. Gotta vote for Trump, lest Hitlery gets in. That is the fable, the folly, the fatal fear thought which has cooked this nation’s goose. That is the psychological game implanted into the group mind of the national psyche, the meme inserted into our perceptions, and almost everyone falls for it. There is no answer inside that beltway in WDC, no matter what one’s television set tells one to the contrary.

      I often recall what one of my friends says — “Don’t vote — it only encourages them.” 😉

      Claim your soul, withdraw consent from outside “authority”, go inside the mind and individualize oneself to pull away from the mass perception. Become a self-owner. For any who do that, a whole new world opens up.

      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      Reply this comment
      • Strong Horse 8 September, 2016, 20:48

        Elais,
        Great comment brother. I agree 100% with every word you typed.
        In fact, I have been telling anyone who would listen, (for years), these very same things. As I know you have been.
        I wonder if they will ever listen to us old farts who have figured out the problem?

        We can only hope.
        For the Republic, (if we can restore it),
        David

        Reply this comment
  4. Jeff 8 September, 2016, 08:21

    Both the prosecutor and the defense pic the jury.

    Reply this comment
    • HAL 8 September, 2016, 20:25

      Yes both sides do pick the jury. The problem is however that the Prosecutor wil reject any and all until enough of the Boobus Americanus mindset have been found too ignorant to do nothing but listen to the oath breaking judge.

      Reply this comment
      • Thom* 9 September, 2016, 06:36

        As the way of the United States of America goes so goes the world. “Inflated ego”? “No” “It’s a fact that if it were not for the United States of America the wold would be ruled either by Germany, Japan, Russia, and a very slim chance until just recently, China. All these countries have limited access to freedom and are or was ruled by intimidation and brute force.

        If the good men of the United States of America do nothing we are destined to the same faith.

        I leave the following memo for people like judge brown of Portland Oregon.

        Isaiah 33:1
        Woe to you, O destroyer, While you were not destroyed; And he who is treacherous, while others did not deal treacherously with him. As soon as you finish destroying, you will be destroyed; As soon as you cease to deal treacherously, others will deal treacherously with you.

        Reply this comment
  5. flinter 8 September, 2016, 08:22

    I truly fear for the continued existence of our free republic. It looks to be at an end but I shall not give up hope that one day….The people will rise again.

    Reply this comment
  6. Roger 8 September, 2016, 09:29

    Founding member of OKs here.

    It’s been 4-1/2 years since oath-breaking Feds signed the NDAA essentially destroying our Bill of Rights. It’s been 2-1/2 years since the disastrous ‘Bundy Ranch standoff’. Cliven Bundy and other patriots are incarcerated with no justice in sight. Oath-breaking Feds grabbed victory from the jaws of defeat. And Oath Keeper’s is screwing around with a possible bicycle hit-and-run in New York City?

    What would I rather see happening? Mercy, stop frivolous official ‘Call-To-Actions’ asking members to send cards and flowers to cops. Show strength instead of weakness. Start with oath-breaking Sheriffs. Pick a dirt bag and go after him. Put up a no-holds-barred billboard on Main Street. Picket his office, his home. Use civil disobedience if necessary. MAKE IT PERSONAL until he resigns. Next Sheriff UP!

    Ridiculous you say? OK. We can continue kicking the can down the road, focused on oaths to a Constitution that was destroyed 4-1/2 years ago.

    Reply this comment
    • Tuaca 8 September, 2016, 13:35

      Great comment thank you very much Roger!!! I have been thinking the “Call-To-Arms’ to send cards and flowers was the stupidist thing OK has done to date!!

      Reply this comment
      • Ichabod 14 September, 2016, 06:21

        Perhaps OK could form a ladiy’s (and gentlemen’s, for those so inclined) auxiliary to perform these cards and flowers calls- to- action. Then those who are more inclined to a different kind of action could use the training they learned as military and LE to perform those actions for which they may have joined OK for in the first place. My wife was asked to join a scrapbooking class a few years back. Perhaps I should consider joining,as I’m sure it would be beneficial in improving my card-making abilities should I decide to ever join OK.

        Reply this comment
  7. Yoda 8 September, 2016, 09:52

    None of this surprises me at all. I expected nothing less. After all, we are witnessing the prosecution of political prisoners. This is not really about who carried a weapon. This is about who challenged the federal government’s claim of land ownership. We challenged their right to steal and extort from citizens. The government does not fear the people. The people now fear the government. This condition reveals the truth about the reality of the loss of liberty in this nation. As we oppose them, who is it that prevails? We can point to the Constitution but we will do so from the gulag. This is a condition that both Hitler and Stalin would agree on.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 9 September, 2016, 09:40

      “We can point to the Constitution but we will do so from the gulag.”

      This is where you are mistaken. No one is to “point to the Constitution”, they are to be trained to enforce it. What does that require? That requires training as the congress requires the military to be trained, and because the Militia is bound to the US Constitution and their own state Constitution as their “boss” they are required to educate themselves in both.

      The US Constitution REQUIRES, in writing, that both those that serve within the state governments and the federal governments use the Militia to;
      — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
      — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
      — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

      The only excuse both those that serve within each state’s government and those that serve within the federal government have is that there is not enough “regulated” Militia to use for those purposes. By that constitutional requirement they are FORBIDDEN to use any other group, agency, etc for those purposes. But until we can provide a trained and educated Militia, the feds use the DHS, TSA, BLM, state LEA’s, etc for those purposes – though there is no lawful authority for any of those agencies/departments.

      So before the US Constitution can be enforced (as it is in writing) we will continue to have fraudulent elections, people who “serve” within our governments doing unlawful and *terrorist activities against the American people and against the people of their state.

      *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      Until more who serve as the enforcers are replaced because they are NOT keeping their required Oaths by the Militia, and until the American people step up and do the duties RETAINED by the framers for us to perform to keep our nation free – whatever their age as long as they are over age 16 – we will continue to have problems.

      Law enforcement and military that took and are trying to keep the Oath, you cannot do so as either an LE or as the military because if you do not follow those unlawful orders you will either be harmed by the domestic enemies or traitors that serve within you, or by those that they send out to do so; or you will be imprisoned as many already have been. What you must do is become the Militia, when working for the state and federal governments it is a paid position.

      America is a “police state” because you are not, cannot keep your Oath. But that Oath REQUIRES you to support and defend the US Constitution, your state Constitution first above and before the orders of superiors and before the duties of the position you occupy. Read again for yourself. Think about this and see if you do not come to the same conclusion.

      Reply this comment
  8. pstramer 8 September, 2016, 12:05

    The Bundys should have listened to Anna Von Reitz when she told them how to correct their status, get back to the land jurisdiction, and get out of the corporate tribunal. More than that, they should have listened to Stewart Rhodes and left that damn refuge before Lavoy was murdered. They had the opportunity to leave in the middle of the night 2 days before. What can we do? We can’t crack people’s heads open and pour the information in to make them smarter.
    Unless they challenge the jurisdiction of the corporate tribunal masquerading as the federal court, which operates strictly in the jurisdiction of the sea, and get back to the law of the land (constitution) they haven’t got a prayer. The federal so called “courts” will not allow constitutional arguments. They are so evil they will not allow ANY truth in the courtroom.
    habeas corpus is the only way. http://annavonreitz.com/habeascorpussupreme.pdf&gt;

    Reply this comment
    • James on Oregon 9 September, 2016, 09:44

      Right on! No other issues but JURISDICTION. Never argue the merits. BUT…as PSTRAMER points out, they have taken attorneys and they are pleading within the foreign, private, corporate “court” where the constitutions do not apply! Their reasons for occupying the Refuge as an act of acceptable “civil disobedience” cannot be deemed “necessary” because their RIGHTS and the limitations of the organic original-jurisdiction government are OUTSIDE the considerations of this fictional corporate “court”. They MUST NOT argue the merits (“did they or didn’t they”) or they will surely lose. The system is indeed rigged for those who have not studied it for years. And the Appeals process will also be so rigged.

      Reply this comment
    • Chant 9 September, 2016, 14:16

      Dead on. They will be tried in a court of Statutory Jurisdiction (Admiralty Law) not a Article III court of Constitutional Law. If they had Constitutional Lawyers they should have been fighting to have the case moved to a Article III court. But they are probably members of the BAR, so that was never going to happen.

      This judge, like all judges, is well aware of the right of Jury Nullification. The “law” she will be instructing jurors on, will actually be corporate statute, not actual law under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I’m afraid there is little hope for them at this point, they are already on the rails and about to be railroaded. In all honesty with the shape the county is currently in, if I were this judge the last thing I would want would be to have my name connected with this case. The American people are getting pissed, and they have a long memory. The crash-and-burn for the status quo is just around the corner. Its pretty unavoidable now.

      I’m not sure if I agree with the part about them leaving the refuge in the middle of the night. Like the Bundys, they just would have been rounded up one at a time, and I believe more of them would have been killed while “resisting”, but in those cases there would have been much less documented evidence as to what actually happened. I have no doubt that the government intended that “lessons be taught” no matter what. The public outrage at Lavoy’s execution wasn’t expected, so that probably saved a few others from being “killed while resisting” later on.

      Reply this comment
  9. WGP 8 September, 2016, 14:05

    …someday, there will be sufficient outrage against these criminal judges…until then, injustices will reign, citizens will suffer the continued tyrannical oppression. When a mass number of “junk” judges are physically removed, then the remaining judges will get the hint. No outrage, no action from the public, no cure.

    Reply this comment
  10. lifeofliberty 8 September, 2016, 18:01

    Elias. If you’re the same Elias I once knew over on Wolf’s forum, you’ve gone seriously downhill. Too bad, I once respected you. But not this Elias. Not even.

    Those f’n morons that occupied the refuge are going to get what they deserve. No, I never did support this assinine “effort” as it was misguided, co-opted and stupid. They are not hero’s, just more idiotic knee-jerk fools who picked the wrong agenda.

    Yeah, I’m still around.

    Reply this comment
    • Elias Alias Author 9 September, 2016, 00:39

      Well, my goodness! I do believe I’ve lost your respect, but in your chastising me you have failed to retain my respect in several ways. First, I’ve no idea who you are. Your “private@xxx” email address doesn’t tell me who you are. And if you were referring to Ms Wolfe, it may behoove you to remember that she spells her name with an “e” on the end of it. For our purposes here, I will presume that you’re talking about The Claire Files, where Claire Wolfe “herself” reigned supreme.
      What you may want to know is that I’m the guy who had that forum created for her, way back in 2003. It was a gift to her from The Mental Militia, which I named yet earlier, back in 1999. You may read the history of all that at my own website — https://thementalmilitia.net/2015/12/12/history-of-the-mental-militia/

      Go ahead and check that out, so you’ll get your bearings on me over the past sixteen years. Then you will most likely shudder when you learn that Claire Wolfe and I still, to this day, enjoy a fine friendship. She has a landing page at my site, here — https://thementalmilitia.net/claire-wolfe/ — in fact, you may be horrified to see the lineup of good souls who have landing pages at my site. Please understand that I am behind on loading many of those pages, but if you scroll this page and mouse-over the “Landing Page” links under each entry there, you’ll be able to see most of the voices I’m collecting up there. Go ahead, take a peek — https://thementalmilitia.net/allied-camps/ — But while you’re reading the History of The Mental Militia page, be sure to click on the link which will take you to the very first forum Oath Keepers had, which was hatched right there at The Mental Militia forums — here — https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=21169.0 I built that temporary forum for Stewart to hold Oath Keepers until he could get his new webmaster to create the permanent Oath Keepers forum, and if you look at the date on that post you’ll see that it was created in March of 2009.
      But don’t forget to visit my welcome page where you’ll begin to see what I’m building at the site — https://thementalmilitia.net/welcome/

      But now allow me please to take you to school for a moment. First, you will be surprised to notice after all that the above article is not about the good cowboys who made a brave stand against the Federal government’s over-reach regarding management of public lands within the boundaries of States. It’s not about them at all. They are just the targets of an out-of-control and quite belligerent government which no longer feels it should act according to its founding legal charter. What the above article is about is the corrupt authoritarianism infesting modern-day courts across the land, most specifically as the courts generally abuse the rights and duties of jurors selected to sit in the jury box for criminal trials. The article is about an arrogant judge informing the world that there will not be any “Jury Nullification” allowed in her court. That is a blatant and offensive stance for anyone holding a black-robed judge job in any court belonging to We The People, and the article by former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe, to which I linked in the above article, backs up my position nicely. Did you chance to read that before you decided to rake me over your coals? If not, I’m inviting you now to scroll back up to the article and read what’s waiting for you at this link — https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-first-branch/

      Jury Nullification is what the article is about, not whether or not the cowboys were right or wrong in making their stand. But don’t worry. I’m not going to hold it against you that you’ve missed the point of the whole article. I’m into Love’s Thought System these days, and forgiveness is my escape from the past, so I’m sending you a bunch of nice healing vibes in hopes that you’ll be less inclined to lash out at people like me in the future, yes? Be well, Bro.
      And btw, why not let me know who you are, eh? Especially let me know if you were referring to Claire Wolfe when you mentioned the “Wolf forums”. Thanks.
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      Reply this comment
  11. wally58 8 September, 2016, 18:37

    This will end up like the Branch Davidian so-called trial. Even if the jury finds them innocent, the judge will throw that out and throw the book at them. Welcome to the Great United Soviet Socialist Satanic Stasi States of Amerika, komrades.

    Reply this comment
  12. D3F1ANT 8 September, 2016, 18:55

    Bundy is ALREADY screwed…and Hillary just continues to skate on EVERY new piece of evidence against her in MYRIAD crimes! Amazing.

    Reply this comment
  13. Linda 9 September, 2016, 05:14

    I just read/saw on fb one of the defendants wore a shirt to court with judicial quotes on front and back. One quote: “Jury Rights. The pages of history shine on the existence of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge. Us v Dougherty…1972”. Another quote: “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy…Chief Justice Supreme Court” Excellent!!!

    Reply this comment
    • Josie 9 September, 2016, 10:31

      And the Judge told him not to wear that again, while she was conducting her “fashion” approval of the desperados on Trial.

      Reply this comment
    • Elias Alias Author 9 September, 2016, 12:14

      Yes, and we notice that the judge outlawed that shirt in her courtroom, lol.

      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      Reply this comment
  14. Sgtyork 9 September, 2016, 05:59

    All in all this is quite simple as its just another case of our Governments providing Americans with a HUNG JURY.

    Reply this comment
  15. Unknown Ranger 9 September, 2016, 05:59

    The question is who are the villain’s ; Assault with a deadly weapon on a Federal officer is a felony ; That would normally be the case here , but the BLM actually is a corporation , which behaves like predatorial criminal’s , they do the betting for these International criminal corporation’s , that need resources for profit ; This Judge Anna Brown is in appointed judge , that is brought off by the corporation’s . We The People have been taken over by Foreign corporation’s , that own our Government , which is Fascism , that’s why , what this judge is doing concerning the jury selection makes know common sense ; Jury Notification is part of our Constitutional construct’s , this judge’s job is too make sure , that this is never introduced during this kangaroo court at all during the hearing’s as they proceed forward illuminating all fairness to the Bundy’s . The villain’s are the corporate Federal government . The Bundy’s are the victims , that were standing their ground against a hostile take over of their ranch by a foreign domestic enemy . Yes ; This judge is part of a criminal syndication and she real make sure , that the Bundy’s real never see the light of day ; We can talk all night and day about
    the criminal aspects of what is occurring at this sick kind of pandora’s box and how rigged it really is and how terminally ill our justice system has become inside our Republic over the year’s and
    the Constitutionality of this whole process and she real still drop the hammer at the end of the trial ; This whole process is a violation of the R.E.C.O. Act , when she’s done doing her evil act ; This should be a day of National out rage !!!!!

    Reply this comment
  16. Times such as these 9 September, 2016, 06:12

    What this court case needs would be 500 to 1,000+ silent but armed Patriots assembled around the court structure throughout the trial. And not agreeing to be interviewed individually by the elite’s press and only issue statements through assigned Patriots with a common message.
    The show of silent force would be deafening on many levels- freedom to assemble- freedom of speech-freedom to have and bear firearms with a message that comes from every state’s constitution that ” the right’s of the people to alter, abolish government that no longer represents the People”, etc. What would be even better would be Protest’s at each nations capital or even their county offices at same time and with similar numbers of folks. Perhaps the best effort is protest at county level versus state capital?
    It’s time whether we admit it or not that the level of protest must remain peaceful never being the instigator but become more forceful in ensuring that corruption is confronted directly. We will probably see an increase in the local militias as a result of kangaroo courts such as this where a man has no chance but conviction by the corrupt. When it reaches the level of a widening split, and it surely has, and judges are being arrested by citizens for crimes of treason, unconstitutional efforts and held by local sympathetic county sheriffs we will see more of a divide among who is corrupt and who is just that does the true work on fair justice judgment from the bench.
    There is no alternative to what must occur in order to topple and remove the shadow govt and it’s corrupt minions from power. The Founding Father’s knew it and it’s the reason why our right to bear arms is so specifically enumerated.

    Reply this comment
  17. Imperator 9 September, 2016, 14:37

    I suggest that during voir dire, Patriotic men & women of good and true conscience collude with one another, “Cross my heart & hope to die, stick a needle in my eye…” and then “tell the prosecutor/judge a great big, beautiful LIE…” when questioned about their belief in/knowledge of jury nullification. Listen dutifully, attentively even, then return a swift, stinging “NOT GUILTY” verdict as a slap in the face of Judge, Prosecutor, and Leviathan.

    No explanation required, none offered – simply, “We, the people of the jury, in the above-entitled matter, do find the Defendant (s) NOT GUILTY on/of all charges preferred…”

    I’m willing to bet Judge Brown would then sooner swallow her own tongue, than to graciously thank the jusry for their service, as is customary….The thing is, while a judge might overturn/vacate another judge’s proscribed sentence, departing downward (or upward, as in the highly irregular case of the Hammonds…) a judge is entirely without the power/authority to vacate/overturn the “Not Guilty” finding of a jury in a criminal matter.

    It would be a beautiful thing to watch!

    Reply this comment
  18. TR 9 September, 2016, 16:24

    May God be with ya’ll and may the truth come out about our lying government .

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 9 September, 2016, 18:43

      First, judges are ALLOWED to retain the position they occupy for as long as they use “Good Behaviour” (US Constitution spelling). The US Constitution tells us itself what is “Good Behaviour”, doing their duty as the Constitutions – US Constitution and state Constitution (where it applies); plus taking and KEEPING the required Oaths. Those are the only things they are required to do to stay in “Good Behaviour” and be able to retain that position for life. But when they do not use “Good Behaviour” it is the juries of the people that are to know, recognize, and report on judges behaviour that they feel is NOT “good”. Charges must be filed (Yes, the US Constitution itself is LAW, as is each state’s Constitution) so that the judge has their day to defend themselves for the actions as all charged are supposed to be able to do.

      If found guilty, a fine, and removal, plus refusal to allow them to hold any position that has anything to do with our governments like “lobbying”, contracting to, etc. 100% removed from our governments. If the crimes committed they can be removed permanently from the USA.

      Yes, there are historic precedents for these things but at this time am not on a computer with those notes – will try to post them soon. Sorry all, I should have waited to comment.

      God Bless All, and Stay Safe

      Cal
      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

      Reply this comment
    • Josie 9 September, 2016, 21:22

      Oh, no no. Mizz Brown, the black-robed wannabe tyrant made very clear, it is not admissible to put the Feds on Trial here. Even though they ramped up the whole situation and cold-bloodedly murdered a citizen. The plan was probably to kill them all, but they weren’t clever enough to pull it off.

      Reply this comment
  19. Little Stinker 10 September, 2016, 03:04

    All I need to know about this government can be seen on YouTube search:

    1. Blasphemy Commissioner’s in Florida pledge allegiance to Satan and Allah. WTF

    2. TYRANNY, U.N. FLAG STANDS TALLER THAN U.S. FLAG
    AGAIN WTF

    Reply this comment
  20. helpful55 10 September, 2016, 03:19

    I have had a problem with this myself. I knew my charges could certainly be up to interpretation whether they were in fact a crime. I brought up jury nullification and my attorney went right to asking me about it as if they wanted to find a way to deny my use of it even though it is a right that was in our system for many years until the power hungry ones worked to rid of us it. The judge would not include information about jury nullification in the jury instructions. In fact the jury was instructed in a way about how they must apply the law to where I believe they may have been scared into feeling that they may become a target of the court if they didn’t do it the courts way. There was no leeway to really be a determiner of guilt when you are told “you must follow the law…..”. Juries are pressured into giving verdicts that they may not agree with. I believe for many they feel they are almost an accused when they are put into a courtroom surrounded by the legal system and don’t want to do anything wrong or they may be sitting beside me. If they were told of the power and options they have those fears would be allayed somewhat and they would be free to operate in the ways the originally set up court system meant them to be. It is a very necessary part of due process. The people in power want to have everything their way and will take nothing else.

    Reply this comment
  21. PeaceableGuy 10 September, 2016, 10:45

    I’m familiar with FIJA’s good work, and was thus rather surprised to see this article’s claim that FIJA encourages “outright lying” even to a blatantly corrupt prosecutor or judge. After reading the linked FIJA pamphlet, it appears to me that this claim by the article is completely incorrect – the pamphlet explicitly states to have an intelligent, concise statement ready in the case of being unable to answer a question without lying (the paragraph header is “When All Else Fails”).

    Personally, I find it hard to condemn as wrong a person who lies to criminals, particularly when the person’s cause is just and/or morally upstanding. FIJA does not appear to openly share my views on outright lying, however, and I think the claim does everyone but enemies of the Constitution a disservice.

    Reply this comment
  22. Bob 10 September, 2016, 11:57

    the justice system put in place by the founders has been replaced by a legal system that has been perverted by evil people who seek absolute dictatorial power. can a 2nd Revolutionary War be far away or are people going to tolerate what our founders could not tolerate?

    Reply this comment
  23. Rabid vDog 10 September, 2016, 15:55

    Most judges that say, “jurors must follow (apply) the law” is a slap in-the-face of our judicial system of checks and balances.

    If the jury must follow the law and convict a person, based ONLY on the language of the law, there might as well be no jury !

    There are countless laws that can be proven as not applicable, or unjust, and even stupid. It’s up to the jury to decide that and in many cases, the law has been changed because of jury nullification.

    The best way to get on the jury (I guess) is to lie your way in and THEN do the right thing. That’s where it’s going….

    Reply this comment
    • Elias Alias Author 10 September, 2016, 16:22

      I’d say that you are correct. Many “statutes” and “codes” are clearly un-Constitutional, such as those under which LEOs killed rural Americans for making home-made whiskey during the unlawful “Prohibition”. The damned government has never been empowered to own any citizen’s body (for that would be blatant slavery), yet because of special interests the do-gooders used the force of government to enforce their good neighbors’ behavior regarding alcoholic beverages. When the government presumes to own one’s body (which is what is meant behind any “prohibition” law regulating what we eat, smoke, drink, or breathe) the government has assumed, under the rubric of “morality”, some un-Constitutional “right” to own our bodies. That is slavery by anyone’s definition, because only self-owners are free people, and no one can be a self-owner when government claims to own one’s body. Just imagine how the fedgov agent who was the last man to shoot a West Virginia or Tennessee or North Carolina moonshiner felt the day after Prohibition was repealed, right? One day he’s “just doing my job” to take a life, and the next day, were he to shoot that same man, his shooting would be murder. It’s the same damn thing going on in this country today over the marijuana issue. Fortunately, and this is on the record, Jury Nullification was largely responsible for the repeal of the un-Constitutional “laws” against
      booze.
      When the damned judge decides to prohibit the jury’s consciences, it’s damn-well time to lie one’s way onto the jury where one can do one’s duty to one’s fellow man by nullifying that “law” for that one defendant, in that one trial. That is why the founders made sure that jury trials would be part of this nation’s lawful process.
      Note also — when a jury exercises its right and duty to nullify, the jury is not changing the “law”, not taking that law off the books, but is merely nullifying that law in that one instance, during that one trial, for that one defendant. The dumbstruck little statists who want the government to run our lives for us will often argue against jury nullification by accusing us of “legislating” from the jury box. They are wrong, and most of them who accuse us of that know they’re wrong, but will themselves lie, just like that damned judge is lying to the People with her “rules of the court” and “color of law” authoritarianism.
      Thank God the People are starting to wake up to such mischief in our “legal system”.
      Thank you for understanding this. Please tell all your friends to visit https://fija.org/ Spread the word, eh? 😉
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      Reply this comment
  24. Nick 11 September, 2016, 08:58

    Abiding the law is a two way street. If we fail in our clearly defined role “to execute the Laws of the Union”, falling prey to propaganda and ignorance, what do we expect from those who seek positions of power?
    Several comments above, Cal quotes Dr. Edwin Vieira, so I have no need to go on explaining the disabilities of government, and that of the failure of “We the People” to not only participate in this nation of “popular sovereignty”, but also to act in that manner that might “secure the blessings of liberty”.
    I will comment that with the myriad of information available on this subject, much of which is provided to us in comprehensive form by Dr. Vieira, we “still don’t get it”. Why?
    Instead of running around without the recognized force of law, these men and women could have been working to revitalize the “rule of law”. Now they are going to face the Goliath the Founders hoped we would not allow to be born again.

    Reply this comment
  25. KT 13 September, 2016, 22:32

    Hi, I am losing a lot of sleep since realizing what is happening to our country. I feel overwhelmed as I read late into the night, trying to understand what is really going on. I am shocked when I hear Loretta Lynch, DOJ wants to bring UN troops to our country, to fight extremism. I am shocked when James Comey, FBI, tells Americans that no one would indict Hillary Clinton for not keeping our national security confidential. That’s not true, as we all know. I am shocked to hear that we are making deals with Iran and delivering cash to them in the middle of the night, as our hostages are being released. Or that a top scientist that has been placed in his position by our president, has some very bad ideas about how many children we should be allowed to have. He also talked about forced sterilzation, in the 70’s I believe. Who knows what he’s thinking and talking about now! Our government has corruption throughout many departments, individuals purposely placed in high positions. It seems to me this was done to prepare for their evil endgame of taking over our country.I watched the video re Oregon last night. I am truly sorry and speechless over all I’ve recently learned. I don’t know what I should or could do. We can’t allow UN troops to come to the US. Can someone type a message about what an ordinary citizen like me can do to make a difference and stop this madness? There are some people that think it is all ok, and that nothing will happen. They say that the president will be gone soon, so we don’t have to worry. We have to somehow let all the Americans know the truth. So many people are wrapped up in their own situations/ life that they really don’t realize what a terrible situation we are all in right now. What can we do? Thank you to all of you that have served in the military, protecting all of us here at home.

    Reply this comment
  26. H. Nelson 15 September, 2016, 08:20

    Certainly it’s rigged. Judges know the real power to a court case is the jury of their peers. Weeding out those they deem unworthy in their cause to convict is what the court clerk’s job is. I found this out recently. I had jury duty, I appeared, was asked to fill out a questionnaire. The very last question was “if given testimony by a law enforcement officer, would you take their testimony as lawful and truthful?”. I answered “no”. I’m sorry, humans will lie. The badge is immaterial. The clerk went over the questionnaires and started calling names off for dismissal. My name was one of those. As we were leaving, I asked several of the dismissed how did they answer the last question. All of them replied with “no”.

    It told me right there that the system is rigged and crooked. The court system is provided work by LEO’s hauling people in, the court system in-turn protect LEO’s by culling out those that will not roll over.

    Reply this comment
  27. Agent76 17 September, 2016, 08:43

    Feb 2, 2016 Breaking: Lavoy Finicum Tased By OSP Implicates Murder By The Feds

    In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth analyses the FBI footage which appears to show Lavoy Finicum at first being tased by the Oregon State Police but then quickly executed by the feds.

    https://youtu.be/Qup47XJGIl4

    Reply this comment
  28. sjtobe 18 September, 2016, 14:44

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIU56co9B5I

    OREGON BUNDY CASE, EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS (9th Circuit)

    https://www.scribd.com/document/323789256/Mumford-Emergency-Motion

    Copy of the document

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*