Monday, June 12, 2017

Communist Federal Judge illegally Chains Innocent Defendants

No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”- Opinion by - John Jay, First chief justice US Supreme Court.


Communist Federal Judge illegally Chains Innocent Defendants


By de Andréa

Opinion Editorialist for

Posted June 12, 2017

In the case of THE UNITED STATES VS. Cliven Bundy et al, Communist Judge Gloria Navarro presiding, has demanded the defendants all wear chains throughout their hearings and trials. The simple question is, why? These men have not demonstrated violent behavior, nor have they attempted to escape from the prison system and they have been incarcerated for a year and a half without trial.  Whatever happened to cruel and unusual punishment, innocent until proven guilty, as well as a speedy trial as the Constitution demands?  My guess is that it took 18 months to falsify enough evidence as Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore claimed that the Federal government has done in order to shut these Constitutionalists up and put these American patriots away in the federal gulags for good.  Does this remained you of something? It should. “What are ya gonna do when they come fo you???” My friend…
In a response to the order by Judge Navarro, attorney for Pete Santilli, Chris Rasmussen, cited the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in May 2017 to bolster the claim that his client's rights are being violated, as are all the other defendants in the case.  What rights? There are no rights in a judicial tyranny.
"Peter Santilli hereby asserts his Fifth Amendment right to be present in Court without shackles," reads the motion.
The motion then cites the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court.
"If the government seeks to shackle a defendant, it must first justify the infringement of rights with specific security needs as to that particular defendant.  Courts must [then] "decide whether the stated need for security outweighs the infringement on a defendant's right."

The ruling adds, "All of these requirements apply regardless of a jury's presence or whether it's pretrial, trial or sentencing proceeding.  Criminal defendants, like any other party appearing in court, are entitled to enter the courtroom with their heads held high."
In other words, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have said defendants have a right to be free of shackles and handcuffs in the presence of jurors in part is to maintain the presumption of innocence until they are proven to be guilty.  Bringing these men into the courtroom in chains biases the jury and poisons the mind of jurors that these men are actually guilty before any testimony is even heard.  But of course this is the whole strategy of the Communist Judge Navarro who either has no knowledge of the Constitution or just ignores it.
Note:  that it applies not only to trial, but pre-trial and sentencing.  The ruling by the court was emphatic in its rejection of routine shackling:
"We must take seriously how we treat individuals who come into contact with our criminal justice system -- from how our police interact with them on the street to how they appear in the courtroom. How the justice system treats people in these public settings matters for the public's perception, including that of the defendant. Practices like routine shackling and 'perp walks' are inconsistent with our constitutional presumption that people who have not been convicted of a crime are innocent until proven otherwise."

"For better or worse, the presumption of innocence rests in large part on appearances. And the appearance of a defendant in court, shackled "like a bear on a chain," can undermine that presumption. Therefore, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that lower courts may no longer routinely shackle all pretrial detainees in the courtroom, even if there is no jury present," writes Christopher Coble, Esq. at
Coble went on to write, "While many courts, including in this case the Southern District of California, permitted blanket shackling policies in the past, that rule has now changed. Going forward, 'if the government seeks to shackle a defendant, it must first justify the infringement with specific security needs as to that particular defendant.' In doing so, courts are required to decide 'whether the stated need for security outweighs the infringement on a defendant's right.'"
"Supreme Court bans the use of shackles 'unless that use is 'justified by an essential state interest' -- such as the interest in courtroom security -- specific to the defendant on trial.'" he added.  "When considering a request for shackling, a court may 'take into account the factors that courts have traditionally relied on in evaluating potential security problems and the risk of escape at trial.'"
Already, defendants in the Bundy Ranch case have had their right to a speedy trial violated.  The prosecution has even stated that they could be held up to five years before it would even be considered a violation of their right to a speedy trial.  Some have been subjected by even the Democrat Party in Nevada to defamation of character via mailings to hundreds of thousands of potential jurors.  Yet, nothing is done to stop this illegal barbaric madness.  Is the presents of Sharia Law in America already having an influence on some of the courts?
The government pretty much lost its case except for two convictions in the first round of the Bundy Ranch trials.  They are out to make an example of these men to others who are willing to do what our founding fathers were willing to do and stand and oppose a tyrannical government that thinks it can violate the Constitution, the rights of the people, and illegally grab land whenever, wherever and however it chooses to do so without the threat of opposition.
Thankfully, these innocent patriots realize the stakes are high and they know the potential cost they face in making their stand.  However, it should be of great comfort that several of these men were acquitted of some of the same charges in Oregon that they are now facing in Nevada, and Santilli had all of his charges dismissed in Oregon.
“Either we must all hang together, or separately we will be hanged”.  Benjamin Franklin declared this in the days leading up to the Declaration of Independence.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Let's see if the corrupt anti-American anti-Constitutional Communist Judge Navarro - a woman who has absolutely no experience as a judge before being advanced to a federal judge position by Communist Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Muslim/Communist Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah or whatever his name is. - will totally violate the law and deny the rights of these men and continue down the totalitarian road she is traveling.  There is no doubt in my mind that Navarro is one of the judges that is part of the Dark State and has gone rogue and needs to be impeached.

In this case, it is the Federal Government that has violated the law, not the Bundy’s.  One of the “draining the swamp” actions president Trump needs to take - is the abolition of the Bureau of This my friend is in direct violation of the U.S Constitution.   

Land Management BLM.  And give back the land that it has illegally stolen from the many states.   On the Map at right, all the area in red is land that the Federal government has over the years illegally stolen from the American people. Pay particular attention to the state of Utah and Oregon and Nevada where almost none of the land is owned by citizens or the states. This my friend is in direct violation of the U.S Constitution.   
It is found in Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Which reads To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, [this refers to property in Washington DC] and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”  [This refers to the rest of the nation.] Later National parks were added to this list of land that the Federal government can legally own with the consent of the state legislatures. 
Note: The Federal government has never requested nor received permission from the states to own and control all the land indicated in red on the BLM map above.  They just stole it…
This my friend has been a pure and simple violation of the Constitution. Moreover it is an example of the tyranny that has existed in America since shortly after the Constitution was ratified.  The problem is, it was never challenged until now.  There is no statute of limitation for violating Constitutional law.   
If you are unaware of what is going on with the Bundy’s and the BLM - Read this and this.
If you are able and would like to help the Bundy Ranch political prisoners in the federal despotic gulags win their case against the tyranny of the central government or would like to write them, please click here.  If you would like to help support a house in Nevada that is caring for wives and children of these men as they attend these kangaroo trials, please click here.
After reading this information if you are as outraged as I am at the criminal activities of the Federal government, specifically the BLM and the anti-American anti-Constitutional courts, contact your representative here and tell them what you think.
Drain the Swamp Donald…           
Thanks for listening. Now go do the right thing and fight for truth and freedom. 
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

No comments: