No products in the cart.

News

Bosworth Arrest: Federal Judge Could Be Charged Under The Law

Kit Lange
Kit Lange

This article comes from the patrickhenrysociety.com

by Kit Lange | Mar 11, 2015

Under the law, the federal judge who recently signed a rule to ban firearms from federal property could be charged with a host of crimes that involve penalties including imprisonment and more.

After the 25 February arrest of Anthony Bosworth from Liberty for All in front of the federal courthouse in Spokane, WA for carrying an unloaded and legal rifle, federal authorities realized that the law was not on their side.  The law clearly stated that the property was not included in the firearms ban, and as a result they had to release Bosworth.  Obama-appointed federal judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson decided after the fact that she would simply impose her personal will on the people, and so last week she signed an order extending the ban to all the property as well.  As a result, LFA went back to the scene of the illegal arrest and stood on the same ground while armed with firearms that, this time, were loaded.

While many complained on social media that the rabble-rousers of LFA had once again “ruined it for everyone else” with their stand, the truth is that Judge Peterson was not only out of line in her decision, she was absolutely against the law. Please note 18 USC § 242, which states the following:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

That’s a lot of legalese. Let’s take it a piece at a time.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States

This is pretty clear. Anyone, anywhere, who uses a law, statute, etc. to deprive anyone of their rights secured or protected by the US Constitution. That includes Judge Peterson, who misused her authority to make a decision she did not have the power under the Constitution to make. By signing that order, she deprived American citizens of their right to self-defense while standing on federal property. Now, before you jump in and claim that “well it’s federal property!” let me point something else out. Federal property is held in trust by the government. It is not owned by the federal government. That land belongs to We the People. In short, Judge Peterson denied you the right to defend yourself on land that you own, simply because she doesn’t like guns and therefore doesn’t think anyone else should be allowed to have them around her. That is the epitome of deprivation of rights, and she misused her authority to force you to bend to her will.

Read more here.

0

Shorty Dawkins

Oath Keepers Merchandise

6 comments

  1. Good Luck On This!
    Reminds me of the old question; If a Tree Falls in the Forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
    We are all falling and no one is there to here it. Unless ‘We The People’ act, we make no sound in the forest as we fall.

    1. Actually a little Quantum Mechanics will help on this:

      If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?

      The answer is actually no, it doesn’t make any noise. The reason is the power of observation has the ability to change the outcome of things at the sub-atomic level;.

      Now, how does this apply to the above news story? Simple…the power of observation can change things at the physical level too. It is high time those in government who break the law are punished by the law. Uf they refuse to be, then that is the time to rise up and demand at gunpoint that they adhere to the law.

      The law is on the people;s side if they will merely look into it and observe the outcome.

  2. Maybe we could organize a (real) Grand Jury, investigate the Judge to see that she has been using “Good Behaviour” while in office as the US Constitution requires of all judges and that she took Oaths to do so. Remember the “Life Tenure” of judges is dependent upon using “Good Behaviour” while in office.

    US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

    James Madison, Federalist 39, 250 – 53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

    The US Constitution assigns what all judges, state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position, they are:
    — Required to take, and keep an Oath(s), or a combined Oath.
    — Required to “support and defend” the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it before the duties of the office they occupy.
    — Required to carry out the enumerated duties assigned to the judicial branch by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner.

    That is “Good Behaviour” for judges.

    Since judges are required to use “Good Behaviour” in order to remain within the office, “Bad Behaviour” or “Misbehavior” can remove them. Notice that nowhere within the US Constitution does it mention “life tenure” for judges, only “Good Behaviour”. “Good Behaviour” refers to the actions taken while a judge is under Oath and in office. Life tenure is implied by the “Good Behavior” standard but not listed as a benefit within the US Constitution.

    Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 on the Oaths, and how the duties assigned to the judicial branch must be carried out: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice”

    Does history or the framers, the people of that time, or any more modern examples show us differently then what many believe is the standard that judges are held to today? Is there any modern standard that belies that judges are in for life regardless of their behavior? The answer to those questions is “yes, Good Behavior is a standard that must be met by all judges in order to retain their position for life; and there is historic and more recent evidence of this.

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78:

    ”In a monarchy (the good behavior standard) is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body… It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”

    If “Good Behaviour” “in a republic… “is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body’”, and if “It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws”; then bad “Behaviour”, “Misbehavior” must matter precisely because that is the only “barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body’” with which to secure “a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws”” since that requirement can remove a judge from the position they occupy if they do not practice “Good Behaviour”. If using “Good Behaviour” within the courtrooms is what grants them life tenure, if it does; then using “Bad Behaviour” within the courtrooms would end that tenure, though the determination of the type of behavior used must be determined by a jury of the people through a Grand Jury Trial.

    This is backed up historically by a debate John Adams had with William Brattle about the ‘tenure of judges’. At the end of the debate both men agreed that if a judge was appointed during good behavior, then he could also be removed by using “bad behavior”. But this removal was only after receiving a “hearing and trial, and an opportunity to defend himself before a fuller board, knowing his accuser and accusation”.

    The judge(s) whose behavior was in question would get a trial by jury made up of the people making that decision. Accountability through the “Good Behaviour” standard is critical to the continued freedom and independence of the USA; and keeping judges to the US Constitution instead of to factions, lobbyists, or to the different branches of government.

    “Good Behavior” was understood to be independent of the impeachment way of removal throughout history, foreign and American.

    “In English law, good behavior (quamdiu se bene gesserit) was a familiar legal term commonly used to describe tenure in such items as property, offices, employments, and licenses. The term meant that possession of the item would continue until the holder was shown, in a judicial proceeding, to have misbehaved. A grant during good behavior was distinguished from appointment during pleasure (durante bene placito). Thus, someone granted tenure during pleasure could be removed at will by the grantor, but someone granted tenure during good behavior could be removed only upon being convicted of misbehavior in a judicial proceeding.” Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith “Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment”

    The Constitution itself limits the scope of impeachment to removal from office; but there is nothing within it that says that the Founders meant to modify the long-established meaning of good behavior required tenure, most likely because – like the militias of the several states – it was an every day practice, the knowledge taken for granted as being understood.

    Historically there were federal laws that reflected the traditional understanding of “Good Behaviour” doctrine practiced and accepted within early America such as the 1790 Crimes Act which provided that a judge convicted of taking a bribe would, by virtue of the conviction, be “forever . . . disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States.” That conviction would deprive the judge of life tenure of the office being occupied. This falls under the “Good Behaviour” tenure.

    Papers of John Adams: “The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. The Judges therefore should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependant upon any man or body of men. To these ends they should hold estates for life in their offices, or in other words their commissions should be during good behaviour, and their salaries ascertained and established by law. For misbehaviour the grand inquest of the Colony, the House of Representatives, should impeach them before the Governor and Council, where they should have time and opportunity to make their defence, but if convicted should be removed from their offices, and subjected to such other punishment as shall be thought proper.”

    Even modern judges agree that the people themselves can remove judges through the court system. From Justice Antonin Scalia: “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Good Behaviour” tenure) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

    An example of the judicial branch duty to rein in the other two branches or the states is here when Judge Wythe (John Marshall’s law teacher) in his opinion in “Caton” where he indicated that it is a judge’s responsibility to check overreaching by the political branches by these words,

    “If the whole legislature, an event to be deprecated, should attempt to overleap the bounds, prescribed to them by the people, I, in administering the public justice of the country, will meet the united powers, at my seat in this tribunal; and, pointing to the constitution, will say, to them, here is the limit of your authority; and, hither, shall you go, but no further.”

    I have already posted at an earlier date, on another article about the People’s Grand Jury. That it is our tool, that it is NOT under any of the three branches as it is located within the Bill of Rights. That Grand Jury Investigations are OUR tool completely; “We the People” organize it, implement it, and if evidence is shown to be needed, prosecute. Judges and prosecutors are USED by us, not us by them. Judges swear all involved to the Oath required of them.

    Molon Labe!

    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?

  3. Hey Kit, again you have made my day. have you ever thought of running for President? Or maybe you and Cal could get married if you already aren’t and LEAD!!! We need out spoken bold as brass, titanium backboned LEADERS!!! Now more than ever. Oh and just a side not to the editors, I like the way you have put more stories back on page one like you used to do. Bravo.

  4. Since this article tells us that a federal judge is in violation of the law, this tells me that Obama is in violation of so many laws, that should he be found in violation of all of them, he should be found guilty. AND, he should be sentenced to life WITHOUT parole, and be fed only bread and water.

Comments are closed.