No products in the cart.

News

Spokane Protest To Defy Judge’s Gun Ban On Federal Grounds

Anthony Bosworth addresses the crowd as protesters defy the ban on federal grounds.
Anthony Bosworth addresses the crowd as protesters defy the ban on federal grounds.

This article comes from examiner.com

Despite a last-minute legal maneuver by a federal judge to ban guns on federal property, not just inside designated facilities as provided for in United States Code, protesters plan on going ahead with today’s armed demonstration at the Tom Foley Federal Building in Spokane, the Patrick Henry Society confirmed in a Thursday post by activist Kit Lange. While the “We will not comply” advocates have reiterated their pledge to protest peacefully, they have also anticipated a legal response that could include arrests and prosecutions.

Those risks arise from an order signed Monday by Chief United States District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, who issued an amendment to existing general orders to thwart today’s demonstration. It’s being held in protest after activist Anthony Bosworth was arrested Feb. 25 by DHS police, caged, pressured by FBI interrogators to give up information about his associates, and released with no charges, but with a “Failure to comply” citation.

The apparent illegality of his arrest last month is highlighted by the judge’s order, as had he been violating the law, it would not be needed. Additionally, Bosworth’s firearms were confiscated and have not been returned.

Anticipating a strong reaction to their defiance, the protesters have advised supporters “It is IMPERATIVE that we have as much video and photographic evidence as possible.” Realizing that recorders can be confiscated, they are also seeking means “to livestream the event.”

Read more here.

0

Shorty Dawkins

Oath Keepers Merchandise

One comment

  1. “Those risks arise from an order signed Monday by Chief United States District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, who issued an amendment to existing general orders to thwart today’s demonstration.”

    Chief United States District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson is only ALLOWED to keep her position as long as she uses “Good Behaviour” while in office. Supporting the disintegration of the US Constitution is NOT using good behavior.

    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: “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. “Good Behaviour” is more then just breathing and doing whatever one wants to do as any parent can tell you.

    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 US 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;…”

    Notice that it says “TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, THE US CONSTITUTION”, not to “interpret” the US Constitution – that was usurpation of power by the Supremes themselves.

    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’”. 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” do the opposite, it 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””.

    If using “Good Behaviour” while within the office is what grants them life tenure, if it does; then using “Bad Behaviour”, misbehaving, while within the office would end that tenure.

    Besides that, breaking the Oath is a felony, and the crime of Perjury. Federal law against perjury in the U.S. Code classifies perjury as a felony. This means that someone who lies under oath in federal court, or who lies under oath to a person acting on behalf of the federal government may be sentenced to up to five years in jail. That would also be someone who took and Oath and did not keep it.

    This judge did not keep her Oath and needs to be charged and prosecuted with at least one felony, quite possibly more (Some states classify perjury as a felony as well).

    If anyone is threatened with force or force is used then Chief United States District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington will have committed *Terrorism against the American people, the people of the state of Washington, and the US Constitution, plus **Treason.

    * 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”.

    ** http://www.shastadefense.com/Dare-Call-It-Treason-21.pdf

    It is past time we start using the supreme LAW of our land within the courtrooms, and start using the “Good Behaviour” requirement to remove judges who do not keep their Oath.

Comments are closed.