No products in the cart.

News

In Refusing to Consider Marine’s Ordeal, SCOTUS Weakens Deterrents to Hearsay Commitments

603539_294637347311169_1960157833_n
What do the authorities feel so threatened by that they would try to lock a Marine veteran away for expressing doubts on social media about government truthfulness? And if they can do that to him, who’s next? (“We Are Brandon Raub” Facebook page.)

Per its posted Proceedings and Orders, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Case of Brandon Raub last Monday.  That slams shut a door in the face of a Marine veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who was seeking justice for his unlawful detention for disapproved political speech. It also leaves other Americans in similar danger of being committed to institutions based on “experts” relying on what police tell them rather than on impartial evaluations and due process.

Raub had been sentenced to “up to 30 days in [a] psych ward for Facebook posts,” Business Insider reported in 2012   Raub’s “thought crimes” included challenging the government’s account of 9/11. He was taken away in handcuffs following a joint operation that included the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Chesterfield County Police Department, all of which distanced themselves from responsibility in news reports.

Raub was provided representation through The Rutherford Institute, which noted he “was arrested, detained indefinitely in a psych ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games which he posted to his private Facebook page.”

“For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon,” Rutherford president John W. Whitehead explained. “This should be a wake-up call to Americans that the police state is here.”

In a follow-up prompted by SCOTUS ducking the case, reporter Bob Unruh of WND.com related that after Raub had been held against his will for a week, “Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett … ordered Raub’s immediate release, stating the government’s case was ‘so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.’”

“At issue was the behavior of the mental-health screener, Michael Campbell, who allegedly failed to exercise reasonable professional judgment in wrongly concluding Raub was mentally ill and dangerous, violating Raub’s Fourth Amendment rights,” Unruh explained. “The appellate court noted Raub never threatened violence, and he was detained on orders from Campbell after only an interview by Campbell of officers who had talked with Raub.”

That would mean Raub was committed based on hearsay as repeated by the police detaining him, and the system went along with it. It’s not difficult to imagine a different outcome had Raub been less capable and articulate at defending his rights, and had legal representation from a liberty advocacy legal firm not been forthcoming. It also makes it fair to wonder who may now be in custody that we may never know about. It also invites the question of whether the real mental health issue lies with those who would turn the coercive power of the state against  anyone challenging the government’s version of events.

But Raub pressing for justice through a lawsuit was rebuffed, first by a lower court and then by the appeals court. Now, by turning its back on him, SCOTUS has turned its back on past, current and future victims of the “mental health” blanket dragnet, including on those who may be injured or killed in the process of being unjustly incarcerated. By refusing to hold officials accountable for breaches of professional duties and for violations of rights, personal incentives for standards that safeguard individual liberty are diminished.

“Raub said he does not own a gun,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported at the time of his incarceration. That supports what he told me via Facebook messaging.

“No, no one took any guns from me, and I’m not prohibited from owning one,” he replied.  Still, it’s not hard to imagine what would have happened to someone who did have guns, including the lifetime prohibitions that can result for those not “cleared” by the courts. And that should be an object lesson to all – including to politicians and “gun rights” groups making noises about mental health “compromises.”

Without protections – equivalent to those provided in a jury trial — the danger to rights will remain. Remember: Even Stalin’s USSR “adjudicated” its “mental health” victims. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own? And something else those pushing mental health “reforms” never seem to want to talk about: How will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health reason to deny them?

There’s also an inconvenient truism the disarmament crowd would prefer to see ignored:

If you can’t be trusted with a gun, you can‘t be trusted without a custodian.

Raub won one battle, but the war still threatens to engulf us all.  That’s because the totalitarians want to control everything, guns, speech, and thoughts, and view any expression of defiance as something to be suppressed, then crushed, and then exterminated. You might want to keep that in mind before posting any “Molon Labe” comments.  Then again, you may just want to continue being an American and expressing yourself in a way that shows some of us will not go gentle into that good night.

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

27 comments

      1. I do not fear any man or government. I do not fear any Cop or Federal Officer. I certainly do not fear that piece of crap in the White House!

    1. Didn’t the Soviet Union lock up their dissidents with the augument, ” if this person does not support the government surely is mentally unstable.”
      Where was the county Sheriff defending a person in his county?
      No wonder I’m so cynical.

    2. THE COMMUNIST OUR IN CHARGE (((((((( THEY CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS & THEY CALL THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS )))))))) BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT THEY ARE COMMUNIST . WHAT TO DO??????????????????????????

  1. Was he or not on active duty when he criticized the government? It’s just not quite clear enough even though he’s labeled a veteran. In other words, he’s a veteran now but was he then? I think it does make a difference. Isn’t an active duty soldier limited in criticizing his superiors?

    1. Per the links from the time, “former”– but it does not matter because he was not charged with any military violation– this was all unwarranted “law enforcement” action, as corroborated by the judge who ordered his release after one week because “civil authority” had no actionable case against him.

  2. After SCOTUS, where does one go ? The court essentially told Raub to Go To Hell. Mmm, lets see. Obama breaks the law, Hillary breaks the law, fat cats break the law, and if you are politically connected or one of Obama’s boys or girls you are protected. But a Veteran who was treated like political prisoners were treated in East Germany, in clear violation of the law of the land, the Constitution, well screw him. This can happen to you, and so we have to keep this story alive and demand that Congress gets involved. Only Congress can hold the SCOTUS accountable.

  3. Paul Ross, though not a veteran, is in prison with the Feds in Pennsylvania for having posted on Facebook that he was going to prove the guilt of his former employer who is the wife of an FBI “Special” (prima dona) Agent. He was sentenced to three yers for it, and his public defender told me that if this had been five years ago that no one would ever have dreamed of such a thing. He had a jury trial where the sheeple did what they were told to do, and the evidence that would have proven him not guilty was not allowed including witnesses on his behalf. So, as you said in your article, we have no idea as to how many others are incarcerated for such a “crime”.

    1. Dr. Clifford N. Alford, Here’s another victim. Thomas David House of Deegan of West Virginia. This man was unlawfully arrested and incarcerated without due process and without assistance of counsel. Thomas has put the whole state of West Virginia’s purported government into default and dishonor. Here’s some evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULu5M9D2I-Y&feature=youtu.be

      Here’s what these corporate, foreign agent occupier’s purporting to be lawful government used to kidnap Thomas: http://hudok.info/files/3914/4230/5599/Conference_Call_wi_Thomas_9_14_15_64kbps.mp3

      The action which took place there in West Virginia was, IMO, our last chance to save our nation. There was a national call out to assist in enforcing the rule of law including a personal call out to the founder of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes. This call out fell on deaf ears. There are many people in the disgusting situation people such as Brandon Raub, Paul Ross, and Thomas David House of Deegan are currently in or were in. There is no rule of law as proven by the lower courts right up to the purported SCOTUS. What David Codrea correctly specified regarding keyboard tapping “Molon Labe” or other useless comments should be turned into a plan of action on assisting the release of Thomas David House of Deegan so we can all move forward in restoring the rule of law and at least force these corporate, foreign agent occupier’s back into a constitutional form of government. Go to: http://www.hudok.info for additional information or to donate to the cause.

    2. First Amendment trumps supreme court, or any court, it is supreme over the US Military. IT IS the supreme law of this land. But the freedom to speak ill of those serving within our government, or any thing else (except releasing military plans/specific military operatons – but hey, those who serve within our governments do that – major US media omissions and blackouts in the Real Hastert Case http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/10/18/probable-cause-with-sibel-edmonds-the-mind-boggling-level-of-media-censorship-in-the-real-hastert-case/) though PROTECTED by the First Amendment, is our Natural Right not as a result of being American, but of being human. This “color of law” crime is up to us if we leave it to continue.

      “He had a jury trial where the sheeple did what they were told to do, and the evidence that would have proven him not guilty was not allowed including witnesses on his behalf. ”

      This is not lawful here in the USA, and a Grand Jury should be called by the people to investigate this more thoroughly, and if needed, a Grand Jury trial should be called because NO judge or prosecutor anywhere of any “rank” has the authority to suppress evidence or to tell a jury what they must consider or drop.

      John Adams: “It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge’s view of the law, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience.”

      U.S. vs. Dougherty, 1972: “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge.”

      This is important to consider regarding the thought crime or stated opinion.

      16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

      An unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

      A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

      Unconstitutional Official Acts 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

      Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

      A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

      Jon Roland (http://www.constitution.org/jr_cv.htm): “Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

      All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.

      Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

      No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
      Jon Roland: “Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.” (End Quote)” http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

      Alexander Hamilton: “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government.”

      Algernon Sidney, Discourses concerning Government 1698: “The same course is justly used against a legal magistrate, who takes upon him, though within the time prescribed by the law, to exercise a power which the law does not give; for in that respect he is a private man, “quia,” “as Grotius says, eatenùs non habet imperium,” and may be restrained as well as any other, because he is not set up to do what he lists, but what the law appoints for the good of the people; and as he has no other power than what the law allows, so the same law limits and directs the exercise of that which he has. …

      The agreements made are always confirmed by oath, and the treachery of violating them is consequently aggravated by perjury.

      Why should they not be deposed, if they become enemies to their people, and set up an interest in their own persons inconsistent with public good, for the promoting of which they were erected? If they were created by the public consent, for the public good, shall they not be removed when they prove to be of public damage? …

      The sense also of an oath ought to be considered. No man can by an oath be obliged to any thing beyond, or contrary to the true meaning of it. …

      Whatever they promise or swear can detract nothing from the public liberty, which the law principally intends to preserve. Though many of them may be obliged, in their several stations and capacities, to render peculiar services to a prince, the people continue as free as the internal thoughts of a man, and cannot but have a right to preserve their liberty, or avenge the violation.” (End Quote)

  4. Face Book has started making it impossible for some patriotic groups to share comments, memes, and links to stories. Without any warning or discussion they are just making it impossible for patriots to share much needed information and material with the larger face book audience–those loyal to the government (knowing which side of the bread their butter is spread) are obviously playing watchdog to prevent news and information that doesn’t fit the party line out to the public. This a terrifying because of it’s potential to isolate patriots from one another and for our capacity to help educated our fellow countrymen so they might have an opportunity to defend themselves or even be prepared with food and supplies they will need in an emergency. It may become necessary for most of us to own and operate CB radios and even then who knows what technology the government has at it’s disposal to shut that down too. So, brothers and sisters the word to the wise is to a valuable network of trustworthy people who can help you both get messages out and receive them if the government shuts down our every technological avenue.

  5. Time to sue in federal court for violating his fifth amendment rights of due process. All involved can be sued. Go to National Liberty Alliance.org for how to papers to file.

  6. Trish. Not the government or even an E.M.P. can shut down the Keshe Foundation of Space and Science Institute new found power for ever ones home for free. He shows you how to build your own devise. Go to KFSSI Blueprint Teaching, scroll to the bottom to the first video dated Oct. 26, 2015. You will be amassed.

  7. Every cop, mental health “professional” or other government official who helped perpetrate this atrocity on Brandon Raub should be removed from office and prosecuted for the crime of false imprisonment. The US Supreme Court should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

  8. This news story has limited information but what I read is troubling. The powers of the systems lording over We, the People have the power to destroy entire countries… what chance does a non-connected individual have? Do you trust the legal system to stand on the side of truth, justice and American Way? Personal foibles of those within that system can destroy you.

  9. From the 1963 Congressional record: Communist Goals

    38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
    39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

    For all Oathkeepers, numbers 13 and 15 are most alarming:
    13) Do away with loyalty oaths
    15) Capture one or both of the political parties in the US

  10. The way that Statute is presented here; It’s lawlessness; It’s unconstitutional except if it’s clearly defined in the Constitution it self; Other words Statute by it’s own definition is unconstitutional! In my opinion Statute usurps the definitions of the Declaration of Independence The Articles and all The Amendments; In other words it’s unconstitutional to obey a unlawful Statute and one’s duty to go against it or to allow it’s lawless interpretation to exist as being Constitutional Law and therefore it should be struck down as having no meaning; I tend to agree!!

  11. “What do the authorities feel so threatened by that they would try to lock a Marine veteran away for expressing doubts on social media about government truthfulness? And if they can do that to him, who’s next?”
    They are definitely not feeling threatened by “oath keepers”.

  12. Very well written article. Seems as if the young man won in court when the local judge released him for sure.

    He needs to be compensated, I’m sure.

  13. The US Government is a SERVICE organization Just Like the MILITARY!
    What happens to a soldier tho breaks his Oath? He is tried for TREASON or DESERTION. What happens to a soldier who breaks CIVILIAN LAW? He is tried by both the civilian authorities and when he serves his time he is TRIED AGAIN by the Military and serves time in LEAVENWORTH.
    How many crimes have we witnessed by the US Government leadership?
    Why in the EFF are we letting them get away with it day in and day out? Why are they above the Law? (Hint: THEY ARE NOT!!!!) We The People MUST remedy the situation. We are looking for a few good men to take care of the situation and take out the trash.

  14. There should be mass arrests of most in the federal government and speedy trials w/no bail applied. Our Constitution says that we can shut a corrupt government down and start over again with good people. Stay locked and loaded!!!

Comments are closed.