No products in the cart.

News

Constitution is BANNED in Federal Courthouse

by Shari Dovale


The trial for the Political Prisoners in Las Vegas, Nevada continues this week. The prosecution has presented their case over 5 weeks, even extending it beyond what they originally stated.

Judge Gloria Navarro has allowed the prosecution much leeway, but has ruled that the defendants will not need the same concessions. She has micro-managed the defense case repeatedly and has now decided the six defendants will only need a week to present their case.

The government’s case, though it was scheduled to be completed already, does not expect to rest until this Friday, March 24, 2017. The court will then take a week off. The defense is expected to begin their case on Monday, April 3rd.

Witnesses have told me that the US Marshals have decided that they will no longer allow copies of the US Constitution to be brought into the courthouse. They have even gone so far as to remove them from ladies’ purses to be discarded into the trash. It is not limited to just those that are showing from shirt pockets.


Defendant Eric Parker, who has consistently placed a copy of the Constitution in his pocket during these proceedings, was forced to remove it and told to keep it flat at the defendants table so the jury could not see it.


The jury cannot be allowed to even look at the Constitution!

Gregory Burleson, Eric Parker, Orville Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart, Todd Engel and Richard Lovelien are the first of 17 defendants to stand trial in the Bunkerville Protest trial. They are each accused of 10 charges including conspiracy, firearm offenses and assault on a federal officer. They each face up to 101 years in prison if convicted of all charges.

Cliven Bundy, along with his sons Ryan and Ammon Bundy and two others are expected to begin their trial in May. Another trial for even more co-defendants is expected to begin in August.

The government is continuing their attempt to control the narrative in this case. It was not an armed standoff. This was a protest. A protest in which no shots were fired, no one was injured and the cows were set free.

These men were left free for 2 years, to live their lives without fear. The government then decided to round them up, refuse them bail, and are now trying to send them to prison for the rest of their lives, all for voicing their disagreement with the Federal Government.

And now the US Constitution has been demonized by this same government.


REDOUBT NEWS

 

Constitution is BANNED in Federal Courthouse
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution
against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

0

nancy.larned

Oath Keepers Merchandise

23 comments

  1. How on earth can it be legal to ban a copy of our Constitution from OUR courtroom?? How can a jury be prevented from seeing or having a copy of the Constitution?? Speaking of mistrials!
    I cannot wait for Gorsuch to be allowed his seat at the US Supreme Court — because that is where this case has to end up going to be settled. Do the Oath Keepers have a protest or support of defendents Constitutional rights organized?

    1. I think Your faith is being misplaced.__ Gorsuch will most likely refuse to hear this case and instead just send it back to same court it came from!! __ When a copy of The Constitution is not allowed in Court it should be understood by all that We are all now living in a Police State and no longer have the freedom of even defending ourselves in a Court of (NO) Law!!

    2. I am so sick of the nuts on the left pushing us around and stepping all over the Constitution! I am so ready for an armed revolution and the US Marshall’s better take heed as well as the left and communists in our country. Elites and Globalists along with activist Judges better find a good hiding place. Not afraid to speak my mind anymore…..

    3. Any man or woman willing to make a stand to bring our country and courts back to the constitution.. hit me up.. I am a protector of the construction. I am a United States Soldier that has sworn an Oath to it and I hold my oath to the fullest. For America to be great again. The people need to make a serious stand. Protests is not the answer.. I have a much more effective and safer way.

  2. Demand the jury nullify the case, it’s within their rights to do so and I bet they don’t even know it.

    1. You are correct. Most, if not all, juries are unaware of this provision in the law. I was dismissed from the jury pool ( in a federal case ) when I asked the judge if he was going to inform the jury that it was also a consideration when deciding the merits of the prosecutions’ case. I later learned that the judge dismissed all of the potential jurors from the pool ( saying that they had now been ” tainted ” due to my question ) and had a new pool , of potential jurors, assembled. Knowledge of the law, by the average citizen, is apparently not appreciated by the court system !!!

  3. This is a judge that not only needs to be removed, but also charged with the crimes committed; not using good behavior, a felony or two, Perjury, possibly treason and *terrorism, etc along with those who serve within her courtroom and break their own Oaths. Judges are not God. It is from the US Constitution that those courts exist and that the judge has a job; that those “Marshals” are REQUIRED to be Oath bound to “Support and Defend” over and above the orders of superiors; that there is a jury (though we did have jury trials before we became the USA), etc.

    Jurors are REQUIRED to know the US Constitution to be informed jurors. It is also against the law for a judge to deny a juror information. To be nice, this is a mockery of a court, much like those used against whistle blowers.

    No US Constitution no court of “law”, no jury, no trial, no crimes committed by the defendant(s). To allow this to go on is assisting those working to destroy our legitimate nation, and our legitimate government – treason.

    Dr. Vieira put 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.” (caps are mine)

    Yes we had state governments before, but until we the people change our government, or there is an armed takeover, they and we are all bound to that document; and the constitutional republic it created.

    Alexander Hamilton: “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”

    Remember that breaking the Oath is at least one felony (depending) and Perjury. That refusing and denying a person the Rights required in writing to be protected by those that serve within our government is also a crime, actually many crimes are committed by breaking the Oath.

    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    Those that serve within our governments – state and general – are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution.

    The Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
    .
    Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

    Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

    Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

    Require, Requirement, Required: Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. “To claim or ask for by right and authority; That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

    Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

    The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” within the US Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and state governments (supreme Law, remember), and to protect us from usurpations. Each Branch of the federal government also has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

    If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the people, must overrule them”.

    Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials – state and federal – is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office.

    18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

    5 U.S.C. 7311 explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

    It is important to realize that our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. That according to Executive Order 10450 and 5 U.S. 7311 any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

    18 USC § 241: ” Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured
    They 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, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, OR MAY BE SENTENCED TO DEATH.” (caps are mine)

    Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986: “Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented;
    And such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

    42 USC § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 946: “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.”

    U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 380 U.S. 436 (1966): “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963): “State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights.”

    Olmstead v U.S., 277 US 348, 485; 48 S. Ct. 564, 575; 72 LEd 944 U.S. versus Verdrigo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1056, 1060-61 (1990); South v.Maryland/Bowers v. DeVito: “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a Government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Crime is contagious. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law it invites every man to become a law unto himself and against that pernicious doctrine, this court should resolutely set its face.”

    Re Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

    Notice the three key elements that are necessary for an offense to constitute treason: an obligation of allegiance to the legal order, intent, followed by action to violate that obligation.

    United States v. Moylan, where the Supreme Court flat out acknowledged the “undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.” (1969)

    Where is any action that this judge has done that falls under using “good Behaviour”?

    Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania said: “… contradiction in terms to say that the Judges hold their offices during good behavior, and yet be removable without a trial.”

    The good Behaviour clause is one that the Framers took directly from English law, and a guide to its meaning in England provides us with important evidence of its meaning in the Constitution. Judges, and others, held office “quamdiu se bene gesserit,” until “that is, during life, unless it is forfeited by misdemeanour” – the tenure was “determinable only upon misbehaviour”. At common law a “misdemeanor” was a criminal act. Lord Mansfield described the reasons for which good behavior tenure could be forfeited: “Indeed, a general neglect, or refusal to attend the duty of such an office, is a reason of forfeiture: a determined neglect, a wilful refusal.’ Coke, “Commentaries on Littleton”, described forfeiture as resulting from doing “a thing against or without law or custome”. Alexander Hanson, a proponent of the Constitution, explained that, good behavior in a judge was not an ambiguous concept, but one related “to the laws, and things universally known”.

    John Lawrence said that good behavior tenure meant the officers were not removable for disability alone. “We are told that an officer must misbehave before he can be removed. …

    Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations: “The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquillity, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state, and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are entrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires.”

    1. I received the same question on my facebook post of this article. This is my exact response:

      NOT fake. Bizarre, but not fake. Author Shari Dovale is a personal and trusted friend of mine. She attended and reported on both of the recent political prisoner trials in Portland. Her information is from people she knows personally who are attending the trial in Nevada. Also, here is a link to a facebook live video in the original Redoubt News article. John Lamb, who is currently attending the trial, explains much of what is in the article. This is that link:
      https://www.facebook.com/john.lamb.16121/videos/1008922659251317/

      This is another video with Eric Parker’s wife. The wind noise is so bad, Shari didn’t post it:
      Link to the video with Andrea Parker: https://www.facebook.com/john.lamb.16121/videos/1009033872573529/
      -18:35
      John Lamb was live.
      3/21/17 Live from Las Vegas Nevada federal court
      John Lamb

    2. I don’t think so, cause I see no reference to it. Plus, if they did ban it might be do to concerns that if one of the pocket Constitutions got to the jury it could be considered jury tampering and send this into another new trial. I say jury tampering because the pocket Constitutions might have a hidden message written by a Bundy sympathizer with a threat against the jury if they go with guilty verdicts. That’s my two cent theory any way.

  4. Having served 10+ years on active duty, with 6 consecutive tours in Afghanistan (2001-2007), here is the problem as I see it. In 1998, I left for my first duty station overseas and spent most of my time deployed to the Persian Gulf. I’m not saying America was perfect, but we knew who we were and what we stood for. When 9/11 happened, everyone wanted a piece of the action and didn’t care about the cost (myself included). As we were kicking ass in Afghanistan… in walks the Patriot Act, which would have been considered treasonous by our founding fathers. But hey, Americans felt safe and none of the steaming DC crap really mattered to those of us who were in the long fight overseas.

    In 2007, I left active duty honorably. That is when I started to notice one major problem; the heart and soul of America seemed to have died. We had become divided and Balkanized. After nearly 10 years over seas, I barely recognized America. DC had become overly intrusive and the ruling class of politicians no longer tried to hide their unconstitutional actions. We had, by all account, turned into the quintessential plutocracy with an oligarchical head of state.

    So here we are… it’s 2017. All of us see the problem, and we are great at the social media warfare, but how many of us are actually willing to stand up to this police state? When the government targets US citizens for defending the constitution, and there is no judicial relief… we are far beyond anything that could resemble liberty and freedom.

    1. We may be facing an even bigger problem. I recently acquired information that a couple of Western States are conspiring against the people, and possibly America. The source is sound, and I’m trying to get more details. It seems that an plan is being put together that will see units from California National Guard, implementing an action against citizens in Oregon. The Oregon Guard will be sent elsewhere to prevent them from intervening. It would look to play out like a partial coup against America, with a collapse of the Union as an intended goal. Not sure if ideologically motivated, or what, but it may be linked to the growing secession movement in the west. I’ve already contacted the main Oath Keepers address to advise. We are preparing teams here for a bailout plan.

  5. Yes you can read more about Jury Nullification. Judges hate this because they have no way of legally refuting it. If they had a supreme court case that disallowed jury nullification, they would simply site the case in their jury instructions and they would prosecute people who bring it up for trying to tamper with the jury process. Instead all they can do is get you out of their court room along with all others in the jury pool who heard you say it.

  6. How long before the US Constitution will be illegal to posses or speak of in America? Or is it already?
    Boy,how far we have fallen in the last 16 years…
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
    with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure
    these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
    governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
    People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
    organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
    causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
    sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long
    train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
    absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
    for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity
    which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
    absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  7. I don’t think it’s as it sounds to many here, I think they’re banning the pocket Constitutions and not ‘the’ Constitution. You see the pocket Constitutions are passed around a lot and the defendants have even tried to give the P.C. to the jury, for patriotism I’m sure, but it can be considered a form of tampering. Because the defendants or a Bundy sympathizer hold one or many there is a possibility a message could be written on the P.C. directed for the jury that might include a threat or bribe for a verdict. Since banning the Constitution is impossible legally it must be the jury tammering possibility.

Comments are closed.