By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… There is a recipe for cooking a frog. You place the frog in warm water and slowly turn up the heat until he is boiled to death. Let me suggest that the American people are in slowly warming water. Unconstitutional laws are being passed and the American people are saying that’s okay because it makes us safer and more comfortable.
After 9/11 the president was given War Powers without the declaration of war. This was under the War Powers Act passed during Vietnam to curb some of the arbitrary decisions about the conflict in that country under President Johnson. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for War Powers other than the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military. Many say the unconstitutional usurpation of power is okay because it makes us safer but it is not Constitutional. As people become more comfortable, they sacrifice freedom for that comfort.
Adolf Hitler did not just get up one morning and move Jews into death camps. He slowly eroded their rights and restricted the Jews’ position within the country. Hitler forbade Jews the right to own a gun.
Laws were passed moving them into ghettos, uprooting them to concentration camps, and finally setting up death camps. All of these programs, with the exception of the death camps which were denied, were pitched with the idea that they made the Jew safer and more comfortable in a hostile society. Each time a new program was instituted, the Jews accepted it as the law of the land and not much of an intrusion into their life.
One might ask: Could something of this happen to the general populace in America?
No one asked me but… We now have a federal judge who feels that the Constitution must not be mentioned in her courtroom even if it is in defense of an American citizen.
Judge Gloria Navarro cannot even stand the sight of the Constitution. She apparently melts like the Wicked Witch of the West if the Constitution is mentioned in her courtroom.
She has ruled that while a defendant may carry the document, it must not be carried where it can be seen as the Constitution.
This judge violated the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendants by not allowing them to present “witnesses in his favor.” The judge took testimony that was favorable to the defendant out of the hearing of the jury and then ruled it could not be presented to the jury. She has tread on the Fifth Amendment rights “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” when she continues to call for retrials when a jury cannot come to a unanimous guilty decision.
In violation of the Fifth Amendment, this same judge allowed the use of a video statement against a defendant which was obtained under false pretenses by federal agents. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that a defendant cannot “…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The self-incriminating statement was made after agents got the defendant drunk and and questioned him without reading him his Miranda Rights.
This was the basic information that lead Navarro to sentence him to what amounts to a life sentence; not for what he did, but for what he thought of doing.
In this same case, one might well argue that the judge violated the Eighth Amendment on many fronts. When she decreed no bail would be allowed, one might argue that no bail in this case was “excessive”. What amounted to a life sentence “was unusual punishment” for the crime committed. And the $1.5 million fine was an “excessive fine.” All of these are prohibited under the Eighth Amendment.
Let us add another Constitutional issue to the Bundy case. Amendment Six guarantees the right to a “speedy trial.” It has been three years since the incident and the judge has once again postponed the trial for Cliven Bundy and his sons.
That the judge would not allow any reference to the Constitution is understandable since apparently she finds the document repugnant and a hindrance to her kangaroo court.
Fortunately, the Sixth Amendment guarantees “a public trial, by an impartial jury in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”. The jury stepped up and found two of the defendants not guilty of all charges. The jury found the other two not guilty of all but two of the ten charges. Even on those two charges it has been reported the jury hung on a vote of 11-1 for acquittal
The “emotional” judge is not willing to give up. She has indicated she will retry the remaining two defendants for a third time in hopes of getting a conviction. She once again will tread on their Fifth Amendment rights “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
My attorney friends may tell me that since the jury hung, they can be retried. I see nothing in the Constitution that says in case of hung jury the defendant may be tried again. Maybe Judge Navarro will contend three times is not twice.
It is time for Judge Navarro to hang her robe up. It is time for the BLM to drop all charges against the Bundys. If they want Bundy’s cattle off their land the BLM should abide by the Taylor Grazing Act.
No one asked me but… A short time ago there was a news article alleging that when Bundy’s attorneys asked the BLM for their records on the standoff, they stated all the records had been destroyed. This was done, they said, because they were afraid their headquarters were going to be overrun by Bundy supporters.
It is interesting to note that the leadership for the rustling of Bundy’s cattle was located in Las Vegas. The field command was never threatened. One must wonder if the destruction of evidence was before or after the defense’s request.
On August 24, 2017, a short article appeared in the Review Journal alleging that BLM agent Daniel Love took valuable stones held as evidence and gave them out like candy to friends. It is further alleged that he used his position with the BLM to score tickets to the Burning Man Festivals for his friends.
Yes, this is the same Daniel Love that headed up the illegal collection of Bundy cattle.
Thought of the week… As citizens of this democracy, you are the rulers and the ruled, the law-givers and the law-abiding, the beginning and the end.
– Adlai E. Stevenson
