A man charged with possessing illegal machine guns shouldn't be able to make constitutional arguments at trial, according to a motion filed Friday by federal prosecutors.
Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, a lieutenant commander of the Militia of Washington County, is charged in U.S. District Court with possessing three homemade, unregistered machine guns and an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.
Trial is set for Jan. 8 in Fayetteville.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson filed the motion asking U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren to preclude Fincher and his attorney, Oscar Stilley, from arguing matters of law to the jury as a defense. The government believes Fincher wants to argue the gun charges are unconstitutional and that the prosecution must prove an "interstate nexus" for the firearms, according to the motion.
Damn right--the Constitution has no place in America's courtrooms! Imagine, wanting to "argue matters of law" as a defense!
Here's how you can help.
[More from WarOnGuns]
12 comments:
If the judge grants the motion to disallow the defense to argue matters of law, would it not be incumbent upon him to apply the same strictures to the prosecution. Shouldn't the defense make such a motion if the prosecution's motion is granted.
If the prosecution cannot argue matters of law, they must turn Mr. Fincher loose. How can they argue he broke the law if they are not allowed to argue the law? Unless of course the judge is already bought and paid for, which I find highly likely.
I would think his defense attorney would file a motion to make the ruling applicable to both sides, if one side cannot argue matters of law, neither can the other, at any level. The judge should then be put on notice that inequitable rulings will be challenged on appeal, and sanctions sought.
Alexander Hamilton would certainly disagree with the court. To Wit:
"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
So would Mr. Elliot:
"It is a rule of law that, in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded. Previous to the formation of this Constitution, there existed certain principles of the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in conformity to which the Constitution was formed."
- Mr. Elliot, Debate in U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 25, 1803
(The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
The court is NOT fulfilling its Constitutionally charged duty. Rather, it is undermining the Supreme authority of the Constitution and removing it as the basis upon which all laws should stand. Which totally disregards th rule of Fundamental Law and hence turns our system into an oligarchy. Which, in turn, is nullifying the TRUE Sovereign Authority - We The People, (vested with OUR Constitution).
The courts have, and are continuing to rule by perverse precedence. This must be stopped at ALL costs....We The People's Freedom and Liberty, nay, OUR VERY LIVES depend on it.
Turn Finch Loose? What a pipedream. They now own him. The State owns all of us. His prosecution is another sham trial for appearance only. The outcome has already been determined. Just like US presidential elections and show trials for tyrants in Iraq. His conviction will be the price for doing what the State says not to do.
The USA legal system is no longer based on the Constitution. It is now based, sadly, on the Admiralty law. And since two law systems cannot be intermixed in court, the Constitution was flushed down the drain a long time ago.
Welcome to a system where you are guilty until proved innocent.
anon at 11:21, you're not going to get an argument from me on your point. At what point do we, say "Not only no, but HELL NO!" and set it right by any means necessary.
My post was to elicit just the awareness of hypocrisy and corruption to which you responded.
I wish I were half as brave as Mr. Fincher. He is a real American. That kind of courage and patriotism cannot go unpunished in today's America.
Anonymous said - "The USA legal system is no longer based on the Constitution. It is now based, sadly, on the Admiralty law."
Regardless, both laws are based on the Laws of Nature. The founders knew exactly what they were doing, and knew the treachory which lies in the hearts of men. They anticipated this treachory, and provided for it. They had to fight for their freedom, just as we have to fight for our own.
"The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war." - Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651
ALL American laws are subservient to "the Transcendent laws of nature and of natures God. It is the very basis given for establishing the U.S. Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation. (Which were intended to be perpetual). There is NO human authority anywhere that can nullify the those laws. It could ONLY be done by God Himself.
Saddam had a fairer "trial" they Wayne will get. Saddam at least got to say that HE made the law, and nothing he did was illegal.
It's the same thing whenever a people are conquered, new laws are made, or decreed and those clinging to the old ways are done away with.
viva la revolucion
I live in the area where Wayne will be tried. I have been in Judge Hendren's courtroom and I believe that he will not be prejudiced against Wayne. Judge Hendren and his entire family have been known as Good People. I have also listened to Wayne talk and I believe Him innocent he has long been know to allow local law enforcement agencies access and if the truth were to ever be told probably some of the local law enforcement members are probably long standing members of the militia. Pray for Wayne and indeed for the Judge.
Well Anon ... you are wrong!
Guilty, Of Thinking We’re Free
I'm bemused by the ability of people like Mr. Fincher to disregard laws that they find odious while at the same time proposing novel interpretations of the Constitution. Lets look at a few "inconvenient truths" shall we?
1) Mr. Finchers Constitutional arguments were not relevant to the case,are therefore were inadmissible, and here's why.
2) The ban on ownership of machine guns in the absence of the pertinent application and stamp is settled law having been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, which according to the Constitution has the final say in such matters (short of an amendment to said constitution)
3) That being the case, the judge did not have the authority to allow the jury to hear Mr. Fincher's rant about how his rights(?) were being trampled.
4) Mr. Fincher's "militia" is not a legally reconized militia. In Presser v. Illinois, US 252 1886, the Supreme Court, in essence, stated that the states have the right to decide how they are going to organize their militias and that an individual does not have an intrinsic right to form a militia on his own without the approval of the state's authority.
5) If follows then that Mr. Fincher was not excused from obeying the laws regarding machine guns, etc. under some misguided belief that as a "militiaman" the ban on machine guns didn't apply to him.
I'm suprised it took the jury as long as it did since this is a pretty clear open and shut case.
Yeah, Doug H, subversive stare decisis trumps the clear "shall not be infringed" intent of the founders. And you're happy about it.
Post a Comment