A jury has been seated for the trial of a Washington County man accused of illegally having three machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.Here's another account:
A five man, seven woman jury with two alternates was selected Wednesday in day one of the Wayne Fincher trial. Many Fincher supporters filed into the federal courtroom...all stood as Fincher entered.And finally, I got this very disturbing email from Paul W. Davis:
While Defense attorney Oscar Stilley said he expects to show Fincher is completely not guilty of any of the charges...during his opening statements the Prosecution had two objections to mention of the militia and the second amendment...
The Prosecution brought an ATF Special Agent on the stand to discuss the firearms found in Fincher's home and property.
The Judge came in this morning and virtually reversed his ruling from yesterday. In addition to that, I distinctly heard him say (and the court record proves it) that the Second Amendment was an individual right in that he spoke about the Bill of Rights and stated that they were individual rights that were protected by the first 10 Amendments.Mr. Davis adds he "will post the judge's ruling on the motion in Limine as soon as I have it and am able," and, of course, I'll link to that here.
This morning he totally reversed himself and stated that the 2nd Amendment conferred a collective right. Oscar argued with that and referenced the 2004 USDOJ paper and we also have an official copy of the 1982 Senate Subcommittee report that states that it is an individual right. However, the judge only accepts recent circuit court rulings and no other authority is sufficient for evidence or proof. Oscar argued that point strenuously and the Judge didn't seem to care.
Right now, I sit at the defense table as I am assisting Oscar. It is also a good opportunity to visit with Wayne when the Judge demands that counsel meet him in chambers.
You need to post that we actually live in the Land Down Under, and our courts reflect it.
[More about Wayne Fincher from WarOnGuns]
Oh, hell! I thought we had an honest judge for once, and now we find he's as corrupt as the rest. It's over for the Republic.
ReplyDeleteHis (Judge) handlers must have had a word with him since yesterday.
ReplyDeleteWonder what it is the feds have on the judge? Or, is he just naturally a spineless traitor? But, lest we forget, they are in Klintoon country.
ReplyDeleteGod help you Wayne, know that there are many praying for you.....
It certainly sounds like the fix is in. The best hope for Mr. Fincher is jury nullification.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise if he is hoping for a fair shake based on the plain reading of the Constitution he is in big trouble at the trial and appellate level I fear.
The government can't allow a fair trial. The official jury tampering and dis-allowing of the Constitution just go to show that they are afraid they will lose in a fair trial. Jury nullification! It is our last hope.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't Wayne just tell the judge that he WILL use the 2A for his defense, whether the judge likes it or not? Why does a judge get to tell a defendant what defnse he can use? That tells me that the judge is looking for a conviction, not justice.
ReplyDeletebecause the judge can, will, and some have jailed defense attorneys for contempt of court. There is no review, no appeal, no trial in a contempt of court case and can literally be a life sentence if the judge wants it to be. So far, none have, because they end up getting what they want.
ReplyDeleteUsually a defendant must fire his attorney to protect him then represent himself as he informs the jury of their duty to judge the law and their right of nullification. Seldom works, because most jurors never heard of it, and aren't prone to believing a defendant over an attorney (s) and/or judge. It will take a very special man as defense attorney to obtain a fair trial, for he may get his client off, but go to jail himself. It is blackmail, but it works.
Certainly, that power is not a legitimate power, SA. Any judge that would jail someone for contempt of court for using the Constitution for his defense shows that he and his court are indeed contemptible!
ReplyDeleteDavid, I believe you said it yourself, "the fix is in"
ReplyDeleteAnd as I said, no matter what the outcome, it will be appealed.
This would make good court TV show "kangaroo court: klinton country"
"A five man, seven woman jury"
ReplyDeleteSo much for a "jury of your peers."
RJ, remember all the cases where "authorized journalists" have gone to jail for not revealing a source, etc. in a trial of someone? Well, they never got a trial, they were ordered to jail for contempt of court for not complying with the judge's instruction to reveal what is considered confidential between a source and a journalist.
ReplyDeleteWhen a man doesn't pay his child support, he doesn't get a trial. He goes to jail for contempt of court, not for owing money. He didn't obey the court.
I don't know if it is a legitimate power, I can find nowhere where government has the power to do such in the constitution, but judges have been doing it for a couple centuries now.
To me it sounds like the judge and the prosecurter is trying everything with in the law, and possible out side of it. To make sure your client does not have a fair trial. I hope the best to you and Mr. Fincher.
ReplyDeleteUnless Oscar is willing to risk being held in contempt (which would be a very courageous stand), if he is not going to be able to argue for an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and if the judge is going to cram a collective rights interpretation of the law down the jury's throats, then Oscar should file a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the federal statute violates the constitution and also a motion to stay the trial until that motion to dismiss is ruled on (and then appeal the District Court when it denies that motion).
ReplyDeleteIf the court will not allow for a full defense on constitutional grounds, then it is likely that Mr. Fincher will be convicted after a kangaroo trial. Then his conviction will have to be appealed. So, why not just stop the trial and get that appeal on the constitutional issues rolling.
The only reason to go forward with a trial is if there is any hope of an acquital. Obviously we who are not there cannot know the mood of the jury, or whether there is any reason to believe they have been reached by a FIJA pamphlet or otherwise, but if that has not happened, I would go for a motion to dismiss the charges, right now, in the midst of the trial.
And, if the judge denies the motion to stay the trial, perhaps Oscar can apply to the Court of Appeals for interlocotory appeal (or whatever it is called in federal courts- here in state court it is called a writ of supervisory control) asking the court of appeals to stay the trial while it considers the constitutional arguments.
At the least, perhaps he can seek such extraordinary appeal on the question of whether the trial judge can prevent the defense from arguing aganst a clearly contended interpretation of the constitution.
Stewart Rhodes
David, Mr. Rhoades has presented an idea whose time may have come. Perhaps you could just send it to Mr.Stilley for his consideration.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't hurt. Might help in the appeal.
I did as soon as I saw it, SA, along with the "About Me" paragraph from his blog bio, to add "gravitas".
ReplyDeleteObviously, someone had a word with him. I find it amazing that a federal judge with a lifetime, only removed by impeachment (which maybe happens once or twice a year), can be cowed into assisting in burning the CONstitution. He can't seriously believe he is Appealate or Supreme Court material.
ReplyDeleteThe sole stated purpose of government is to priotect individual rights. And like all governemnt, the only thing it does not concern itself with is its stated purpose.