Guest Opinion: And Once Again

An Open Letter to Rep. Mike Ross
by Charles H. Sawders ("Straightarrow")

(Second letter to Ross on issue.)

Congressman Ross, I once again send you this letter I mailed via electronic communication and hard copy mail to Federal Judge Jimm Larry Hendren in Jan of 2007. It is still an appropriate judgment of the man's character and disloyalty to the nation and its laws.

The particulars of the case involve Wayne Hollis Fincher and the illegal possession of a machine gun. My personal thoughts on the appropriateness of the law under which he was charged and convicted are not the issue here. Nor is my obvious contempt for Hendren.

I do not, as a practical matter, believe Fincher would have been acquitted, but I know for damn sure a sitting judge has no business "fixing" a trial. Which Jimm Larry Hendren did.

Please read the letter, pay attention to the factual actions of Hendren, and if you must, ignore my sentiments regarding this traitor to the nation and the law. Then please initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

Also, please avoid having the same staffer contact me as did last time. I do not know whether she is dishonest or ignorant, but she did her best to convince me there was no mechanism for such action. Which is, on its face, false.

Here is the letter:

20 Jan 07
U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas

Sir:

As an American citizen who is deeply concerned about the state of liberty and the lack of rule of law in this land I have been following the Fincher case. This nation was wrested away from a ruling elite that ruled by whim and the myth of moral superiority of the highborn. Because of the reasons for our departure from our mother country we established the rule of law, not whim. Those rules reserved and guaranteed rights embodied in the Supreme Law of the Land , The Constitution of the United States of America. Government was guaranteed no rights in that document, but were granted certain powers in order that the state be able to honor its duty to the citizen in protecting the reserved and guaranteed rights bestowed by Nature and Nature's God upon the citizen.

Therefore, when I read that you had stated in public, on the record, that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right and not a collective right, I was pleased beyond measure. I thought to myself, "Finally an honest sitting judge, who will rule based on law." That thought did not sustain me long. For the very next day, after your meeting with representatives of the prosecution, you reversed yourself. Which brings me to some questions for later in this missive.

I know you did not attend and graduate law school without ever learning that the Constitution of the United States of America was and is the Supreme Law of the Land. Further, I contend that you could not have graduated law school without ever learning that the jury is charged with judging not only the facts of a case, but also the law under which charges are brought. Were you to try to deny having ever learned that, your already suspect integrity would be revealed by its absence.

I can believe that you graduated law school and never learned that the courtroom belongs to the jury, not the judge, not the state, not the prosecutor and not the defense. The jury owns the courtroom, they are the highest power in that room, at all times. As stated previously, I can believe you graduated without that ever being revealed to you by your instructors. Such is the nature of arrogance in many that attain offices of honor. Many believe that they are imbued with a moral and universal superiority that places them above others and often simply ignore the truth if it does not please them. The fallacy of the judge owning the courtroom is one such manifestation of this arrogance. So while I can believe you were never taught that in law school, simply because the fiction of a judge owning the courtroom must be protected if the abuse of juries and the jury system is to be sustained, I cannot understand how you were able to study law and the history of the law and not discover the truth on your own. I suspect that it is an ignorance of convenience on your part.

The judge is a referee. His job is to keep the proceedings fair and in the bounds of the law. The judge has a duty not to be an advocate. A duty you have miserably failed in Fincher.

It has been ruled and upheld many times that a judge is not required to inform a jury of its duty and right to judge the suitability of the law under the Constitution. While it may not be legally required of him, it is certainly a moral obligation if justice is to prevail in our nation. When a judge declines to apprise a jury of its entire duty, but deigns to apprise it partially of its duty, he has become an advocate, and has shown his disrespect for justice.

I could cite cases and rulings that uphold everything I have stated above. I could cite quotations and writings of founders and jurists who have stated in eloquent terms the principles you have violated. I could do that, but I believe it would be pointless. I do not believe I have engaged an honest and principled man who has a different point of view, or who only needs to see the proofs that he has ruled wrongly, to set his path aright. I believe I am addressing a man who already knows all the things I have addressed here. I believe that man knew he was wrong when he disallowed the jury in Fincher to hear what the law, especially the Supreme Law of the Land, had to say, before directing the jury to a guilty verdict.

So here are the questions for you I mentioned above.

What was your price? What was offered you in that meeting with representatives of the prosecution that seems to have caused a complete reversal of what you had stated only the day before? Was it reward? Was it threat if you did not cooperate?

To sum it up in one question, "What price treason?"

Absolutely sincerely,

Charles H. Sawders
Doddridge, Arkansas