Home

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold Ban on Double Jeopardy & Protect Citizens From Successive Prosecutions

2 Comments

For Immediate Release: June 18, 2019

The Rutherford Institute

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to protect citizens from being prosecuted for the same crime by federal and state governments, a fundamental right enshrined in the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

In a 7-2 ruling in Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed the “separate sovereigns” rule, an exception to the Double Jeopardy doctrine that allows states and the federal government to prosecute a person successive times for the same act, even if the person is found not guilty in the first trial. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented, warning that the Court’s majority had failed to recognize that the people—not the government—should be the ultimate sovereigns of power. The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief in Gamble, arguing that the “separate sovereigns” doctrine exception—which recognizes federal and state governments as separate sovereigns with distinct prosecutorial powers—violates the Fifth Amendment by enabling the government to abuse its power to prosecute, which is reflected the nation’s harsh and overly-punitive criminal justice system.

“As Justice Gorsuch recognized in his dissent, ‘A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result,’” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Despite the Constitution’s clear mandate against double jeopardy, the Supreme Court has given the state and federal governments the green light to continue to subject the citizenry to these prosecutorial abuses.”

MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb[.]” This prohibition embodies the fundamental principle that it is unfair and an abuse of power for the government to seek to put a person on trial for a criminal offense after that person has already been tried and acquitted (or convicted) of that same offense. However, in a series of cases dating back to the 1850’s, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that, because the states and the federal government are “separate sovereigns,” a person can be put on trial for an offense by the federal government even though the person was tried for the same offense in a state court.

In 2015, Terence Gamble was stopped by police while driving with a faulty headlight, and a subsequent search of the vehicle turned up a handgun. Because Gamble had previously been convicted of a felony, his possession of the gun was illegal. He was tried and convicted in state court for illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced to one year imprisonment. While his state conviction was pending, the federal government also charged Gamble with being a felon in possession of a firearm based on the same event that was the basis for his state conviction. Gamble raised the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause as a defense to the federal charge, but the federal trial court ruled it was forced to reject the defense because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “separate sovereigns” decisions. The federal court then sentenced Gamble to 46 months’ imprisonment, meaning that Gamble would be imprisoned for nearly three years more than if only the state sentence had been imposed.

In its amicus brief in support of Gamble, The Rutherford Institute urged the Supreme Court to overrule the “separate sovereigns” doctrine because it enables a system where federal and state prosecutors and law enforcement officers can work together against a defendant to apply overbearing institutional pressure.

The Supreme Court’s opinion and The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Gamble v. United States are available at www.rutherford.org. Attorney Elliott Harding assisted the Institute in presenting the arguments in Gamble.

This press release is also available at: https://bit.ly/2wZj9cb

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or viola

TS Radio Network: TnT Tanya TalkS with Edwin Turlington

Leave a comment

Join us Sunday evening January 6, 2019 at 7:00 CST!

More

The Tyranny of the State: One Minute To Midnight

1 Comment

Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Besides war and all of the insane massacres that have taken place through the ages, which also included roughly 45 million Chinese murdered in graveside trenches during Mao’s revolution, (i.e. I have seen the films), there is today, a comprehensive plan presently being ushered in by those elite’s who are connected to the New World Order, whereby the “Republic” of the United States of America is near to a mandate that will tag every person in America with an RFID chip, either into one’s driver’s license, or an ID Card, their passport or possibly other documents that may be in one’s possession for the purpose of financial transactions and surveillance. And to add to this, there will be the government’s crowning achievement to implant the chip on the right hand or the forehead of the person. As many know already, this prophetic agenda which is meant to become a worldwide phenomenon is meant to track every human being on the face of the planet like an animal. This system of massive surveillance is fully unconstitutional and clearly infringes upon the Fourth Amendment which protects the rights of all Americans;. Key government personnel will be first in line to receive the chip and also prisoners. and welfare recipients. However, the the Fourth Amendment below was written to offer across the board protection with regard to intrusion. ,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

With that said, does not the RFID chip intrude into a person’s privacy, digitally, by revealing their personal whereabouts, their property and papers while, at the same time, it is an unreasonable search and a seizure without probable cause and without a warrant being signed by a judge.

Furthermore, the people are being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process within the mandate of a chip inside of a plastic smart card, a cellphone, a document, or finally embedded within one’s own flesh. This is clearly noted above in the Fifth Amendment and is likened to a type of draconian infringement of a person’s privacy, their life, their happiness and their liberty!

Adding to the nightmare, if there is one person who knows the score on the up and coming tyranny of the state, it is Dr. Carl Sanders, an engineer who designed the RFID chip, (250,000 components with a charging circuit built into it and synchronized to a humans temperature change). He has been to 17 NWO meetings throughout the world and he is now warning the world about the dastardly use of RFID which is starting to be used by numerous governments with their rogue and sinister intentions of human control. He headed up a video event in Sacramento, CA. and urges all the people not to accept or take the chip in any form as it is now and will be in the future the most damaging and damning evil agenda that has yet existed and meant to identify and herd the masses into complete submission.

 

This present example is what the Marxist- X-Man leader of China is now implementing while also increasing the totalitarian-secular state to where there is, over the top control along with indoctrination and a surveillance system that is meant to track and also record everything a person says and does. And for those who do not comply to the wishes of the monster state policies, there are major consequences which is jail or the loss of state services and basic freedoms of travel that are generally available in most countries.

What if America and the rest of the free world follows the dragon? Yes, what if. The free world is at a fork in the world and it is now up to the people to organize and oppose the most oppressive system ever, where governments, with your tax money are already building the RFID digital foundation which is meant to rule the world through terror, massive data centers and enforcement.

This is the warning: It is one minute to midnight. Do not take the chip.

Dear Senator Manchin……What’s killing us is people like you who need to be removed from office

1 Comment

new-logo25Marti Oakley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**Note: IF congress allows due process protections to be stripped from those on these massive FBI lists, the premise for that will be quickly adopted by other federal agencies, even those with no interest in guns sales. There is no way this will be limited to the purchasing of guns. The recent event in Orlando was the stage show meant to shock the public into forfeiting their constitutional rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10155281_461153860682070_1662322543_nSenator Joe Manchin (D) appears not to understand the rights contained in the Constitution. Apparently, the right to due process, the constitutional protection against the very things he advocates, is a thorn in Senator Manchin’s hide. As he himself admits, due process is the firewall that prevents agencies such as the FBI, from adding individuals to lists of suspects….no evidence, no crime….they just decided you belonged on one of their lists.

Manchin goes on to say on on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI’s terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm. I would assume that with the massive non-stop surveillance that is carried on daily this would be virtually impossible to purchase a gun without the FBI, NSA, CIA and assorted other spy agencies knowing about it immediately. All that spying, all that data collection, the mountains of stolen information about everyone in the country……and the FBI couldn’t stop this man from purchasing guns?

Question: How can a man be employed by a security company that protects federal buildings among other things, and still be employed by that company if he is suspected of possible terrorism? More

DFL’er Alice Hausman launches an ex post facto attack on gun rights

2 Comments

new-logo25Marti Oakley        copyright ©2013

____________________________________________________________

Below is the video of Alice Hausman DFL, 22A, MN, delivering her opening attack on the 2nd Amendment in the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee of 2/6/13.  Sighting gun deaths from countries such as Japan which does not have the right to keep and bear arms, Hausman makes no reference to that fact that these countries are defenseless while the US citizens have more than 500 million privately owned guns.  Or, that gun deaths in the countries she alludes to are usually the result of government attacks.  gc indian Furthermore, I know of no one on either side who is remotely concerned with what are most likely fictionalized stats from other countries.  After all I doubt few of the countries she mentions keep actual tally’s on the number of people the governments execute routinely.  Obviously, our own government doesn’t keep any records either and they have empowered themselves to kill us for any, or no reason at all.

The remainder of Hausman’s remarks are nothing more than a re-hash of UN Global Small Arms Treaty mandates which OBama is desperate to implement.

As Hausman concludes her attack on the 2nd Amendment, she quickly folds up her tent and scurries from the room, leaving her lobbyist to listen to public comments….AS DID EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT.

For some reason, violating the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, as well as your 4th and 5th Amendments in addition to the gross infringement on the 2nd Amendment is okay…….but staying to face the people whose rights you are violating knowing that you your self have violated the very premise under which you were elected is too much to ask.  Cowards are like that.

From Powerline

Under the Democrats’ legislation, no one can buy or possess an “assault weapon” in Minnesota. If you already own one as of February 1, you can keep it. But you have to register it, and give the state permission to inspect your home–which is the only place you can keep the “assault weapon”–to make sure you are storing it properly, and undergo annual background checks. You can’t sell the firearm or give it away, and when you die, your heirs are required to either destroy it or “surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction.” So the statute represents a ban, followed by confiscation.

If people actually read the bills, especially HF 241-244 they will find out it actually turns many lawful gun owners into felons. HF 241 calls for registration and annual back ground checks and home inspections, by force if necessary.

So how many of you are willing to comply? And why is no one moving to recall this woman from office?

More

“…” – Obama’s Answer To Everything.

14 Comments

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

I’m sure glad I’m not an Attorney working for this Administration. True they are kept busy attempting to dig up validation for circumventing The Constitution, but oh my – they sure should have tried a different one for raising the Debt Limit.

Obscure clause may help US avert default

Some legal experts believe he could, citing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1868.

With the country still wrestling with post-war divisions, section four of the amendment was written after politicians from the defeated south sought to block the north’s commitment to repay large debts arising from its victorious campaign.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned,” it reads.

I’m always curious what those funny little “…”s stand for, so I led myself down the path of actually reviewing what Section Four of the 14th Amendment actually says. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that of the 84 words contained, the Administration chose only 17 words to support their “obscure clause claim”. What could those other 67 words pertain to? More

‘I’m Not Going to Be Interrogated As a Pre-Condition of Re-Entering My Own Country’

Leave a comment

live link: reason.com

| September 8, 2010

Reason contributor Paul Karl Lukacs describes a recent experiment in asserting his right to remain silent at the San Francisco International Airport:

“Why were you in China?” asked the passport control officer, a woman with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron.

“None of your business,” I said.

Her eyes widened in disbelief.

“Excuse me?” she asked.

“I’m not going to be interrogated as a pre-condition of re-entering my own country,” I said.

This did not go over well. She asked a series of questions, such as how long I had been in China, whether I was there on personal business or commercial business, etc. I stood silently. She said that her questions were mandated by Congress and that I should complain to Congress instead of refusing to cooperate with her.

She asked me to take one of my small bags off her counter. I complied.

She picked up the phone and told someone I “was refusing to cooperate at all.” This was incorrect. I had presented her with proof of citizenship (a U.S. passport) and had moved the bag when she asked. What I was refusing to do was answer her questions.

While being detained, Lukacs learned that he is listed in a government database as a guy who thinks “there’s some law that says you don’t have to answer our questions.” Ultimately, he reports, “It took half an hour and five federal officers before one of them acknowledged that I had a right not to answer their questions.”

By questioning the demands of government agents, of course, Lukacs was committing the crime of “escalation,” which triggers a summarily imposed penalty of hassle and delay. One Customs and Border Protection officer suggested that Lukacs should be forced to sit  for “two, three, four hours…until he cools down.” READ MORE

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: