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 Battle to Protect Nebraska Land from Big OIL

Leave a comment

 


Make sure your voice is heard. Sign-on to stop Keystone XL.

Marti —

While we are continuing to challenge the Trump administration’s rubber-stamp approval of the federal permit for Keystone XL in the courts, Trump’s State Department recently opened a public comments docket for an “Environmental Assessment” of the new Mainline Alternative route for KXL in Nebraska.

This new route includes land in Nebraska counties that has never before undergone environmental review, and where landowners never knew until now — after all the years of public hearings and submitting comments — that KXL might be plowing through their farms, and had no due process and chance to make their voices heard.

Basically, there’s a huge list of problems with this illegal review. It’s an attempt to shoe-horn a review of private property in Nebraska by a federal agency with no authority over that land, into an illegally outdated environmental review of KXL from 2014, in clear violation of the bedrock National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

But we still need to make our voices heard. Despite this illegal sham review process that’s been set in motion — which we will continue to fight in the courts — it’s critical that Nebraskans especially, but all Pipeline Fighters sign on and tell the Trump administration they are opposed to Keystone XL.

Action: Sign-on to Bold’s #NoKXL comment to Trump’s State Department.

We’ve composed a sample comment you can sign-on to, that covers all the bases on protesting this illegal process with the same arguments our attorneys are using in court, and includes key issues of concern for Nebraska’s land, water and property rights, and sovereign rights of Indigenous nations. You may also edit the language, or add your own personal statement to the comment.

*Important: If you are a landowner on the new “Mainline Alternative” route, please contact mark@boldnebraska.org for assistance with submitting your comment. For instance, if you have water crossings, or known endangered species or wildlife habitat on your land, be sure to include exact locations and detailed information about them in your comments. 

The deadline to submit a public comment is June 25th. 

Act now: Sign on to Bold’s #NoKXL comment.

Thanks for standing with us. 

Mark and the Bold team

P.S. Chip in to support Bold’s work to stop Keystone XL.

@Bold Nebraska on Twitter
Bold Nebraska on Facebook

Bold Nebraska
208 S. Burlington Ave., Ste 103, Box 325
Hastings, NE 68901 US

 

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

‘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

S.510: Your government welcomes you to the new “nationalized agriculture” system!

5 Comments

Marti Oakley w/ Paul Griepentrog  (c)copyright 2010

A glimpse into the near future!_______________________________________________________

Welcome to nationalized, government owned and operated farming and ranching!

This is the new government run farming and ranching. Everything will have to be done to meet criteria yet to be determined. The new dictatorial agency headed by the “secretary”, will now be able to designate high risk foods,(based solely on a reasonable belief, even if unfounded) and the subsequent products of these yet to be written (or admitted) criteria,  as grounds to require registration of your farm or ranch as a facility.  More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: