• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: Federal government

Brandon Speaks the Truth

27 Monday Dec 2021

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Brandon Speaks the Truth

Tags

Brandon, dark state, Federal government, truth, war crime

They’ve probably already adjusted his meds, but fake president Brandon was correct that there are no federal solutions to the war and crime against humanity unleashed by the federal dark state.

“One word of concern or encouragement for your team is that as you look towards federal solutions that will help alleviate the challenge, make sure that we do not let federal solutions stand in the way of state solutions,” Hutchinson said. “The production of 500 million rapid tests that will be distributed by the federal government is great, but obviously that dries up the supply chain for the solutions that we might offer as governor.”

“There is no federal solution. This gets solved at the state level,” Biden responded, before mentioning another Republican governor.

The States need to dispense with this testing, hoaxing retardation, and prepare for prosecutions of the various war criminals. I suggest they work with Russia, China, and the rest of the anti-Globalist Alliance. The odds of the ICC or some other compromised international body doing anything are slim. Then again, there was no existing independent structure (or law) before Nuremberg either.

Back on Track

19 Saturday Dec 2020

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Back on Track

Tags

debt, Federal government

There was a time, a few years ago, when I began to doubt my prediction of a $40 Trillion on-books Imperial debt by 2024. Now, thanks to the economic collapse, the hoax, and the neocons, it’s all back within parameters!

The U.S. Congress is on the verge of voting to spend $3 trillion this month alone as the national debt climbs to $28 trillion.

This is utterly fantastic news! On the one hand, it keeps my estimate viable. On the other, as any mid-wit will tell you, this means you are filthy rich (owe it to yourself, etc.). I suggest they shoot for $6T in Janaury! Beat my prediction, in time and quantity!

American Values Confirmed

21 Sunday Jul 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on American Values Confirmed

Tags

America, debt, Federal government, usury, values

Just as everyone ignored the evil of Epstein (and Co.), so everyone ignores the flip side of the deal – the debt.

The rapidly expanding national debt has seemingly been a virtual non-issue so far in the 2020 presidential campaign.

None of the 20 Democratic candidates taking part in the debates later in July touch the national debt issue on their campaign websites, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of their sites found.

The “Promises Kept” section on President Donald Trump’s reelection website makes no mention of the national debt.

The candidates aren’t the only ones ignoring the issue, either. None of the moderators for the first two Democratic presidential debates asked any questions about the national debt.

Usury and child abuse… Somebody update those old Norman Rockwell posters.

HHS Burn$ It Up

10 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on HHS Burn$ It Up

Tags

budget, Federal government, HHS, mind blown, money

The ONE Single Federal Department is spending $100 Billion PER MONTH.

In the first eight months of this fiscal year, which began in October, HHS spent $834,346,000,000, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for May. That is up from $731,724,000,000 in the first eight months of last fiscal year.

Through all of fiscal 2018, HHS spent approximately $1,120,500,000,000 — or $93,375,000,000 per month.

Through this full fiscal year, according to the estimate published in the Monthly Treasury Statement, HHS will spend approximately $1,230,273,000,000 — or $102,522,750,000 per month.

In May alone, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement, HHS spent $146,552,000,000.

This one great reason why the FedGov rockets towards fiscal insolvency – not that they’re not technically there now, nor that any of this really matters anymore. But once upon a time, it did. For perspective, consider that HHS, which didn’t exist until 1979 and had no predecessor agency before 1939, now spends more every month than the entire government spent during the whole year of 1961. Yearly total federal spending wouldn’t reach monthly HHS levels until 1990. And, that was but a fourth as much as they spend in total now; soon to be but a fifth.*

The slope was slippery, the descent rapid.

*For reference: the craziest spreadsheet in the world. Yes, math fans, the sum of all federal outlays for the first 60 years of the Nation’s history, are a mere 1% (or about 8 HOURS worth) of HHS’s current monthly spending.

Attack of the $5 Trillion Gubmint

14 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Attack of the $5 Trillion Gubmint

Tags

2019, budget, crazy, debt, Federal government

There’s just no need for elaboration. These numbers speak for themselves:

The federal government spent $2,573,708,000,000 in the first seven months of fiscal 2019 (October through April), setting an all-time record for real federal spending in the first seven months of a fiscal year, according to data published in the Monthly Treasury Statements.

Prior to this fiscal year, the most that the federal government had ever spent in the first seven months of a fiscal year was in fiscal 2011, when it spent $2,476,257,690,000 in constant April 2019 dollars (adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).

That’s a high price for an Empire that’ll be gone in a decade and a half. It’s like wasting everything on a luxury model for use as a beater that you can’t even afford to insure. Should have gone with the economy republican model. Or even a mid-sized Monarchy or something. Hey, it’s just (fake) money in (and at) the end.

Up, Up, and Away … FedGov Debt at $22 Trillion

12 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Up, Up, and Away … FedGov Debt at $22 Trillion

Tags

America, debt, Federal government

Another stupendous milestone on the road from incompetence to ruination:

The national debt surpassed $22 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, a milestone that experts warned is further proof the country is on an unsustainable financial path that could jeopardize the economic security of every American.

The Treasury Department reported the debt hit $22.012 trillion, a jump of more than $30 billion in just this month.

The national debt has been rising at a faster rate following the passage of President Donald Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax-cut package a little more than a year ago and as the result of congressional efforts to increase spending on domestic and military programs. The nation has added more than $1 trillion in debt in the last 11 months alone.

“Reaching this unfortunate milestone so rapidly is the latest sign that our fiscal situation is not only unsustainable but accelerating,” said Michael A. Peterson, chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan organization working to address the country’s long-term fiscal challenges.

I vaguely recall when both the debt and the annual budget passed the $1 Trillion mark – now a mere year’s deficit. I’m sure this is all Trump’s fault. Nothing the Long Green Mile Deal won’t cure. Strike that. Nothing the Grace Commission can’t conserve our way out of.

Screenshot 2019-02-12 at 6.37.27 PM

Figure dated 2/12/19, PM – surely higher now … hell, was nearly $50,000 higher immediately after I screenshot…

Kim Kardashian Graduates

30 Wednesday May 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Constitution, crime, Federal government, Kim Kardashian, law, prison reform, society, Trump

From the reality of television to the reality of politics and law. This may represent a sea change as the curvaceous lady, formerly known for her … assets, lobbies for prison reform.

After months of back-channel talks between Kim Kardashian and Jared Kushner, the high priestess of reality television is coming to the White House. By late afternoon on Wednesday, Secret Service agents will wave Kardashian and her attorney through the southwest appointment gate to the West Wing, where they will meet Kushner to discuss prison reform before he walks with them to sit down with President Donald Trump, likely in the Oval Office, along with White House counsel. According to a person familiar with the meeting, Kardashian plans to ask Trump to pardon a woman serving a life sentence without parole for a first-time drug offense. (White House staffers have joked about who will get to accompany her to the West Wing, and what they should wear for the occasion. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)

I’ve heretofore only understood Kardashian through the lens of trivial popular culture. The masses adored her for reasons which escaped me. Now, at last, I have good cause to celebrate her celebrity – she’s using it for a good and noble cause. Applause.

A life sentence for the first offense of a grandmother. For dope charges. I did not look into those charges, the case, or anything else associated with the matter. But I hope she gets the pardon. That’s because I have looked into the Constitution. You might recall that document which created (and supposedly limited) the federal leviathan. The creation part is indisputable. The limits part used to be debatable. Used to be. People all over the political spectrum love to discuss the Constitution. I recently witnessed a debate or sorts about Constitutional merits on Facebook (which I’ve come to detest) between two old friends, a liberal and a conservative. You’ve likely seen the same recently. It makes, I suppose, for good rhetorical sport. But little else.

I reviewed the old parchment again this morning and I still cannot find a single word about narcotics and criminal offenses. In fact, I only see three clearly delineated and named crimes: piracy, counterfeiting, and treason.

That point is, at this extremely late hour, moot. I used to professionally stand before the emissaries of Mordor and loudly proclaim the truth, such as that the federal government has no authority to prosecute drug offenders. In hindsight, it would have made a better comedy routine. But it’s still the truth.

The woman Kardashian champions should be pardoned and freed. As should all federal drug offenders. And most federal convicts, period. Given Kushner’s involvement and Trump’s affinity for the curvy ladies, I have high hopes for the grandmother. Not so much for the rest.

kim-kardashian-white-house

Suddenly serious. Vanity Fair.

Hey! You made it this far. As a reward, here’s a link to today’s cogent if speculative comments by Vox Day on what comes next: War Coming Soon. As he might say, you need not agree, nor even understand. If you do, however, then this issue may eclipse the Constitutional autopsy debates.

UPDATE: Of course the quislings at CNN say, ” She shouldn’t be here talking about prison reform.” On their planet maybe she shouldn’t; she certainly is not a swamp critter.

There is a Case Out There…

27 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on There is a Case Out There…

Tags

Constitution, Federal government, firearms, gun control, law, laws

Bob Owens at Bearing Arms is excited about a case in federal court in Kansas, U.S. v. Cox, No. 6:15-cr-10150-JTM-01, 02 (D. Kan. 2016), that sort of threatens the imperial lock on firearms. Bob thinks this case could (possibly) undue all federal gun control laws.

The federal trial of a Kansas man for manufacturing and selling firearms and silencers without a federal license could very well turn out to be the pivotal case that not only challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, but also every federal firearms law ever passed in a battle that will determine whether it is the states or the federal government that has the constitutional right to pass gun laws.

Put bluntly, this could be huge.

Or it could not be huge. In fact, I am confident it will fail entirely. Cox’s Motion to Dismiss, stating all his Constitutional overreach claims, has been denied. In fact, Cox and his co-defendant have already been convicted. Their hope now, what little there is, rests either in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. In order words, they have no chance.

gun_laws

NRA-ILA.

This case would be important for several reasons if we still had a Constitutional Republic. We don’t. Every single federal gun control is undoubtedly unconstitutional. But the Constitution and the rule of law are now things of the ancient past.

The government simply does as it pleases, lawful or otherwise, and the people accept it  – or go to prison. Rights are now illusory unless they are non-rights asserted by non-citizens or terrorist invaders or banking corporations.

I may or may not look further into this matter. For now, just abide by the edicts of Washington or suffer as Cox does. Your state is no protection at all against Mordor.

Happy Thursday. I’m semi-lie today from Five Points Cigars in Athens. Nice place.

Regulating the Regulations, 2 for 1 Analysis

31 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Regulating the Regulations, 2 for 1 Analysis

Tags

CFR, Donald Trump, Federal government, government, money, regulation

A friend and loyal reader from Facebook (one of half a dozen, maybe less!) posted the following in response to my little blurb on the 2 for 1 cuttings in the CFR forest:

This idea came from the Canadians. When I first heard about the Canadian 2for1, it sounded great. Then, I read that they had the caveat “2 regulations of equal or greater impact”. Well, right there, is wiggle room for administrators. There must be hundreds of thousands on the books, some of them perhaps dealing with standard Conestoga wagon sizes. Not sure if Trumps EO contains this caveat.

Not, that I’m against the idea. A long time ago, I advocated for capping city regulations at (say) 200. You add one, and remove one. So think carefully.

Thanks, Pat! Great points, all. I didn’t look into the Canadian angle (the land of Maple and Hockey scares me…). I know Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia (a DEMOCRAT, for some of my other FB peeps) essentially proposed the exact same thing a few years back. This Order, which I’ll get to in a second, is ostensibly aimed at two things: easing the burden on businesses and citizens, and; controlling the admin budget.

nimbus-image-1485911565458

The White House.

Pat nailed it with the “wiggle room for administrators” part. That’s the name of the game in quasi-legislative admin law land. When I practiced law, I batted 1,000 in regulatory cases (hearings and litigation). Never lost a case. Federal, state, and local. 100% wins.

How? Because the entire system is bullsh!t. And no-one knows what the hell any of it means. And because I just happened to be especially good at that type of BS. Just say random things, reference a reg., and sound authoritative.

The people in charge of the agencies make a living wiggling around like that. They literally make this crap up as they go. By the way, 200 is nice, but I would cap the federal regs at 0. At least insofar as they apply to the people. I suppose they have copious pages of internal operating procedures. I don’t care how they schedule desk duty for signing for the Fed Ex man. Their business. It’s our business I worry about. And I think Trump shares the sentiment. His Order (in full):

Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

REDUCING REGULATION AND CONTROLLING REGULATORY COSTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

Sec. 2. Regulatory Cap for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency (agency) publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.

(b) For fiscal year 2017, which is in progress, the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director).

(c) In furtherance of the requirement of subsection (a) of this section, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. Any agency eliminating existing costs associated with prior regulations under this subsection shall do so in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law.

(d) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of this section. Such guidance shall address, among other things, processes for standardizing the measurement and estimation of regulatory costs; standards for determining what qualifies as new and offsetting regulations; standards for determining the costs of existing regulations that are considered for elimination; processes for accounting for costs in different fiscal years; methods to oversee the issuance of rules with costs offset by savings at different times or different agencies; and emergencies and other circumstances that might justify individual waivers of the requirements of this section. The Director shall consider phasing in and updating these requirements.

Sec. 3. Annual Regulatory Cost Submissions to the Office of Management and Budget. (a) Beginning with the Regulatory Plans (required under Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended, or any successor order) for fiscal year 2018, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations described in section 2(c) of this order, and provide the agency’s best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.

(b) Each regulation approved by the Director during the Presidential budget process shall be included in the Unified Regulatory Agenda required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order.

(c) Unless otherwise required by law, no regulation shall be issued by an agency if it was not included on the most recent version or update of the published Unified Regulatory Agenda as required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order, unless the issuance of such regulation was approved in advance in writing by the Director.

(d) During the Presidential budget process, the Director shall identify to agencies a total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed for each agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations for the next fiscal year. No regulations exceeding the agency’s total incremental cost allowance will be permitted in that fiscal year, unless required by law or approved in writing by the Director. The total incremental cost allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost.

(e) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of the requirements in this section.

Sec. 4. Definition. For purposes of this order the term “regulation” or “rule” means an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:

(a) regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States;

(b) regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel; or

(c) any other category of regulations exempted by the Director.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 2017.

I didn’t see anything in there that jumped out, overtly, as picking or minimizing impact based on value. I did, however, note the afore-mentioned items.

The first is found in Sec. 1. The CFR creates an insane burden on people and companies. Forced (at gun point) compliance is one of the three (non martial) ways the government dominates all life on Earth (the others being taxation and inflation). In his former business life I’m sure Trump spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars complying with these things. Thus, he wants, upfront and in writing, to aim protection at those who suffer – the People.

Second, he wants to reign in the federal budget, much of which is consumed by regulatory expenditures. How much? Don’t know. A LOT! The rest of the Order repeatedly talks about cutting costs. There’s nothing stating “Canadian” equal or greater impact. However, that is hinted at. It would make fiscal sense to do away with the most costly regs first from a budget standpoint.

However, I do not see that as a limit here – just a strong suggestion. Even if that became standard operating procedure, cutting so as to be revenue neutral, it would go a long way towards halting the cancerous growth of the administrative budget. And that’s its own issue in the Order.

Right now there is no independent assessment of the regulatory budget. There never has been. The closest we have is a lumping together of these expenses in the annual budget Bill summaries. And the clowns in Congress haven’t put together a complete budget in ten years! They are literally spending our money willy-nilly.

Trump’s Order directs annual expenses to the OMB. He’s telling them to publish a budget if they want one considered. And he’s telling them to cut the associated costs. It’s far from perfect but this is the best thing I’ve seen on the subject, maybe ever.

Setting aside the blatant fact that nearly 100% of all regulations represent illegal abdication of Congressional legislative authority. (Where’s the DOE or the other DOE or the DOC in the Constitution? Where’s the rule-making authority? Don’t look; it’s none of it in there). Setting that aside, the program is wildly expensive, inside and out of D.C.

I’m not looking through pie charts for a breakdown but I safely guess the total budgetary bill for all these agencies and their rules is on the order of $200 Billion. Per year. The total expense outside of the government, the cost of complying with these illegal fiat-laws is probably on the order of $1 Trillion per year. That’s $1 Trillion better left in the general economy – 20 million, $50,000 a year jobs, for example.

The size and scope of the CFR is truly baffling. I wasn’t too far off calling it a minor planet. In its infancy, in 1960, it stood in around 23,000 pages. By 1975 it was up to 71,000 pages. Now it’s closing in on 200,000 pages across 50 Titles. The index alone is 1,100 pages long – about the size of a large dictionary, the Bible, or The Lord of the Rings. Obama added over 17,000 pages in his first five years in office.

Assume one to two pages per regulation and you’ve got a whole sh!t-ton of BS to wiggle through – or pay for.

Some feebly argue these regulations “protect” people. The children, the crippled, the downtrodden, etc. Were none of these people protected in 1975? 1960? The answer is “yes” and, back then,they had jobs because businesses didn’t divert as much cash to satisfying this forest of craziness. And believe it or not, people existed, thrived, and were “protected” before any of this started. How else did people survive long enough to witness the creation of the “protective” agencies which are killing them?

Ryan Young wrote a piece on the 2 for 1 parings for the Competitive Enterprise Institute yesterday. It’s worth a read as is much of their information (where some of my numbers herein came from).

However this may work out one thing is certain: there is plenty of material to work with. Oil that chainsaw, Mr. Trump.

The Bundy Trial: A Verdict On American Justice

07 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Bundy Trial: A Verdict On American Justice

Tags

America, Constitution, Courts, crime, Federal government, Georgia, injustice, jury, justice, law, nullification, Oregon

Two Thursdays ago, while I prepared to hit the road, a federal jury did an amazing thing. Herein I answer a reader request for commentary.

Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Jeff Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, David Lee Fry and Neil Wampler were charged and tried for “taking over” a remote federal facility in Oregon. On October 26th a jury found all defendant’s not guilty on all counts. Well, Ammon Bundy still faces a count of tampering for disabling a few cameras. But the long-term sentence charges were dismissed unanimously by the jury.

While the case and verdict is seen by some who seek limited government as a success, it really is just another example (although with a happy ending) of what is wrong with the justice system [SIC]. My summary of these proceedings is that they represent a fluke of judicial process and little more.

First, I find it a little funny that just about everyone on the right (to include many limited government advocates) pulled for the DOJ/FBI last week during the odd continuation of the Hillary email/corruption/pedo-pizza carnival of doom. It was the exact same outfit that prosecuted the Bundys. Now that Comey has once again closed the Clintongate files it is clear to anyone of room temperature IQ or higher that justice in America really isn’t. Unless there’s a slip and a fluke.

I have recounted before how the justice system [SIC] in general, and the federal system in particular, work. 99% of federal defendants are railroaded into court for crimes not set forth in the Constitution. Of those, around 97% enter into some kind of plea agreement. Of those remaining who demand and receive a trial, maybe 90% are convicted. So, within a margin of statistical error, nearly 100% of federal inmates and convicts are in prison for nothing.

That’s not justice. My thoughts on the jury system of today.

 

The Bundy bunch beat the odds here. And that is worth celebrating. From the New York Times:

PORTLAND, Ore. — Armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from the takeover of a federally owned wildlife sanctuary in Oregon last winter.

The surprise acquittals of all seven defendants in Federal District Court were a blow to government prosecutors, who had argued that the Bundys and five of their followers used force and threats of violence to occupy the reserve. But the jury appeared swayed by the defendants’ contention that they were protesting government overreach and posed no threat to the public.

You may recall that one associate, LaVoy Finicum, was murdered by police as the others were arrested – gunned down in cold blood. Eleven others, playing the statistical game, plead guilty prior to the Bundy trial.

The government had a huge mountain of evidence. The defenses were rather maverick. And they could be as all that evidence still did not establish much. Frequently, when they don’t simply manufacture evidence and testimony from thin air, Justice [SIC] will overload a jury and hope the members become confused. Most do. Not here. In a remarkable turn of events, this jury actually paid attention and gave real thought to what they heard and saw.

Roger Roots, there in person in court, chronicled the various outrages and the unlikely outcome:

The defendants were accused of conspiring to prevent employees of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management from performing their duties at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural eastern Oregon. Yet federal prosecutors failed to produce a single piece of evidence of any specific threat aimed at a USFWS or BLM employee.

The U.S. Justice Department alleged in Count 1 that the seven defendants (and many others) had engaged in an “armed standoff” at the federal wildlife refuge with the intent of scaring away the various government employees who normally work there. Every defendant was utterly innocent of the allegation. Some were not even aware that federal employees normally worked there). Several defendants were also charged with firearm possession in federal facilities with the intent to commit a federal felony (the conspiracy alleged in Count 1). And two defendants, Ryan Bundy and Ken Medenbach, were accused of stealing federal property valued over a thousand dollars.

In fact, Ammon Bundy and the other defendants took a monumental (and quite daring) stand for the plain text of the Constitution when they occupied the Malheur Refuge in January of this year. They pointed to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which seems to plainly forbid the federal government from owning land inside the states unless the states agree to sell such real estate to the federal government.

Needless to say, the present reality in the American west is in sharp contrast to this piece of constitutional text. The feds claim to own and control millions of acres of land in western states—most of which (such as the Malheur Refuge area) was never purchased from state legislatures or anyone else.

The most frightening revelations from the Malheur 7 trial involved the lengths which the U.S. government went to in its prosecution. During the Bundy occupation, the FBI literally took over the tiny nearby town of Burns, Oregon and transformed it into an Orwellian dystopia. There were license plate scanners mounted on utility poles, drones throughout the skies, and military transport vehicles speeding across the countryside. FBI agents captured and monitored every phone number connected between every accused occupier. Federal and state police appeared in such numbers that their total numbers will probably never be fully tallied.

The occupation was met with a bonanza of government spending by agencies at every level. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife and BLM employees who were supposedly too frightened to go to work were put up in luxury hotels, along with their families. (In the aftermath of the occupation, the feds have spent further millions to “rebuild” the Refuge, supposedly because the occupiers tainted it; prosecutors were openly planning on asserting the inflated “bill for damages” at sentencing in the event the defendants were convicted.)

Most startling of all were the undercover government informants that were revealed in the trial. After weeks of wrangling and arguing with defense lawyers, the Justice Department finally stipulated that at least nine undercover informants were planted among the Refuge occupiers. Thus, informants outnumbered the defendants on trial. One informant was even a “bodyguard” for Ammon Bundy and drove him to his arrest. Another informant admitted he trained occupiers in shooting and combat skills.

After a week of deliberating over the evidence, the jury came back with its verdict yesterday afternoon, acquitting every defendant. (Jurors said they were divided regarding an accusation that Ryan Bundy aided and abetted the theft of government property when he and others climbed utility poles and took down two of the government’s surveillance cameras.)

There are reports that the U.S. Justice Department spent $100 million on the case. But twelve Americans saw through the government’s cloud of disinformation and dealt a mighty blow for liberty.

I would call this less of a mighty blow for liberty and more of a small blow for jury nullification. John Whitehead agrees:

In finding the defendants not guilty—of conspiracy to impede federal officers, of possession of firearms in a federal facility, and of stealing a government-owned truck—the jury sent its own message to the government and those following the case: justice matters.

The Malheur occupiers were found not guilty despite the fact that they had guns in a federal facility (their lawyers argued the guns were “as much a statement of their rural culture as a cowboy hat or a pair of jeans”). They were found not guilty despite the fact that they used government vehicles (although they would argue that government property is public property available to all taxpayers). They were found not guilty despite the fact that they succeeded in occupying a government facility for six weeks, thereby preventing workers from performing their duties (as the Washington Post points out, this charge has also been used to prosecute extremist left-wingers and Earth First protesters).

Many other equally sincere activists with eloquent lawyers and ardent supporters have gone to jail for lesser offenses than those committed at the Malheur Refuge, so what made the difference here?

The jury made all the difference.

These seven Oregon protesters were found not guilty because a jury of their peers recognized the sincerity of their convictions, sympathized with the complaints against an overreaching government, and balanced the scales of justice using the only tools available to them: common sense, compassion and the power of the jury box.

Jury nullification works.

It works when it is applied by an intelligent jury. The problem is in the empaneling of such jurors. Again, here we saw a fluke. And the Bundy’s troubles are not ended. Ammon still faces the remaining federal count and the whole crew faces persecution in the Oregon state system (because Double Jeopardy is an outdated concept and the prohibition has all but vanished in America).

The odds of successfully assembling such a conscious jury elsewhere are slim at best. I always drew the jury pool analogy this way: go to any Walmart around midnight; pick out the first 12 shoppers you see; that is your jury. The results are predictable. Most juries favor whatever the government presents, truthful or lawful, or not. If they have doubts, the system is rigged in the government’s favor – rigged to obscure exculpatory evidence, limit defense arguments, and limit legal knowledge and questions from the jury.

jury-cat

This is more like it. College Humor.

It’s fortunate I had a little time to draft this up. I found an unrelated, recent, and far more typical case for comparison.

Four defendant’s in Richmond County, Georgia were charged with various counts of felony Medicaid fraud and a count of conspiracy to commit the frauds. The indictment said they defrauded the government program (itself nothing but a fraud) of more than $3 Million.

All four were acquitted last week of the underlying fraud charges. Three were acquitted entirely. The fourth, the alleged ringleader, was found guilty by the jury of the conspiracy count. He was promptly sentenced to the maximum prison term allowed, five years.

Here’s the problem here for justice. Under Georgia law, “A person commits the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy.” O.C.G.A. 16-4-8 (2010)(emphasis mine).

If all parties were on trial together and the jury acquitted all but one of them of all charges, how then could the same jury find that the lone defendant acted as part of a conspiracy? There’s that elements of the law thing that isn’t met here. The judge should have entered a directed verdict of acquittal as to the last conspiracy count, a correction of jury fallibility in the interests of justice.

Such interest is a rare as the Bundy verdict. Georgia appellate courts (and others around the nation) have ruled such inconsistencies (illegalities) are allowable. They seem to regard them as a consolation prize for the state, which isn’t suppose to lose. The overall stats for state charges and trials mirror the federal trends closely.

Of these two cases, the latter is the standard, the former a fluke. A happy fluke but just that. I don’t see any greater awakening. However, given recent developments against the establishment (Trump, BREXIT, etc.) such a movement may be launching. If so, we must do everything we can to foster and support it. If you find yourself on a jury, take the government to task.

One never knows when one will find oneself seated at the Defendant’s table. Safeguard others’ liberty today as yours might be on the line tomorrow.

Support truth, freedom, and justice.

← Older posts

Perrin Lovett

FREE Ebook!

The Substitute – my first novel

NOTE! Much better, revised edition coming ASAP!

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Right-Minded Social Media For Normal People

Freedom Roasters Coffee AND Apparel

Ritin’ @ Reckonin’

Archives

  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Have a Cup!

Perrin’s Articles and Videos at FREEDOM PREPPER (*2016-2022)

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 39 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.