Accusing Federal Judges of Treason is Definitely “How Not to Win”

I don’t enjoy criticizing members of our own community, especially when I think their hearts are in the right place. But I have to make exceptions when I think they are doing something that’s really damaging to the community as a whole. I’ve stated my opinions on the Wayne Fincher case before, but I noticed this appear WarOnGuns earlier that makes me want to bring it up again:

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?”

Folks,we’re really not going to accomplish anything by antagonizing the federal judiciary. In fact, it’s going to seriously hurt us. These are the same federal judges we’ll be relying on to, someday, rule in our favor and throw out a gun law because of the second amendment.

The judge in the Fincher case was bound by the precedent of 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds that the Second Amendment is a collective right. I don’t think he was bribed or coerced into treason. I think he was made aware of controlling precedent in his circuit, which he was perhaps not initially, and also made aware that as a district judge in that circuit, he was bound by that precedent.

I may not agree with our court system’s near worship of stare decisis, especially in a case, such at this, where the precedent is clearly wrong, but it’s how the system works. If you want to work within the system, you have to deal with and understand these issues. We must be exceedingly careful when dealing with the courts, and judges.

We’re getting into territory where if we play our cards wrong, the judiciary will read the right to bear arms right out of the constitution. Maybe some of the anti-government types out there would love to have something like that to prove that our government is hopelessly corrupt, and beyond hope, but I think most of us would really like to fix this issue the proper way.

In order to fix it, you have to have the right case, the right defendant, and the right council. I’m sorry, but this case isn’t it. I don’t say this because I don’t care that Wayne is in prison, or because I think the precedent is correct. I say this because having the Supreme Court throw out the NFA is the only way we’re ever going to, once again, have the right to own machine guns. Going after the NFA straight out of the gate, with a defendant who is a militia member, in the 8th circuit, which is one of the most hostile ones, is a great way to make sure we get more precedent on the books when we eventually do go after the NFA in the Supreme Court. You can bet they will scrutinize every lower court ruling when coming to THAT decision. So please. Let’s not give the anti-gunners more ammo in court.

If you must write the federal judge that presided over the Fincher case, be polite, and stick to intelligent, well reasoned, and non-accusatory arguments that are grounded in the law. You will never win someone over to your cause by accusing them of having been bribed to commit treason. I would have hoped that was obvious to all of us.

9 thoughts on “Accusing Federal Judges of Treason is Definitely “How Not to Win””

  1. I am the writer of that letter. While I understand your well intentioned criticism of my approach, I would ask this of you. How well has the approach you advocate worked? What more do they need do to write the second amendment out of the constitution?

    The unalienable right protected there has been reduced to a privilege and even a luxury privilege in some venues. Stare Decisis may have its place in a legitimate use of a jurists considerations, but I hold, and so does the law that a district ruling does not negate the Consitution. That is what this judge did, and more.

    He upheld the violation of every citizen’s right under the second amendment, and he, himself violated the fourth amendment, the sixth amendment, and eighth amendment. We won’t include amendments nine and ten because of their lack of specificity and the difficulty in showing relevance.

    In your opinion we need a better defendant, a better case, and a better rapport with the judge if we are to prevail in the quest for the return of our rights. I submit you have fallen for the ” We are all honorable men, come let us reason together.” crap that the transgressors of our laws, who are supposed to be the guardians of it have been putting out. Had I thought that true, I would have followed your method. The facts are simply against you. There was nothing honorable in the judges actions in this case. There was no difference of opinion that citing cases and other precedents would bring about different rulings or more favorable treatment and adherence to the actual law by this judge. He had already put the world on notice that he knew the right course. Then he declined to follow it and further did not allow a defendant’s right to defense, a jury’s right to impartial rulings according to the law, a jury’s right to know what that law is under which charges were brought, and a jury’s duty to follow their own lights in reaching a verdict.

    Just what attribute do you think this man has exhibited that continued deference and undeserved courtesy would bring him to honor his responsibilities as a guardian of the law and the constitution?

    If we are to be receptive to your ideas of showing respect to, though we may disagree with, Stare Decisis, black citizens would still be only three-fifths of a person. That they are not, means that at some point, what had already been decided was recognized as wrong and was reversed. This judge stated publicly in his courtroom that he recognized the supremacy of the second amendment and its applicability to the individual. Then he went on to deny himself and most of the Bill of Rights.

    He had and has the power to rule against precedent that is wrong or that he perceives to be wrong. That is why the Supreme Court exists. The fact that there were precedents in his district for or against does not relieve him of his responsibility to rule honestly and in accordance with the Supreme Law of the Land. He had already informed the world of his knowledge that, as it turns out, the precedent were wrong. He is not bound to continue error because someone before did.

    How is being respectful of the unrespectable working out for our side. We let them set the rules in violation of the law, then we let them set the rules of how we respond so as not to insult them when they betray us? Remember, we have played this game with them according to rules of behavior you advocate for at least the last 68 years. How is that working out? Does that not sound to you like a guarantee of failure? It sure does to me.

    Treason is committed by people we then call traitors. Traitors are people who betray. Betrayal is what they do. This man betrayed his own stated position, his oath, the law, the Constitution of the United States of America, and all her citizens. Do you really think if I had been more sensitive to his feelings he would have seen the light and become an honorable man committed to doing the right thing? Really?

    I understand your intentions are good. You know what they say about good intentions. The reason the road to Hell is paved with them is because we let the bad guys use them against us, while they ignore anything of substance we have to say. Often using the excuse of form to ignore the substance. It is time to change the rules of engagement.

  2. Charles,

    Thank you for the thoughtful and well written response. You make some very good points which I will address when I have some more time. I do appreciate what you’re trying to do, and I think your letter was very well done. I’m just not quite ready to give up on the federal judiciary quite yet, and to that end I’d like to keep accusations of treason out of the debate. Not only because of the influence such accusations may have on this particular judge, who I agree did not do the right thing here, but also because federal judges don’t exist in a vacuum; they talk to each other. And a coordinated attack on a federal court judge might elicit others to be less sympathetic to us in the future when we approach the court on second amendment issues. I don’t want to be mistaken that I think we should not fight in the courts, but we have to be very careful about how we do it. The first step needs to be getting the courts to throw out a gun law on second amendment grounds, which has to be a case that requires the courts to do as little reaching as possible, with a defendant that they will be looking for reasons to keep out of prison. I’m not saying Mr. Fincher is a bad guy when I say he’s the wrong type of defendant, I’m saying he’s the type the federal judiciary will be less sympathetic to, both because of the militia involvement (which was wrongly maligned by the press in the 90s, and has stuck with the public), and because the issue is an unregistered machine gun.

    I’ll have more to say on this later, probably in another post.

  3. I am tired but I would like to respond to this tomorrow or the next day if you will not be offended by my opposition to some of what you say. Not by any means all. For tonight I do not think I could be coherent, but I would ask you to think about this that you wrote, because it is what I would like to address. I ask that you think about your quote below and just let it percolate in your mind for a while.

    “Not only because of the influence such accusations may have on this particular judge, who I agree did not do the right thing here, but also because federal judges don’t exist in a vacuum; they talk to each other. And a coordinated attack on a federal court judge might elicit others to be less sympathetic to us in the future when we approach the court on second amendment issues.”-Sebastian

  4. “Not only because of the influence such accusations may have on this particular judge, who I agree did not do the right thing here, but also because federal judges don’t exist in a vacuum; they talk to each other. And a coordinated attack on a federal court judge might elicit others to be less sympathetic to us in the future when we approach the court on second amendment issues.”-Sebastian

    I want to approach the above from back to front, because I think it will make my position more clear.

    How much less sympathethic can they be? This one is not alone in abusing his authority and violating every duty he had. There are many like him and I just don’t see that all the courtesy and respect they have been shown to date has influenced them in the slightest to rule correctly on 2A rights. I rather suspect they mark the deference shown them down to fear. That is unacceptable.

    It is precisely because they don’t live in a vacuum that we shouid call them on their perfidy. They do talk to each other. If we cannot convince them of the certainty of a downside for their treason we should, at the least, instill in them the suspicion that there might be a downside to dishonorable behavior on the bench.

  5. Thank you for the courtesy shown me. I appreciate not being called a nutjob, which happens frequently when I object to people stealing what is mine. Hendren stole from me and every other American, I don’t think it makes someone crazy to find that objectionable. I appreciate your position. I know we are looking to the same goal. I just think your way has been tried long enough to know it isn’t going to work.

    Don’t know that mine will. But both beat the only other bloody alternative.

  6. It’s no problem. I think we’ve all been called that at one time or another by some anti-gun person. You’ve certainly been more than reasonable.

Comments are closed.