John Andrew Ross

John Andrew Ross is a traitor.

John Andrew Ross is a traitor.

John Andrew Ross is a traitor.

John Andrew Ross is a treasonous United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

According to a ruling by U.S. district judge John Ross in St. Louis, Missouri, governments can require a people to make themselves sick. More specifically, a local ordinance that requires planting grass, to which a St. Peters, Mo. woman is allergic, does not violate a “fundamental right.” Thus, judge John Ross granted a summary judgment sought by the City of St. Peters and ruled against a federal lawsuit brought by Jan and Carl Duffner, who must now devote half of their lot to cultivating a plant that makes them ill. The basis of the judge’s ruling is that the Supreme Court has ruled that “aesthetic considerations constitute a legitimate government purpose.”

So, according to this ruling, the government can force you to affirmatively commit acts that are harmful to your health.

St. Louis Today reports:

    U.S. District Judge John Ross’ 17-page ruling said Janice and Carl Duffner “failed to identify a fundamental right that is restricted by the Turf Grass Ordinance.”

    After unsuccessfully suing in state court, the Duffners filed their federal suit in 2016, claiming the ordinance was “unnecessary for the advancement of any compelling or permissible state objective” and “imposes a permanent obligation on the owner to cultivate and maintain that unwanted physical presence on their property for no reason other than that the government commands it.”

    The suit said such ordinances could lead to cities mandating swimming pools or holiday light shows to boost property values and said the Duffners could face jail time or fines of $7,490 to nearly $188,000. …

    Ross ruled that the potential punishment was not excessive. He also declined to consider several state law claims, saying that some of the issues had already been “extensively litigated and decided by Missouri state courts” in a prior state lawsuit, and other issues, including zoning, were better left for state courts to consider.

    Dave Roland, a Freedom Center of Missouri lawyer representing the Duffners, vowed to appeal.

    “If a city can compel citizens to devote half of their property to growing a plant that the citizen does not want and that makes them sick, there is no longer any principled limit to the government’s control over private property,” he said in a statement.

Kemberlee Kaye of Legal Insurrection gets it, about how outrageous and frightening this is:

    Janice Duffner is highly allergic to grass. The couple transformed their yard into a beautiful garden landscape. But, unless the Duffner’s adhere to the city ordinance, they can be fined up to $188,000 or face jail time up to 20 years in the slammer. A totally reasonable punishment for a landscaping violation.

Indeed, the pictures provided by the Freedom Center of Missouri and posted to Legal Insurrection show a beautifully landscaped garden, not some weed-filled wasteland.


John Paul Stevens

John Paul Stevens is a traitor.

John Paul Stevens is a traitor.

John Paul Stevens is a traitor.

John Paul Stevens is a treasonous American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1975 until his retirement in 2010.

Retired Supreme Court Judge John Paul Stevens wrote an oped Tuesday (March 27, 2018) in the New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Via The New York Times:

    Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

    That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

Apparently the traitor John Paul Stevens should be reminded of the fact that Stalin’s firearms confiscation was a tremendous success for the socialist state.

The Constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents in history, and recognizes something incredibly important: that our rights are given to us by God, not by our government.

Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

We, the People of the United States, should not stand by while these precious rights are taken from us. The Second Amendment guarantees security, it does not threaten it, and every man and woman in this great nation has a right to use it to protect themselves against tyranny or any other threat.

ANY ATTEMPT TO INFRINGE ON THIS RIGHT should be fought by the people of this nation. We should not allow anti-gun zealots and tyrants to blatantly ignore the Constitution and infringe on our rights.

The Second Amendment is vital for our liberty, and we need to defend it from all traitors like John Paul Stevens.


Janice M. Stewart

Janice M. Stewart is a traitor.

Janice M. Stewart is a traitor.

Janice M. Stewart is a traitor.

Janice M. Stewart is a treasonous United States District Court Judge for the District of Oregon.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart ruled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has little to no constitutional rights and must stay behind bars, calling him a danger to the community after he arrived in Oregon to support the occupation of a national wildlife preserve led by his sons. Janice Stewart also said Bundy should be held without bail ahead of trial because there is a risk he won’t show up for future court dates.

Federal prosecutors called the 69-year-old “lawless and violent” in a document filed before the hearing, an assertion his attorney and family denied. “If he is released and he goes back to his ranch, that is likely the last the government will see of him,” Stewart said.

Bundy, 69, was arrested in Portland on charges stemming from a 2014 armed standoff with federal officials who were rounding up his cattle over unlawful federally imposed grazing fees.

He came to Oregon to support a weeks long occupation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which his sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, demanded in accordance with the United States Constitution that the federal government turn over public lands to State and local government control.

His sons were arrested January 26, 2016 and remain in jail, but four holdouts extended the occupation until last Thursday, February 11, 2018, when they surrendered.

The elder Bundy was not charged in connection with the Oregon occupation. All his charges stem from the 2014 Nevada standoff: conspiracy, assault on a federal officer, obstruction, weapon use and possession, extortion to interfere with commerce, and aiding and abetting.

Bundy’s attorney, Noel Grefenson, said his client could not be a danger if authorities waited to charge him for 22 months. Judge Janice Stewart dismissed that argument and set his next hearing for Friday, February 19, 2016.

A family member said the patriarch isn’t dangerous or a criminal and should be released to live at home.

“Mr. Cliven believes in the proper role of government and proper jurisdiction. Where’s the jurisdiction?” daughter-in-law Briana Bundy told The Associated Press by telephone from Bunkerville, Nevada.

“He’s not a flight risk. This is his home. This is where his livelihood is,” she said.

Cliven Bundy is accused of unlawfully directing more than 200 followers to stop federal agents and contract cowboys who were trying to enforce a court order to round up about 400 of his cattle two years ago.

“Witnesses have described the level of threatened violence as so intense that something as innocent as the backfire of (a) vehicle, or someone lighting a firecracker, would have set off a firefight,” according to a 34-page document filed by prosecutors Tuesday, February 15, 2016.

They allege that Bundy and his followers set up traffic checkpoints on public roads and followed and intimidated federal officials trying to conduct plant surveys.

The government said they released the cattle to diffuse the standoff, but failed to mention the cattle were dying under their care.

Federal authorities have said Bundy owes more than $1 million in fees and penalties for letting cows graze for decades on federal land near his ranch. However, the Federal authorities along with Judge Janice Stewart refuse to recognize the United States Constitution in that these lands are not federal lands, but belong to the State and We The People.

One should ask, if Cliven Bundy is so dangerous why has he been allowed to travel as he wished amongst the public since 2014 without an arrest? He must have killed at least 100 people in these last 22 months to get that outlandish description added to his name from a bought and paid for treasonous judge. Bundys attorney is correct, if he was so dangerous to society why didn’t you arrest him earlier, did you want him to harm someone in Nevada? Just like these charges, it’s all fabricated to keep the truth from getting out on the government land grabs on these ranchers and the murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum that recently happened in Oregon.

Although some may disagree with how the Bundy’s handled some things, we should admire their willingness to go balls to the wall against an ever encroaching and tyrannical government.

If convicted of all six charges, Cliven Bundy could spend the rest of his life in federal prison.


Additional Information

Cliven Bundy Arrested By FBI After Flying Into PDX Airport

What Does The Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership


Additional Information

It should be noted, Judge Janice Stewart continually violates State and Federal laws by releasing illegals under the unlawful policies of the Obama administration.

For example, Judge Janice Stewart on Friday, February 12, 2016 ordered Illegal Alien Francisco Aguirre to be released while he’s awaiting the start of his trial. Aguirre pleaded not guilty to his charge in court. He was taking refuge at an Oregon church to avoid deportation and was arrested this week on a federal charge of illegal re-entry.

Records show the 35-year-old was indicted by a grand jury in September on the illegal re-entry charge. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed ICE has lifted its detainer on Aguirre, meaning his removal from the U.S. is on hold pending the outcome of his criminal case.

Aguirre, who came to the U.S. from El Salvador nearly two decades ago, was arrested Thursday, February 12, 2016, at a county court. He was there to settle a case of driving under the influence.

The arrest stems from a past criminal case: Aguirre was deported in 2000 after a drug conviction; he then unlawfully re-entered the country.

DUI, Drug conviction, Illegal entry, Illegal re-entry, Hindering arrest. And he’s free to walk.


Amy Berman Jackson

Amy Berman Jackson is a traitor.

Amy Berman Jackson is a traitor.

Amy Berman Jackson is a traitor.

Amy Berman Jackson is a Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson has rejected President Barack Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to records pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, a gunrunning probe that allegedly allowed thousands of weapons to flow across the border into Mexico.

Jackson ruled Tuesday (January 19, 2016) that the Justice Department’s public disclosures about its response to the so-called “gun walking” controversy undercut Obama’s executive privilege claim.

“There is no need to balance the need against the impact that the revelation of any record could have on candor in future executive decision making, since any harm that might flow from the public revelation of the deliberations at issue here has already been self-inflicted,” Jackson wrote. “The Department itself has already publicly revealed the sum and substance of the very material it is now seeking to withhold. Since any harm that would flow from the disclosures sought here would be merely incremental, the records must be produced.”

Jackson said she wasn’t questioning the propriety of Obama’s claim of privilege, but ruling that the claim could not be sustained in view of other information the Justice Department had released on the topic, chiefly an Office of Inspector General report released in September 2012.

“This ruling is not predicated on a finding that the withholding was intended to cloak wrongdoing on the part of government officials or that the withholding itself was improper,” the judge wrote.

The standoff over the records led to a House vote in June 2012 holding then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over the records. The House later initiated a lawsuit to try to force disclosure of the files. The case was repeatedly delayed in an unsuccessful effort to broker a settlement.

The administration initially asked Jackson to throw out the suit altogether, arguing that the legislative and executive branches should use their own methods to sort out the dispute. However, the judge ruled in 2013 that the fight was an appropriate one for the courts to resolve. She also rejected the administration’s efforts to appeal the case at that time, before she issued a definitive ruling.

Jackson, an Obama appointee, left open the possibility in her ruling Tuesday (January 19, 2016) that some of the disputed records could still be held back from Congress because they contain sensitive information on law enforcement techniques, implicate foreign policy concerns or discuss matters covered by attorney-client privilege.

To not definitely rule as to the inclusion of all records shows a disdain for the powers of Congress. Therein, Amy Berman Jackson is a traitor for not upholding the tenets of the Constitution.


Barry Glenn Williams

Barry Glenn Williams is a traitor.

Barry Glenn Williams is a traitor.

Barry Glenn Williams is a traitor.

Barry Glenn Williams is a treasonous Maryland Circuit Court Judge.

Just a day after January 5, 2016 inwhich a weeping President Obama attempted to disembowel the 2d Amendment with a series of unconstitutional executive orders, a liberal judge in Maryland, caving to the mob justice in that plagues that benighted city, gutted the 5th Amendment. This occurred during a pre-trial hearing in the case of Officer Caesar R. Goodson, the second Baltimore City policeman to be tried criminally in the allegedly accidental death of small-time hood Freddie Gray. The prosecution asked Judge Barry G. Williams to compel Officer William G. Porter, to testify against Goodson, and the judge, over the strenuous opposition of the defense, granted the motion.

Porter was the first officer brought to trial in the Gray case, presumably because the prosecution believed the case against him to be the strongest. In fact, at trial the case against Porter was shown to be gossamer thin, with the State unable to prove exactly when or how Gray suffered his fatal injury, the defense demonstrating that the medical examiner’s office changed its initial conclusion that the injury was accidental under political pressure, and an absence of evidence that Porter ever did anything to harm Gray. The greatest surprise in Porter’s trial was that despite the dearth of evidence that he committed any crime, that at least one juror voted to convict him.

The mistrial in Porter’s case was disastrous for the prosecution, since they counted on him to provide testimony against his fellow officers either having been convicted or acquitted. The prosecution could have obviated that problem by choosing not to retry Porter, but having promised mob justice to Baltimore’s rioters, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby decided to press on. Porter got a new trial date in June, meaning that he is in jeopardy until then and entitled to the 5th Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination. Since the other charged officers will be tried before then, that would deprive the prosecution of Porter’s testimony, unless it either negotiated a plea agreement in return for what is known as “use” immunity, or granted Porter “transactional” immunity which could compel his testimony.

The difference between use and transactional immunity is critical, not subject to much debate, and basically first-year law school stuff. Use immunity only prevents the prosecution from using a person’s own testimony against him/here at a future trial, but still subjects the witness to jeopardy. Ordinarily, testimony under use immunity is voluntary on the part of the witness in return for some kind of plea deal which limits legal liability in return for that testimony. By contrast, transactional immunity gives the witness essentially blanket immunity for the offenses involved in the solicited testimony. In return for this testimony, the witness is generally not under any further jeopardy, and as such, can be compelled to testify or face charges of contempt. This is the type of immunity is routinely granted to various gang-bangers and Mafioso but is evidently not available to a veteran police officer.

What’s especially remarkable about what happened in that Baltimore courtroom is that both the judge and the prosecutor demonstrated that they clearly knew what they were doing was unconstitutional and unethical but proceeded anyway. Prosecutor Michael Schatzow knows that what he sought, and what the judge gave him, had no basis in Maryland law. Schatzow’s claimed that forcing Porter to testify is “necessary to the public interest.” He might as well have been prosecuting a show trial in the 1930s in Moscow or Berlin.

By such a legal standard — necessary public interest — any and all our constitutional freedoms can be extinguished. It is probably in the “general public interest” that the chronic repeat violent criminals who roam Baltimore’s streets be rounded up and summarily executed. Is Mr. Schatzow in favor of that? Is his boss?

The wholesale rejection of law and logic got worse once Judge Williams announced his ruling. Admitting he was entering “uncharted territory” he granted the prosecution’s motion and in a breathtaking display of judicial activism swept away the rights of an American citizen. Williams’ recognition that he was in uncharted territory betrays his nonjudicial intentions, which are to support this political prosecution at almost any cost. “Uncharted territory” really means that he knows that the ruling is without statutory or judicial precedent, which is the basis of the law in Maryland and every other state (and usually taught in about the 9th grade.) Williams also reportedly said during the hearing that Porter’s “extremely important testimony is needed in the Goodson and White cases” which is something you might expect the prosecutor to say, but not the judge.

Besides being blatantly political and unconstitutional, Williams ruling was also logically incomprehensible on its own terms. In issuing the ruling, he warned prosecutors that should they call Porter to testify later, it would be “nigh impossible” to prove that his testimony in Goodson’s case would not impact his retrial. To make any sense of it, you have to believe that Williams just doesn’t know what the words nigh and impossible mean. If he did, he wouldn’t have issued his ruling, since that is exactly what Porter’s attorneys told him in making their case that he could not compel their client’s testimony. What Williams essentially ruled is that what he was doing was unconstitutional, that he knew it was unconstitutional, but that he was going to do it anyway. Moreover, he appears to be content with forcing Porter’s testimony and keeping the man in jeopardy until his retrial, and also with that testimony being used against Porter if the prosecution can figure out a way to get it in.

Porter’s attorneys have appealed the ruling and are asking for an injunction from the appellate courts. Maryland’s appellate judiciary is reliably liberal but hopefully will recognize this for the travesty of constitutional justice it is.