Second Judge Doucette Opinion Hammond Case Judicial Tyranny
TO READ THE NEWSLETTER ONLINE YOU CAN VISIT THIS LINK: SECOND JUDGE DOUCETTE REPORTS HAMMOND CASE JUDICIAL TYRANNY
SUMMARY
I.Judge Bruce Doucette, Constitutional Judge, Issues His Report on the Hammond Case As Follows; Also Hear His Audio Statement Below.
II. Friend of the Court Brief on Behalf of the Hammonds
DOWNLOAD FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF HERE
III. Did the Hammonds receive Due Process of Law ?
DOWNLOAD THE HAMMOND LEGAL DOCUMEINTS HERE
I. Second Judge Doucette Opinion Hammond Case Judicial Tyranny, Constitutional Judge, Issues His Report on the Hammond Case As Follows; Also Hear His Audio Statement Below.
AUDIO STATUS BAR GOES HEREAudio Player “I have carefully reviewed the Hammond’s case, including the original case documents, the federal crimes committed against the Hammonds as independently reported in the Friend of the Court Brief filed into the case by Mr. James O’Hagan, and a separate document summarizing the breaches of both the Oregon and the US Constitutions by the prosecutors and judges involved in the Hammonds case. The Hammonds guilt requires evidence of criminal intent. The Hammonds demonstrated no criminal intent. Instead of demonstrating criminal intent, the actions taken by the Hammonds were consistent with ” Federal best practices ” for dealing with the fires they had to contend with, while evidence demonstrates the BLM itself often uses these same practices with impunity.
I conclude from evidence documented, report that regretfully the Hammonds did not receive any resemblance of Due Process, protection of liberty or property, guaranteed them by our Constitution. Rather, multiple Constitutional Crimes and Federal Crimes committed against them by those in the judicial system of a sworn oath to protect the Hammond’s liberty, property and inalienable rights. These were not excusable harmless errors. These crimes are purposeful, done with harmful intent, under the color of law.
I can not speculate on their individual motivations to obstruct the Due Process of Law for the Hammonds; however, I say this is the single worst example of judicial tyranny and judicial abuse I have seen in my life. The probable cause results from our statutory courts, including those in which the Hammonds were allegedly tried under the color of law;yet, lack the Constitutional muster our Founders created. Instead, the gold fringed flag displays and verifies the defacto court that practices Admiralty Law; whereas, the proper Common Law applies to We the People. These defacto courts violate our Constitution and rule of law, are owned, operated by privately held, for profit, mostly foreign owned corporations named Judiciary Courts of the State of Oregon.
Our government agencies show conversion into corporations also under the color of law: the BLM has a DUNS number 926038563. We wake up to discover our courts and government agencies fail to operate in the Public Trust as our Founders designed them; are instead private corporations operating under the color of law, violating life, liberty and property of Constitutionally protected liberty interests like the Hammonds with impunity for fun and profit.
The Judicial Tyranny demonstrated here triggers our duty to bring accountability forth to those violators who are not the Hammonds; rather, those corporations operating under the color of law. We all have a duty to insist the light of the truth exonerates and restore the Hammonds, while holding those government officials inside our judiciary accountable for egregious criminal behavior, including not limited to breaches of oaths of offices to support and defend the Oregon and the United States Constitutions, restoring proper order by restoring the Rule of Law. We simply can never tolerate lawlessness in our judiciary !”
Audio Player Judge Bruce Doucette, Superior Court Judge
Second Judge Doucette Opinion Hammond Case Judicial Tyranny
II. Friend of the Court Brief on Behalf of the Hammonds
DOWNLOAD FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF HERE
Excerpt from the Friend of the Court Brief as follows:“I talked to local ranchers in the Burns area. I talked to local ranchers in and around the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. I talked to Hammond family members. I talked to local business men and women in the Burns area. I attended several town meetings regarding the Hammonds conviction and resentencing. I talked to the individuals holding the Malheur in hostile adverse possession. I discussed the situation with media personnel. I read and highlighted problems with the Grand Jury Indictment of the Hammonds, presented by U.S. prosecutors Dwight C. Holton and Kirk A. Engdall and filed 6/17/2010,. I read and highlighted problems with the Federal Prosecutor Kelley A. Zusman’s Opposition to Motion To Dismiss Appeal, dated 1/25/2013. I read and highlighted problems with Federal Prosecutors S. Amanda Marshall and Kelley A. Zusman’s Opening Brief Of The Plaintiff United States dated 3/5/2013. I read and highlighted problems in the transcript of the resentencing hearing for the Hammonds dated 10/7/2015 in which the Honorable Ann Aiken presided over.
After studying the situation in depth I have concluded the Hammonds were victims of ineffective council, and a bad faith judicial industry that has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with a perverted judicial industry that allows attorneys to profit off of malicious, bad faith decisions of public officials and public employees. Like the people of Harney County and Judge Hogan who presided over the Hammonds trials, I too concluded the Hammonds are not domestic terrorists.
If anyone involved in this are domestic terrorists, it is the civil conspiracy made up of the BLM management, the Federal Prosecutors and Federal Judges who are all determined to expand the Malheur Wildlife Refuge by attacking one vulnerable rancher at a time. The attorneys who profited from supporting these organized crimes by the act of omission and not exposing them, are as guilty of domestic terrorism as the individuals who organized and led the attacks on these vulnerable ranchers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges are the leaders of the organized criminal attacks, and are instigating organized criminal attacks on all of the economically vulnerable ranchers in and around the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.
Each and every attorney who is in line to profit from stealing the life, liberty and property under the guise he is defending the next economically vulnerable rancher is directly involved in and an active participant in these organized crimes. All of these top ranking federal officials organized to use their official position to criminally expand the Malheur Wildlife Refuge by attacking the Hammonds ability to try to earn a living, by keeping them from using the best management practices available to them…”
DOWNLOAD FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF HERE
III. Did the Hammonds receive Due Process of Law ?
DOWNLOAD THE HAMMOND LEGAL DOCUMEINTS HERE
The following nine questions demonstrate glaring examples of Judicial Tyranny Judge Doucette Refers in the Hammond case:
- The 5th Amendment to our Constitution for the united States of America requires that ” No person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime, unless upon a presentment or an indictment of a Grand Jury,…”. An infamous crime is defined as a crime involving fraud or dishonesty. Where is the presentment or indictment from an independent grand jury of 25 of the Hammond’s peers as required by the Supreme Law of our Land ? Lacking a presentment or indictment, it is clearly unconstitutional to hold the Hammonds to answer for ANY crime
- According to our Constitution for the United States of America at Article 3 Section 2 Clause 3 requires that ” The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury;…”. Because our Founders knew the primary way the King delivered tyranny into our society was through the judges, they left no role in the trial of crimes for judges. Criminal trials are to be by juries without judges because everything a judge says will bias the jury. Did the Hammonds receive a trial by a jury of 12 of their peers without a judge as required by the Supreme Law of our Land ?
- According to our Constitution for the united States of America at Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 ” No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State,” Does the judge hold the title Esquire, which is one step below a Knight ? Does the Prosecutor hold a title of Esquire ? If yes, neither can hold any office.
- According to the 5th Amendment, ” … nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy …”. The Hammonds were unlawfully and unconstitutionally sentenced to prison and served their assigned terms, and then after they were released , they were given a new and much longer sentence. Were the Hammonds unconstitutionally put in jeopardy twice
- According to the 8th Amendment, ” Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Did the Hammonds receive cruel and unusual punishment unconstitutionally ?
- The Oregon Constitution at Article 1 Section 16 requires all “…penalties shall be proportional to the offense.” Was the penalty given to the Hammonds ” proportional”?
- According to the 4th Amendment, ” 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.” Was the search of the Hammonds and their property in compliance with our 4th Amendment ?
- According to Oregon Constitution Article 1 Section 12, the Hammonds can not be exposed to ” double jeopardy” which they were by being sentenced for more time after they had already served their time.
- According to Oregon Constitution Article7 Section 3 the case cannot be reheard after the decision by the jury. ” and no fact tried by a jury shall be reexamine in any court of this state,…”
No comments:
Post a Comment