The
following information should have been directed & copied to you since the
Fincher family were and are your constituents.You know, the citizens you are sworn to represent?To our knowledge you did nothing of import to
at least make sure Hollis Wayne Fincher received a fair trial, which he
emphatically did not.Your nominated/appointed
District Prosecutor, Balfe III, was instrumental in violating Fincher’s
Constitutional rights & hence outrageous imprisonment.Where were you?
We visited
Wayne in the prison in Forrest City on July 25, 2009.Do you have the slightest idea or concern
about this imprisoned, disenfranchised, elderly Constitutional patriot and his
treatment? Do you care that he has
health concerns and he is locked away like a common criminal for a heinous length
of time? Have you given a thought to his
long suffering wife and family—either financially or emotionally?
While you
took and take numerous luxurious junkets around the world with your wife and
staff at taxpayers’ expense, how can you bear the thought of what you are doing
to struggling taxpayers, many of whom are losing their jobs due to your “globalization”,
government policies—including illegal immigration & open borders?(300 more lost Whirlpool jobs just this week)
You are living the high life at our expense.In the beginning we were told by others you were a good Christian man
and would prove it….no longer is that being said.In case you haven’t noticed, citizens are
catching on.
As your
constituents we are ashamed of and sorely disappointed in your lack of courage,
integrity, and principles. You placed
citizens in grave danger by voting for the likes of liberty killing bills like the
Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, outlandish spending bills, illegal
preemptive wars which have killed & maimed millions of innocents on all
sides, and who knows how many other Anti-Constitutional Bills.
No luxurious
perks are worth that kind of brutal betrayal of your oath to the Constitution
and American citizens. If you retain any self-esteem it is counterfeit and
unearned.You may have been a
well-meaning man when elected, but like 99% of the rest you quickly succumbed to
the easiest job in the whole world…spending other people’s money and doing
nothing to honestly earn it.
As Polonius
said to Ophelia…..”Assume a virtue if you have none”. (Hamlet)
Talk is
cheap…you are judged by your actions and the verdict is not good.How about showing some backbone by at least
helping an improperly imprisoned patriot or are your ties to the likes of “Judge”
Hendren too close?
You’d be
well advised to read and heed Mr. Sawders’ letters.
An Open Letter to Rep. Mike Ross
by Charles H. Sawders ("Straightarrow")
(Second letter to Ross on issue.)
Congressman Ross, I once again send you this letter I mailed via electronic
communication and hard copy mail to Federal Judge Jimm Larry Hendren in Jan of
2007. It is still an appropriate judgment of the man's character and disloyalty
to the nation and its laws.
The particulars of the case involve Wayne Hollis Fincher and the illegal
possession of a machine gun. My personal thoughts on the appropriateness of the
law under which he was charged and convicted are not the issue here. Nor is my
obvious contempt for Hendren.
I do not, as a practical matter, believe Fincher would have been acquitted, but
I know for damn sure a sitting judge has no business "fixing" a
trial. Which Jimm Larry Hendren did.
Please read the letter, pay attention to the factual actions of Hendren, and if
you must, ignore my sentiments regarding this traitor to the nation and the
law. Then please initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
Also, please avoid having the same staffer contact me as did last time. I do
not know whether she is dishonest or ignorant, but she did her best to convince
me there was no mechanism for such action. Which is, on its face, false.
Here is the letter:
20 Jan 07
U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Sir:
As an American citizen who is deeply concerned about the state of liberty and
the lack of rule of law in this land I have been following the Fincher case. This
nation was wrested away from a ruling elite that ruled by whim and the myth of
moral superiority of the highborn. Because of the reasons for our departure
from our mother country we established the rule of law, not whim. Those rules
reserved and guaranteed rights embodied in the Supreme Law of the Land , The
Constitution of the United States of America. Government was guaranteed no
rights in that document, but were granted certain powers in order that the
state be able to honor its duty to the citizen in protecting the reserved and
guaranteed rights bestowed by Nature and Nature's God upon the citizen.
Therefore, when I read that you had stated in public, on the record, that the
Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right and not a collective right, I
was pleased beyond measure. I thought to myself, "Finally an honest
sitting judge, who will rule based on law." That thought did not sustain
me long. For the very next day, after your meeting with representatives of the
prosecution, you reversed yourself. Which brings me to some questions for later
in this missive.
I know you did not attend and graduate law school without ever learning that
the Constitution of the United States of America was and is the Supreme Law of
the Land. Further, I contend that you could not have graduated law school
without ever learning that the jury is charged with judging not only the facts
of a case, but also the law under which charges are brought. Were you to try to
deny having ever learned that, your already suspect integrity would be revealed
by its absence.
I can believe that you graduated law school and never learned that the
courtroom belongs to the jury, not the judge, not the state, not the prosecutor
and not the defense. The jury owns the courtroom, they are the highest power in
that room, at all times. As stated previously, I can believe you graduated
without that ever being revealed to you by your instructors. Such is the nature
of arrogance in many that attain offices of honor. Many believe that they are
imbued with a moral and universal superiority that places them above others and
often simply ignore the truth if it does not please them. The fallacy of the
judge owning the courtroom is one such manifestation of this arrogance. So
while I can believe you were never taught that in law school, simply because
the fiction of a judge owning the courtroom must be protected if the abuse of
juries and the jury system is to be sustained, I cannot understand how you were
able to study law and the history of the law and not discover the truth on your
own. I suspect that it is an ignorance of convenience on your part.
The judge is a referee. His job is to keep the proceedings fair and in the
bounds of the law. The judge has a duty not to be an advocate. A duty you have
miserably failed in Fincher.
It has been ruled and upheld many times that a judge is not required to inform
a jury of its duty and right to judge the suitability of the law under the
Constitution. While it may not be legally required of him, it is certainly a moral
obligation if justice is to prevail in our nation. When a judge declines to
apprise a jury of its entire duty, but deigns to apprise it partially of its
duty, he has become an advocate, and has shown his disrespect for justice.
I could cite cases and rulings that uphold everything I have stated above. I
could cite quotations and writings of founders and jurists who have stated in
eloquent terms the principles you have violated. I could do that, but I believe
it would be pointless. I do not believe I have engaged an honest and principled
man who has a different point of view, or who only needs to see the proofs that
he has ruled wrongly, to set his path aright. I believe I am addressing a man
who already knows all the things I have addressed here. I believe that man knew
he was wrong when he disallowed the jury in Fincher to hear what the law,
especially the Supreme Law of the Land, had to say, before directing the jury
to a guilty verdict.
So here are the questions for you I mentioned above.
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?"
