Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Government Defies Federal Judge on NDAA

Activist Post

When 4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional, there was wide rejoicing across the Internet. Posts from prominent civil liberties activists, like journalist David Seaman, rang out with VIICCTOOORRYY! A Russia Today newscast titled the ruling “NDAA Shot Down, But Threats Remain” seemed to imply that the fight was over, or "on hold." But it was only just beginning.

Do you remember, from your high school or college government courses, where they talked about the court having “neither the power of the sword nor the purse?” That means the High Courts of the United States cannot force the government to accept their ruling. They can heavily imply it, but they have no power to force government compliance. When the Supreme Court ruled against the government in Worcester v. Georgia, President Andrew Jackson is famous for having responded: "[Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

The tyrannical U.S. Government has taken the exact same tack with the ruling against them on the NDAA. But first, let’s quickly recap exactly how weak the government case in favor of the NDAA actually was. In Hedges v. Obama, the government routinely avoided the judge’s questions and demands:

The Court: When we are talking about cases which have used the phrase ‘substantially supported’ and said that that is a valid criterion under the AUMF or of the legislation, that’s not the same thing as saying that . . . any court has found, one way or the other, that ‘substantially supported’ has an understandable meaning to an ordinary citizen?

The Government: It’s true that the courts have not expressly ruled that, that’s right.

The Court: Give me an example. Tell me what it means to substantially support associated forces.

Government: I’m not in a position to give specific examples.

The Court: Give me one.

Government: I’m not in a position to give one specific example.


The Court: Assume you were just an American citizen and you’re reading the statute and you wanted to make sure you do not run afoul of it because you are a diligent U.S. citizen wanting to stay on the right side of §1021, and you read the phrase ‘directly supported’. What does that mean to you?

Government: Again it has to be taken in the context of armed conflict informed by the laws of war.

Court: That’s fine. Tell me what that means?

The Government: I cannot offer a specific example. I don’t have a specific example.

After seeing the ridiculous responses the government had given her, and finding that even the government could not define those terms, Judge Katherine Forrest issued her ruling against the NDAA, stating: “This measure has a chilling impact on first amendment rights.”

She then granted her temporary injunction:
As set forth above, this Court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public's constitutional rights are protected. 
Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.
This should be the end of it. This landmark case should be a victory for Americans, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The judge clearly states “the public’s constitutional rights” and “the public interest.” Hey, I’m a part of the public, so I’m protected now!

Not so fast. Our tyrannical government, in one sentence, has chosen to defy a ruling by a federal judge.
The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.
Just when you want to believe there are good people in the highest levels of our federal government, statements like this bring you back to reality. The government continued:
Although the Order fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, and the concluding paragraph of the Order is not, on its face, clear as to whom the injunction benefits, the government reads it in light of the well-established principle that courts 'neither want nor need to provide relief to nonparties when a narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants'
Excuse me? Let’s very quickly compare Federal District Court Judge Katherine Forrest’s Order:
Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.
With the government’s response:
The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.
The Judge said her order was to protect the public interest. No informed human being could read it otherwise. Yet, according to the government, they can still detain you because you are not a named plaintiff. Our government is so entwined in a power grab, they will stop at nothing, even twisting court orders, to strip us of our Constitutional rights.

The government defied the court, the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers. It stops here.

There is no more time for procrastination, for hoping the government will fix itself. There is no more time to rely on the courts.

There is no time to rely on Congress. The time to act is now.

It is now up to “We the People” to take down this tyranny through grassroots activism.

Join the movement to repeal the NDAA:

People Against the NDAA – Unite!

PANDA’s First Victory:

Please help support this information by voting on Reddit HERE.


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

To interpret that the judges ruling applies to only the named plaintiff isn't much of a stretch today. Kind of sounds like how Obama signs laws into power and then uses a signing statement to interpret the new law any way he wishes. Usually he says it doesn't apply to him.

Now, would anyone care to predict what the "government's" SECRET interpretation of the Patriot Act reads like? How about the Continuity of Government, which is so secret even the government can't see it.

We have laws in the US, but it's anyone's guess as to what they mean.

Anonymous said...

"Continuity of Government" one in their right mind would want this guberment to 'continue'. They are clearly in the process of making themselves the masters and us their serfs. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and against us. The guberment will use the only 3 weapons they have that work, intimidation, manipulation and provocation. But like anything, one becomes numb and sensitized to repeated exposure. They have become so incessant with their 3 weapons that we don't recognize them anymore as threats but only as reinforcement to our resolve to remove them and the hideous agenda our delusional guberment has planned.

Anonymous said...

You name the judge in the case, so what was the name of the traitor who was speaking as if he was the US govt.?

Anonymous said...

You can't have a new world order without breaking some eggs. The constitution and the bill of rights can not co-exist with the NWO. Now it is obvious beyond the shadow of a doubt that our entire federal government has abandoned the concepts of freedom and liberty in favor of power and greed. Satan is winning, what will all of the white, freedom-loving American minorities do now?

Anonymous said...

WAKE UP CITIZENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

That judge better watch out or he'll end up on Obama's kill list and with a drone visiting him and his family in the middle of the night.

Anonymous said...

This reminds me of an editorial published in the NYT yesterday, written by the [token] Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng describing how China flaunts its law. That article could have just as well been about the US. In fact, the article describes acts that resulted in arrest in China but would have got the perpetrators killed on the spot here in the US. It's one more validation of how the US has turned into a police state itself much like the ones it demonizes.

Anonymous said...

Wonder what the score will be for the ruling from
Fed. district court state DOM is unconstitutional?

Brendan Newman said...

The view that most Americans hold regarding NDAA is pretty scary. A lot of them have never even heard of it before. I asked one person what he thought of NDAA and he said "I don't know, I don't keep up with conspiracy theory stuff." A law that allows US citizens to be detained by the military and shipped to Guantanamo Bay, and it's a "conspiracy theory?" Now they want to conduct "military operations in cyberspace" (I can see it now: thousands of independent blogs being shut down by the military for alleged terrorist sympathies) and it also paves the way for war with Iran! I guess the transition to a dictatorship will be quite easy if people have attitudes like that. If you don't believe that martial law could happen here, just take a look at All the proof is there.

Henry said...

Oh pleeeze "Anonymous", not yet another armchair patriot whose big accomplishment is to post that worn out line: Duh, wake up america, wake up yous citizens.

Oh now that really helps. If ONLY we had thought of saying that before! Now all our problems are solved by just saying "wake up".

Wow that was simple!

Wake up and then WHAT? Do what? Where is the plan, where is the leadership, where are the resources?

Did you not notice the "Occupy Movement"? It seems that people are awake, and so what? Since YOU are so wide awake why haven't you solved the problems with all your wide awake armchair wisdom?

It's so sad that you idiots can't "WAKE UP" to the fact that it takes more than chanting "wake up". Fact is: you don't have the answers and you want someone else to do it for you. So wake up to that.

Anonymous said...

Wait until Obama gets re-elected. There will be a tsunami of these issues with increasingly timid, threatened or feckless judges either unable or unwilling to respond to the unconstitutional questions that will arise when the President begins his rule by executive dictat.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for the average citizen, the Feds have followed this strategy for years in other areas of enforcement. In particular, if the IRS loses a case against a taxpayer, it will simply continue to enforce the its rules against everyone else, as if nothing had happened. It will continue to sustain losses until it finally finds a friendly judge, and will then cite that "friendly" ruling as a precedent in future cases. If the DOJ or the IRS does not appeal a lost District Court decision to the Court of Appeals, then a binding precedent for the District cannot be established, and they can continue on their merry way in total disregard of the law.

Anonymous said...

"And where is that band, that so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war, and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more,
Their blood has washed out, Their foul footsteps pollution,
No refuge could save, The hireling and slave,
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave"

Post a Comment