A DISHONEST MAN by Don Bright
Jimm Hendren is the antithesis of “honorable”, a term that is attached to his black robe and, in this case, not the man. I have been in many courtrooms in my life and have always performed as instructed by the phrase “all rise!” On January 12, 2007 I stayed in my seat when that call came to announce the judge’s leaving the courtroom. I did that because after being exposed to the gangrenous demagoguery and arrogance that flowed so eloquently from the lips of this man I felt no need to “rise!”. It felt good.
What I had just witnessed was the behavior of the generic target of our forefathers when they defined the danger of the state without boundaries. Our Constitution was written for the sole purpose of stopping men like Hendren. Most troubling is the fact that Hendren is well aware of that. His fear of being exposed as the power groping statist he is was, I am sure, the very reason he took the actions and made the declarations he did during the trial I witnessed.
The trial I am writing of was The United States vs. Hollis Wayne Fincher. Mr. Fincher was subjected to a “no knock” assault from the minions of the federal, state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies and arrested for having “illegal” guns in his possession. The raids (there were warrants for 13 other friends of Wayne) themselves were of little note here. Although more “illegal” guns were confiscated from others who were raided, only Wayne was arrested. Why? I’ll let the officer that was part of one of the raids where the person involved was not placed under arrest speak on that. That officer, when asked by the victim of the raid why he (the victim) was not being arrested, made the following statement, “we’re after Wayne Fincher”.
This startling revelation made the reasons behind the “get Wayne Fincher” raids very clear to all of us who follow local politics in the Washington County area. Wayne was a very brilliant and formidable opponent of those in power in the area. His imposition of constitutional guidelines and laws into the give and take of Washington County politics frightened his opponents. It made sense that they would stop at nothing to get rid of this man. They did. I’ll let the reader fill in the blanks here… I want to get back to that Hendren fellow.
It is no secret that our federal government is exercising more and more power over the individual is the last half of this century, give or take. And one does not need to have an IQ in 3 digits to know that the Constitution is an offense to those whose thinking is statist.
They hate it. Thus it has become necessary for these elitists to make the Constitution irrelevant. How best to do that? Simple. Instruct the judiciary to exercise control of it.
This they have done. The simple exerting of two fictions is all that is necessary for this task. (1.) Instruct the populace that only they (the judiciary) can interpret the meaning of the Constitution, and (2.) buttress that fiction by excising the Constitution from the courtroom.
That is how we end up with lapdogs the likes of Hendren. He will resort to any kind frightening rhetoric and gavel thumping arrogation to protect his naked regalia and that of his fellow travelers. To exercise control over the commons is commonplace in these exalted waters.
Let’s take a look at how Hendren did just that in ruling over the Fincher trial. With inordinate comfort and a hubristic smile “judge” Hendren did the following:
* Refused to “allow” the use of Fincher’s ultimate and necessary defense, i.e. the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas.
* Refused to “allow” Fincher his inalienable and constitutional right (6th Amendment) to be tried by a jury. Hendren would only “allow” Fincher to give testimony in front of Hendren, himself, and then denied Fincher the right to be heard by a jury of his peers.
* Intimidated the jury by telling the jury it could not think outside the box the judge defined.
To back up these charges, I offer the following quotes from Hendren’s instructions to the jury:
“You are the sole judges of the facts: but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.” (Editor’s note: Simply a lie. All jurors in the United States have the right to acquit if they think the judge is incorrect in his definition of the law, if they think the law is a bad law, or if their conscience tells them the defendant is being abused by the prosecution or judge. http://www.fija.org/)
“It is your duty to find from the evidence what the facts are. You will then apply the law, as I give it to you, to those facts. You must follow my instructions on the law, even if you thought the law was different or should be different.” (Editor’s note: See above notation.)
Compare the above quote from earlier ones in his instructions to the jury:
"Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors.”
“You are entitled to consider that evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in the affairs of life”). Emphasis is mine.
About the defense introducing and interpreting the Second Amendment as evidence Hendren had this to say: “…and I don’t know that I’ve got a problem with that, but I think that there would be a problem if the matter were going to be submitted to the jury about whether they think that is what the First Amendment – the Second Amendment – says or not, because that’s not a matter for the jury to decide. The Court will tell it what the law is, the applicable law.”
On the role of the judge and that of the jury Hendren makes this arrogant and errant barrage of affluent:
“The judge, being myself in this case, is tasked with determining issues of law, evidence, (sic) and procedure. Those matters are not for the consideration of the jury. It would be unfair to put it to them. They are not legally trained. They’re not judges. They’re not trained and hopefully experienced (sic). They’re not experienced in such things.”
In other words, according to Hendren, American citizens who sit on a jury are too stupid to be there. Why, then, I ask, do we even have juries? Hendren, obviously, considers juries one of life’s burdens put upon judges.
So what to think?
I think that Hendren’s chicanery, evasion and ambivalent stratagem points to the existence today of the very thing that our forefathers sought to avoid through the Constitution – a dictatorial judiciary that sets the rules for the other two “co-equal” branches of government and the citizenry a large.
I think that there are men who are so unlimited in ego and self delusion that they not only break the rules and laws of society…they indeed break the bonds of humility that must govern civilized society.
Jimm Hendren does not judge…he cheats.