On Tuesday, a federal judge disqualified Couy Griffin, one of New Mexico’s Otero County commissioners, from serving in public office ever again because of his January 6 trespassing conviction.
The decision reads as though written by Orwell himself:
“Insurrection is a rising against civil or political authority,— the open and active: opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state.”
The summer of Burn, Loot, and Murder, according to this judge, can be defined as insurrection.
The decision continues: “It is not necessary that there should be bloodshed; it is not necessary that its dimensions should be so portentous to insure probable success, to constitute an insurrection. It is necessary, however, that the rising should be in opposition to the execution of the laws of the United States, and should be so formidable as for the time being to defy the authority of the United States.”
Read that again. This judge is defining terms in a very unconstitutional way. According to Judge Mathews, opposition to the federal government equals insurrection. This is weird since the US Constitution is, by definition, a document intended to limit and restrict the federal government.
It’s like this federal judge hasn’t read the US Constitution. Think we are exaggerating? The decision continues:
“When men gather to resist the civil or political power of the United States, or to oppose the execution of its laws, and are in such force that the civil authorities are inadequate to put them down, and a considerable military force is needed to accomplish that result, they become insurgents; and every person who knowingly incites, aids, or abets them, no matter what his motives may be, is likewise an insurgent.”
If you believe in American freedom, you should be outraged at the implication of that sentence. The judge has redefined First Amendment activity — speech, assembly, protest and, importantly, the right to demand redress for grievances and government abuses — as insurrection.
“Mr. Griffin's attempts by his arguments, including his closing argument, to sanitize his actions are without merit and contrary to the evidence produced by the Plaintiffs, bearing in mind that he produced no evidence himself in his own defense. His protestations and his characterizations of his actions and the events of January 6, 2021 are not credible and amounted to nothing more than attempting to put lipstick on a pig.”
Couy Griffin will be on today’s afternoon episode of Conservative Daily Podcast. Don't miss it.
Of course, this isn’t really about Mr. Griffin. It’s about all of us and, especially, Donald J. Trump.
When you go back to the news following the January 6 mostly peaceful protest, calls for removing Trump from office and barring him from ever serving again were ubiquitous. Nearly every media outlet had some version of the headline, “Can the 14th Amendment be used to bar Trump from office?”
By now, you’ve heard that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment hasn’t been invoked since 1869. We’re willing to wager, however, that you haven’t heard about how it was invoked in 1869 – that’s intentional.
The 1869 case that is being referenced, but not cited, by the media is referred to as, “Griffin’s Case.”
No, the post Reconstruction justices were not prophetic and referring to Couy Griffin. The only time outside of the post-Civil War applications of Section 3 (which were all later overturned by Congresses from 1870 to 1970), was a case brought by a black man named Cesar Griffin.
Griffin’s Case: “The petitioner in this case was regularly Indicted, tried, and convicted in the circuit court for Rock bridge county, of a felony under the laws of Virginia, and sentenced, according to the verdict of the jury which tried him, to imprisonment for two years in the penitentiary. While on his way thither, in the custody of the Sheriff of that county, in obedience to the mandate of the court and the requirement of the law, the steps of that officer are arrested by the writ of habeas corpus issuing out of this Court on the petition of the party. He applies to be discharged from custody, alleging that he is detained under color of a pretended judgment—pretended to have been entered by a pretended court, presided over by a pretended judge. He then charges that Hugh W. Sheffey, who acted as judge on his trial, which took place since the adoption of the constitutional amendment, was in law no judge at all, he having been disqualified from acting after the adoption of the constitutional amendment known as the fourteenth article; Judge Sheffey having taken the oath to support the constitution of the United States, and acted in a legislative office in the state of Virginia, and afterwards aided the Rebellion.”
So, the case, again being referenced but not cited, is about an illegitimate judge making a mockery of the justice system and persecuting a man whose surname is “Griffin.”
Setting aside the Divine Poetry of this entirely true story, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has never successfully held. Even Robert E. Lee had his rights posthumously restored during the 1970s. This more than 100 years after the Amnesty Act of 1872 removed most of the penalties imposed on former Confederates by the 14th Amendment.
The second “Griffin’s Case” under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is, once again, about an illegitimate judge making a mockery of the justice system and persecuting a man whose surname is “Griffin.” You can't make this up.
DEMAND FOR REMEDY: District Court Judge Francis Mathew, in his decision against Couy Griffin, has revealed that his position on the US Constitution is a violation of his oath. Congress must take action to affirm the First Amendment rights of Americans, and Judge Mathew must be held accountable for his flagrant violations of his oath.
We will have more on this story and both Griffins’ cases on the Podcast today. Don’t miss it, and call on Congress to restore our rights while we still retain them, at least on paper.
Here is today’s letter to Congress.
ATTENTION CONGRESS:
According to the New Mexico District Judge that just invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for the first time since 1869, “The Government of the United States has enacted laws designed, first, to protect itself and its authority as a government, and, secondly,its control over those agencies to which, under the Constitution and laws, it extends governmental regulation.”
Given that the US Constitution was enacted to restrict the powers of the federal government, as explicitly enshrined in the 9th and 10th Amendments, this statement is a violation of Judge Mathews’ oath.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has never successfully held. Even Robert E. Lee had his rights posthumously restored during the 1970s. This more than 100 years after the Amnesty Act of 1872 removed most of the penalties imposed on former Confederates by the 14th Amendment.
The only non-Reconstruction case of this Section being invoked is the 1869 case, which has been widely referenced by the media and all of you, but not cited.
Why have you not cited the case? You are ignorant of the facts of this case or are you intentionally omitting it from your self righteous pontificating?
The 1869 case that is being referenced, but not cited, by the media and all of you is referred to as, “Griffin’s Case.”
No, the post-Reconstruction justices were not prophetic and referring to Couy Griffin. The only time outside of the post-Civil War applications of Section 3 (which were all later overturned by Congresses from 1870 to 1970), was a case brought by a black man named Cesar Griffin.
Griffin’s Case: “The petitioner in this case was regularly Indicted, tried, and convicted in the circuit court for Rock bridge county, of a felony under the laws of Virginia, and sentenced, according to the verdict of the jury which tried him, to imprisonment for two years in the penitentiary. While on his way thither, in the custody of the Sheriff of that county, in obedience to the mandate of the court and the requirement of the law, the steps of that officer are arrested by the writ of habeas corpus issuing out of this Court on the petition of the party. He applies to be discharged from custody, alleging that he is detained under color of a pretended judgment—pretended to have been entered by a pretended court, presided over by a pretended judge. He then charges that Hugh W. Sheffey, who acted as judge on his trial, which took place since the adoption of the constitutional amendment, was in law no judge at all, he having been disqualified from acting after the adoption of the constitutional amendment known as the fourteenth article; Judge Sheffey having taken the oath to support the constitution of the United States, and acted in a legislative office in the state of Virginia, and afterwards aided the Rebellion.”
The case, again being referenced but not cited, is about an illegitimate judge making a mockery of the justice system and persecuting a man whose surname is “Griffin.”
Is that Divine Poetry, or what?
DEMAND FOR REMEDY: District Court Judge Francis Mathew, in his decision against Couy Griffin, has revealed that his position on the US Constitution is a violation of his oath. Congress must take action to affirm the First Amendment rights of Americans, and Judge Mathew must be held accountable for his flagrant violations of his oath.
Hold this judge accountable to his oath or being in violation of your own.
No comments yet - make the first one!