The KrisAnne Hall Show

Hate Crimes and Federal Troops in Chicago: Part 2
July 08, 2017

Transcribed by: Angilyn Mathews

Listen to the audio here: http://krisannehall.com/hate-crimes-federal-troops-chicago/

Welcome back to the second hour of the KrisAnne Hall show. So glad to have you with us today, on this wonderful liberty Saturday. So exciting for us to be together to learn about liberty and to learn how to communicate that liberty with each other. You are not wrong to stand by principle and demand principle. When we sacrifice liberty at the altar of pragmatism, nobody wins. It is the slow degrees by which liberty is always taken, and we must be a people who are more willing to say, “Hey, I will stand on principles, because in the end it only matters where I stand.” And as we stand on principle I want to talk to you about something today that I don’t know if it’s getting enough talk. I’m not seeing it much in the media world; the mainstream media world, and I’m not really seeing a lot of it in the Facebook posts and that, around the constitutional conservative liberty forums. Maybe it’s because it’s a bit confusing, but nonetheless, what we’re gonna talk about is Senate Resolution 118. Senate Resolution 118’s title says,

“A resolution condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.”

As a person who knows history; has an acquaintance with history; has an acquaintance with free speech and how that stuff works, this title really, really makes some alarm bells go off for me. For “animus targeting a minority in the United States.” I just; I wonder, how do we protect certain classes of people above other classes of people, and maintain the understanding of equal protection under the law? I also wonder, because this is a resolution, is that perhaps why it’s not getting a lot of airplay?

Normally resolutions don’t mean anything; they’re just the senate or the house giving their opinion. It is not law, okay, so let’s just be clear; this is not a law, limiting free speech; this is not a law defining free speech; this is not a law invoking new hate crimes, okay. So this is not a law, this is a resolution. Generally speaking, resolutions are just legislative bodies offering up their opinion. Resolution for this, resolution for that; this is what we believe. And it starts off that way:

“This resolution condemning hate crime, and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.”

You know, as I keep saying that title over and over again, I really believe it’s that word “animus” that bothers me the most. Animus. I mean, it’s like a four dollar word, nobody really – how many people use that word anymore? But, you look it up. An animus is a “hostility or ill feeling.”  I’m rather disturbed that we have now brought animus into the realm of hate crime in the minds of legislators. Animus. I harbor an ill feeling toward someone which is now in the same thought process as hate crime, by those who are writing laws. I really think, now that I sort of talk about this, it is the word animus; it is so vague; nondescript. And it rings of “thought police” – as if hate crime isn’t a matter of “thought police” to begin with, but I mean, seriously. Animus; it’s just not a very solid, descript word. It deals with feelings and, not even just hatred – it’s just an ill feeling.

Maybe I have an ill feeling towards you because I don’t like you. What if you happen to be a person that is defined by our legislator as a minority group? Does my dissatisfaction with your personality inadequacies make me now guilty of a hate crime? I don’t know.

So, it begins off as a resolution where; it always says whereas, whereas, whereas, whereas, whereas; whereas what in the past is making us think this way; what is happening now that makes us think this way? So, let’s go through these “whereas” because this is pretty general, standard kind of stuff for a resolution.

“Whereas, in the past several years, violent crimes, threats of violence, and other incidents of hate-motivated targeting of religious, racial, and ethnic minorities have increased across the United States.”

Would that apply to the federal government? Are they talking about Federal Department of Justice targeting Christians? Would that be the federal government targeting people for their certain religious beliefs? I’m just wondering, is this is a general statement, for the general public, or is this just for people, and not for government?

“Whereas in 2015, hate crimes targeting Muslims in the United States increased by 67 percent, reaching a level of violence targeting Muslim Americans, that in the United States had not experienced since the aftermath of September 11, 2001 attacks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

Whereas in 2015 anti-Semitic incidents increased in the United States for the second straight year, according to the Anti-Defamation League;

Whereas in 2015, anti-Semitic incidents at institutions of higher education nearly doubled;

Whereas in 2015 among single-bias hate crime incidents in the United States, 59.2 percent of the victims targeted were racial, ethnic, or ancestry bias.”

Ancestry bias? Okay.

“And among those victims, 52.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offender’s anti-Black or anti-African American bias, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

Whereas, in 2017, there have been more than 100 reported bomb threats against Jewish community centers, Jewish day schools, Jewish organizations and institutions in more than 38 states;

Whereas, in 2017, Islamic centers and mosques have been burned in the states of Texas, Washington, Florida, and Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated in the states of Missouri and Pennsylvania;

Whereas, in 2017, there has been harassment and hate-based violence against individuals who are perceived to be Arab or Muslims, including members of South Asian communities in the United States, and Hindu and Sikh Americans have been the target of hate-based violence; Whereas, February 28th,”

ooh, that’s very precise,

“Whereas, on February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump, before a joint session of Congress, acknowledged threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, and stated that, ‘we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.’”

End quote. So, that’s the “whereas”. So, from that we gather, let’s see, Muslims, Jewish people, Black people, African American people, South Asian people, Hindu people, Sikh people, are to not be discriminated against. We’re not to have any form of “hate crime, racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”; and these are the groups that the senate find most assaulted. That is the “whereas” part. That is standard for all resolutions, but now we come to the “resolved” part. And this is the part that makes this resolution a little bit different than most resolutions. This says,

“Resolved that the senate affirms that the United States stands united in condemning hate and evil in all forms.”

Well, they took that from the president’s speech. Number two:

“Rejects hate-motivated crime as an attack on the fabric of society of the United States and the ideals of pluralism and respect.”

Number three:

“Condemns hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the Un…,”

There’s that word again, I don’t like that word (animus),

“…in the United States.”

Here’s the differentiating part: Not only are they voicing their opinion now, they are now giving directives to federal agencies. Number four:

“Calls on federal law enforcement officials, working with state and local officials, to expeditiously investigate all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against minorities in the United States; to hold the perpetrators of those crimes, incidents, or threats accountable and bring perpetrators to justice.”

So, now we have three levels of government enforcement; those on a crime, those on an incident, and those on a threat. How do we invoke due process on an incident or a threat if they are not a crime? Crimes, incidents, or threats; state and local and federal law enforcement agencies; expeditiously investigating all credible reports, and to hold the perpetrators of those incidents accountable and bringing them to justice. How do you bring someone to justice over an incidence? What is the element of an incident? What is the criminal due process for an incident? See, the deviations here, are very disturbing and very alarming. We need to pay attention to the language.

See, we not only have an expansion of federal power into the state and local officials, but we have now the senate of the United States directing the Executive agencies to direct our state and local officials, to expeditiously hold perpetrators of incidents accountable, and to bring the perpetrators of incidents to justice. This is statism; this is how this works, this is “minority report”; this is the abandonment of due process.

The senate also encourages the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to “work to improve the reporting of hate crimes,” and, ”to emphasize the importance of the agency’s collection and reporting of data, pursuant to federal law.” There’s this thing; they keep talking about hate crimes. Nobody goes to prison for hate. There is no such thing as a hate crime; why do they keep using this language over and over again, describing a crime that does not exist? There is no crime to hate; you do not go to prison for hating. Hate crimes are not really crimes, they’re sentence-enhancements. So, if you murder someone, and the prosecutor intends to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your murder of that person was motivated by hate, the criminal justice system has then determined that you are now subject to, what we call, sentence-enhancements. You can receive a stiffer sentence for your murder because it was motivated by hate.

That should be really, really disturbing to us, as a civilized society, on many, many levels. First and foremost, the murder is the taking of someone’s life; that should be, I mean, that is a crime, obviously. That is a crime; you cannot take someone else’s life, without; of course. Self-defense aside, okay. You cannot criminally take someone else’s life. So, how does hate make the ending of that life worse? “Oh, I loved you when I murdered you, so I get less time in prison?” What if there is no recognized hate of your societal position? Nobody hates your people. Maybe, they hated you as an individual. Well, is that a hate crime then? I hate you because you’re a bad person; I hate you because you have something that I want; I hate you because you won’t give me what I want. I mean, what other kind of murder is there? And, why is it that certain lives would be valued above others?

See, that’s why I don’t like these hate crime sentence-enhancements; it creates even greater division in society. It says your life is more important than mine. So, if somebody kills you, they must go to prison for life, but if they kill me, no, maybe twenty years. How does that not breed division and resentment in a society? So, why is it that our legislators do not understand, there is no such thing as a hate crime; why do they keep using these terms over and over again? Why do they want the people to believe that there is such a thing as a hate crime? It is not a crime to hate. It is a crime to murder someone, it is a crime to rob someone, it is a crime to beat or batter someone; whether you do that with love in your heart, or hate in your heart, there is no such thing as a hate crime. The senate also says,

“We call on the Executive branch to continue to offer federal assistance that may be available for victims of hate crimes, and to continue to carry out safety and preparedness programs for religious institutions, places of worship, and other institutions that have been targeted because of the affiliation of the institutions with any particular religious, racial, or ethnic minority in the United States.”

I wonder, does that mean they’re going to stop supporting and funding the Southern Poverty Law Center, who have become the motivators of division and hatred?

So, I find this Senate Resolution disturbing from many aspects. There are people that are upset about it because of the preference; obviously in the text given to Muslim; crimes against Muslims and discrimination against those of the Islamic faith – I see this from a broader perspective. I think that it is wrong for the legislature to choose any religion as deeming of greater importance than the rest; of greater accountability than the rest. That’s not the job of the legislature; it’s supposed to be equal protection under the law.

I forgot, one of the “resolved” form in the last segment; let’s talk about that: The senate also,

“Encourages the development of interagency task force led by the Attorney General to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities.”

First off, it’s not the Attorney General of the United States’ responsibility to protect any communities in America; that is not a delegated authority – that is a local authority. That is not a federal authority. And why wouldn’t the Attorney General of the United States be wanting to protect against crime in all communities?

Why wouldn’t states and local law enforcements, state and local officials want to protect against crime in all communities? Am I grasping for straws here? I’m just looking for equal protection under the law. The valuing of some lives over the rest, is a dangerous and dangerous, slippery slope. It drives us to see differences rather to overcome them. If all lives matter, why do some lives have more value than others?

And why is it that the senate feels compelled to create a resolution that is not only a resolution standing up, you know, “We don’t like hate; we don’t like evil.” Right? That’s great. We are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms; end of resolution. Why do we now have to have, at the end of the resolutions, directives for federal agencies to fix hate and evil? Why don’t we talk about federal agencies that are targeting certain groups because they disagree with the federal government? Why don’t we talk about Executive orders? Why don’t we talk about policies and regulations that target certain parts of our communities? To deprive people of their life and their liberty, and their ability to pursue their happiness. See, I see more division being created by government, than I do unity. And I also want to talk about separation of powers.

This is not a law. There’s been no law passed. A resolution does not have to go through the law binding process. So, it doesn’t go through the house, through the senate, through the house, through the president; it doesn’t go through that binding process. So, it’s not a law. So, how does the senate feel that it has the audacity outside of a law to issue directives to an executive agency? Do we now have Congress issuing Executive Orders, to Executive agencies? Cause this is how this reads; this does not read as a resolution. This reads as an Executive order, and for the congress, for the senate to be issuing Executive Orders to Executive agencies is a clear violation of separation of powers. We are so fundamentally out of whack in Washington DC.

I don’t think anybody over there knows what they’re supposed to be doing and what they’re not supposed to be doing. I think this is truly the epitome of a Banana Republic where everybody just does whatever they think they need to do, and whatever they feel fit to do. “Oh, well this is bad, and this will look good on our voting record if we come out against hate. If we come out against hate and we come together and we say ‘we hate “hate”, and we hate animus, and we want to stand against animus, and we want people prosecuted for animus, and we want justice obtained for people who hold animus.’”

You know, maybe that looks good on a voting record, but it is a very, very disturbing thing, when it comes from a legislative body as a directive on the Executive branch, over whom they have no authority outside of the creation of a law, that is done pursuant to the Constitution. And, by the way, this resolution isn’t even; if it were a law, is not pursuant to the Constitution because there is no constitutional authority delegated to the federal government to outlaw animus.

“To encourage the development of interagency task forces led by the Attorney General; to end animus in America.”

It is that word, it is that word, animus, that really, really bothers me. It’s the slipping degrees; the steps that we take further and further from liberty. And now, because we have this resolution, what happens as a result of this resolution? How are we to hold the Executive agencies accountable for what they do here? There’s no law directing them to do this. I wonder now, if this resolution will be taken into consideration by the federal courts as they are, I don’t know, interpreting the Civil Rights Act, or interpreting any regulation, or whatever, as legislative intent. See, that’s how laws become expanded beyond their borders, because the federal court system then looks at what they define as “legislative intent” to expand the meaning of the written word.

Actually, not just simply to expand – to make it elastic – into whatever they want it to mean, for whatever the times demand. So that we no longer are operating under written law. You can never know if you’re actually breaking the law or not because it’s really not a written law, it is a form of opinion that is enforced by the judiciary, based on extrapolation and inference. What kind of inference do we now get from the senate, wanting the Executive agencies and federal law enforcement to expeditiously investigate and to hold perpetrators accountable for animus.

This should be even more concerning to us. now that the Chicago police and federal agents have teamed up to, quote, “end gun violence” in Chicago. This is the testing ground. You see, if the federal government uniting with Chicago police, will “actually end gun violence” in Chicago, how many other cities are going to ask for federal agents to come police them? And then, how many cities will be policed by the federal government? This is a standing army.

And this is where Donald Trump is wrong. As a candidate, Donald Trump mentioned shootings that claimed hundreds of lives each year, and when he became president he tweeted on Twitter, “To send in the feds”, if local authorities didn’t stop the “carnage”. And now, Trump has announced a program to deploy more federal agents to address Chicago’s gun crime. Trump wrote on Twitter,

“Crime and killings in Chicago have reached such epidemic proportions that I am sending in federal help.”

He is wrong. And I know this will probably make people upset with me, but we are liberty over security here; principle over party, and truth over personality. This is not returning power to the States by sending in federal troops to police local people. This is not restoring the Constitutional Republic by sending in federal troops to patrol city streets. They’re creating a Chicago Crime Gun Strike Force, comprising agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as federal prosecutors, police officers, and Illinois state troopers. The team will include about 20 ATF agents, 20 members of the Chicago police department, and it was described by federal authorities as the first – listen to me – the first permanent unit of its kind in the country. Did you catch that? Permanent! Chicago, the feds are never leaving you now; you are now permanently occupied by federal troops. “The first of its kind in the country.” Does that not tell us that they’re waiting for more; that they plan on making more? “The first of its kind.” We should make it the last of its kind.

White House spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said, during an off-air briefing, what the problem is. She says,

“I think the problem there; pretty clearly it’s a crime problem,” She said, “I think that crime is probably driven by morality more than anything else, so I think this is a law enforcement issue.”

I wonder, now that we have this idea that this is a morality issue, and now a gun control problem becomes a morality issue and the federal troops are now a permanent part of law enforcement in Chicago, what does that mean for the rest of America? This is expansion of federal power to the extreme; to an extreme. That the designers of our Constitutional Republic were very most literally, in writing, hoping to prevent for us. This is what they actually lived through; this is why they created the Constitution in writing, and signed and sealed it as the supreme law of the land so that the federal government could not come outside of its designated boundaries. But they also knew that the Constitution was just a document of writing, and that if the people did not secure their own liberty, limit their own government, then liberty could be destroyed.

The attitude of those in Chicago is very, very disturbing; inviting federal rule over their community.

Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago’s spokesperson said that, “we welcome – we welcome additional federal support. We appreciate the federal agents that are now arriving.”

Shari Runner, the president of the Chicago Urban League, said, “If it reduces the amount of guns flowing into this city, I’m all for it. Let’s do it.”

Why would we invite our own servitude through a standing army? Because we don’t know our history, and we do not know where this leads. When we can know. History and experience already writes the end of this story, and their own statements tell you what they want. “The first – the first of its kind in America.”

Let’s make a prediction, that this joint task force, these federal troops in Chicago will be a huge success. In the first year you’ll see huge reduction in shootings and gun crimes and, I don’t know, maybe even hate, in Chicago (sarcasm). Which will encourage other cities and other places to ask for federal troops in their streets. If the federal government can expand its authority in this way then there is no Constitution left at all. Because if the people can’t defend their own homes… You think it gets crazy when local officials – local law enforcement – become destructive of society. Think what it’s going to be like when federal troops do; how are you going to hold federal troops accountable when they become abusive to the people? It’s time for us to get educated so that we can procure our own security and limit the federal government to its original boundaries.

God bless. See you tomorrow.

The KrisAnne Hall Show

The 6^th Amendment: What is it worth to you?
November 4, 2014

Transcribed by: Angilyn Mathews

 

Listen to the audio podcast here: http://krisannehall.com/6th-amendment-worth/

Intro: I know you’re out there. I know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see; a world without rules and controls, a world without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

Rise and shine liberty loving patriots! KrisAnne Hall here. Welcome to the KrisAnne Hall show! We are a teach-show and not a talk-show. Hoping to bring the education of Liberty First to a struggling and starving Republic. Hopefully bringing the good news, the solutions, to our out-of-control government problem. And we do have an out-of-control government problem. If we don’t see that then there shall be no hope. If we don’t see that there are problems that need to be fixed then we have no hope. But we do have hope because there are many awakening, many understanding that we have traveled far from our original course. But a course correction is necessary and it can be achieved. And it can only be achieved through education; so that’s what we do here on the KrisAnne Hall Show. KrisAnneHall.com.

I’m so pleased to be a part of the reeducation of America, the reestablishment of liberty, the restoration of the Republic and today is where we’re going to be a little bit more teach-y than news-y today. We usually are, but more so today. Because I am an attorney; you know that if you’ve listened to me for any period of time. And I’m a little irritated to say the very least at the training that I got in law school and its contradiction to the Constitution and its focus on how to circumvent the Constitution. Yes, that’s what they teach in law school; They do not teach the Constitution, they teach us how to circumvent it, and they teach us that men and women in black robes sitting on benches know more about the Constitution than the men who wrote it. And now you know why we are in the fix that we’re in.

Now, I am a little irritated, maybe even somewhat bitter, at the education that I received, given the understanding that I have of the necessity of the Constitution. Daniel Webster said in 1806, July 4, 1806, by the way, he said, “Is the Constitution worth preserving?” He said, “Then guard it as you would the very seat of your life. Guard it not only against the open blows of violence but also against that spirit of change.” And that’s what law schools do, they are built on the spirit of change; the spirit that changes the fundamental foundations of who we are, and is transforming us into something that our Framers never intended us to be, actually prayed we would never become, went to war to break away from. And so what we’re going to be teaching today, I’m inspired to teach about the Sixth Amendment today. I’m particularly inspired to teach about the Sixth Amendment because of something that I experienced recently:

I was in a courtroom… You’ve heard me, if you listen to my daily show, you have heard me talk about Terry Trussell. Terry Trussell is a man in Dixie County, Florida, Cross City, Florida, who filed some complaints against the government for misconduct. The government turned on him and arrested him for a series of charges, some archaic charges, Draconian charges, if you will, of impersonating a government official. I can’t wait for this trial. I hope that I am in town for this trial because I cannot wait for it. It is going to be a very interesting thing to see the state prove that this man was impersonating a government officer. And so, the interesting thing here is, not the fact that he was charged with impersonating a government officer, but the fact that he showed up for his arraignment, these are criminal charges and he received a notice to appear; he appeared for his arraignment and during the arraignment, while he was standing in the courtroom, was arrested for failure-to-appear.

It’s a very, very odd thing actually: The defendant, the accused, Mr. Trussell, in the courtroom saying, “I am present. I am here to answer for the charges.” And the judge calling out his name. “I am present. I am here to answer for the charges.” The judge saying, “This man has failed to appear, take him into custody, Sheriff, Deputy, Bailiff, and put him in jail.” Yes, you just heard that. “I am present and I am willing to answer for these charges.”

“He has failed to appear.’ (The Judge says,) “Bailiff, take him into custody.”

Yeah! That’s really, really bizarre because at that point in time you don’t care what he did to get into that courtroom; the judge has determined that the man standing in the courtroom has failed to appear, even though he’s standing in the courtroom, and is being charged with failure-to-appear, and arrests him!

So, I have the opportunity to be in Cross City, Florida, which is Dixie County, Florida for Mr. Trussell’s arraignment on his failure-to-appear; because it’s now a new charge, he gets a new arraignment. Now mind you, he has been in jail for 21 days, on a failure-to-appear where he was standing in the courtroom. 21 days, in jail, for a failure-to-appear, when he was standing in the courtroom. 21 days in jail, denied a bond. Denied a bond. You know, can we just simply read to you the 8^th Amendment? The 8^th Amendment says,

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

How is no bond compliant with the 8^th Amendment? No bond on a case where there’s no threat of violence; he committed no violence to anyone. He was no threat of violence to anyone. How is no bond compliant with the 8^th Amendment when the man is in jail for a failure-to-appear, when he when he was standing in the courtroom, when he was arrested to failure-to-appear?

These are the things that we’re going to talk about today. Because when I went to this arraignment for Mr. Trussell I heard some very, very shocking things come out of the mouth of the judge and the mouth of the chief prosecutor. Now, he’s the chief prosecutor, he’s not just simply the chief prosecutor, he’s the elected prosecutor for the 2^nd judicial circuit of the state of Florida. He is an elected position. He is an elected representative of the people, as a prosecutor for the 2^nd judicial circuit of the state of Florida. And so here’s what happens: Mr. Trussell is standing before the judge, and the judge asks him, “Do you have the intention to get an attorney?” He says, “I do have an intention to get an attorney. I’m trying to secure an attorney. I expected an attorney to be here today. I do not intend to represent my self. The problem is, I’ve been in jail for 21 days and it’s been difficult to secure an attorney. It is under my impression that we have put a down payment on an attorney and the attorney was going to be here. I do not know why the attorney is not here.” And then the judge says, the most very, very bizarre thing, “Well, Mr. Trussell, I do intend to give you,” And I quote; because I wrote it down here. We were not allowed to record; the judge refused to allow anyone to record, even members of the press. Now, I believe that if I had known that ahead of time, I would have filed some type of motion, because the Supreme Court argues against the judge just arbitrarily determining that no reports, no press, can take recordings.

Now, recording is different than video taping, okay, so the court, the Supreme Court says that video taping can be limited but recording can only be limited in very, very limited aspects, and only through the issuing of an order from a superior judge. And so, I would have filed something had I known that we were not going to be able to record. But here we go. I took notes, and I wrote this as he said it, and wrote three asterisks afterwards: This judge says to Mr. Trussell,

“Well, Mr. Trussell, I am willing to give you a limited constitutional right to represent yourself. I am willing to give you a limited constitutional right to represent yourself.”

How many of my members of the Liberty First Brigade are already recognizing at least three problems with that statement? “I am willing.”: Problem number one. As if it’s his choice. He can choose which rights apply to you and which do not. “To give.”: Problem number two. Your rights are not given to you by any member of government. Your rights are inherent. You see, we have erred in the teaching of our Bill of Rights so now our judges and our lawyers believe that Constitutional, that you have Constitutional rights, rights that are given to you via the Constitution and since the judges are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution, they are the ultimate authorities over the Constitution, and the ultimate facilitators of the Constitution, then they are the givers of the rights. “I am willing to give you limited Constitutional rights.”:

Problem number three. Limited Constitutional rights. How is it any judge’s authority on this planet to limit your Constitutional rights? Even understanding there has been no hearing, just arbitrarily this judge says, “I am going to give you limited Constitutional rights,” And this judge is dumber than I’ve ever thought.

Welcome back to the KrisAnne Hall Show. KrisAnneHall.com. Are you sick and tired of out-of-control government? Are you sick and tire of operating in a system that has no respect for your rights, but expects you to respect its laws? Then, may I invite you to go to my website, KrisAnneHall.com, and you’ll find the solutions to these problems. That’s what we’re all about: truth, teaching, and solutions. KrisAnneHall.com, please go to my website today. Please promise me that you will go to my website in the next 24 hours. If you do not go in the next 24 hours, you will not go. Go to my website in the next 24 hours, read just one article, listen to just one more podcast, besides this one, listen to a video – watch a video, and share something, please. Go to my facebook page; we’re posting four times a day at a minimum, sometimes at a maximum. Please share this information so that we can inspire others to stand for the Constitution.

We are talking about the absolutely outrageous hearing against Terry Trussell in Dixie County, Florida, conducted by a judge named James Hankinson. And Judge James Hankinson has told Terry Trussell,

“I am willing to give you a limited Constitutional right to defend yourself.”

Now I want to ask you, are you willing to allow this man go unchallenged? Are you willing to allow Terry Trussell to live on his own and defend himself in this matter? Because I want you to take the opportunity to exercise your right to disagree with this judge, standing for the rights of Terry Trussell, so that you can stand for your own rights. You see, we’ll either hang together or we’ll hang separate but we will surely hang in a system like this, and its time for the Liberty First Brigade to stand up

I want to give you the contact information for judge James Hankinson. Please write this down and contact him:

His phone number, 850-577-4320. His email: DavisDA@leoncountyfl.gov.

We’ve gotta learn how to stand for each other in this situation. You know what, you may live in Washington state, you may live in Upstate New York, you may live in South Florida, you may live in Arizona, but if we don’t stand for each other in the name of liberty across this country, how will there be anybody left to stand for us when it’s our turn? And this judge has told Terry Trussell, “I am willing to give you a limited Constitutional right to defend yourself.” How does this judge exist in such a state of ignorance and arrogance at the same time, to believe that he has the authority to choose, the authority to give, and the authority to limit any right whatsoever? I am so appalled by this.

It is difficult for me to even go on from this, but this hearing does not get any better. He says to Terry Trussell, “We are going to set your trial date for February 9^th through 11^th, and if we determine that you are not qualified to represent yourself, and you fail to get an attorney, this is going to be a very one-sided hearing. He says,

“This is already an awkward situation because no attorney is here to represent you, and therefore it is not appropriate to hear from you.”

When did it become “appropriate” for a court to deny someone a right to be heard?! This should send shivers up your spine!

I am going to give you Justice James Hankinson’s contact information for every segment until we’re done because I think this is very important for our Liberty First Brigade to be responsive in this.

Justice James Hankinson’s phone number is 850-577-4320. His email is DavisDA@leoncountyfl.gov;

you go to my facebook page and I will post this for you. It is important that we stand together so we don’t hang separately. We must stand now. I don’t care where you are in the country, but this is ridiculous for a judge to stand up and say that “it is awkward for me to hear from you in the courtroom because you have no attorney, and it’s not appropriate for me to hear from you”.

When do we have a limited right to be heard from the court? Based on the fact that we are represented by an attorney? When did it become a requirement of due process to have an attorney to represent you? It is a choice! It is a right to have one if you choose to have one, but if you don’t have one, it’s not a requirement to be heard. Because, you see, if it’s a requirement to be heard, and the judge and the courtroom can ignore your presence, hello! Arresting a man for failure to appear when he’s standing in the courtroom; if it is a matter of our process to deny someone a voice to be heard, even though he’s present, just because he doesn’t have an attorney, how is that appropriate due process? How is that any respect of liberty? It is not!

Terry Trussell says,

“I have substantial standing in this community. There is no threat of me leaving or fleeing. I have assets in town. I am going to get an attorney for my defense. I am in good standing. I am not a flight risk.” And he says, “I already have a bond against me. Can you please let me out of jail so I can prepare for my defense?”

And the judge says, “It’s awkward to hear from you because you don’t have an attorney.” That is outrageous. That is so antithetical to what our Founders believed; what they shed blood for.

Listen to what the 6^th Amendment says: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

Yeah, not one where the judge can limit the public’s access; not one where the judge can say that the press is not allowed to record. Cause it says here,

“a public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. Which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the right of assistance of counsel for his defense.”

There are so many things, it is so rich in here, and there are so many rights in this. That we are to be reminded that ours inherently… That was the purpose of the Bill of Rights; to remind us what our inherent rights were, not to establish our right to them. And the judge says, “I’m willing to give you a limited Constitutional right. Mr. Trussell says,

“I was not given a fair opportunity to be heard at the last hearing. I was announcing my presence, I was saying, ‘I’m here’. I’m not going to ignore this charge; I will stand.” And the very same judge who said that “I am willing to give you a limited Constitutional right”

replies to Mr. Trussell and says,

“Well, I do recognize that someone was standing in the courtroom, but I couldn’t know who you were, so I had you arrested for failure-to-appear.”

A judge apparently, who’s willing to recognize a limited Constitutional right is also willing to have an unknown, unidentified man arrested for failure-to-appear at a hearing in which he is appearing. And then, it gets even worse. The judge says, “Without an attorney, Mr. Trussell, you need to have an attorney.” He said,

“Without an attorney this will be a one-sided trial, because you cannot be heard without an attorney.”

What in the world is this judge talking about?! This judge has just announced in his courtroom of limited constitutional rights that the 6^th Amendment is toilet paper; it means absolutely nothing! Because “without an attorney, you can’t be heard.”

Well, I’m reading in this 6^th Amendment that

“in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

I am saying that he has the right to these things. It’s not saying that this is a requirement for his right to be heard. “In a speedy and public trial.” It does not say, “In all criminal prosecutions where the accused is represented by a lawyer”. It does not say that! It does not say, “In all criminal prosecutions where the accused has an attorney present.” This is an unqualified right. In all criminal prosecutions you have these rights. But in this statement the judge is saying several things: Without an attorney you can’t be heard.

And since we’ve already determined, because this happened before: The public defender’s office, some people I used to work with in that circuit; because I used to be working in that circuit as a prosecutor; this would have never happened this way. If I had been the supervisor in this office, this never would have happened this way. Let’s just be clear about that. The public defender told us that Mr. Trussell filled out his information and did not qualify; he had too many assets for public counsel, based on monetary needs. And this judge is saying, if you cannot provide yourself with an attorney, you cannot represent yourself; you cannot be heard. How interesting is that?

See, there’s another problem with this, because this judge is linking your 6^th Amendment right, to have the assistance of counsel for your defense, to your capacity to pay for one; as if the only time the government has to appoint an attorney to represent you is when you cannot afford one. I’m sorry, I didn’t read that caveat in the 6^th Amendment. Did you? Let’s go over that one more time because this is very important. “In all criminal prosecutions.”, not just the ones that the judge determines to have limited constitutional rights. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.’ Period!

It does not say, “to have assistance of counsel for his defense if he can’t afford to provide one for himself.” No! It is an unqualified right to have an assistance of counsel for his defense. Why? Because the 6^th Amendment is not there for poor people. No! The 6^th Amendment is there for all people, and it’s there for a reason. It’s not for a reason when you can’t afford it. It’s there because we’re afraid that the government will become so tyrannical that it will deny you these rights. See, the 6^th Amendment is not for poor people; we are not afraid that poor people that are prosecuted will be denied a speedy trial, a trial by a jury, or attorney. Our Framers were concerned that any people would be denied these rights by a tyrannical government; by a government who would exert a power greater to the suppression of the due process, inherent due process, rights of the people. It’s not for poor people, it’s for all people.

And it’s to protect us, not from poverty, but to protect us from tyranny. See, what happens, this is the system that we have set up; the system where the government makes the laws; the system where government pays law enforcement to enforce the laws; a system where the government pays the prosecutor to prosecute the laws; a system where the government pays the judge to sit and to determine the authority of those laws. How is it that you believe you have any hope of any just trial in a system where the government makes the laws, enforces the laws, prosecutes the laws, and sits in judgment of those laws? So, what would happen; let’s just imagine, that the government becomes so tyrannical, that the people fear the government so much, that you are unable to find an attorney to represent you because every attorney in the area is afraid of retaliation from the government. Well, then you don’t have an attorney, right? Not because you can’t afford one but because the government has become so tyrannical that the attorneys fear retaliation from the government. That is why you have the right to the assistance of counsel, because then the lawyer can say, “Look, I am representing this guy because you have appointed me, not because I choose to, so you can’t retaliate against me for defending this man and his rights; because I have been appointed.” The right to the assistance of counsel is not to protect poor people from poverty; it is there to protect all people from tyranny, and it’s about time our judicial system catch a snap!

Welcome back to the KrisAnne Hall Show. We’re having an in-depth study of the 6^th Amendment today because of the actions of

Judge James Hankinson, of the 2^nd Judicial Circuit in Tallahassee, Florida. His phone number: 850-577-4320. His email: DavisDA@leoncountyfl.gov.

Please stand in defense of Terry Trussell. Please contact Justice James Hankinson and explain to him that he is an officer of the court who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the liberty of the people, and professing that people have limited, limited, constitutional rights based on his qualification is simply unacceptable. Please explain to him that Mr. Trussell has a right to an attorney; if he cannot find one to represent him, regardless of this financial capacity; because, guess what, we do not have the 6^th Amendment to protect poor people against poverty, we have a 6^th Amendment to protect all people from a tyrannical government. And apparently Justice Hankinson does not understand that. We also have a situation, a 6^th Amendment situation, where Terry Trussell has requested a bill of particulars; meaning he wants to be informed of the nature and the accusations, and the cause of the accusations against him; he wants to be informed, in particular, of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him, and the Judge Hankinson response, “The court won’t hear you because you have no attorney.” “See, this is the problem,” the judge said, “You’re requesting a bill of particulars but I can’t hear you because you do not have an attorney to represent you.”

Again! Can we please do this again?! “In all criminal prosecutions…” Not just ones where you’re represented by an attorney.

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”

This is the 6^th Amendment. The 6^th Amendment secures his right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation and the judge is saying, No, I can’t do that because you don’t have an attorney. And you have not been qualified by me to represent yourself. You cannot stand before me and make any request of me, because I don’t hear you. I can’t hear you in my courtroom without an attorney, and without me deeming you to be qualified to be heard. You must qualify, in my opinion, to receive your limited constitutional rights.

Wow. I knew justice was blind, but I learned that day that she is deaf too. Apparently, justice, in order to be heard, must have a hearing-aid that consists of the qualification of the judge, or an attorney to speak on your behalf. Is this the nature of the system of due process; the change Otis Jr. fought for? Is this the nature of due process that Thomas Jefferson pledged his life for? Is the nature of due process that Samuel Adams and John Hancock put their lives on the line? Is this the nature of due process that Samuel Adams was talking about when he said we had an inherent right to protect our life, our liberty, and our property? Is this the nature of due process in our 5^th Amendment that says that we shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? Is this the nature of due process that you want for your children? It’s time to speak up. Don’t sit still, please, I’m begging you. Liberty First Brigade, stand up!