A DISHONEST MAN
By Don A. Bright

U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren is a dishonest man. 
Hendren practices dishonesty in the most devious and destructive form there
is.  Hendren lies for the State.  Hendren lies in order to keep the
benefits of power:  Power for himself and power for others of his ilk who
use their power to strip others of their freedom.  It takes a powerfully
warped ego to make a person so arrogant as to lead that person into the
corruptness that is manifested in Hendren’s judicial vacuousness. 

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 (6^th
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.