Get ready, sports fans, for a journey into an expression of the increasingly wacked-out thought processes of Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, from his web site:
WE RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM OUR COUNTY SHERIFF to our request for his help in defending Doreen's rights that puts the unique character of this case into focus. Michael Bouchard, sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan, wrote back:
Dear Doreen:
I appreciate you taking the time to contact the Sheriff’s Office with your concerns. However, as the Sheriff, I am not allowed nor do I have the authority by law to intervene with any court cases or judicial proceedings. I would encourage you to seek legal counsel on this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Bouchard
Oakland County Sheriff
President Emeritus, Major County Sheriffs’ Association of America
Bouchard's response nicely illustrates the unprecedented and pardigm [sic]-shattering situation here, in which Doreen is being victimized by members of the federal judiciary in cooperation with with [sic] rights-violating executive-branch actors.
Everyone is conditioned to resort to the federal judiciary as the arbiters of last resort.......
http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm
Uh, yeah, Pete. Judges are the arbiters of last resort, under the U.S. legal system. And federal judges are the arbiters of last resort in a federal case. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and, when a dispute arises over a legal issue, the judicial branch (not you or me or the county sheriff) interprets the law. The courts are indeed the final arbiters of what the law is. If the people don't like the result, Congress can change the law. And the people can, through a specified process, amend the U.S. Constitution if desired. Were you asleep in that ninth grade civics class?
.....and even to buy into what has long been the fiction that those judges are objective and personally-disengaged. Consequently, many whose positions charge them with responsibilities relevant to this kind of situation just collapse into complete incomprehension when faced with the actions of the judges involved in Doreen's case, which involve crystal-clear and unmistakable Constitutional violations with absolutely zero cover of precedent or credible rationalization.
That no-place-to-hide quality is unique. Even when a court is dealing with a Fourth Amendment violation by the NSA [National Security Agency], or even a torture case, there actually are judicial precedents (the virtues of which are irrelevant for purposes of this point) and there is the "national security" rationale (the virtues of which are irrelevant for purposes of this point.
But the orders made to Doreen, very much to the contrary, are completely unprecedented. Further, they not only serve no defensible government interest but are in service to a government interest (the control of inconvenient speech and due process rights) which the government is expressly prohibited from advancing and the courts are expressly prohibited from finding to be compelling.
In fact, the Bill of Rights says that it is a compelling governmental and judicial interest to ensure that no one is ever subject to orders like those made to Doreen, and no one is ever punished for resisting such orders.
So someone like Michael Bouchard, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, is not only authorized but is required to "intervene with any court case or judicial proceeding" of this kind......
That is idiotic baloney. Under the U.S. legal system, a county sheriff has no general authority to intervene in any court case or judicial proceeding of this kind.
There is nothing in the law that says that Constitutional violations by members of the judiciary, or those committed under the cover of a "judicial proceeding" are somehow excused.
Total, utter baloney. This is monumentally stupid claptrap, even for Blowhard Hendrickson.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet