20 January 2008

gold weems federal judge dee drell called on his violating the constitution in the nationalist movement v town of jena et al case

click here to download seventeen page .pdf (567kb)

this morning, gannett/the alexandria daily town talk published a piece by their reporter abbey brown: "nationalists have won their share of court battles," perhaps gannett/ms. brown should have published this article before they published the 15 january 2008 "order doesn't address gun issue for jena rally" [.rtf] because we see that in the nationalist movement they have a very tenacious lawyer looking out for their legal rights as shown in this most recent court filing in which mr. barrett holds former? gold, weems, bruser, sues and rundell attorney turned federal judge dee drell to account.

on friday, 11 january 2008 judge drell signed his "consent order and final judgement" (see it here) to which mr. barrett's most recent "motion to strike and to correct record" recounts:
The Clerk of Court duly entered the final-judgment, which also recited that the case was closed. The electronic-filing system recited, in red letters, “Warning: Case Closed.”
this meant well, the case was closed. over. finito.

the exact order of events isn't clear but apparently, on monday, 14 january 2008, after the case was closed on friday, 11 january 2008, ms. brown contacted judge drell for a clarification of the judgment and consent decree and how it relates to the so called firearms ban and why the "court order doesn't address the town's proposed banning of firearms for the "jena justice day" rally and march." this piece was published on tuesday, 15 january 2008. (see link above)

reasons for consent order and final judgment
click here to download three page .pdf (104kb)

whether judge drell after being contacted by the main stream media had an "oh shit!" moment or whatnot is anyones guess. what isn't left to guesswork however, is that what judge drell did in issuing the above "reasons for consent order and final judgment," in a case that is closed was wrong.

as cited by mr. barrett in his "motion to strike and to correct record," the united states constitution at article three (prohibiting advisory opinions) and article fourteen (due process) as well as the case law such as muskrat v. united states, 219 u.s. 346 (1911) says so.