Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re- Posted Sep 1, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) want President Joe Biden to run again, according to a poll published on August 17th by the Associated Press. Even 55% of Democrats do not think he should run. As far as his approval rating is concerned, he remains one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. Meanwhile, he has allowed the Republican presidential front-runner to be charged criminally, who is now under indictment for 91 felonies in four criminal cases. RFK, the Spectator, proclaimed that “everything about him screams amusing sideshow rather than [a] serious contender.” They reduce him to “the country’s most prominent antivaxxer — a fringe role almost by definition.”

They seem oblivious to all the people who have been injured by the Pfizer vaccines and those who died. My own lawyer took the shot to show he could travel, got the blood clots, and now his doctor warns he should not fly. My neighbor had COVID-19 and was forced to get the vaccination to go on a cruise. The next day, the ambulance rushed her to the hospital, where she almost died at the age of only 27. Another man who works for me and his entire family gets seriously ill from any vaccine. These pro-vaccine people are ruthless, untrustworthy, and brainwashed. They should all be deported to California. We are NOT all clones. I hate to tell them there is NO constitutional authority to force medical treatment on any citizen.

The word circulating is that the Democrats are not very happy about the Big Guy. They are searching for a replacement, but the Neocons need another stooge. It cannot be someone anti-war. That is why they must defeat Trump, which will not be easy – they have made him an international martyr. I believe that the Neocons will assassinate Trump before his hand every hit the book to be sworn in. They will blame China to justify that we should wage war on China.

The Democrats are totally out of control. These charges against Trump are solely to interfere in the 2024 election. They are absolutely desperate to impose their tyranny and overthrow the people’s rights. This is only going to lead to the collapse of the United States. They have gone to the Supreme Court asking them to ORDER the lower court to allow TV cameras in and broadcast Trump’s trial like a soap opera to convince people not to vote for Trump. This proves this whole thing is to interfere in the 2024 election, which is frightening since our computer forecast that the 2024 election will never be accepted, which was 5 years ago.

As a student of Constitutional Law, I have read Blackstone, Coke, and Monesque. What they are doing to Trump is such a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause because the courts have been so PRO-GOVERNMENT against the common people that the prohibition against being put in Double Jeopardy demonstrates the true tyranny that the American Legal System has devolved to. By creating numerous agencies, each passes a law prohibiting the same crime. The Supreme Court has refused to honor the spirit of the Founding Fathers, and the worst example is 91 felony counts against Trump for the same pretend crime.

Let’s say that three agencies outlaw killing your spouse. Each agency could then charge you with murder. Two out of three juries find you innocent. The third is pressured by the judge and rules in favor of the government. They will not be Double Jeopardy since they allow the definition of an offense to be a statute rather than the actual crime it is supposed to outlaw. Never in history have so many agencies and states been allowed to create a plethora of statutes prohibiting the same conduct that has allowed them to charge Trump with 91 counts for the same conduct. This is as if someone shot the same person and killed them, but they charge them for each bullet he fired as a separate murder, but there is only one person.

Many have written in and said I would have made a great Constitutional lawyer. If I had chosen such a path, they would have charged me with 91 counts of contempt and imprisoned me for life without a trial. I do not tolerate fools or tyrants. The concept of Double Jeopardy has a long history, but the American courts have seriously abused its development. Its meaning has been distorted to hand the government limitless power.

The English view of Double Jeopardy, under the influence of Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) and William Blackstone (1723-1780), meant that a defendant at trial could plead former conviction or former acquittal as a special plea in bar to defeat the prosecution. ( Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 32–36 (1978), and id. at 40 (Powell, J., dissenting); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 340 (1975))

 In this country, the common-law rule was, in some cases, limited to this rule. However,  in other cases, it was extended to bar a new trial even though the former trial had not concluded in either an acquittal or a conviction. The constitutional prohibition against Double Jeopardy was intended to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. Blackstone in his Commentaries, greatly influenced the Founding Fathers when they adopted the Constitution. Blackstone wrote:

“. . . the plea of auterfois acquit, or a former acquittal, is grounded on this universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.” id/Blackstone’s Commentaries 335.

If we look at the Supreme Court ruling BEFORE with this plethora of statutes and agencies, we find the same view was taken in Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, at 85 U. S. 169 (1873):

“The common law not only prohibited a second punishment for the same offence, but it went further and forbid a second trial for the same offence, whether the accused had suffered punishment or not, and whether in the former trial he had been acquitted or convicted.”

If we look at United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 669 (1896)

“The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial.”

Before the court turned pro-government in the 20th century, it was being put in jeopardy twice, not that you could create ten statutes for the same crime. The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State, with all its resources and power, should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for the same conduct, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.

The New Hampshire Constitution pt. I, art. 16 was adopted in 1784 and preceded the US Constitution, and it included a bill of rights that included the new nation’s first Double Jeopardy clause, stating: “No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offence (sic).” The Supreme Court of New Hampshire construes the Double Jeopardy prohibition of the state’s constitution to bar successive trials regardless of the identity of the initial prosecuting authority. State v. Hogg, 385 A.2d 844, 847 (N.H. 1978). The New

The text of the Constitution is also silent on many fundamental questions of constitutional law, including questions that its drafters and those ratifying the document could not have foreseen or chose not to address. Nonetheless, the philosophy behind the Fifth Amendment has long been settled, as stated in US v Ball back in 1896. Thus, it is one of the elemental principles of our criminal law that the Government cannot secure a new trial by means of an appeal even though an acquittal may appear to be erroneous. This has been the standard held in US v. Ball, supra; Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331, 349 U. S. 344-345 (1955). Cf. Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 (1904); United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 (1892).

We are looking at constructive amendment of the Constitution that there is ABSOLUTELY no possible way that the Founding Fathers would have allowed the same conduct to violate a multitude of statutes that would allow the government 91 chances to convict Trump for the same conduct. Not even the tyranny of King George III ever dared to get around the Double Jeopardy Clause in this manner. It is an embarrassment to the United States to the world.

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution (Article VU, Claus 2) prohibits no state from writing any law that overrules the federal law. Hence, no state may charge Trump for the very same conduct that he stands charged in a federal court. The Framers of the Constitution were silent on this idea of Dual Sovereignty in criminal law, and no court can rule in that favor without the 50 states having a go at the same conduct. Naturally, the Supreme Court would never entertain that argument because it would actually benefit the people – not our tyrannical government abuses. When 2032 comes, and we get to rewrite the constitution, there should NEVER be allowed multiple prosecutions for the same conduct regardless of how many sovereigns they want to pretend to exist.

The elevation of Double Jeopardy to fundamental status by its inclusion in several state bills of rights following the Revolution demonstrated its restraint against this type of abuse by the government. The Bill of Rights, which had been adopted at the New York Convention and transmitted to Congress with its ratification of the Federal Constitution, included a declaration that.

“no Person ought to be put twice in Jeopardy of Life or Limb for one and the same Offence, nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same Offence.”

James Madison’s version of the guarantee, which was introduced in the House of Representatives, and it read:

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense. 

What we do know from the “intent” is that some Members opposed this proposal because it could be construed to prohibit a second trial after a successful appeal by a defendant. They viewed that as problematic. First, they argued that such a rule could constitute a hazard to the public by freeing the guilty. Second, they reasoned that prohibiting re-trials after successful appeals might make appellate courts less likely to reverse improper convictions (id/1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)). Ultimately, the language, barring a second trial, was dropped in response to these concerns. However,  in Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 40 (1978) (dissenting), Justice Lewis Powell attributed this failure to broaden the Double Jeopardy Clause to incorporate the common law rule against the dismissal of the jury before the verdict, which remains a question the majority passed over as being of academic interest only. Id. at 34 n.10. This was what I mean that the Supreme Court has allowed the abuse of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the detriment of the nation, which we are now witnessing with Trump.

Unfortunately, we no longer believe in liberty in the United States. The same conduct may violate the laws of two different sovereigns, multiple agencies, and countless statutes that criminalize the very same thing by rephrasing it in myriad ways. This has allowed a defendant to be charged innumerable times until the government wins. The Trump cases will be the epitaph of the United States and the Rule of Law. It is over. We must wait for the body of liberty to be cold before she is buried.

After the Death of Nero and the Civil War that engulfed the Roman Empire, here we have the coin issued by one of the contenders, Vitellius, with the coin declaring the Restitution of Liberty.