Quote of the Day
Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.
Judge Abena Darkeh
2024
Hobby Gunsmith in NYC Convicted After Judge Declares Second Amendment ‘Doesn’t Exist’ in Her Courtroom | SCNR
It really sucks for her victim, Dexter Taylor. But it is nice of her to provide such clear and convincing evidence to be used at her trial.
Taylor’s family has set up a GiveSendGo campaign to help with his legal fees. Their goal is $200,000 and they currently have raised nearly $120,000. Help them fight this travesty.
“Here there is no Second Amendment.”
Well, so kind of her to make that clear.
How about the First Amendment? Does that exist in her Courtroom? What laws did she swear to uphold when she put that black robe on?
Her attitude reminds me of something I read about the various camps the Nazis operated (if that’s the correct word) in World War 2:
One Totenkopf Guard was heard to say to an inmate (again, a weak word for what the SS Guards did to them):
,,Warum? Hier gibt es kein Warum.”
(Why? Here there is no Why.”
As our host says, “I hope she enjoys her trial.”
Just remember that we do need to obtain jurisdiction over her in order to subject her to the same sort of Moscow Show Trials she is so fond of conducting for others.
The supremacy clause reads: “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”
So, it’s the judge that is out of order, and not-with-standing. Her actions are usurpation, and carry nothing legal in them. And just as any other person that would kidnap and imprison someone?
Fairness and good order would give them a trial. Justice would give them a swift and public hanging.
As I remarked elsewhere, suppose she had said:
Do not bring the Fifth Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t plead the Fifth Amendment. This is New York.
If she had said that, how long do you suppose Mr. Taylor’s conviction would be allowed to stand?
Or if she said the same about the First Amendment? Or the Fourth? Or the Sixth: how long would Mr. Taylor’s conviction stand if she had denied his right to counsel and denied his ability to call witnesses, saying that those rights “don’t exist” in New York?
And if she had done any of those, claiming they “don’t exist” in New York, how long do you suppose she’d remain on the bench before being impeached and disbarred, at minimum? (More appropriately, arrested and charged?)
But the Second Amendment? She can dismiss it. It’s a second-class privilege, not really a “right”. Not in New York.
This isn’t a miscarriage of justice; it’s an abortion of justice. Miscarriages are accidental or unintentional. This was deliberate.
“Just remember that we do need to obtain jurisdiction over her in order to subject her to the same sort of Moscow Show Trials she is so fond of conducting for others.” (Windy Wilson, above).
“So, it’s the judge that is out of order, and not-with-standing. Her actions are usurpation, and carry nothing legal in them.” (MTHead, above).
“This isn’t a miscarriage of justice; it’s an abortion of justice. Miscarriages are accidental or unintentional. This was deliberate.”
(Archer, above).
I suspect a competent barrister would not have to wait for a change in authority to proceed with Darkeh’s destruction, and one supremely capable could extend that destruction deeply into New York’s entire court system (although “supremely capable” in this instance will certainly involve a team of supremely capable attorneys rather than justone).
Her firm statement of denial toward such a prominent part of the Constitution of the United States of America should prompt investigation into all her activities, on and off the bench, regarding the compromise of Constitutional principles.
On the bench, her vocal selectivity in accepting only the parts of the Constitution she prefers must call into question all judgments rendered from that perch for conflict with all other parts of the Constitution for even the slightest bias.
Off the bench, her social and developmental activities, with special attention toward education and affiliations, require investigation for any extraneous influences that may affect her attitude toward Constitutional jurisprudence.
And, to that “supremely capable” business mentioned above, the entire New York Court System deserves very intense scrutiny, specifically involving its promotional procedures that put Darkeh on the bench to begin with, and extending into the histories of all judge selection and promotion procedures and practices.
There’s a very reasonable chance that the entire structure is so thoroughly corrupted as to justify being completely dismantled, with the necessary external and independent investigatory expenses borne by the system itself.
There will BE NO TRIAL for this judge. In fact there will be no negative consequences whatsoever. This took place in New York. Where this judge
was stating a reality…the Second Amendment doesn’t exist there. So she
faces no consequences for openly stating her beliefs which are concurrent
with 99.9% of all the other judges and politicians. This is the actual world
we now live in. Accept that reality and prepare accordingly.
Judges have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts. This doctrine was promulgated by, wait for it, judges. No constitution or legislation involved. I found the Supremes discussion of Trump’s immunity claims to be completely bizarre for this reason. Pegged the hypocrisy meter.
The defendant in the case should have thanked the judge. This is absolutely an error that will result in any conviction being overturned on appeal.