Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Thomas Jefferson vs. F. Aaron Negangard

Memo from Thomas Jefferson to F. Aaron Negangard, “Go back to school.”

“I discharge every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.” – President Thomas Jefferson letter, July 22, 1804.

The above quote from President Jefferson came after the President pardoned all those who had been convicted and sentenced under the Sedition Act of 1798. The Sedition Act, passed by Congress, made it a crime, punishable by a $5000 fine and 5 years in prison, “if any person shall write, print, utter or publish… any false scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress…or the President…with the intent to defame…or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States.”

Thomas Jefferson would be appalled to know that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard is either ignorant of, or disregarding the principles that our country is founded upon. President Jefferson nullified the Sedition Act of 1798 because he believed that the citizens of the United States should not worship those elected officials who took an oath to serve the citizens themselves. Prosecutor Negangard has effectively nullified President Jefferson’s acts and intentions to help shield the actions of Dearborn County Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey and others.

In Craig v Harney (1947) the United States Supreme Court dealt with a case where a judge held a publisher, and editorial writer, and a news reporter of newspapers in contempt for material that was published about the case of Jackson v. Mayes. The Supreme Court stated “[the published content] was strong language, intemperate language, and, we assume, an unfair criticism. But a judge may not hold in contempt one ‘who ventures to publish anything that tends to make him unpopular or to belittle him…’ (Craig v. Hecht)… “The vehemence of the language used is not alone the measure of the power to punish for contempt. The fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice. The danger must not be remote or even probable; it must immediately imperil.” Even though the high court believed the published criticism was probably unfair, the Supreme Court stated… “the law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.”

“Any person, law enforcement agency, etc…who takes action against the respondent for protecting the respondent’s children and the public from the child abducting tactics of Judge Humphrey will be held personally responsible for their actions.” In the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit report, Sheriff Kreinhop wrote, “Judge Humphrey viewed this statement as a further attempt to intimidate him and also as a threat to his and his family’s personal safety.” Prosecutor Negangard is fully aware that I have never threatened anyone with illegal activity and that my writings do not pose any “imminent” threat to personal safety or justice. Negangard is attacking me because I refused to kneel down and worship Judge James D. Humphrey as if he were a “golden image.”

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “As [James] Madison said ‘ the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people’. It would give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve, if critics of official conduct did not have a fair equivalent of the immunity granted to the officials themselves. We conclude that such a privilege is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Judges like Judge James D. Humphrey enjoy absolute immunity from civil action in trials over which they preside. Even malicious and vindictive actions are immune if the actions are performed under a black robe. Now Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard is trying to extend this absolute immunity to prevent negative public opinion. In an often cited case out of the Kansas Supreme Court, Justice Burch stated the following in Coleman v. MacLennan:”It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state and to society, of such discussion is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would not want F. Aaron Negangard to return to school for a remedial law lesson, he would demand that F. Aaron Negangard resign from the legal profession because Prosecutor Negangard and Judge Humphrey use the law for their own personal gain instead of advancing the needs of the public. “It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications” of officials like Humphrey and Negangard. They are not men of fortitude so they must create their own protections. This is why I publicized their actions. That is why I am incarcerated in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. That is why I continue to write about the unethical and illegal conduct of Dearborn County Officials.

Feel free to contact Dearborn County officials to demand the resignation of officials who tread on the U.S. Constitution. For more information email

No comments:

Post a Comment