Illegal Unconstitutional Order by Judge Gaylord L. Finch Jr

Amendment I of the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,...

Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, ....

Here is a text of illegal unconstitutional order that Judge Gay Finch issued on October 19th 2004 - It is a hand written order, apparently Judge Finch is trying to hide his illegal order by making it more difficult to read.

It is further Ordered that Ron Jagannathan shall be prohibited from providing any information regarding this case to any individual or organization or other entities that will distribute or attempt to distribute or publish or make public any information and Mr. Jagannathan is also ordered to contact those individuals and organizations that have made public information about the case and request that the information is removed from the web and all other communication entities, it is also Ordered that those organizations, individuals including all websites that either received, transmitted or responded to the petition regarding the Guardian ad Litem Janine Saxe and Robert Machen be contacted and that Ron Jagannathan provide that information to the court by November 1, 2004. Defendant's motion to reconsider a change to the order regarding $ 60,345.00 is denied.

19th October 2004
Gaylord L. Finch Jr
Judge, Circuit Court of Fairfax County

Justice Anthony Kennedy

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

Case Law

Prior restraints [of free speech] carry a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S. Ct. 631, 9 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1963). In Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931) the United States Supreme Court declared that prior restraints are permissible only in exceptional cases such as war, obscenity, and "incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government." 283 U.S. at 716

Judge Gay Finch:

Seems totally ignorant of the law. Apparently he has never heard of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. Even grade school students know that Judge Finch did not have the legal authority to issue the above order that prohibits free speech. Read this motion for more on how court orders that constitute a prior restraint of free speech are illegal.
Apparently Judge Finch has never read the Virginia Constitution either as it clearly states: "and can never be restrained except by despotic governments;" - Either that or Judge Finch admits he is part of a despotic government.
Is unwilling to perform his duty as a Judge to follow the Constitution of the US and the Constitution of Virginia
Should be impeached and removed from his office - he is either completely incapable or unwilling to fulfill the duties of a judge.
Judge Finch is a Black Robed Traitor and has committed treason and an act of war against the United States.

Please contact me if you know of other victims of Judge Finch, also please contact your Virginia delegate and ask them to impeach Judge Finch

Case Law - Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958)

Any state judge that acts contrary to the United States Constitution violates the Supremacy Clause and acts in treason. ... Engaging in an act of treason against the United States Constitution by any citizen of the United States is an act of war against the United States.

Case Law

In Common Law, where the judge is presented with superior law, he has no discretion in the matter but must act upon that higher precedence of law. Any failure to do so is an act as a "minister of his own prejudice" and not "acting in his capacity" for the state. Thereof, he may be held for civil and criminal liabilities. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), "he is without jurisdiction, and has engaged in an act or acts of treason."