Back in 2000, a citizen of the state of Ohio protested some of the Federal Charges against her, as her attorneys held that the provisions by which she was under attack should hold power only against rogue states. Although she was possibly a murderer, as an American citizen it was important to consider that her civil rights still had standing against charges of her being a “terrorist” or a “rogue state.”

Originally charged with the poisoning death of her husband, the defendant then found herself under indictment for her violation of Federal Laws. The Supreme Court ended up stating that the laws enacted to prosecute rogue states with regards to the use of toxic substances for the purpose of poisoning an entire populace, should not be employed against an individual who is not interested in committing terrorist acts.

This is an important case, considering that our country is running out of foreigners to attack as terrorists and must begin to direct the War on Terror to efforts to accuse people here. The Supreme Court was not dismissing the right of the people of the state of Ohio to hold a trial for murder against the defendant, but rather the right of the citizen to avoid inmaterial charges regarding terrorist acts. Domestic murder is not equivalent to rogue states pursuing their agenda against all citizens.

The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.

Please note: The entire case can be investigated further here: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_1227