Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News 
Feb 14, 2011
While most of the country has been focused on the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the murder of Judge John McCarthy Roll, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, remains largely and strangely missing from most of the mainstream press coverage of this event.
Judge Roll, considered by some to be one of the most constitutionally-centered judges in history, was a defender of liberty who, prior to his murder, had begun working with Rep. Giffords to build a new courthouse and to assert Arizona’s sovereignty in dealing with illegal immigration. In essence, Rep. Giffords and Judge Roll were effectively breaking down the false ‘left/right’ political paradigm that paralyzes Americans from fighting back against government tyranny. This unique alliance between ‘left’ and ‘right’, and the potential it had to dismantle a whole host of encroaching federal interventions in state affairs, may be one of the reasons why Judge Roll’s murder is conveniently being left out of the spotlight.
Worth noting here is that Jared Lee Loughner’s two primary victims were a significant and growing threat to the political status quo. Giffords is a Democrat, and Judge Roll was a conservative. But the two had begun working hand-in-hand to accomplish real goals for the people they served, both in Arizona and across the country.
Judge Roll’s understanding of the proper role of the federal government had huge implications in all sorts of freedom issues, including health freedom. S.510, for instance, is the type of unconstitutional, freedom-grabbing legislation that Judge Roll would likely have fought against because of its significant encroachment on individual freedom to buy and sell locally-grown food. And any efforts to harmonize U.S. health laws with those of international governing bodies would likely have been struck down by Judge Roll as unconstitutional.
Judge Roll issued a ‘preliminary ruling’ against a case that would permit Obama to seize citizens’ assets without cause
Just days before being murdered, Judge Roll had issued a preliminary ruling with intent to rule against the case of ‘United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al’. The subject of the case involved giving the Obama Administration power to seize citizens’ assets regardless of whether or not it could be proven that they committed any sort of crimes. And Judge Roll had planned to declare it unconstitutional.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Even though previous presidents have gained similar asset-seizing powers, the recent case would have represented a significant milestone in overriding due process by giving the federal government arbitrary power to steal private property without legitimate cause. And regardless of whether the one doing the seizing was a Democrat or a Republican, Judge Roll would have made the same ruling because, to him, it was a matter of constitutionality, not partisan politics.
Unlike most other judges, Judge Roll backed the Constitution and its provisions for individual liberty even when it was not popular. His conservative ideologies were secondary to fulfilling his primary oath of office in defending the U.S. Constitution. And for this reason, he was often hated by both sides for making unpopular, but justified, rulings based on constitutional guidelines.
Was Judge Roll the real target?
Judge Roll’s unwavering commitment to the Constitution was a major roadblock for those trying to advance unconstitutional agendas. Few, if any, judges are as knowledgeable and principled as Roll was on constitutional issues. And from what is known of him, he could not be bought off by political lobbyists. In fact, many from both sides of the aisle were upset at his decisions because they did not always strictly align with any one political party. As a result, he received many death threats throughout his tenure as a judge. But when considering how significant his contributions were to both Arizonans and to Americans at large, why is his murder being left out of the headlines?
Interestingly, some reports that do mention him indicate that he had not even planned to attend Rep. Giffords’ rally the day of the shootings, but decided to do so after allegedly receiving a call asking him to stop by and speak to the Congresswoman. Other reports say he just happened to be shopping at the Safeway grocery store where the event was being held, and decided to greet Rep. Giffords and thank her for her support in fighting illegal immigration. Regardless, Judge Roll was either coincidentally at the right place at the wrong time for his murder, or he was one of the primary targets.
Whether he was the sole target or a primary target along with Rep. Giffords, the strange events surrounding the murder of Judge Roll deserve more attention than they are currently getting. Most media sources decided right off the bat that Rep. Giffords was the primary target, and that the others murdered or injured were just secondary ‘bystanders’. Case closed, they say. But upon what evidence do they base these assertions?
Even beyond considering the fact that federal judges typically do not attend public political events like the one Rep. Giffords held, what are the odds that one of the most constitutional federal judges — one that clearly threatened the establishment powers — happened to be present at the time of the massacre? Why were local police not present at this outdoor, public event featuring a controversial Congresswoman? And why has there been little to no mention of Judge Roll’s murder by the mainstream media?
The victims of the shootings, their families, and all American citizens deserve a proper investigation into what went on the day of the Tucson massacre. There are many pieces to the puzzle that remain missing, and many questions that demand answers. If the American public simply accepts the mainstream rhetoric, then there is little left to be learned. But if concerned citizens delve deeper down the rabbit hole and push for answers, the full truth may eventually come to light. Judge Roll’s death, in particular, deserves serious further investigation.
Sources for this story include: