A Murdered Idaho Governor's ties to the Maduro abduction! 

By Travis Rice

Photo released by President Trump Handout/Truth Social 

via Reuters

Recently President Trump has abducted the leader of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, on charges stemming from drug trafficking. It has many people wondering if this was legal. Isn't Maduro entitled to due process? It cannot be legal to kidnap someone and bring them to justice here in America can it? You may be surprised to know this question was actually answered long ago in a case involving a murdered Idaho governor. 

Idaho's Fourth Governor, Frank Steunenberg, was assassinated in 1905 by, Henry Orchard, who planted a bomb at the side gate of his home in Caldwell, Idaho. After his arrest, Orchard allegedly signed a 64 page confession that he did this on behalf of the Western Federation of Miners association. The leaders of the Wester Federation of Miners were in Colorado. 

Th labor leader of the Western Federation of Miners Association was a man named George Pettibone, who lived in Colorado. The current governor of Idaho at that time, signed a warrant for his arrest. Generally the surrendering state (Colorado) would have to agree for the extradition to be legal. In this case, Pettibone and the governor of Colorado were friends and he initially choose not to sign the surrender or arrest Pettibone for his part in the murder. 

George Pettibone on right

Photo Curtosey of Wikipedia

Eventually, Colorado's governor issued a warrant for Pettibones arrest. This allowed a private instigative firm famously known as the "pinkertons" to go to colorado and arrest Pettibone. Pettibone was abducted, put on a train, and escorted to the jail where he would await his trial. Pettibone, immediately put in a writ of habeas corpus claiming his detention in Idaho was unlawful. The state responded stating that Pettibone was a fugitive from justice allowing them to go into another state and to abduct him. 

The trial was nationally publicized as one of the greatest lawyers of all time, Clarance Darrow, was sent to small town Caldwell, Idaho to defend and contest Pettibone's apprehension in another state by outsiders. Darrow managed to secure an acquittal for his client after 11 hours of closing arguments and Orchard got the death penalty (although commuted). But, the manner in which Idaho authorities apprehended Pettibone, made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. 

Clarence Darrow for the Defense

Curtoesy of Chicago History Museum/Getty Images

Pettibone put in a writ of habeaus corpus to the sheriff and citied he was being held unlawful and had been kidnapped from Colorardo. Idaho repsonded that he was a "fugitive from justice" that could be apprehended and kidnapped if necessary to stand trial. The main contention was, is it lawful for a defendant to be abducted and brought to stand trial in another state?   

In Pettibone v. Nichols, the United States Supreme Court determine whether Pettibones abduction and illegal deportation to another state violated the constitution. The Court reasoned that no asylum in any state or foreign jurisdiction was a right given to any criminal defendant's. In the foreign context this would be based on the treaties of the United States and the County where the fugitive fled to. Also, if a person is a fugitive from justice in a state (or country) and is illegally beaten, deported, or abducted to stand trial they have no recourse under the United States Constitution relating to extradition if there is authority for the transport. 

‘if a person is brought within the jurisdiction of one state from another, or from a foreign country, by the unlawful use of force, which would render the officer liable to a civil action, or in a criminal proceeding, because of the forcible abduction, such fact would not prevent the trial of the person thus abducted in the state wherein he had committed an offense.’ 

Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U.S. 192, 213, 27 S. Ct. 111, 118, 51 L. Ed. 148 (1906).

In plain english, that means that courts really dont care how you got in front of them, they only care about that you got there with proper authority. Of course you could sue the people who obtained you unlawfully, but the manner or how you got there doesnt matter. If its a foreign state or country it just matters that the extradition authority is present. In the matter of a foreign country that means that there is a treaty stating that someone can be extradited as a fugitive of justice. 

Treaty of Venezuela and Extradition to the United States

There is a treaty between the United States and Venezuela regarding extradition which states that non citizens can be extradited to the United States to stand trial as a fugitive of justice. In 1999 this was made part of their constitution. Although, causing confusion was a previous treaty allowing for narcotrafficers to be brought ot justice under the act. However, the United States still may still not be able to extradite national citizens of Venezuela even if they are involved in drug trafficking. Nicholas Maduro is a citizen of Venezuela, therefore, under our treaty laws, he should not be extradited to the United States to stand trial. The U.S. Supreme court may have to revisit this old Idaho case to explain if they could under this regime capture a natrual citizen of Venezuela and then extradite them for trial under the United States Treaties with them. 

How does this apply for Maduro? 

Maduro should reopen Pettibones case, file a writ of habeaus corpus, and a cite that he was abducted unlawfully because the treaties between the U.S. and Venezuela dont allow for  extradition of a Venezuelan citizen. The State department (as they have already done) should investigate and prosecute him under the 1988 treaty for narco terrorism. Who will win? It appears that the Pettibone case is not concerned about the methods used in executing an extradition to stand trial. So the strikes, killings, and abduction is not really the issue, but the important issue is one of authority. In effect, the court doesn't care how you made it to the jurisdiction, they just care about if there was property authority to do so. 

Abducting a person and sending them to trial in a foreign country is something our British overlords used to do to American colonials, and it was a grievance that the founding fathers had mentioned in the declaration of independence. They called it "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences." This was one of the things that led to the American Revolution. Will history judge us for our hypocrisy? Or was it lawful under the Narco-Terrorism treaty of 1988? I suppose we all want to find out. 

Photo of Brittish Prison Ship bound from America to 

Brittan durring the American revolution. Curtosey of 

History Channel. 

If you need any legal assistance in Caldwell, Idaho and want to talk more, please contact our office at 208-230-9983 or visit out website and set a free consultation by clicking here