KC Massey's Letters from Jail
Massey - Letters from Jail #7
Received July 29, 2015
I want to share with you all some of the perversion of our legal system and exactly how they have redefined our words unofficially yet officially. First, I will list some words and phrases and I want you to in your mind define what they mean. At the end of this letter, I will share with you how the government has defined these words and phrases.
· Possess in or affecting commerce
· has vs. had
· restoration of rights
· premises where you live
· false statements
· freedom of speech
· custodial arrest
· detain/custodial detention
· shall not infringe
· state and the people
I recently went to meet with the US attorney over the charge against me. It was my understanding I would briefly meet with them then I would be able to go thru the "EVIDENCE" they have against me. It did not happen that way. While the US attorney is a friendly enough person to talk with, his perception of law and laws are not in line with what the average person would believe or think. I am not a lawyer but I am intelligent and I do know how to read and look up words in the laws in the actual "Code" and in "Black's Law" and in Webster's dictionary. So, I don't just "assume" what a words means.
Terms used in laws are defined in the definitions sections of the Chapters of the "code" or Laws, if not defined there the next legally recognized place is in "Black's Law Dictionary" and for common use words Merriam Webster's Dictionary is the relevant source.
While having the discussion with the US attorneys, we discussed the relevant facts of my case. Relevant is a VERY tricky word. What they say is relevant, what you say is irrelevant. I was told that it is okay and acceptable for a federal agent to make misstatements even if the "misstatements" were inflaming and untrue as long as the "meat" of the story was true. To give an example, in the criminal complaint used to arrest me they said I was carrying a holstered .45 pistol, they said that I was seen carrying an "automatic" rifle and that Foerster pointed a gun at a federal agent. Now to me, those statement make what actually happened sound way worse, the statements used against me ARE ALL LIES. I never ever carry a "holstered" pistol, I have never had an automatic (machine gun) rifle and Foerster NEVER pointed a gun at a federal agent. The statements above were also "hearsay" evidence not allowed by federal rules of evidence, because Agent Rotunno wrote the "affidavit" without supporting affidavits or corroborating witnesses statements. The BP Agent Cantu whose words were quoted has testified differently under oath then what Rotunno made charges of in my criminal complaint affidavit.
Yet I was told because one statement in the whole affidavit was true (I had a AK style rifle) the rest of the lies that were told didn't matter. Even though those lies were used to get an indictment against me by making me appear heinous to the grand jury.
If me or you would fill out an affidavit and use hearsay or untrue information and then sign the oath of affirmation swearing the statement to be true, and it wasn't, we would be charged with a crime punishable by time in Federal Prison. Of course, the Feds can be under oath and it's okay though.
I was also told the "Feds" knew who I was as soon as I arrived at Brownsville. The feds, by definition, deputized me to assist in the interdiction and apprehension of illegal aliens days after I arrived in Brownsville. We "Camp Lone Star" met with the top BP officials in Brownsville along with people from BP Houston office. BP on numerous occasions came to Camp Lone Star and got us to help them round up and pursue illegals through the brush.
They actively worked with me and the other men of CLS for several weeks prior to the shooting by BP, at John Foerster in the Sable Palms Sanctuary. There were other BP agents who continued to work with us until the day of my arrest, 2 months later. I have videos of BP Agents telling me about the corruption of BP agents and their department.
Since my arrest last year there have been several arrests of some of the corrupt BP agents, funny enough though, not the agent who committed a felony by Texas law for discharging a firearm at someone for no lawful reason.
I was told there was no conspiracy by BP or Feds though. It is still amazing to me how a trained agent misses a man 30-35 feet from him with 5 shots. It amazes me how BP was always asking for our help including the day of the shooting, August 29th, especially if they knew the "criminal record" of myself and the others at Camp Lone Star. Sable Palms is a narco smuggling area. BP didn't want us in. BP said that they didn't know we were there that day, yet they saw us go into Sable Palms (we drove past them at the entrance) and a BP agent also asked for our assistance 10-15 minutes prior to the shooting.
After the shooting happened, in which only Foerster and one BP agent were involved in, myself and Varner were held for over 4 hours against our consent, even though we both asked to leave since we had not witnessed anything, were ordered to remain on the scene. The government has lied and tried to say we were free to go yet we didn't have our ID or property back so we could leave, until almost 8 p.m. The feds have said it was only until 7 p.m. Either way Varner and I were held over for 3 or 4 hours, unable to leave even though we hadn't committed any crimes, according to Texas laws, that's why the deputy sheriff on the scene didn't arrest us.
So now, let's check out what you think the words and phrases meant at the beginning of this letter.
* possess in or affecting commerce??
according to the federal government ANYTHING that has traveled "THRU" commerce is included. By the way, about 98% of all goods we use have "come thru commerce" so effectively they are saying the feds have jurisdiction of "whatever" came from any other state, Indian nation or other country. I was also told by stopping illegal immigrants that is "affecting commerce" Commerce is defined as the moving and sales of goods or services on a "large scale." Source of definition US Code and Black's Law. How is stopping "ILLEGAL anything" violating the law, it is our duties to stop anyone committing a crime it is the duty of every citizen to repel invasion of our nation. See duties of Militia, which is all able bodied men, felon or not. Read up on "THE DICK ACT" also known as militia act of 1910 which has never been repealed, because it can't be because of the way it was written.
* perjury - is to give false testimony, unless you're a Fed then this word is meaningless. Only we citizens can commit perjury.
* false statements - statements given that are untrue. Nearly legally identical as perjury unless you are a fed then this has no meaning.
* illegal - unlawful, against the laws, not legal, unless you are a Fed or a foreigner then it has no relevant meaning. The Feds make the laws so they just change the definitions of this word to suit their purposes.
* shall not infringe - You can't interfere or stop someone from doing whatever cannot be infringed, unless you're a Fed then you can make up conditions and circumstances to infringe on a select group of people. As long as you can get a majority of people to go along with them on who they infringe on.
* state and the people - as in the 10th amendment part of the "Bill of Rights" which is unalienable rights, rights granted by our creator, not man. It is stating all powers not granted to the Feds thru the constitution shall remain with the state and the people. Guns are not a right or a power given to the Federal Government thru the constitution, remember the shall not infringe in the 2nd amendment?
* commerce - the moving of goods or services on a LARGE SCALE, unless the Feds say different, then it also includes intrastate commerce (commerce within the same state), illegal commerce, and even activity thast is not commerce, at all.. We know how much the Feds make on illegal commerce, anyone remember CIA planes with drugs, soldiers guarding drug crops, Fast and Furious gun deal with Cartels and the billions made from illegal immigration?
* relevant - what is important information to a situation. Relative term to the Feds its only relevant if they say it is, like with perjury, commerce etc.
* premise at which you live - premises = property live = where you are living. The terms don't say domicile, residence, home, apartment or any other restrictive terms. Live is where you are living, unless it is defined by the Feds who told me the term meant "in your house" again if the law makers wanted it to say that, they are almost all lawyers and they know the differences between the terms. This is also a Texas law pertaining to who and where you can have a firearm. Texas penal code 46.04
* has vs. had - has is a 3rd party present term of have. Meaning direct involvement by the person in which the term is directed at. "Had" is a past tense term of the word "have". "Had" would mean at any time. Unless you're a Fed then you can substitute "had" for "has" but make "had" mean what did and make "has" mean "had". Read 18 USC 922 (g)(1) and you will see what I mean.
* freedom of speech - also known as the 1st Amendment of the constitution and Bill of Rights. Short of inciting a riot it is the right and ability to express your opinions, unless the Feds deem it offensive or "threatening." Your opinions are only safe if a federal prosecutor doesn't disagree with you.
I am being held in solitary with 3 sets of restraints and a video camera under high security because according to the US attorney, people were making comments on my Facebook pages purporting to support targeting corrupt federal agents. Calling for them to be shot or whatever. The US Attorney acknowledged that I didn't say those things but because I didn't chastise the people or censor their comments, I am also guilty of what they said and I'm being punished for it. First off, I can in no way see every post someone makes to my pages, I am involved in numerous conversations with a lot of responses to those threads so, I don't see ALL of the comments always. Second, people who would say stupid shit like that in public are either big mouth cowards, idiots, or Chief Mark Kessler types. Either way, they are not even worthy of my time and I usually just ignore them. If I have them blocked, I can't see their comments anyway. So, now I am also being punished for some asshat's comments on either my personal page or one I am on, either way hardly what I would call free speech.
* custodial arrest - to be held by police or Fed, unable to leave. No physical restraints are needed just knowing you cannot leave or you will be physically restrained, unless the Feds say it means in a vehicle with locked doors and restraints applied.
* detain/custodial detention - same as above except for the duration of time you are "detained" is usually according to Miranda approximately 15-20 minutes, unless the Feds say different then they can "detain" you as long as they see fit despite court precedence saying it is temporary for a short, limited amount of time.
* justice - according to the Holy Bible and Common Law, it is when a victim received payment or compensation or replacement for the wrong someone has committed against them. If there is no victim, who is the justice for? Unless you are the overbearing Feds or state governments who seek to punish people for victimless crimes as a way to gain power and control and for financial gain not earned.
* entrapment - It used to mean, to trick someone into or encourage someone into committing a criminal act so you could be arrested by the "entrapping" agent. Now it is a term that has no meaning, cops can sell you drugs, then arrest you for buying the drugs they illegally sold you. Cops can ask you to commit a crime then arrest you for doing as they asked even if you did it thinking the cop was asking to do something legal at their request. Feds and cops do this all the time to create revenue and criminals to justify their existence and jobs and it is totally acceptable now, 25 years ago it was not legally acceptable.
* conspiracy - to conspire, to plan with others to commit an action, or crime. Two or more plan to commit a crime even if it is before the crime is committed you can be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. Unless you are a Fed, you can conspire to entrap anyone and it's legal, all the rest of us can go to prison for conspiring to commit any crime.
If you think I am mistaken, I assure you I am not. I also thought that the US Constitution still meant something, but it doesn't. You cannot use the US Constitution as a defense in Federal Court, it is inadmissible. The Constitution is a carrot the Feds hang over our heads so we think we are free. It's all smoke and mirror people, I am living proof.
* another relevant term is felon. Until the 1920's a felon was only someone who was under sentence for a felonious crime. After the sentence was served they were no longer call or considered a "felon" and all of their rights were restored, as soon as the sentence was satisfied. Wyatt Earp was a convicted murderer, pimp and gambler. After he got out of prison is when he became the famous law man. What is the point of a sentence for a crime if it is to be a lifetime penalty, despite the sentence? What is the purpose for prison? It used to be to rehabilitate criminals from continuing their life of crime. Repeat offenders were executed or left in prison to die. Our system is now for storing people and not trying to rehabilitate them. There is more money and control by creating and maintain "felons."
It won't change until we the people change it. God is our only hope of fixing our nation's problems. The corrupt judicial and legislative branches of government only want the money their policies generate by making criminals.
Return to Massey Letters main page