Montana Malfeasance
Jesse Newsom and Writs of Assistance

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 22, 2015

There is little doubt that the government knew that Jesse Newsom was on the road when they chose to serve a search warrant, not on him but on the premise and a vehicle. This will be explained in a subsequent article dealing with his arrest.

Shawn Hill, Special (I always get a kick out of the adjective, as applied to FBI) Agent, out of the Kalispell FBI office, served the warrant on July 10, 2015. The Warrant, signed by Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston, United States District Court, District of Montana, is, as is common with federal warrants, incomplete. There are four check boxes on the form, none of which are checked. Rather, it leaves the discretion to the server of the warrant, much like the Writs of Assistance that James Otis spoke against, about 250 years ago, when the Writs were blanket authority to search wherever they wanted to, for whatever they wanted, and carried no requirement of specificity with regard to what they were looking for. The only difference between then and now is that, now, a judge has to sign the warrant, but that appears to be a “done deal” when the FBI requests a warrant.

The Warrant did have an “Attachment B”, but “Attachment A” was conspicuously missing. Presumably, Attachment A would have been the constitutionally required “Oath or affirmation” providing the “probable cause” deemed necessary to justify the issuance of the Warrant. The Amendment also states, “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This Amendment, in response to what the Writs of Assistance were, includes this provision to insure that the warrant is issued to seize only what is known to exist, hence the inclusion of “particularly describing” both place and objects to be seized.

The definition of “particularly” that the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would recognize can be found in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Here is what we find, “particularly – adv. Distinctly; singly.” So, now we can compare what was intended, at least as should be interpreted by both the People and the government, as to the wording in the warrant’s “Attachment B”. We’ll deal with just a couple of the items described to be seized, though you can review the wording of the Attachment and see that there are others that so general as to fall well outside the obvious intent of the Fourth Amendment. (image of Attachment B; text of Attachment B)

The first listed item is:

1. Any and all firearms, destructive device, or ammunition as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a), or any photographs of firearms or ammunition or of persons in possession of firearms or ammunition.

Now, the Constitution recognizes our right “to be confronted with the witnesses against[us]” (Sixth Amendment). What if that “witness” is our own camera, or pictures from friends? Is that a violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law“. And, what of the property that is not criminal in its nature; proof of a crime; or the proceeds of criminal activity? It is taken, as we will see, with a preposterous disregard for personal property rights — that which is supposed to be protected by the Constitution, and not to be taken just because they want to, well, fish.

Fish. Well, why would we use that word? Simply, the other item on the property to be seized raises no possible doubt that the government is “fishing”, an absolute contradiction to the intent of the Framers. From “Attachment B”:

9. Evidence of occupancy, control, or ownership of the property to be searched, including but not limited to, received mail, outgoing mail with a return address, concealed mail, deeds, leases, rental agreements, photographs, personal ledgers, utility and telephone bills, and statements, and identification documents.

I have emphasized some of the items, but to all of them, what possible motive could there be to seize any of the listed items? Are they checking to see if he has permission to live where he lives? Are the concerned that he might not be paying his bills? Why would they want to know who he corresponds with? Federal law prohibits the government from opening mail. Is there a loophole that states that mail is sacred while in the hands of government, but is no longer sacred after it is received, or before it is sent? I can’t find one.

So, now, we can look at what was actually seized and inventoried, during the search.

• item 5 – No trespassing sign
• item 6 – Belt buckle
• item 8 – Black binder [presumably with un-“described papers “contained in the binder]
• item 10 – Camo shirt
• item 11 – Camo hat
• item 13 – Northwestern Energy Bill [concerned about his power usage?]
• item 14 – Camo hat
• item 15 – Camo pants, shirt and belt
• item 16 – Camo Backpack
• item 22 – Rental agreement [are they making sure that he pays his rent?]
• item 23 – Conviction from Washington State
• item 24 – Camo patch
• item 25 – Boots
• item 29 – Camo Clothing
• item 30 – Camo Coat
• item 39 – Catalogs
• item 41 – Camo clothing w/ Newsome [sic] name
• item 49 – Misc. targets
• item 52 – Identification cards and Militia Emblem
• item 56 – 2 empty shotgun shells

Though the other items are related to firearms, ammunition, etc., we have to wonder what those listed, above, have to do with anything that would be evidence of a crime. Power bill and rental agreement, are, perhaps, the most far-fetched. Clothing, boots, binder of paperwork — what role can these play?

According to federal statutes, specifically, 10 U.S. Code §311, Jesse is a member of the United States Militia, by law. And, the statute, though it excludes certain people, does not exclude those convicted of a felony (yes, Jesse has been convicted of a felony, but that will be covered in a subsequent article). So, why would they take clothing and other objects associated with militia? It is their law that binds him to that obligation as United States Militia.

We can only hope that Jesse has some civilian clothes, so that he doesn’t have to run around naked. And, we can contemplate, since many of these items cannot be associated with criminal activity, in any way, that he has been denied his property, “without due process of law“.

Now, I used the term “fishing”, earlier. So, let’s continue the journey into the fishing elements of this story. First, we will consider Mr. “A”. Mr. “A” was contacted by cell phone, while the agents were still at Jesse’s house. Mr. “A” was in town, Great Falls, when he received the call. He agreed to meet them at Jesse’s home. They waited until he arrived and then Special (there we go, again) Agent Mark D. Seyler, out of Helena FBI office, asked him questions, as Mr. “A” told me, they already had answers to. Did you know that Jesse was in a militia, and such. It appears that his “interview” was intended more as a threat, intimidation, or a warning.

From Jesse’s home, they went to the home of Mr. “B”. Here, it was a bit different, as they acknowledged that Mr. “B”‘s “name showed up on paperwork” that was taken during the search. Mr. B. did a good job of playing a government official with many, “I don’t recall”, or “I didn’t know that”. This, I suppose, is the first confirmed catch from the government’s “fishing expedition”. We can little doubt that there are many more names that will come under their scrutiny — to see how many more they can catch.

However, at one point, the agent stated that “about 10% of militia participants might be prone to violence”. They led Mr. “B” to the understanding that they didn’t consider him in that 10% (ha, ha, ha), and it appears that they were, again, attempting to intimidate or discourage Mr. “B”.

From what I have seen in the past, taking paperwork to expand their understanding of the militia networking is a new tactic, and though their pursuit has nothing to do with criminal activity. It is intelligence gathering, by unlawful use of search warrants and intimidation.

Camp Lone Star – Act III – A Kangaroo Court
Scene 3 – The Patriot Community

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 29, 2015

I suppose that it would be best to start out with a confession. Back in 1966, I smoked my first marijuana. I was on R&R in Nha Trang, Vietnam and staying in a hotel on the American side of the city. As I understand it, part of the city was for R&R for us, and the other part (a no go zone) was used by the Vietcong for R&R.

I had checked into the hotel and was going up to my room when I met three guys that were part of a LRRP (Long Range Recon Patrol). We got talking and they invited me into their room to share a Park Lane ‘cigarette’. They did explain that it was not a tobacco cigarette, rather, some of Vietnam’s finest. I have to say, it was very fine, and began leading me down the path…

Upon my return to the states, I found that all of my high school buddies, well, most of them, chose to smoke a joint from time to time. I found myself no different from those “most”, and continued using ‘pot’ to relax, after a hard day’s work, for many years.

In March 1993, I went to Waco, Texas and began my career of writing about the “Misdeeds of Government” –when the guns are pointed in the wrong direction. When I returned to Florida, I realized that if I was to continue what I was doing, it would be wise to provide the government no “handles” with which to grab me, charge me, and then throw me in prison. Back then, two years for possession was about the minimum –but, the world has changed.

So, why do I even mention this? Well, it is foundational to the question I am going to ask:

Does my smoking pot, from time to time, have any effect on the relevance of my writing, what I write about, or any other aspect of what sense you had of me before I made this confession?

My guess is that you will say “no”, though in the back of your mind, you will, as you do when you see a cop behind you, have a slightly tinged opinion of Gary Hunt. But, that’s okay, so long as you keep reading and learning from what I write.

Now, let’s look at our history. Granted, I am older. When I went to school, we looked up to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al, and venerated them. They were the source from which this then great nation emerged.

A few decades ago, I cannot say where it sprang from; it became popular to denigrate those heroes of the Revolution and the creation of OUR country. Both were slaveholders (a practice acceptable throughout most of the world, at the time), so that was a chink in their armor. Schools picked up the banner and lessened the sanctity of our history. Then, to compound matters, the claim that Jefferson fathered children through Sally Henning was foisted upon us. No tangible proof, since the DNA models lead to Jefferson, though equally, to his father, who was known to, well, take advantage of his slaves. But, heck, let’s hang it on Thomas, since we need to establish a foundation for denigrating those we once revered.

However, when we do so, by association, we also denigrate our own heritage and culture. We assign “guilt by association”, of both other individuals who did not object, at the time, and to the by-product of their efforts, the Constitution and the United States of America.

Today, we have a concept that covers this sort of subtle manipulation of our thought process. It is called “political correctness”.

However, most will say that they will not fall into that trap. They believe that they are immune to its effects. At the same time, they call a homosexual a “gay person” rather than a “queer” or “faggot” (See Freedom of Speech). But, they simply do not realize that they have been manipulated into restricting their own thought process by submission to subliminal suggestions.

Let’s look at three fairly recent events in which we can see how this comes into play. First is David Stone’s Hutaree Militia. Mainstream Media (MSM) told us that the Hutaree were going to set up and kill cops. There was a rush to distance ourselves from any association with, or support for, the Hutaree, since they were going to do something bad. However, nearly a year later, the judge in the case dismissed it as there was nothing sufficient to even suggest that what we had been told was true (See Thought Crimes). The Hutaree Militia will forever be stigmatized by the unfounded accusation made upon them.

Next, we can look at a more recent and well-known event, when hundreds of militia members went to Nevada to protect a rancher and his cattle. The initial call was put out by Operation Mutual Aid (OMA), and was headed up by Ryan Payne. The wide variety of individuals who showed up created a bit of a nightmare, as far as keeping things organized enough to be able to respond, after nearly a week, and force the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to leave, with their tails between their legs. Most of the cattle were recovered, and now, a year later, the Bundys continue to graze their cattle where they had for decades. However, immediately after the event on April 12, the “Unrustling” of the cattle, attacks were made on Ryan Payne, accusing him of claiming to be, in military service, what he was not — stolen valor. The claims have yet to be substantiated (See Stealing Valor), though the vestiges of those claims still linger. Payne has stepped aside from the patriot community because of the unfounded accusations.

Before we look at a current situation that warrants our attention, let’s go back about twenty years. Someone who had gone to Waco and seen, first hand, what was going on — unlike most, not seeing only what MSM wanted us to see, struck back at government by doing what our own government does in other countries, blowing up a government building. MSM played up the death of some children, ignoring that the Government Accounting Office had recommended the removal of the day care center nearly a year before the bombing.

Most of the patriot community still speaks poorly of Timothy McVeigh. They tend to ignore the fact that just two years early, the government burned to death over twenty children who were not placed in the care of others, but stayed at home and in their church, when they were killed. The general outrage over what the government did pales in comparison with the way that most people look at McVeigh — who simply did what others had talked about, and, in the current light, are talking about, again — attacking government buildings.

I have always taken the position that I applaud McVeigh for having the courage to attack a government building, as he did (Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building). I cannot take that away from him. However, I do know that if it were my mission, I would not have done it the same way.

So, why is it that we hold our own, or fellow patriots, to a higher standard than we do the government? Why is it that if a patriot, who has done good is found to have a blemish, either real or concocted, all of the good that he may have done is obscured by the often minor, but always initiated by the government and/or MSM, human acts that can be criticized?

Before I get to the point of this article, let me demonstrate the effect of the stigmatization, by association, when one is not “politically correct” in the patriot community.

For a while, now, every one of my articles was reposted on two blogs, both being of the patriotic nature. The both mail out lists of articles, and show my articles on their web pages — or, they did. After the first article in which I mentioned the KC Massey had smoked a joint, they stopped posting any of my articles, even one that was not related to Massey, at all. It appears that my reporting the truth was enough to get me “banned” by those who had, previously, though my articles worthy of their time and consideration.

In another example, there was a Facebook page, with about 500 followers, that was very supportive of Massey — until the smoking of the joint was published. They have decided, as a group, that they can no longer associate themselves with Massey, and have withdrawn their support.

Ironically, a news page that is about the closest I will ever get to MSM, and would probably associate more with the Tea Party crowd, has continued to post my articles. Apparently, they have overcome “political correctness”.

Now, I can only surmise why those mentioned have chosen to discontinue posting my articles. I can attribute an explanation of what may be the cause, based upon some conversations with friends who have objected to Massey’s “indiscretion”. They dwell on Massey, not the punitive system that was described in my last article, Act III – A Kangaroo Court – Scene 2 – Presumption of Guilt. The focus, as MSM has directed us, is to demean those who have done well rather than looking at the government, or the fact that we are all human. We have succumbed to that political correctness and attack those who have shown the potential, having the ultimate effect of discouraging them from participating, where they once stood out.

Ryan Payne is probably the best example of this. Though the “blemish” was based upon unsubstantiated allegations, it made him shy away from participation. We have lost a potential leader in what is to come. Massey, too, seems to have lost his enthusiasm, since he has found that the support for his efforts has diminished the only reward he received from his efforts, the approbation for what he had accomplished. He is now looked down upon by many who have allowed the blemish to override his accomplishments.

So, we blame someone for smoking a joint, because it is against the law, though we do not damn those who might be on psychotropic drugs, because they are legal — at least, not until he shoots up a schoolhouse. And, in so doing, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

What we have accomplished is to discourage those who might be leaders in the coming battles from even taking a role that, though it might make them champions, might also lead to them being treated as a pariah. It has become an incentive to avoid acting, rather than acting, as the risk of condemnation increases, proportionate to the effort exerted.

Quite simply, for us to abandon those who have put out the effort, simply because of a trivial blemish, plays right into the hands of the opposition. If we denigrate those who can lead us, we eliminate that leadership before it even begins, and we are left with nothing — for we have destroyed ourselves, in our own eyes, saving the enemy the task of undermining any effort of significance in achieving our objective.

 

 

April 19, 2015

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2015

Twenty years ago, today, the Murrah Federal Courthouse, in Oklahoma City, was bombed by a patriot who intended to light the fuse of violent resistance to the government’s overarching, and deadly, imposition upon the rights of the people. Some of the motivation behind this act was a response to the efforts of government, just two years earlier, to divest some people of their right to bear arms, and other infringements of the Constitution.

Twenty-two years ago, today, agencies of the federal government murdered over 80 people; in Waco, Texas; men, women, and children, in their own home/Church. Again, divesting the right to bear arms, and other constitutional infringements were the underlying elements in this event.

Two-hundred and forty years ago, today, more than 80 men stood on Lexington Green to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the government’s effort to divest them of their constitutional and sacred right to keep arms.

Today, K. C. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, filed (electronically) a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment upon which the government’s case against Massey rests. That motion is an objection to the government’s attempt to divest Massey of his right to bear arms, by overreaching constitutional authority.

There are two elements in each of these events. First, arms; Second, the Constitution

Now, the government and Mainstream Media downplay the latter and demonize the former. And, that has become the underlying creed of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the short (45 second) video clip, “Sheriff’s Deputy Admits MRAPs Are For Constitutionalists“. Though the jurisdiction and the date of the video are not known (unless someone comes forward with that information), it is apparent that the two deputies are serious in what they say:

Deputy #1: “We’ve got a lot of constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, a lot of ammunition, and they have [intelligible] weapons here locally.”

So, the first Deputy sees danger in “constitutionalists” stockpiling weapons and ammo. He sounds a lot like General Gage, military governor of Massachusetts.

Deputy #2: “It’s worldwide. The world is unstable now; you look anywhere, you watch the news.”

As to the second, what is “worldwide”? The fear of constitutionalists is an international problem? “Hey, buddy! Yeah, you, the deputy, don’t you work for this county? What are you doing dealing in international matters?”

As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.“

Have we learned? Can we remember? What, possibly, can the government do to return to the Constitution, and avoid the violence that they have already begun?

Let us not slide further into that abyss of abject slavery and obedience to a government that was supposed to belong to us.

 

Government’s purpose is to govern the Government,
Not to govern the People.

 

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 3: To Be, or Not to Be – Forthright

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 14, 2015

In Act One: The Government Charade, Judge Hanen graciously gave Prosecuting Attorney Hagen, the opportunity to respond to the Motions to Suppress and Dismiss, in greater detail, since he had failed to address some of the points presented in Mr. Sorola’s motions. The deadline for the response was April 10. So, we anxiously awaited that filing to see if Hagen could dig out of the hole he had created for himself, with his prosecution (persecution?) of K. C. Massey.

Well, I received a copy of Government’s Supplementary Response To Motion Suppress And Motion To Dismiss Indictment, on Friday, April 10. Now, it is typical of the “case law” method, which, well, let’s use the description of Teddy Roosevelt’s thoughts on this method, from the book “Bully Pulpit”, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Case law method was developed at Harvard in 1872. “Though the pleasure he took in his studies is amply expressed in his journal, he was troubled that ‘some of the teaching of the law books and of the classroom seemed to me to be against justice.’ He noted critically that ‘we are concerned with [the] question of what law is, not what it ought to be.'” So, like Teddy, we are stuck with “what law is, not what it ought to be.”

Hagen’s Response addresses a number of higher court opinions, both Supreme and appellate, though we will only be looking at those opinions of the Supreme Court. So, let’s look at just how Mr. Hagen attempts to extricate himself from that hole. At this time, we will only address the Response to the Motion to Suppress.

First, he addresses the Motion to Suppress Evidence. In so doing, he lists the following:

(i) Defendant was observed carrying a rifle and that observation was made prior to any alleged search or stop;
(ii) Defendant was asked for his identification by law enforcement in the course of investigating a shooting involving a federal agent;
(iii) Defendant was detained after the shooting occurred as potential witnesses;
(iv) Defendant’s firearms were seized to protect both law enforcement and civilian witnesses; and,
(v) Defendant’s possession of two firearms was in violation of both state and federal law.

Regarding (i), this was discussed in the previous article. If the act was criminal, why did the government not arrest Massey when the observation was made? The answers rests on identification of Massey and determination of his status, none of which would have occurred had the “stop” or “detention” not occurred. Should we “cooperate” with law enforcement if going about our daily lives might result in subjecting ourselves to directed persecution? In this case, the shooter, in violation of both law and policy, and, the subject of the “investigation”, goes free, while the non-witness is subsequently arrested. One has to wonder if this whole thing was a set up to “get Massey”.

Regarding (ii) & (iii), that, too, was addressed in the previous post. Someone who, like the “investigator”, Cantu, had no more information than Cantu had, until Cantu received a radio message and passed that same information on to Massey, does not really qualify as a witness to anything. This leaves the question of “stop” or “detention” open, and that will be discussed shortly.

Regarding (iv), Foerster, Massey, and Varner, all retained their weapons, posing no threat, as testified to by Cantu. Subsequently, the decision was made, by persons unknown, that the weapons should be “secured”. “Seized”, as described in the Response, has no relationship to the testimony.

Regarding (v), here comes a problem, with Hagen’s comprehension skills. He quotes Texas Penal Code, as follows:

Texas Penal Code § 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possess a firearm:

(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or

(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

So, it says, in the singular, that he is in violation “if he possess a firearm”, before the fifth anniversary. Are we to assume that if he possesses more than one firearm, he is exempt from violation? It says nothing about any limitation after the fifth anniversary. Except, perhaps, in some secret version of Texas law that Hagen has hidden in his drawers.

Now, if Hagen is suggesting that Massey was not at “the premises at which the person lives”, the government also already stated that Massey had been at Camp Lone Star for four months. So, can there be any doubt as to where he lived at the time of this incident? The purpose of this provision is, without doubt, to provide the means for protecting the “premise”. Does that preclude someone from going on to his neighbor’s property, with that neighbor’s permission, to provide for that protection?

However, we can put that all aside, as Massey is not charged with violation of state law, Hagen has charged him with violation of federal law. The Sheriff’s Office has not chosen to file charges against Massey in their jurisdiction, so that makes Hagen’s argument somewhere on the other side of moot.

So, let’s look at the Supreme Court decisions that Hagen has cited to defend his position. First is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court Nevada 542 US 177. He argues that “A police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment“.

So, let’s see what Hiibel says:

At 177, setting the background of the case, it says, “Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.”

At 184, we find “Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.“

Then finally, at 185, the pages cited by Hagen, we find, “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. “‘[I]nterrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.”… the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.“

So, just what were the “suspicious circumstances”, or “reasonable suspicion”, that existed on August 29, 2014, on the Sabal Palms property? Perhaps Hagen should be instructing BPS, FBI, and others, as to what is required to “investigate” and require that one identify himself, absent the criteria established by the Supreme Court. I suppose that we could also ask Mr. Hagen what the difference is between and “interview”, as described in testimony, and, “interrogation”, as cited in this case.

Then, he cites INS v. Delgado 466 US 210. He does not, however, provide any quotation from that case, so I suppose that quantity rather than quality might be his motivation, here. So, to put a context on the current situation, I will provide the quotations. This case refers to whether INS could profile by asking questions of employees being suspected of being illegal aliens. So, here is what the cited page, 216, tells us:

In contrast, a much different situation prevailed in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), when two policemen physically detained the defendant to determine his identity, after the defendant refused the officers’ request to identify himself. The Court held that absent some reasonable suspicion of misconduct, the detention of the defendant to determine his identity violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure.

Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, one cannot say that the questioning resulted in a detention under the Fourth Amendment.

So, the Court has given us a situation, and then concludes, “Unless… a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded”, then the questioning was not a detention. However, Hagen as argued that this was a “stop” (Terry Stop), not a detention, and there is no doubt that when Massey “cooperated” in providing his identification, he had already been told that there was an investigation and that he could not leave.

Next, he cites United States v. Sharpe 470 US 675. At least he provides a context, and page (685), though, again, no quotation. So, we will begin at 684:

In that case, law enforcement agents stopped the defendant after his arrival in an airport and seized his luggage for 90 minutes to take it to a narcotics detection dog for a “sniff test.” We decided that an investigative seizure of personal property could be justified under the Terry doctrine, but that “[t]he length of the detention of respondent’s luggage alone precludes the conclusion that the seizure was reasonable in the absence of probable cause.”

And, at the cited page 685:

While it is clear that “the brevity of the invasion of the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests is an important factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion,” we have emphasized the need to consider the law enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably needed to effectuate those purposes.

So, in the first instance, a stop of 90 minutes was unreasonable, absent “probable cause”. And, in the second, there was an “invasion of the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests”, rests upon “reasonable suspicion”. They speak of “seizure”. That is what the Prosecution has claimed, and maintained by continue to retain, all of the firearms, except Varner’s. But, they were not “seized”, according to testimony. They were “secured” for Officer Safety.

Okay, just one more. This is United States v. Leon 468 US 897. Though no quotations are given, he points out that Rotunno, the agent who swore to the accuracy of the information used to secure the various Warrants and Criminal Complaint, was present neither at the shooting incident investigation on August 29, nor at the arrest on October 20, 2014. Quite simply, Rotunno “fabricated” (that is a polite form of lying) an important element of what happened on August 29, which implied that Foerster, and Foerster, alone, might have committed a criminal act by “pointing: his firearm at Gonzales. Massey and Varner were innocent parties to the entire episode. So, Hagen’s assertion might apply to Foerster, but the great leap to envelope Massey in his web is without any lawful or legal merit.

That doesn’t however, remove us from consideration of what the court said in U. S, v Leon.

In this case, a warrant was issued based upon observations during a drug trafficking investigation, by law enforcement officers. There was nothing illegal about the observations, nor were there misrepresentations, or outright lies, in the affidavit that resulted in the warrant.

The court held that “Application of the exclusionary rule should continue where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate, but the balancing approach that has evolved in determining whether the rule should be applied in a variety of contexts – including criminal trials – suggests that the rule should be modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate.”

Further, that “the courts must also insist that the magistrate purport to perform his neutral and detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police… However the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.”

And, that “A police officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth, or if the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his detached and neutral judicial role.”

So, though even Foerster may find relief by this decision, Massey was nothing more than a bystander in the events of August 29, and nothing conjured by Hagen can change that relationship. There was never the requisite probable cause, suspicion, or any other factor, that would ensnare Massey in this web. It is only Hagen’s desire to please those “up the river” that forces him to persist in the persecution of K. C. Massey.

Now, I realize that what was just stated might be considered by some to be overstepping the bounds of propriety. However, we must not detach ourselves from the reality that we are constantly presented with the excuse that, “there are only a few bad cops”. We have learned, over time that “few” is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Let us simply refresh our minds with a recent event wherein an innocent man spent thirty years on Death Row. He was released when his innocence was final acknowledged. His innocence was known by the Prosecutor, from the very beginning. That Prosecutor, Marty Stroud, has repented. Marty Stroud is demonstrative of the subject of the book, “Three Felonies a Day”, by Harvey A. Silverglate, in which the objective is to obtain a conviction, regardless of guilt, and to distort the wording of the law to achieve that end.

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 2: To Detain, or Not to Detain? That is the Question.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 12, 2015

Another question brought up in Sorola’s motion to suppress evidence was also addressed. At issue is whether he was detained, at which point he would have to be read his Miranda rights, which they did not do, or simply stopped for investigative purposes. The latter would be what is referred to as a Terry Stop. It is worth noting that a Terry Stop is defined as:

A brief detention of a person on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause for arrest. To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

As you read the testimony, decide what you believe the answer is. Remember that only two people were witness to any criminal activity — the shooting incident.

Mr. Hagen said, in his initial argument:

[T]he Border Patrol agent [then] fired several shots at Mr. Foerster, thankfully missing.

So that launched a — an investigation since a federal agent had discharged his firearm. That’s what brought the FBI and the Sheriff’s Department and Border Patrol Internal Affairs and all these people out to the area.

But as far as suppressing evidence, I think the government is on solid ground here because before the shots were even fired, there are multiple Border Patrol agents that observed Mr. Massey carrying a firearm, and that’s what he’s charged with is possession of a firearm. Even before he was ever detained or questioned, he was seen carrying a firearm on August 29th of 2014.

And the only relevant information or information I’d say that is critical to our prosecution is his identity, who he is, and I don’t believe that can be suppressed, although I think — I think law enforcement behaved accordingly in all respects in connection with this investigation. Even if it was a bad stop or a bad search or — you can’t suppress identity.

Yes, he is correct. If you were a criminal walking down the streets, absent a warrant, could they just stop and arrest you because you are doing something that many others are doing? We are a nation of laws, not of men. Those laws require that certain procedures be followed, even to the point of protecting a criminal — whether he is a criminal, or not. So, since there are no “Wanted Posters” for K. C. Massey, identification becomes a crucial point.

As Hagen said, “there are multiple Border Patrol agents that observed Mr. Massey carrying a firearm”. So, why didn’t they arrest him, then? Could it possibly be that the law, not men, are the rule?

Hagen continues:

I believe Mr. Massey said to Danny Cantu: Look, nobody got hurt. We’d like to — you know, we’re going to be on our way.

Danny Cantu said: Look, a federal agent discharged his weapon. There’s going to be an investigation. Y’all need to stay around.

Earlier, Cantu had said that he thought that the shots had come from the Mexican side of the border. He received radio communication that a federal agent had done the shooting. Why would someone that was very far from the actual shooting be a witness in an investigation?

Let’s keep in mind some recent events of which we are all aware. We have law enforcement people saying that if you don’t want us to shoot you, you had better cooperate. That might be sound advice if one wasn’t subject to persecution because he cooperated, however, if you believe that under state law you have every right to have a firearm on private property, with the permission of the owner, what are you going to do the next time a law enforcement, any law enforcing, officer wants to detain, stop, hold, or even ID you? It is somewhat difficult to reconcile yourself to the idea passive obedience when one realizes that even if they are not violating the law, the feds might use every trick in their toolbox, if they want to persecute or prosecute you.

So, then Hagen says:

Now, Mr. Massey was detained or was in the area for several hours. I think everyone left around 7:00. I think the evidence will show that shots were fired around 3:45.

Note that Hagen has framed the whole event into over 3 hours. This will be addressed more in Act Two, Scene 3.

Now, we move to the first witness, Agent Cantu, in examination by Hagen.

Q All right. Now, did you give any instruction to Mr. Massey after you first encountered him?

A After we encountered them, I asked him and Mr. Varner if they can hang tight. They were missing one of their — their friends that was with them, and I wasn’t sure where exactly he was. Again, I was still in the back of my head, the shots had rang out. They had called for a supervisor. I was trying to make my way down to where the agents needed me, ensuring safety, that everybody was okay. So I asked them to stay by their Kawasaki as I continued down this dirt road.

Q Okay. So you get to the area where the shooting took place. What do you see?

A As I approach, I see Mr. — Mr. Foerster holding a weapon in his hand. It was just hanging down to his side, but he was holding the weapon as an —

***

So as I came down, I saw Mr. Foerster there holding that weapon. I saw the agent, Marco Gonzalez, approaches me as I’m getting close, and he’s telling me that, you know, he shot at Mr. Foerster; that Mr. Foerster turned in his direction with the weapon and he opened fire. And I was trying to get — Foerster started talking, and so I was trying to get everybody to —

Now, according to Cantu’s testimony, he already had their identification, so essentially, they cannot leave. They have to consider that if they do leave, at best, they no longer have any identification, and, at worst, they might be charged for resisting arrest, or some other bogus charge. After all, who would leave their ID with an LEO, if they were free to leave?

Later, he testifies that he, and Massey, knew what had happened before they got to the ATV. That would, of course, make anything Massey knew nothing more than hearsay.

As we got to the ATV, Mr. Foerster started telling Mr. Massey what had occurred…

Cantu continues, in response to Hagen asking him what happened next:

A As soon as we… Mr. Massey tells me: You know, as far as we’re concerned, nobody was injured. We want to go on our way.

Q Okay. And is there a protocol that you need to follow when an officer discharges a weapon?

A Yes. We need to make notifications. We need to investigate why the firearm was discharged.

Q Okay. Now, at this point in time, did you know whether or not Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had been threatened or whether or not perhaps Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had irresponsibly fired upon Foerster? Did you know?

A From what I had gathered, he had fired in — from what Mr. Gonzalez told me. Again, this was preliminary. I was trying to — I had to speak with everyone to figure out kind of what was actually happening, so I wasn’t sure at that point.

***

Q Okay. Did you explain to Mr. Massey — and may I ask you this? When Massey said, “We want to leave,” who was he talking about when he — when he mentioned or by the word “we”?

A Well, Mr. Foerster, Varner and himself were inside the Kawasaki, so that to me told me they all wanted to depart.

Cantu knew that Massey and Varner knew no more than he did. The question involved three people, as Cantu puts it. If the majority should be excluded, reason dictates that he should have said that only Foerster had to remain.

Q Okay. So did you explain to them that an investigation was going to be conducted?

A I did.

Q And how did you explain that to them?

A I told them that they weren’t allowed to leave and that we were going to move to a staging area just further up, which is the — this area right here. My initial thought — and the reason I chose this area was to give us distance from the river that was close by. We moved here to stage the vehicles and kind of get a grip of what actually transpired.

Now, they were not allowed to leave. That means that they are not free to go. However, as explained above, they were being good, State law-abiding, cooperative citizens.

Later in testimony:

Q Okay. Now, did you ask Mr. Massey to provide you with an ID?

A I did, sir.

Q At what point in time did you make that request?

A Our initial encounter, as I approached him with Mr. Varner.

Q Okay. And did — did he provide you with an identification?

A He did.

So, it was when Varner and Cantu met up with Massey that the physical (identification papers, please) ability to leave was removed. This singular act sets the stage for the whole drama of whether it was detention or a Terry Stop.

So, let’s keep the stage set. Cantu has the IDs. Rather than return them he, well:

Q And when Sergeant Valerio showed up, did you provide the IDs from Mr. Massey and Mr. Varner to him?

A Yes, sir. I had not been able — had time to conduct any further investigations on those. When I say that, I mean run records. I mean, normally typically run records when we encounter people. I had not had the time. I was attempting to secure everything that — when Mr. Valerio showed up, I handed him the identifications and kind of gave him the rundown of what had occurred, and he took over at that point.

So, if he gave Valerio the “run down”, the Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy would know that there were only two witnesses to the shooting.

This is cross-examination by Mr. Sorola, and a repeat of part of Scene 1, and brings in the question posed by the Judge:

Q Okay. Later on do you find out who is shot — who is firing a weapon, a firearm?

A Upon approaching [where] Foerster and Mr. Gonzalez [were], yes.

Q And Agent Gonzalez is the only one that discharged a weapon; is that correct?

A At that point, that’s what I was told, yes.

Q And you were told that by Agent Gonzalez, right?

A Correct. And Mr. Foerster attested to that.

THE COURT: And you said at that time. I mean, nothing subsequent to that time has changed that, have they?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, no. It’s just that —

THE COURT: So as far as you know sitting here today, the only weapon that was shot was — the only weapon discharged was discharged by Agent Gonzalez.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

In confirming (that’s what good attorneys do) that Massey and Varner were detained, Mr. Sorola asks:

Q And this is about 3:45 in the afternoon, correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, you testified earlier that you told Mr. Massey he could not leave the area, right?

A Correct.

Q So he wasn’t free to leave.

A No.

Q He had to stay there.

A Yes.

Q What would you have done had he tried to leave?

A I could have detained — placed him in handcuffs, put him in a unit to secure him to prevent him from leaving the area. But he was being cooperative, and none of that was necessary.

Next, we look at whether there was any reason, at all, to believe that Massey and Varner were complicit, or even aware, of the shooting event — other than having heard the shots.

Q And when the shooting occurred, you didn’t take Mr. Varner’s weapon from him, did you?

A No, sir.

Q You didn’t disarm him?

A No.

Q You didn’t frisk him?

A No.

Q When you encountered Mr. Massey, did you check him for firearms?

A Just the one he was carrying, the longarm, the AK47 weapon.

Q But you didn’t take it from him?

A I did not.

***

THE COURT: Okay. But you had no — you obviously didn’t have any reason to think Mr. Massey was the one that had done the shooting because —

THE WITNESS: No, I —

THE COURT: — you went on. You left him there and went on.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

Here is a rather interesting side note, perhaps a contradiction that has to do with “Officer Safety”. At this time, there are just a few agents in the area. The recipient of the shots fired is still armed, as are Massey and Varner. After additional officers arrive, approaching “between 15 and twenty”, it is determined that the weapons must be “secured”, first to the open ATV, then, later, to the back of the BPS “unit” (why don’t they just call it what it is, instead of government double-speak?)

Q Okay. So Mr. Varner and Mr. Massey just tell you out of the clear blue: We also have firearms on us?

A Yes.

Q And you didn’t see these firearms prior to them telling you?

A I did not.

Q But then are you saying that Mr. Varner then handed you the — the firearm that he had?

A Yes, sir.

Q And what did Mr. Massey do?

A Same thing. They both removed the — their pistols and put them in the back of my unit. The pistols were downloaded and placed there with the remainder — with the other rifles.

Back to the subject of this Act, whether they were detained or stopped. Mr. Sorola still questioning:

Q How long was it that Mr. Massey was not free to leave this area?

A In its entirety, sir, or the investigative agency showed up?

Q In its entirety. From 3:45 when shots are fired, when is Mr. Massey free to go?

A He departed — I’m — I can’t tell you exactly who told him it was — after the investigative agency showed up, they began to interview him. And which agency ultimately told him they were done with their interviews, I couldn’t tell you.

Next Witness, Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Valerio. This will be the handoff of the ID cards, though there arises a question (good memories?) of whether there were two, as Cantu said, or three, as Valerio will testify:

Q Okay. Did you observe or did you meet with an individual by the name of Danny Cantu?

A Yes, I did.

Q And did he provide you with any ID cards?

A Yes, he did, with three ID cards from the persons that were there.

Q Okay. Did he provide you with three ID cards or two ID cards?

A As far as I can remember, it was three ID cards.

Q And soon after arriving, did you request criminal histories and a warrant search on the IDs that had been provided to you?

A Yes, that’s correct.

***

Q All right. Now, did you have reason to believe that Mr. Massey had been carrying a weapon or weapons on that date prior to your arrival?

A Yes, I did.

Q Why did you think that?

A I was informed by the — by David Cantu that this — the suspects, the persons that were there, they were carrying these weapons that he had shown me.

Q All right. Did you — when you first arrived, did you think Mr. Massey had committed a crime? And I’m talking about before you ran the criminal history or anything like that. When you first arrived, did you think he had done anything that — where he should be detained or arrested?

A No. I only had the information on the shooting, but we didn’t know at that point in time what actually had happened.

Q Okay. So if Mr. Massey would have asked you when you arrived at 4:18, told you, “I’m getting out of here,” would you have let him go?

A At that point, yes.

Q Okay. Now, after you learned that he had been in possession of a weapon and he had a felony conviction, did your position change on whether or not you would let him go if he would have asked?

A Yes, it changed based on the information I had and his record and him being in possession. It had changed, that he would have been asked to stay.

Now, wouldn’t the Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy know that after 5 years, Massey could have a firearm? It is suggested, in other testimony, that he knew. In response to Sorola’s questioning:

Q If I have a felony conviction on my record, is it against the law for me to have a firearm?

A It depends if it’s within five years, sir, or not. That’s something that we would have to further — be further looked into.

So, can there be any doubt, even with the hedging, that Valerio knows what Texas law says.

A Prior to his arrival there.

Q Okay. Now, Mr. Massey had a weapon and a felony prior, but is that why you were out there in the Sabal Palms area, to investigation Mr. Massey?

A No. We were out there for the shooting itself.

Q Okay. And what kind of investigation was conducted by the Sheriff’s Department in connection with the shooting?

A The investigation was at the — who — how it happened, who was the one carrying the weapons also, and who was the one that did the shooting, which was Border Patrol involvement.

Then, we have this:

Q All right. Now, did you speak with — towards the end of the shooting investigation, did you speak with your supervisor to determine whether or not you should return the weapons to Mr. Massey, Foerster and Varner or maintain custody of them?

A That’s correct. I spoke to Lieutenant Diaz. And based on the field investigation, he advised that we were going to collect the weapons. We were going to take custody of them for further investigation.

Q Okay. And was that because of the felony convictions?

A Correct. That’s correct.

Then, Mr. Sorola asks:

Q Sergeant, did you ever get a warrant to take possession of the firearms?

A No, I did not.

Q When you arrived at 4:18, was there any emergency? Was the shooting over?

A That’s correct, yes.

Q Well, when you arrived, the firearms were actually in the possession of Border Patrol, right?

A That’s correct.

Q And when you arrived at 4:18, as far as you’re concerned, Mr. Massey was free to leave?

A That’s correct.

Q Do you know if he was under orders from any other law enforcement not to leave?

A No, I did not. I had no knowledge of that.

Q You don’t know?

A I don’t.

Q But at this time, you have his identification card.

A That’s correct.

Q And you have Mr. Varner’s identification card.

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q Did you give them back to them?

A After I — after I did the inquiry, yes.

So, there was no justification for the Deputy to retain, or take custody of the firearms — even Foerster’s, as it was clear there was no criminal act on their part. And, they were free to go, if they left their ID with the Deputy.

Next on the stand, David Daniel Cordova, FBI Special Agent, being questioned by Hagen, and who testified that he arrived on the scene at about 6:00 PM, fully two hours after BPS had determined that Gonzales was the only shooter.

Q Okay. Why did you interview Mr. Massey?

A Mr. Massey? At the time it was my understanding that he was a witness to a shooting. A Border Patrol agent had discharged a firearm, and so I needed to obtain the details of what happened.

Q Okay. At that time — did you state earlier that you were investigating a possible assault on a federal agent?

A That’s correct.

Q And were you also investigating a possible assault by a federal agent?

A That is correct.

I suppose that there is a reason that he wanted to investigate the possibility that there was an assault on a federal officer. But, based upon what we know, is it at all possible that the known information wasn’t provided Cordova? If not, why wasn’t he informed what had already been provided by the participants in the shooting event.

Regarding the investigation as to whether there was an assault by a federal agent, we have heard nothing as to the results of that investigation, if it was every completed. Since Gonzales has not been charged with anything,, we must assume that the focus was on Massey, not on the shooter, Gonzales.

Just trying to understand how the investigators and government look at this, I suppose that we could compare it to you being two blocks away from a bank robbery, though you heard shots fired. The government then holds you as a witness, detaining you until they have fully satisfied themselves that, based up the eye witnesses to the account, and extensive, intrusive interviews, they determine that you are now, finally, free to go — subject to subsequent arrest because they have to check with their bosses to see how to charge you with a crime that you didn’t commit –under state law.

Another side note, in answer to another question, Cordova says, about Massey, “I ended up interviewing him along with an HSI agent.” HSI is Homeland Security Investigations, part of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Later on:

Q Do you know if any of the other FBI agents, your supervisor or anybody took any?

A One of our TFOs I believe took some photos.

THE COURT: What’s a TFO?

THE WITNESS: Task force officer.

So, why is a Task Force Officer present during the investigation? The only task force that I can find reference to that might want to be involved is the Domestic Terror Task Force (DTTF).

However, back to whether, or not, Massey was detained, we have the Hagen discussion with the judge:

HAGEN: No. I mean, my understanding, the motion to suppress is that the stop was illegal and that the arrest warrant was based on that, which, you know, my argument would be if Your Honor doesn’t like the stop, there’s certainly a good faith exception that would apply to the arrest and the search warrant wherein ATF agents were not present on the 29th relied on.

THE COURT: What are you referring to as “the stop“?

HAGEN: The August 29th encounter.

So, Hagen has to set the distinction that it was a stop, not a detention. You have read the testimony, and it appears quite clear that Hagen is grasping at straws. However, there is more coming in the next “Scene”.

 

Government was intended to govern the government,

not to govern the people.

 

 

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 1: Pointing Weapons, or Not Pointing Weapons?

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 11, 2015

In previous articles, we have discussed the Criminal Complaint, Arrest Warrant, and Search Warrant. In each of those documents, we have a set paragraph, to wit:

On August 29, 2014, United States Border Patrol Agents from the Fort Brown Border Patrol Station, while in performance of their official duties, encountered an armed individual, identified as John Frederick FOERSTER, in the brush. During this encounter, FOERSTER turned and pointed a firearm at a USBP Agent, who intern [sic] fired several shots at FOERSTER. FOERSTER is a member of “Rusty’s Rangers,” an armed citizen militia group patrolling the border of the United States and Mexico.

In each document bears the signature of “Anthony M. Rotunno, Special Agent ATF”. Below that, it states that it was “Sworn to before me and signed in my presence”, that being signed by “United States Magistrate Judge Ronald G. Morgan”. So, we have Rotunno swearing before Morgan that everything he has said is true. So, let’s see what the story is, now.

Hagen, the Prosecuting Attorney, in giving his response to Sorola’s motion, says:

[T]he way this all came about is there was one agent that was in heavy brush, and he was in hot pursuit of aliens. When he came through a clearing, he encountered John Foerster… Mr. Foerster had a weapon. It was an AK47 type pistol. And when the Border Patrol — and this is probably disputed. I don’t think that Mr. Foerster ever aimed or was planning on shooting the Border Patrol agent. But when the Border Patrol agent came through the brush, Foerster turned in his direction, and he was perceived as a threat by the Border Patrol agent who fired several shots at Mr. Foerster, thankfully missing.

The first witness was Danny Cantu, U. S. Border Patrol. Hagen is questioning him.

Q Okay. Now, at this point in time, did you know whether or not Border Patrol Agent [Marco] Gonzalez had been threatened or whether or not perhaps Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had irresponsibly fired upon Foerster? Did you know?

A From what I had gathered, he had fired in — from what Mr. Gonzalez told me. Again, this was preliminary. I was trying to — I had to speak with everyone to figure out kind of what was actually happening, so I wasn’t sure at that point.

Well, Gonzales, the only witness to the shooting besides Foerster, made no claim that begins to suggest that the weapon was pointed at Gonzales.

In Hagen’s initial statements, he said, “I believe [Massey] made one res gestae statement in connection with the arrest when he was told that they were going to do a search warrant, and that statement was, ‘There’s another gun in the hotel room, but it’s not mine.'” So, he ‘believes’, based upon something that he didn’t articulate, he makes a claim without foundation, setting the stage for the entire government performance. Perhaps it was Divine Inspiration.

Now, res gestae is a legal term which provides an exception to the prohibition of hearsay, and is met when somebody makes a spontaneous statement, closely connected to an event, before the mind has an opportunity to conjure a falsehood. Hagen perhaps, attempted to lay a foundation that Massey “volunteered” the information about a firearm in the motel room. Perhaps the same applies to the initial interview with Gonzales and the failure to report any instance where Foerster “turned and pointed a firearm at a USBP Agent.”

It also begs the question, why did Cantu state that he had to “speak with everyone”, when the sole shooter had already said that he was the sole shooter?

In cross-examination, Mr. Sorola is questioning Cantu:

Q To your knowledge, at any time were any of those weapons [that were taken from the Camp Lone Star volunteers] fired at this shooting?

A The Winchester (Varner’s] was not, as he was speaking with me when the shots were fired.

Q So at the time of this shooting, do you know who’s discharging what weapons?

A No.

Q Okay. Later on do you find out… who is firing a weapon, a firearm?

A Upon approaching… Foerster and Mr. Gonzalez area, yes.

Q And Agent Gonzalez is the only one that discharged a weapon; is that correct?

A At that point, that’s what I was told, yes.

Q And you were told that by Agent Gonzalez, right?

A Correct. And Mr. Foerster attested to that.

THE COURT: And you said at that time. I mean, nothing subsequent to that time has changed… ?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, no. It’s just that —

THE COURT: So as far as you know sitting here today, the only weapon that was shot was — the only weapon discharged was discharged by Agent Gonzalez.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

So, Cantu knew, the moment that he was able to speak with Gonzales, that no other weapon was fired, except Gonzales’. And, he makes no mention of any pointing or aiming by Foerster.

From that point on, there is no further discussion of pointing because the shooter, Marco Gonzales, after making initial statement, lawyered up, and Foerster has also refused to talk.

Q Okay. Was he [Agent Marco Gonzales, the shooter] going to visit with anybody? Was he going to talk about what happened?

A No. They — we were informed that he was not going to provide a statement out there.

Q All right. And who gave you that information?

A Let me see. Mr. Gerardo Reyes “Rey” Gonzalez.

Q Okay.

A He was the one who informed me that Agent Gonzalez was not going to provide a statement. He was the union leader.

So, though the agents are employees of the Border Patrol, and I’m sure that they are required, as a part of their duties, to file reports on any incidents, especially an officer involved shooting, and the union can “void” that obligation. It kinda makes you wonder who runs BPS — the government, or the union.

Now, since Gonzales has hidden behind the law and his union, it would appear that he has something to hide. Though we have not heard Foerster’s side of the story, he has not been charged with any criminal activity related to the shooting event, only that he was charged, like Massey, with felony possession of a firearm, and has plead guilty to that charge.

Massey is also charged with felony in possession of a firearm and has, rightfully, plead not guilty. He was not apprehended in the commission of a crime, nor did he have any knowledge of any crime, except what he heard during the course of the investigation. He was not even a witness to the crime of the discharge of a firearm by an agent of the government.

So, let’s try to be objective as we look at this “scene”. We have an affidavit, sworn to by Rotunno, in front of a judge. His claims of the weapon being pointed at the Agent flies in the face of what Gonzales and Foerster told the other investigators. Even the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Hagen, says that he doubts that a firearm was pointed at the agent. That was a bald-faced lie on the part of Rotunno, and he was never even at the scene of the shooting. That smells, very strongly, of Perjury.

However, if you lie to a government agent during the course of an investigation, you are subject to 18 US Code § 1001, and subject to 5 years in prison.

Then, we have the only one that committed a possible criminal act who only made some statements to others, before the union got him to lawyer-up.

However, who is the government going after? K. C. Massey, neither Gonzales for shooting at Foerster nor Rotunno for lying in a sworn statement.

It appears that we have returned to that era in history where “The King can do no wrong”. And, the King includes his, not our, public servants.

Government should not be theoretically defensible,

it should be the object of general acceptance.

Shortly after I posted Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland, K. C. Massey provided me with his analysis of the Response by the government to his motions for suppressing evidence and dismissal. I have made minor edits for clarification. Otherwise, these are Massey’s own evaluation of the Response.

In all fairness, if anybody from the government side wants to rebut, or refute, either Massey’s or my post, I will be happy to accommodate them.

Massey says:

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

BP agent, Marcos Gonzales, was pursuing a group of illegal aliens when he encountered an armed Foerster in heavy brush. BP agent Gonzales perceived Foerster as an armed and immediate threat when Forester pointed the weapon he was carrying at Gonzales who was emerging from the brush. Gonzales fired four or five shots which did not strike Foerster. Foerster was armed with 7.62X39mm pistol which contained a vertical fore grip and was slung around his neck. The shots were fired at approximately 3:45 P.M.

This is UNTRUE. We had been to only 3 crossing sites when we encountered the dismounted BP approximating the time to be no later than 3:00p approx 15 minutes into the assistance of the BP the shots rang out. Making the shooting closer to 3:15. The firearms audit investigation did not determine whether it was 4 or 5 shots. The original reports as issued by Border Patrol information officer Zamora to the press August 29th NEVER stated Foerster “Pointed” his weapon at the Agent, only he turned with it in his hands. How do you “Sling” a pistol around your neck? What is the point of mentioning what Foerster did or possessed have to do with me who was not at the scene? I also posted my account of the incident at https://www.facebook.com/kevin.kc.massey/posts/839070526105377 on Aug 30, 2014. That is my recount of the story, written just after it happened.

Senior Border Patrol agent Danny Cantu was nearby, heard the shots and secured the scene for investigation by Federal and/or State law enforcement. Cantu was not certain if the shooting was on State or Federal land and contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Cameron County Sheriff’s Office. Cantu requested Foerster to accompany him away from the river bank to an open area, “staging area”, approximately 100 yard away.

The staging area was over 200 yards away, and we were asked to move there due to illegals still in the area moving toward our position. He commanded myself and Varner to go to the staging area. Foerster rode on the mule to the interview site with us! We were told since it was private property the Sheriff had to be notified to investigate. Cantu KNEW we were on private property, they called the Game Warden to determine if we had trespassed on federal land prior to the shooting is what the Game Warden stated to me, which he was able to confirm we had not. They said the federal Agents had to investigate since it was a shooting by a federal agent. The picture, below, has the approximate locations of the shooting and interview area, on the right side.

Foerster was angry and wanted to fight BP agent Gonzales. Defendant, Massey, wanted to leave the area.

Foerster was angry because he was just shot AT by a BP Agent after we had been asked to assist the dismounted BP agent and the shooting was unprovoked. I NEVER asked to leave the area, that was the decision of Cantu!!! He said since there were still illegals in the area we needed to move locations. We stated we did not want to “press charges” for the shooting by BP, but BP said they had to conduct an investigation since a federal agent had discharged his firearm.

Cantu told Massey all members of his group must remain until shooting was investigated. Cantu requested that all members of Rusty’s Rangers disarm while the investigation was conducted.

This is another LIE Cantu NEVER requested we “disarm” We voluntarily decided to leave weapons on the mule after we moved to the staging area.

Massey turned over a handgun and rifle which was secured in a Border Patrol vehicle during the investigation. Foerster relinquished the pistol he was carrying and the third member of Rusty’s Rangers relinquished a pistol and a rifle. The weapons were all secured in a Border Patrol vehicle.

Cantu TOOK Foerster’s gun after Gonzalez shot at him which Foerster had laid on the ground. My and Varner’s weapons were left on the mule. It was articulated to us “For officer safety” and due to “Illegals in the area” BP wanted to remove our weapons from the mule along with my GoPro Camera and other personal equipment and “secure” them in the BP vehicle for our “safety”.

During the investigation criminal histories were requested that indicated that Massey and Forester had felony convictions. The pistol carried by Forester was believed to be a prohibited weapon due to the addition of the fore grip. CCSO officials decided to keep possession of the weapons pending further investigation.

The sheriff’s office DID NOT articulate any cause or reason for taking and keeping our arms, even after protest by myself and Varner. We were never given a receipt for the Arms or other equipment they took from the mule. The sheriff took possession of the Arms only 15 minutes or so before we were released from detention.

Massey and Forester were allowed to leave the scene and all officials departed by 7:00 PM.

Again another LIE, we were released from detention at approx 8:15 pm. We were detain nearly 5 hours and were not free to go.

Massey was not provided Miranda warnings during the investigation. Massey was never handcuffed and cooperated in surrendering his weapons and providing statements.

Only after BP and FBI, and HSI and CC Sheriff insisted we make statements even after we stated we (Varner and myself) were NOT witnesses to the shooting and had NO pertinent information. We gave statements under protest. We did not “surrender” the Arms, they insisted for officer safety that they be secured in the BP vehicle.

It was reasonable for BPA Cantu to disarm Massey and tell him he could not leave the area where the shooting occurred. Police are allowed to stop and briefly detain persons for…

“Briefly” is defined as 5 hours?

investigative purposes if the police have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot.

We were never informed. “We”, Foerster, Varner or myself, were not under any investigation for ANY crimes. The only criminal activity was the unprovoked shooting at a civilian, that were there at the request and in assistance of the BP.

Texas Penal Code Section 46.02 Unlawfully Carrying Weapons (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not: (1) On the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control  

The property was under our control by permission of the conservator for patrol and illegal immigrant deterrence and for cleaning, marking and clearing of illegal crossings. We had permission for 24 hour access to the property in which we routinely camped out on the border.

The CCSO was informed by Border Patrol agents about the shooting and the seizure of weapons. CCSO deputies made the decision to maintain custody of the weapons after it was revealed that Massey had provided Forester a weapon and that Massey and Forester both had criminal histories that included felony convictions.

We were told the weapons were being held for investigation pertaining to the BP shooting, not for any criminal causes relating to us. They confiscated Varner’s weapons and did not return his although he was NOT a felon. The above statement says the weapons were seized, yet earlier statement says they were voluntarily surrendered. Which is it? They had the Arms in the BP vehicle PRIOR to knowing any prior history of Foerster or me.

Statements obtained from Massey were not the product of custodial interrogation. Massey was never handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle or moved away from the staging area.

I was held under protest due to investigation of BP Gonzales illegal discharge of his firearm at Foerster for approx 5 hours. I was in custodial arrest/detention, I was not free to go despite several requests to leave due to my NON involvement and lack of knowledge in the shooting incident and me NOT witnessing anything since I was in a covered position on the river bank at the time of the shooting. Varner and I were over 75 yards away from the shooting through a lot of heavy brush.

Massey was interviewed by an FBI agent for approximately 35-40 minutes. Massy was not arrested and was allowed to leave the area as soon as questioning concluded.

I was questioned by Border Patrol, FBI and Homeland Security and the Sheriff’s office. Questioning lasted approx 30 minutes by each agency. We were not free to go until over an hour after the last “Interview” after approx 5 hours of forced detention.

The questioning took place on the side of a dirt road. Massey was cooperative during questioning and agreed to answer most of the questions asked of him. Massey did not want to provide his social security number and the FBI agent agreed he did not have to provide the number.

Massy and the FBI agent were cordial to one another with Massy indicating he appreciated the need to ask questions because he knew law enforcement officers.

What is the point of the above statement? Notice the misspellings? Why the reference to my social number? If they read the investigation report enough to see I didn’t give up my social security number, what couldn’t they determine the other facts of the case like the firearms audit of the BP agent to determine how many shots were fired?

Massey was not the focal point of the investigation;

Previously they said I was the focal point of an investigation of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Texas law. Why were the federal agents detaining me for a possible state law violation?

agents were primarily concerned with circumstances surrounding the shooting between Forester and BPA Gonzales. Custody for Miranda purposes requires a greater restraint on freedom than seizure under the fourth amendment. United States v. Cavazos, 668 F.3d 190,193 (5th Cir. 2012). “A suspect is … ‘in custody’ for Miranda purposes when placed under formal arrest or when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest. United States v. Begivanga, 845 F.2d 593, 596 (5th Cir. 1988).

Again notice the inconsistency of their statement “agents were primarily concerned with Foerster” Yet they took the arms from myself and Varner who were not involved in the shooting in any way, as defined by Blacks Law 8th – Physical Custody; Custody of a person whose freedom is directly controlled or limited. Detention; The act or fact of holding a person in custody; Confinement or compulsory delay. Investigative detention; the holding of a suspect without a formal arrest during the investigation of the suspects participation in a crime. Detention of this kind is constitutional only if probable cause exists. Arrest; 2.The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority. The term “formal arrest” is not defined.

In the instant case Massey was told, By BPA Cantu, to remain in the staging area while the shooting was investigated. Massey was allowed to leave after he was questioned. Massey was never in custody.

I was held against my will and under protest for approx 5 hours. I was not “allowed to leave after questioning” for almost an hour after the last of 4 interviews. I was in custody under arrest although not under restraints. I asked if we were free to go several times, prior to and after each interview. I was held in a “custodial arrest” and I was not free to leave. I was in custody (physical custody) as defined by Blacks Law.

 

Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 21, 2015

 

In Camp Lone Star – “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” and Camp Lone Star – “a Fundamental Right”, I discussed the motions filed by K. C. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, the former being a motion to suppress evidence and the latter a motion to dismiss the charges. The government, surprisingly, managed to respond to those motions within the statutory time (20 days), when they filed the

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND
MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMNT [sic]

That is not an error on my part. The word “Indictment” is spelled, on the title of the document, as “Indictmnt”. Pretty good start for someone who receives over $100,000 per year plus amazing benefits from your hard earned money. You would think that they have spell-check on their computers, and that they would, to avoid error, have someone proofread what they write. But, heck, I guess that any form of diligence, whether as to grammar or truth, is not within their scope of responsibility.

Back on October 20, 2014, agents of the FBI and the BATF went to a home in Quinlan, Texas, to search for weapons (See Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey). Any authority to search this house would be based upon the assumption that it was where Massey lived — his residence. Based upon the “Conditions of Release” (See Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction), they also presumed that Massey lived in the Quinlan house as that is where his “Home Detention” requires him to be. The Response does point out that Massey “left his home and traveled to Cameron County, Texas during the summer of 2014“, confirming that Quinlan was his home, but that he had moved for an extended period of time, over the summer.

Subsequently, they had a search warrant issued to search the premises at the Value Inn motel in Brownsville, and at the time of the search, arrested Massey. So, it appears that they then presumed that he lived at the Value Inn. The question, however, is where did Massey live, during that summer. Well, he lived on the “Rusty” Monsees property, at Camp Lone Star, with the consent of the owner. The purpose was to protect the property and to assist Border Patrol in discouraging entry into the United States, or, if they did enter Monsees’ land, to turn them over to BPS. The room at Value Inn was arranged to provide a place to clean up, due to the limited facilities at Camp Lone Star, and allow others, as well as Massey, to get a good night’s sleep on a soft bed, from time to time. So, his primary residence was actually Camp Lone Star. This can be equated with a businessman who has a home in New Jersey and works in New York. He may have a room in New York that he uses five days a week, and then stays at his home on the weekends. Are they not both his residence? Or, is there a law that prohibits only the wealthy (the Clintons come to mind) to have more than one residence?

Let’s add another factor before we proceed. A Mr. Aguilar, curator of the Sabal Palms wildlife sanctuary, granted permission to include the sanctuary in the area to be protected from illegal entry by illegal immigrants (See Massey’s account of incident). This would put that sanctuary, along with the Monsees property, under Massey’s “control”, at least with regard to deterring entry on the property of trespassers.

Now, you may be wondering why I brought that up. Well, I brought that up because I am wondering why the government, in their Response, chose to bring up a law that was not within their jurisdiction. On pages 4-5 of the Response, they cite Texas Penal Code Sections 46.02 and 46.04. It seems that they want to use Texas law to justify their action under federal law, but Massey is not charged with violating Texas law.

Texas Penal Code Section 46.02 Unlawfully Carrying Weapons
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) On the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control

Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm
(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possess a firearm:
(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

The justification is based upon the fact that a Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy was on the scene shortly after the shooting incident, however, the Sheriff didn’t charge Massey with a violation of Texas law, so that whole subject is moot.

The shooting incident warrants our attention. The only shooting done that day was by BPS officer Gonzales who shot at John Foerster. From the Response, “Senior Border Patrol agent [sic] Danny Cantu was nearby, heard the shots, and secured the scene for investigation“… “Cantu told Massey all members of his group must remain until shooting is investigated” (page 2). So, if you have an armed officer telling you that you “must remain”, the question arises, were you detained? Or, were you free to go?

I asked Massey whether he was free to go and he explained that within the first few minutes of the “investigation”, he asked, since he and the third member of the party, could leave, they were told “no”. He explained that he asked, a number of times, that he asked in one form or another whether they could leave, and were consistently told that they could not leave.

At page 3 of the Response, “It was reasonable for BPA Cantu to disarm Massey and tell him he could not leave the area where the shooting occurred.” Well, this might be “reasonable” if Massey were a witness to the shooting, however, he did nothing more than hear the shots fired. So, he couldn’t be “detained” as a witness, as he witnessed nothing. The only two people that witnessed anything were Foerster and Gonzales. If you heard shots from a bank robbery, two blocks away, would they; could they detain you as a witness or participant?

On page 4 of the Response, “Police are allowed to stop and briefly detain persons for investigative purposes if the police have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot” (pages 3-4). Where does the reasonable suspicion come in when Foerster never fired a shot and Massey and the third party did nothing more than hear the gunshots? What “criminal activity [might] be afoot”? Perhaps the BPS officer, Gonzales, fired his gun outside of the BPS policy for use of firearms, but is there any other possible “crime afoot” that would justify such action? So, it would appear that their argument would only apply to Gonzales, not anyone else — Sort of government doublethink or some other screwy effort at justification of something that is unjustifiable.

Also on page 4, we find, “If an officer develops—–and is able to articulate—–reasonable grounds to believe that a suspect is armed and presently dangerous to the officer, third parties, or himself, the officer may take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized.” So, did Gonzales or Cantu have any reason to make any person other than Gonzales a “suspect”? Was there anything in the cooperation of the three that lead them to believe that any of the three were “presently dangerous to the officer, third parties, or himself”? And, if those conditions were met, to “take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized”, would be what was required. However, by the times provided, and the absence of any apparent threat, we find that they were detained from 3:45 to 7:00. However, that final item not being, in the least, justified, how can anyone perceive 3 hours and 15 minutes in which you are not allowed to leave, anything other than being detained, without Miranda warning?

We cannot stop here, however. The guns were taken from the Massey side, I suppose as “evidence” of some sort, however, the pistol that did the shooting was not taken, as evidence, nor even inventoried or audited. It seems that five shots were heard but that only four shell casing were found. Hence, the Response, as previous documents provide, the uncertain “four or five shots”. What kind of incompetence on the part of government is this? They don’t know how many bullets were loaded in the pistol, or they never did any investigation of the shooting weapon. However, they saw fit to seize weapons that were not involved in the incident.

From page 3 of the Response, we find some very cheap rationalization with, “Massy [sic] was not provided Miranda warnings during the investigation“, and “Massey was never handcuffed…” Golly, gee, he was detained, but since he wasn’t handcuffed, he doesn’t qualify for a Miranda warning, only they use what he said, and what he may have possessed, against him. This, because he “cooperated in surrendering his weapons and providing statements.” Darn, isn’t that the whole idea behind the Miranda warning? They didn’t Mariandize him, they didn’t let him leave, they were armed, and they asked him questions and then took the firearms. Actually, the government said, “surrendered”. Surrendering is capitulating — giving into force or threat of force. However, the government argues that the “evidence” that lead to a subsequent Indictment was obtained, was given freely — perhaps Massey wanted to be charged with a crime. We will just discount the facts and draw some conclusions about around that “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.

Has the federal government run amuck? Do they lie to rationalize achieving their objective — by whatever means necessary? Is their sole objective to prove that the government can do no wrong? I leave the conclusion to the reader.

Camp Lone Star – “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 19, 2015

 

We are all familiar, at least to some degree, with the concept of chain of evidence, Miranda rights, and the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution.

Evidence has to be acquired by legal means. A warrant is required, except under certain circumstances, to seize evidence. So, what happens if there is an incident, whether accidental, or, perhaps, even set up, to create a situation where, by stealthy means, “evidence” is secured without a warrant, or a crime (certain circumstances) in which the evidence can be rightfully secured?

On August 29, 2014, a Border Patrol Agent, claiming that a weapon had been pointed at him, fired five shots, from about 30 feet distant from John Foerster. Surprisingly, he missed hitting Foerster, indicating both poor marksmanship, and suggesting that the agent committed a crime, in violation of BPS policy.

Foerster, Massey, and the third member of their group, Varner, had their five firearms taken from their 4-wheel “mule”, without a warrant – a violation of the 4th Amendment. Then, without being read their Miranda rights, questioned by BPS, a local Sheriff’s deputy, and an FBI agent.

From the Affidavit for a Search Warrant, item 5.

1. During a post-shooting investigation, two of these armed individuals were identified as Kevin Lyndel MASSEY (aka KC Massey) and John Frederick FOERSTER, and both admitted to interviewing officers of the Cameron County Sheriffs Office (CCSO) and Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to possessing some of the firearms seized.

From the Affidavit for a Criminal Complaint (arrest warrant):

5. FBI Special Agent Caryn Chasteen and Cameron County Sheriffs Office Investigator Padilla interviewed FOERSTER. During the interview FOERSTER admitted to possessing the ZASTAVA, Model: PAP M92PV, 7.62 x 39mm pistol, SN: MP2PV005143; adding that he did not own this firearm but borrowed it from Kevin MASSEY.
6. During the interview of MASSEY, by FBI Special Agent David Cordoba and HSI Special Agent Jeremy Bergeaux, MASSEY admitted to both the ownership of the ZASTAVA, Model: PAP M92PV, 7.62 x 39mm pistol, SN: MP2PV005143, and to lending this firearm to FOERSTER.

Now, in reviewing those documents, we find no claim that there was a search warrant to allow them to seize the firearms, or that Miranda rights were read to them before taking testimony.

Because of the illegal seizure of the weapons, and the illegally obtained statements by Massey, Foerster, and Varner, the subsequent Search Warrant and Criminal Complaint (arrest warrant) were secured. If the rights of Americans are as intended by the Founders, then the invalidity of the actions of August 29 leave no lawful justification (excuse) to obtain the subsequent warrants.

If we are a nation of laws, and the “supreme Law of the Land” is the Constitution, then by what right does the federal government pretend that they can walk over the Bill of Rights, imposing hardship and expense on K. C. Massey?

Massey’s attorney, Louis S. Sorola, has the same question, so he has filed a Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence and Illegally Obtained Statements. As he points out in the Motion,

The August 29, 2014 search and seizure was illegal and the evidence and statements should be suppressed along with any subsequent statements and evidence seized on October 20, 2014 as they are fruit of the poisonous tree.

The Honorable Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division will hear this Motion. Judge Hanen recently ruled against the Obama Amnesty Plan, indicating a respect for both the Constitution and the fact that only Congress may legislate.

To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 5, 2015

 

Recent events have resulted in increased random shootings of police officers, around the country. Though the practice might not be deemed contemptible in one set of circumstances, it might be considered unjustified in the current situation.

Perhaps if we can separate what is acceptable and what is not, we can get a better grasp on what the variation in circumstances might warrant, as opposed to what is not warranted.

The shooting of police officers is a necessary consequence, when done with the proper circumstances, of forcing the government to submit to the will of the people, rather than the people submitting to the will of the government.

In light of both Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, circumstances were different than those of today. Police force was exerted on the branch Davidians in Waco, resulting in the death of nearly a hundred men, women, and children — at the hands of law enforcement.

The Oklahoma City Bombing, conducted by Timothy McVeigh, was in retaliation for what he had experienced in Iraq and what he observed in Waco. Though we may not agree with his method, surely, his actions were directed at the source of the problem — an overreaching government.

Examples of the circumstances, in the nineties, are explained in two interviews I did at the time, Popping Cops and Breaking the Bonds of Slavery, the latter being more demonstrative of the justification of such actions.

However, the current circumstances, including both the events that lead up to the current furor and the significant change in the nature of law enforcement, have created a bit of a quandary. For example, if a cop is shot, the assumption, in both Mainstream Media (MSM) and the alternative media, will be that it is an act of retaliation for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. This based upon the outrageous calling for killing any, and all, cops. Not that it would be outrageous under the proper circumstances, though that is lost in the current media hype, and there is little possibility of extracting an act against government from the story, if that were the motivation. Surely, the cops, if they caught the shooter alive, would sequester him so tightly that any story he had would never see the light of day. In addition, the presumption of retaliation would become the Prima Facie Story.

The perspective then would perhaps be “the right thing to do, for the wrong reason. It would place the patriot community in a position of supporting the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, without regard to the fact that black cops have shot both unarmed black and white people, and that most crimes, and killings, of blacks are by blacks.

During the sixties, the anti-war movement was intertwined with the black rights movement, placing the strictly “end the war in Vietnam” crowd with the mantle of black rights support or Women’s Liberation, though untrue to significant numbers of the anti-war crowd. They were stigmatized, by the press, into what they were not.

The same consequence is likely to occur, today, by tying the “restoration of constitutional government” group inextricably, to the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, which will co-join the two in the press, and might likely become a damper on, or destroyer of, the patriot movement.

However, there may be a solution — one that would provide a distinction, and also bring to light the fact that cops don’t discriminate because of color, when they kill unarmed people. They also kill unarmed whites, as well as other races, with the same impunity that they do when they kill blacks.

This past March (2014), Albuquerque Police Officer Keith Sandy shot and killed James Boyd, for illegal camping. Boyd was white, as was Sandy. However, there is complete video footage of the event, and leaves, without a doubt, the guilt on both Sandy, the other officers on the scene, and the entire police department that justified what can be called nothing but “murder”.

There are many that believe that Darren Wilson, who shot Brown, may well have been justified, as there had already been aggressive physical contact while Wilson was still in his patrol car.

When NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo used a chokehold, or other restraint method, resulting, directly or indirectly, in the death of Eric Garner, the justification for Pantaleo’s action and the cause of death are not so clear.

Of these three events, the clearest, in terms of justification of the officer’s actions is Wilson/Brown event. Next, we have the murky events surrounding the Pantaleo/Garner incident, though this seems to be the motivation for the current outrage. Finally, we have the Sandy/Boyd event, where clearly there was no justification for the action resulting in Boyd’s death.

However, the motivation for the “kill the cops” effort stems from the event that seems to have the most justification (Garner), and is supported by the questionable, though newsworthy story (thanks MSM, Mayor de Blasio, and the Executive Branch). This is founded upon the Brown event (thanks MSM and the Executive Branch), and used to support the resulting attitude. While Boyd’s death, the least justifiable, is lost to MSM and the Executive Branch, and seems to only have recognition in the patriot community.

What would bring this into an acceptable realm for the patriot community? Surely, supporting the “kill all cops” attitude can only bring discredit upon us. It might also lead to a race war, as the black verses white issue is predominant.

What if we supported the police position? Well, would we then be supporting those who, by their nature, are not fulfilling their sworn duty to enforce the law, and would also be giving implied support for their killing James Boyd. This, too, might lead to a race war, as the cops are perceived as white — against the blacks.

Is there a position that we can, and should, support? There are two things that can be done to promote both by social/political action and by force that can have a positive effect for the patriot community.

First, we can hold the position that cops are not above the law, and only the people can determine what those limits will be. This can be accomplished by requiring that any time a person is shot, or otherwise physically abused, by a police officer, or any law enforcement officer, unless there is an active gunfight involved, that the matter go to a jury trial, so that the people, of the nation supposed to be governed with the consent of the people, determine whether the act was criminal, or not. That jury determination (not a grand jury where it is at the will of the US Attorney, State Attorney, or County Attorney) will set the standard for what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, in the eyes of the local community — the local We the People.

Second, that any officer shot be one that is easily identifiable as having abused his authority (as in Sandy/Boyd), and warrants, without jury trial, as the evidence is so clear that guilt can only be ignored by obfuscation. The Internet provides many resources for the gathering of evidence sufficient to make such a determination (See Bad Cops and Targeting). This will have a two-fold effect on law enforcement. It will put those on notice who have not yet crossed the line, that there will possibly be consequences if they do cross that line. This might also lead them to want to distance themselves from those who have crossed the line. And, it will serve the effect suggested in Breaking the Bonds of Slavery.