Camp Lone Star
Massey Appeal Denied
Outpost of Freedom
March 27, 2017
My last article in this series was congratulations to Massey on being moved to the minimum-security camp. After nearly two years of being treated as a threat, often being thrown in solitary confinement, just a few months after leaving the control of the US Marshal Service, he entered the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) authority.
Massey was more than willing to serve peaceably, if they didn’t mess with him. He was just biding his time, awaiting the Appellate Court’s decision on his appeal, which was heard (oral arguments) on February 9, 2017.
Though the Decision was made on February 22, his attorney did not advise Massey of the decision until March 24. Shortly after speaking with his attorney, he called to give me the bad news. Massey and I agree it has become abundantly clear the judicial process has become one without consideration of written law, but rather, a tool in the persecution of those deemed unfavorable to the policies of government.
The Decision is so ambiguously written it appears the arguments Massey had set forth were never heard by the Court. Until we receive copies of the transcript, we have nothing upon which to evaluate what transpired in the Halls of “Just US”. We can, however, review the Decision that suggests the court seem to speak a different language than the rest of us. We, the People, are bound by the words, as written, in the Constitution and those laws in pursuance thereof. The Court, however, appears more inclined to the aforementioned policies.
From that Decision, we find the following:
Massey was charged with four counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He moved to dismiss on the grounds that he was complying with Texas’s felon-in-possession statute and that Section 922(g) is unconstitutional as applied to him. He also maintained that, to satisfy the jurisdictional element of Section 922(g), the government was required to prove more than just that the firearms had traveled in interstate commerce.
Here, the Court has set forth two elements of Massey’s arguments. The First had to do with the authority of the State. Article IV, § 4 of the Constitution states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…
That means, even before the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, that the States could enact their own laws, so long as the were not in conflict with those law “which shall be made in Pursuance [to the Constitution]” (Article VI, cl. 2).