Posts tagged ‘militia’

Camp Lone Star – Massey says

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.

ahooting site aerial

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

Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland

Alice in 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”

Camp Lone Star – “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

Bill of Rights

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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

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

 Cops then and now

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.

Lessons of History #3 – Emotions that Led to Secession

Lessons of History #3

Emotions that Led to Secession

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

December 31, 2014

 

On October 16, 1859, John Brown and 18 men took over the Harpers Ferry Armory, in northern Virginia (now West Virginia). His intention was to seize the arms and get them to slaves in the South so that they could rise up against their masters, and kill them. Brown’s effort was cut short when he was captured on October 18.

His trial began on October 27 and a jury convicted him on November 2, 1859.

Thomas J. Jackson, from Virginia Military Institute was in charge of the military security detail assigned to keep the crowds in order for the December 2 hanging. Just two years later, Jackson would be known as “Stonewall” Jackson, and would encourage his troops, at the Battle of Bull Run, to “yell like banshees”, which was the beginning of the famous Rebel Yell.

The people of the North, especially the abolitionists, considered the conviction and hanging of Brown to be a travesty, as Brown had become a folk hero in that part of the country.

The South, observing the North’s disrespect for the laws and the system that convicted and hanged Brown, were outraged. A popular hero had grown from the event, and his purpose was to foment a slave uprising by arming them so that they could kill their masters, and presumably, any whites they could find. The Yankees had overtly sought the death of the Southern whites at the hands slave population.

Is it any wonder that just a year later, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union? Could anyone remain in a union with other states that had openly and publically supported an effort that might well have led to their deaths?

We are often caught up in the events that may have led to secession, such as tariffs, slavery, or any other easily identifiable cause, however, we seldom, if ever, want to look at the social relationship that was straining both sides to a breaking point. The first, with open and exuberant support for a cause that may have left hundreds of thousands of dead fellow countrymen, and the other, who chose not to be identified as of the same nation as those who had called for their deaths. We fail to understand the mindset, dwelling on the actions, and focus strictly on those bits of history written in out textbooks (by the winner), rather than the emotional undercurrents that might reasonably justify the response, in this case secession.

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet
Part 4

Kessler police

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 11, 2014

 

Fox News Network’s Alan Colmes had a special guest on Tuesday, December 2, 2014. As so often happens on television, the guest was “coming out of the closet”, though this had nothing to do with sexual orientation.

The guest, Chief Mark Kessler, formerly chief of the Borough of Gilberton, Pennsylvania Police Department, explained why he got into going after patriots, apparently with a total disregard for the intention of the Second Amendment.

Here is an audio of the entire Colmes/Kessler interview.

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

Following are some excerpts from that interview:

COLMES: And you used these videos as not an expression of your own views, but as a way to get other people to respond?

KESSLER: Correct. We used them as a tool, and they worked overwhelmingly.

COLMES: Why wouldn’t your police force, since they are also a government agency, in Gilberton have been in on this so you wouldn’t have to lose your job?

KESSLER: I couldn’t tell anybody, I just couldn’t; it was complete deniability. I could not say a word to anyone about the operation. So again it was bigger than me. I seen an opportunity to advance my law enforcement career, and there was no way I was going to turn it down.

Observation: It seems that Kessler’s motivation was career oriented. Would this not be true, to some degree, for anybody in law enforcement?

* * *

COLMES: Were you promised a job by somebody in the federal government to do this?

KESSLER: No, it was volunteer work.

COLMES: What was in it for you?

KESSLER: I got to save a lot of lives, I can tell you that. I got to do a lot of undercover work that I always longed to do at a national level, I mean, I don’t know any law enforcement officer… [that wouldn’t jump at the chance to do what I have done?]

* * *

COLMES: Did it occur to you at the time that you would put your job in jeopardy, because you wouldn’t be regarded as a peace officer of all the residents of Gilberton?

KESSLER: Absolutely, but again, it was bigger than me. It was a lot bigger than me. I was given an opportunity of a lifetime to do work that I had always wanted to do, and I jumped on the opportunity. Unfortunately, it was volunteer work, because I was a law enforcement officer and you can’t get paid for that, but I got reimbursed for going different places.

Observation: This is the James Bond syndrome. Living in a fantasy world. However, Kessler was quite poor at what he did. If he had not come out of the closet, he may have had a career. Instead, he is out on both sides of the fence. He is no good to the feds, and, he is surely no good as a patriot.

* * *

COLMES: How many people would you say came out of the woodwork, or how many groups came to you as a result of the bait that you threw out there?

KESSLER: Thousands and thousands and thousands; they have no idea

COLMES: And what? You turned them over to the feds?

KESSLER: My job was to find out if they were dangerous or not. If they were a dangerous group or deemed a threat to society, well then, we took care of business.

Observation: Be advised that if you had contact with Kessler, there may still be a surprise in store for you, Prepare for it. Relocate any equipment he may have been aware of. Take precautions to protect yourself.

* * *

COLMES: How is your name not attached to this? You don’t want to tell us what agencies, where you got this information, who you work for?

KESSLER: I was intel, I was strictly intelligence.

* * *

COLMES: You also have a reality show, do you not, in production?

KESSLER: Well, it’s still in the works, but we didn’t sign yet; we signed to get one in the works, but we didn’t sign to actually get one started.

* * *

COLMES: Where can the citizens go to see the results of this? Is there any place we can learn more about it?

KESSLER: My part is finished. I’m not at liberty, I can’t reveal which agencies…

COLMES: Will there to be a time when you will be able to reveal that?

KESSLER: Yes, I’m sure there will be, but right now, there are still pending investigations going on. I cannot reveal what’s going on…

Observation: There are still pending investigations. There is no telling how long that list is, or what may have been included in his reports. It is even possible that an exaggeration, on his part, might put someone at greater risk than their own circumstances warrant.

* * *

COLMES: You don’t think the Left are a bunch of libtards?

KESSLER: No, that’s not my job as a law enforcement officer. That was specifically designed to attract groups of people that are extremists, sovereign citizens, insurrectionists, and it worked absolutely fantastic. Again I’m happy to say that we took down several plotted attacks that didn’t go through, we took down a group in Georgia. We took down a group in Texas.

COLMES: Can you name any of the groups you took down?

KESSLER: The Triple X Minutemen is one group.

COLMES: Triple X-Minutemen? Who are they?

KESSLER: They are from the Georgia area, and they were planning to blow up a federal building.

Observation: He has claimed that 53 people will go down. So far, we only have three that we know of. If anybody has information on the Texas group or others that have suffered the wrath of government because of Kessler, please advise the author of this article.

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

By the evening of the interview, postings on the Internet, including Facebook, were being read or listened to. A hornet’s nest had been stirred up by Kessler, and it appears that he attempted to undo the damage he had brought upon himself when he posted, on his Facebook page, this comment (evening of December 3):

141204 capture

His coal miner background is apparent in both his grammar and word usage. However, his effort to distance himself from the truth failed, miserably, as the previous articles in this series clearly demonstrate.

There is little doubt that Kessler has “come out of the closet”, and though he tried to go back in, he has only managed to bring further discredit upon his name.

END

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – Recent Past – Part 2

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns
Part 3

Kessler bird

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 11, 2014

 

On December 2, 2014, Chief Mark Kessler came “out of the closet” as an FBI informant, or infiltrator. His exact status with the FBI is uncertain, though there is little doubt that he is cooperating with them to expose patriots to criminal prosecution, even to the point of entrapment.

He, at one point, claimed that he had gone to Langley, Virginia, to offer his services to the government. If true, it should be noted that Langley is where the CIA is located, and domestic involvement by the CIA is forbidden. However, it does appear that he did “hook up” with the FBI, though it is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

When Kessler started the CSF (Constitution Security Force), he had copies of all applications sent to him. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people gave pertinent information to Kessler, as they believed that as leader of this organization, Kessler would be a source of defense against government encroachment upon constitutional rights.

As explained previously, with the exception of obtaining copies of applications, Kessler did little more than simply solicit membership — he never really involved himself in the workings of CSF, nor did he propose a plan of action.

Due to lack of support from Kessler, some of the CSF groups simply dissolved, while others restructured themselves, often with minor name changes. The Georgia CSF renamed itself the “Georgia Security Force” (GSF) and adopted the “Soldier’s Code of Conduct”, the backbone Army personnel conduct, for decades.

Article I
I am an American fighting man, fighting in the forces which guard our country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Kessler’s next step was the seemingly more formidable organization, III% BOG (Boots on Ground), which had a more suggestive name, III% meaning those who will fight, and BOG, implying active duty in combat territory. Again, he obtained all applications, and did little to communicate or provide direction, except, when he saw potential groups or individuals that might be a bit more serious, with regard to acting in opposition to government activities (See The Other (not so) Thin Line). One of these was the XXX Minuteman Militia, based in Georgia, with supporters in other states.

Nearly every person who joined the III% BOG completed and sent to Kessler an application, sufficient in detail to positively identify hundreds, perhaps thousands, who joined his organization. The information requested is far more extensive than you would fill out for a job, and includes questions that are appropriate for psychological evaluation, or, profiling.

One of the key players in Georgia goes by the moniker “blood agent” (Source “BA” – as he asked to be referred to during our interview). He felt that Kessler could send people in his direction, as he and Kessler spoke frequently. In early 2014, Kessler appointed him national commander of all CSF groups. This was done since Kessler was more concerned with getting a reality TV show than working with the organization he had begun.

The Set Up

In January 2014, in online discussions, Williamson, Cannon, and Peace (the Trio) discussed preparations for a “guerilla warfare” operation targeting “TSA, DHS, non-emergency FEMA, road blocks, etc.” It is apparent, here, that the targets were government agencies acting in the capacity of a police state. Note that only “non-emergency FEMA” is mentioned, to exclude those portions of FEMA that actually provide assistance during disasters, rather than targeting patriots.

In early February 2014, a conversation took place in an online chat at the “Blood and Scorched Earth” Facebook (FB) page. Participating was an informant known as CHS-1 (TS), using the Thomas Short FB account, along with Cannon, using his own account, and Williamson, using his own account. A meeting was arranged to take place on February 5, in Memphis, Tennessee. TS advised that he might be late for the meeting, due to weather. Cannon advised that an “anonymous friend” would be providing funding.

On February 5, TS was not present for the meeting, so the Trio left and returned to Georgia, then arranged to get back with TS via another means of communication.

Note that the Affidavit shows that Cannon’s phone was traced through cell towers from Memphis, Tennessee to Rome, Georgia, on that date – be advised. Note, also, that Thomas Short was named in the Search Warrant to Facebook for records (April 1), though he was not named in the Criminal Complaint, filed on February 28. This would suggest that Thomas Short is CHS-1, or someone acting as Thomas Short was CHS-1. Thomas Short, from Pennsylvania, was mentioned by two of the people who were interviewed for this article.

Later that day, arrangements were made to utilize a free, secure, chat site, www.chatcrypt.com, to continue discussing the operation. That discussion was attended by TS, “Chief” (probably Kessler), and another, unnamed. Since Peace had requested the password, it was most likely him. The chats were captured for evidence.

Note that those interviewed for this article made clear that Kessler always wanted to be referred to as “Chief”.

The only reported conversation from that chat came from “Chief”:

“We will be using Guerrilla style warfare tactics. I have been arguing with myself on what level of violence or what level of damage is acceptable. I do not want to kill or injure fellow Americans. So, at least for the guys with me we will restrain the violence toward people and target infrastructure. Then respond to violence with reciprocal violence.”

“The group with me will move first mainly to make a point. I stand by what I say. The other groups should start within the next 24 – 48 hours in order to keep the operational tempo up so that when one unit is done another is hitting nonstop. As soon as we complete mission one, we will relocate and start mission 2 then 3, until all is done.”

“We will get a post up after we complete our mission, then you will know the clock is started.” (Possibly suggestive that a number of teams were ready to jump in and begin a revolution.)

The affidavit reports that Chief talked about training, attacking small targets first, and then escalating to larger targets. Chief then described infrastructures as government vehicles, buildings, power, and communication… “If we can get decent intelligence could be obtained on roadblocks or VIPR, etc, then we go after them with the understanding it would be violent.” (VIPR is a TSA acronym for Visual Intermodal Protection and Response.)

Note that advocacy of violence came from “Chief”, not from Peace. The Trio had discussed targeting “infrastructure” and “TSA, DHS, non-emergency FEMA, road blocks.” It also appears that “Chief” was in a position to speak for a national, rather than local, participation.

On February 6, in an online chat, TS and Williamson discussed the need for ammunition and explosives. TS agreed to check with his “contact” to see what he could do to provide the necessary supplies.

On February 8, in a recorded telephone conversation, TS and Peace discussed what supplies were needed. The affidavit does not provide insight into what the wish list was. The only specific item discussed was “a thermite charge to go through the engine block of an MRAP” (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle). In that same phone conversation, Peace asks, in addition to the thermite, for 12 pipe bombs.

Also on February 8, a new “confidential human source”, CHS-2, has an unrecorded conversation with Cannon. In that conversation, Cannon states that they wanted to “start the fight” with the government by strategically planning to sabotage power grids, transfer stations, and water treatment facilities, with the intention of forcing the government into declaring martial law. This would put the patriots on the offensive rather than the defensive.

On February 9, TS calls Peace and advises him that the items can be produced, though it will take a few days. The meeting, to secure the items, would be held in Tennessee.

On Tuesday, February 11, BA received a call from Cannon, informing him that the revolution was going to begin in a few days, explaining, also, what would be occurring. Cannon also asked for Kessler’s phone number, which BA gave to him. BA then called Kessler and gave him all of the information that Cannon had just given him. Kessler responded, “I’ll take care of it.” He did not query BA over any details, nor was there anything that would indicate that Kessler was not already privy to what was going on. BA is of the firm belief, after reading the affidavits, that the “Chief” is Kessler.

On Saturday, February 15, the FBI visited BA and questioned him about what he had told Kessler. The told him that their concern was “protecting innocent lives”. He complied and answered their questions. He has stated that he will never talk to the FBI again, and that he will keep any concerns that he has within the patriot community.

Note that this is the first time that “innocent lives” has come up in any of the discussions. Perhaps a “warm and Fuzzy” to induce BA to cooperate.

Also, on February 15, TS advised Cannon that the items requested were available. After some discussion, it was decided that the items would be delivered in Cartersville, Georgia. TS met the Trio in Cartersville and provided the two thermite grenades. TS then went back to retrieve the remaining items.

Then, in an FBI-led operation that included FBI SWAT and the police departments of Rome, Floyd County, and Bartow County, raided 22 Tumlin Drive, Cartersville, Georgia and arrested Terry Eugene Peace, 45, Brian Edward Cannon, 36, and Cory Robertson Williamson, 28, charging them with receiving unlicensed explosive devices.

——————————

Much of the information used in developing this article came from an “Affidavit For Search Warrant“, filed on April 1, 2014, to secure a warrant for Facebook to provide information from their data to verify the various chats, PMs and other information stored in their database. Be advised that anything you say, or do, on Facebook, is retained and will be made available to the government.

Additional information was obtained from an Affidavit attached to the “Criminal Complaint“, also filed on April 1. It is rather interesting that the Affidavits were filed over a month after the arrests. Normally, a Criminal Complaint is the basis for the Arrest Warrant.

Other sources, who have asked for confidentiality, have provided information to fill in some of the details regarding Kessler’s escapades as an infiltrator, or, more likely, a provocateur.

 

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – Recent Past – Part 2

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

 

Mark Kessler – Recent Past – Part 2

Mark Kessler – Recent Past
Part 2

Kessler shooting AR

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December , 2014

 

During the events that occurred on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, Ryan Payne and I were talking about the future of OMA (Operation Mutual Aid). OMA was the first real call to arms on behalf of the Ranch. At the time, OMA’s leadership consisted of two people, Ryan Payne and Jerry Bruckhart. The responders were a diverse assemblage of individuals from across the country.

Ryan had arranged to be liaison between the Bundy family and the militia. This was a necessary element in protecting Cliven Bundy from possible criminal charges (See The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question).

However, Jerry, back at home in Pennsylvania, had different ideas than Ryan, especially as to when the event was over, from the OMA standpoint. This, and other conflicts, demonstrated the need to overhaul the structure of OMA so that decisions could be made by a board, with a majority, rather than the conflicting 50/50.

OMD & BTFA

In June 2014, Ryan and Jerry came to terms on a breakup of OMA whereby Jerry would retain the name and would be supportive of a new organization that would be known as “Operation Mutual Defense” (OMD), more descriptive of the role it was intended to play in providing defense against overbearing governmental intrusions.

My role was to assist, as an advisor, though not a voting member, as my primary role is writing about events. I was also to be a media advisor, since in my over twenty years of experience, I have learned, well, how to use carefully written articles that can have an effect on even mainstream media’s presentation of stories.

We also determined that a sister organization needed to be created to deal with funding. If the government went after OMD, they could possibly confiscate any funds held by OMD. This would preclude any possibility of OMD providing financial assistance to those who participated in an OMD event.

We know well from the Bundy event that tens of thousands of dollars were raised, purportedly to support that cause, though very little was actually used to support the activities at the ranch.

Perhaps the largest organization, who claimed to have raised tens of thousands of dollars to support the effort, was Oathkeepers. However, with the exception of some direct support to members of Oathkeepers, there was nothing to demonstrate that any of the raised funds provided any necessary material support to the operation. Further, Oathkeepers has admitted that most of their membership is comprised of active and retired Law Enforcement Officers. That would explain why the “officer safety” aspect of law enforcement was applied when the Oathkeepers abandoned their mission to protect the Bundys when there was a threat of a drone strike at the ranch. (See The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II).PM OMD 1-2

To alleviate the confusion over the proper recipient of contributions, so that contributors would know that the proceeds would go where intended, without preference to “members”, rather to provide to all that responded to the call, a new organization was warranted. And, as many members of Oathkeepers had, based upon the failure of Oathkeepers as described in the above linked article, been more concerned with “officer safety”, it was determined that this new organization should be one that was based not on education, as Oathkeepers claims, rather, on being committed to the oath previously taken.

This led to the conception of “Bear True Faith and Allegiance…” (BTFA), based upon the wording within the oath one takes upon entry into military service. Anyone with any law enforcement experience would be excluded from membership, except when the advisory board saw fit, based upon demonstrable actions, to override the prohibition. It would also be open to any person who chose to take an oath, in the presence of a notary public, and provide the notarized certification of the oath to the board. This opened the door to many thousands of patriots who have not had military service, though believe in and are willing to Protect and Defend the Constitution against all Enemies, Foreign, and Domestic.

The BTFA would hold a primary responsibility to raise funds, secure them in a trust account, and distribute, as needed, to any OMD event, as well as other events that might warrant consideration. This would be the sister organization to complement OMD, and to provide the funding, which was lacking in Nevada.

Taken together, these two organizations were, potentially, a serious threat to the government going beyond its constitutional authority in undermining the rights of the People. It was anticipated that both would immediately come under government scrutiny.

The selection of potential members of the advisory board for both organizations was left to Ryan Payne.

My dealings with Kessler

One of Ryan’s choices for the OMD board was Chief Mark Kessler, based upon telephone conversations where Kessler provided verbal support and encouragement during the Bundy Affair. Kessler never did go to the ranch.

Kessler, having been invited to sit on the OMD board, while on a July 2, 2014, board conference call, suggested that Rick Light was bad and that he would have nothing to do with him. This was rather interesting in that Rick Light was a guest on Kessler’s radio show (59 min) on Guerilla Media, back on January 17, 2014. During the show, they both talked about not bad-mouthing fellow patriots and patted each other on the back.

I had asked what Kessler knew that proved that Rick Light was bad, and he said that he “just knew it.” So, in an effort to help him, and the others, understand why Rick Light was bad, I posted a link to the Committee of Safety Common Law Court Unanswered Indictment of Rick Light, so that they could see evidence of Light’s relationship with the FBI.

Unfortunately, it appears Kessler “knew” everything and refused to read anything that might challenge his beliefs. What I had posted was supportive of, and would have enhanced his understanding.

A series of emails going through the maillist for the OMD Advisory Board demonstrates the immaturity of Kessler, and his propensity to use name calling, poor language (potty-mouth) and grammar, and circuitous (private emails to me) that I forwarded to the board so that they could see his true character. What is not included, since I don’t record private phone calls, is the dozens of calls I received from Kessler, during this period, where he would throw out a couple of sentences, vulgar, accusatory, and baseless, and then hang up, just like a child prankster.

In the emails, you will note that some of the members, even after the display by Kessler, wanted him to remain on the board which would decide whether an event was worthy of a call up for patriots to participate, as they did at the Bundy Ranch. This brought question as to whether the board could function as it was intended to, since there was not a common mindset to go deep enough to make the kind of determinations it would have to make.

At this time, BTFA was still separate from OMD, though there were three members who sat on each board. Mike Frye was aware of the membership of each board. On July 29, he started a group PM on Facebook. The conversation included members of both boards, and, of course, Kessler.

A couple of years ago, Randy Mack, on You Have Tread On Me Radio (2 hr 18 min), did a radio show dispelling the nearly two-decade-old accusation, by Bill Cooper, that I was John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City bombing. That information was readily available to anyone who chose to “investigate” the validity of Cooper’s allegation. Chief Kessler failed, in investigative skills. Even though he had my email address and phone number, he chose not to ask me about the accusations. Kessler failed in both interrogation and investigation skills.

The image of the conversation that occurred during this second Kessler tirade is shown, in its entirety, at the right (pdf of chat conversation). You can see that his character has not changed; however, it did have the effect of making ineffective all of the effort that went into bring some patriots together into both organizations — that would have surely been an objective that the government would want to see accomplished.

Some may question why all of this information is being presented. I have been active in the Patriot Community since Waco. In that time, I have had friends go to prison, and, in every case, except one, there has been an informant involved. That insight, and having had a friend that was offered a plea bargain, turned it down, and then provided me, against the government’s explicit instructions, a copy of the entire plea agreement (See Informants Amongst Us?), have, perhaps, provided me more insight into the workings of such activity than most (See Vortex – The threat that keeps us apart). It is to share that information so that, hopefully, many will be better informed and will raise questions, when such behavior becomes apparent in someone with whom they are associated.

Now, let’s proceed on to other activities of Chief Mark Kessler, again, to understand just how these infiltrators create a “presence”, so that they appear to be as much a patriot, or more so, than those hard workers who are doing what they are doing, with the best of intentions. It is those who really are doing that need to understand just how the operatives (informants, agents, etc.) work so that they can protect themselves and continue the good work that they do.

Kessler and the Southern Border

On July 7, 2014, Kessler expanded his now shattered groups (CSF and III% BOG) to include border operations. His first call out was in a Facebook posting (saved copy, if the page is taken down). This post, reads in part:

“Kessler here… we’re expecting to make contact and be engaged by heavily armed cartel escorts trucking dope into Arizona, Feel free to join if you want, but be prepared to get contacted by heavily armed cartel members with automatic weapons, & possible grenades… so I suggest those who live in az come to the front lines and assist in stopping the traffickers, murderes[sic], rapest[sic] from entering! Instead of bitching about it on social media

Well, perhaps he is just going to go to the border, where he has never been before. However, in talking with those I am aware of that have been actively working the border, there was no prior discussion or invitation for Kessler to come, especially under the circumstances outlined in that Facebook post.

In the years that those who have been protecting the border, there have been no grenades thrown, nor has there been any real contact with the cartels, though some of the people that they have made contact with may be cartel members. Most, however, are coyotes, drug runners, or illegal immigrants. Firefights have not erupted, though it seems as if Kessler wants to make that happen, or, it is false (amateurish) bravado, or, simply to entice people (of the wrong sort for border operations) to join him in his quest for fame and glory.

PM OMD 2-2I have spoken with two leaders of border operations, one from Texas, the other from Arizona. Kessler contacted both, and both refused to extend the desired “invitation”, as they saw that he had no desire to learn how to run such operations, and determined that it would be dangerous to even have him in their Areas of Operation.

In a subsequent post, he says:

This is why we need funding to get as many people to join our Arizona border Mission on July 19th, we can not wait anymore! this illegal invasion by Cartel controlled Mexican Military must stop , they are using hit and run tactics, straing[sic] out of guerilla war fair[sic] manuals, Border agents are on stand down orders from the Liar in Chief,
I can’t believe Americans are letting this happen right before their eyes and do nothing !!!! this it way out of control on JULY 19TH Pack your gear, weapons, ammo, first aid kits, MRE’s or canned food A lot of bottled water and roll out to rally point in sierra vista Arizona, if you can’t make this mission, please assist by donating, this mission is going to be longer then[sic] 5 days, we are asking for patriots to do rotations every week to re-leave current units that will be their[sic] from July 19th , as once said, ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country!
rally point in sierra vista,
The Windemere Hotel & Conference Center
2047 State Highway 92
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

So, now he is asking for funding, which would only take away from those sincere people that are actually doing something. He also expects that he can do in five days what others have spent years, to even put a dent in border crossings.

In yet another post:

Anyone that has night vision monoculars or night vision scopes they want to donate towards the July 19th Arizona mission, we are in need of these items soft and hard body armor. if by chance their[sic] is a great American patriot out their[sic] that follows this situation on the border but wants to stay out of the lime light, and they have the ability to donate one of these thermal weapon scopes annonamusly[sic], it would be greatly appreciated, we are in need of gear like thermal scopes, night vision monoculars, night vision scopes, ammo, & MRE meals, soft & hardbody armor along with first aid kits , wet wipes & funding for gas and water. anyone willing to donate ammo we need the following for sidearms: 9mm, 40 cal, 45acp, for long guns we need 5.56 x 45mm, 223 caliber, 7.62 x 51mm, 308 caliber, 7.62 x 39mm, 5.45 x 39mm

He begins asking for high tech (expensive) equipment, and apparently has quite an arsenal in that he is asking for ammunition for 3 types of handguns and six types of rifles. Apparently, however, his entourage, when he arrived in Arizona consisted of himself and no more than 15 others.

After his trip, he reported:

“Learned a lot about how our border patrol protects our southern borders and that not everyone on the other side wants to jump the fence! They are perfectly happy living in their country! And not everyone is working for cartels! Not even the Mexican military.
“I’m sure their [sic] are small pockets of military units assisting/working with cartels but not every single unit as it was portrayed to me and the crew with me!
“I can say we were expecting to be attacked by heavily armed cartels and we drove 2500 miles to respond for assistance, willing to risk life and limb, not knowing what we were walking into, armed for an all out battle with drug smugglers… thank god[sic] that didn’t happen.

From sources on the Arizona border, it appears that Kessler & Co. did go to the border, and spent no more than a few hours, at best. How he was able to determine the conditions, when those who have spent many months, or years, on the border to understand what those conditions are, is hard to say.

He also says that he was expecting to be attacked. And, even though that was his intention, from the earlier posting, he now thanks God that it didn’t happen.

This appears to be showmanship at its finest; Endeavor to present an appearance of knowledge of conditions, the willingness to initiate a fight, and the humility to thank God when that fight did not ensue.

Other reports I have received from those on the Arizona border indicate that local sheriffs and Border Patrol did pursue Kessler and his group in a helicopter. They were desperate to find him and “kick him out of town.” The local law enforcement people had developed reasonable working relationships with the militia units, and between what the militia units reported their opinions on Kessler to be, that of a loose cannon, and law enforcement’s own investigation, they wisely decided that he had to be removed from the area, as persona non grata.

In Texas, as in Arizona, many of the border protection groups are reluctant to have their names included in this article, and I honor those requests. However, K. C. Massey is willing to lend his name to what he has reported to me. In written communication, regarding his contact with Kessler:

“I was personally contacted by Mark Kessler on or about the first of September. He inquired about joining us at Camp LoneStar, situated on the Texas border near Brownsville. I exchanged several texts and telephone calls with Kessler. He was talking about wanting to “come kick wetback ass” and his attitude was not what I considered conducive to our mission on the border. I denied his request to join Camp LoneStar and he broke off communications with me.”

It is interesting to note that Kessler’s call to Massey was just a few days after the shooting event that eventually led to Massey’s arrest (See Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey).

In a follow up conversation with Massey, he had been in contact with nearly all of the Texas border protection operations, and nobody seemed to want Kessler to visit their operations. They wanted to maintain distance from him, as well.

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

 

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past
Part 1

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 8, 2014

 

Benedict Arnold began his military career with accolades for his ability to gather fighting men and win battles. Somewhere along the line, disenchanted with not receiving the recognition he sought, he switched sides and joined the British against the American colonists. Mark Kessler appears to have been, at least, an advocate of certain rights, though he, with other motivation, turned against American patriots.

We will follow some of his controversial career, and detail some recent events, that should be a lesson to all true patriots. There are techniques that are used to establish “credentials” (a presence), which might induce some to trust someone who is not really on their side, eventually leading to their downfall. This process is explained, rather briefly, in Vortex, though this story is far more detailed and is a real life education in that process.

According to Linkedin, Kessler was Chief of Police in Gilberton, Pennsylvania (a borough of about 1.5 square miles, population approximately 800 in 2010) from July 2000 through February 2014. As Chief, he was the only full time employee in the police department.

On Linkedin, he claims to be Founder/CEO of CSF (Constitution Security Force) from February 2013 to present (more about CSF, later). Without explanation, he claims “Reality TV” from January 2014 to present. Finally, claims to be CEO of III% BOG (Boots on Ground) from January 2014 to present. He fails to mention his work for the government, but, then, that is the purpose of this article.

A number of articles indicate that Kessler began his working career as a coal miner. Depending on sources, he became Chief of Police in Gilberton in either 1998 or 2000. Regardless, he was law enforcement in Gilberton for over a decade before his first instance of questionable competence.

Questionable professionalism

On Saturday, August 27, 2011, while off duty, Kessler was in the Second Street Pub in Girardville. He was wounded by his own weapon when he intervened in a scuffle and shot himself in his left hand (link). A friend then drove him to the hospital, and it is reported that Kessler took the pistol with him. The Sheriff’s Department has never found the firearm to complete their investigation (link).

Then, in 2012, we find that the Borough of Gilberton Mayor, Mary Lou Hannon, and police Chief Mark Kessler were ordered to pay $15,000 to settle a federal lawsuit that alleged Councilman Robert Wagner had been unconstitutionally arrested, strip-searched, and imprisoned because he used profanity toward the mayor. Wagner filed the lawsuit after Kessler arrested him for two counts of harassment for calling Mayor Hannon to complain about youths riding quads and dirt bikes at late hours. Hannon had directed Kessler to arrest Wagner (link).

Support of the Patriot Community

After these two questionable events, Kessler stepped up his support of the Second Amendment when, on January 24, 2013, he obtained unanimous council approval for his “2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution” (link), which nullifies all “federal, state or local acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition [that] are a violation of the 2nd Amendment along with Article 1, section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution”, within the Borough boundaries. After passage, Oathkeepers member Larry Liguori presented Chief Kessler with an Oathkeepers t-shirt. It seems that Kessler had begun activism as an American Patriot. (Image of Resolution)

By January 2013, Stewart Rhodes, of “Oathkeepers”, had Kessler as a guest and praised his efforts (link, 1 hr 16 min). Interestingly, using the Revolutionary War as an example, Kessler says that we should have automatic weapons, since the government has them. He did not distinguish beyond firearms, and he did not address the fact that people could own any weapon the government owned, back then. This omission will be addressed, later.

On February 4, 2013, Kessler registered an Internet domain, “chiefkessler.com“, and posted the following:

ALERT! Anyone interested in joining a reserve force with the Gilberton Borough Police Department ,contact Chief Kessler immediately for details! Due to our Country’s current situation I’m compelled to form an auxiliary force, DHS (Department of Home Land Security) is stock piling ammunition, Stock Piling Machine guns at a alarming rate! I believe we have no choice for what MAY OR MAY NOT happen shortly!, Ask yourself this one question, can you walk into any sporting good store and purchase 22LR, 9mm, 45ACP , 40 caliber, 5.56/223 , 7.62×51 or 308 ammunition in quantity’s more then[sic] a box or two ? (OR ANY AT ALL) if you answer No, ask yourself why ???? I’ll tell you why because the GOVERNMENT is STOCKPILING BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition! (for what ????) even the police can’t get ammo ! DHS has enough weapons and ammo to wage a 30 year GROUND war, (BUT ON WHO and WHY) what is wrong with this picture???, Maybe the tyrants want to take as much ammo off the civilian market AS POSSIBLE! either way it’s very disturbing!

This quickly evolved into what is claimed to be an national effort to establish “reserve forces” under the name of Constitution Security Force (CSF), and was picked up by the alternative media (link), beginning a broader “presence” in the patriot community. In an April 2013 video, Kessler explains his creation of the CSF. Claims were made that 38 states had adopted the CSF concept and was recruiting members. It seefire Kessler signms that Kessler tired of the CSF, since many of the designated state representatives seemed to have lost contact with Kessler.

In an April 18, 2013, article, “Spooks Threaten To Assassinate Patriot Police Chief Mark Kessler“, Kessler claims that he has been targeted and received death threats. The article states that he received a call, “with the caller warning he is going to get a bullet to his head if he doesn’t stop the work he is doing. The call was traced by the Gilberton police to a pre-paid cell phone purchased and activated anonymously.” Interestingly, the Gilberton police is Kessler, himself, though he provides no proof of the investigation and its results. However, receiving threats creates an image that would be suitable to impress other patriots. Another article (link) states that Kessler said that he “couldn’t tell you how many death threats that they have been receiving at borough hall where I work,” on his then Spreaker radio show.

By August, the people of Gilberton were really fed up with Kessler’s erratic behavior. Kessler was suspended from his duties as Chief of Police for thirty days, beginning on the 1st. In such a small town, where everybody knows nearly everybody, the extent of displeasure of Kessler’s activities was amply demonstrated when there was little opposition to a sign put up by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Termination of Kessler

With the suspension nearly over, on August 30, and Kessler and his attorney failed to appear for the meeting; as a result, the suspension was continued, indefinitely. At question was Kessler’s $30,000 annual salary and whether the Borough would have to pay him, even if he was fired (link). That final decision to fire him would have to wait. Even Mainstream media outlets were beginning to cover the story. Kessler was getting far more than his “fifteen minutes of fame”.

On September 19, 2013, the Borough Council met in a closed-door disciplinary proceeding, considering allegations that Kessler had improperly used a state-administered program to buy discounted tires for his personal vehicle, failed to submit required crime data, and made derogatory comments about borough officials. The decision was to fire Kessler (link).

On October 10, the Borough Council held a required public hearing. Kessler and attorney were present when one of his supporters “accidently” dropped a loaded pistol on the concrete floor, just inches away from where Kessler sat. The supporter was asked to leave and the meeting was “continued” (link).

On February 21, 2014, a final settlement was reached with regard to Kessler’s discharge. He would receive $30,000 over 11 months. He had been suspended without pay since August 1. He also agreed to withdraw his demand for a public hearing over his suspension and the borough would not challenge any attempt by Kessler to obtain unemployment compensation. Further, he agreed to not to have any contact with past and present Gilberton officials including the mayor, council members and their families, not to attend any borough meetings or comment in any manner on the settlement. Should he not abide by those terms, and return all borough equipment, Gilberton has the right to stop payments. He was also prohibited from any type of legal action related to his suspension and termination (link). The Council then voted to do away with a Borough Police Department (link).

Kessler’s new future

Due to the apparent lack of success with Kessler’s first venture into organizing patriots, the Constitution Security Force, on February 24, 2014, he announced that his new venture, III% BOG (Boots on the Ground) had already achieved membership in the thousands, in chapters around the country. He will “vet” all members, to assure that they are acceptable to the organization (or, perhaps, for other nefarious purposes).

In describing III% BOG, Kessler’s attorney says:

“Say there is some sort of a civil riot. Mr. Kessler’s group would not be part of the individuals who are promulgating the overthrow of government… He would be on the side of trying to assist government that there isn’t any kind of unruly behavior, the breaking of laws…”

Mark Kessler – Recent Past – Part 2

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

 

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Liberty or Laws?
“Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

gov const balance

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 25, 2014

 

There are six provisions of the Constitution that are subject to your consideration and interpretation, when we look into what has become a means of punishment rather than any semblance of Justice — which was the purpose of the Constitution. We will consider these provisions in light of the historical enactments of “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” laws and their use, today, as a means of punishment of those who have committed no crime, in recent years, though the government has chosen to punish them with both illegal and unlawful prosecution/persecution.

We will start with what is referred to as the “Commerce Clause”. It is a power granted to the federal government to enact laws. It is found in Article I, Section 8, clause 3, and reads:

The Congress shall have the Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Now, “regulate” is a word that was commonly used by the Founders. So, let’s see what it meant to them, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

regulate  v.t.

To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

Now, if we were to desire to regulate commerce between the states, those regulations should be equal, and not be to the disadvantage of one state, or to the advantage of another. Obviously, this would apply to the citizens of each state, as well. Its purpose is to make equal between the states, conferring no advantage, or prohibition, on one over another. To achieve this, they can make rules and restrictions. These would only be rules and restrictions that apply in the act of commerce.

Now, being one of commerce “among the several States”, then it would only occur at the borders between states, not within a state. You might compare it to an elevated walkway crossing a street. The stairway goes up from one sidewalk, a walkway across the road, and down on to the sidewalk on the other side of the road. Commerce, to the extent granted by the Commerce Clause, is only the stairways and the walkway. To extend it up and down the sidewalk would be to intrude upon the rights of the state.

The “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is codified in 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1). The initial law was enacted in the early Nineteen-thirties, during the gangster era. Since the federal jurisdiction was, then, limited to interstate commerce (we will go there, shortly), the states were encouraged to enact similar laws, in accordance with their respective constitutions.

They did this because the Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power. Therefore, the states could enact felony possession laws, which they did because of this provision.

The federal government could criminalize sending, transportation, and receiving, through interstate commerce, and the states could punish those who could not be prosecuted for possession that was not directly involved in commerce. States varied in their form of punishment, as well as the length and extent of punishment. The states, then, had jurisdiction once the firearms left the stairways at each end of the walkway. It was only those either sending (stairway), transporting (walkway) or receiving (stairway) who were subject to federal law. This is made clear in that portion of the federal law, when it says, “It shall be unlawful for any person [who has been convicted of felony] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

So, we must ask ourselves what this law really says. Well, “to ship or transport” is quite clear. It is the first stairway and the walkway. Surely, if a felon owned a firearm and then sold it to someone who was not a felon, and that second person then shipped or transported that firearm, the felon would not be in possession, since it is the stairway that begins the process. Neither would affect commerce, since the felon is out of the picture, at that time. So, now we get to receive. Receive is an act, in itself. The wording, now this is important, states, “which has been shipped or transported”. When the law was written, those who use words to create the rules of action that we were to be bound by, chose the word “has”, as opposed to the word “had”. “Has” is 3rd person present, meaning active in the action just completed, where “had” is past tense, meaning in a previous situation. If they had the lawful authority to extend the prohibition, the criminal act, they would surely have used “had” instead of “has”. “Had” would extend the prohibition indefinitely. This would explain the necessity of state prohibitions, and leave the jurisdiction fully within the state, if the firearm moved, absent commerce.

Now, in the above, we are discussing commerce. Commerce is, well, commercial, meaning that is done for compensation, for a fee, as a business. Is it commercial if I move myself from one state to another? Surely, it is not, because Article IV, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” That means that I can travel freely between states, without penalty by the state that I enter. This would also mean that the federal government is not a party to my free movement between the states. Only if I hire someone to transport my goods does that property enter the commerce realm, and then, it might still be questionable as to whether I could carry my property, as the commercial aspect is only one of movement, not of commerce leaving one state and entering another. It would be absurd to think that if I carried my firearm with me, from a state that manufactured firearms, to a state that did not, that I would not have the same “Privileges and Immunities”, once I travelled freely to another state.

So, what happens if a federal statute contradicts another federal statute? Better yet, what if a federal statute had the appearance of conflict, via one interpretation, though had no apparent conflict, by another interpretation? Wouldn’t it make sense that statutes cannot be in conflict with other statutes?

Let’s consider the explanation given above, with regard to 18 U. S. Code 922 (g). Then, let’s look at what statute was enacted in providing detail of the Second Amendment, the Amendment that reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In support of this Amendment, we find 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

312 : US Code – Section 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Well, I have read that five times, and I cannot find that there is an exemption for someone that has been convicted of a felony. There must be a reason that this exemption was not included. Perhaps it has to do with a better understanding of what the Constitution granted Congress.

So, if the militia “consists of”, it appears to be obligatory and consistent with the Amendment. And, since felons are not exempted, then they are a part of the militia. The militia, however, must be able to “keep and bear Arms”. So, if this statute makes me a member of the militia, then it cannot infringe my right to “keep and bear Arms”. Now, this is not inconsistent with Congress’ authority to regulate commerce, if that regulation is as stated above. However, if we have already demonstrated a weak interpretation the government is currently using to target and punish people, then we have a very serious conflict between the government’s interpretation of the statute and the Constitution, as so far presented. Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Let’s look at how the government is trying to desecrate the Constitution (now, not in the thirties) by trying to use words to increase federal authority beyond what was intended. In 1990, the federal “Gun-Free School Zones Act” was enacted as a part of the “Crime Control Act of 1990”. Its language was modeled after that language used in 18 U. S. Code 922 (g), and was codified in 18 U. S. Code 922 (q). In 1995, the Supreme Court overturned the law by their decision in United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

In overturning the Gun-Free statute, Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

The Act exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined… Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite… nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

Rehnquist recognized that such authority was an authority of a state, not a federal, nature. He explained that the tie to commerce has to be either direct, or of an “economic enterprise”. It had to have a “nexus with interstate commerce”.

So, what did the Congress do? Janet Reno, then Attorney General of the United States, recommended changes to the Gun-Free provision that would give her department extraordinary power by obfuscating the tie to commerce. This was enacted in 1997, and we find that the tie to commerce has been rewritten in a form that doesn’t even sound like what you would expect a law to read, rather, it talks about why Congress enacted the law (warm and fuzzy), providing no substance, only flowers. For the sake of conservation of the length of this article, I will leave to you further research into “18 U. S. Code 922 (q)”. We need only understand that if the Supreme Court overturns an act for unconstitutionality, the government will endeavor to circumvent the prohibition, by whatever means they have, whether legal, lawful, or not.

Now, we shall enter into the world of Jurisdiction. Often, people will say, “that law is unconstitutional”. Here is the stickler; the law is possibly constitutional, though the question of “where” the law applies becomes the consideration, not of constitutionality, rather of jurisdiction, or, where it is applied.

We have just seen that with regard to the “Commerce Clause”, but we need to venture even further. There are two provisions that give Congress authority beyond what we usually perceive as the limitations imposed by the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, clause 17 says:

Congress shall have the Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 says:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Briefly, the Constitution does not define limits, in these instances, though practice, especially during the first 70 years of this government, have established the limits of those authorities. For those who wish a more thorough understanding of what was intended, I would suggest reading Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty. Otherwise, suffice it to understand that the limitations we have been discussing do not fall within those areas of exclusion — that an act of Congress (such as the Act of 1825, in the linked article) can appear to be unconstitutional, though it is only unconstitutional if applied outside of those lands that come under the extraordinary jurisdiction.

So, with this understanding, we, as the People of these United States of America, must allow the government to continually trample upon that sacred document, the Constitution, or must decide that they are not the proper party to make such judgment, as was true of Parliament and the King, when they enacted unconstitutional laws and imposed them on the colonies. If so, then we need to use whatever means necessary in assuring that the government abides by that document, or we resort to the provision of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that “when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

Are the people to serve the Government, or, is the government to serve the People?

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?