Archive for March, 2011

The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 30, 2011

Through the process of conditioning (programming), especially in government schools and the press, we have lost sight of what this country really is, and, what it stands for.

Though there have been many nations throughout the history of the world, there is only one that was established, independent of outside source, by the people of that nation.  It was a nation of independent people who had learned to cherish their freedom, primarily established by an absence of control from across the ocean.

They had found, though bound by English laws and English government, that absent a regular imposition of that authority, that they did quite well for themselves, taming a wilderness and establishing a productive society, within the limits imposed by that far away government. They were, for all intents and purposes, the first and only truly free civilized nation.

When that foreign government began to impose upon these people who had developed self-sufficiency, beyond any before them, they resented their treatment as “children” rather than being treated as adults, and true sons of England, with all of the rights enjoyed by Englishmen.

Just eleven years after their separation from the then greatest power on the Earth, they established a government in a form that would best suit them — developed, in part, by the political philosophers that preceded them; in part, from what they had learned from the natives of the land they shared; and, in part from their experiences with the previous government, which bonds they had so recently broken.

This new government was embodied in a document which was then styled, “Constitution for the United States of America”. It was, through conventions in the various states, truly a document approved by “We The People”, as its suggests in its preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In this modern day, we have lost sight of the intention of the Framers of that great document. We can however, look to the past to understand just who embodied those “People” who set on forth this greatest venture in self-government that the world has ever seen.

Our best understanding can be found in a Supreme Court decision, rendered in Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393] , in 1856. Chief Justice Taney, who gave the decision of the Court, went into great detail in defining just who those “People” were.

The case hinges on who had standing, as a “citizen of the United States” (prior to the Fourteenth Amendment) to sue in court.  The details of the case is not necessary to understand the following.

The case ended up in the Supreme Court.  In its decision (below), the Court pointed out that Scott had claimed to be a citizen of Missouri, which would give him standing to sue Sandford.  It found that though Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, or of the United States, that standing for the Court to hear the case was based upon the Courts acting on the fact that the question of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court.

Going directly to the Final Decision, given my Justice Taney, we have the Court’s determination of just who was a “citizen of the United Sates:

The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.  The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?  We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.  “

* * *

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endow him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.  And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.”

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

* * *

“It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted.  And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations.  We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

Now, clearly, it is those who initiated the fight for independence that are of the class recognized by the Constitution as “citizens of the United States”.  Many have pointed out that one of the first to “die for the cause” was a negro named Crispus Attucks, who was shot to death in the “Boston Massacre”, in 1770.  This, however, in the eyes of the Court, does not qualify him as one of the people — for which the country was intended.

Though the decision of the Court continues to give examples of just how the Court perceived this relationship, I would prefer to not include too many more of the over one-hundred and ten thousand words in the Decision.  There are some words, however, that warrant our attention in fully understanding what was intended by the founding of this nation, and so I will provide these few paragraphs:

“The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.  But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men-high in literary acquirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.  They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.  They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.  The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection.  It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen.  It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people.  It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary.

So, we have, from many angles, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of who the Constitution was written both by, and, for.  It was never intended to be a catch all for the diverse populations, cultures, and religions of the world.

In 1867, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Though many of the Congressmen believed that its purpose was to provide a place, in this country, for the negro population (recently freed slaves, as well as those negros previously freed), it has since been interpreted, by the government, not the Court, to be inclusive of all walks of life.

The Amendment first made “[a]ll persons born or naturalized. . . . citizens of the United States”. It then prohibited any state from passing laws which would “abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment extended the privileges and immunities to those who were henceforth known as “citizens of the United States”, it made no mention, nor is there any wording that would confer upon them, the status of those “sovereign people” who had established this government, and nation. It simply granted to them the “privileges and immunities”.

This left the original intent in place, though extended only certain rights to those who had, prior to the Amendment, no access to those “privileges and immunities”.

The country was still, as intended, only for those who were as described by Justice Taney, “it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else,” though it was then willing to share some of the bounty of this great land with others. In essence, it took  phrase, “citizen of the United States”, and made it a legal term. It did not remove the meaning of “citizen of the United States”, as it existed prior to the amendment, it simply created a second meaning, which, in legal context, conveyed only certain specified rights, and nothing more.

Regardless of the Amendment, we can clearly understand that if the door were opened to include any who wished to walk in and enjoy that bounty, it would absolutely destroy the context in which the country was formed. It was, after all, the heritage and culture, and the moral foundation espoused by Christianity, that was the very foundation for the great experiment. To allow that a single amendment, with an alleged purpose of only extending certain rights, could not be subsequently interpreted to be the means by which all that was embodied in the document to retracted  whiteout specific wording nullifying that original intent.

A nation has to have some binding force. In most nations, that force is the common language, heritage, and, culture, of the dominant people of the nation.  In the United States, that language is English; the heritage is English and the culture is European.  It is under such conditions that the United States evolved into an effective world force between its inception (the Declaration of Independence in 1776) and its ability to defend itself against outside forces (the War of 1812).

Its growth in prestige, power, influence, productivity, and pride, continued to grow, providing what became the deciding factor in World Wars I and II.  It had, without a doubt, become the dominant world power, especially considering that it did not suffer the devastation that most other countries realized in those conflicts.

Since that time, we have begun a downward spiral, destructive of both the nation (integrity of) and the Constitution, with but few exceptions.

In 1954, the Congress enacted the Communist Control Act of 1954. This act recognized that the Communist Party posed an eminent threat to the United States and its Constitution.  The codification of that act, at 50 U.S.C. § 842 , provides that:

The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated. . .

Clearly, there is legitimate concern that the Communist Party might use force to overthrow the government. Unfortunately, at the time, there was no due consideration of an overthrow by other means, such as subversion of the Constitution by political chicanery.  After all, subversive means had not then been developed to the fine art that has been achieved in the past half-century.

The authority within the Constitution, however, to enact laws that would protect the Constitution were, clearly, within the means and authority of the government.  Would it make any sense to be able to outlaw force as a means of supervision of the Constitution and not to allow means to avoid such an overthrow, without force?

What has effectively happened is that the manipulation, without Amendment to the Constitution, and with the abrogation of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to rule upon the constitutionality of laws (see About Ashwander v. TVA), we have seen a dilution of the Constitution which has resulted in a de facto revision to the Preamble, as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect workers Union, establish Justice Injustice, insure domestic Tranquility disharmony, provide for the common defence of any nation we see fit, promote provide the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to all but ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which shall continue in effect until such time as the people decide that they will burden their posterity with unmanageable debt and allow revision to this Constitution, without regard to the provision in Article V for amendment hereto.

Unless we stand firm and demand that the Nation be retained, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, we will find that our children will be living in a third world country by the time they have grandchildren.  There is no middle ground.

We must understand that any organization, association, political philosophy, or, religion, which is not consistent with the Constitution, and, our way of life, should of necessity, be made unlawful, since its purpose would be to allow the Constitution to be the weapon of its own demise

The Communist Party and the Socialist Party espouse a politics of government control of, and, redistribution of, wealth.  Islam, though a religion, retains social, political and legal requirements that are inconsistent with our Constitution. Labor unions, though they may have served a useful purpose, in times past, before the government instituted laws that were protective of labor, are now too powerful and political to be consistent with the intention of the Constitution. They have become manipulators of the law, to their own favor, and with total disregard to the economy and our world trade situation.  These serve no useful purpose to the continuation of our way of life, and must be outlawed.

If we don’t act, firmly and soon, we will find that the new Preamble to the Constitution will be taught, at our expense, to our own children:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a workers Union, establish Injustice, insure domestic disharmony, provide the defence of any nation we see fit, provide the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to all but ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which shall continue in effect until such time as the people decide that they will burden their posterity with unmanageable debt and allow revision to this Constitution, without regard to the provision in Article V for amendment hereto.

Though the Constitution may be equated to a “birth certificate” for the new nation conceived and embodied within it, unlike a birth certificate that certifies that you and I have entered life, only to leave it at some point in the future, that “birth certificate” was written to include posterity — it was the birth of a perpetual union – intended to live as long as free men do.

* * *

For more information on  who “We the People”, those whom the Constitution was written, by and for, are, see the five part series beginning with “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I    and the four part series beginning with Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part I.

 

 

RifleStock 2011 Canceled — A more thorough explanation

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

RifleStock 2011 Canceled
A more thorough explanation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 22, 2011

Many are upset over the cancellation of RifleStock 2011.  This is quite understandable, especially for those who had made travel commitments, scheduled vacation time, or otherwise arranged their schedules to be able to attend this event.  Few, however, are more upset about the cancellation, and, yes, failure, of the event known as RifleStock 2011 as two of the original three organizers of the event.

Although a brief explanation of what caused the cancelation was posted (RifleStock 2011 Cancelation).  It apparently was not sufficient to appease, or at least bring an understanding of that failure, to many of those who were to attend, or to people otherwise hopefully watching to see if such an event could be conducted by the patriot community.

Many have suggested that the cancellation was an act of the government.  Well, it is easy to understand that when you have an assertive government, as we do, that it is not beyond reason to think that they would engineer a means to keep the event from happening.  And, as much as we like to blame the government for many of the ills that befall us, many rightfully so, it is also necessary to place “blame where it properly belongs.  In this instance, it was not the government.

So, let me explain and put to rest such theories.

RifleStock was conceived during an Internet radio show hosted by Joe Racer (an alias).  It was simply an idea tossed out during the program.  It seemed to be a good idea, so I contacted Joe after the show, and we agreed to get Mike Freebyrd in a Skype call to discuss the possibility of putting together such an event.  This was in early January 2011.

We had determined that with three of us, a majority was easily determined, and, that we would abide by the majority.  Mike, having his webpage, was to set up the RifleStock 2011 webpage.  I was to write promotional introduction to RifleStock 2011, and, Joe, who told us of his experience in organizing many dirt-bike events, was to find a location on which to have the event.  Tentative schedules were established and an agreement to conference on Skype, when anything needed to be discussed.  By January 15, we had set the date for RifleStock 2011, the first promotional went out, the mail list, intended to keep those interested abreast of what was happening, progress in organizing, etc., was opened and operational, and the webpage was up and operational.

During the organizing discussions, the location was of critical importance for a number f reasons: Security, was it in  dangerous location where there was  possibility of confrontation; was it located where observation of illegal activity and the destructiveness of passage of illegals could be see; and, was it accessible to regular cars and trucks, and to motorcycles.

Joe kept changing possible locations, and would not listen to anything from Mike or myself.  He would not disclose locations so that we could begin to look at potential sites on Google Earth and maps.  By February 2, he would still not disclose a location, though he claimed to have one, and would not allow the other two organizers to know where that location was.  He promised that he would let us know in a few days.

Compounding this problem was my concern (and Mike’s) that people would not buy tickets to an event if they didn’t know where the event was going to be; if they didn’t know if their mode of transportation was capable of getting there; and, absent a location, whether the event would even be held.

There were other matters to be dealt with, such as entertainment, logistics, sanitary facilities, power, flagpoles, PA equipment, stage or platform for speakers and entertainers, etc., each of which, Joe Racer said that he would take care of.  If either of the others tried to offer suggestions, offer to take care of, or even try to get a status of progress on how anything was coming along, we were stonewalled.  We were left to do the very few things that Joe had not taken upon himself, often overruling the majority, to “take care of”.

These last two situations lead to my resignation from organizing RifleStock 2011, on February 2, 2011.  In leaving, I stated that it was for consideration of my time and that it had taken a toll on my writing.  I had little choice in lying to the community, as, if I were to tell; the truth, it would probably undermine any participation by other than Joe’s close friends, in RifleStock 2011.  Perhaps my actions might seem unfair to some, and, I cannot deny that this may be true.  The dilemma, for me, was that I have always encouraged working together and discouraged anything that would be destructive to the community, or a negative on any member of the community (name-calling).

So, I can, and will, apologize for not being up front back then. I will also admit that under similar circumstances, I would do the same thing, again.

After I removed myself, I remained in contact with Mike Freebyrd.  He realized that things were falling apart, and that there was no indication that anything was being done to address the matters mentioned above that needed resolution.  He has had a long-standing relationship with Joe, and would just hope that Joe would hold up his end, as he said he would, and make things work.  Mike had no hand, at all, in anything other than keeping the page as current as possible, designing and ordering the patches, collection of money for tickets, and distribution of same, and trying, where he could, to make things happen, such as the raffle.

Finally, a location was determined and Joe, as he had assured us early on, insisted that he had looked into the requirements of the Coronado National Forest, and stated that no permits were required.  Very poor maps were posted to the webpage (provide by Joe), with no real attention brought to them, nor was there an overall map which would have helped people to get there.  This information was not posted to the mail list, so, those who found out where the site was did so if they listened to Joe’s radio program, or asked and were directed to the particular page that had the maps.

Then, on March 10, 2011, just 8 days before the start of the event, and before most of those who were either attending or considering attending the event knew what the location was, the government did.  How they found out is, at this time, speculative, though since it was happening on land which they bear the responsibility for, an officer from the United States Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista Ranger District, contacted both Mike and Joe, via an email that read, “Please contact [Forest Service] as soon as possible to avoid criminal charges of planned illegal commercial gathering on Federal land . . .”.

Joe Racer contacted the Forest Service officer, as requested.  When the Forest Service asked Joe what his name was, he responded, “Joe Racer”.  The Forest service then said that they could find no record of any Joe Racer. Joe refused to give his real name, possibly Gerard or Gerald Wytman, and then Joe insisted that the government had no right to do a background check on him; that no permit was needed to have the event on public land; and, that he (Joe Racer) was canceling the event.  Both Joe and the Ranger have described Joe’s attitude as “combative” and uncooperative, even though the Ranger had offered to assist in expediting the application for the permit.

Based upon Joe’s statement that he was canceling the event, the Ranger followed up and contacted Mike to assure that the RifleStock 2011 page showed that the event had been cancelled.  He asked Mike if he had the authority to cancel the event. Mike answered that he could, and, that he would.  This was probably a follow up to assure that Joe, who had created the problem, did not renege on his assertion that he would cancel the event.

Though there were many rumors regarding the government attempting to prohibit RifleStock 2011, there is nothing to substantiate that claim.  Joe Racer, of his own volition, canceled the event.

Joe Racer, is the sole cause of the failure to properly organize the event, and directly and singularly responsible for the cancellation of the event.

This is not an accusation or attempt at defamation; it is simply a statement of the facts surrounding the event.

Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (introduction)

Sunday, March 13th, 2011

Committee of Safety
Common Law Court

Introduction

Just prior to and during the Revolutionary War, there was an absence of lawful courts in certain areas affected by the removal of British government, or removal of Charter government.  During this period, the Committees of Safety would establish courts, if the need arose.  They would handle criminal matters, where necessary, though their focus was greater in based upon the need to control Tory activity.  Punishment for being a Tory could be as simple as restriction of travel; house arrest; removal of “long arms”; imprisonment; or, execution.

Of course, there was a war going on, and the means and necessity were different than today.  However, the patriot community is plagued by accusation, defamation, and other activities that are very disruptive, and, are not conducive to a unified effort to restore constitutional government to the United States.

This Committee of Safety — Common Law Court is intended to provide a means, considering both the abilities (ease of communication, etc.) and the disabilities (proximity, etc.), of conducing “trials”, when charges are brought, and providing the fairest means within those constraints of dealing with those problems.

When someone is found “guilty”, they may consider revising their ways, to avoid the stigma of the verdict. They may decide that they no longer want to be a part of the patriot community. They may, also, resort to asking their boss for a reassignment.  In each instance, the patriot community will find itself slightly improved, and, perhaps discourage such activities in others.

Purpose

Empanelled only to hear complaints regarding disruption to the patriot community; creating division in the patriot community; personal attacks unfounded by the evidence; accusations of individuals having allegiance to the government instead of the Constitution; any malicious behavior which brings discredit to the patriot community.

There is a lot of disruption and division within the patriot community. Some is a result of human nature; some may be a result of intentional activity directed at creating division and animosity; and, some may be totally unfounded, perhaps just an error in communication. Regardless of the cause, it is the effect that is so detrimental to our cause of restoring constitutional government to the United States of America.

In looking towards a solution, aimed at minimizing the damaging impact, it only makes sense to look to that same community, those who seek to restore sound constitutional government, for the solution — a solution based upon the very document that we esteem so highly.

Understanding that many of the means that have been utilized, historically, to resolve such matters, what is being presented here is a common law court that will only hear cases of slander: libel: defamation: or, activities which are associated with the patriot community that tend, by their nature, to be disruptive and bring discredit to a segment, or, the entire community, it must also be adapted to the current means of communication, and the vastness of the community.

The process will begin with the filing of a Complaint. The Complaint will go to the Clerk of the Court, who will not be judgmental, only an administrative arm of the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court.

Composition of the Court

Before proceeding with the explanation, the elements of the Court need to be identified. There will be a pool of judges (voluntary) from which three (3) judges will be picked, at random, for any case brought before the Court. The purpose of the judges will be to maintain decorum and order in the court. They may assist parties in preparing coherent documentation; formulating orders from the court, assisting the Grand Jury in preparing an indictment

There will be a pool of Grand Jurors (voluntary), of which five (5) regular jurors and two (2) alternate jurors will be randomly selected every six months, and will not be able to sit, again, until six months after the completion of any term that have participated in, even as an alternate juror. The Grand Jury shall be unknown and inaccessible during their entire term. They will prepare indictments, based upon Complaints, if probable cause is determined.

There will be a jury pool (voluntary), from which seven (7) jurors will be randomly selected, for each trial. In addition both the Accuser and the Accused will appoint one (1) juror to the jury.  Three (3) alternative judges will be randomly selected, though will be in “read only” participation, unless a regular juror is unable to participate, or removed for cause. The Jury will try the case, and will be allowed to ask questions, through the judges, during the course of the trial. Their verdict shall be the final decision of the Court, unless an appeal is granted.

There will be a Clerk of the Court who will retain that position as long as they desire, subject, however, to removal by the judges for failure to perform, or, failure to maintain records, correspondence, etc., or to divulge any information to other than those intended to receive such information, records, etc.   There shall also be an Assistant Clerk who will fill in when the Clerk is unable to attend to duties, or has been discharged for cause.  Any two (2) judges sitting on a current proceeding may require the removal of a Clerk. The Clerk will maintain, in proper order, all correspondence, complaints, indictments, verdicts and any other records for every case. He may delegate to the Assistant Clerk, as necessary, though this shall only be done when the workload warrants additional help.

There will be an Internet Forum which shall serve as the Courthouse for trials and all information pertaining to any case brought before this Court.

This is the composition of the Court, which personnel will change with each case, with the exception of the Grand Jury.

Procedure for a Complaint

An Accuser, who wishes to accuse another, and bring them to trial in the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court can file a complaint with the Clerk.  Participation of the Accuser, and agreement to jurisdiction of the Court; its procedures; and, its final decision, are granted by filing a Complaint.

The Accused, once they answer any request for information or indictment from the Grand Jury, has agreed to jurisdiction of the Court; its procedures; and, its final decision, by virtue of their response. Absent a response, there is no jurisdiction granted, and the Court may publish any information provided by the Accuser, any findings, and, the indictment, along with an explanation that the Accused refused to respond to the Complaint and/or indictment, and has thereby waived consideration of any answer to the accusations.

Once the Complaint is filed with the Clerk of the Court, the Clerk will forward copies of all information received to the three judges which the Clerk will select, randomly, from the pool of judges. If any of the selected judges finds that he is familiar with either party, or for any reason determines himself unable to be impartial, he shall remove himself, in which case the Clerk will select another judge to fill such vacancy.

The Clerk will also notify the Accuser of the names of the judges. The Accuser, for cause, may request recusal of any of the judges that he feels may not be impartial; however, he must provide written cause along with the request for recusal. The judge in question may remove himself, however, if he does not voluntarily remove himself, the other two judges may rule on the recusal, however, if more than one judge is named in the recusal, the Clerk shall call two (2) judges from the judge pool who will sit with the third judge to weigh the merit, and make determination on the recusal. The Clerk will then fill any vacancies created by recusal from the judge pool.

The judges will prepare a concise presentation of the Complain. If evidence is necessary to substantiate information provided in the Complaint, the judges will notify the Clerk that additional information is needed. The Clerk shall then inform the Accuser, who shall provide the additional information requested.

Once the judges have determined that the Compliant, and supportive information, be complete, the package shall be provided to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury may, through the Clerk, request additional information through the judges, who will pass the request to the Clerk, who will pass the request to the Accuser.

When the Grand Jury has completed its review of the information provided supportive of the Complaint, they shall prepare an indictment. They may request the assistance of the judges in preparing the indictment, if they so desire. When the indictment is completed, they shall provide the indictment, along with any copies of evidence they feel should be included, to the Clerk to send to the Accused. The Clerk shall also provide the names of the judges currently assigned to the matter, and the Accused shall have the same right to request recusal of any of the judges. This will be the first knowledge of the Accused that proceedings are being considered against him.

The Accused will have the opportunity to reply to the Grand Jury, with evidence, answering the accusations made against him. This will be the only opportunity, prior to trial, to address the Complaint. This information will be returned to the Clerk who will provide the Accused’s answer to the Grand Jury and the judges.

The Grand Jury shall then review the answer provided by the Accused and determine if there is merit to the accusation, in which cause the y will find probable cause and provide a True Bill to the Clerk. If they find that there is insufficient probable cause, they will provide a No Bill to the Clerk, who will then destroy all records pertaining to the case.

In the event that the Accused refuses to recognize the Court and submit to jurisdiction, which may be indicated by a direct answer, or, failure to respond to the indictment within thirty (30) working days (six weeks), the Court shall make public the indictment and any evidence supportive of the indictment, at the discretion of the judges, by posting the documentation in the Closed Docket Forum.

Jury Selection.

The jury will be composed as described above. Jurors will have their name posted at the beginning of the trial, in the Courtroom (see below). Either party, for cause, may request the removal of a juror. A reason must be given and the judges will rule on removal. The party selected jurors shall not be subject to removal. Vacancies in the jury will be filled by the Clerk prior to opening arguments.

Proceedings

If the Accused has answered, a Courtroom will be opened in the Forum Courthouse, bearing the name of both the Accuser and the Accused, along with a very general statement of the cause of action. Access to the Courtroom, at this point, will be Clerk – read only; judges – read/write; Accuser and Accused – read/write; jury – read only; others, no access during the trial.

At trial, the Accuser and the Accused shall restrain themselves from posting, unless the floor is theirs. The judges will open the proceedings by reading the charges.

Then, opening arguments from the Accuser; then the Accused, shall be presented. Each will have a thread in the Courtroom Forum. The charges will be presented in “Counts”. All discussion relative to a Count shall be on the thread for that Count. To maintain a proper sequence, the judges (court) will advise when and what either of the parties may post.  The parties may write their comments in a text editor, but they should not be pasted in the forum until told to do so.

There will be a thread named “bench” where the parties can pose questions to the court, at any time. This “bench” will not be made a public record, so what is posted there will not be a part of the public trial, available after the case is closed.

Jurors may direct questions they wish asked of either, or both, of the parties, by posting them to the “Clerk” thread. The judges will then formulate the question to be presented to the party to whom it is directed, including a Count assignment, where the party shall answer the question.

Objections will be posted at the Bench thread. Any objection will be ruled upon by the bench prior to proceeding with the trial.

Witnesses may be called, and they will be allowed access to the Courtroom only during their testimony.  They will be subject to cross examination. Any witness may be recalled by either party, though there is no subpoenaed power in this forum. The jury will also be allowed to ask questions of witnesses through the Clerk. If a witness testifies for one party and refuses to answer cross examination by the other party, or questions from the jury, his testimony will be stricken, and the jury will ignore the testimony. The trial will conclude with closing arguments (threaded) after the completion of the submission of all evidence.

Closing arguments will be presented by both parties, Accuser being the first to offer closing, with a short rebuttal allowed to each party. Closing arguments and rebuttals will mark the end of the trail.

Jury Deliberation

The jury will then be directed to the Jury Room Forum where they will deliberate. They will have full access to the Courtroom, and may ask any questions of the judges, if they so desire. Their deliberations should be maintained in the Count threads, or in a general thread, depending on particular discussion — based upon the judgment of the jurors.

Every effort should be made to come to a unanimous verdict, on each of the Counts. This will be highly unlikely, since each party has a juror present. If six jurors do find for one side, the Court will consider that verdict as unanimous.

Final Decision

The final verdict, however, will be based upon the preponderance of evidence, for each count, and the verdict will be final, subject only to appeal (explained later). The jury will then prepare, with the assistance of a judge, or judges, final pronouncement of the Court (Final Decision). The final decision will be posted on the Docket Forum. Others are able to copy and utilize the final decision, for information purposes, so long as it remains unedited and the source (URL) for the permanent record (Docket Forum) is attached to any copies distributed. Violations of this practice (complete decision and URL) will result in a contempt of court against the violator(s), and that violation will be posted, attached to the final decision, in the Docket Forum.

At this time, the Courtroom will be opened (read only) to provide public access to the proceedings. It will be locked, and no changes or postings will be made after the close of trial, except that the final decision will also be posted in the Courtroom.

Appeals

Decisions of the Court are subject to appeal. Appeal Hearings may be granted by a five (5) judge panel, randomly selected by the Clerk, none of which can be judges from the original trial.

Basis for Appeals:

New evidence, unavailable at time of trial

New witnesses, unavailable at trail

Other circumstances which, when brought forward, might affect the outcome of the original trial

To Appeal a Decision of the Court, the Appellant must submit to the Clerk a request for a hearing before the above mentioned panel, which will be empanelled upon receipt of the request. Full detail, including evidence to support request for appeal, must be submitted with the original request. The appeals panel may require additional information.

If the determination of the appeals panel is in favor of the appeal, the Panel may:

Hold hearings, with both parties participating; or,

Retry the matter, subject only to the additional information brought toward, though incorporated with the Jury deliberations form the original trial.

Either hearing or retrial can result in setting aside portions, or all, of the original Final Decision of the Court.

All records, evidence, etc., brought up in hearing or retrial will become a permanent part of the record of the trial.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation]

 


RifleStock 2011 cancelled

Friday, March 11th, 2011

RifleStock 2011

Cancelled
What Happened and Why

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 11, 2011

RifleStock 2011, as originally conceived, was to be a picnic, comprised of a broad spectrum of those who consider themselves a part of the patriot community.  It was not a militia event, though considering the proximity to the border, it was determined that having militia personnel provide security, both inside and around the perimeter of the event, would provide a degree of personal security and increased comfort to those attending, considering the remote possibility that certain activities in the area could have an impact on the event.

Early on, during the initial organizing of the event, one of the organizers took it upon himself to arrange the location of the event.  He assured the other organizers that he had verified that no permit was necessary and that there was no reason that the event could not be held in the Coronado National Forest, though he had not determined the exact location, at that time.  That organizer assured the others that he was “going to take care of everything, don’t worry about it”.

After over a month into organizing, that organizer had still not come up with a location, assuring the others that “everything is okay”.  The other organizers had no choice but to leave the “detail” to the one who had taken on the responsibility of the site for RifleStock.

A few weeks ago, the location for the event was published.  It was assumed that all had been taken care of, and other areas of organization were proceeding.

However, on March 10, 2011, just 8 days before the start of the event, an officer from the United States Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista Ranger District, contacted both organizers, via an email that read, “Please contact [Forest Service] as soon as possible to avoid criminal charges of planned illegal commercial gathering on Federal land and severe fines to all the participants”.

The primary organizer then contacted the Forest Service officer and began discussing the reason for the email.

The organizer, according to the Forest Service, was not cooperative with the officer that contacted him and refused to comply with the request that he make application for a permit.  He described the conversation with the organizer as “combative”.  According to the officer, he had even offered to do what he could to expedite to application so that the permit might be issued before the scheduled event date, but that the RifleStock representative was assertive, and refused to recognize that the Forest Service had a responsibility, regarding the use of those public lands, to protect them so that they can be enjoyed by all.  The organizer, when he found that they were going to do a background check on him, did get “combative”, and told the Forest Service that he was going to cancel the event.

Another representative of the Forest Service explained that their job was “Caring for the Land and Serving People” It appears that, at this point, this was what they were attempting to do.  We should expect nothing less of them.  They are, after all, the custodians of our public lands and have the responsibility to assure that we will enjoy that land as much as those that came before us.

Because of the refusal to comply with the permitting process, and, the organizer’s decision to cancel the event, the organizer created an untenable situation for those who are obliged to do their jobs, on our behalf.  This, coupled with the organizer saying that he was going to cancel the event effectively closed RifleStock 2011 down.  The organizers were then requested to post notice that the event had been cancelled.

At this point, RifleStock was cancelled, and the requested notice was placed on the RifleStock 2011 homepage, where it is to remain for at least “3-5 days”.

Forest Service has told me that they did not “escalate” this matter to DHS.  I was assured the both the original officer and the District Ranger had, and continue to have, every intention of dealing with this matter within their authority — if the need arises.

If there is a connection with DHS, I have been unable to find it.  I will, however, continue to investigate, and report, if I can provide any additional information.

Update: RifleStock 2011 – Canceled   A more thorough explanation