Archive for October 2014

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

BLM Bundy

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2014


Do you understand the difference between Rules and Laws? Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution, where the House of Representatives and the Senate concur on a Bill. The Bill then goes to the President, who can sign it into law. We needn’t discuss veto, here, as that has nothing to do with what we need to understand.

A Rule (Note: Rule includes regulations) is the desire of unelected officials in Administrative Agencies to implement laws without Constitutional authority. They become Rules when they are posted in the Federal Register, opened for comment, and then, after 90 days(with various exceptions, extensions, etc.), they are entered in the U. S. Code, having all of the appearance of Laws. The comment period, however, is only token — unless there is a major outcry.

Congress created the Administrative Agencies in their current form in 1946, and the Congressional Record shows that Congress admitted that they were creating a Fourth Branch of Government in the Administrative Agencies. So, put behind you the notion that the Congress enacts all “Laws” (forget that School House Rock stuff). They have abrogated their Constitutional obligation to be the only source of Laws. There is absolutely no authority to delegate that responsibility.

Article I, Section 1–All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

“All” used to mean ALL, when it was written.

Congress, however, has “plausible deniability”, since they don’t enact the “Rules”, only the laws that gave the agencies the power, as unelected officials (hired underlings), with no real allegiance except to their power, to take advantage of their position and assumed authority. Congressional representatives can be “fired” at the polls, though these administrative minions are protected by the Civil Service Act (“The act provided selection of government employees by competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. It also made it illegal to fire or demote government employees for political reasons…” – Wikipedia), and are almost impossible to get rid of.

An interesting aspect of the Rules is that many Rules have punitive actions if you fail to comply, but there are no punitive actions if the agency/agent fails to comply. There is also no means to punish those agents/agencies that violate their own Rules. It is sort of like the King and his minions can do no wrong. However, we subjects of his government, had better lockstep in obedience, or we will be punished.

A recent example is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Bundy Affair. BLM solicited certified inspectors to violate the law regarding both brand and health inspections. They also arranged for an auction house to ignore laws that require brand and inspection certificates before the cattle could be legally auctioned. Finally, the BLM killed privately owned livestock, and no one on the government side is being prosecuted for their crimes against both Rules and Laws.

The process of Rulemaking is ripe for intervention by lobbyists. They are paid “representatives” of clients who seek an advantage, either economic, social, or ideological. The last two will, most often, result in economic advantage, at least indirectly.

Another problem is Rules being promulgated for revenge. Let’s take, for instance, the result of the Bureau of Land Management’s effort, last April, to give the Desert Tortoise a “preserve”, by removal of the Bundy cattle from their historical grazing allotment. Fact has no role in their decision, since a study (Plight of the Desert Tortoise) suggests that since the deer and the antelope don’t play there anymore, the cattle do more to provide for the Desert Tortoise than any harm they might cause. This is demonstrated in the fact that the Deseret Tortoise has co-existed with the cattle, for over a century, with no apparent damage to the Tortoise population.

Now, in transparent vindictiveness, and seeking revenge for the embarrassment the BLM suffered when the rustled cattle were unrustled (when the cattle were taken back from the rustlers – BLM). That was when America stood, in an act of Civil Defiance against them, forcing them to put their tails between their legs, cower, and slink away, the BLM has another means of retaliation for the defeat that they suffered.

Judging by the attitude and arrogance demonstrated by the BLM agents and their hired help during the first two weeks of April, it was understood and often stated that they would retaliate by whatever means they had at their disposal. Predictably, those who direct BLM have joined the fray, using their “Rulemaking Authority” to punish not just the Bundys – nearly every person in Clark County, as well as some in Lincoln and Nye Counties who lives in a rural or agricultural area. They are restricting uses of substantial portions of the public land in Southern Nevada. The entire: Federal Register Notice.

They are doing so by proposing Four Alternatives (PDF file) based upon a government concept called Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB). ZBB begins with a status quo alternative, then proposes alternatives that are greater than what is current. Usually, there is an escalation in the various alternatives. In the instance, Alternative #1 is status quo. Alternative #2 is the greatest amount of change; Alternative #3 is less change, and finally Alternative #4, with the least change. In Alternatives 2, 3, & 4, there is a very pronounce inclusion into what is referred to as “Cultural/Biologic” area, the most severe restrictions, including trail, roads, camping, and essentially any human activity, and all three completely surround the Bundy Ranch. That Cultural/Biological area that abuts the Bundy property is, by far, the largest area of change in any of the Alternatives (shown below), and the only one, with a few very minor areas, that is consistent through all three plans.

Existing use Alt. #1       Cultural Biological area 2-4

Existing Conditions (Alt #1)                                                              Proposed Conditions (Alt 2-4)

So, someone could argue that there is remote possibility that this is not directed (revenge) at the Bundys, you can weigh the evidence, yourself, and decide.

Considering that all Alternatives afford protection for the Desert Tortoise and other critters, birds, insect, reptiles, etc., perhaps the government wants to amend the Preamble to the Constitution to:

“We the Animals of the United States…”

Therefore, we find that it is up to us, “We the People”, to do what is necessary to put the government back in its proper role as servants of, not master of, the People.

How can we achieve this? A start would be to play their game, by their rules, for the time being. We can see if the voice of the People will have weight on the final decision of those unelected bureaucrats at the BLM. As stated above, there is a 90-day period where this proposed rule is open to comments. So, rather than resorting to an effort that might lead to a violent confrontation, at this point, our energy should be directed at asserting our feelings on this matter. There are a number of ways to register your comment, for the record, though all of them will identify you. There is no means of anonymity, but, heck, they know who you are, anyway. The following is from the Federal Register Notice:

  • You may submit comments related to the Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS by any of the following methods:

To make comments, begin with reference to the:

Notice of Availability Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada

My suggestion, to regain what was and should be, would be along the lines of:

* * *

I demand that you retain the status quo, also known as Alternative #1. Further expansion of restrictions on OUR Public Lands is unacceptable.

Further, since it has been proven that ranging cattle are beneficial to the Desert Tortoise, that any grazing allotments, past or present be reopened for grazing, under the original conditions, and that any future request, within such Desert Tortoise protection areas, be granted, when requested.

Please record my comment, as stated above.

Molon Labe (Come and Take It)

* * *

Now, this may seem like a waste of time. But, please, think again. If we set forth our position in sufficient numbers, and they fail to heed, then we have justified any subsequent action, and they have proven that we are merely specks unworthy of consideration.

Between now and January 10, we can participate — and, plan for the eventuality that we will be ignored on paper — but not in fact.

The question we must understand, and answer properly, is, “Are the people to serve the Government, or, is the government to serve the People?”

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Clash of Laws

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 27, 2014


K. C. Massey was in the area when a shooting occurred that brought numbers of Border Protection Service (BPS) agents, and Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla, to the scene. The BPS agents asked that the weapons of all three individuals be turned over to BPS for reasons of safety (Explained in Massey’s account of incident). They were then turned over to Padilla, though at no time was Massey read Miranda rights, nor was the transfer of the weapons voluntary. It was simply done because they were agents, with guns, and in the principle of “discretion being the better part of valor”, they relinquished the weapons.

Those weapons then became the object of a Criminal Complaint, charging Massey and John Foerster (See Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey) with felony possession of a firearm, based on 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1).

Federal Authority and limitations

The theory behind laws, and the application of law, including ambiguity of the word, intent of the law, and misapplication of those laws is addressed in “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher (for those interested in that aspect of persecution), however, the purpose of this article is to discuss what might be termed “the clash of laws” between the United States and Texas, under a Republican Form of Government (Art. IV, § 4 of the Constitution, as a member state of the Union of these United States (yes, the plural is intended).

To understand this clash, we must first look at the powers granted to, and the limitations imposed upon, on the federal government, by the Constitution.

First, there is the inevitable, and truly sacred, Second Amendment.

“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.”

Now, that reference to “free State” applies only to the states, not to the federal government, since the existence of a federal militia was never addressed in the Constitution, only the authority to call forth the militia. The first reference to what might be considered a federal militia occurred in 1916 with the enactment of law embodied in 10 U.S.C. § 311 (See A United States Militia). So, the Constitutional references to militia and bearing arms are contained in that Second Amendment and the following provisions in the Constitution”

Article I, § 8, clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, § 8, clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, Congress can call forth the Militia, which they could not “call” if they were already under federal authority, and next, they recognize that “Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. Leaving, of course, officers and training, to the “parent” of the militia, the States.

The only other provision is found in Article II, § 2, which reads,

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

This makes clear that the Militia belong to the States, not to the federal government, except when called into service. Now, the only mention of “arms” is associated with that militia in the Second Amendment, which links any firearms laws only to the authority to the states (we will go further on this subject, later). The only applicability to federal authority, or should we say, prohibition, is that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It appears that it wasn’t until the 1930s when the government first crossed that line drawn by the Constitution, and has continued to expand overarching authority into those Constitutionally prohibited realms, since that time (See The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend).

There is one more concern regarding federal authority that must be addressed, before we get to the heart of the matter. That is the authority granted regarding Commerce, Article I, § 8, clause 3, says,

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

It does not grant any power within the states, only “among the several States”. That is interstate, not intrastate, commerce.

Then, we have the only other “commerce” provision in Article I, § 9, clause 6:

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Now, you need to keep these points in mind as we continue down a path of discovery — to determine what We, not the government, see as the powers granted and limitations imposed.

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Federal)

The only charge against Massey, according to the Criminal Complaint, is a violation of 18 USC §922(g)(1) (the full text of §922(g) at 18 USC 922). The pertinent part is as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

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, let’s look at the obvious intent of the law. First, “It shall be unlawful“, well, no problem with that.

Next, if that person “has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, that that criterion has been met — that Massey has such a criminal record. So, now we move on to the third portion of the Statute.

It is unlawful “to ship or transport in interstate… commerce“. Now, this next phrase is rather interesting. “Possess” means “To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control“. So this must mean that you have in your control the firearm when you affect the commerce. The possession must be done while participating in or affecting that commerce. Finally, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Well, that last one surely must be the direct recipient, the addressee – to “receive”, as opposed to “possess”. For if that were the case, it would read, “to possess any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.

So, let’s revisit what we said about Commerce. “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue… one State over those of another.” However, if we consider the implications of the law, if you live in a state that manufactures a firearm, then you can posses it, as it has not been involved in interstate commerce. However, if you have ammunition that was manufactured in another state, then you are guilty because of the ammunition. If you live in a state that manufactures both weapons and ammunition, you can posses those “firearms” and ammunition. However, if you live in a state that manufactures one, the other, or neither, then you may have but one, or none. That seems to give Preference to one state over another.

Further, this absolutely defies the concept of equal justice; it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.” And, it would mean that if one moved to another state, with what was legal, from the federal standpoint, in the state from which he began, he would criminal in the other state.


Texas Possession Laws

So, let’s see what Texas has to say about a convicted felon possessing a firearm. The applicable law is found in Texas Penal Code, Section 46.04. The pertinent part is as follows:

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

(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s 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.

(f) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States…

So, if one is convicted of a qualifying felony, after he has served his time gone through post conviction service, the clock starts. After five years, he cannot possess weapons, except at “the premises at which the person lives.” Now, premises, in legal terminology, is the house, outbuildings and land. This is to afford protection — once the five years has expired. It does not say house, it includes his whole dominion. He can protect his property.

Now, a question arises as to if he relocates, and lives elsewhere. In Massey’s case, he has lived at Camp Lone Star for four months. The land is owned by “Rusty” Monsees, and the camp is located on his property, with his consent. That is where he lives, so the premises, though not owned by him, is the premises that are applicable in the statute. He encountered the BPS on those premises, so he had every legal right to possess the weapons, under state law.

When he was arrested, he was in a motel room, where he lived the night before he was arrested. This may be a gray area, though it seems that since he lived in that motel room, that night, and that the obvious purpose of the law is for personal protection, that he would still be legal, under state law. The alternative would have been to either secure his firearms in his truck, or to leave them unattended at Camp Lone Star. Though this may be debatable, if we look at intent, it is probable. If not, the only violation, under state law, might be him having his weapons in the motel room. However, he was not charged with that. The initial charge came when he surrendered his weapons, without Miranda, while still fully in compliance with Texas law. The Complaint was based upon his lawful (state law) possession. The Complaint led to the arrest, which might be the only exception to state law. However, the Complaint, itself, admits to “forbidden fruit”.

So, where do we go, next?

Collision of Laws

Recently, Washington state and Colorado enact laws legalizing marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice announced that they were going to suspend prosecution of federal marijuana laws in those two states. Shall we ponder their reasoning for making such a decision?

Let’s suppose that state law says you can posses marijuana, and federal law says that you cannot. To begin to understand this, and the subsequent discussion, perhaps we need to interrupt, for a minute, and understand what James Madison told us in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, law is “a rule of action”, or, perhaps, a prohibition. But, it is there to guide us in remaining within the boundaries of law, or suffering the consequences of deviation from the law.

So, if marijuana is legal in Colorado, and criminal by federal law, which “rule of action” are we bound by? Well, the government did not want to face the consequences of a legal challenge to their presumed superiority of their laws over the state’s laws. Let’s look at Article IV, § 4, of the Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

So, we have the only “guarantee” in the Constitution, and that is that we have a “Republican Form of Government”. That guarantee is that so long as the state does not enact a law in violation of the Constitution, they have every right to enact any other law — such as the marijuana law. Gee, it also provides that the government “shall protect… them against Invasion”. Golly, gee, isn’t that what K. C. Massey and Camp Lone Star were doing, since the government was having so much trouble fulfilling this obligation?

However, the marijuana laws are the “Conflict of Laws”, and, perhaps, the felony possession laws are also a Conflict of Laws. After all, the same dilemma arises. Can K. C. Massey possess firearms, so long as he does so in compliance with Texas Law, under their Republican Form of Government? Or, is he bound by federal law that depends so much on the Commerce provisions of the Constitution?

Let’s look at what the United States Supreme Court said about the extent of authority granted by the commerce clause. The case is United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

The federal government had enacted the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990”, which forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone.” The District Court denied Lopez, as they claimed that the law was “a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce.”

That decision was appealed to the Appellate Court, who then reversed the lower court decisions, when 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 [as is the charge against Massey] 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.

In a Certiorari to the Supreme Court, the case was heard. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. After a lengthy discussion, affirming most of what the Appellate Court had said in their decision, and extending even further into limitations of federal authority, the Decision concludes, “For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

So, the Supreme Court, back in 1995, imposed a limitation of authority on the federal government, regarding the utilization of the Commerce Clause beyond its Constitutional intent. And, the law that was overturned, 18 U. S. Code Section 922(q), a part of the same statute that is being used against Massey, requires that there be an economic nexus to commerce for a law to be valid.

The first portion of this article explains the wording of the law, (922 (g)(1), and how it is clearly tied to commerce. Whether it was rewritten after the Lopez decision, or not, it must have the nexus to commerce. If the ownership of the gun by Lopez does not have that nexus, how, possibly, can the ownership by Massey have what the other did not?

Commerce begins when somebody “ships” something in interstate commerce. It continues when someone “transports” something interstate commerce. It finally ends when someone “receives” something that has been sent and transported. At that point, the nexus to commerce ceases, and we are back to “Equal Protection under the Law”, where the state that you live in is the authority as to whether you can posses guns or ammunition.

The final point to be made on this subject is the fact that the state of Texas has three branches of government. They have, like every other state, a Legislative, and Executive, and a Judicial branch. The Judicial, of course, is to render justice. The Legislative, to enact laws, under its “Republican Form of Government”, and the Executive to sign such enactments into law, and enforce them.

If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist. On the other hand, the government of Texas should take a more aggressive role, as the Supreme Court did, in limiting the overbearing and abused authority of the federal law enforcement agencies.

Let me repeat two quotations from the above. First is by Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision, the second, my observation, from over twenty years of reporting to the Patriot community, on the ramifications and consequences of the current round of persecutions by the federal government, contrary to the state’s constitutions and laws:

  • 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.
  • If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist.

Therefore, We must ask ourselves whether the people are here to serve the government, or, is the government here to serve the people? If the former, then we acquiesce to a condition of servitude. If the latter, then we must, in the Court of Public Opinion, rise above the government, and force them back to the limitations imposed on them by the Constitution, by whatever means necessary.


Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Lone Star Badge

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 24, 2014


Arrest of Jesus

As a follow up regarding the possible role of John Foerster (Jesus) in the arrest of K. C. Massey, it appears that he was arrested on Tuesday, October 21; the day after Massey was arrested. In my previous article, I mentioned some circumstances surrounding Foerster that raised questions about his possible role in assisting the government in the arrest of K. C. Massey. There were other pieces to that puzzle that weren’t quite strong enough for me to be willing to put them in writing (except my notes), but the arrest of Foerster has other factors that bring this into question.

As mention in the previous article (Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey), Foerster appeared at the motel room the night of the conference call, on October 19. Massey was arrested the next day, the 20th. Foerster claimed that he had tried to call Archie Seal to find out what happened, though Archie’s phone shows no record of any calls, missed or received, from Foerster. What I didn’t include in that article were the results of some investigative work conducted on the evening of the 20th.

One of the people I work with, let’s call this person “Joe”, called Foerster using a spoofed phone line. A member of Camp Lone Star and I were also on the line. Foerster seemed extremely troubled and nervous, during the call. “Joe” purported to have met Foerster at Camp Lone Star and feigned interest in doing what had to be done to keep “them” from going to prison. “Joe” used this ruse to imply status a federal informant. Foerster appeared to acknowledge meeting, and tried to get the real name of the “Joe”, though that request was diverted and never answered. He made no outright confession. The nervousness he displayed never abated.

About 30 or 45 minutes later, “Joe” made another call to Foerster, using the same setup. This time, Foerster was relaxed and casual, and agreed to a subsequent meeting of the two in order to discuss what they had to do to stay out of prison. Again, Foerster was unsuccessful in obtaining “Joe’s” real name, or any other substantive information, despite his attempts to do so.

Following that second phone call, we three remaining participants continued the discussion, speculating on his behavior, things that were said, etc., which appeared to support the theory that he was “bad actor”, and probably involved in the arrest of Massey. There was insufficient evidence to support inclusion of that information in the previous article. However, his change of character led us to believe that he had possibly called his handler and was given instructions to obtain what information he could, and otherwise play along. Apparently, he was trying to determine who was on the other end of the line and what they knew.

Now, if the government perceived risk to their “star witness”, they could not do without him. They would do what was necessary to assure his availability, when they needed him. Obviously, he had lost any ability to access additional information from Camp Lone Star, and any of its members — his usefulness, except as a witness, was destroyed.

Does this explain why he was arrested the next day? Was it to keep him safe, since it appeared to them that he had been compromised? All this even before that first article was even published.

We have obtained the “Criminal Complaint“, which includes both Massey and Foerster. However, there are some interesting aspects to the Complaint:

  • The “properties” in the document obtained show that the document was created on 10/20 at 12:43, then modified on 10/22 at 11:40 (the day after Foerster was arrested).
  • On page 4, of the document, the numbered items are hand-written. Foerster’s felony is first acknowledged on that page, not before.
  • The “File” stamp show October 20, but it is just a rubber stamp, and the Case identification at the top is easily changed to show any date they choose.
  • Since it was created on October 20, why would it be modified on the 22nd? Note: you can replace all of the pages in a PDF, but the created date will be retained.
  • The stamp at the top of the page shows that the record is “Sealed”, so why is it made available, at this time?
  • The Federal Judge or Magistrate is authorized, by law (Rules of Court), to make “corrections” in judicial records, as he sees fit.

Now, this is still speculative, at best, though it is being presented so that you can decide — and learn just how the government works. However, now you have the information, and you can decide what you believe to be true.


Operation Mutual Aid

There are similarities between what happened, last May, to Robert Beecher and what happened earlier this week to K. C. Massey. There is another similarity that begs our consideration. That is the now “underground” organization known as Operation Mutual Aid (OMA).

The article, “No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher, explains the government linking Beecher to OMA. Though they were way off base as to the real relationship, they saw a tie, and they pursued it. This would mean that if you were a participant or member of OMA, are a convicted felon, and have pictures out that show you in possession of a firearm, you might be targeted before others who may just be a convicted felon in possession.

  1. C. Massey was a registered member of OMA. Though he did not go to Bunkerville, Nevada, this past April, he was serious in his commitment to the “OMA Mission Statement“, as well as his own efforts to stem the flow of illegal immigrants at the Southern border.

After the events in Nevada, the press, some congress critters, and other officials, had suggested that there would be prosecutions. Ryan Payne and I discussed the possibilities and determined that the only charges that could be brought would be felony possession of a firearm. That would include both OMA members/supporters and others who responded to the call and were present at the Bundy Ranch. It appears that our judgment of this potential was correct.

Back in June 2013, OMA released a Policy Statement regarding a number of matters. It was also published as a “Public Notice”, explaining the purpose and intentions of the organization and its members. Interestingly, it included its members in a Mutual Aid Pact, which warrants our attention, and is fundamental to the ability of OMA to pursue a mission, succeed, and continue life — until the next mission. It reads, in part:

“…who you will be taking action against should you be told by your controllers to impede, apprehend or assault any volunteer of Operation Mutual Aid at any time, before, during or after an operation… If you apprehend any of us at any time, we will exhaust every one of our considerable resources to free that individual with all vigilance.”

With this in mind, perhaps we can understand why the government has put OMA members/supporters on their “hit list”, and what those OMA members/supporters must keep in mind, as we travel down the road of restoring this country to what the Founders intended.


Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

“No bended knee for me” – No Speedy Trial – Just Punishment

“No bended knee for me” – No Speedy Trial – Just Punishment


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 23, 2014

The Founders were concerned over certain practices of the British government. From a judicial standpoint, both Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2) and subsequently, in the Bill of Rights, with the Sixth Amendment, which reads, in part,

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

were to insure that the courts were not used to punish people, rather, to serve Justice and prohibit unlawful detention.

In the case of Robert Beecher, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Statesboro Division, Case CR614-018, this is not the way it is working.

Robert M. Beecher was arrested on May 7, 2014, after being told that he was not going to be arrested (See “No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher).

Let’s go through a calendar of events in Beecher’s case:

  • July 31, 2013 – Investigation initiated (FBI form FD 1057)
  • May 7, 2014 – Arrested
  • May 24 – Beecher was denied Bail by FBI, PD out of town….Saw Judge
  • June 4 – Grand Jury indictment
  • June 19 – Arraignment
  • Aug. 14 – Motions Hearing – Postponed by ATF/FBI to obtain further charges and records from GA, TN and Galveston, TX that were not computerized and were searching for paper records from 1977
  • Sept. 4 – Postponed….Federal Judge had personal issues and Forwarded Caseload to another federal judge, who also has heavy caseload.

Some things that we can learn about persecution, as opposed to prosecution, can be gleaned from the above.

First is that the FBI and the BATF have been investigating Beecher since July 31, 2013. The arrest was made over 9 months later. However, at the August 14 hearing (over a year after the initiation of the investigation, they ask for a continuance so that they can research paper (not computerized) records so that the can prove that he is a felon, under the statute. That is over three months (over 70 days, as will be explained later). You would think that the government would have satisfied the requirement of proving that he was a felon, prior to arresting him as a FELON in possession of a firearm, than searching to see if they could find the firearms with which to satisfy the second part of the charge against Beecher. Let’s just suppose that Beecher wasn’t a felon, they get the warrants, make a mess of the property, find some firearms, then realize that he was not a felon, or that they weren’t sure, or could not prove that he was. Sort of a case of the cart before the horse, but, well, they are paid, just the same. This would suggest that US Attorney Edward J. Tarver (prosecuting); Carlton R. Bourne, Jr (AUSA & lead counsel); Special Agent Stanley H. Slater (FBI; and, Special Agent Lorin G. Coppock (BATF), are all bumbling incompetents, each making over $100,000.00 a year, but unable properly prepare a case.

Nearly a month later, we find that because a judge, presumably G. R. Smith, U. S. Magistrate Judge, who signed the Search Warrant on May 6, 2014, had “personal issues”, the law, and justice, apparently, can be set aside, while Beecher languishes in jail. This, now, really tops it. A man is deprived of time with his family, especially with his grandchildren. The Judge, however, has family problems, though he responding to his problems simply creates more family problems for Beecher.

However, it does bring to minds a rather interesting question, “Are the people to serve the government, or, is the government to serve the people?”

So, we have looked at an absolute lack of regard for Robert Beecher and the impact this has had on his family and his life. So, let us look at an even more important aspect, the laws that are put in place to define and satisfy Constitutional mandates. For example:

The Constitutional Mandate can be found in the Sixth Amendment, which says, in part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

In a previous article, we have addressed the facts that any records regarding the trial have yet to be released to the public. Is it fair to say that “sealed” judicial paperwork, for nearly six months, meets the “public trial” provision? I also addresed the specifics of the charges against Beecher, and it appear that they don’t apply to him, anyway.

So, now, let’s see what has been determined regarding “speedy trial”. Here are the pertinent portions of 18 U.S. Code § 3161, et seq:



18 U. S. Code § 3161 – Time limits and exclusions:

(a) In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial.

(b) Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges. If an individual has been charged with a felony in a district in which no grand jury has been in session during such thirty-day period, the period of time for filing of the indictment shall be extended an additional thirty days.

Note: The filing of the Indictment provision was satisfied.


(1) In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing to be tried before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.

Note: It is interesting that the “making public” provision, if not met, means that the government can simply keep the record sealed, and theoretically, keep Beecher in jail, “indefinitely”.

Well, (a) says that “at the earliest practicable time, shall… set the case for trial… so as to assure a speedy trial.” Not difficult to understand, at it appears to be supportive of what the Founders envisioned when the assured us a “speedy trail”. However, in what is an obvious effort to circumvent the intent of the Constitution, they have set a new benchmark by counting the seventy days “shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.” How thoughtful of them for using the last occurring date instead of the first. This allows them to detain someone for quite some time. For instance, in the current matter Beecher has had hearings cancelled on two occasions, so he has not been before the “judicial officer”. Well, how about the Indictment? The Indictment was filed with the Court on June 4, but it has not been made public, so even though Beecher has been in jail for over 5 months, the clock has yet to begin ticking from which we can gauge whether, or not, he is going to get a “speedy trial”.

Continuing on through the maze of legal complexity, we find:




(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Note: Therefore, the judge can continue the matter (trial) if he does it based upon “his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” There you go. He can arbitrarily determine that the continuance serves the “ends of justice” and therefore outweighs the defendants right to a “speedy trial”. This might be interpreted as, “yes, we have a constitution, but, I, with my black robes, can ignore it — for the sake of justice, as I see it.”

“Nothing to see here. Just keep moving.”

There is a bit of redemption, however, in:


(C) No continuance under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be granted because of general congestion of the court’s calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government.

Note: This last, this “failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government”, which, presumably, would also include certain “evidence”, seems to be at the heart of the current delay. As best I can find, the Prosecutor is still trying to determine if the “felonies” qualify under the statute upon which the Indictment was based. The statute is discussed, in detail, in “No bended knee for me – the Charge against Robert Beecher“. Though it appears that the prosecutor and the FBI and BATF agents had the cart before the horse in assuming that the felonies qualified under the statute. At least, that is what has been alleged to be the reasoning behind the continuance.

Next, we can go to 18 USC §3162 – Sanctions, which provides punishment for certain activity that results in the delay of the “speedy trial”.

18 U.S. Code § 3162 – Sanctions


(1) If, in the case of any individual against whom a complaint is filed charging such individual with an offense, no indictment or information is filed within the time limit required by section 3161 (b) as extended by section 3161 (h) of this chapter, such charge against that individual contained in such complaint shall be dismissed or otherwise dropped. In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice.

(2) If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161 (c) as extended by section 3161 (h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant. The defendant shall have the burden of proof of supporting such motion but the Government shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with any exclusion of time under subparagraph 3161(h)(3). In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice. Failure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under this section.

(b) In any case in which counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government

(1) knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;

Note: Would the term “witness” also include certified documents regarding previous convictions — showing proof of the felony?

(2) files a motion solely for the purpose of delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;

(3) makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining a continuance which he knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or

(4) otherwise willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with section 3161 of this chapter, the court may punish any such counsel or attorney, as follows:

(A) in the case of an appointed defense counsel, by reducing the amount of compensation that otherwise would have been paid to such counsel pursuant to section 3006A of this title in an amount not to exceed 25 per centum thereof;

(B) in the case of a counsel retained in connection with the defense of a defendant, by imposing on such counsel a fine of not to exceed 25 per centum of the compensation to which he is entitled in connection with his defense of such defendant;

(C) by imposing on any attorney for the Government a fine of not to exceed $250;

Note: This, however, would require the judge, whether of his own volition, or under pressure from other sources, pursue this token of justice. I wonder if there are very many judges currently sitting in District Courts who place justice before their job security and hopes for elevation to a higher bench.

It is interesting that the government attorney would only be fined $250, while the defense attorney would be fined 25%, which could easily exceed $10,000. But, I suppose that they look out for their own.

Now, as we continue through the maze of statutory befuddlement, we find another statute that might even force a more rigid implementation of the right to a speedy trial.

18 U.S. Code § 3164 – Persons detained or designated as being of high risk

(a) The trial or other disposition of cases involving—

(1) a detained person who is being held in detention solely because he is awaiting trial, and

(2) a released person who is awaiting trial and has been designated by the attorney for the Government as being of high risk,

shall be accorded priority.

(b) The trial of any person described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section shall commence not later than ninety days following the beginning of such continuous detention or designation of high risk by the attorney for the Government. The periods of delay enumerated in section 3161 (h) are excluded in computing the time limitation specified in this section.

Note: So, if Beecher is detained, but not high risk, the trial must commence within 90 days of detention. On the other hand, if he is high risk (the apparent cause for no bail being granted), and not detained (released), the trial must commence within 90 days of such designation of high risk. Is there a middle ground where if one is both high risk and detained, there is no provision for a speedy trial? Not very just, if true. A person of high risk that is not detained is, well, a potential threat to the community, where the guy that is both high risk and detained is not a threat, though it appears that he is to suffer, without recourse, or, that the Judge should use the wisdom that God gave him to be just.

(c) Failure to commence trial of a detainee as specified in subsection (b), through no fault of the accused or his counsel, or failure to commence trial of a designated releasee as specified in subsection (b), through no fault of the attorney for the Government, shall result in the automatic review by the court of the conditions of release. No detainee, as defined in subsection (a), shall be held in custody pending trial after the expiration of such ninety-day period required for the commencement of his trial. A designated releasee, as defined in subsection (a), who is found by the court to have intentionally delayed the trial of his case shall be subject to an order of the court modifying his nonfinancial conditions of release under this title to insure that he shall appear at trial as required.

Note: Now, this is a bit more clear. “No detainee… shall be held in custody pending trial after the expiration of such ninety-day period required for the commencement of his trial”.

So, why is Robert Beecher still in jail, nearly 180 days after is detention?

This can only be interpreted as Robert Beecher’s right to be released, with his family and able to regain the life that has been, punitively, taken from him, in violation of the above statutes.

What we have been discussing is the statute verses the intent of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. So, we will venture into one more statute, within the speedy trial provisions, to see if there is merit to my interpretations, given above.

18 U.S. Code § 3173 – Sixth amendment rights

No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted as a bar to any claim of denial of speedy trial as required by amendment VI of the Constitution.

That pretty much cinches it. Any interpretation that does not favor Sixth Amendment is contrary to the intent of the law, itself.


“No bended knee for me” – the Persecution of Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher

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

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 21, 2014


Yesterday, in the early afternoon, Kevin (K.C.) Massey, 48, was arrested in a motel room near Brownsville, Texas. Massey was one of the organizers of Camp Lone Star, which has been turning back, or turning over to the Border Protection Service (BPS), illegal aliens attempting to cross the Southern border. He was alone when the FBI and BATF arrested him, charging him with Felony Possession of a Firearm. He was convicted in 1988 of burglary – over a quarter of a century ago. To better understand the charge against Massey, I refer you to a previous article on a similar situation, “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher. It would appear that Massey is subject to the same intentional misinterpretation of the Federal Statute.

Sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 PM, FBI and BATF agents arrived at the home of Khristy Massey, Kevin’s wife, located in the Quinlan, Texas, over 600 miles from Camp Lone Star.. Massey had not lived at the home for the past four months, and the house is currently for sale. They wanted to search the house for firearms, though Khristy refused, absent a warrant. She was then threatened with arrest if she removed any firearms from the house. Interesting that one can be threatened with arrest for doing what they want with their lives and property – simply because the government went to search a house, though apparently unable to secure a warrant for that search. It makes you wonder if any laws, whatsoever, bind the federal government.

Massey was one of three members of Camp Lone Star involved in a shooting incident that occurred on August 29, 2014 (Massey’s account of incident). Massey, Allen Varner (Wolf), and John Foerster (Jesus), were patrolling on private property near the Texas/Mexico border. A BPS agent Hernandez, standing about 30 feet from Foerster, fired two shots at him, yelled “Stop”, fired two more shots, again yelled “Stop”, and then fired one more shot. Foerster placed his rifle on the ground, deescalating the situation. Hernandez claimed that he was pursuing some illegal aliens. It is noteworthy to understand that the BPS has been instructed not to fire on illegal aliens, unless fired upon — which did not occur, in this incident. Are we to surmise that the BPS IS instructed to fire on American citizens?

Subsequently, while meeting with a BPS Captain and other agents, Massey, Wolf, and Jesus, were asked to store their weapons in the Captain’s vehicle, for security — since there were still illegals in the area and they didn’t want the weapons unsecured and possibly stolen from the open “mule” which the three were travelling in. They also took Massey’s GoPro camera, with no explanation.

Additional BPS officials, Sheriff Deputies, FBI, and DHS agents arrived on the scene to investigate the shooting incident. A Sheriff Deputy then took possession of the five weapons, claiming that they were a part of the evidence in the investigation in the shooting incident — shooting by the BPS agent, not the three men legally possessing firearms on private property.

Shortly thereafter, Jesus was asked to leave Camp Lone Star because of suspected drug use. He had stayed away from the Camp since that time.

Moving forward to the recent events, Camp Lone Star had rented a motel room, a place to take a shower and get a good night’s rest. The evening prior to the arrest, the motel room was used by some of the Camp Lone Star members to conduct a conference call with militia members around the country. Earlier that day, at 1:58 PM, Jesus, for unknown reasons, called Camp Lone Star to say that he would be going over to the Camp. He never did show up. Perhaps he knew of the conference call, because he made two appearances during the course of that call, not at the Camp, but at the motel. He was described to me as fidgety and nervous during the two appearances during the conference call, as if he had something to hide. Is it possible that he was sent to the motel room to report if Massey was alone?

Well, let’s look into the background of John Frederick Foerster. Foerster served a prison term for three counts of burglarizing a building, beginning in May 2001. He was released from prison in August 2002. In 2009, he was charged with theft, in Missouri, disposition unknown. Foerster, however, has not, as of this date been arrested for felony possession of a firearm. He has also recovered his two weapons taken by the BPS and Sheriff on August 29. It has been alleged that Foerster was arrested again, for possession of cocaine, just four days prior to Massey’s arrest, though this has not been confirmed independently.

He claimed, in a phone call made late last night (20th), that he had heard about Massey’s arrest and had tried to call Archie Seals, of Camp Lone Star, numerous times — to find out what had happened with Massey. Archie Seals reports that he has had no contact, nor does his cell phone record show any calls from Foerster.

These occurrences (Beecher and Massey) should provide adequate warning to patriots, especially thus who have a felony record, that there is a concerted effort on the part of government to find cause to bring charges against you and take your guns away. They also provide insight into the tactics that the government is using to cull the patriot community of as many as they can, reducing the remaining numbers, and intimidating those who remain.

For an understanding of how informants and other infiltrators work, I would suggest reading “Informants Amongst Us?” and “Vortex“. To understand who the likely patriot targets of federal persecution are, I suggest “C3CM“.


Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

Can Muslims fit into our society? Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?

Can Muslims fit into our society?
Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 7, 2014

 The question is rather simple, though the answer may be a bit more complex. However, with the current situation, both here and in Europe, an answer must be sought. If not, we have no means of understanding the severity of the problem, nor can we formulate a solution to the problem.

My observation has been that the “Moderate Muslims” allege that they do not support the “Radical Muslims”. Perhaps not overtly, however, if you listen, they never really create any distance. On the other hand, the “Radical Muslims” are killing some “Moderate Muslims”, but, then, there is justification to what they do, and we will discuss that, shortly.

What we don’t see is the Moderates endeavoring to impose sanctions, or even criticize, the Radicals. The extent of their interposition in the discussion is to claim that all Muslims should not be looked upon as Radical, while vociferously defending their “peaceful” position in the matter. They don’t want to be involved in a solution, and suggest that we have no right to judge them — we can only go after those who have proven to be Radical. They have distanced themselves and desire that we deal with the problem, even though the problem is with their religion. And, our government willingly defends that position, making us “own” the Muslim problem, though distancing themselves from any solution, except the government solution of violence in the Middle-East. They won’t even consider profiling Muslims as potential threats in this country.

As I understand Islam, there are a number of sects, as there are in Christianity. The largest sect appears to be the Sunni Muslims, so if we want a model to evaluate, the Sunni is the most logical subject.

In May 2013, there was a conference held by Sunni Muslims in Scandinavia. One of the subjects was Islamophobia, and that is exactly where we want to go. Below, you will find a link to the excerpted portion of a talk by one of the speakers, Fahah Ullah Quereshi. To make clear the point that is to be made, we have transcribed that portion of Quereshis’ talk that is pertinent, and demonstrative of the point that is to be made.

Note: The entire YouTube video of “It’s Not the “Radical Shaykh” it’s Islam” (6:39), by Fahah Ullah Quereshi
The transcribed portion (3:22) (Emphasis in red text is pertinent parts)

[begin transcription]

Quereshi: Can we have the camera focusing on all the audience there? Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they always come with the same accusations – “This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports death penalty for this crime or that crime, or that he is homophobic, they subjugate women,” etc. etc. etc. It’s the same old stuff coming all the time, and I always try to tell them that, “Look, it’s not that speaker in that writing who has these extreme radical views, as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has, every Muslim believes in these things, just because they are not telling you about it, just because they are not out in the media does not mean they don’t believe in them.”

So I will ask you, everyone in the room, how many of you are normal Muslims, you are not extremists, you are not radical, you are just normal Sunni Muslims, please raise your hands?

[most of the room raises their hands]

Everybody, masha’Allah, Subhan Allah. Ok, take down your hands again. How many of you agree that men and women should sit separate? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Everyone agree, brothers & sister, subhan Allah. It’s not just this “radical shaykh” then, Allahu Akbar. Next question – how many of you agree that the punishments described in the Quaran and the Sunnah, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it is, if it is from Allah and His Messenger, that is the best punishment possible for humankind and that is what we should apply in the world? Who agrees with that?

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row & a different man in the fifth row, raises their hands]  

Allahu Akbar! Are you all radical extremists? Subhan Allah. So, all of you are saying you are common Muslims, you all go to the different mosques. Are you a specific sect? Please raise your hand if you belong to an extreme sect.

[no one raises their hand]

No one, allahu akbar. How many of you just go to the mosques just to a normal Sunni mosque? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Allahu akbar! So, what is the politicians going to say now? What is the media going to say now? That we are all extremists? We’re all radicals? We need to deport all of us from this country? Subhan allah. Allahu akbar! Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: May we have the next question, please?

[end transcription]

Though he only gets specific concerning women sitting apart from men, in his next question, he incorporates the penalties imposed by the “Quaran”; death, stoning, etc. So, though he only mentioned the one crime and referred to adultery, he is completely inclusive of all crimes listed in the “Quaran” and the “Sunnah”. That would include the loss of a limb for theft, beheading for other crimes, anything that is written would have the appropriate penalty — regardless of the law of any country in which those crimes might occur, and where the penalty is dispensed.

Now, back to the original question, Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”? Well, he provides the answer in the very next question, when he asks if anyone present belongs to an extremist sect. No hands are raised, so none of the attendees — those who agree with the punishments provided for by Islam — is a member of an “extremist sect”. Yet they have agreed that they hold to values that are extreme in our country and culture.

What we can easily conclude form the above is that though they do not consider themselves to be “extreme”, there can be little doubt that when they bring their ideology to our country, our legal system, and our culture, they are nothing but “extreme”.