Timothy McVeigh v. Lon Horiuchi

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 30, 2015

From time to time, on Internet radio shows or various discussions, I am accused of supporting Timothy McVeigh. This accusation has been leveled more frequently, of late, including from an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), in opposition to a series of articles I have been writing.

This recent case, consistent with some of the previous accusations, are responses born of the inability of the other side to offer any viable refutation to arguments I have set forth. This is most commonly known as argumentum ad hominem. It is more accurately and understandably described as, ‘if you can’t counter the argument attack the messenger’.

First, understand what I have said –that has been converted to a simple and blanket “support for Timothy McVeigh”. I have always said that I am supportive of McVeigh’s motivation for bombing the Murrah Building. After all, for the two years since Waco, as I traveled the country, I heard many patriots say that we should bomb a government building. I still stand behind that, though I always qualify that support, explaining that if it were my job to do, I would have done it differently. I would have bombed the building at night. However, McVeigh had to make the call, as it was his mission. And, though little known, he did explain why he bombed it in the daytime. He offers his explanation in an article he wrote, “An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh“, and goes into more detail in “Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building“.

I have also written my assessment of McVeigh and the bombing in “The Passing of the Torch“.

This most recent accusation, from an AUSA, someone who is “supporting” the FBI in the case he is prosecuting, brings to mind a consideration of who he “supports”.

There was an FBI sniper present at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in support of the government’s effort to put down a man, Randy Weaver, who had refused to turn informant for the government. This sniper, Lon Horiuchi, from just a few hundred feet away, managed to miss his claimed target and hit a mother, Vicki Weaver, holding her infant child in her arms, and killing her instantly. The Rules of Engagement, later determined to be unlawful, provided that snipers could shoot any male holding a firearm. Vicki was, without any doubt, not of the male sex — a fact easily determined through the sniper rifle scope.

RUBY RIDGE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, August 22, 1992
1) If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement [of surrender], deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.

Now, after the first murder by Horiuchi, the FBI continued to keep him on staff, an obvious act of support, and brought him to a scene where his skills could, again, be put to effective but illegal use. It was just a few months later that Sniper Horiuchi went to Waco, Texas, and participated in the killing of over 80 men, woman, and children, including one “coffin birth” and one unborn child.

Some were shot to death by sniper fire and others burned to death by fire started by the FBI or other government agents. (Note: Ron Cole and I found three sandbagged sniper positions, in May 1993.) However, he is assured a pension from his employment for the government, both military and FBI.

I am sure that the AUSA would support Lon Horiuchi, either tacitly, or openly, if asked to do so.

So, if I am to take sides in what is surely inevitable in this country, then I will be required to support either Lon Horiuchi, or, Timothy McVeigh. In weighing the intent behind the actions of both Horiuchi and McVeigh, I find that McVeigh did not specifically target children, while Horiuchi acted with depraved indifference to the presence of children, in both instances.

It is possible that the AUSA would never openly support Lon Horiuchi, though he will surely never damn him. The fact that Horiuchi is now comfortably retired lends credence to the supposition that both government agencies and personnel continue to overtly support Horiuchi.

I would like to extend my thanks to the AUSA for bring this subject to my attention. Absent his criticism, I might never have broached the subject.

Camp Lone Star – The World Turned Upside Down

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 28, 2015

I believe that the prosecutor, Ass. US Attorney William Hagan, in the K. C. Massey felon in possession matter, is worried. Why would I think that to be the case? Well, Massey recently sat with Mr. Hagan to discuss the upcoming trail. Hagen has some interesting, and rather desperate, thoughts.

We’ll start with the fact that the “has-had” argument (See Camp Lone Star — A Favorable Ruling?) seems to have put him on the defensive. He explained to KC that what he was doing by stopping or detaining illegals at the border was “in or affecting commerce” (from the felon in possession law, 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1). Interesting the illegally entering the country, and/or smuggling people, firearms, and drugs, is considered, by the Ass. US Attorney to be “commerce”.

So, what is commerce? Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines it as:

The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; buying, selling, and exchanging of articles. The transportation of persons and property by land, water, and air [for payment].

So, let’s put some perspective on this — from our own history. John Hancock, and many others, would buy goods at one port, outside of the colonies, and bring them into the colonies. Often, much of the cargo would be off-loaded prior to entry into the port and then the taxes would be paid only on that portion of the cargo that was declared. That portion was “in or affecting commerce”. But, what of the cargo that had been offloaded? Was it “commerce”, which is legal, or was it smuggling, which is illegal? Since they only had tariffs and other fees for the cargo that was off-loaded in port, it was “commerce” and had no criminal penalties associated with it.

However, those goods that were off-loaded elsewhere, well, were consider “smuggled contraband”, and were in no wise considered to be commerce. If the transporter were caught, he would lose the goods, his ship, and, perhaps, serve time in jail.

Commerce, then, is legal transporting. Smuggling is criminal, and is not, in the least, any aspect of commerce. If caught, the property is not transferred to the owner, or the purchaser. It is confiscated by the government, and then sold or destroyed.

So, does 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1) apply to legal transportation only, or does it apply to illegal transportation (smuggling), as well? If it also applies to smuggling, then we need to ask Mr. Hagen, and the government, why when they catch people entering illegal, with firearms or without, if they are in commerce, or not.

But, if we consider that the government doesn’t stop them, rather, they escort them to a bus or train station, sends them around the country to where they are not wanted, gives them our hard earned money so they don’t have to work, thereby rewarding them far better than those who wait, and abiding by the existing immigration laws, which are otherwise not enforced. Perhaps I am wrong, since government, apparently, considers smuggling to be “commerce”.

So, it could be rather confusing to those who think they know the law, as opposed to those who can read and comprehend the English language, and can differentiate between the meanings of words.

However, if we are a nation of laws, as we are led to believe, then should the precise wording of a law be the applicable interpretation? Or, have we become a nation subject to the rule of illiterate, or otherwise politically driven, prosecutors.

Let’s enter another interesting realm based upon the discussion between Massey and Hagen. Mr. Hagen states that Massey was not on the premises where he lived. Now, the discussion centered on whether the premises were the house – the building, or the property that the house was on. Black’s tells us that the estate, the premise, is “the land and buildings thereon”. So, here we have another discrepancy between the law (Texas Penal Code, Section 46.04) applicable in Texas, whereby Massey can posses a firearm, and the federal interpretation. Mr. Hagen says the house, the state law says the “premise”. This was discussed, absent the recent reinterpretation, in Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws.

But, that is not quite the point that we want to make. By Mr. Hagen even suggesting that Massey might have not been charged with a crime if he had been in his house, he also recognizes the validity of the state law. However, since Massey wasn’t in his house, then the feds can charge him with felon in possession (regardless of the wording of that law), because he is not in his house. Is the implication that Texas law would have applied, had Massey been in his house? If so, why would Texas law not apply if Massey were not in his house? And, if it did apply if Massey was not in his house, or on the premises, then it would still be Texas jurisdiction, since the Massey house is in Texas — and, if the feds can assume jurisdiction over any land in Texas, then can’t they also assume jurisdiction in Massey’s house?

Now, let’s visit one more part of the discussion that has to do with “erroneous” statements made during the hearing. This was discussed in a previous article, Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions Scene 2: To Detain, or Not to Detain? That is the Question.

Mr. Hagen told Massey that it didn’t matter if the “government agents lied, misspoke, or misrepresented the facts in their testimony, as long as the meat of the story is true”. Let’s see if we can put a perspective on this, and then digest it.

Government agents are trained to observe and report. Some of those agents referred to their notes during their testimony at the March 30, 2015 hearing (referenced in the above link). That hearing was, among other purposes, to justify the procedure used to detain Massey — to make sure that it satisfied the ruling on stops, detentions, searches, etc, based upon Supreme Court rulings. So, what they “misspoke, or misrepresented, in court, at that hearing, were simple “errors” that made what the did appear to be lawful, in accord with the Supreme court rulings, what might have been deemed unlawful, if the truth were told.

Now, if you or I were to lie, misspeak, or misrepresent, under oath, we would be criminal under the federal perjury laws:

18 U.S.C. § 1621: Perjury generally

Whoever – (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 1622: Subornation of perjury

Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

So, the three important questions are:

1. Was there any testimony on “any material matter” that might have lead to a different determination as to whether the stop, or detention, satisfied the Supreme Court rulings? (§1621)
2. Did Mr. Hagen know that the information provided by the witnesses was misspoken, misrepresented, or a downright lie? (§1622)
3. What would happen to you, or me, if we lied, misspoke, or misrepresented, any material matter, as they did at the hearing?

So, being a nation of laws, or so we are told, we can revisit the words of James Madison, in Federalist #62, when he said, “Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

If it is to be known, is it to be known in the language we all understand, or a cryptic language, lacking logic, where the government can change “in or affecting commerce” to the “commerce” of illegal entry and smuggling.

If the federal government recognizes Texas law, if someone is in his house, does not Texas law apply equally throughout Texas, unless the person is on federal land, having jurisdiction ceded by the state?

And, can the (public) servants lie to the master (people), with impunity, and the master be held to the rigid interpretation and application of the law, if he “lies, misspeaks, or misrepresents”?

The British, after the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, played an old tune, “The World Turned Upside Down”. It appears that the people need to begin playing that same tune.

Montana Malfeasance
Jesse Newsom and Writs of Assistance

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 22, 2015

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

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

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

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

The first listed item is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independence Day – July 4

In the Year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen
and of Our Independence, Two hundred and Thirty-Nine

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, 2015

Two hundred and thirty-nine year ago, a handful of men, expressing the sentiments that had already been expressed in over ninety similar declarations, committed to paper a consolidation of those documents that had preceded it, and the will of the people of the 13 British colonies of North America.

After over five years of combat, rag-tag farmers, fighting against the greatest military force in the world at that time, prevailed in a war they believed, with honor, to be “the right thing to do.”

Just about one hundred and fifty-four years ago, again, a test between those who believed that they were right was pitched against others who believed that they were right. The contest, this time, was between those who wanted to preserve a Union and those who believed that States had rights that could not be subordinated to a simple majority in opposition.

This war lasted less than five years, and the side that lost, though they had fought, with honor, because it was “the right thing to do.” And, the side that won also, fought with honor, because it was “the right thing to do.” However, the losing side forgiven by the winning, first at the surrender next by a general amnesty by President Lincoln, and finally, by amnesty granted by President Johnson, because that, too, was “the right thing to do.”

They were also recognized as an honorable foe by those who fought on the winning side, and most of the general population of the northern states, because it was “the right thing to do.” Among all, there was no animosity, except by a handful of those in Congress who chose to punish those who had done what they believed to be “the right thing to do.”

Eventually, Congress relinquished and allowed the punishment known as “Reconstruction” to expire, and we were, finally, whole, again. History recognized that both sides had done what they believed to be “the right thing to do.” And, the country continued to progress, in relative harmony, for another century. During that century, twice the United States was called upon to aid European nations, and to defend herself, because they believe it to be “the right thing to do.”

Since that time, we have started many wars, and we have lost all of them. Perhaps it is because we have left to the government the determination as to what “the right thing to do” is. It is not the will of the people, for they are simply encouraged to wave the flag.

It is the people that have allowed the representatives to become leaders, rather than our “representatives” to follow our will. And, we have allowed then to make the decisions that have lead our country to the despair, the distress that we now find ourselves living with.

For the first time since the end of World War II we find ourselves faced with the question as to just what we need to determine as “the right thing to do”, just as the Americans were called upon to do, in the past.

If we are seeking an answer, perhaps a single sentence from the Declaration of Independence, that first instance of having to determine what “the right thing to do” was, will provide the guidance that had since been lost:

But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.