Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

Tags: administrative agencies, Beecher, congress, Constitution, courts, de jure, definitions, fourth branch of government, government, history, law, Massey, militia, patriots, public, Resistance, sovereign, supreme Court
Category: Articles | 11 Comments

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

October 29, 2014, 8:14 pm

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

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 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:

Web site: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId:2900&dctmId=0b0003e88009debe
Email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov
Fax: 702-515-5023
Mail: BLM Southern Nevada District Office, Las Vegas/Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lee Kirk, RMP Team Lead, telephone: 702-515-5026; address: 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130; email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov.

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?”

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

Tags: administrative agencies, Agenda 21, Bundy, congress, Constitution, demonization, fourth branch of government, government, law, militia, Moral Values, patriots, public
Category: Articles | 12 Comments

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

October 26, 2014, 12:59 pm

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The 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,

Held:

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

Tags: administrative agencies, citizenship, Constitution, cops, courts, definitions, education, fourth branch of government, government, history, Honor, immigration, law, Massey, militia, Moral Values, patriots, public, Resistance, revolution, sovereign, supreme Court
Category: Articles | 12 Comments

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

October 23, 2014, 9:27 pm

“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.

(c)

(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:

***

(h)

(7)

(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

(a)

(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

Tags: administrative agencies, congress, Constitution, cops, courts, definitions, government, Honor, law, militia, patriots, public, supreme Court
Category: Articles | 2 Comments

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

September 8, 2014, 3:37 pm

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

No Bended Knee for Me

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 8, 2014

The Search Warrant has been made available, though the Arrest Warrant, if there ever was one, has not been produced. The Grand Jury Indictment is based upon first, demonization of Robert Beecher, then, on the evidence obtained from a search under a Search Warrant. Or, was it?

Understand that what you are about to read is not an uncommon occurrence in this country, today. You may well find yourself facing similar circumstances, under trumped up charges, or intentional misapplication of the law — as in this present instance.

This is going to be a difficult story to follow, since there are so many quirks and appearances of injustice, and impropriety, at least based upon the concept that we have been led to believe in — Innocent until proven Guilty.

We will break this down into six parts, though since we have no Grand Jury records, we can only discuss what went to the Grand Jury, not what they deliberated over. Those six parts are: Demonization of Robert Beecher; The Indictment; The Search Warrant; The Search; The Arrest; and, Possessing & Receiving.

Now, within this narrative, you will see what the government has presented to the Grand Jury, to obtain an indictment, and you will see what the Grand Jury did not see, that being the other side of the story.

Demonization of Robert Beecher

So, what did the government do to “demonize” Robert Beecher? In a “Full Investigation” opened on July 31, 2013, by FBI Special Agent Stanley H. Slater, (912) 764-6311 (Note: Call him at your own peril). The “investigation is being initiated based on Internet postings attributed to Beecher that indicate he is planning to commit violent acts toward federal government employees.” So, what someone said on the Internet is sufficient to open an investigation, unless, of course, you are a Negro and say “Kill Whitey”, or, a Muslim who says, “No Democracy, only Sharia law!” But, I digress.

From that investigation initiation report, we find:

Subjects Ryan Payne and Jerry Bruckhart are recruiting militia members throughout the United States to participate in a plan called “Operation Mutual Aid”. The plan calls for the kidnapping of a DHS agent in hopes of creating an incident that will cause other militia groups to take supportive action. Bruckhart has used the Internet to promote this plan and is the administrator of the Operation Mutual Aid website “operationmutualaidl.webs.com [no longer on line]”.

First, we’ll address something that my investigation has turned up with interviews with people who discussed that certain scenario. Some of them were associated with Operation Mutual Aid (OMA), others were not. At the time, it was discussed, fairly openly (on the Internet), and was not initiated by, or an objective of, OMA. I am still able to find reference to this activity, or bits of it, on the Internet. The scenario was that if DHS (or its subordinate agencies) were to clamp down and post roadblocks on all, or most, major highways, the objective was to “capture” a DHS agent and “escort” him to Washington and demand that the roadblocks cease, thereby proving that we could both “capture” and “escort” through the roadblocks, regardless of DHS’s efforts to control the people and their movement. It was an “IF” scenario. Though it may have been discussed on the OMA website (I found no reference there), it was not, by any means, within the Purpose of OMA, nor an OMA “operation”. The OMA Mission Statement has not changed since its inception, but the government seems to want it to be something other than what it really is.

Let’s look at the evidence that has, as you will see, been misrepresented to demonize Beecher to the Grand Jury. From alleged discussions on the then OMA website, the FBI cites the following, attributing them the Beecher, using the pseudonym “Stalker” (pseudonym confirmed):

“… I am ready to do what is necessary to remove this rogue government that has taken over our Country. I grew up Free and will die Free, I will never submit, or bend knee, to a corrupt government. Neither will I ask for mercy nor give it, once the Battle is joined.”

“The way I see it, to win this fight, we must fight like the insurgents. We must disable their communications and supply using hit & run tactics. There can be no more ‘I’m just doing my job’ passes given. We must destroy their support system which is the ‘little man’, without the ‘little man’ doing their jobs we can force the top to tumble, take their legs out from under them, so to speak. This means anyone working for the government. This would mean that anyone doing so would have to be mobile and willing to give up all comfort as they know it. A lot of 3-man Teams could accomplish what one large force couldn’t.”

Note that Beecher said, “…once the Battle is joined.”. Also note that there is nothing in the report that suggests kidnapping and torturing a DHS agent, as claimed in the court documents. Now, that is not a call for action, rather, a statement that he will defend the Constitution, if the government goes “rogue” — a reaction. Heck, if that is illegal, then they should be charging hundreds of thousands of people, if not many millions, who are apprehensive that government is approaching the level of “Despotism” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence — it is our “right” and “duty” to act to preserve our nation. After all, the oath to the Constitution that all military personnel take (Beecher served in the Army, 1971-73) pretty much requires that the Constitution be preserved. However, that doesn’t play well when you submit your “evidence” to a Grand Jury, seeking an Indictment.

Now, we all know that the government likes lists (I think it makes them feel like they are accomplishing something). It is their way of classifying us so that they know who, by their very words, might be extremely dangerous (unless a Negro or Muslim). On November 8, 2013, we find that the government has labeled Robert Beecher “Domestic Terrorism – Militia Extremist”. They have also entered him on the “Terrorist Screening Database” (TSDB) and the “Known and Suspected Terrorists” (KST) list. This, apparently, based upon the erroneous and grossly misrepresented information above. However, inclusion on those two lists surely plays well with the Grand Jury.

So, let’s continue reviewing the “excellent” work of those well-paid “Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity” people. In a report dated June 21, 2013, they provide even more “intelligence”, to wit:

FBI Salt Lake City identifies Robert M. Beecher as a possible associate/member of the West Mountain Rangers 41st Mountain Field Force militia group based out of Montana. This group has a plan identified as “Operation Mutual Aid” in which they want to kidnap a DHS agent in hopes of creating an incident which will cause other militia groups to take supportive actions.

Well, they knew that Beecher was working in Georgia, so I suppose they think he went to Montana on weekends to join a militia that is, well, only for Montanans.

So, if you want to go to a Grand Jury and get an indictment for a crime unrelated to the above, you surely want to get the above information before the Grand Jury, regardless of the veracity of the information, so that the Grand Jury will know, before they evaluate any other information, that Robert Beecher is a despicable person, ready to kidnap and torture government agents, though he never left home or the surrounding area, in Georgia, for the period from the original investigation (July 31, 2013) to the date of the Grand Jury Indictment (June 4, 2014). They claim he was part of a Montana Militia and was conspiring with people in Montana (Payne) and Pennsylvania (Bruckhart), in open forums on the Internet, to commit these evil deeds, though they offer no more tangible proof than what is mentioned above — that aren’t even charges in the Indictment. However, that is the foundation laid before the Grand Jury, to assure Indictment on far lesser, and as will be explained, bogus charges.

The Indictment

The Indictment, duly signed by the Grand Jury Foreman and four members of the Department of Justice, show us the heinous crime, if it is, in fact a crime (See discussion of Possessing & Receiving), the has been manufactured by three government employees (DOJ, FBI, and BATF):

COUNT ONE

(Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

Between on or about February 5, 2014, and February 15, 2014, in Tattnall County, within the Southern District of Georgia, the defendant,

ROBERT BEECHER,

who before that time had been convicted of a felony offense, an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, did unlawfully and knowingly possess, in and affecting commerce, a firearm, that is, one Marlin .30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294, which had previously been transported in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1).

COUNT TWO

(Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

On or about May 7, 2014, in Tattnall County, within the Southern District of Georgia, the defendant,

ROBERT BEECHER,

one Marlin 30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294,
one Remington .22 caliber rifle, Model 597, serial number A2666353, and
one Hi-Point .45 caliber pistol, Model MP, serial number 460571,

all of which had previously been transported in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1).

A TRUE BILL.

(PDF of Beecher Indictment)

Now, I have trouble understanding legalese, but I do understand words. So, if I read this carefully, I see that in both Counts, he is charged with possessing “one Marlin .30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294”. Except for the dates, the charges for that rifle are identical. So, we can conclude that dating the pictures (captions provided below) gave them, for Count One, dates of February 5 – 15, 2014, and for Count Two, May 7, 2014. So, if you get a Count for each occurrence of possession, why not give a Count for each day in between, if in fact Beecher did Possess such a weapon. This possession, however, will be discussed latter. However, we can conclude that the pictures played a role in the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury.

You might also note, for future reference, the phrase in both Counts, “did unlawfully and knowingly possess, in and affecting commerce, a firearm“. This, too, will play a very significant role in the subsequent discussion.

I will point out here that some of the court documents make a point of showing the expansive experience and training that some of the agents have acquired, over the years, which is used to conclude that the weapons in question were, in fact, manufactured in a state other than Georgia. Those same documents show that Jessi purchased the mentioned “Marlin .30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294”, which raises the question of possession, which will be addressed, later.

Search Warrant

Now, we move on to the “Affidavit in Support of Application for Search Warrant”. The information I have has no date on the Affidavit, though it is prepared by Special Agent Lorin Coppock, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF when they raided Mt. Carmel Church, Waco, Texas). He lists his experience, including Deputy Sheriff and BPS, and then begins presenting his “evidence”. He, apparently, had an informant who logged into Beecher’s Facebook account and then allowed investigators to view Beecher’s Facebook account and access the pictures on Beecher’s page. Though I don’t have the pictures, by the captions and other information in the Affidavit, Beecher is apparently seen in thirteen pictures holding, or near, a weapon (rifle or pistol). The Affidavit then describes both III% slogans and memes that are commonly circulating through Facebook, on hundreds of pages. There is also reference to “Molon Labe” (Come and Take It), which, as was explained above regarding his statements in the discussion on the OMA webpage, purely defensive. Then, as absolute proof of his nefarious activity, it shows that Beecher is a member of a Facebook group, “Central Ga Guns & Ammo Trader”.

SA Coppock then talks about his experience and knowledge that people who own firearms, hold them for “lengthy periods of time and store them in their residence or vehicle”. That is a rather interesting revelation.

Though the copy of the Affidavit that I have obtained had poor quality photographs, the captions are, in themselves, telling (underline, mine):

On February 15, 2014, Jessi Winkler posted a photograph to Beecher’s Facebook account. Winkler captioned the photograph “With Robert Beecher III”. The photograph is of Beecher sitting on a couch holding what appears to be a Marlin 336 rifle.
b) On February 15, 2014, Winkler posted another photograph of Beecher holding what appears to be the same rifle. In this photograph Beecher is outside leaning over a box-like structure in a braced firing position. The caption for this photograph is “Target practice-with Robert Beecher III”. Beecher added a comment to the photograph which reads “Best present ever. Im glad this was shot from the back or I’d have been embarrassed”
c) On January 7, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of a small child holding a candle standing next to what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “I light the candle, he blows it out. I just love a Saturday morning with him…” Beecher later added the comment “For the record: That is my Grandson’s (Aidan) .22 single shot rifle. Alex was dragging it by the sling earlier, its now secured…”
d) On February 18, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of two boys outside. One of the boys is holding what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle while the other is holding what appears to be a BB gun. Beecher captioned the photograph “10 year old shooting-in Riverridge, GA.”. Beecher later added the comment “1 let this one try a .20 gauge, He went back to the .22. This is the future…”.
e) On February 18, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of the same two boys. One of the boys is holding what appears to be a single shot Rossi rifle and the other is holding what appears to be a BB gun. Beecher captioned the photograph “More practice”. Clearly visible in the background of this photograph is a house that has been identified by your affiant as Beecher’s residence.
f) On October 20, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of a child holding what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle. One of Beecher’s “friends” posted a comment about the child’s finger ‘being on the trigger of the rifle when the photograph was taken. In response Beecher posted the comment “I corrected it. He checked to make sure it was unloaded after picking it up. That was a good sign he listens…”
g) On March 29, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a child sitting on a tree stump holding what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “Guard Duty”. One of Beecher’s “friends” posted the comment “CPS be looking into this, hope the kid has good aim! You teaching them right gpa!” In response Beecher commented “CPS will be stepping into a Hornet’s Nest they come out here telling me how to raise my Grandson…”
h) On April 26, 2013, Beecher posted a picture of three children in a wooded area. One of the children is holding what appears to be an AR-15 rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “Aldan took the rifle, fight time…-at Beechers.”
i) On April-26, 2013, Beecher posted another picture of the same child holding what appears to be an AR-15 rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “He won’t put it down. I never argue with a kid holding a rifle…-at Beechers.”
j) On March 31, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a baby sitting on the floor inside a house. In the corner of the room is what appears to be a scoped rifle leaning against the wall. Beecher captioned the photograph “Max hopes everyone has a Happy Easter”.
k) On April 29, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a baby sitting on the floor inside a house. Directly behind the baby is what appears to be the stock of a rifle or shotgun that is leaning against the wall.
l) On June 9, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a child leaning over a table looking toward the person taking the photograph. Beecher captioned the photograph “Papa. Papa. Papa. I want to shoot my gun.”
m) On April 5, 2014, Beecher posted a photograph of a young child inside a home next to a dining table. Hanging on one of the chairs at the table is what appears to be a shoulder holster containing a pistol. Beecher captioned this photograph “Someone came to play with Papa…”

Note the effort to instill concern because there are children around the firearms? I doubt that the Grand Jury would over-look this with an understanding that firearm safety should be taught at home, by family.

He then points out that two of the firearms he was able to identify in the photographs on the Facebook page, a Marlin rifle and a Rossi rifle, are not manufactured in Georgia. Now, it begins to get interesting, at least in context to timing of events. The Affidavit resulted in the issuance of a Search Warrant signed on May 6, 2014 at 2:32 P.M.

When Coppock describes the “Items to be Seized”, he begins with:

Based upon the aforementioned facts, I believe probable cause exists that the following items listed in Attachment B, which constitute evidence of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922 (g) (1) will be found at the location to be searched. The items listed in Attachment B constitute contraband, evidence and/or instruments of the aforementioned offenses. (Attachment B is the Affidavit, complete with pictures.)

Wait a minute! He said that he needed the warrant and to search for these items to provide “evidence… of the aforementioned [18 USC 922 (g) (1)] offenses. Doesn’t that imply that they need more than pictures to get an Indictment? They have to find proof that an “offense” has committed.

Well, if the Warrant was issued on May 6, at 2:32 P.M., and the Warrant was executed on May 7, 2014 “at approximately 2:00 P.M.” Then they didn’t have the evidence necessary to bring charges against Beecher until after they verified that the weapons actually existed as “evidence… of the aforementioned offenses.” The search was not completed until nearly 5:00 P.M.

However, Beecher was first detained at work on May 7, 2014 at about 3:00 P.M. (See “Arrest”, below) — before the Search was completed. It sure appears to any observer that there was a presumption of guilt the led to the arrest, and then an effort to find “evidence… of the aforementioned offenses.” Rather backward, and contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the concept of: “Innocent until proven guilty.”

Now, the Fifth Article in Amendment to the Constitution says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” “Held to answer” means arrested and charged with something that you will have to answer to, in court. However, the Indictment (for arrest?) was filed by the Grand Jury on June 4, 2014, though the arrest occurred on May 7. Further, there is no record of an Arrest Warrant ever having been issued. So, hasn’t the government got the cart before the horse? Or, perhaps more likely, “cart attached; horse to follow.” Or, is it possible that the FBI Academy (as well as the BATF equivalent) failed to include a course on the Constitution — “just take the oath, we know you know that the law is what you say it is”.

The Search

Robert lives in an RV parked on Cindy’s property. Cindy lives in a house on a 0.6-acre parcel. The address of the house is the address on the Search Warrant. Being divorced, they live separate lives, though they are still on friendly terms, occasionally playing cards, watching a movie, or playing with the grandchildren, most often at Cindy’s house. However, whether Cindy goes to Robert’s home, or Robert goes to Cindy’s home, the visitor is a guest in the home of the other. The only thing shared is the mail delivery address.

May 7, 2014 about 5:00 P.M. When Jessi arrived at her mother, Cindy’s, house [JL]:

The living room, kitchen, and bathroom were fairly decent, but the three bedrooms (the master, the kids’ room, and the guest room/computer room) were absolutely trashed. A window unit AC was lying on my mother’s bed, her bedspread torn off, jewelry dumped out, closets emptied. In the kids’ room, everything from the closet was strewn around, and the same with the computer room. I never went into the RV [Robert’s home] but my mother said it was destroyed as well. My husband and I cleaned up the shed [Cindy’s] ourselves, and it was a complete wreck.

No surprise that the government, in acquiring evidence of an atrocious crime such as holding a firearm, warrants such destruction of property that doesn’t even belong to Robert Beecher.

The Arrest

The arrest of Robert Beecher deserves a detailed explanation, both as how the government operates and as a lesson on what to expect if you are ever confronted by lying government agents. We will repeat some of the elements of the timeline, so that a proper perspective can be put on what went down. Timelined events are factual, based upon documents in my possession. My commentary will be in separate paragraphs. This information, except the FBI interview report, was not presented to the Grand Jury.

Note: Sources: JL=Jessi Letters to OPF; RL=Robert’s letters to OPF; FBI=FBI Interview report, other unattributed are from court records

May 6, 2014 at 2:32 P.M. – Search Warrant signed

May 7, 2014 at 2:00 P.M. – Search Warrant executed (search begun)

May 7, 2014 at about 3:00 P.M. – Beecher ‘detained’ by Agents Slater (FBI) and Coppock (BATF).

This is based upon letter from Jessi Winkler (Robert’s daughter) to OPF. Jessi has an accurate timeline based upon times logged on her phone. At 4:01 P.M. she received a call from her mother (Cindy, Beecher’s ex-wife) saying that Robert’s boss had called her and said that the FBI and BATF had taken Robert away about an hour before. There are no available government records to substantiate this. A letter from Robert [RL] to OPF explains that the agents informed him that he was “not under arrest, that they needed to talk about some things and asked if [he] knew Jerry Bruckhart at OMA” (See “No bended knee for me” – the Persecution of Robert Beecher).

Now, I know that sounds self-serving — to claim that he was told that he was not going to be arrested. This same “set-up” happened to Ron Cole, back in 1997. However, the FBI, in their own Interview Report [FBI], tell us:

Beecher was asked if there was anywhere else private to talk. Beecher suggested talking in the parking lot near the business and began to walk toward where SA Coppock’s vehicle was parked. SA Coppock suggested talking in his vehicle and Beecher agreed. SA Coppock sat in the driver’s seat, Beecher sat in the front passenger’s seat and SA Slater sat in the middle of the back seat. Once inside the vehicle SA Coppock advised Beecher that he was not put under arrest and was free to leave at any time.

However, again according to the FBI, this about two-thirds of the way into the printed interview [FBI]:

At this point in the interview Beecher noticed SA Coppock and a uniformed Toombs County deputy walking around the front of SA Coppock’s vehicle toward the passenger’s side. Beecher turned back around toward SA Slater and asked if he was going to be arrested. Beecher was informed that he was going to be arrested for being a felon in possession of firearms.

This portion of the interview occurred at Beecher’s workplace. Considering the amount of information discussed, that would probably come close to an hour after the original detention. They then left the Leprechaun Car Wash, in Vidalia and took Beecher to the Tattnall County Jail. This is about 20 miles and 23 minutes, according to Google Earth. That would put the arrival at the Jail, at earliest, at 4:00, though more likely about 4:30 (the record reflects very few times).

Once they arrived at the Jail, we find this in the interview [FBI]:

Beecher was led into the conference room of the Tattnall County Sheriff’s investigator’s office. Beecher was advised of his rights with a BATFE Advice of Rights and Waiver form. Beecher signed the form and agreed to continue talking with Agents.

So, Beecher signed the form AFTER they arrived at the jail. The form (ATF form 3200.4) does bear Beecher’s signature, and it is witnessed by BATF SA Coppock, who dated and signed the form as a witness, “5/17/14 3:03”. Beecher later commented that the time was in error (See May 7, 2014 at 4:37 P.M., RL), and we must agree with him. The original detention occurred, at best, no earlier than 3:00. Then we have the initial interview, conducted in SA Coppock’s car. Later, they went to the Tatnall Sheriff’s Office and then Beecher signed the waiver. At the earliest, around 4:00, more likely later. However, by making the “official record” show that it was signed about the time of the original detention (3:03), it would mean that everything discussed prior to the waiver could be included on the record, and fair game (“can be used against you”). However, considering the apparent low IQ of most government agents, lying both about not arresting Beecher and about when he signed the waiver, it is not difficult to understand that they were stupid enough to leave the proof of their perjury in the written evidence.

You should find it outrageous that the FBI (or any government agency) can lie to the people, yet they impose criminal penalties on the people, if they lie to the government agents (See 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally), the people can be fined and/or imprisoned, though the government agents are immune from such penalties.

Jessi, being closer to where Robert was taken, attempted to find where he was detained. She was told at both the Tattnall County Sheriff’s and the Reidsville Police Department that he was not being detained at either facility. After over half an hour, and numerous phone calls, Jessi found that Robert was being detained in a building behind the Sheriff’s Office. We can let Jessi’s words speak for themselves:

May 7, 2014 at 4:37 P.M. [JL]:

Jessi “drives up towards the Sheriff’s office. There are two buildings located behind it, and as she asks a deputy outside of one where the proper one is, he points to the second one and she sees two men standing outside of it [Agent Slater and Agent Coppock].”

At this point, I pulled up and parked outside the proper building, and the agents introduced themselves as soon as I exited my car. We spoke for about five minutes or so. They discussed Dad’s militia and patriot group ties, told me that he had “great historical knowledge” of the III% movement, and that they were hoping he could help them out. I asked them what the charge was and they mentioned the felon in possession of a firearm, and also a possibility of conspiracy. I asked them what kind of time that would bring, and Coppock told me that it was a maximum of 10 years. At that point, Agent Slater spoke up and told me that while he didn’t think my father was dangerous, and that he seemed more of a patriotic prepper, he also believed that my father knew people who were dangerous. He blathered on about how my father might not want to hurt people, but how he could let them know who would, and how those people were dangerous to the cause my father believes in.

I was told that if he would cooperate, and give them some solid information, that it could play in his favor. I asked them what he meant by that, and Coppock told me that since Dad was 60, had a clean record for the past two decades, and since none of the guns were high-capacity assault rifles, but rather hunting rifles, that he could be looking at a slap on the wrist. His expression and tone made it clear that nobody would push hard for hard time based on the rifles found. Slater told me that it would be helpful if my family and I would help pressure Dad into cooperating, to tell him that his grandchildren needed him to stay home. At this point, we went inside the building where I saw my father.

He was handcuffed, but he smiled and joked a little with me about the whole situation. I asked for permission to hug him, and when they gave it to me, I hugged him and whispered ‘What should we do?’ He told me to not say anything, that I didn’t know anything, and that the guns were a bullshit charge. This is when he first mentioned the threat to arrest me in a roundabout way because he said ‘I’m not going to let them do this to you.’ He told me not to tell anyone other than Sean [Jessi’s husband] and my sister for the next few days, until he had a better grip of what they were wanting and what was going on. I had about five minutes with him before two officers took him away to take him to Savannah.

The agents gave me his belongings in a large Ziploc bag, and again told me that we should pressure him into cooperating, and that he could walk away from this if he did. They also told me to keep his arrest quiet since he couldn’t provide valuable information if everyone knew he was arrested. I told them I wouldn’t say anything (since my father had instructed me not to), but that if they didn’t get my Dad out on bail fast it was a moot point since he is very active online, and people would notice his absence very quickly. They said they would see what they could do.

This is corroborated by Robert’s [RL] statement:

I was questioned about various people involved in different groups and organizations. I kept telling them I wasn’t familiar with the names, and that because I dealt with a lot of people in different parts of the country, some with the same first names, that I was unsure of who they were talking about. Again I was told that if I helped them that they would help me, that they could help me get released if I helped them. Around 4:30 they read me my Miranda rights. [This statements refutes Coppock’s time of 3:03]

The important thing for people to understand is that if they did this to me, how many others have been snatched and agreed to inform? Good people, but outside their limits dealing with lying ass federal agents?

Conveniently, however, there is no mention of an effort to “turn” Beecher into an informant, though they do admit to asking him about some groups and some individuals.

May 7, 2014 at about 5:03 P.M. – [JL] …two agents came into the building, and from their conversation it was clear that they had just returned from searching my mother’s house. They were basically asked by Slater/Coppock if there had been any problems with the search.

This would put the completion of the search well after 4:30. Recall that the Search Warrant was granted because “The items listed [if found] constitute contraband, evidence and/or instruments of the aforementioned offenses.” So, the earliest time that they could even begin to suggest that there was evidence of alleged crimes would be at the completion of the search, or at least 1 1/2 hours after he was first detained — without an arrest warrant. Now, let’s look at:

Receiving & Possessing

Though I addressed this aspect of the charges in “No bended knee for me” – the charge against Robert Beecher, seeing the Indictment and reading the Affidavit, gives us even more to contemplate.

The statute, 18 USC 922 (g) (1), clearly states that:

It shall be unlawful for any person… who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year… [1] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or [2] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or [3] to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Now, the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), is titled, 27 CFR 478.32 – Prohibited Shipment, Transportation, Possession, or Receipt of Firearms and Ammunition by Certain Persons:

No person may ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce, or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess any firearm or ammunition in or affecting commerce, who… [then lists elements that would preclude]”

Note the subtle difference between the two wordings. In Title 18, the shipping and receiving are separated by the “in or affecting commerce”. However, in 27 CFR, the wording ties the first (shipping) with the second (receiving), then goes on to “in or affecting”.

There is one more ‘writing’ that might tend to mislead. It is found in the Indictment, and most likely the chicanery of the US Attorney (probably AUSA Carlton R. Bourne, Jr.) in suggesting contrary to the law, itself, when they cite “Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon”, in a very general sense, in identifying the charges. Titles, however, are not laws. It is the specific wording of the law that makes an act criminal, or not. And, we know that the government would never, ever, lie or try to mislead us — or the Grand Jury.

So, let’s look at the pertinent definitions of the words used in the statute [definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition]:

Possess: (pertinent parts)
To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control; to have exclusive detention and control of; to have and hold as property; to have a just right to; to be master of; to own or be entitled to.

Possession: (pertinent parts)
The detention and control, or the manual or ideal custody, of anything which may be the subject of property, for one’s use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who exercises it in one’s place and name. Act or state of possessing. That condition of facts under which one can exercise his power over a corporeal thing at his pleasure to the exclusion of all other persons.

Receive: (pertinent parts)
To take into possession and control; accept custody of; collect.

Now, common sense, a rather rare commodity, can also come into play, here — though probably not to the well-paid public servants (Slater and Coppock), and the US Attorney that will be prosecuting this case. That common sense has to do with the concept that words have different meanings, or we wouldn’t need different words. (This subject was addressed, to some degree, in a previous article – ‘No bended knee for me’ – the charge against Robert Beecher.) However, we will broaden the previous discussion, so that we can understand what the intent of the law is, verses the application in this current matter.

The statute has three parts, each of which defines an activity that is “illegal” under the statute. The first part is “No person may ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce“. This says that a “felon” may not ship or transport in interstate commerce. Commerce is commercial enterprise, it is not a person moving, vacationing, or just traveling, between states. That is a right and is excluded from the even overly-broadened federal definition of commerce.

The next provision is “to possess in or affecting commerce“. This agrees with the previous provision in that it makes clear that the possession has to be “in or affecting”. One would have to be involved in commerce, or doing something that affected commerce, to satisfy this provision. The relationship would have to be direct. Simply because the firearm were transported, in commerce, at some prior, or subsequent, date, does not affect the person that possess a firearm totally unrelated to the commercial aspect of its transportation.

Finally, we arrive at “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce“. This might appear to be inclusive of the receipt of a firearm or ammunition that had, somewhere along the line, been shipped in interstate commerce — unless we look at the word “receive”. By the definition of receive, “to take into possession and control; accept custody of; collect”, it appears that it must be tied to the transporting, as in that instance, one would collect or take into possession. Could it be that one would have to trace the entire history of the firearm before he acquired it, to assure that it had not, ever, entered interstate commerce (which would include leaving the state of manufacture and then returned to that state, via commerce in either direction), before you could rest comfortably in acquiring a new firearm? It is insane to think that one would have to trace the entire history of a firearm, and failing to do so could result in imprisonment for years. However, it is understandable, though perhaps not constitutional, to prohibit felons from involving themselves in the exercise of transporting, carrying, or receiving, directly, through interstate and foreign commerce.

Although one may “have exclusive detention and control of; to have a just right to; to be master of; to own or be entitled to” does not mean that it applies to possession other than in commerce. If one were to avoid the application of this law, he would have to purchase only firearms and/or ammunition that was manufactured within the state where he resided. If one, the other, or nether, were manufactured in his state, he would be denied the right that is protected by the Second Amendment, and denied what another, in another state, is not denied. That is not an equally applied law — equal justice under the law.

The problem is compounded if he chooses to move, for whatever reason, to another state. Property that he might have lawfully (federal law) owned in one state would, upon crossing the state line, make him a criminal as he entered the next state — if such a move were deemed “commerce”. It would deny him the protection provided for in Article I, §2 of the Constitution, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” His privilege to own a firearm would, instantly, be denied, and immunity from prosecution would, simply disappear.

Conclusion

What we might want to consider, however, since they were not going to arrest Beecher, and the warrant was to get evidence to support the possibility of a crime, we might deduce that the decision to arrest was a result of the interview. First lesson, do not talk to officials. They will lie about when you signed your waiver of Miranda, and can, since cops never lie, use everything that they learned from you, against you. During the course of the interview, Beecher admitted that he had some guns. Was that the kicker that allowed them to arrest, without the vital evidence sought via the warrant? Quite often, if they can get you relaxed, you might be surprised at just what you might say without realizing that you have given something that you should not have — and that might be misconstrued, resulting in a possible conviction — just because you thought you might be able to talk your way out of it.

The other possibility rests on the arrest, which appears to have been preplanned, was a result of the pictures — sufficient in their mind to determine guilt. What can be determined by a picture showing someone holding a firearm? Does it prove possession, or receipt? Or, is there something else that just might be the truth of the matter? Suppose you have gone shopping with your wife (or any other person) and they ask you to hold their purse while they, say, hold a blouse up to see what it might look like on them. Do you “possess” the purse? Or, are you simply holding it? Suppose that someone said, “look at this rifle I got for Christmas”. They hand it to you. Do you possess it, or receive it, or are you only holding it to observe it?

Compare these circumstances with the intent of the law, using the legal definitions, not the everyday definitions we might attribute to those words. The law is based on specific definitions for specific words. It has to be that way, as our use of language often doesn’t warrant the specificity that the correct interpretation of a law does. If having something in your hands, in a temporary situation, whether holding the purse or looking at someone’s new toy constitutes the legal definition that sets the standard to justify indicting someone for an alleged crime, then it would be a crime. However, if it does not meet that standard, then, surely, no crime has been committed.

However, if we look at this whole situation in context, it appears that the entire effort of the government was to turn Robert Beecher into an informant (See Informants Amongst Us?), as they tried to do with Randy Weaver — costing the lives of a U.S. Marshall, Randy’s wife and 14 year old son. Then we need to determine that that definition of Despotism that was written into the Declaration of Independence has been fully met by the current government, and that the solution is not in government, rather, in the hands of We the People.

Government should not be theoretically defensible,
it should be the object of general acceptance.

“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” – No Speedy Trial – Just Punishment

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

Tags: administrative agencies, Constitution, cops, courts, demonization, fourth branch of government, government, informants, jury, law, militia, patriots
Category: Articles | 3 Comments

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

September 5, 2014, 12:19 pm

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 5, 2014

One question that is often asked of me, when the discussion involves the Bundy Affair is, “Was Cliven Bundy in charge of the militia?” Though it has been addressed, to some degree, in my previous writings on the incident in Nevada, many still have not grasped it.

So, let’s look at what happened when the entire matter went public. Cliven Bundy, the patriarch of the family, went public with a request for help and support from anyone who saw that the federal government was being unfair. This wasn’t new, since back in 1993, large numbers of people had gone to the ranch in support of the Bundys, in opposition to the aims of the federal government.

In 1993, the grazing fees were raised. Bundy refused to pay the increased fees, for a number of reasons — primarily that the fees were not going back into grazing land improvements, which was supposed to be the primary expenditure for the money raised by those fees. He was, however, willing to pay the old fee rate to Clark County, though they refused to accept them. Hundreds of people went to the Ranch in support of Cliven’s resisting what was apparently an effort to terminate grazing on public lands. Among those who put out the call, at the time, was Lou Epton, a popular radio host in Las Vegas. Lou even went to the Ranch, in support of Bundy.

Two federal judges, Senior District Judge Lloyd D. George (July 9, 2013)and Judge Larry R. Hicks (October 8, 2013) signed orders enjoining Bundy’s “trespass cattle” from grazing on “new trespass land” and allowing the BLM to “arrest” those “trespass cattle” if they grazed on the Trespass land. What the judges failed to recognize is that, first, cattle don’t read very well, and, second, that if the cattle were “arrested”, for any use to be made of them, they would require both Cattle Health certification and Brand certification, both of which, by law, require the signature of the owner of the cattle. Absent Bundy’s signature, transportation into another state, auction, even slaughterhouses, would have to violate the law by receiving the cattle. This made the BLM and the judges complicit in criminal activity — an oft-overlooked consequence of trying to rustle cattle, in this modern age.

Well, what worked in 1993 might also work in 2014. So, when the BLM began their effort to “rustle” the Bundy cattle, Cliven put out a call for supporters to came, as they had twenty years before, and stand against the chicanery of government.

Among those that heard the call, were Jerry Bruckhart and Ryan Payne, both of Operation Mutual Aid (OMA). Ryan arrived on April 6 and met with Cliven. He offered his services to act as a liaison and coordinate activates of militia members from around the country, who might arrive in support of Bundy’s position of defiance against irrational federal activity. Cliven made clear to Payne that he was not calling up the militia, nor was he encouraging them to help. He was only seeking support by anyone who was willing to contribute their time and effort.

The volunteers who answered the call can be classed in four different categories: Local supporters who were concerned over the intrusion of their community by an onslaught of armed federal agents; cowboys from the area who were willing to stand in defense of Bundy’s rights; Other supporters, many from other states, who felt that the government was, once again, acting contrary to the Constitution and against the people; and, Militia members, again many from other states, being willing to stand, armed, against government aggression — though only in a defensive posture.

Each of the groups decided what they wanted to do, often coordinating with another group. On April 12, 2014, all of the groups worked in concert to achieve the now famous “cattle unrustling”. It was not coordinated from above — by Cliven Bundy. On the contrary, throughout the entire event, he was unaware of much of what occurred, until reports came back of an incident. He simply had faith that those who came to support him would do so in a lawful and peaceful manner.

This doesn’t mean that some of his children and close friends were not working with others. How could you not do what you could to help such fine people as Cliven and Carol Bundy, whether related, or not. Consequently, there was a degree of coordination between groups, as they were all there for the same purpose. And, there were members of the family that were aware of what was going on, from day-to-day, though they never sought advice from, nor apprised Cliven, of what was going on — only reported things that had happened.

So, go back to the beginning question. There were essentially two militia groups. One was off the Ranch on public lands, this group providing a defensive perimeter — to insure that the BLM agents did not enter the Bundy property — which was not authorized by either court order. The other militia unit was detached from the militia and took a role, as individuals, to protect the immediate family, at the Ranch. They were not acting as militia, rather as a Personal Security Detail. They remained on the property and near the house, wary of the government, especially in light of incidents including Donald Scott, Vicki Weaver, David Koresh, and others who had managed to bring the lethal wrath of government upon them. However, Cliven didn’t control them any more than the President controls the Secret Service. Each have their job to do, and each will do all within its power to fulfill its mission.

The method of relationship established between the militia and the owner of the proper, in this incident. resulted in the making the establishment of such a relationship a principal element of the Organizational Plan for Militia Response, as a guideline in any future incident.

So, it’s time to put to rest the idea that Cliven Bundy was the Commanding Officer of the militia. It is much more reasonable to understand that Cliven Bundy was subject to the effect the militia had on the situation. It was independent, and only had a liaison with Bundy so that each would know what the other was doing, to the degree that there might be conflict between the two. It might best be said that Cliven was relying on Divine Providence, and, the militia was, also, relying on Divine Providence.

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 – The Revenge of the BLM

Tags: administrative agencies, Constitution, courts, de jure, demonization, government, militia, organization, patriots, Resistance, sovereign
Category: Articles | 7 Comments

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

August 22, 2014, 10:03 pm

Liberty or Laws?
Appeasement

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 23, 2014

Last October (29, 2013), I wrote an article on “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“. In that article, I addressed the appeasement, by the government, regarding both foreign and domestic matters.

At the time, it had not crossed my mind that we have a choice between “Liberty or Laws”, only that we had to try to change what was happening – though the methods of achieving that end varied, greatly. This current series, however, delves into the supposition that the country belongs to us, not the government. Not really a strange concept, as it was that very way of thinking that led to the Revolutionary War — that the country, in fact, belongs to the people of that country — that when government violates the trust, the people will either accept the condition, or the will take back that government. This concept is embodied in the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

What happens, then, when the people continue with a doctrine of appeasement with government? Can there be any justification for such doctrine, and, if so, at what point in the invariable course of government do we determine to do our duty — for the sake of our posterity?

So, perhaps we should look at just how we are appeasing the government:

The Constitution provides that only Congress can declare war (Art. I, §8, cl. 11), though we have allowed both the President and Congress to engage in war, without a requisite declaration. Over time, it has become the “prerogative” of the President to engage in war, absent an objection by the Congress. The provision in the Constitution was so placed so that the power and expense of war would not lie in the hands of one man.

The Constitution provides that only Congress call forth the militia to repel invasion (Art. I, §8, cl. 15), though Congress has failed to do so repel the invasion, in violation of existing laws regarding immigration, which can be described as no less than an invasion. If Congress called them forth, the President would be Commander in Chief but the obligation to utilize them to repel invasion could not be detracted.

The Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to become a benefactor, taking money from those that justly earn it to give to those unwilling to earn their own livelihood. This has historically been an act of private people and organizations, and to some degree, within the local community (Not Yours To Give). It was never mandatory, until the government decided to buy the favor (chicken in every pot) of a class of people.

The supporters of the Constitution, in addressing at least five of the state ratifying conventions, explained that “direct taxes” would only be imposed in an emergency (to pay for war, or other extraordinary events – See “Ratification” by Pauline Maier). Instead, we pay a minimum of 1/5th of our earnings directly to government. This does not include the taxes paid prior to purchase of an item by every person involved in the production of the item — compounding the true tax paid. “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance” (Declaration of Independence).

The First Amendment mandates that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion“. This means that they cannot set one church above others (and, to Framers, Christianity was the acceptable religion, the various denominations being the object of the Amendment). However, by administratively creating and forcing churches into 501(c)(3) status, then limiting what they could include within their sermons (except Muslim churches), they have “established” a religion that has no moral values, and allowed another to espouse values foreign to our nature, without consequence.

The Constitution makes no provision for the control of education of the children of the People. Public Education belonged, for over 180 years, to the public, not the government. The Department of Education was created in 1867, under Reconstruction), though abandoned after a year of existence. Its purpose, at the time, was to “educated” southern children to Northern values. It was reconstituted in 1953 as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and has become a source of absolute and arbitrary control over the education process throughout the country, in a form of indoctrination which exceeds anything ever imagined by Adolph Hitler, as a tool of government propaganda, to the point that basic skills have nearly been removed from the curriculum and social engineering programs have replaced them as the focus of the educational system.

With the recent militarization of police, and the ongoing efforts to restrict and outlaw gun ownership, we find that we are fast approaching absolute subjugation to government authority. We are far worse off than our English ancestors in the mid-seventeen-hundreds, when in Parliament, William Pitt said:

“The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all of the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement“

And, we find that concerns that are recorded in our document of Independence from despotic government included within its concerns:

“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us… For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states” (Declaration of Independence).

For the sake of brevity, I will leave you to add your additional concerns regarding the intentions of government.

The question arises, do we stand for our Liberties, or, do we abide by fabricated laws? To continue on the path we walk renders us as guilty of appeasement as was Chamberlin prior to World War II, and our own government is today, as addressed in “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“.

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

Appease
v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

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

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

Tags: administrative agencies, congress, Constitution, cops, courts, de jure, economy, education, government, history, Military, Moral Values, patriots, public, Religion, sovereign, Taxes, violence
Category: Articles | 1 Comment

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

August 9, 2014, 6:39 pm

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 10, 2014

If a crime is being committed, and you assist in that criminal activity, you are guilty of a crime. If you aid someone who has committed a crime, assisting them in the completion of that crime, you have committed a crime. Of these two statements, there can be little doubt of those conclusions — that to act, in any way, in the commission or completion of a crime, is criminal. So, let’s look at some crimes that some federal and state officers, and, yes, even many border patriots, are guilty of.

8 USC § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)

(A) Any person who –

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

***

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

***

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs –

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

***

(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs –

(A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or

(B) in the case of –

(i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,

***

(4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if –

(A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;

(B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and

(C)

(i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or

(ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.

(b) Seizure and forfeiture

(1) In general

Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a) of this section, the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.

So, “any person who, knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, or, “engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts“, or, “aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished…”

As far as punishment, any person who commits those named crimes “shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs…” That is for “each alien”.

Punishment can be from one to 10 years, fines, and seizure of property (Asset Forfeiture), and a criminal record, precluding future ownership of firearms.

If you read the entire statute (presented above), you will find that there are even a few more “enhancements” that can rack up even more penalties.

Well, if that hasn’t awakened you, let’s continue:

42 U.S. Code § 264 – Regulations to control communicable diseases

(a) Promulgation and enforcement by Surgeon General

The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.

(b) Apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals

Regulations prescribed under this section shall not provide for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals except for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, or spread of such communicable diseases as may be specified from time to time in Executive orders of the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General.

(c) Application of regulations to persons entering from foreign countries

Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, regulations prescribed under this section, insofar as they provide for the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals, shall be applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.

(d) Apprehension and examination of persons reasonably believed to be infected

(1) Regulations prescribed under this section may provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and

(A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or

(B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. Such regulations may provide that if upon examination any such individual is found to be infected, he may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes, in addition to the several States, only the District of Columbia.

(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualifying stage”, with respect to a communicable disease, means that such disease—

(A) is in a communicable stage; or

(B) is in a precommunicable stage, if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals.

(e) Preemption

Nothing in this section or section 266 of this title, or the regulations promulgated under such sections, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States), except to the extent that such a provision conflicts with an exercise of Federal authority under this section or section 266 of this title.

Now, when it comes to communicable disease, the discretion is left with the Surgeon General, though we have not been informed of any proactive decision that would protect us from the infestations coming across the border. We do find that our hands are tied, since subsection (b) states that this section, “shall not provide for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals.” Wow, a law with no teeth, unless the President provides such teeth. Interesting that Congress abrogated their responsibility in providing protection for communicable diseases crossing the border, especially, illegally.

However perhaps we do find some salvation subsection (e), “Nothing in this section…, or the regulations promulgated under such section, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States).” So, if a state has a quarantine law, these statutes would not supersede it. It seems like some emergency legislation in the Border States is in order.

So, we can see that “Laws” make criminals out of anybody that aids and abets the commission of the crime of allowing illegals gain entry into the country. Though we know that the feds have yet to enforce that provision, it is quite possible that they could choose to apply that law selectively, disregarding such criminal activity on the part of state officials, but enforce it against patriots who are attempting to ease the burden on the overworked state and federal officials. And the punishment could even exceed what one might get for manslaughter or second-degree murder.

When it comes to aiding people illegally entering the country, and bringing with them communicable diseases, it is possible that the Surgeon General and/or the President have created rules that would make assisting them into the country a criminal act, though it, too, would probably only be enforced against patriots. Even without consideration of the implications, if such rules exists, is the disfavor of the American People for assisting in getting these diseased border crossers into the hands of the federal government so that they can be fairly distributed throughout the country, for maximum effect.

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #57:

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?

Can we even begin to rely upon the self-serving laws promulgated by the Congress, or even worse, Congress abrogating legislative authorities, and turning them over to the Executive Branch of government? Or, can we determine, for ourselves, using just a little common sense, what is necessary to stop both the invasion and the communicable diseases coming across our Southern border?

We (We the People) did create this government, and we have every right to assume, for ourselves, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment

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

Do we determine that the ultimate power lies with us, the people, or that we are subject to the laws, no matter how ridiculous or impractical, when they are made in violation of the intent of the Constitution?

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Tags: administrative agencies, assimilation, congress, Constitution, de jure, fourth branch of government, government, immigration, law, militia, patriots, security
Category: Articles | 2 Comments

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

July 24, 2014, 5:00 pm

Liberty or Laws?
Treason Against the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 24, 2014

Discussions regarding Treason are a common subject in the patriot community. Most often, if not always, they refer to the provision in the Constitution that defines Treason against the United States, specifically, Article III, §3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

This requires a specific act, not a general presumption. It also requires either “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Now, there has not been any “levying War” against them since World War II. Nor, surprisingly, have we (The United States) had any “Enemies” since then.

The matter of enemies came up in a Supreme Court decision (Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1) in that era when German soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes, came ashore and plotted to destroy infrastructure. In the Court establishing jurisdiction, they made clear that Congress had, in fact, declared war against Germany. This made Quirin and the other defendants “Enemies”. However, these elements only apply to the federal government, as the Constitution is the document that created that body. Treason then, according to the Constitution, only applies to enemies of the government created thereby.

However, as in the previous articles dealing with repelling invasion (Militia in Defense of the State) and militia (Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor), we must look in a different direction than just the federal Constitution.

In October 1776, Connecticut passed “An Act for the Punishment of High Treason and other atrocious Crimes against the State. It read, in part,

“That if any person or persons belonging to or residing within this state and under the protection of its laws, shall levy war against the state or government thereof, or knowingly and willingly shall aid or assist any enemies at open war against this state or the United States of America by joining their armies or by enlisting or procuring or persuading others to enlist for that purpose or shall form or be in any way concerned in forming any combination, plot, or conspiracy for betraying this state or the United States into the hands or power of any foreign enemy, or shall give or attempt to give or send any intelligence to the enemies of this state for that purpose, upon being convicted shall suffer death.”

Even though the Constitution was over a decade into the future, the separation/distinction between Connecticut state government and the national government was clearly expressed. One could commit Treason against Connecticut and not commit Treason against the United States, and vice-versa. Is it also possible that “the United States of America” could commit Treason against Connecticut, or vice-versa? After all, this enactment was to make criminal the support of the British government that had just been ousted.

The defining aspects of Treason, under this act, are far more extensive than those in the Constitution, and the requirement for two witnesses to the act, or “Confession”, are not imposed upon the need for conviction.

Had the United States of America, after that enactment favored the British, then Connecticut was totally within her authority to levy charges anyone from the United States of America with Treason. So, we have the same layering of jurisdiction on Treason that we have for the militia and repelling invasion. Since Connecticut was, in a sense, a lesser player (subordinate to the Continental Congress), and still had the authority to charge those above with Treason, if they committed the acts described, then we must also assume that the authority for such has come from the people of Connecticut, as they created the government of their choosing.

Of course, the consequence of charges of Treason against employees or agents of the federal government is grounds for potential armed conflict, unless handled politically, it is, surely, a possibility, should the federal government be determined to be aiding an enemy of a State. The State, however, does not have the requirement for Declaration of War by the Congress as a part of its limitations. Its perception of “enemy” does not fall within the constraints and limitations imposed upon the federal government. Nor, should the people of a state be required to abide by those constraints to determine whether someone is guilty of Treason. Our effort is not to arrest and try them. It is to understand the perspective of those who have seen so many violations of not only the federal Constitution, but the constitution of their own state.

For a more thorough understanding of the relationship between the people of any government, especially one such as ours, of the people, both state and federal, I would suggest an article on the subject, Sons of Liberty #14.

The final determination as to whether we have Liberty or are subject to laws foreign to our constitutions, resides wholly in our determination whether the governments are abiding by the documents that created them, or not.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion