Camp Lone Star – Pressure Cooker of Just Us

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 24, 2015

A pressure cooker was used to make the bombs used in the Boston Marathon Bombing. However, besides cooking, there appears to be another form of pressure cooker used by the government. Pressure cookers use steam to build up pressure to increase the rate at which something cooks. It changes the normal conditions to conditions that have a more rapid effect on what is being, well, pressure-cooked.

KC Massey was returned to jail for violating his (innocent until proven guilty) pre-trial release conditions (Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction). Prior to his pre-trial release, he had been held at Willacy Federal Detention Facility, and was placed in a solitary cell. After the violation, he was sent to a County Sheriff’s facility, Carrizales Rucker Detention Center, under federal authority. Again, he was placed in solitary confinement.

In solitary confinement, he has no exercise privileges, unless they decide to let him out of his cell. He had, while at Camp Lone Star, been active on patrols and had gotten plenty of exercise. However, his confinement and the poor quality of the food have had detrimental affect on his health. He suffers from kidney problems and was recently diagnosed with early stages of congestive heart failure.

So, why is he, not having yet been convicted, and only charged with a crime that is not violent in nature, treated worse than the many real thugs in jail, whether under either federal or local charges?

A couple of weeks ago, KC told me that another prisoner, a trustee, had told him that he was in solitary confinement because of his affiliation with Aryan Brotherhood. This was a surprise to KC, and, as he explained to me, he has never supported them and has often been critical of Aryan Brotherhood.

Just a few days ago, he asked Sgt. Campbell, one of the detention officers, if he would look in his (KC’s) file to see if it did say what he had been told. Sgt. Campbell responded, I don’t have to look, I know. The US Marshall Service put Aryan Brotherhood Affiliation on the outside of your jacket [folder].” So, KC is in solitary confinement because the US Marshall Service can lie, just to punish KC, because they, or someone above them, wants to punish him.

Through a fabrication, the pressure on KC to submit, psychologically and physically, to the pressure that was being applied to the cooker, had begun.

KC had been offered a plea agreement, plead guilty to one county and five years in prison, but stoically refused this offer, knowing that he was right and was not guilty of any crime.

Over time, I could hear and sense the frustration over the solitary confinement. His mood was quite often very low, and much of our conversation was an effort to boost his morale and to stand firmly behind his beliefs.

Within days of Sgt. Campbell explaining why he was in solitary confinement, and with just a few days to go before his trial, the government comes back, through KC’s attorney, with a new offer – Guilty to one count and he was told it would be three years in prison, by his attorney.

However, this offer came with additional information. They had been monitoring all of his phone calls, they had reviewed all of the text messages on his cell phone, they had gone over every post on his Facebook pages, and, had reviewed all of his radio shows. If he did not plea and the case went to trial, they would go after everybody that was named in any of the information gathered, if there was any chance of prosecution. They would also go after his wife, Khristi, who had bought an AK 47 that KC was charged with possession of, notwithstanding that under Texas law, there was no illegality to the purchase or to allowing KC to use her firearm.

This is the same tactic that they used against Robert Beecher (Who Does the Patriot Fight For?) to secure a plea agreement, rather than the government taking the rather risky task of trying to convince a jury that the government acted above board in their persecution of Beecher.

This morning, KC apparently stood his ground. He was willing to plea No Contest (nolo contendre), take the 3 years, however, his unwillingness to agree to their plea bargain offer, and finding that there was no specification on the three years, has result in the trial NOT being held today at 1:30 PM, but is put off until the end of September.

So, why did they schedule this second trial, and then cancel it? Well, both Sorola, KC’s attorney, and KC began talking jurisdiction (Massey & The Clash of Laws), this morning, in front of the Judge. Sorola pointed out that KC had brought up the jurisdictional matter back with his first attorney, Ed Cyganiewicz. Judge Hanen, favoring KC’s side, allowed for the September date to hear additional arguments, including a challenge to jurisdiction. Hagen resisted, but the Judge had made his decision.

Hagen, the prosecutor, seemed upset that KC would not plea, arguing that he has been made plea offers, and has refused to take them. The only other conceivable reason is that the trial is something that Hagen does not want. They want KC to plead guilty, period.

I will add, however, that KC called me as soon as he got back to jail from the hearing. He is exuberant, and he said that he feels that God is on his side, as this critical argument of Tenth Amendment State Rights, is going to get its day in court. He is more excited and up beat than he has been, in many months — even though it is another month in solitary. He feels that his suffering will have the appropriate reward, in the end.

This, my friends, is what Justice has become, in America. No trail, we will punish you until you agree that you are guilty, then we will imprison you, and you will carry that “conviction” with you, the rest of your life. But, KC intends to beat the system, and get out of the pressure cooker with only minor burns.

Camp Lone Star – Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 20, 2015

The entire “Felon in Possession” federal law is hinged on Commerce. From its inception, it has been enforced by taxation, since the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is an agency of the U. S. Treasury department.

We are dealing specifically with 18 U.S. Code 922 (g):

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person – [conditions omitted]

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.

We are going to delve into the purpose of commerce, as defined by the Constitution. We can also wonder why someone charged with “felon in possession” is not taxed; instead, he is determined to be a criminal. We will start with some historical background.

Role of the Federalist Papers

James Madison, fourth president (1809-1817), and recognized as the “Father of the Constitution”, for his role in drafting as well as arguing for ratification, is the best single source for an understanding of the intent and purpose of the Constitution and the government created by that Constitution.

The Federalist Papers, being the arguments that led to ratification of the Constitution, have been used in legal justification to support, and to overturn, laws enacted by Congress. After all, the intent of the Constitution, as laid out in the Federalist Papers is what the American people, through their respective state conventions, relied upon as the original intent of the Framers, and therefore, must be what the Constitution truly means, wherever any ambiguity exists.

There are many hundreds of U.S. Supreme Court decisions where the Federalist Papers were cited in arguing and/or deciding decisions before that court. If the Federalist Papers, those words by Hamilton, Jay, and especially Madison, supported a decision, it was so supported. If they were inconsistent with an enactment, then the enactment was overturned.

An example of the strength of original intent might be demonstrated with an example. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Lopez argued that the federal law regarding “gun free school zones” was outside of the scope of authority granted to Congress by the commerce clause, “The Congress shall have Power…[t]o regulate Commerce… among the several States…” (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, and in so doing, said [at 457-458]:

The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. As James Madison wrote, “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45. This constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.

The decision removed from enforcement the federal gun free school zone law, as a determination of that nature resided solely with the state, by those powers not granted to the federal government, rather, retained by the state government.

In another instance, Alden et al. v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), this case dealt with the sovereignty of a American state government, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court:

… Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: “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.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10.

The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the Nation’s primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States “form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39.

Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation’s rejection of “the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States” in favor of “a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people–who were, in Hamilton’s words, `the only proper objects of government.'” (quoting The Federalist No. 15). In this the founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had “exploded on all hands” the “practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies.” The Federalist No. 20.

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015), with Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment, said:

When a party properly brings a case or controversy to an Article III court, that court is called upon to exercise the “judicial Power of the United States.” Art. III, §1. For the reasons I explain in this section, the judicial power, as originally understood, requires a court to exercise its independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws.

Those who ratified the Constitution knew that legal texts would often contain ambiguities. As James Madison explained, “All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal . . . .” The Federalist No. 37.

One of the key elements of the Federalists’ arguments in support of the allocation of power to make binding interpretations of the law was that Article III judges would exercise independent judgment. Although “judicial independence” is often discussed in terms of independence from external threats, the Framers understood the concept to also require independence from the “internal threat” of “human will.” The Federalist No. 78, “The judiciary . . . may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment . . . “. Independent judgment required judges to decide cases in accordance with the law of the land, not in accordance with pressures placed upon them through either internal or external sources. Internal sources might include personal biases, while external sources might include pressure from the political branches, the public, or other interested parties.

Necessary and Proper

Article I, §8, clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This clause is worthy of additional consideration. What may be necessary and proper for the function, and the fulfillment of the duties, of the federal government is, without question, within the realm of the intent. That comes under the portion which states, “the foregoing Powers”, meaning those enumeration within Article I, §8.

Next, we have to consider, “all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government”. Here, we can consider whether a “Power” exists, and whether, without express authority, the government can properly assert that “Power”. For example, Article II, §2 provides that the President is “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”. clearly, laws enacted to facilitate that function are within the scope of the intent of clause 18. So, too, would be laws that set forth the operation of other functions within the various “Departments or Officers”, though the existence of those Departments and Officers must, by their creation, be consistent with the Constitution.

Now, here comes a stickler. The Preamble to the Constitution provides a description of the purpose of the Constitution and the government it created:

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

Let’s look at some adjectives (Definitions from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, the words as understood by the Founders):

establish: To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently. To found permanently; to erect and fix or settle; as, to establish a colony or an empire.

insure: To make sure or secure.

provide: To procure beforehand; to get, collect or make ready for future use; to prepare.

promote: To forward; to advance; to contribute to the growth, enlargement or excellence of any thing valuable, as, to promote learning, knowledge, virtue or religion.

secure: Free from fear or apprehension of danger.

(1) To set or fix firmly or unalterably a form of Justice; (2) To make sure that there is domestic Tranquility; (3) To procure beforehand, ready for future use, the common defence; (4) To forward (encourage) the general Welfare; and, (5) To make free from fear or apprehension, the Blessings of Liberty.

Of these, two are somewhat ambiguous, unless the on text is understood. How can enactments, for example, make sure that there is domestic Tranquility? Well, that Tranquility might best be described as the absence of government intrusion into our lives, so, it is absence of action rather than action that can produce the intended result. The other is to promote the general Welfare. It doesn’t say provide, therefore, providing the general welfare is not what was intended. Further, it says “general”, meaning creating a wholesome setting for the people to provide for their own welfare. These two, then, would, perhaps, require laws limiting activities of government that would be detrimental to the purposes.

The other three are rather straightforward. Establishing a judicial system that is focused on justice, rather than unconstitutional law. Providing for military protect for the country, should the need arise — it does say “defence”. And, to enact any law that assures that our posterity will enjoy the same “Blessings of Liberty that we intended to enjoy.

So, of these, “necessary and proper” must adhere to the achievement of the objectives. Anything contrary thereto would be unnecessary and improper.

Returning to “Departments and Officers”, the creation of Departments and the Officers within those departments would have to be within the confines of the defining powers of government. For example, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is created under the authority of excise taxes, then it is a tax collection agency, and its sole purpose is the collection of those taxes. Would a law be necessary and proper if it made a criminal of someone who chose to not pay the tax, or would it be limited to collection, not by force, rather, by judicial process, of any taxes owed?

This is the fine line of what the Constitution means. It is left to proper judicial interpretation, and that interpretation was made in the Supreme Court decisions cited above.

The Lopez case determined that the commerce clause was limited in its reach, and that it was encroaching on the rights and jurisdiction of the states to determine whether someone could possess a firearm within a specified distance from a school.

Alden reinforces the authority of the states to retain their sovereignty, if there is not a specific “necessary and proper” aspect to a federal law enacted by the Congress, or a Rule administered by an Administrative Agency.

The Perez case demonstrates the necessity of the judges and justices to interpret the original intent of a legislative act, as intended by the wording in the law, as well as to weigh the constitutionality, the “necessary and proper” aspect of an enactment of Congress, or a Rule promulgated by an agency..

The Commerce Clause

In Federalist Papers 41-46, he provides a thorough explanation of the three branches, their separation, and their powers and limitations. He also points out that there is a distinction between “necessary and proper” (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) and what is “unnecessary or improper”.

As he continues through these six Papers, he raises two questions:

1.  Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper?
2.  Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

And, into doing, he provides insight into:

[T]he several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects:
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

Now, the one that we are concerned with is that dealing with is number 3:

[The Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

In particular, the second, “among the several States”, which he defined, above, as “3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States“.

One of the defects of the Articles of Confederation was that it had no means whereby it could control what one state did with regard to another state, as far as duties or taxes. If a ship came from a foreign port with goods to be delivered to a couple of different ports, in different states, it had an unfair impact on other than the first state visited. For example, if a ship came into New York, and had goods for New Jersey, New York would impose a duty on all of the goods aboard. Then the ship would cross the river to New Jersey, having already paid duties in New York, increasing the price of the goods offloaded in New Jersey.

Vermont and the already created Northwest Territories, being land bound, might be charged anything for any goods transported across any of the coastal states, to get to a shipping port — adding additional costs to those goods. Whereas the coastal states would have not additional charges on their goods.

It was with this problem, already existing, that lead to the inclusion of the commerce clause. Or, to put it in the words of James Madison (FP 42):

The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.

Now, to extend the ambiguous wording of the clause into means of enacting laws the step upon the toes, or the rights, of the States to determine what is acceptable within their sovereign lands, as, without a doubt, and abuse of the intent of that clause. It violates the very concept of a Union, making the federal government master of all, and the states, masters of naught, at least to the extent that the federal government intends to extend its influence.

So, when that provision for commerce becomes a uniform tax imposed by the federal government (Gun Control Act of 1934), rather than the intended purpose on not letting one state take advantage of another. Then the tax is removed and the act becomes a crime, (as discussed in Massey & The Clash of Laws) which is in opposition to the Texas Constitution and Statutes, we must, if the judiciary will not question what the intent is, and whether the federal “felon in possession” law is within that intent.

As was seen in the court decisions cited above, the Supreme Court does recognize the intent based upon the writings of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. So, in the name of justice, should the lower court rule, with the wisdom intended, in favor of the Constitution? That is what Madison told us was intended. Thus leaving any challenge to seek an interpretation contrary to the Constitution as a burden on the government, rather than imprison someone, leaving the obligation on this victim of government oppression, the loss of his job, his family, and facing starting over, with the stigma of “convict” attached to his name, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that the law, as interpreted by the government agents, is in error, with regard to any authority granted by the Constitution? Is that not his proper role?

Terrorism? or, An Act of War?

The Oklahoma City Bombing

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 11, 1995 (republished August 4, 2015)

[Note: This article was written over twenty years ago. It is republished with minor revisions. You can probably, with your knowledge of recent events, supplement what has been presented.]

Dresden, Germany, February 1945 — A series of allied bombing raids resulted in virtual firestorms, nearly destroying this city, which dated from the early 13th century, along with many of its centuries old architectural landmarks. Over 135,000 people, the vast majority being women and children, died during these raids.

Japan, August 1945 — Hiroshima, Japan, three-fifths of the city destroyed, along with 75,000 people, mostly women and children. Just a few days later, another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, destroying half the city and killing another 75,000 people, again, mostly women and children. These three events killed 285,000 people, yet they were acts of war, and were intended to end World War II.

During the “Vietnam War,” Haiphong, the major North Vietnamese city, was bombed over and over, and in 1972 the harbor was mined. Much of the city was destroyed and tens of thousands lost their lives. There was, however, no “declaration of war” to justify these acts, yet we perceive them to be Acts of War.

April 15, 1986, in a strategic operation, naval air forces attacked military targets in Tripoli, Libya. One of those targets was the home of Muammar Qaddafi. Hundreds were killed, yet no “declaration of war” had existed between the United States and Libya.

December 20, 1989, United States forces, under the operational name “Just Cause”, invaded Panama with the purported purpose of arresting Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. Hundreds died, and significant damage to the capital of Panama resulted. After trial, in December 1992, the federal judge from Miami ruled that Noriega was a “prisoner of war.”

On January 15, 1991, unified forces from 31 nations began a new form of warfare (without declaration) against Iraq. For five weeks smart missiles and smart bombs were directed against, the capital, Baghdad. Smart bombs were able to enter ventilation stacks of bomb shelters, killing women and children without destroying the shelter. Cruise missiles traveled hundreds of miles to explode close to their targets, killing tens of thousands of civilians in this new game of attrition. Never, however, a treaty of peace, for there was never a “declaration of war.”

These acts are not considered to be acts of “terrorism”, for they occurred during the course of a war. It is quite clear that during a war, acts, which might otherwise be considered below the dignity of man, can occur and be accepted as a consequence of war. If there is a war and thousands die, those deaths are written off as a consequence of war. Even without the accepted, and constitutionally required, declaration of war, war can be waged against innocent civilians with no effort made for discrimination of targets.

Since the “Declaration of War” has, apparently, become an unnecessary act; perhaps we can find a way of determining when a war exists by other means. In the Academic American Encyclopedia, under “court”, we find that, “Courts fulfill three important functions: (1) they resolve disputes that, while often routine, are crucial to those involved; (2) they provide protection from illegal actions by government and individuals; and (3) occasionally, they resolve disputes of great political and social significance.” Clearly, then under a normal circumstance, “protection from illegal acts by government” should leave the government open to be punished by the court. One can reasonably conclude that a state of war exists when government commits illegal acts against a people, with impunity.

No judicial process will hold the victors to task. Justice must be set aside during time of war, which is clearly affirmed in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, clause 2, dealing with Habeas Corpus, and, Article V, Bill of Rights, dealing with exemption from Grand Jury process). So, perhaps, a state of war (since declarations have become a thing of the past) can best be determined by the fact that no trials are held to determine justice, or injustice, for the deaths that are a consequence of hostile action. How else, in this modern age, can the determination be made that a war even existed?

This being the case, perhaps we should look around and see if there are other wars going on, perhaps at this very moment. Maybe we should start back in August 1992. Hostilities broke out and, in the first incident, two “men” were killed. Hostilities ceased for a few days, but, then, another act of senseless murder occurred when Vicki Weaver stood in her doorway and was killed by a single sniper’s bullet. Well, this was clearly not a war since a trial was held. Unfortunately, even though three people were killed, no one was found guilty. This, then, must be a war, because war crimes trials were held, but the heinous offender could not be identified.

Just a few months later, another war began. This war lasted 51 days and the subsequent war crimes trials were held almost a year later. We know that this was a war because nine people were found guilty of killing (or other related acts of complicity) four men who were dressed and equipped as soldiers.

We can determine which side each side was on in these last two incidents by looking at a couple of factors. First was the uniform. One side chose black military uniforms, complete with web gear, automatic rifles, tanks, helicopters, grenades and other modern implements of war. The other side wore normal clothes — jeans, dresses, sneakers, etc., and used simple, legal weapons. They also sought refuge in their home and place of worship. The final indicator is that they fired only in self-defense. And, it must be war, since even the commanding general at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. never described the acts of the enemy as terrorism.

On April 22, 1993, I left Waco, after 47 days, to return to Florida. I remember that I was somewhat dumbfounded by the events of April 19, and until I returned to Waco, in mid May, had not been able to sort out certain thoughts. When I returned to Waco, and finally stood on the concrete that was once the floor of the Mt. Carmel church, I looked around and saw partially burned remnants of utensils, clothes, books, letters, and toys, indicative of the lives once lived, and since lost, here. I recalled similar situations in Vietnam, and realized that a state of war existed here, in the United States of America. I realized that I was at war with the United States Government, but, that the war that I was in was still a “cold war”. Not so for those who died in those ashes, but for many, a state of war had begun.

After the Oklahoma City Bombing, we heard the battle cry come up from the side wearing black uniforms, “Terrorism,” they yell, over and over again. “Terrorism, it’s unfair, and they killed women and children. Terrorism, there is no other word for it.”

Many leaders who were on the side of the patriots also take up the battle cry. Many, who just a few years before, cried out that the surprise attacks by the Black uniformed soldiers were acts of war, now cry terrorism along with their enemies of the recent past. “Condemn them,” they yell. “Hang them after a quick and speedy trial. They are not warriors; they are cowards. Hang them, be done with them”. The cry came out from all those leaders who, so recently professed, to be on the side of the patriots.

Meanwhile, many who, just a few years before, had taken the battle cry of “Do whatever is necessary to end this mess,” are now questioning the fairness of the actions of the black uniforms, and beginning to understand why the poorly equipped soldiers of the other side have resorted to an act that cost 167 lives.

Perhaps it might be best to dispel the association of “baby killer” with the act that occurred in Oklahoma City. Since the sixties, the construction of federal buildings has been an “anti-terrorist” design. Since the bombing of Flight 103 (December 1988), we have been advised that federal buildings are potential targets of such bombings. As we learned from Waco, keeping your children in a location that has danger associated with it leaves the responsibility on the parent, not the aggressor. In fact, I never knew that there were day care centers in federal buildings. I supposed, prior to April 19, that the government had enough concern for children to move day care centers to a locations away from what it knew to be potential targets.

The determination of what constitutes an act of terrorism has to be defined by each of us, individually. It cannot be left to a government which controls the weapons of war, the streets, the language, and the press, to make that determination for us. If we allow this to happen, the stigma that will be placed on any act, whether it be the self-defensive actions against four BATF agents killed while assaulting a church in Texas, or a U. S. Marshall who has just killed a dog and a fourteen year old boy (Sammy Weaver), or bombing a federal building where people who chose to be employees of a government run amuck. We must resist succumbing to the need for approval by such controlling entities.

This leaves us, then, with the question:

Was this an Act of Terrorism? or, an Act of War?

Timothy McVeigh v. Lon Horiuchi

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 30, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp Lone Star – The World Turned Upside Down

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 28, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 U.S.C. § 1621: Perjury generally

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

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

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

So, the three important questions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montana Malfeasance
Jesse Newsom and Writs of Assistance

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 22, 2015

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

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

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

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

The first listed item is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independence Day – July 4

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Act III – A Kangaroo Court
Scene 2 – Presumption of Guilt

Massey’s own little Dungeon

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 25, 2015

We will begin with three definitions. The first is an amendment to the Constitution, that being limitations imposed upon the federal government and for the securing of our rights, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, and, which are our birthright.

The second, the legal definition of one of the terms of that amendment, included to clarify that term.

The third, the description of what is known as a Kangaroo Court. As you read the following, you will see that all three of the definitions provided for such a Court are applicable in the case against K.C. Massey.

8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bail [Black’s Law Dictionary – 5th Edition]
The Surety or sureties who procure the release of a person under arrest, by becoming responsible for his appearance at the time and place designated.

Kangaroo Court
1: a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted
2: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures
3: judgment or punishment given outside of legal procedure
(Merriam Webster)

In a previous article, Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction, the conditions of release according to the Appearance Bond, were discussed. There were a number of conditions set, though the first three predicate the whole of the “Bond” that he was subject to. Those three were:

To appear for court proceedings

If convicted, to surrender to serve a sentence that the court may impose

To comply with all conditions set forth in the Order Setting Conditions of Release.

Now, based upon the definition of “bail” and the prohibition against “excessive bail”, when we look at the conditions, is it possible that the third condition, “to comply…”, might be deemed “excessive”, in that it goes beyond a requirement to appear, as per the definition, and the intent of the Bill of Rights?

Now, heed what we are discussing, for every patriot knows that he stands for the Constitution, and in so doing may be placing himself in a situation where he might find that he is charged and arrested for some made up crime.

However, since the government holds the guns, if Massey wanted to stay out of jail, pending trial, which he was more than willing to stand for, he would have to agree to the conditions.

The day that Massey was arrested, they did a UA (Urine Analysis) and find THC (from marijuana) in his test. So, they filled out the conditions as they would for someone charged with selling drugs, requiring random UA testing. Well, THC stays in your system for weeks, or longer. So, a scheduled test would have been sufficient to determine if he had not broken the law by using marijuana, since there is no federal law against use of marijuana. The random aspect of testing was detrimental to another condition, that he be gainfully employed, since he could be called from work to report for the UA, at any time, disrupting his reliability at work.

Massey agreed to the terms on November 3, 2014. He first refused the UA test in May 2015. He had gone over six months with absolute compliance with the conditions, even though he knew that they were unconstitutional. However, since half a year does not cut it for a speedy trial, and the confinement to home, not even allowed to maintain his property away from the immediate vicinity of the house, without prior permission from the Probation Officer (he is not on probation, he only, constitutionally, has to appear in court), and finding that when he was supposed to drive the ninety miles to Dallas for the UA, broke down, and refused the UA. Since he had taken that step, he continued to refuse subsequent calls for a UA.

That is until his next court appearance. Knowing that he would probably not pass the UA that he knew they would require when he arrived for the June 2 hearing, but he went to court, as required by the Constitution and the Conditions.

Now, the punishment that he received, prior to that June 10 hearing was bad enough. He was not a free, innocent man, until proven guilty. He was subject to conditions that were slightly less than if he had been in jail. He had such a limited amount of freedom that it could, nowise, be considered such.

Since he failed the UA on the 10th, he was sent to jail in the custody of the Brownsville Sheriff, though the contract with the federal government put him under the authority of the U. S. Marshall Service. The Marshall Service decided the Massey should be in Maximum Security. They have also imposed other conditions and restrictions that, along with general jail procedures, have imposed the following on Massey:

• His cell (sketch, above) is about 7′ by 10 feet, and includes bed, toilet, shower and table.
• He has only had only two 1-hour recreation periods since he has been in jail (three weeks).
• When he leaves the cell, for any reason, he first puts his hands through the food port and they are handcuffed. Then he is allowed out and told to face the wall while shackles are placed on his ankles and a chain around his waist. Then, he is handcuffed to the waist chain — yes, two bracelets on each hand.
• When he is out of his cell, he is always escorted by three guards, and the hallways are cleared before he can enter a hallway. One of the guards is constantly videotaping the procession.
• There is one window, in the cell door. That is where food is fed to the “animals”. It has a magnetic cover and is only open, with few exceptions, when they want to talk with him, pass food, or deliver the telephone to him so that he can make phone calls.
• Some guards will leave the door window cover off, at night, when the lights are dimmed, so they can do bed checks, about hourly. Other guards prefer to open the window, bang on the door, and make a lot of noise, then shine a flashlight in to see if he is there, and probably to make sure he is awake, every hour, during their shift.
• His cell walls are painted white, and the only constant sound is the whistling of the air-conditioning blowing into the call, keeping the temperature in the sixties. He only has one blanket.

As far as personal attention to his needs, he has gotten the many food gifts that were sent to him. He has had health problems. At one doctor call, he was found to have blood and high protein levels in his urine. For this, the doctor prescribed antibiotics. He tried them for three days and his stomach reacted, giving him pain, so he stopped taking the antibiotics. They have reported him for refusing to take his medicine, though they have not reported why he has refused it.

• He has a preexisting water on the knee problem that he has always treated with exercise, which provides relief.
• He has a pre-existing case of shingles, for which they have given him Triamcinolone, and he has had some relief.
• They had given him one Ibuprofen per day, taken in the presence of the guards, though he has had to quit taking them as it exacerbated the kidney problem.
• He has pain in his kidney, and, hopefully, will receive some treatment for that when he sees the doctor, again. He had been dealing with the kidney problem with exercise, to the point of perspiration to remove toxins, and cranberry juice. However, it is difficult to perspire in such a confined space with temperatures in to sixties.

If Massey is convicted, he will no longer be under the authority of the U. S. Marshall Service, but will be under Bureau of Prisons. At that point, being convicted, his living conditions will be far better than what he is currently enduring, and he will have regular exercise and will be able to seek necessary medical attention, without the constraints that are currently imposed upon him.

It appears that, perhaps, the government has taken the 8th Amendment literally, as it implies that once you are convicted, you can not be subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment”. It fails to prohibit cruel and unusual punishment prior to conviction, and, clearly, that is what Massey has been subjected to since his first arrest.

As far as “excessive bail”, the Conditions of Release were for an unsecured bond of $30,000. Whether that might be considered excessive, or not, is subjective, but let’s assume that it is not for the sake of discussion. If we assume that to be the point that anything over it would be excessive, then the conditions would, without a doubt, qualify as EXCESSIVE, and they go well beyond the simple historical concept of assuring that one be present in court, when required to.

As far as the Kangaroo Court, there is no doubt that “the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted“, and that this is “characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures“, and, finally, that “punishment [is] given outside of legal procedure“.

Quite simply put, some of the conditions that have been imposed upon Massey are outside of the constitutional framework created by the Founders, and some equate more toward medieval dungeon techniques resorted to by kings, tyrants, dictators, and other despots.

If we consider that if he is convicted of a crime, his conditions will improve, considerably, then we must also conclude that the justice system is based more upon punishment for Presumption of Guilt than upon any sense of justice.

Greenmail
Income Tax, Flat Tax, or, No Tax?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 22, 2015

For those who believe that the federal government should tax us, either by income tax or a fair tax, or any other direct means of taxation, must understand that doing so only creates socialism among the states (taking from one to give to another), as the following table shows (A more complete table can also be found at Tax Foundation Special Report No. 158, “Federal Tax Burdens and Spending by State).

The table is from 2005 (I haven’t found a newer one, yet), so I would suppose that the only changes, absent minor redistributions of moneys, would be that the numbers have gone up, proportionately, in the last 6 years.

Note that $2,084,247,000,000 was taken in through taxes and that $2,210,184,000,000 was sent back to the states. This results in nearly $126 billion that was added back to the states’ side (to the benefit of the state). This additional money is likely a debt passed on to our posterity. And, this does not account for the many trillions spent by the federal government, each year, to support wars, foreign aid, and the expense of operating the government and its administrative agencies.

So, if the money never went to the federal government (income taxes), then the states would have had less revenue, even if they retained that which would have gone to the federal government for redistribution back to the states.

Now, there is also a loss in the administration of the distribution of the money. First, it is collected (IRS); then it has to go to the various agencies (accounting) for distribution back to the states (with all of the strings attached); then the state has to distribute the funds according to those strings, which, surely, requires a significant staff to assure that no money goes where the federal government does not want it to go, and vice-versa.

How much less would it cost if the states collected that money (and, being closer to home, might be more cautious in their raising taxes and spending recklessly, or to comply with federally mandated programs), and determined where it was to go, without federal intervention?

Now, if this does not convince you that a federal direct tax is unnecessary, and that it is used to manipulate social change and to bring the states into subjugation, then I would appreciate your explanation as to why it does not.

You should also note that Washington, D.C. gets back nearly six times, per capita, what it contributes, which amounts to over $65,000 per resident of that “model” city.

You can understand that rather than calling this blackmail, it is more appropriately defined as “Greenmail”.

* During fiscal years in which the federal government runs deficits some spending is financed through borrowing. This creates implicit tax liabilities for states that must be repaid eventually. To incorporate these implicit tax liabilities into the analysis, the following adjustment was made to state tax burdens: First, the total federal tax burden is increased by the size of the federal deficit. Next, this total burden is allocated among states based on each state’s proportion of the actual federal tax burden. Finally, adjusted spending-per-dollar-of-tax ratios are calculated by dividing actual expenditures by the adjusted tax figure, effectively making figures deficit neutral.

Source: Tax Foundation Special Report No. 158, “Federal Tax Burdens and Spending by State,” and U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report for 2005.

“No bended knee for me”
Who Does the Patriot Fight For?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 15, 2015

Almost every patriot I have met, when asked, “What are you willing to fight for?”, will answer, my family – my children and grandchildren. The Founders chose the word “Posterity” to explain their objective in both fighting and establishing a new government comprised of member States. What they did, they did for us, their posterity.

So, what happened when that government established upon those principles, as well as others, becomes the enemy of that very protection that they were, and we are, willing to fight for?

In 1997, Jennifer McVeigh was threatened with a charge of treason and the possibility of the death penalty (McVeigh’s Sister Tells Why She Aided U.S. Case Against Him) if she refused to testify against her brother. As tough at is it was, she opted to testify against her sibling.

Robert Beecher recently faced a similar situation. His daughter, Jessica, had owned two .22 caliber rifles that were found on the property that Beecher lived on, and one of which was included in the Indictment. She had also bought her father a .30-30 rifle for his birthday. This, too, was included in the Indictment and a picture of Robert holding the 30-30, pasted in Facebook, was instrumental in the government filing a Criminal Complaint, and securing search and arrest warrants for the property and Beecher.

During the initial interrogation of Beecher, FBI Special Agent Slater, having already ascertained that Jessica had purchased the firearms, suggested, “Maybe we should arrest her, instead”. Though the applicability of federal law is, and ought to be, questioned, 18 U. S. Code §922 (d)(1) does make it criminal to transfer a weapon to a know felon, regardless of state law (See “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful).

With the possibility of Jessica serving ten years in prison for giving a birthday present, Robert had the unfortunate necessity of making one of the most difficult decisions of his life. It was whether he, or Jessica, or both, would spend ten years in prison.

The only decision that could be more severe than what Robert faced would be whether he would give his life for her. Now the latter decision, I think we all would agree, has only one proper answer. So, we must consider that the former also has only one answer.

Some questions arise as to whether the threat to go after Jessica would be carried out. Would it have gotten Robert off on his charges? Would the government even stoop so low as to make such a threat — to coerce someone into pleading guilty to what should not even be a crime, unless there was criminal intent in the activity?

We have been taught that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So, just what laws are we a nation of?

In 1982, the Justice Department tried to determine how many federal criminal laws there were. Their answer was that there were over 3,000 criminal laws (however, many of those laws have multiple conditions that may be met, increasing the actual crimes to considerably more) contained within the 23,000 (currently 27,000) pages of U. S. Code.

When there are that many laws, we are not a nation of law; rather, we are a nation subject to the will of the men that administer those laws.

This brings to mind a quote from James Madison in Federalist #63:

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?

In Robert’s first letter to me, he said, “No bended knee for me”. Against what Robert was faced with, he stood firm to the principles that guide true patriots. He refused to bend a knee, though the force was overwhelming, and he had no choice but to succumb to that force. He was willing to sacrifice a portion of his life — for his Posterity.

His plea agreement, which he entered into to protect his family, especially his daughter, Jessica, committed him to 10 years in prison and 5 years supervised release. The government has promised (if any weight can be attributed to a government promise) to file for a sentence reduction within 360 days. Only time will tell if, and what, that will be.

In the meantime, we must all understand that those who speak out will find that the government will pull out all of the stops to put us in prison, if they can find just one violation of those 3,000 laws. This will continue to be true UNTIL such time as we find the need to replace the government that has deviated so far from what the Founders intended.