Jon Ritzheimer
When did Freedom of Speech Become Hate Speech?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 3, 2015

Jon was born in San Diego County, California in 1983. He was raised in Lakeside and graduated from El Capitan High School. He worked briefly after high school in construction, though having no direction, decided to join the Marines in 2002.

Most of his military service was stateside, though he served a tour in Iraq in 2004-2005. He was a Motor Vehicle Operator (MOS 3531), stationed in Ramadi. He did convoy security and was subjected to gunfire and IED attacks. He returned to Iraq in 2008, this time operating an MRAP, which he lived in “outside the wire”, eating, drinking, sleeping, and living in the MRAP for five months. No showers and the toilet was a “wag bag”.

His time in service included adverse reports due to his criticism of Obama, and having tattoos that were outside of the policy limits. This caused him to not reenlist. He continued in the Marine Reserves until 2014. During his service he received the standard combat awards and a certificate of commendation for one of the actions in which he was involved. It might be worth noting that he was never fired upon by any Christians, throughout either tour.

Jon married in 2007, then, after leaving the Marines, began using his GI benefits to get an education. First, he worked for a Harley-Davidson dealer, then left to set up his own motorcycle repair business, which he ran until the threats that were being put out caused him to look to the safety of his family, which now included daughters 2 and 4 years old.

Jon is much like many thousands of Americans who pursued life, served their country, educated themselves, and began working to support a family, eventually having his own business.

Seeing, as many do, that Muslims are attempting to establish Shariah Courts, impose Shariah law requiring women to be covered, ankle to the top of their heads, Ritzheimer became concerned over the potential effect of Islam in this country. It wasn’t quite enough for any more than concern, but he did remember what he had seen in Iraq. How can freedom of speech be denied, not by government, rather, by the threat of the use of force?

The recent “Draw Mohamed” event in Texas, and the attempt by two Muslims from the Phoenix Muslim Center, to assassinate those who had gathered for the event, hit a nerve. Our right to freedom of speech is unquestionably one of the most important rights that we Americans have. To assert that right, and to show that Americans will not allow intimidation to force us to relinquish even the smallest bit of that right, led him to conceive of the Freedom of Speech Rally. The first Rally, on May 17, getting little attention, and had only a few participants. However, being a Marine (there is no such thing as an ex-Marine); he was determined to get the job done by organizing the second Rally, held this past Friday, May 29.

This Rally brought hundreds to the Mosque, both pro Free Speech and those who mistook the purpose of the Rally, on the other side of the road, to defend Islam.

This second Rally managed to get attention, not only in Phoenix, but nationally. Unfortunately, as the press often does, they “rewrote” the purpose of the rally in an effort to demonize Ritzheimer and try to turn a Freedom of Speech Rally into a “Hate Rally”. Ritzheimer began to fear for his safety, and the safety of his family. He began to question whether this event, at a mosque, would lead a situation similar to that which was attempted in Texas, and was successfully carried out in France. So much for Freedom of Speech and the Press. However, the theme was that we would not be intimidated into not speaking what we want, in our own country.

Ritzheimer admits that the shirt he wore at the Rally, amply stating “F**k Islam” was not in good taste, and he regrets it. He told me that he has a hard time believing that, since there are so many Muslims out there, they can all be bad (prone to accept radicalism). However, his reading of the Koran raises questions, though some Muslims may sincerely believe that we can live in harmony. He also apologizes to all Muslims of the latter sort.

As the attention to the Rally went national, and the press chose to redefine its purpose, Ritzheimer began to fear for his safety, the safety of his family and those attending the event. Questioning whether going to the mosque might subject them to the consequences that were attempted in Texas, and successful in France. Subsequently, he began to encourage the lawful carrying of firearms to the event, as a means of self-defense against any attempt by the Muslims to use force to suppress freedom of speech.

As the event drew near, friends, and even people unknown to Ritzheimer, informed him of the reaction from what appears to be the Muslim community, quite possibly from as far away as ISIS in Iraq is.

Note that the military advised prior service members to use caution, giving credibility on the part of the government, to the implied threat because of messages similar to these:

(Note: SAW (Sallah Allah Alayhi Wa Aaleh) = Peace be upon him and his household.)

As apprehensive as he was at the start of the Rally, he was relieved to see that the police department had done the unexpected. They “Police Line” taped both curb lines to keep the two sides apart, and then stationed their officers along the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, facing the officers in alternating directions, so that neither side was singled out by the neutral police department, who was there only to assure the safety of all concerned.

Though Jon realizes, now, that the Free Speech Rally could easily be misconstrued, regardless of what he intended, he still believes in, and stands for, the right of Americans to speak freely what they feel. Regardless of whether an inverted crucifix in a jar of urine expresses Freedom of Speech, or a carton drawing of Mohammed, Freedom of Speech is essential to the continuation of our great nation. Jon will continue to support that freedom, just as he supported it when he went, willingly, to Iraq to assure the Iraqis had a chance to establish that right.

Jon Ritzheimer is praised for supporting freedom of speech in the Muslim country of Iraq, and then condemned for supporting free speech in the country that sent him to Iraq. Those who have condemned Jon Ritzheimer, by so doing, have condemned the very fabric of our country.

 

Wolf Trap – Act I – Habeas Corpus
Scene 4 – Government Fears Habeas Corpus

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 27, 2015

Setting the Stage: Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum (the sacred writ) has not been addressed at the Supreme Court since 1890. A recent effort resulted in the Supreme Court simply refusing to rule on a Petition for Habeas Corpus, even after all of the lower courts refused to even acknowledge that right. Now, in the current story, the Court has paid “token” acknowledgment of the right, while endeavoring to quash it — rather than pursuing Justice, as is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, as you will see, the Federal District Court in Montana is there to make sure that the government has no chance of losing a case.

The Government is Afraid of Habeas Corpus

William Krisstofer Wolf (that’s is how the government refers to a friend that we know simply as “Wolf”) and I have known each other for over a year. We have never met, but we have shared many hours of phone conversation, email correspondence, and I can’t count the number of times I was a guest on his radio show on “The Montana Republic”.

Among the subjects discussed in those appearances were “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government“, “Declaration of Dissolution of Government”, “Targeting“, “Committees of Safety“, and “Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty“. The last, regarding the “Sacred Writ”, Habeas Corpus, was also the subject of some of our private conversations. Wolf fully understands what I had learned, over the past three years, though we had never anticipated having to call upon the sacred writ on his behalf — until he was arrested on March 25, 2015.

Based upon our previous conversations on the subject, I prepared a simple demand for Habeas Corpus (3 pages) and a Power of Attorney authorizing me to speak o his behalf regarding Habeas Corpus. These were Priority mailed to him on March 27, and he executed and attempted to have them delivered to the Court. After numerous attempts to have the guards take and deliver the documents to the Court, and the Court refusing to recognize the prepared Habeas Corpus, Wolf resorted to a one page, handwritten, Habeas Corpus (Court Doc. 1), dated April 1, to wit:

United States of America
v.                                             15-                  -BIL-CSO
William Krisstofer Wolf

In the Honorable Court of:
UNITED STATES Magistrate Judge Carol S. Ostby
On April 1, 2015, I, William Krisstofer Wolf, by the only means available. in Yellowstone Corrections Facility interoffice mail, SERVE on the court a DEMAND FOR HABEAS CORPUS.
In as such, I, William Krisstofer Wolf hereby request to be put on the Docket to Schedule a hearing date on the DEMAND FOR HABEAS CORPUS. This docket request for a scheduling here is needed to allow my Attorney in Fact, who has a Power of Attorney – Specific, time to travel to this Honorable Court to speak on my behalf, by authority of the case of Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 US 146.

Done on this Day, April 1, 2015
/s/William Krisstofer Wolf
Defendant

This was sufficient for the Court to finally take notice of Wolf’s right to challenge both unconstitutional laws and absence of jurisdiction. On April 15, the Court “Received” the document. The Court stated that they would not let the Habeas Corpus hold the Court hostage, so they opened a civil case, on April 16, and filed the handwritten Habeas Corpus and then filed an ORDER (Court Doc. 2), immediately thereafter.

The Court’s Efforts to Quash Habeas Corpus

Here are some of the “claims” made in the ORDER (Court Doc. 2):

1. [T]he document does not specify the number of the criminal case or indicate in any other way that it is meant to be filed in the criminal case.
2. [T]he document states that Wolf is acting “by the only means available”; yet counsel was appointed for Wolf in the criminal case on March 26, 2015.
3. Wolf did not pay the filing fee of $5.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
4. “In all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and conduct their own causes personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (emphasis added); see also Judiciary Act of 1789, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (1789). [She concludes this claim with the statement] “Wolf may litigate this matter pro se, or he may appear through duly qualified and admitted counsel without an attorney-in-fact.
5. [T]he “‘demand for habeas corpus’ does not set forth any allegations of fact”. “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Wolf cannot mount such an attack until he alleges facts he believes demonstrate that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2242. If Wolf intends to proceed, he must submit an amended petition alleging such facts and explaining why his custody violates the law.
6. If Wolf intended to seek a detention hearing in the criminal case that is pending against him, he should discuss this with his attorney, who can file a motion for a detention hearing under the criminal case number, CR 15-20-MJ-BLG-CSO. If Wolf wishes to file the motion on his own, the Court will then need to consider the motion and decide whether to entertain the motion from Wolf personally, notwithstanding his representation by counsel. But the rule that an attorney-in-fact may not act for Wolf in court applies in all federal cases, civil or criminal. Kelley, 539 F.2d at 1201-03. Moreover, in the criminal case, Wolf’s attorney-in-fact can play no role at all. Wolf is the person charged.

Response to The Court’s Efforts to Quash Habeas Corpus

So, let’s look at what the correct response is to the above claims:

As far as Claim #1, Wolf had no access to documents, and by this time, he was “blocked” from calling some of his friends on the phone. At the time that he wrote the handwritten, which was long after the typed 3 page version (Court Doc. 3), he had only the “Criminal Complaint“, and from that, was only able to extract “15-     -BIL-CSO”, which he properly quoted in the handwritten document, and it was styled as all subsequent filings, “United States of America v. William Krisstofer Wolf”, just as the Court did. So, that doesn’t take rocket science, heck, even the Post Office could have figured that out.

To Claim #2, that he is acting “by the only means available”, raises an interesting question. Wolf stated to the Judge, at his next appearance, that he does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court and he had no intention of entering a plea. So, if he were to go through the court appointed attorney, an officer of that court, would he not be submitting to the jurisdiction that that Court? There is little doubt, as you will see, that the Court will resort to obfuscation and chicanery in an effort to undermine his right to challenge that persecution that is currently being conducted against him.

Claim #3 says that he “did not pay the filing fee of $5.00”. I can find no reference to the filing fee in the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA – Local Rules of Procedure“. However, with regard to:

Rule 3.1 Filing a New Case.

(a) Required Items. The following items are required to file a new case:

(1) a complaint, petition, or other originating document;

(2) unless the originating document is a petition for writ of habeas corpus, payment of the full amount of the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); and

(3) a civil cover sheet, unless the plaintiff or petitioner is proceeding pro se.

So, the originating document (1)was provided, though they refused the first and opened the case based upon the handwritten document. As to the fee, there is an exception for Habeas Corpus (2), and otherwise, only the full amount can be accepted. It does not address any partial, or alternate fee, such as $5.00, it simply exempts Habeas Corpus from fees. As it exempts the requirement for a cover sheet (3), if he is proceeding pro se (presumably, that would also apply to someone proceeding “pro per”. So, why the effort to extort (yes, that is the legal term) $5.00 from Wolf? Or, is it an effort to simply place obstructions in the way, to discourage his attempt to seek his right to challenge the Court?

Now, with Claim #4, we enter into a rather interesting aspect, which deals directly with our rights and efforts to force us into submission to the dictates of the government. This will be similar to those in #5 and #6, though we will consider them separately. The claim cites both 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and the Judiciary Act of 1789, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (1789). Consequently, “[a]ny individual acting without an attorney must appear personally and may not delegate that duty to any other person who is not a member of the bar of this Court.” D. Mont. L.R. 83.8(a) [Local Rules of Procedure]; see also United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199, 1201-03 (9th Cir. 1976).

28 U.S. Code § 1654 – Appearance personally or by counsel
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.

As stated earlier, a writ “is a form of written command in the name of a court or other legal authority to act, or abstain from acting, in some way.” It requires no plea, nor is it a case; it is a request for the court to command an action, which, in the matter of Habeas Corpus, is to issue the writ to raise the questions posed by the person requesting the writ. From that point, it’s not a matter of innocence or guilt, it is to assure that there is proper legal authority regarding the action upon which it is based.

The next citation is the Judiciary Act of 1789, § 35:

And be it further enacted, That in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein… for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned… in the respective courts before which the suits or prosecutions shall be.

In the broadest construction, that “assistance of counsel”, which clearly is not an “attorney at law”, hence the “or”, nor the party, himself, hence the other “or”, which leaves the possibility that a party, a person, may, since he is also capable of taking all responsibility upon himself, assign another to speak on his behalf, as an “attorney in fact”.

The Court references D. Mont. L.R. 83.8(a):

83.8 Self-Represented Litigants.

(a) Any individual acting without an attorney must appear personally and may not delegate that duty to any other person who is not a member of the bar of this Court. A selfrepresented person is bound by the Federal Rules and all applicable local rules. Sanctions, including but not limited to entry of default judgment or dismissal with prejudice, may be imposed for failure to comply with local rules.

This Rule applies to “litigants. This will be addressed along with the cited Kelley case.

Regarding United States v. Kelley, as we look at that case, we might wonder just what the Court was thinking, or was it stabbing blindly, in the dark, to endeavor to equate Kelley with the current matter, the writ. Kelley was being prosecuted. He was not seeking to question the constitutionality of the law, nor the jurisdiction. First, “he argues that he had a right to be represented by a non-lawyer.” Then, “Kelley sought to have his trusted friend Hurd, who was well-versed on Kelley’s monetary theory, serve as trial counsel. Hurd is a roofer and not a licensed attorney. The district court denied the request and prohibited Hurd from sitting at the counsel table or consulting with Kelley during the course of the trial.”

It is well known that if you don’t assert a right, the Court will not grant you that right. Kelley wanted Hurd to sit with him and counsel him. Kelley did not provide a “power of attorney”, according to the decision, he just wanted Hurd to sit and advise him. It doesn’t begin to approach the question at hand. This case is not on point, since it is silent on the point that the Court is trying to make about power of attorney and attorney in fact, and whether this is applicable to a writ, instead of litigation.

Finally, she says that he “may litigate this matter pro se, or he may appear through duly qualified and admitted counsel without an attorney-in-fact.” “Litigate means, “To dispute or contend in form of law; to settle a dispute or seek relief in a court of law; to carry on a suit… a judicial contest.” This is not a dispute, it is simply seeking an answer to a challenge to jurisdiction and constitutionality. As stated before, it is “a form of written command in the name of a court… to act, or abstain from acting, in some way.” It is not an adversarial proceeding.

Wolf had provided a “Power of Attorney”, making Gary Hunt his “Attorney in Fact”, and that was submitted to the Court and filed in the case. Therefore, it is before the Court. The Court, however, challenges Wolf’s right to have someone other than the court appointed attorney, or another “attorney at law”, speak for him on this matter that is not a suit, and, is not a prosecution, it is a “writ of right”, asking the Court to rule on the question presented — that being whether the laws upon which the charges are based, are, in fact, constitutional as applied to Wolf, and whether he falls under the jurisdiction of the authority behind those laws, and the Court, itself (or should I say, “herself”?).

So, let’s see what both “power of attorney” and “attorney in fact” mean (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition):

Power of attorney: An instrument authorizing another to act as one’s agent or attorney. The agent is attorney in fact and his power is revoked on the death of the principal by operation of law. Such power may be either general or special. [no citations given]

Attorney in fact: An attorney authorized to act in his place and stead, either for some particular purpose, as to do a particular act, or for the transaction of business in general, not of legal character. This authority is conferred by an instrument in writing, called a “letter of attorney,” or more commonly a “power of attorney”. [no citations given]

Now, so as not to be misunderstood, that phrase, “not of a legal character” applies only to the “general business”, which is separated from the “particular act” by the “or”.

So, what the Court has said is, well, not on point to the entire matter before it.

So, let’s move on to Claim #5:

Though she does cite, correctly, from the case, when she says, “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody”, she has the subject of custody out of context to what is applicable in Wolf’s case. Wolf has not been convicted. He is challenging his detention based upon absence of jurisdiction as well as absence of constitutional authority of the charges against him. In Preiser, Rodriguez had been convicted and had already served some time in prison. He had sought relief from the length of his sentence, well, in the words of the decision:

Respondents were state prisoners who had elected to participate in New York’s conditional-release program, by which a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence may earn up to 10 days per month good-behavior-time credits toward reduction of his maximum sentence… Held: When a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his physical imprisonment and by way of relief seeks a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.

This decision, Preiser, as stated in the decision, is an action under 28 U.S, Code §2254:

(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 US Code § 2251: Stay of State court proceedings, begins the subject of dealing with state prisoners challenging through the federal court system. Wolf’ case is purely federal, so we need not concern ourselves, though the court has, with this,. Even if we did, we are really discussing what it says in §2241 (b), below, so I have no idea what her majesty was thinking; she should no that this is a federal matter — I think.

Though the ORDER does not cite §2254, as the case does, it does, properly, cite §§2241-2242, below. However, this citation is really apples and oranges, as the Preiser decision has no bearing on the subject of this current matter. §2254 has no relevance, at all, to the Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum Wolf is seeking, and that the Court is required to respond (answer) to.

So, let’s look at the pertinent parts of 28 U. S. Code §§2241-2242:

28 U.S.C. § 2241 : US Code – Section 2241: Power to grant writ

(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. The order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.

(b) The Supreme Court, any justice thereof, and any circuit judge may decline to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus and may transfer the application for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to entertain it.

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless –

(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or

(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or

(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or

28 U.S.C. § 2242 : US Code – Section 2242: Application

Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf. It shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known. It may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions. If addressed to the Supreme Court, a justice thereof or a circuit judge it shall state the reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held.

So, the District Court is the proper place in which to initiate a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum. Now, under subparagraph (c), we find two applicable qualifiers for who may Petition for such writ. The ORDER cites subparagraph (3), though seems to skip right over subparagraph (1). However, until the person detaining Wolf has answered the writ, that determination cannot be made. Though that last sentence may seem confusing, we will shed some light on it as we venture into the next relevant section, that the Court seemed to have completely, or conveniently, overlooked.

28 U.S.C. § 2243 : US Code – Section 2243: Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The respondent is, of course, the person who has detained Wolf, or that Wolf is detained under the authority thereof. So, unless the Court can show that the applicant (“attorney in fact”, or, “next friend”) is not entitled thereto, which it has, perhaps, insufficiently, attempted to do, must either grant or require the respondent to “show cause”. By the way, “forthwith” is without delay, immediately, etc., It does not provide for excuses, only action.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

Now, the civil case was opened on April 15, fully two weeks after the Habeas Corpus was submitted, “by the only means available”, and the Court has still not, over a month later, even begun the process that §2243 requires. So, from the “forthwith”, being the starting of the clock required for what Madison, the father of the Constitution, described as “in the most expeditious and ample manner“, the respondent then has three days to return, which is “to show cause”. Remember, the Fourth Amendment states that you have the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”.

Further, the Court states, “Wolf cannot mount such an attack until he alleges facts he believes demonstrate that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”. But, wait just a minute. The Amendment says that the government has to show “nature” and “cause”, not the accused. This is supported by the wording in §2243, that the “order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.” It sort of makes you wonder if law school has any courses on English comprehension.

Continuing with §2243:

The person to whom the writ or order is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention. When the writ or order is returned a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.

There it is, again. The person making the return, that would be the person detaining, not the person detained, “shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention.” How could that have possible been overlooked by a District Judge, in whose hands lie the lives and futures of those who are required to stand before her for judgment? And, when is that damned hearing going to be held? Wolf sits in detention, denied his liberty, while the judge fritters away that very object that brought the colonies to rebel against England, and part ways with a corrupted judicial system.

The remainder of §2243:

Unless the application for the writ and the return present only issues of law the person to whom the writ is directed shall be required to produce at the hearing the body of the person detained. The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts.

The return and all suggestions made against it may be amended, by leave of court, before or after being filed.

The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.

Now, that last line says it all, that “The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.”

As to Claim #6, Wolf does not seek a detention hearing, as to do so would admit to jurisdiction. The other points in this Claim have already been addressed.

Stay tuned for Act I, Scene 5.

 

April 19, 2015

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2015

Twenty years ago, today, the Murrah Federal Courthouse, in Oklahoma City, was bombed by a patriot who intended to light the fuse of violent resistance to the government’s overarching, and deadly, imposition upon the rights of the people. Some of the motivation behind this act was a response to the efforts of government, just two years earlier, to divest some people of their right to bear arms, and other infringements of the Constitution.

Twenty-two years ago, today, agencies of the federal government murdered over 80 people; in Waco, Texas; men, women, and children, in their own home/Church. Again, divesting the right to bear arms, and other constitutional infringements were the underlying elements in this event.

Two-hundred and forty years ago, today, more than 80 men stood on Lexington Green to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the government’s effort to divest them of their constitutional and sacred right to keep arms.

Today, K. C. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, filed (electronically) a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment upon which the government’s case against Massey rests. That motion is an objection to the government’s attempt to divest Massey of his right to bear arms, by overreaching constitutional authority.

There are two elements in each of these events. First, arms; Second, the Constitution

Now, the government and Mainstream Media downplay the latter and demonize the former. And, that has become the underlying creed of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the short (45 second) video clip, “Sheriff’s Deputy Admits MRAPs Are For Constitutionalists“. Though the jurisdiction and the date of the video are not known (unless someone comes forward with that information), it is apparent that the two deputies are serious in what they say:

Deputy #1: “We’ve got a lot of constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, a lot of ammunition, and they have [intelligible] weapons here locally.”

So, the first Deputy sees danger in “constitutionalists” stockpiling weapons and ammo. He sounds a lot like General Gage, military governor of Massachusetts.

Deputy #2: “It’s worldwide. The world is unstable now; you look anywhere, you watch the news.”

As to the second, what is “worldwide”? The fear of constitutionalists is an international problem? “Hey, buddy! Yeah, you, the deputy, don’t you work for this county? What are you doing dealing in international matters?”

As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.“

Have we learned? Can we remember? What, possibly, can the government do to return to the Constitution, and avoid the violence that they have already begun?

Let us not slide further into that abyss of abject slavery and obedience to a government that was supposed to belong to us.

 

Government’s purpose is to govern the Government,
Not to govern the People.

 

Wolf Trap – Keep Your Trap Shut

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 15, 2015

 

In this day and age, no one knows any one’s phone number. They either click the name, or speak the name into the phone. So, what happens when your phone is taken away, and then you get to make a phone call from a detention center?

Wolf was arrested in March 26. We found out about the arrest that day, and that he was detained at the Yellowstone County Detention Facility. It appears to be a county run, rather than a contracted facility; however, their phone system is quite profitable for the contractor. A collect call from an inmate costs $3.75 for the first minute and then a $1.00 each additional minute, with calls limited to 20 minutes. However, if they have money in their Commissary Account, they only pay 35¢ per minute, same limit.

Wolf received my Priority Mail envelope on Monday, March 30, and, since my letterhead had a phone number, he called me, beginning our communication. He understood what I had asked, answered some of the questions I posed, promised to provide a written account of the incident that led up to and culminated in his arrest on federal charges. We also discussed a legal maneuver, the Demand for Habeas Corpus (See Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty) and exactly how to proceed with it. He affirmed that he had executed the Power of Attorney, and he knew exactly how to proceed the next time he was in front of a judge. Undoubtedly, the call was recorded or monitored, so I’m sure that they were privy to our objective. It appears, however, that it took a couple of days for the jailers to get instructions, find somebody to make a decision, or otherwise decide that he should no longer be able to communicate with those outside. Our last phone call was Thursday, April 2.

He had asked that I pass messages on to R, T, C, and N, which I did, immediately after our first conversation. R was in communication with him and made sure that there was money in his commissary, so he was able to call out until April 2. In addition, he assured me, on the 2nd, that the written account would be sent as soon as he could get an envelope and stamps.

After contacting R and others, I found was not the only one who had received no mail or phone calls from Wolf. I decided that I wanted to shake some things up. I wrote a letter and for tracking purposes, sent it Priority Mail. For the purpose of this article, the pertinent portion of the communication is as follows:

April 10, 2015

I called the detention center and all they could tell me was that you had money in the commissary fund, which means that unless something untoward has occurred, I should have heard from you, as should T & R have heard.

This is rather concerning, and I think that you can understand why. So, here is what we/I will do.

I will expect a phone call from you the day that you receive this letter. If I do not hear, in a reasonable amount of time, there are two assumptions that I can make.

First, that you are holding out communicating, perhaps hoping that we, outside, will react, and act. This is not going to happen. We have a remedy, or two, and I fully expect that there will be a resolution. However, that would lead me to take the third step, which, if nothing else, would be rather embarrassing to you when the truth came out.

Second, it is possible that they have put you in a hole and incommunicado. I would not be surprised at this, as I have heard from a couple of attorneys working on federal matters (you know who they represent) that have decided that, to be kind, I am no friend to them. It seems in the second matter, they have gotten blowback that they never expected. We should find out, soon, what the consequences are. If, however, they have treated you in the manner suggested, that also moves me to step three. This would result in extreme embarrassment on the part of both the Detention Facility and the federal yahoos. And, because of the recent Texas story, MSM may be beginning to listen to us.

So, what is step three? Quite simply, I contact Billings Gazette, other local newspapers, and some local radio and television stations, and explain that they have put you in a black hole and incommunicado. Absent charges, bail, or any information on you. It will fare poorly for the responsible party. I would not want to be in their shoes.

I’m sure that my articles on the subject will elicit additional participation by my hundreds of followers (I will give them all of the appropriate contact information).

So, you (those reading this communication) are advised.

Priority Mail tracking indicated that it was delivered to the mailbox on Monday, April 13. This time, I heard nothing and have no idea whether they had violated federal postal laws (remember, he has yet to be officially charged with a crime) and refused to give him my letter. I still do not have an answer to that question.

However, he managed to get a call out to V, Tuesday, April 14, morning. V then advised us, via email, of the rather cryptic communication received from Wolf, which reads as follows:

Wolf called me this morning from YCDF.
He said he is under a communication block – his mail is being read, mail comes without envelopes, and they won’t let him have any mailing out material,
He said that “thing from his regular guest” will probably be blocked. I don’t know anymore and he didn’t explain any more.
He said he isn’t charged yet, and no bond. He’s being blocked from access to his Attorney in Fact.
Sorry his was so cryptic, but I’ve tried to relay it the way he said it.

The “thing from the regular guest” is, of course, the Habeas Corpus. The Attorney in Fact is the same as the preparer of the Habeas Corpus.

I spoke with V and he informed me that Wolf said that since he had called V, V would now be put on the “blocked” list — no longer able to be called. Why he was allowed to call anyone is surely a question to be answered. Is it possible they can block calls without cause? Is it possible that calls are monitored for content? Has Wolf been given a list of prohibited content? Or, do they just make the shit up as they go?

On a more positive note, early this afternoon, R received mail with the executed “Memorandum in support of Habeas Corpus”, the Power of Attorney, and the long awaited account of Wolf’s side of the story. This was accomplished only because Wolf managed to find someone to mail out for him what the Detention Facility would not allow him to mail out.

What is abundantly clear is that though he was arrested on March 26, he has told me that he insisted on a Grand Jury Indictment, in accordance with the Constitution. “They” said that the case would go before a Grand Jury, though we do not know when. He is being held, without bond and without charges, as shown on the YCDF inmate search page. With his last name, “Wolf”, in the search box, you get this:

Then clicking either his name or the “Charges” link, you get this:

So, Wolf has been held in jail for 20 days, without charges and no bail set. Though he initially had some communication privileges (incoming mail and phone, but no outgoing mail), those have been curtailed to no privileges, at all, unless he can continue to devise means to communicate. If the pattern holds, and he is only able to make one call to a person, who is then blocked, then it cannot be even remotely considered communication. The only thing missing is a damp, dark dungeon.

Update – April 14, 2015: Wolf has directed the documents that he was supposed to send me, and a letter, through the Defense Attorney that has been assigned to him. He has managed to circumvent the restrictions, at least to some degree. That would suggest that he still has his spirit up and is not yielding to their attempts at intimidation. However, and I agree with him, he did say, “They will not win!” More on this, later.

 

Government’s job is to govern the Government,
Not to govern the People.

Wolf Trap – The Setup

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 14, 2015

 

On March 26, 2015, a Montana radio host, William Wolf, was arrested by the FBI (not the BATF) in violation of 18 US Code §922 (o)

(o)           (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The “machine gun” in question may have been legal, until modified by the FBI, as explained in the Criminal Complaint. So, let’s look at some of the information gleaned from the Complaint (underlining, mine):

During [a] meeting [September 30, 2014], Wolf expressed interest in CHS [Ed Gray] introducing Wolf to a former colleague who could possibly provide technical or monetary assistance in building the gun [this would be a flame throwing gun that had previously been mentioned].

Yes, the informant was Ed Gray. I got this information directly from Wolf, before communications were cut off — but that is another story.

On October 10, 2014, a CHS [Confidential Human Source – Ed Gray] introduced Wolf to the colleague, who in actuality was a FBI undercover employee (“UCE”).

Gray brought his agent (handler) in to meet Wolf.

At one point during [a] meeting [December 18, 2014], the UCE stated to Wolf that he would ask his contacts about acquiring a flamethrower for Wolf. Wolf immediately replied, “Try to get me a Russian automatic shotgun too.”

[In a footnote] The possession of the type of flamethrower described by Wolf to the UCE is not regulated under the laws of the United States and thus would not violate federal law to possess such a device.

According to Wolf, the offer was made and then he made the request.

The FBI acquired a firearm with the specifications desired by Wolf—i.e., a Saiga-12 fully-automatic shotgun with a shortened military grade barrel. FBI Headquarters modified a semi-automatic Saiga-12 gauge shotgun to a fully- automatic with a shortened barrel.

So, the FBI manufactured an Automatic shotgun from a Semi-automatic shotgun.

The CHS stated that in addition to the $600.00 previously arranged for by the UCE [Ed Gray], an additional $125.00 was necessary due to the conversion of the shotgun to fully automatic. Wolf agreed to the pay the extra $125.00 for the conversion.

So, now the cost, since they couldn’t come up with what the said they could, goes from $600 to $725. not really significant, except with regard to detail.

The UCE informed Wolf that his “supplier” was a Class III dealer and had converted the firearm from semi-automatic to full- automatic, to which Wolf acknowledged.

On March 26, Wolf took possession of the shotgun and,

Wolf then paid the UCE $720.00 for the firearm and took possession of it from the UCE. Wolf placed the encased firearm into his vehicle. Wolf was then taken into custody by the FBI without incident.

There is that picky detail. The bill was for $725, according to the previous agreement. The UCE only got $720. I suppose that they were so excited that they were wetting their pants because the managed to entrap Wolf, or, they just aren’t concerned with details in their reports.

The Complaint then ends with the:

CONCLUSION

Based on the information contained in this Affidavit, there is probable cause to believe that William Krisstofer Wolf knowingly possessed a machine gun, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).

First, let’s look at what they did and question the legality, and then at why they did it, and question the legality.

What They Did

As I understand it, if I wanted to purchase a machine gun and went to a gun store operated by a Class III licensee, he would hand me some paperwork for a background check and some paperwork for the Class III license. I would complete the forms and return them to him. He would then submit the forms to BATF and if the background came back clean, then the Class III license would probably also be issued.

However, if I went to the same gun store and said that I wanted to purchase a machine gun, and they said that will be $725 dollars, and if he didn’t require me to complete any paperwork, background check or Class III license application, I must assume that I am in compliance, as it is his legal responsibility to take the aforementioned steps to comply with his license. If I accepted that offer, he then took my money and handed me the machine gun, I would have satisfied every obligation placed upon me by a federal licensee.

The UCE was presented as, and did not deny, that he was a Class III licensee. So, who is the criminal party?

But, let’s assume that there is exception to 18 US Code §922 (o) (posted above). Well, there are two exceptions. The second exempts anybody who had acquired the machine gun prior to effective date of the rule.

The interesting one, however, and reading it with full regard to the punctuation (we are still a nation of laws, not of man, I presume), we can see that it says, as the first exemption (ellipsis … connotes words omitted for clarification):

(A) a transfer… by… the authority of the United States or any agency thereof…

So, if it was transferred by an agency of the United States, it is exempt, as per §922 (o) (2) (B). However, if as was represented by Ed Gray, that UCE was a Class III licensee, then it is not exempt, however, the guilty party (criminal) is not the one that relied upon the licensee, rather it is the licensee who violated the conditions of his license and the federal rules. This doesn’t even venture into who modified a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic, and whether he was properly (legally) authorized to do so.

That aside, though very significant, we can still rely upon the Complaint to determine what the focus of their efforts was — the motive for the set up and entrapment. After all, we all know that every crime has a motive. It is the government’s motive we are pursuing, for if there was a subsequent crime resulting from the government’s crime, which one is more important for us to concern ourselves with?

Why They Did It

Wolf made clear in his various meetings and radio shows what he thought of the government, which most of us already see as a bit out of hand. So, in one radio show, beginning back in November 2013, he presented his purpose,

to educate the public on how to counter action at the local, state and federal levels that were viewed as overstepping on constitutional rights… Over the next twelve months, Wolf repeatedly espoused his contempt for local judges, law enforcement, the county attorney, city and county commissioners, and the agents and agencies of the federal government.

Perhaps a bit overbroad in its inclusiveness, but not beyond the sympathies of many. He also called for:

Wolf called for a “restoration of the constitutional government.”

and

Wolf stated on multiple occasions that he considered agents of the government (local, state, or federal) to be the true enemy to the American people.

In a July 2014 radio show,

Wolf asked his program listeners “Are you willing to attempt a restoration of our constitutional government? Because that is what we are going to do.

And, in a December 18, 2014

Wolf described his plan to conduct a meeting in late January 2015 for the purpose of educating the public about “committees of safety.” Wolf viewed these committees of safety as the last peaceful method to address his grievances with the government.

So, though he referred to the historical Committees of Safety, and is seeking a peaceful solution, they seem to be offended by the function of Committees of Safety being the means of peaceful redress of grievances and the right of self-defense, and the defense of others.

Obviously, they don’t like the way the Wolf talks about dealing with the problem, and they can’t charge him with sedition, nor can the charge him with unlawful speech, so they have committed criminal acts against him in order to entrap him into committing acts which may appear criminal, though, as explained above, are not.

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 3: To Be, or Not to Be – Forthright

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 14, 2015

In Act One: The Government Charade, Judge Hanen graciously gave Prosecuting Attorney Hagen, the opportunity to respond to the Motions to Suppress and Dismiss, in greater detail, since he had failed to address some of the points presented in Mr. Sorola’s motions. The deadline for the response was April 10. So, we anxiously awaited that filing to see if Hagen could dig out of the hole he had created for himself, with his prosecution (persecution?) of K. C. Massey.

Well, I received a copy of Government’s Supplementary Response To Motion Suppress And Motion To Dismiss Indictment, on Friday, April 10. Now, it is typical of the “case law” method, which, well, let’s use the description of Teddy Roosevelt’s thoughts on this method, from the book “Bully Pulpit”, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Case law method was developed at Harvard in 1872. “Though the pleasure he took in his studies is amply expressed in his journal, he was troubled that ‘some of the teaching of the law books and of the classroom seemed to me to be against justice.’ He noted critically that ‘we are concerned with [the] question of what law is, not what it ought to be.'” So, like Teddy, we are stuck with “what law is, not what it ought to be.”

Hagen’s Response addresses a number of higher court opinions, both Supreme and appellate, though we will only be looking at those opinions of the Supreme Court. So, let’s look at just how Mr. Hagen attempts to extricate himself from that hole. At this time, we will only address the Response to the Motion to Suppress.

First, he addresses the Motion to Suppress Evidence. In so doing, he lists the following:

(i) Defendant was observed carrying a rifle and that observation was made prior to any alleged search or stop;
(ii) Defendant was asked for his identification by law enforcement in the course of investigating a shooting involving a federal agent;
(iii) Defendant was detained after the shooting occurred as potential witnesses;
(iv) Defendant’s firearms were seized to protect both law enforcement and civilian witnesses; and,
(v) Defendant’s possession of two firearms was in violation of both state and federal law.

Regarding (i), this was discussed in the previous article. If the act was criminal, why did the government not arrest Massey when the observation was made? The answers rests on identification of Massey and determination of his status, none of which would have occurred had the “stop” or “detention” not occurred. Should we “cooperate” with law enforcement if going about our daily lives might result in subjecting ourselves to directed persecution? In this case, the shooter, in violation of both law and policy, and, the subject of the “investigation”, goes free, while the non-witness is subsequently arrested. One has to wonder if this whole thing was a set up to “get Massey”.

Regarding (ii) & (iii), that, too, was addressed in the previous post. Someone who, like the “investigator”, Cantu, had no more information than Cantu had, until Cantu received a radio message and passed that same information on to Massey, does not really qualify as a witness to anything. This leaves the question of “stop” or “detention” open, and that will be discussed shortly.

Regarding (iv), Foerster, Massey, and Varner, all retained their weapons, posing no threat, as testified to by Cantu. Subsequently, the decision was made, by persons unknown, that the weapons should be “secured”. “Seized”, as described in the Response, has no relationship to the testimony.

Regarding (v), here comes a problem, with Hagen’s comprehension skills. He quotes Texas Penal Code, as follows:

Texas Penal Code § 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm

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

(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons 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 the premises at which the person lives.

So, it says, in the singular, that he is in violation “if he possess a firearm”, before the fifth anniversary. Are we to assume that if he possesses more than one firearm, he is exempt from violation? It says nothing about any limitation after the fifth anniversary. Except, perhaps, in some secret version of Texas law that Hagen has hidden in his drawers.

Now, if Hagen is suggesting that Massey was not at “the premises at which the person lives”, the government also already stated that Massey had been at Camp Lone Star for four months. So, can there be any doubt as to where he lived at the time of this incident? The purpose of this provision is, without doubt, to provide the means for protecting the “premise”. Does that preclude someone from going on to his neighbor’s property, with that neighbor’s permission, to provide for that protection?

However, we can put that all aside, as Massey is not charged with violation of state law, Hagen has charged him with violation of federal law. The Sheriff’s Office has not chosen to file charges against Massey in their jurisdiction, so that makes Hagen’s argument somewhere on the other side of moot.

So, let’s look at the Supreme Court decisions that Hagen has cited to defend his position. First is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court Nevada 542 US 177. He argues that “A police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment“.

So, let’s see what Hiibel says:

At 177, setting the background of the case, it says, “Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.”

At 184, we find “Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.“

Then finally, at 185, the pages cited by Hagen, we find, “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. “‘[I]nterrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.”… the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.“

So, just what were the “suspicious circumstances”, or “reasonable suspicion”, that existed on August 29, 2014, on the Sabal Palms property? Perhaps Hagen should be instructing BPS, FBI, and others, as to what is required to “investigate” and require that one identify himself, absent the criteria established by the Supreme Court. I suppose that we could also ask Mr. Hagen what the difference is between and “interview”, as described in testimony, and, “interrogation”, as cited in this case.

Then, he cites INS v. Delgado 466 US 210. He does not, however, provide any quotation from that case, so I suppose that quantity rather than quality might be his motivation, here. So, to put a context on the current situation, I will provide the quotations. This case refers to whether INS could profile by asking questions of employees being suspected of being illegal aliens. So, here is what the cited page, 216, tells us:

In contrast, a much different situation prevailed in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), when two policemen physically detained the defendant to determine his identity, after the defendant refused the officers’ request to identify himself. The Court held that absent some reasonable suspicion of misconduct, the detention of the defendant to determine his identity violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure.

Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, one cannot say that the questioning resulted in a detention under the Fourth Amendment.

So, the Court has given us a situation, and then concludes, “Unless… a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded”, then the questioning was not a detention. However, Hagen as argued that this was a “stop” (Terry Stop), not a detention, and there is no doubt that when Massey “cooperated” in providing his identification, he had already been told that there was an investigation and that he could not leave.

Next, he cites United States v. Sharpe 470 US 675. At least he provides a context, and page (685), though, again, no quotation. So, we will begin at 684:

In that case, law enforcement agents stopped the defendant after his arrival in an airport and seized his luggage for 90 minutes to take it to a narcotics detection dog for a “sniff test.” We decided that an investigative seizure of personal property could be justified under the Terry doctrine, but that “[t]he length of the detention of respondent’s luggage alone precludes the conclusion that the seizure was reasonable in the absence of probable cause.”

And, at the cited page 685:

While it is clear that “the brevity of the invasion of the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests is an important factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion,” we have emphasized the need to consider the law enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably needed to effectuate those purposes.

So, in the first instance, a stop of 90 minutes was unreasonable, absent “probable cause”. And, in the second, there was an “invasion of the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests”, rests upon “reasonable suspicion”. They speak of “seizure”. That is what the Prosecution has claimed, and maintained by continue to retain, all of the firearms, except Varner’s. But, they were not “seized”, according to testimony. They were “secured” for Officer Safety.

Okay, just one more. This is United States v. Leon 468 US 897. Though no quotations are given, he points out that Rotunno, the agent who swore to the accuracy of the information used to secure the various Warrants and Criminal Complaint, was present neither at the shooting incident investigation on August 29, nor at the arrest on October 20, 2014. Quite simply, Rotunno “fabricated” (that is a polite form of lying) an important element of what happened on August 29, which implied that Foerster, and Foerster, alone, might have committed a criminal act by “pointing: his firearm at Gonzales. Massey and Varner were innocent parties to the entire episode. So, Hagen’s assertion might apply to Foerster, but the great leap to envelope Massey in his web is without any lawful or legal merit.

That doesn’t however, remove us from consideration of what the court said in U. S, v Leon.

In this case, a warrant was issued based upon observations during a drug trafficking investigation, by law enforcement officers. There was nothing illegal about the observations, nor were there misrepresentations, or outright lies, in the affidavit that resulted in the warrant.

The court held that “Application of the exclusionary rule should continue where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate, but the balancing approach that has evolved in determining whether the rule should be applied in a variety of contexts – including criminal trials – suggests that the rule should be modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate.”

Further, that “the courts must also insist that the magistrate purport to perform his neutral and detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police… However the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.”

And, that “A police officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth, or if the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his detached and neutral judicial role.”

So, though even Foerster may find relief by this decision, Massey was nothing more than a bystander in the events of August 29, and nothing conjured by Hagen can change that relationship. There was never the requisite probable cause, suspicion, or any other factor, that would ensnare Massey in this web. It is only Hagen’s desire to please those “up the river” that forces him to persist in the persecution of K. C. Massey.

Now, I realize that what was just stated might be considered by some to be overstepping the bounds of propriety. However, we must not detach ourselves from the reality that we are constantly presented with the excuse that, “there are only a few bad cops”. We have learned, over time that “few” is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Let us simply refresh our minds with a recent event wherein an innocent man spent thirty years on Death Row. He was released when his innocence was final acknowledged. His innocence was known by the Prosecutor, from the very beginning. That Prosecutor, Marty Stroud, has repented. Marty Stroud is demonstrative of the subject of the book, “Three Felonies a Day”, by Harvey A. Silverglate, in which the objective is to obtain a conviction, regardless of guilt, and to distort the wording of the law to achieve that end.

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 2: To Detain, or Not to Detain? That is the Question.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 12, 2015

Another question brought up in Sorola’s motion to suppress evidence was also addressed. At issue is whether he was detained, at which point he would have to be read his Miranda rights, which they did not do, or simply stopped for investigative purposes. The latter would be what is referred to as a Terry Stop. It is worth noting that a Terry Stop is defined as:

A brief detention of a person on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause for arrest. To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

As you read the testimony, decide what you believe the answer is. Remember that only two people were witness to any criminal activity — the shooting incident.

Mr. Hagen said, in his initial argument:

[T]he Border Patrol agent [then] fired several shots at Mr. Foerster, thankfully missing.

So that launched a — an investigation since a federal agent had discharged his firearm. That’s what brought the FBI and the Sheriff’s Department and Border Patrol Internal Affairs and all these people out to the area.

But as far as suppressing evidence, I think the government is on solid ground here because before the shots were even fired, there are multiple Border Patrol agents that observed Mr. Massey carrying a firearm, and that’s what he’s charged with is possession of a firearm. Even before he was ever detained or questioned, he was seen carrying a firearm on August 29th of 2014.

And the only relevant information or information I’d say that is critical to our prosecution is his identity, who he is, and I don’t believe that can be suppressed, although I think — I think law enforcement behaved accordingly in all respects in connection with this investigation. Even if it was a bad stop or a bad search or — you can’t suppress identity.

Yes, he is correct. If you were a criminal walking down the streets, absent a warrant, could they just stop and arrest you because you are doing something that many others are doing? We are a nation of laws, not of men. Those laws require that certain procedures be followed, even to the point of protecting a criminal — whether he is a criminal, or not. So, since there are no “Wanted Posters” for K. C. Massey, identification becomes a crucial point.

As Hagen said, “there are multiple Border Patrol agents that observed Mr. Massey carrying a firearm”. So, why didn’t they arrest him, then? Could it possibly be that the law, not men, are the rule?

Hagen continues:

I believe Mr. Massey said to Danny Cantu: Look, nobody got hurt. We’d like to — you know, we’re going to be on our way.

Danny Cantu said: Look, a federal agent discharged his weapon. There’s going to be an investigation. Y’all need to stay around.

Earlier, Cantu had said that he thought that the shots had come from the Mexican side of the border. He received radio communication that a federal agent had done the shooting. Why would someone that was very far from the actual shooting be a witness in an investigation?

Let’s keep in mind some recent events of which we are all aware. We have law enforcement people saying that if you don’t want us to shoot you, you had better cooperate. That might be sound advice if one wasn’t subject to persecution because he cooperated, however, if you believe that under state law you have every right to have a firearm on private property, with the permission of the owner, what are you going to do the next time a law enforcement, any law enforcing, officer wants to detain, stop, hold, or even ID you? It is somewhat difficult to reconcile yourself to the idea passive obedience when one realizes that even if they are not violating the law, the feds might use every trick in their toolbox, if they want to persecute or prosecute you.

So, then Hagen says:

Now, Mr. Massey was detained or was in the area for several hours. I think everyone left around 7:00. I think the evidence will show that shots were fired around 3:45.

Note that Hagen has framed the whole event into over 3 hours. This will be addressed more in Act Two, Scene 3.

Now, we move to the first witness, Agent Cantu, in examination by Hagen.

Q All right. Now, did you give any instruction to Mr. Massey after you first encountered him?

A After we encountered them, I asked him and Mr. Varner if they can hang tight. They were missing one of their — their friends that was with them, and I wasn’t sure where exactly he was. Again, I was still in the back of my head, the shots had rang out. They had called for a supervisor. I was trying to make my way down to where the agents needed me, ensuring safety, that everybody was okay. So I asked them to stay by their Kawasaki as I continued down this dirt road.

Q Okay. So you get to the area where the shooting took place. What do you see?

A As I approach, I see Mr. — Mr. Foerster holding a weapon in his hand. It was just hanging down to his side, but he was holding the weapon as an —

***

So as I came down, I saw Mr. Foerster there holding that weapon. I saw the agent, Marco Gonzalez, approaches me as I’m getting close, and he’s telling me that, you know, he shot at Mr. Foerster; that Mr. Foerster turned in his direction with the weapon and he opened fire. And I was trying to get — Foerster started talking, and so I was trying to get everybody to —

Now, according to Cantu’s testimony, he already had their identification, so essentially, they cannot leave. They have to consider that if they do leave, at best, they no longer have any identification, and, at worst, they might be charged for resisting arrest, or some other bogus charge. After all, who would leave their ID with an LEO, if they were free to leave?

Later, he testifies that he, and Massey, knew what had happened before they got to the ATV. That would, of course, make anything Massey knew nothing more than hearsay.

As we got to the ATV, Mr. Foerster started telling Mr. Massey what had occurred…

Cantu continues, in response to Hagen asking him what happened next:

A As soon as we… Mr. Massey tells me: You know, as far as we’re concerned, nobody was injured. We want to go on our way.

Q Okay. And is there a protocol that you need to follow when an officer discharges a weapon?

A Yes. We need to make notifications. We need to investigate why the firearm was discharged.

Q Okay. Now, at this point in time, did you know whether or not Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had been threatened or whether or not perhaps Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had irresponsibly fired upon Foerster? Did you know?

A From what I had gathered, he had fired in — from what Mr. Gonzalez told me. Again, this was preliminary. I was trying to — I had to speak with everyone to figure out kind of what was actually happening, so I wasn’t sure at that point.

***

Q Okay. Did you explain to Mr. Massey — and may I ask you this? When Massey said, “We want to leave,” who was he talking about when he — when he mentioned or by the word “we”?

A Well, Mr. Foerster, Varner and himself were inside the Kawasaki, so that to me told me they all wanted to depart.

Cantu knew that Massey and Varner knew no more than he did. The question involved three people, as Cantu puts it. If the majority should be excluded, reason dictates that he should have said that only Foerster had to remain.

Q Okay. So did you explain to them that an investigation was going to be conducted?

A I did.

Q And how did you explain that to them?

A I told them that they weren’t allowed to leave and that we were going to move to a staging area just further up, which is the — this area right here. My initial thought — and the reason I chose this area was to give us distance from the river that was close by. We moved here to stage the vehicles and kind of get a grip of what actually transpired.

Now, they were not allowed to leave. That means that they are not free to go. However, as explained above, they were being good, State law-abiding, cooperative citizens.

Later in testimony:

Q Okay. Now, did you ask Mr. Massey to provide you with an ID?

A I did, sir.

Q At what point in time did you make that request?

A Our initial encounter, as I approached him with Mr. Varner.

Q Okay. And did — did he provide you with an identification?

A He did.

So, it was when Varner and Cantu met up with Massey that the physical (identification papers, please) ability to leave was removed. This singular act sets the stage for the whole drama of whether it was detention or a Terry Stop.

So, let’s keep the stage set. Cantu has the IDs. Rather than return them he, well:

Q And when Sergeant Valerio showed up, did you provide the IDs from Mr. Massey and Mr. Varner to him?

A Yes, sir. I had not been able — had time to conduct any further investigations on those. When I say that, I mean run records. I mean, normally typically run records when we encounter people. I had not had the time. I was attempting to secure everything that — when Mr. Valerio showed up, I handed him the identifications and kind of gave him the rundown of what had occurred, and he took over at that point.

So, if he gave Valerio the “run down”, the Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy would know that there were only two witnesses to the shooting.

This is cross-examination by Mr. Sorola, and a repeat of part of Scene 1, and brings in the question posed by the Judge:

Q Okay. Later on do you find out who is shot — who is firing a weapon, a firearm?

A Upon approaching [where] Foerster and Mr. Gonzalez [were], yes.

Q And Agent Gonzalez is the only one that discharged a weapon; is that correct?

A At that point, that’s what I was told, yes.

Q And you were told that by Agent Gonzalez, right?

A Correct. And Mr. Foerster attested to that.

THE COURT: And you said at that time. I mean, nothing subsequent to that time has changed that, have they?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, no. It’s just that —

THE COURT: So as far as you know sitting here today, the only weapon that was shot was — the only weapon discharged was discharged by Agent Gonzalez.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

In confirming (that’s what good attorneys do) that Massey and Varner were detained, Mr. Sorola asks:

Q And this is about 3:45 in the afternoon, correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, you testified earlier that you told Mr. Massey he could not leave the area, right?

A Correct.

Q So he wasn’t free to leave.

A No.

Q He had to stay there.

A Yes.

Q What would you have done had he tried to leave?

A I could have detained — placed him in handcuffs, put him in a unit to secure him to prevent him from leaving the area. But he was being cooperative, and none of that was necessary.

Next, we look at whether there was any reason, at all, to believe that Massey and Varner were complicit, or even aware, of the shooting event — other than having heard the shots.

Q And when the shooting occurred, you didn’t take Mr. Varner’s weapon from him, did you?

A No, sir.

Q You didn’t disarm him?

A No.

Q You didn’t frisk him?

A No.

Q When you encountered Mr. Massey, did you check him for firearms?

A Just the one he was carrying, the longarm, the AK47 weapon.

Q But you didn’t take it from him?

A I did not.

***

THE COURT: Okay. But you had no — you obviously didn’t have any reason to think Mr. Massey was the one that had done the shooting because —

THE WITNESS: No, I —

THE COURT: — you went on. You left him there and went on.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

Here is a rather interesting side note, perhaps a contradiction that has to do with “Officer Safety”. At this time, there are just a few agents in the area. The recipient of the shots fired is still armed, as are Massey and Varner. After additional officers arrive, approaching “between 15 and twenty”, it is determined that the weapons must be “secured”, first to the open ATV, then, later, to the back of the BPS “unit” (why don’t they just call it what it is, instead of government double-speak?)

Q Okay. So Mr. Varner and Mr. Massey just tell you out of the clear blue: We also have firearms on us?

A Yes.

Q And you didn’t see these firearms prior to them telling you?

A I did not.

Q But then are you saying that Mr. Varner then handed you the — the firearm that he had?

A Yes, sir.

Q And what did Mr. Massey do?

A Same thing. They both removed the — their pistols and put them in the back of my unit. The pistols were downloaded and placed there with the remainder — with the other rifles.

Back to the subject of this Act, whether they were detained or stopped. Mr. Sorola still questioning:

Q How long was it that Mr. Massey was not free to leave this area?

A In its entirety, sir, or the investigative agency showed up?

Q In its entirety. From 3:45 when shots are fired, when is Mr. Massey free to go?

A He departed — I’m — I can’t tell you exactly who told him it was — after the investigative agency showed up, they began to interview him. And which agency ultimately told him they were done with their interviews, I couldn’t tell you.

Next Witness, Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Valerio. This will be the handoff of the ID cards, though there arises a question (good memories?) of whether there were two, as Cantu said, or three, as Valerio will testify:

Q Okay. Did you observe or did you meet with an individual by the name of Danny Cantu?

A Yes, I did.

Q And did he provide you with any ID cards?

A Yes, he did, with three ID cards from the persons that were there.

Q Okay. Did he provide you with three ID cards or two ID cards?

A As far as I can remember, it was three ID cards.

Q And soon after arriving, did you request criminal histories and a warrant search on the IDs that had been provided to you?

A Yes, that’s correct.

***

Q All right. Now, did you have reason to believe that Mr. Massey had been carrying a weapon or weapons on that date prior to your arrival?

A Yes, I did.

Q Why did you think that?

A I was informed by the — by David Cantu that this — the suspects, the persons that were there, they were carrying these weapons that he had shown me.

Q All right. Did you — when you first arrived, did you think Mr. Massey had committed a crime? And I’m talking about before you ran the criminal history or anything like that. When you first arrived, did you think he had done anything that — where he should be detained or arrested?

A No. I only had the information on the shooting, but we didn’t know at that point in time what actually had happened.

Q Okay. So if Mr. Massey would have asked you when you arrived at 4:18, told you, “I’m getting out of here,” would you have let him go?

A At that point, yes.

Q Okay. Now, after you learned that he had been in possession of a weapon and he had a felony conviction, did your position change on whether or not you would let him go if he would have asked?

A Yes, it changed based on the information I had and his record and him being in possession. It had changed, that he would have been asked to stay.

Now, wouldn’t the Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy know that after 5 years, Massey could have a firearm? It is suggested, in other testimony, that he knew. In response to Sorola’s questioning:

Q If I have a felony conviction on my record, is it against the law for me to have a firearm?

A It depends if it’s within five years, sir, or not. That’s something that we would have to further — be further looked into.

So, can there be any doubt, even with the hedging, that Valerio knows what Texas law says.

A Prior to his arrival there.

Q Okay. Now, Mr. Massey had a weapon and a felony prior, but is that why you were out there in the Sabal Palms area, to investigation Mr. Massey?

A No. We were out there for the shooting itself.

Q Okay. And what kind of investigation was conducted by the Sheriff’s Department in connection with the shooting?

A The investigation was at the — who — how it happened, who was the one carrying the weapons also, and who was the one that did the shooting, which was Border Patrol involvement.

Then, we have this:

Q All right. Now, did you speak with — towards the end of the shooting investigation, did you speak with your supervisor to determine whether or not you should return the weapons to Mr. Massey, Foerster and Varner or maintain custody of them?

A That’s correct. I spoke to Lieutenant Diaz. And based on the field investigation, he advised that we were going to collect the weapons. We were going to take custody of them for further investigation.

Q Okay. And was that because of the felony convictions?

A Correct. That’s correct.

Then, Mr. Sorola asks:

Q Sergeant, did you ever get a warrant to take possession of the firearms?

A No, I did not.

Q When you arrived at 4:18, was there any emergency? Was the shooting over?

A That’s correct, yes.

Q Well, when you arrived, the firearms were actually in the possession of Border Patrol, right?

A That’s correct.

Q And when you arrived at 4:18, as far as you’re concerned, Mr. Massey was free to leave?

A That’s correct.

Q Do you know if he was under orders from any other law enforcement not to leave?

A No, I did not. I had no knowledge of that.

Q You don’t know?

A I don’t.

Q But at this time, you have his identification card.

A That’s correct.

Q And you have Mr. Varner’s identification card.

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q Did you give them back to them?

A After I — after I did the inquiry, yes.

So, there was no justification for the Deputy to retain, or take custody of the firearms — even Foerster’s, as it was clear there was no criminal act on their part. And, they were free to go, if they left their ID with the Deputy.

Next on the stand, David Daniel Cordova, FBI Special Agent, being questioned by Hagen, and who testified that he arrived on the scene at about 6:00 PM, fully two hours after BPS had determined that Gonzales was the only shooter.

Q Okay. Why did you interview Mr. Massey?

A Mr. Massey? At the time it was my understanding that he was a witness to a shooting. A Border Patrol agent had discharged a firearm, and so I needed to obtain the details of what happened.

Q Okay. At that time — did you state earlier that you were investigating a possible assault on a federal agent?

A That’s correct.

Q And were you also investigating a possible assault by a federal agent?

A That is correct.

I suppose that there is a reason that he wanted to investigate the possibility that there was an assault on a federal officer. But, based upon what we know, is it at all possible that the known information wasn’t provided Cordova? If not, why wasn’t he informed what had already been provided by the participants in the shooting event.

Regarding the investigation as to whether there was an assault by a federal agent, we have heard nothing as to the results of that investigation, if it was every completed. Since Gonzales has not been charged with anything,, we must assume that the focus was on Massey, not on the shooter, Gonzales.

Just trying to understand how the investigators and government look at this, I suppose that we could compare it to you being two blocks away from a bank robbery, though you heard shots fired. The government then holds you as a witness, detaining you until they have fully satisfied themselves that, based up the eye witnesses to the account, and extensive, intrusive interviews, they determine that you are now, finally, free to go — subject to subsequent arrest because they have to check with their bosses to see how to charge you with a crime that you didn’t commit –under state law.

Another side note, in answer to another question, Cordova says, about Massey, “I ended up interviewing him along with an HSI agent.” HSI is Homeland Security Investigations, part of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Later on:

Q Do you know if any of the other FBI agents, your supervisor or anybody took any?

A One of our TFOs I believe took some photos.

THE COURT: What’s a TFO?

THE WITNESS: Task force officer.

So, why is a Task Force Officer present during the investigation? The only task force that I can find reference to that might want to be involved is the Domestic Terror Task Force (DTTF).

However, back to whether, or not, Massey was detained, we have the Hagen discussion with the judge:

HAGEN: No. I mean, my understanding, the motion to suppress is that the stop was illegal and that the arrest warrant was based on that, which, you know, my argument would be if Your Honor doesn’t like the stop, there’s certainly a good faith exception that would apply to the arrest and the search warrant wherein ATF agents were not present on the 29th relied on.

THE COURT: What are you referring to as “the stop“?

HAGEN: The August 29th encounter.

So, Hagen has to set the distinction that it was a stop, not a detention. You have read the testimony, and it appears quite clear that Hagen is grasping at straws. However, there is more coming in the next “Scene”.

 

Government was intended to govern the government,

not to govern the people.

 

 

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 1: Pointing Weapons, or Not Pointing Weapons?

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 11, 2015

In previous articles, we have discussed the Criminal Complaint, Arrest Warrant, and Search Warrant. In each of those documents, we have a set paragraph, to wit:

On August 29, 2014, United States Border Patrol Agents from the Fort Brown Border Patrol Station, while in performance of their official duties, encountered an armed individual, identified as John Frederick FOERSTER, in the brush. During this encounter, FOERSTER turned and pointed a firearm at a USBP Agent, who intern [sic] fired several shots at FOERSTER. FOERSTER is a member of “Rusty’s Rangers,” an armed citizen militia group patrolling the border of the United States and Mexico.

In each document bears the signature of “Anthony M. Rotunno, Special Agent ATF”. Below that, it states that it was “Sworn to before me and signed in my presence”, that being signed by “United States Magistrate Judge Ronald G. Morgan”. So, we have Rotunno swearing before Morgan that everything he has said is true. So, let’s see what the story is, now.

Hagen, the Prosecuting Attorney, in giving his response to Sorola’s motion, says:

[T]he way this all came about is there was one agent that was in heavy brush, and he was in hot pursuit of aliens. When he came through a clearing, he encountered John Foerster… Mr. Foerster had a weapon. It was an AK47 type pistol. And when the Border Patrol — and this is probably disputed. I don’t think that Mr. Foerster ever aimed or was planning on shooting the Border Patrol agent. But when the Border Patrol agent came through the brush, Foerster turned in his direction, and he was perceived as a threat by the Border Patrol agent who fired several shots at Mr. Foerster, thankfully missing.

The first witness was Danny Cantu, U. S. Border Patrol. Hagen is questioning him.

Q Okay. Now, at this point in time, did you know whether or not Border Patrol Agent [Marco] Gonzalez had been threatened or whether or not perhaps Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had irresponsibly fired upon Foerster? Did you know?

A From what I had gathered, he had fired in — from what Mr. Gonzalez told me. Again, this was preliminary. I was trying to — I had to speak with everyone to figure out kind of what was actually happening, so I wasn’t sure at that point.

Well, Gonzales, the only witness to the shooting besides Foerster, made no claim that begins to suggest that the weapon was pointed at Gonzales.

In Hagen’s initial statements, he said, “I believe [Massey] made one res gestae statement in connection with the arrest when he was told that they were going to do a search warrant, and that statement was, ‘There’s another gun in the hotel room, but it’s not mine.'” So, he ‘believes’, based upon something that he didn’t articulate, he makes a claim without foundation, setting the stage for the entire government performance. Perhaps it was Divine Inspiration.

Now, res gestae is a legal term which provides an exception to the prohibition of hearsay, and is met when somebody makes a spontaneous statement, closely connected to an event, before the mind has an opportunity to conjure a falsehood. Hagen perhaps, attempted to lay a foundation that Massey “volunteered” the information about a firearm in the motel room. Perhaps the same applies to the initial interview with Gonzales and the failure to report any instance where Foerster “turned and pointed a firearm at a USBP Agent.”

It also begs the question, why did Cantu state that he had to “speak with everyone”, when the sole shooter had already said that he was the sole shooter?

In cross-examination, Mr. Sorola is questioning Cantu:

Q To your knowledge, at any time were any of those weapons [that were taken from the Camp Lone Star volunteers] fired at this shooting?

A The Winchester (Varner’s] was not, as he was speaking with me when the shots were fired.

Q So at the time of this shooting, do you know who’s discharging what weapons?

A No.

Q Okay. Later on do you find out… who is firing a weapon, a firearm?

A Upon approaching… Foerster and Mr. Gonzalez area, yes.

Q And Agent Gonzalez is the only one that discharged a weapon; is that correct?

A At that point, that’s what I was told, yes.

Q And you were told that by Agent Gonzalez, right?

A Correct. And Mr. Foerster attested to that.

THE COURT: And you said at that time. I mean, nothing subsequent to that time has changed… ?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, no. It’s just that —

THE COURT: So as far as you know sitting here today, the only weapon that was shot was — the only weapon discharged was discharged by Agent Gonzalez.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

So, Cantu knew, the moment that he was able to speak with Gonzales, that no other weapon was fired, except Gonzales’. And, he makes no mention of any pointing or aiming by Foerster.

From that point on, there is no further discussion of pointing because the shooter, Marco Gonzales, after making initial statement, lawyered up, and Foerster has also refused to talk.

Q Okay. Was he [Agent Marco Gonzales, the shooter] going to visit with anybody? Was he going to talk about what happened?

A No. They — we were informed that he was not going to provide a statement out there.

Q All right. And who gave you that information?

A Let me see. Mr. Gerardo Reyes “Rey” Gonzalez.

Q Okay.

A He was the one who informed me that Agent Gonzalez was not going to provide a statement. He was the union leader.

So, though the agents are employees of the Border Patrol, and I’m sure that they are required, as a part of their duties, to file reports on any incidents, especially an officer involved shooting, and the union can “void” that obligation. It kinda makes you wonder who runs BPS — the government, or the union.

Now, since Gonzales has hidden behind the law and his union, it would appear that he has something to hide. Though we have not heard Foerster’s side of the story, he has not been charged with any criminal activity related to the shooting event, only that he was charged, like Massey, with felony possession of a firearm, and has plead guilty to that charge.

Massey is also charged with felony in possession of a firearm and has, rightfully, plead not guilty. He was not apprehended in the commission of a crime, nor did he have any knowledge of any crime, except what he heard during the course of the investigation. He was not even a witness to the crime of the discharge of a firearm by an agent of the government.

So, let’s try to be objective as we look at this “scene”. We have an affidavit, sworn to by Rotunno, in front of a judge. His claims of the weapon being pointed at the Agent flies in the face of what Gonzales and Foerster told the other investigators. Even the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Hagen, says that he doubts that a firearm was pointed at the agent. That was a bald-faced lie on the part of Rotunno, and he was never even at the scene of the shooting. That smells, very strongly, of Perjury.

However, if you lie to a government agent during the course of an investigation, you are subject to 18 US Code § 1001, and subject to 5 years in prison.

Then, we have the only one that committed a possible criminal act who only made some statements to others, before the union got him to lawyer-up.

However, who is the government going after? K. C. Massey, neither Gonzales for shooting at Foerster nor Rotunno for lying in a sworn statement.

It appears that we have returned to that era in history where “The King can do no wrong”. And, the King includes his, not our, public servants.

Government should not be theoretically defensible,

it should be the object of general acceptance.

Camp Lone Star – Act One: The Government Charade

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 31, 2015

Yesterday, when Massey arrived at the courthouse, there were about twenty agents in battle gear and a number of DHS Suburbans parked in front of the courthouse. After going in to the courthouse, he had to visit the Pre-Trial Services. There, he was approached by two agents who wanted to see his sunglasses. They inspected them, thoroughly, and then returned them to Massey. I suppose this is the future — what we can expect because of Google-Glasses. However, finding that they were not dangerous, they were returned to their owner.

At 1:30, he arrived at the hearing. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, read his motion to Suppress Evidence and the Motion to Dismiss. The US Attorney, Hagen, then presented oral arguments against the two motions. Apparently, as we will see later, Hagen failed to address all of the pertinent parts of the motions.

Then, BPS agent Cantu testified. Now, Cantu was there shortly after the shooting took place. There were only two witnesses to the shooting, John (Jesus) Foerster and BPS agent Gonzales. Foerster has pled guilty to the charge of felony possession, though he has yet to be sentenced. Perhaps he is in acting school, being prompted on what his testimony will be if Massey ever goes to trial.

Gonzales has been conspicuously absent, throughout this whole ordeal. However, he is the only one on the government side that was witness to the shooting. However, this cannot be a bar to introducing testimony as to what happened that afternoon, so Cantu testified as if he were present and observed the shooting. I think that is most often referred to as hearsay evidence, and if someone not on the government side presented it, would probably not be allowed. However, Cantu asserts that the weapon was pointed at the agent before he fired at Foerster. Foerster placed, or dropped, his weapon to the ground. Cantu testified than when he arrived, Foerster was holding his weapon and Cantu then took the weapon from him.

So, let’s see, according to the government line, Foerster pointed the weapon toward Gonzales, Gonzales fired, from about thirty feet away, five shoots, all of them missing Forester. Foerster places the gun on the ground, and because of the sound of the shooting, people begin to gather. Cantu arrives and Foerster is holding his weapon — wait, you mean Gonzales, after a shooting incident, let Foerster pick up his loaded weapon? This is almost unbelievable — that Foerster was allowed to carry the weapon until Cantu arrived to join him and Gonzales. Gee, in movies, and even on Cop Block, they always kick the weapon away from the bad guy, even when he is dead.

Okay, on to the next fantasy. As was reported previously (Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland), they have claimed that Massey was not detained, since if he was detained, they would have to read him his Miranda Rights. So, Cantu takes Massey’s driver’s license, which will not be returned until the end of the investigation by even more government agents, hours later. Cantu also stated that if Massey tried to leave, he would have “cuffed” him and put him in the back of his vehicle. But, remember, now Massey was not detained (he just wasn’t allowed to leave).

Next witness is Sheriff’s Deputy Valerio. He testified that Massey’s driver’s license was handed to him when he arrived. He said that Massey was “free to go”, though he never gave Massey his driver’s license. Massey doesn’t recall anybody, at any time, telling him that he was free to go until the ordeal was over.

Final witness, FBI Special Agent Cordoba. He admits that there was a criminal investigation going on. However, the criminal, if there was one, would only be the person that shot at another person. It is difficult to believe that the criminal is the person that was shot at, and the investigation was directed at Massey and Foerster instead of Gonzales.

Cantu was reading from a notepad, which was not provided through discovery, nor was Massey’s attorney even aware of its existence. Surely agent Gonzales had to prepare a written report, so, that, too, will be made available. And, finally, we may get to see the weapons audit and chain of evidence on the only gun fired that day.

All three witnesses testified that Massey was on private property, which would make possession of a weapon legal under Texas law. So, here we have that conflict that was addressed in Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws.

At the close of the hearing, Hanen gave the government the opportunity to file an additional response, since they failed to address some portions of the motions. I suppose that it will also give them some time to ‘imagineer” (that’s a Disney term for those who make up stories) some effort to cover up what has been uncovered, though I doubt that they are able to undo the damage they have already done to their case. The government has until April 10 to file their amendment/response. The Sorola has until the 17th to respond to the government’s feeble effort to try to make their story believable.

An observation: Judge Hanen is being extremely lenient with the government in allowing them to try to get their story straight. However, with the discrepancies so far, it is nearly inconceivable that they can extricate their falsehoods and come up with a cohesive story supported by the evidence — some yet to be seen by the Accused and his attorney. Perhaps the Judge will find that even the lower levels of government are as prone to lying as those in the high chairs of the Administration.

Camp Lone Star – Who is K. C. Massey?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 29, 2015

Shortly after K. C. Massey was arrested, I spoke with him and we discussed the fact that he was a felon. He explained that he had turned his life around. So, I asked him to write a bit about his past — what went wrong and how he turned it around. However, before we get to what he had to say, when you read this, keep in mind that prison is supposed to be a rehabilitation system, not a means of vengeance or revenge. Any articles about recidivism show that those returning to prison usually do so within a few years. They never want to talk about those who have rehabilitated, whether a product of the system, or simply because they chose to change their own lives and live an exemplary life.

Now, Massey’s life, in his own words:

I was born in 1966, in Chicago, Illinois, while my father was stationed in the Army on Lake Michigan at a NIKE missile base.

We moved to Texas in 1968. I was raised in a small East Texas community of Palestine until the 3^rd grade. My father was transferred to Dallas to work in the dispatch office of Xerox, after he had been seriously injured in an automobile accident and was unable to perform his normal duty as a Xerox repairman. This was a big culture shock and a very difficult time for me. I had been raised a small town country boy now thrust into big city life and schools.

We moved to an area known as Pleasant Grove an east Dallas area. The name did not equate to the life I was introduced to there. I was a rough crime ridden area of Dallas. As a young white country boy, I was out of place from day one. I remember being chased to and from the bus stop to school and being bullied almost daily. It caused problems for me at home. My dad was always busy working while my mother was a stay at home mom. We were not doing financially well due to my father’s accident and transfer to Dallas after a lengthy recovery from his accident. My mother handmade our clothes and most of my belongings at the time were second hand. That was a cause of ridicule from the neighborhood kids making the bullying against me worse. In the fifth grade my parents transferred me to a Montessori school outside of our neighborhood for 2 reasons. One was to get me away from the bullies in my neighborhood and 2, was to get a “Better education” since I had tested as “Talented and Gifted”. This was a terrible time for me as I was one of about 6 white kids in this all black school in an all-black neighborhood. The bullying got worse causing me to act out at home in a very negative way. My parents didn’t understand the issues at school and thought I was just acting out. My parents in an effort to help me had me sent to Salesmanship Boys Camp.

Salesmanship Boys Camp is for incorrigible youths where you are away from home 28 days a month. The program setting is in the East Texas woods with very few modern conveniences. We lived in self-constructed tents made entirely by hand, The tents were constructed of pine trees we hand cut and skinned, notched and hand doweled together. The tents were covered by tarps we hand-cut and grommeted and then stretched over the pine structures. We had no electricity and only had running water from one hose bib. Our lights were kerosene lanterns; our heat during the winter was potbellied stoves. Our latrine was a hole we hand dug and built a box over it. We had a mile or so hike to take showers. We cut at least 2 cords of wood a year for cooking and heating. All the wood was harvested with handsaws and axes. Our group consisted of 10 “troubled” boys and 2 men councilors. We lived, ate, showered, and slept in these primitive conditions year around. I was there for almost 2 years (6^th and 7^th grade).

After coming home from Salesmanship Camp my family problems were not better and we still lived in the same neighborhood. Again, my parents tried to send me to a school listed as an “Academy” to provide me with a better educational environment. It was the same problem as before. I was one of a handful of white kids in an all-black school in an all-black neighborhood. By now I had become more hardened and began to act out criminally. I had two other siblings, a special needs sister and a brother five years younger than me. I was always in trouble and my mother couldn’t deal with me. I ran away from home all the time to go hang out with my criminal friends. It was easier for me to fit in with them than to be the “Smart obedient “child who got bullied. My freshman year of high school my parents again tried to send me to a good high school, out of my district, again in a non-white area. This led me to skip school and in general be a thug. By the 10^th grade my parents had just about given up on me. I was left in the care of the Dallas juvenile system. I was placed in the Dallas County Boys home. I was there for almost 2 years (10^th-11^th grade). This was a very difficult time in my life. All the people around me were criminals and I only had one choice as I saw it. Be a victim or be a victimizer. The victimizer was an easier role and one of less victimization. My record while in placement reflected that. I went back to the Boys home to visit about 10 years later and I was vividly remembered by the staff that was still there.

After I was released back to my parents to return to my neighborhood High School I never fit in. I didn’t grow up with most of them so I was like an outsider. The only friends I was able to make were the thug kids who had been through similar situations. Thus my life of “Big Boy” crime began. At first we were doing vandalism and petty thefts etc. Then I started selling and doing drugs, from there I graduated to home invasions and vehicle thefts. I was arrested in 1986 for my first burglary. I was given probation and I was homeless. My parents wanted nothing to do with me because I had become everything they couldn’t stand, and everything they had raised me NOT to be. I continued on my life of crime and personal destruction. By 1988 I thought I had moved up in the crime world, I was not actually committing thefts but I was buying stolen property and paying the thieves in cash instead of drugs. I thought I was doing good. Was I ever sadly mistaken. By this time I had a job and a car and a place to live. That all came crashing down too. I was arrested and shown all the pawn tickets I had cashed in linking me directly to the thieves and stolen merchandise. Since I was already on probation for the burglary in 1986 and at the time burglary carried a penalty of 5-Life, I took the offer by the Dallas DA of 5 years TDC. It was the best deal I could hope to get. At the time Texas prisons were severely overcrowded and most people were only doing a month on the year for their sentence I thought I’d be out in 5 months. Well not me, I wound up doing 9 months on my 5-year sentence. It was a very trying time for me personally, but I learned more about myself in those 9 months than I had in the previous 22 years. I learned I had mental strengths and determination to make it through more than I ever thought I could. I had to work in the fields with literally bloodied hands that hurt so bad I couldn’t close my fists. I had no skin left on my hands yet I had to wield a hoe every day. I endured times when I just knew I was gonna pass out from pain and exhaustion. I learned I was way stronger than I had ever imagined. This was my catalyst for changing my life. Never before had any member of my family been to prison. I felt ashamed for tarnishing my family’s name. I never wanted to lose my freedom and rights again.

When I was paroled from prison, I struck out on a journey to find myself. Right out of prison I was fired up to make something of myself. After being out of prison for a year or so, I still didn’t know what I wanted to be or do. It was hard finding a job, or getting people to trust me. The only people I seemed to connect with were criminals and drug addicts. I started abusing cocaine. I still remember very vividly the last time I did cocaine. It was in 1991 around January/February. We were all sitting around getting high on cocaine and all of the sudden my entire body went numb. My heart felt like it was going to beat out of my chest. My “friends” all looked at me and were like, Aww man we got to go. They left me alone to die on that couch a dope head. I closed my eyes and I prayed to God and asked him to save me and spare my life. I swore that if I lived through this I would never ever do dope again. I closed my eyes and woke up the next day perfectly fine. I have never touched dope again.

My life didn’t get better overnight but God opened doors for me to allow me to escape that life and fate. I spent the next few years trying to stay positive and sober.

I met my beautiful wife in December of 1992. My life started taking shape. In early 1993 we learned she was pregnant. Around the same time my ex-girlfriend told me she was pregnant, too. What a shocker for me. I was not really prepared for kids but God put it on me so I had to become ready. I had always told myself if I ever had kids, I would never let my kids go down the road I did. I would do everything possible to give them a childhood I never had.

I was in the summer of 1995 a guy I had recently met was starting a new electrical contracting company and he wanted it to be high-tech. Khristy’s grandmother liked me and wanted to help me get a good career so she bought me my first computer. I liked computers and I had studied computer programming in prison. I spent countless hours teaching myself computers. So when Jerry asked me to help him with his new company, it was my first real computer job. We primarily did electric installations for swimming pools and spas. After I got all the companies networked and a website going there wasn’t much to do at the office. So I decided instead of just sitting around the office I would learn about electrical work.

I found my passion. I don’t know why, but I really loved doing electrical work. I enjoyed working hard sweating more than sitting in an office doing computers. The guys were eager to teach me but they didn’t understand why I wanted to be in the field doing labor when I could be in the A/C taking it easy. That earned me respect among the electricians. It all seemed so easy to me to do electrical work.

Skip forward several years, we moved to rural Hunt County, Texas. I was raising my stepson and my son living the simple country life. My boys were going to a school where K-12 was on one campus on about 10 acres of land.

One day I got a call from my daughter who was now 10. Her mother was going to prison and she had no other family than me to go to. Going back 5 years or so while my daughters Grandma was alive, my wife and I had let Ruth (Grandma) and my stepdaughter and my daughter come live with us. The girl’s mother had always struggled with addiction, one of the reasons she and I couldn’t make it together. Grandma and the girls had lived with my wife and our 2 boys for about a year, Khristy and I told her the girls could stay but she had to get a job to help support herself or she had to go. She showed her gratitude by soliciting my X’s current boyfriend to rob our house. He stole about $30K worth of personal belongings and cash from us. It took about a week for my police friends to discover who had committed the burglary. By that time Grandma and the girls were gone. I didn’t see them again for about 5 years.

Back to the call from Jessica my daughter. I went immediately to pick her up from over 70 miles away. They girls were staying with an old alcoholic man who had other dope head men living there. I took my daughter that day despite the objections of “Hag”. My daughter I found out was out of juvenile pending a court case for assault on another girl her age. I had to get a lawyer and go to court with my daughter for the assault case. The judge gave me custody of her and put her on probation. Her mother was still waiting for transport to prison.

When Jessica came to live with me, she was everything I had raised my boys NOT to be. She was a thief and she would rather lie than tell the truth even if the truth served her better. She reminded me of me when I was a kid. It broke my heart. I remember telling myself if I ever had a kid, no matter what I would never give up on my kid. I would do everything possible to be there for them. Well she was my true test of my resolve. My wife and daughter did not get along at all. My boys didn’t want her there because she was taking from them in their eyes. It was a true personal battle for me. My motto had been since the early 90’s “actions speak louder than words”. A thought first introduced to me by my father. I kept thinking I can’t give up on her. I have to pull my family together, it is my job as the man of the house and as the leader of my family. It was definitely a struggle of epic proportions. In the end, I won. I stuck with my convictions and I did change my daughter’s life. She is the ONLY female in her family going back at least 4 generations to not be pregnant by 16. She was the only one in her family to not have a bout with addictions and only the second next to my stepdaughter to graduate high school. With an A/B Honor roll with my son Kory. She went on to join the US Marine Corps and she is a very loved and respected member of our family and community. In just 2 years as a Marine she has obtained the rank of NCO Corporal. I could not be prouder of her.

My oldest “Step” son Taylor. I have been in his life since he was 3 years old. One of my earliest and cutest moments of him is when I was working on the sprinkler system in our yard, I was covered in sweat. He looked at me puzzled and said, “Why you have cry on you face?” Taylor was diagnosed with Leukemia when he was 3 ½ years old. That was a very painful yet turned out to be a joyful time for us. It was painful to watch a 3-year-old child go through 2 years of Chemo and constant hospital visits. I hated having to make him take shots and seeing the pain and fear in his eyes. It was very hard for us and it is still painful for me to think about. Thank God for his healing power and modern medicine. Taylor is now a healthy 25-year-old man. He is a body builder that can bench press 500 pounds. He has graduated from personal trainer school and massage therapy school. He has a good career opportunity working for one of my electrical supply companies.

Kory is my youngest son. He is my joy too. He is a very caring and independently driven young man. He is the stereotypical good ol country boy. He has always been a very hard worker who takes great pride in everything he does. He is a joy to have as a son, he is always trying to do more and to be better. He followed in my footsteps as an electrician. He has taken the initiative to learn and always get better at whatever he does. He is an honest and very hard working young man who makes me very proud to say I am his father.

I am very blessed man to have the children I do. I am very proud of them. I am glad to have raised them to be good citizens who care about more than just themselves.

About my wife, Khristy is an angel sent from God. She has been my stability and my driving force. She has been my inspiration to be who I am today. She is the one who made me realize how wonderful life can be. She has made me happier and sadder than any human I know. She is my world, and I can’t give enough thanks to God for her and what she means to me and my life and to the successes I have had as a man, a father and a business man. I owe her my entire life, because without her I don’t think I would be half the man I am today. She is far better than I ever deserved and I know she is my direct gift from God.

Due to the blessings bestowed upon me in my life’s struggles, I have been able to reach people and be an example of how life can change for the better if you work for it and want it to happen. I have spent most of my adult life trying to mentor both young and old. I have tried to lead by example and through my actions, not my words. I have been recognized for my charitable deeds by Habitat for Humanity and by the National Rebuilding for America organization. I have been politically involved in my community as well as involved with other charitable groups like Lowes Heroes. I take great pride in “Giving Back” to my community. I have donated equipment for my local sheriff’s office to help keep them safe in high risk situations and I have also donated equipment to my local police departments to help them be more efficient. I have donated time and resources for my local Volunteer Fire Dept. and my home city of Quinlan. I take great pride in being able to give back to the country that has given me the opportunity to succeed due to my efforts.

I am a True Constitutional Patriot who wholly and completely supports our founding fathers vision for this country. I do firmly believe in America, we are only limited by our own efforts. My latest contribution to my country and state was to spend 4 months deployed to the Texas/Mexico border doing the job our Federal government refuses to do. I have personally helped turn back several hundred illegal invaders from various countries, while helping to serve the community of Brownsville. Local law enforcement and even Federal Agents told us that we had made a big difference in crimes against property and the people of Brownsville. We were told at one point there was an 80% reduction in property crime due to our work on the border. We treated any illegal we detained with dignity and we gave them food and water while waiting on Border Patrol to pick them up.

While I am suffering a heavy-handed persecution from my own Federal Government for my service on the border, I would do it all over again. I love these United States!

Thus ends what Massey had written, though there is more to the story. Those who have worked with Massey know him for what he is. In that light, they have written letters in support of Massey and to acknowledge what he has meant to their communities:

Honorable Donny Brock, Mayor, Quinlan, Texas

Chris Dewey, Police Officer, Farmersville Independent School District Police Department

Dr. Graham Sweeny, Superintendent, Boles Independent School District

 

C. Massey is a man among patriots.

More Outpost of Freedom articles about K. C. Massey