Outpost of Freedom blog

Taxation without Representation

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2002

Early this past year, we were still being told how gracious President George W. Bush (George III) was in allowing the taxpayers (American citizens) to keep the surpluses created by a healthy economy. After all, it was their money, wasn’t it?

The current estimate for the cost of a war (police action) in Iraq is set at $200,000,000,000.00 (two hundred billion dollars), and that is assuming that a government project falls within its original budget.

So far, defense spending, in normal budgetary terms, is at its highest in many years. Though it doesn’t appear that this extremely high budget is any part of the estimated 200 billion.

Two-hundred billion dollars! Just how much money is that? Well, it is over $765.00 for every man, woman and child in this country. A family of four will be contributing over #3,060.00 dollars to a ‘war’ that, we are told, is to protect us.

Early in this century, the mobs ran protection rackets in major cities. For a few dollars here and there, the mob would assure you that you would be protected from the violence that occurred, from time to time, to those who had not chosen to participate in the protection ‘racket’.

Has the government learned from the mob? If so, they are doing far better at it than the mob had ever anticipated. First, the mob numbers, even accounting for inflation, would never amount to over three thousand dollars per household.

Secondly, the mob only sought protection from people who were involved in a business. In the current situation, every taxpayer is going to have to participate, whether an employer or employee, and his participation will have to be increased proportionate to the ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Loosely, he will have to pay about four times what his “fair share” really is. Yes, that’s a whopping $12,000.00 for each and every taxpayer.

But, don’t be discouraged. The government, you see, is much easier to work with than the mob. First, you needn’t anticipate immediate harm, if you fail to pay. In fact, the threat that is the cause for the “protection racket” is rather speculative, to say the least. It is best upon conjecture that Saddam Hussein: has weapons that can cause great harm in this country; has the means of delivering those weapons; has the motivation to deliver them (which, we are trying desperately to provide); and, finally, that he would be willing to deliver them.

Secondly, the government, has much better credit than the mob, is willing to allow your obligation to be carried, from year to year, until satisfied. Realizing that there is no way for each taxpayer to come up with his “fair share”, in addition to the regular protection money that he has been paying, regularly, the government will just “mark up” the debt, and chisel away at it, in years to come (perhaps, many, many years – hopefully, slightly faster than interest will increase the burden).

I’ll bet that you are wondering what this has to do with taxation. Well, let’s see if we can pull the pieces together. First, we must have an understanding of “representation”. I know that we all know that we think that we know what it means. After all, we all know who our “representatives” are, both in the state capitol and in Washington, D.C. They are there to “represent” us.

Let’s begin with a few definitions. First, from Webster’s 1828 dictionary (considered the language of the Founders):
” Representative… 2. In legislative or other business, an agent, deputy or substitute who supplies the place of another or others, being invested with his or their authority. An attorney is the representative of his client or employer. A member of the house of commons is the representative of his constituents and of the nation. In matters concerning his constituents only, he is supposed to be bound by their instructions, but in the enacting of laws for the nation, he is supposed not to be bound by their instructions, as he acts for the whole nation. ”

From Black’s Law Dictionary (fifth Edition): “Representative. A person chosen by the people to represent their several interests in a legislative body.”

So, it appears by Webster’s (as the Founders would have understood it) that a representative, with the exception of passing “laws” in the interest of the nation, is bound by the instruction of his constituents. The time has passed whence instructions were given, specifically, to the representatives. This process has been replaced in what has become known as “campaign promises”.

In campaign promises, a candidate tell the constituents what he will do when he is elected. The candidate that seems to best represent, ideologically and specifically, the interest of the greater number of voters is elected – and, sent to represent the “several interests” (Black’s) of the people.

I

Now, if your candidate had campaigned under “no new taxes”, he would have to carry that “campaign promise” as an indication of the “several interests” of the people.

So, the question arises, “Does an elected representative, once he violates his campaign promise, cease to represent his constituents?”

II

Congress has specific responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution. One of those, and one which is very significant in the limitations of power which were desired and inherent, when the Constitution was written and ratified, is the “Power … To declare War”.

So, the question arises, “Should an elected representative shirk his Constitutional responsibility, does he cease to represent his constituents?”

III

There is little doubt that real war (declared in accordance with the Constitution), which without might cause a failure in the governmental obligation for “common defense”, is a situation which warrants incurring debt. Like any family, it is the duty of the head of that family NOT to incur such debt as to force his children, and their children into debt before their lifetime begins. The Constitution even assured that a means of bankruptcy would preclude the necessity of burdening posterity with debt of which they had no part.

It should be evident that our representatives in Congress, likewise, except in cases of necessity, cannot burden those yet unborn with obligations to repay debt of which they had no part. To do so, without extraordinary cause, would be to tax those who one could not possibly represent.

So, the question arises: “Should an elected representative impose a tax on someone yet unborn, except under extraordinary circumstances, is he taxing without representation?”

IV

The government of the United States of America exists ONLY because the people caused it to exist. Unlike any government that preceded it, its source is the people, and the people, only.

All other governments, prior to the founding of the United States, were lead by people who had acquired leadership (ownership) of the country by either force; or, divine right (from God).

The creation of that government was under certain conditions. The authority of the government to govern was first granted by the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient authority for the federal government to be able to maintain itself sufficiently to conduct its business.

The Constitution, in order to provide a “more perfect Union” of independent and sovereign states, was created with very specific powers, authorities, and limitations. It was endowed, by the people, with authority and RESPONSIBILITY. As such, it exists ONLY at the will of the people. It represents (stands in the place of) only those to whom it has kept its promise.

To think that we could walk away from government; abolish it by our consent, especially in a representative form of government, is, without question, impossible.

On the other hand, if that contract is breached by the government, they, by their very act of violation, have removed themselves from the contract. The have divested us from that government.

If any of the questions above are answered in the affirmative, the government has violated your consent to be governed by them. They have ceased to have any authority over your life, except that which they can impose by force. Similarly, the only effect you can have on them is by force. You are without (proper or lawful) government, and they are without authority to govern. They could only do so if you were to, again, give your consent to be government under a new contract (whether written, or not).

Have you given your consent?

Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court
The Sacred Writ has been Removed from the Constitution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

What is Habeas Corpus?

There is only one Right embodied in the Constitution; the remainder are found in the Bill of Rights.  For the most part, the Constitution created a government and granted it only certain powers and authorities.  So, what right is so significant as to be included within the Constitution, while the Bill of Rights was not adopted until 2 years later?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.  [Article I, §9, cl. 2]

What?  That says “Privilege”.  Well, a “Privilege” is a right that can be suspended, under certain circumstances.  Those circumstances are only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”, and, being in Article I, of the Constitution, the authority to suspend that right lies only with the Congress.

If you were old enough, or fortunate enough, to have been taught about Habeas Corpus in your early schooling, you would know that it is the “sacred writ” and that it means, “produce the body”.  Well, that doesn’t tell you a lot, though it does demonstrate that even in school, the assurance that you had a rudimentary understanding of what Habeas Corpus was a part of the educational process.

So, what is Habeas Corpus?  We can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, to find what a modern definition is:

habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent. 

This is the well-known remedy in England and the United States for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ in the English law, and the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  The “great writ of liberty”, issuing at common law out of the Courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Perhaps we can look for a more specific explanation of just what it means by “the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment.”  Detention, of course, would be simply “arrest”, while imprisonment is a consequence of conviction.  This is important to understand, as we proceed.  Now, we can see what some legal scholars, in the era of the framing of the Constitution, have to say.

First, we will look at the very foundation of Habeas Corpus in the Magna Carta, from 1215 A.D., which states, in Article 39, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Now, as you continue to read, you will see reference to “ill nature [or] mere inattention of government“; “repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors”; and, that it is “the great bulwark of personal liberty.”  Understand, regardless of what you have believed, that the Framers were concerned, as they understood human nature, and provided for, not in the Bill of Rights, but, in the body of the Constitution, this single means, this right, to challenge unconstitutional laws, giving the people, themselves, the means to nullify such enactments that were contrary to the powers and authorities granted by the Constitution.

In 1768, William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, says of the writ, “A remedy the more necessary, because the oppression does not always arise from the ill-nature, but sometimes from the mere inattention of government.”

In 1829, William Rawle, in his “A View of the Constitution of the United States”, tells us that it “is the great remedy of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment; it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors.”

Finally, in 1833, Justice Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution”, provides that, “At the common law there are various writs, called writs of habeas corpus.  But the particular one here spoken of is that great and celebrated writ, used in all cases of illegal confinement, known by the name of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum...  It is, therefore, justly esteemed the great bulwark of personal liberty.”

There is another aspect of Habeas Corpus that is not addressed in any of the above descriptions, though, as we will learn as we continue down this road, the Supreme Court of the United States has also ruled that since there is both a federal constitution and a constitution within each state, jurisdiction is a consideration of Habeas Corpus, as well.

Demand for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is two things; first, it is the demand for a writ of habeas corpus.  It is not automatic, and absent such request, there is no reason for the courts to even consider it.  Second is the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, which, in past practice, required that the party incarcerated be brought before the court to determine if his imprisonment is legal.

So, we can look, once again, to the legal scholars, to see what they say about the demand.  However, before we do this, there is another source from which modern Habeas Corpus emanates, and we shall consider it.

In 1679, the first Habeas Corpus Act was enacted in England.  From that Act, we find:

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the returns aforesaid… shall for the first offence forfeit to the prisoner or party grieved the sum of one hundred pounds; (2) and for the second offence the sum of two hundred pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said office…

So, we see that punishment for failure to respond to a writ of habeas corpus has penalties.

And, from Blackstone, we find, “it was, and is still, necessary to apply for it by motion to the court,… [that] if a probable ground be shewn, that the party is imprisoned without just cause, and therefore hath a right to be delivered, the writ of habeas corpus is then a writ of right, which may not be denied, but ought to be granted to every man that is committed, or detained in prison, or otherwise restrained, though it be by the command of the king, the privy council, or any other.”

So, the question arises, can the court not issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus, without showing cause why it should not be issued?  To answer this, we must first understand just what “suspend” means.  From Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Suspend – To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

Is Habeas Corpus Suspended?

Habeas Corpus, being a “writ of right”, as explained above, has a status similar to an “objection” during a trial.  Once demanded, it must be answered, prior to proceeding, as the objection will be “sustained” or “overruled” before proceeding.  Habeas Corpus, once demanded, is treated equally, in that it must be answered, prior to proceeding.  That answer can be either a refusal to grant the writ, based upon grounds expressed by the opposing party, or it must be granted and the writ issued.

It is significant, in terms of timeliness, to understand that when the writ is demanded, from 28 U.S.C. § 2243:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith [immediately] 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 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.

The judge or justice must respond to the demand immediately, and then the person having custody has three days, except for cause, which extends those three days up to twenty.  That is a requirement for a timely response, by the judicial branch, to a demand for habeas corpus.

So, we must begin at the beginning to understand that Habeas Corpus has been not only suspended, but has been blatantly ignored by the Judicial Branch of government, at every level; absent any lawful suspension by the Congress.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was served on the jailers of Larry Mikiel Myers on January 27, 2012, direct to the Court.  This Demand was also mailed directly to the Sheriff, who should have forwarded it to the District Court Judge.  Mr. Myers received no response and was tried in the District Court beginning February 9, 2012.  The trial should not have commenced until the Habeas Corpus was answered.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was prepared and sent, Certified Return Receipt, on February 10, 2012, to the District Court, the Sheriff, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, the Florida Supreme Court.  It was received by all parties on February 12, 2012.  The Sheriff and the District Court never acknowledged the service.

The 11th Circuit replied by returning the Demand for Habeas Corpus and saying that it must be filed with the District Court, and referenced FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) 22, which states, “Application for the Original Writ.  An application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the appropriate district court.  If made to a circuit judge, the application must be transferred to the appropriate district court.”  So, even though their rules state that THEY must transfer it to the District Court, They chose to pass it back to the Petitioner, avoiding dealing with their obligation to justice.

The Florida Supreme Court returned the Demand claiming that they had no jurisdiction — contrary to the record in which Wisconsin, in fulfilling its obligation to its citizens, twice, granted habeas corpus so that it could be taken to the United States Supreme Court.

So, the lower courts have failed to answer and return habeas corpus, effectively denying it, or, perhaps, since their own rules establish procedures, they “suspended” habeas corpus, arbitrarily and capriciously; and permanently.

This left only one recourse to assure that Mr. Myer could get a fair ruling on the constitutionality of the laws he was charged under.  If the Constitution still had standing in the government of the United States, original jurisdiction was forced, by inaction of the lower courts, to the United States Supreme Court — which is obligated to assure that the people of the United States have justice.

On November 26, 2012, the Petition for Habeas Corpus was submitted to the United States Supreme Court.  It was directed to Justice Antonin Scalia as the designated Justice for the Fifth Circuit, where Mr. Myers is currently incarcerated.  The Rules provide that the appropriate Justice may hear a habeas corpus, and in a review of Supreme Court decisions where the original jurisdiction (first hearing) of a habeas corpus was before that Court, it was always heard and decided by a single Justice.  However, the Clerk’s office, through seven rounds of correspondence, refused to direct it to Scalia, changed the caption from “In Re Larry Mikiel Myers” to “In Re Gary Hunt”, where the record shows that the incarcerated person is the proper name for the caption, not the “attorney of record.”

In an effort to correct these errors, on September 22, 2013, an “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus” (a Mandamus is an order for an official to perform his duty)  (Exhibits to Mandamus) was served on the Court.  Receiving NO response, whatever, to that Petition, a follow up letter was sent on October 12, and no response has been forthcoming regarding the Mandamus.  It would appear as if they can’t respond to something with legal authorities, they just don’t respond.

The final effort at disposing of the original Petition by the Clerk’s office was a claim that I had no right, as a non-attorney, to file a Petition of Habeas Corpus on behalf of another party, Mr. Myers (See Mandamus and Exhibit 9 to Mandamus, linked above).  A 1990 Supreme Court decision dispelled that claim (you would think that the Clerk’s office should know what decision the Court had made in that matter), wherein the decision did allow one in my position to file on behalf of Mr. Myers.  The Petition was finally put on the Docket on June 29, 2013, to be discussed in Conference on September 3, 2013.  That Conference then DENIED the Petition.  Subsequently, a Petition for Rehearing was filed, within the requisite time frame, for a November 26, 2013 (exactly one year after the first service to that Court — so much for being timely) Conference, and this, too, was subsequently DENIED on December 2, 2013.

Who can Suspend Habeas Corpus?

“Under the constitution of the United States, congress is the only power which can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ.”

“The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article.  This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.  It begins by providing “that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.”  And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants [and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits]; and at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress “the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

The above from Ex Parte Merryman, Circuit Court D, Maryland, April Term 1861, Decision by Supreme Court Justice Robert B. Taney.

Now, there may be some ambiguity in just what is meant by “suspend”, so we will refer to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

However, if Congress were to suspend Habeas Corpus, it would have to be an enactment, by them, stating what the cause was, rebellion or invasion, and other matters that would advise us that they had temporarily, suspended habeas corpus, and when the “suspension’ would be concluded.  Any other denial of that right would be a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.  On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court has simply done away with Article I, Section 9, clause 2, of the Constitution — they have simply removed it from the Constitution — a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.

The Petition for Rehearing

Some of the arguments presented in the Petition for Rehearing include:

A court has a legal and constitutional obligation to answer and return a Writ of Habeas Corpus, when demanded.  When the District Court refuses to answer and return, the next step is the Circuit Court.  When the Circuit Court refuses, in violation of their own Rules, to send the Demand for Habeas Corpus to the District Court, and refuses to answer and return, that leaves only this Supreme Court in which a citizen may find remedy, by answer and return.

To Deny this Petition [for Rehearing] is to Deny the obligation on government created by Article I, § 9, clause 2.

To Deny to answer and return the Demand for Habeas Corpus is to Deny the Constitution, itself — and the government created thereby.

This last argument is based upon a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1787, they being cognizant of the relationship and responsibility of the government to its constitution.  The case is Bayard v. Singleton (1 N.C. 42):

But that it was clear that no act they [the legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established. 

That is the consequence of a government failing to abide by its responsibility under a constitution.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

From: Supreme Court Docket 13-5008

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

So, there, you have it.  If you understand what the Supreme Court has done to remove that sacred right embodied in the Constitution, you might also realize that if this is to change, it will be to the benefit of ourselves, our Posterity, the Constitution, and the insight of the Framers who wanted to give us a form of government that would not find us resorting to our “duty”, according to the Declaration of Independence, to secure our Liberties”

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

I believe that, if we can muster our forces, the Supreme Court needs to be put on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.  This would require a massive effort to get the information out to as many as possible, such as:

To your Congressional Representatives, as the Court has usurped their authority.

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

To everybody on your mailing lists, with a request that they pass it on to all of their lists, show hosts, representatives, etc.

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

 A PDF of this article, suitable for forwarding to contacts or representatives:

Habeas Corpus Removed from the Constitution

There is more to this story at Another Story Behind the Story

Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court
Another Story Behind the Story

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

[Note: This is the second part of the article, “Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court – The Sacred Writ has been Removed from the Constitution” and deals with the impact on the Petitioner/author, as a consequence of filing the Habeas Corpus.]

I had often wondered if the Habeas Corpus would pose a serious problem within the government if what appears, by my research, to be a means of nullifying “unconstitutional laws”.  I had been doing some research on the subject of the “sacred writ” prior to the current case.  However, it was in December of 2011 that I received a phone call from the sister of the last member of those indicted as the “Florida Common Law Court“, who was going to stand trial after over 15 years from the first trial.

At that point, my serious research on the subject of Habeas Corpus began.  The first three-page Demand (Habeas Corpus, February 2012) was rather meager, however, anticipating our “day in court”, the hearing on Habeas Corpus would allow light to be shed on what I had, at that time, discovered.

When that first Habeas Corpus was ignored by the Sheriff and District Court (assuming that the Sheriff had send it to Judge Merryday), it became apparent that the Petition, itself, would have to contain the argument that the laws that Mr. Myers was being prosecuted under did not apply to him, as all of the actions alleged were already covered by state law.

My receipts show that the Sheriff, the District Court, the Appellate Court, and the Florida Supreme Court all received their “service” on February 12, 2012.

Just a few days before, I had set up a webpage — the first time that Larry Myers’ name and mine were ever associated together on the Internet — to post the progression of the pursuit of justice under the “sacred writ”.

The next day, February 13, 2012, I found that there were at least forty hits to that webpage using the search term “Gary Hunt Larry Myers”.  I only briefly looked, as it didn’t strike me so much, at the time, what was happening, though I do recall that four of those addresses that did the search and went to that page were domain “uscourts.gov” and were from Rochester, Seattle, and San Diego (2).  The remainder of them, in that short period that I checked, were from phones and personal computers from various locations around the country.  In hindsight, I should have followed those visits through the remainder of the day, and, captured images of the “hits” on my statistics page.

At that time, I had no idea of just what this might be the beginning of, though the surprise would be forthcoming.

In November 2008, I retired, applied for, and began receiving Social Security benefits.  I had not paid income tax since 1984, so within a month of receiving my first Social Security check, I was notified that the Internal Revenue Service has taken a portion of my benefit — that should I have any questions, to contact the IRS, not the Social Security Administration.  I discussed this with my wife and she asked me not to challenge the IRS (the most feared government agency in the United States); that we could do well enough with the amount that remained.  So, I relented, and, for the next three years received the reduced “benefit”.

In Mid February 2012, an IRS agent visited me for the first time in well over a decade.  We had a conversation over the fence, with my dog looking on, and I refused a service from him.  In a letter from that agent, dated February 24, 2012, after nearly four years of not working and having no taxable income, I find that they have found that I owe them $188,489.41.  Not to be bogged down in the details, since 1985, I have dealt with various agents.  They always relented, and nothing came of any effort to collect what they might think I owed them, nor did they even attempt to garnishee my wages.  However, this attack, so timely made, was unrelenting.

I had begun checking my site visit stats a bit more regularly and I ran across this one from February 24, 2012 – a visit from the Treasury Department.

In a letter from the Social Security Administration, dated March 1, 2012, I was informed that they were increasing the benefit reduction, though they assured me that I would continue to receive the residue.  The amount was that I received was reduce to $812, but they assured me that I would continue receiving payments on the third of each month, thereafter.

In April 2012, I was again notified by the Social Security Administration that the IRS was to receive all of my Social Security Benefit, and I was to get none — after contributing to that system for 45 years.  This is also contrary to the IRS’ own rules that require that they exempt me from levy for a portion of my benefit (IRS form 1494).  Well, there goes forty-five years of contribution (full faith and credit in the government), down the tubes.

I had been involved in a few other patriot activities, during this time.  Two of them had rather interesting potential.  One was the Arizona Committee of Safety (ACOS), which was modeled on the historical example of the Revolutionary War era.  Though it was unnoticed, at first, by March 10, 2012, elements within the groups had created disturbances that became downright disruptive, eventually leading to the resignation of the Chairman.  Increasing turmoil resulted in the organization being taken over by parties who had completely lost sight of its purpose (as per the by-laws) and making it impossible for the group to remain viable.  By May, the Arizona Committee of Safety had fallen into ruin.

Another organization, the Patriot Unity Coalition (PUC), which came into existence in December 2011, was formed to discourage its members from participating in activities that disparaged other patriots or organizations, unless through a proper forum, such as the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court.  Internal turmoil, violation of the by-laws by some members, and total disruption of the PUC, resulted in its demise by April 8, 2012.  This resulted in starting over, again, with the Coalition of American Patriots (CAP).

Both of these organizations had been proceeding along constructive courses until all of a sudden, out of nowhere, disruption came on with such force that it could not be countered, resulting in both efforts being totally destroyed.

Now, it is possible that they would have followed the same course, absent any outside influence, however, if we look at the timing, and the fact that I was a principal player in each, perhaps there is more to their demise than meets the eye.

We can go one step further.  Back in 1995, Bill Cooper, a well-respected patriot, claimed that I was John Doe #4, and in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.  That allegation, which first found its way in fax networking, began floating around the Internet, though never to any significant degree.  From time to time, a discussion would be brought to my attention where the allegations of John Doe #4 arose.  I would join the discussion and ask the group to pick one of their members, who I would direct to a well-known patriot who was with me, in Florida that morning.  I chose this method in lieu of going public with the witness to my whereabouts, as it might have been disruptive to his business, if everybody wanted to call him to verify where I was.  So, the selected party would contact the witness, verify that he was who he claimed to be, and report back, thereby quashing one source that was perpetuating the allegation.

Frankly, that allegation problem wasn’t that serious, until sometime in March 2012, when many of my friends and contacts reported that the John Doe #4 story was proliferating on the Internet.  So, after 17 years, the time had come where I was to take the matter on, or succumb to the falsehood, which would result in a “no credibility” attachment to anything else that I wrote, or might write in the future.

Prior to the show, a Google search was done by at least three of the people I was working with.  The search “Gary Hunt John Doe 4 OKC” gave over 46,000 results.

On March 3, 2012, Randy Mack, host of “You Have Tread On Me”, aired an Internet radio show entitled “Gary Hunt Exposed as John Doe #4 at OKC“.  The show appeared to be quite effective, and a subsequent Google Search, same criteria, resulted in less than 4,000 hits — more than 40,000 hits removed from the search engines.

Now, it would be easy enough to write these occurrences off as “coincidence”, if it were just one or two.  However, in light of the timing, and the disruptive effect on my finances, reputation, and the efforts of others to come up with viable means to pursue a Restoration of Constitutional Government, that is a very hard pill to swallow.

This, then, leads to the final image from my stats.  On November 13, 2013, just one day after my Petition for Rehearing was docketed for conference, we get a visit from a DHS Fusion Center.

Note that in the Fusion Center (the information at the bottom comes from a government Fusion Center listing), the email address is to the local Sheriff’s Department, not a federal agency.

Habeas Corpus would stop such extension of authority over our local governments.

So, there, you have it.  If you understand what the Supreme Court has done to remove that sacred right embodied in the Constitution, you might also realize that if this is to change, it will be to the benefit of ourselves, our Posterity, the Constitution, and the insight of the Framers who wanted to give us a form of government that would not find us resorting to our “duty“, according to the Declaration of Independence, to secure our Liberties”

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

I believe that, if we can muster our forces, the Supreme Court needs to be put on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.  This would require a massive effort to get the information out to as many as possible, such as:

To your Congressional Representatives, as the Court has usurped their authority.

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

To everybody on your mailing lists, with a request that they pass it on to all of their lists, show hosts, representatives, etc.

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

Which Constitution Am I Protected By?

Do you really want the Federal Government
to protect you from your State Government?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 19, 2013

“We have Constitutional Rights!”  “They have violated the Constitution!”  We hear such exclamations on a regular basis.  However, have we ever really stopped to consider just what we are saying?  Just what we are supporting?  Just what we have represented by those exclamations, which are really contrary to our best interest, and the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and government?

Recently, there was a Rally in San Antonio, Texas.  The rally was called because a few weeks earlier, some “Second Amendment” advocates had settled down, armed in accordance with Texas law, on the sidewalk in front of a Starbucks coffee shop (Open Carry Texas harassed by SAPD).  Subsequently, a Come and Take It – San Antonio Rally was called, with no reference to the Second Amendment, though it did emphasize a phrase from that Amendment, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.  Such a rally, however, will draw national attention, as it did.

The Rally drifted toward the Second Amendment, as a result of speakers such as Alex Jones, who went so far as to include other cities, around the world, in his desire to protect Second Amendment rights (Gun Owners Defy Tyranny, Defend Constitution at the Alamo).

To me, it was simply amazing that so many people came out in support of a “Federalist” form of government.  Yes, that’s right!  They came out asking the federal government to intervene in, and take control of, their right to keep and bear arms.

“Well”, you say, “Isn’t that what the Second Amendment is all about?”  So, I will answer that question — “Yes”, and, “No”.  Yes, if it is the federal government that you are dealing with.  However, a distinct and definite “No”, if you are dealing with the state, and subordinate, governments.

Darn, that is tough to grasp!  I thought the Bill of Rights was to protect us from government assuming away those rights.  Well, yes, it is, but which government are we talking about?  The federal, or, the state, government?

Why would I go and say such a foolish thing?  We all know that we have Second Amendment rights:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, this poses a rather interesting question.  So, let’s look at the Texas Constitution.

Article I – Declaration of Rights:
§23.  Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

That sure doesn’t read quite like the Second Amendment, it says nothing about “”shall not be infringed”.  So why do we not accept the limitation imposed by the Texas Constitution?  We may not like it, but that is the way it is in Texas.  The federal Constitution was written only with regard to the relationship between the people and the federal, not the state, government.  The concern, and the reason for such separation, was that the Framers, and those that ratified the Constitution, did not want to relinquish any unnecessary power or authority to the federal government, except that which was necessary to allow that government to conduct the business of governing — only — the federal government.

Let’s venture back to 1833, when the country was still young, and some of the Framers were still alive.  Chief Justice Marshall, in a Supreme Court decision [Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243], gives us an explanation:

The [U. S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own [federal] government, and not for the government of the individual states.  Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated.  The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.  The powers they conferred on this [federal] government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument.

So, each constitution, federal and state, creates a government and then binds that government to the provisions, as judgment dictated, granting power and authority, and reserving rights, to the extent of what was determined, at the state level, to be consistent with the will of the people of that state.

Going further in his explanation as to why the federal Constitution was limited, Marshall says:

Serious fears were extensively entertained, that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those unvaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty.  In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended.  These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments.  In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states.  These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.

A review of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights will bear this opinion out:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the [federal] Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the [federal] Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Are we beginning to get the picture, yet?

Now, the Fourteenth Amendment provided a foundation for change, at least to some extent, though that is not the object of this discussion.  However, for those interested, there is an extensive study of the Fourteenth Amendment at The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – an Essay.

We can, however, see an instance of the conversion of authority from state to federal from a well known, though this aspect is too often overlooked, 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113].  The decision hinges on the right to an abortion, though Justice Rehnquist, in his dissenting (disagreeing) opinion, provides insight, not to abortion, rather, to the limitations of federal power, when he says:

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”.  Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.  As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature.  By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.  1)  While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.  2)  Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”
There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.  The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

Since the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, we have heard one side call for the decision to be overturned, while the other side praises the “wisdom” of the Court.  What the Court did was legislative in nature, contrary to the intention of the Framers and the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, neither side objected to the Supreme Court’s authority in dealing with the matter of abortion (have you found any mention of abortion in the Constitution?).

So, by acquiescence — by projecting this un-granted power to the Supreme Court — we have supported not the Union of States, under and by the Constitution, rather, we have agreed to make the federal government supreme in all matters concerning our lives (even our flush toilets).

In 1789, when the U. S. Constitution was ratified, it was the concern, in the states, that the Constitution would give the federal government too much power.  It was the state governments that insisted that there must be a limitation on the power granted to the federal government.  Those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (10th Amendment), cannot be sustained, except by the will of the people, and their perseverance and support of their respective state and its constitutional power and authority.

Does this acquiescence, to such federal authority, by those who so support it and seek a reversed decision from the Supreme Court, make them Federalists, at heart?  After all, they have moved away, as far as possible, from any proposition that states, too, have powers protected by the Tenth Amendment — the few that still remain.

Bound by Oath!
Are there 3 Constitutions?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 5, 2013

Having touched upon the subject of Honor (Bound by Honor?), we shall now venture into the subject of that Honor.  From the ratification of the Constitution, through today, it has been held that an oath is one of the requisites for office.  It was required of the President (Article II, § 1, clause 8) and the “Senators and Representatives … and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States” (Article VI, clause 3).  It was so important that a violation of that oath was enforced, after the Civil War, with a prohibition against holding public office to all who had taken such oath and then joined “in insurrection or rebellion” (14th Amendment, §3).  All state constitutions have, likewise, adopted requirements for an oath of office to hold positions of public trust.

It is reliance upon the obedience to that oath that is the framework that the Framers relied upon to maintain that institution created by the Constitution, the government of the United States, intact and honorable.

The introduction of the “United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” provision dates from 1953, with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1953.  Since 1966, the current oath, retaining the “enemies” provision, has remained unchanged

Unchanged, however, is the fundamental recognition to obedience to the Constitution, and, to the state’s constitution for all state offices.

This leads us to look into that subject of the oath, the Constitution.  However, to understand this relationship, we need to look very closely at the document, and what it means.

I believe that this can be best understood by looking at the Constitution in a perspective of the application of the document, and just what the perception, by the oath takers, is of that document.

So, let’s begin at the lowest level — the on the street enforcement level.  The cop (Sheriff’s deputies, other armed agencies, including federal) perceive the Constitution that they took an oath to as what they have been told by their superiors is entailed in the Constitution.  Let’s refer to this as Constitution #1.  For example, and the Supreme court has played a role in this, if they are told that they can make searches and arrests based upon their individual judgment — if they believe that a crime either has, or may be committed — they are within their power to search and/or arrest people of whom they have suspicion.

This has become manifest because it was practiced by law enforcement, in violation of the Constitution.  Once challenged, it can go before the courts, and, eventually, to the Supreme Court, where that Court will rule, often contrary to the Constitution (see About Ashwander v. TVA), which now gives us Constitution #2, that being the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court.  However, if they had determined not to rule on the Constitutionality of a matter before them, “The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of” (Ashwander, rule #4), then are we to assume that their rulings are actually interpretations of the Constitution?

This, then, leads us to Constitution #3, the Constitution as written and intended by the Framers and those who ratified it.  The Constitution is comprised of about 4,400 words.  Add the first Ten Amendments, including the Preamble thereto, for another 700 words.  Simple, yet easily understood; written in the English language, not in legalese; intended to be understood by any literate person, not subject to interpretation, except where construction failed to address certain conflicts that might arise, the Constitution was written for us, by our ancestors, to be the foundation for the continuation of a self-governed people, so long as we understood and abided by it.

We must first understand that our separation from English rule was predicated on the concept that the people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  It was for the protection of Life, the preservation of Liberty, and the ability to acquire property, that lead to those Founders taking action to re-secure that which had been denied them — the Rights of Englishmen — by the British government.

We know that the purpose of government, as declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, is “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  We need only understand that “promote the general Welfare” is preceded by “promote”, not “provide”, for us to proceed.

Clearly, no matter what our own emotions may suggest, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes any provision for the government to become a “charitable organization”, taking from some and giving to others.  In fact, this would be contrary to the principles of self-government, in that government has become the master and determines just whom he might favor with gifts (and the inherent votes that will follow from the beneficiary).

Let’s look at some more of the precise wording of Constitution #3, as well as comments with regard to what was intended:

Article I, Section 8, clause 11: The Congress shall have the Power … To declare War…

Congress has not declared war since December 1941, yet we have the longest war in our history going on, right now.  The war in Afghanistan began in 2001.  That is twelve years — the longest war in our history.  The Framers realized that the decision to go to war, and to invest the lives of America’s youth, should lie with the representatives of the people, the Congress, and not with an individual.  Why has Congress collectively rejected their oath by enacting legislation that allows the President to go to war, so long as Congress doesn’t object?  Quite simply, they can absolve themselves of the responsibility that they agreed to take upon themselves, when they took their oath.  Quite possibly, their abrogation of responsibility results in substantial ‘support’ from the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us of, when leaving office.

Article I, Section 8, clause (15) The Congress shall have the Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

This recognition of the Militia, whether called forth, or not, recognizes the Militia as an inherent part of the concept of self-government.  Further, 10 U.S.C. § 311 states that “[t]he militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age.”  So, how is it that those who have taken an oath to the Constitution can object to, and demonize, those citizens who recognize their obligation to the Constitution.  After all, is “all”, ALL?  Less, of course, those specifically exempted.

Section 4– The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

However, California Supreme Court justices, who had taken oaths to both the California and federal constitutions, ruled, in “In re Marriage Cases”, (43 Cal. 4th 757), that held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying. However, in reviewing the California Constitution, I can find no reference to “same-sex couples”.

On appeal to the federal courts, they, too, held, though on slightly different grounds, that the Proposition — the will of the people of California — was unconstitutional.  They have yet to rule on the statute (1 U.S.C. §7) cited above, though apparently it has been constitutional for many decades.  Those judges only took an oath to the federal Constitution, though, again, I find no reference that would grant the federal government to become any more involved in marriage than to recognize what it has been, for centuries.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Contrary to many opinions, it does not say that there is a “separation between Church and State”, which is attested to be the numerous depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the United States Supreme Court building.  So, let’s look at what it says.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Those cities and towns that have adopted Sharia Law have certainly done so.  However, many states or counties had laws that were derived from the Ten Commandments.  , even though many of those laws based upon the Ten Commandments have been removed.  However, there is a law that requires that a religion must pass certain steps (Internal Revenue Code) to qualify as a religion, thereby becoming exempt from taxation.  That, in itself, seems to be a law respecting the establishment of religion, since the religion is not established (at least in the eyes of government), unless it abides by the law that establishes it as a religion.  Once established, laws come into play that restricts what can be said by the religious exercise of the congregation.  However, those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, either as elected representatives, or, appointed, or hired, agents of government, have promulgated laws that, by reading of the words, and a review of how those words were applied by the Framers, we can conclude that the oaths have been violated, even though many of them were taken on a Bible.

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I have trouble understanding why people can’t understand, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, which along with the Militia (previously mentioned), cannot be infringed.  However, those who have taken an oath to the Constitution seems to be as remise in understanding what this means as they are in understanding the oath that they took.

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Searches are often conducted without a warrant, or at least a warrant served on the person whose property is to be searched.  Legal process, for such as subpoenas, requires that paperwork be served.  There are numerous methods of legal service, however, the constitutionally prescribed warrant is held to a much lower standard than, say, serving divorce papers.  Divorce, however, is not protected by the Constitution.

The Amendment also requires a sworn statement of probable cause, and “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Two hundred years ago, warrants were specific, describing exactly what was to be seized, and where it was located.  More recently, a warrant might include the entire house, or property, seeking all papers, computers, discs, tapes, books, and anything else that might be found.

We also find that searches, with the blessing of the courts (whose judges have taken an oath), have allowed the police to make searches almost any time, relying on their nose, their ears, or their instinct, to justify the search.  This, without question, is appalling.  And, if nothing is found, there is no remedy for the person whose liberty has been lost, for the time involved, which doesn’t even begin to suggest that there is any accountability on the part of the police.  Roadside stops and searches have become a mainstay of law enforcement.  Didn’t law enforcement officer, too, take oaths?  Perhaps to Constitution #1.

Did the Constitution intend a police state, or a free state, where the obligation was on the government, not on the people?

Amendment 5: No person shall … be deprived of … property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Both “Eminent Domain” and “Asset Forfeiture” come to mind, when we read the wording of this Amendment.  The former is lawful, though limited, while the latter is unlawful and unconstitutional, without equivocation — unless you are an attorney intending to subvert the Constitution for financial gain.

So, we can start with the purpose, “public use”.  Public is not the government, it is us.  The concept of eminent domain goes back centuries and was intended to make inviolate your right to own and posses property, with the sole exception of the “public good”.  So, what is this “public good”?  Well, roads, canals, rivers, lakes, parks, even easements allowing utilities to be put across your land to serve others of the public.  To extend this concept to land being condemned by eminent domain, and then sold to a private developer, who will then be paying a higher tax on the property than the previous owner(s), is bizarre.  It is chicanery utilized to transfer one’s property to another, and require that transfer to be forced, rather than voluntary, regardless of the compensation to the owner(s).  The courts, however, by judges and justices sworn to the Constitution, have acquiesced to such chicanery.

Asset forfeiture, without any compensation, is clearly outside of any constitutionally vested authority.  [N]or shall private property be taken … without just compensation” leaves no room for any other construction of the intent.  However, to those who have taken oaths, it is simply a matter of obfuscation to distort what was intended to that which will serve their friends and allies.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Based upon the above, have we retained those rights that were not enumerated in the “Bill of Rights”?  Even those enumerated, which we have addressed here, are been denied, as has been explained.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We have also seen that powers not delegated, such as marriage, have been assumed into “authorities” that were not delegated by the Constitution.

So, we can conclude that those who take oaths will take them to one of the 3 Constitutions.  The police, for the most part, take them to Constitution #1.  Most administrative officials, at all levels of government, being, perhaps, a bit more intelligent, tend to take their oath to Constitution #2.  Few, if any, take it to Constitution #3, and that includes the highest powers — the Justices of the Supreme Courts — in government.  They are more inclined to assist those others in government to increase their stranglehold on the people, and usurp powers that were never intended by the Constitution, or the state constitutions.

It is only when the people take an oath in court, or when military personnel take their oath upon induction, that the law expects them to abide thereby.

The Constitution has a provision (Article V) for making changes.  The oath, however, has no such provision.  Once given, the oath taker is bound thereby.  Absent a change in the Constitution (Constitution #3), the violation of oath should result in immediate removal from office.

We have discussed what was intended, though some might suggest that what has been discussed is not what was intended.  For those who want some insight into the intention of the Framers, we can look to how they practiced what they had written.

What could be more demonstrative of intent than actions, which put that intent into practice?

Regarding juries, I would suggest Essay on Trial by Jury (PDF) (1828)

Regarding searches, arrests, and the authority of law enforcement, I would suggest Are Cops Constitutional? (PDF)

Resistance Has Begun

Once again, we honor those who served their country, and world, seventy years ago

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 14, 2013

For the first time since the Tea Party element realized that something was seriously wrong in government, thereby becoming a part of the patriot/constitutionalist community, people were seen on the streets carrying something other than signs.  Though not quite on the level of rifles, or pitchforks, the idea that barricades could be returned to the White House, in protest of the childish actions of the Executive Branch of government, begins to show an advanced form of resistance to the misdeeds and shenanigans of government.

What makes this action so comment worthy is that this act of defiance goes beyond words.  It is, without a doubt, an action that demonstrates that the government will find more resistance, in the very near future, if it does not begin to demonstrate moral and fiscal responsibly in utilizing their positions of trust with the American people.

Unlike Arab Spring, which was chaotic mobs without a real objective, we Americans have sense enough to recognize that the foundation of this country is solid, and, if properly administered, can return to the greatness it once demonstrated.  The actions of Sunday, October 13, 2013 are just the beginning of the insistence that government revise its course and resume administering a government of the people.  If they fail to do so, those activities are a portent of things to come.

Finally, let us honor those Veterans of World War II, and all those who supported them — in reclaiming that which is ours.

National Parks Held Hostage

Just what is a “public” park?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 12, 2013

Recent events have demonstrated that the US government is more than willing to create any inconvenience, whether lawful, or not, in an effort to achieve their ends. This has become abundantly apparent in the closure of portions of National Parks, without regard to the cost, or the inconvenience and private costs, as a consequence thereof.  Concessions within the parks and nearby communities dependant on the tourism brought by the parks have been financially devastated, while government revenues from leases and fees have disappeared, though cost of enforcement of shutdowns has brought upon the government additional costs. This, however, is information readily available, even in Mainstream Media.

To understand just what has happened with these parks, and just how the government has taken upon themselves the ‘responsibility’ of, as their mission states, “Protecting America’s Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future”, and at the same time, denying us, the Public, access to those parks, can best be explained by a review of the creation of these monuments to the heritage of America.

These parks are “Public Lands”. To understand just what “Public Land” are, perhaps we need to understand what “Public” means, or, at least, what it meant to the Framers of the Constitution , and, at the time that the parks and public lands came into being. To really understand this, we must look at what “public” meant to them, not as we are conditioned to believe, now, that if it is “public”, then it belongs to the government.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Public n. : The general body of mankind or of a nation, state or community; the people, indefinitely.

Public a. :
1.  Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state as opposed to a private statute or resolve which respects individuals or a corporation only.
3.  Open; notorious; exposed to all persons without restriction.
4.  Regarding a community; directed to the interests of a nation, state or community.
6.  Open to common use; as a public road.
7.  In general public expresses something common to mankind at large, to a nation, state, city or town, and is opposed to private, which denotes what belongs to an individual, to a family, to a company or corporation.

So, in the noun form, it means the general body of a nation. That is not the government, that is us. When used as an adjective (preceding “land”), it is “extending to a whole people”, not the government; “exposed to all persons without restriction”; “open to common use”; or, “something common to mankind” and “is opposed to private” in any form that is not all inclusive. It does not mean “government”, which job is strictly to manage the business of government.

So, with that understood, let’s look at the creation of the first two great parks created in this country, Yosemite and Yellowstone.

Yosemite was first given to the State of California, since a National Park system had yet to be established, though the land had to be set aside to protect it from commercial usage. On June 30, 1864, the Congress approved “An Act authorizing a Grant to the State of California of the ‘Yo-Semite Valley,’ and the Land embracing the ‘Mariposa Big Tree Grove.’” That Act provides “[t]hat there shall be, and is hereby, granted to the State of California” and “that the said State shall accept this grant upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time”. It further provided that “All incomes derived from leases of privileges to be expended in the preservation and improvement of the property, or the roads leading thereto.” Later, Yosemite was incorporated into the National Park system, though the intent of the creation of the park, “that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time,” is clearly stated, and the that income from the park will provide  for the “preservation and improvement”.

Clearly, the preservation of the park was outside of government and was to be paid for by those monies collected from fees, lease, and any other source, making the park a self-sustaining entity.

Just 6 years later, the first “national park” was created by “An Act To set apart a certain tract of land lying near the head-waters of the Yellowstone River as a public park,” signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, on March 1, 1872.  This Act states that the land “is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” Though not in the Act, funding was to be similar to that approved for Yosemite — it was to be self-sustaining. Not that “public” and “people” have become interchangeable, and do not mean “government.”

Both acts provided for protection of the land, vegetation, and animals, and to remove people who attempted to settle on those lands. However, with the exceptions provided, nothing allowed the removal of the public, for the purposes stated; as a public park, resort, recreation, and pleasuring-ground.

So, the parks were established from the public lands to specific purposes, for our (the public) benefit and enjoyment. They were self-sustaining, and unalienable.  How came they, then, to be utilized as a political tool, denying access, prohibiting parking, denial of use to leases with the respective loss of revenue, and, subject to the funding of the general government, rather than the resources that were provide at their establishment?

The intent, at their inception, was, without a doubt, well thought out and of nothing but good intentions. Subsequently, bureaucrats with small minds have promulgated rules, in defiance with the enactments of Congress, converting the parks into ‘private’ entities, owned by the government. Further, the government,. by the means of “general funding”, have taken from the parks their intended source of finance and incorporated it into the general fund budget, thereby removing the self-sustaining aspect initiated by the Congress. The government, especially the Executive Branch, has seized the “public lands” and “public parks” for their own private purposes, to be used to reward, or punish, as they see fit, that which is, by right, ours, and not to be used in the manner that has now removed them from their intended purpose.

With that in mind, what are we, the PUBLIC, going to do about it?

The Supreme Dilemma

Posterity and Perpetual Debt

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 8, 2013

The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, which sets out the purpose of the government therein created, concludes with the following, “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

To “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, is a mighty powerful phrase, if taken as intended by the framers of our government.

A concept that was advanced among the people, over 10 years prior to the Constitution, dwelt upon the fair and just contribution of the people to the expense of government.  The phrase most often use, with regard to this contribution, was “no taxation without representation.”  This meant that only those selected to represent the people could impose taxation upon them.  Unless directly represented, there could be no justification for the imposition of a tax upon the people.

Let’s look at how “Posterity” was viewed in the past:

Primogeniture, as a concept of birthright and inheritance, goes back, in Biblical times, to before Isaac and his two sons, Esau and Jacob. The oldest child inherits, and the siblings are, for the most part, at the mercy of the oldest, or are simply on their own.  Over time, the right to “testament” allowed the patriarch to divide his estate as he saw fit. Under both systems, there was no appreciable cost imposed upon the inheritance.

In 1215 the Magna Carta was signed.  Articles 2 through 11 address the rights of heirs.  Only descendents of Lords and Knights paid any fees (Lords, 100£ and Knights, 100 shillings) to retain the estate, which included subsequent pensions.  Those of lower social standing received the estate, providing that only debt, without interest, could be taken, and that land could not be taken so long as personal property was sufficient to cover the debt.

In 1898, the first inheritance tax was enacted in the United States.  However, at the time, it was only on personal property, not real estate, and was based upon amounts over $10,000 (a very large sum, at that time).

Since that time, we have seen an escalation in the destruction of an estate that provides that only the very wealthy can pass nearly the entire estate on to their children, unaffected by ‘contributions’ to the government.

Beginning in 1913, with the advent of the “income tax”, we find that the “income tax” becomes the source whereby money is taken from the family, for the general good. We also find that a direct tax, in contradiction to the intent of the original direct tax provision of the Constitution, begins to take more and more of the annual earnings, as well as substantial portions of the estate, upon the death of the parents.

Beyond that, based upon the Congress having the power “to pay the Debts…”,  we find, now, that even after we have had our earnings taken from us, the “Debt” extends to an obligation upon our posterity, which, at this time, we can see no end.

What effect does this have on our descendents, “our Posterity”?  If we look simply at the current publicly acknowledged $16 trillion current debt of this country, without consideration of interest, we are looking at an obligation of about $50,000 per man, woman and child.  However, this is based upon only external (money owed to those outside of government) obligations.

Just for starters, let’s look at what USA Today report, in May 2007, with regard to the true debt.  Their estimate was $59 Trillion (with a “T”, being $59,000,000,000,000), which would put the debt at about $200,000,000 for every man, woman, and child. But, that was 6 years ago.

Let’s look at what that current debt obligation, as explained in a National Review Article,  which is an average estimate at $106,000,000,000,000.  This gives an average debt of $331,000 for every man, woman, and child. So, without consideration of additional annual costs, which will have to be added on each year, for the operation of government, we see that if someone works 50 years, simply paying on the past debt, it will be an obligation of $6,600 per year, for each man, woman, and child.

Looking at the annual proposed 2013 budget, we see that outlays will amount to $3,803,000,000,000. This means that every man, woman, and child, will have to fork over nearly $12,000 to meet this annual expense. However, little, if any, goes to the reduction of the debt outlined above.

To put this in hopefully simple terms, if every man, woman and child paid, this year, $343,000 ($331,000 plus $12,000), we would relieve the debt, completely, and only have to pay $12,000 next year, and subsequent years, so long as Congress doesn’t begin spending, again, like a drunken sailor (my apology to all sailors, drunk or sober).

Now, it is true that the government has revenue from other sources, and those must be taken into account. However, we must also look at just where the money comes from to supply those other sources with the means to pay their share of the annual contribution. Quite simply, that money comes from “Excise, Impost and Duties”, which simply add that cost to what we pay for certain goods. So, though all of the $12,000 won’t be directly on you, it will, without a doubt, be indirectly upon you.

So, what does this have to do with “Posterity” and “No taxation without representation”? Well, the reality of the numbers presented above is that we, the People of the United States of America, and our Posterity, have an insurmountable debt. It is perpetual, as was only intended of the Union, though now it is also of the debt. It cannot be retired (paid off), by any means currently within the grasp of government. It can only result in either an increase in taxes, or, the perpetuation to even more generations, yet unborn, or both.

So, from the days of the Magna Carta, where posterity was protected, and unburdened by future debt, we have evolved, as a free people, to the point that the “Posterity”, which was of great concern to the founders of this nation, has now become the scapegoat, burdened with perpetual debt — that can be described as no less than slavery.  They are without representation, as clearly, those unborn can have none to speak for them.

We have gone from “Last Will and Testament”, intended to pass on to our heirs what remained of our fortune, to one where though there may be a small residual, it can never approach the obligation we have burdened them with.

Is this what the framers intended? Is this what we intend to leave to our Posterity? If not, what do we intend to do about it?

The Passing of the Torch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 11, 2001

This morning, a perversion of justice and the Constitution succeeded in taking the life of an American Patriot.  Timothy James McVeigh was executed, by lethal injection, in Terre Haute, Indiana.  His crime, say the courts, was the murder of federal agents.

McVeigh’s death might be more appropriately ascribed to the inability of the US government to function, in any judicial capacity, in a manner consistent with the authority granted government by the Constitution.

After a failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was created and adopted (ratified) to enable a new government, with more power in the exercise of government, but, with specific limitations established with regard to its jurisdiction, authority and imposing upon it an obligation to protect certain rights which had been deemed, by the Constitution and other founding documents, to have been granted to the People — by God.

In the matter of Jurisdiction, the Constitution clearly sets forth the ability of the federal government to extend “exclusive jurisdiction” over a few enumerated locations.  Even considering the expansion of those locations by the Northwest Ordinance, those limitations were upheld by the Supreme Court for many years.  Federal authority over the actions of individuals was extremely limited, and with few exceptions, existed only when authorized by Constitutional Amendment.  Hence the absence of federal statutes against assassination or murder, until recently.

Likewise, the jurisdiction of federal agencies was severally limited, and extended only to those cases that were well within the Interstate Commerce or other specific provisions.  The Supreme Court has struck down a number of laws, which, though they attempted to appeal to the interstate Commerce provision, were tied to the provision by such a stretch as to be deemed without Constitutional authority.  The striking down of the federal “gun free school zones” is an example of an unlawful presumption on the authority of the federal government.

Many federal agencies were created with a specific purpose.  For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) was instituted to act as a tax collection agency, under the Treasury Department.  Tax matters have always been considered, in this country, to be civil in nature, not criminal.

Within the Department of Justice, there was an agency created whose purpose was to investigate and aid in the prosecuting criminal activity.  The authority for it to “enforce” laws was written in to its directive in 1994, and is a gross violation of the intention of the Founders.  They had always sought a separation between force and civil authority.  Never had it been contemplated that an agency could use force without separate and distinct civil authority.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation was within that scope – until it began, even prior to its description being changed – enforcing, rather than simply investigating.

These two agencies came together, in 1993, in an attack on a religious group in Waco, Texas.  The incident began when the tax collection agency (BATF) entered upon lands recognized by McClellan County and the state of Texas, as a Church.  When they entered, they entered with guns drawn and with every intention of entering the Church through windows and doors, without obtaining the consent of the Pastor of that Church.  They also intended to shoot anyone who opposed that entry.  And, they succeeded in both.

After having four of their own killed (and killing seven of the Church members), they withdrew from their combat positions and regrouped, just a few hundred yards away from the Church – limiting access to only those deemed acceptable by the tax collection agency.

Soon, they were reinforced by the investigators.  Of course, they lied, but just a little bit, about what had occurred, so their bigger brother, the investigators, took family under wing and began an investigation, which resulted in an armed camp, much akin to a military installation, and a defensive perimeter (crime scene) larger than any before ever envisioned.

For fifty-one days, the tax collectors and investigators imposed every sort of mental anguish and abuse that they could concoct – upon the parishioners huddling, scared for their lives, inside of their flimsy Church.

During the course of the fifty-one day siege, the agencies, and their compatriots in Washington, D.C., began a campaign of deceit in an effort to demonize the pastor and his congregation – and, detract from an honest evaluation of the circumstance by both the public and the government.

However, the biggest problem was that for the near first time in the history of this country, the agencies, not the Congress or the President, determined what they would do, how they would do it and what the rules would be by which all would play.

Many people observed, first hand, the encampment of federal ‘soldiers’ just outside of a quiet Texas town.  They also observed the support troops, which had been deputized by the FBI to act as a perimeter guard to the ‘crime scene’.  These deputies, who had sworn to uphold the Constitution in the performance of their duties, had turned their backs on that oath, and blindly obeyed the unlawful orders given by this civilian agency with guns.  Timothy McVeigh was among those observers.

Timothy, like so many others around the country, had sought, by peaceful means, to bring about a return to Constitutional limitations of governmental authority.  After all, being a decorated veteran and hero of Desert Storm, Timothy had demonstrated his willingness to put his life on the line in defense of that Constitution.  He had no choice but to express his discontent with the government’s usurpation of authority by peaceful means.

Then, on April 19, 1993, as the world watched, a tragedy of epic proportions occurred in the area controlled, absolutely, by those federal agents.  Regardless of blame over who started the fire that consumed over eighty lives — men, women and children — the precautions which could have prevented the disaster, or, at least, minimized the degree of death and destruction, were none existent, and when offered by the local fire department were refused.  By any stretch of the imagination, this would be nothing less than gross negligence.  But, considering the obligation of the government to safeguard life and property, the failure to do so constitutes a far more serious breach of public trust than would at first be recognized.

As time went on, it became apparent that federal agents told lies to other federal agents, Congressional committees and the public.  Evidence was lost, misplaced, or hidden.  Eventually, in 1994, when those who had escaped with their lives stood trial, these same agents committed perjury.

Unlike the events in Boston, in 1770, the Boston Massacre, no government agents ever stood trial so that the People might judge whether they had violated the laws, or the Constitution.  Instead, their only judgment came from their superiors within their respective agencies – the same superiors who authorized these unlawful activities in the first place.

Complicit with these agents, the court gave instructions, which some of the jurors later complained of, left no alternative but to convict those Church members on trial, though the lowest possible ‘crime’ was the choice of the jurors who felt that if there was a crime, it was more technical than destructive.  The court became even more contemptuous when it imposed maximum sentences, and even came to some conclusions, which the jury had not, resulting in the judge increasing sentences to up to forty years for some of the defendants.

Many of the same observers of the events in Waco watched the judicial process to see if the government was, in the least, capable of applying justice to the matter, or whether it was more intent on preserving an air of respectability to the actions of the forces which had already decimated the Church to a handful of followers.

The conclusion, by those observers, which has been proven correct in the ensuing years, was that the government had determined that the government (king) could do no wrong.

As a result of the conviction of the Church members, the Constitutionalist community, throughout the country, became outraged.  Many advocates openly expressed their intentions to go to Washington and “hang the Congress from light posts.”  Others advocated blowing up government buildings, killing government agents and taking any action necessary to force the government back in to obedience to the Constitution.

Among all the words, however, only one man began planning an action consistent with the words of others.  He began traveling around the country, securing funding; expanding his knowledge of explosives, visiting potential targets, and preparing a plan of action that would come to fruition just two years, to the day after the destructive conclusion of the events at the little Church in Waco.

To carry out his plan, he realized that there was risk.  Government infiltration of Constitutionalist groups had probably reached epic proportions.  Whether Louis Beam’s “Leaderless Resistance” was a part of his study, or not, it was apparent that he recognized the risk of a broad base of support, so he settled on enlisting the help of two people who he had known for many years.

Had he sought a larger base of support, he might well have had the advantage of sophisticated explosives, timers, and delivery methods.  Instead, he opted for a homemade bomb, using the best materials readily available.

On April 19, 1995, Timothy James McVeigh completed the execution of his plan.  Though he had anticipated even less destruction than occurred, he was successful in bringing attention to his actions throughout the world.  He had little doubt, considering both the historical and recent attributes of the date that the reasoning behind the bombing would be obvious.  He was sure that government would understand his message, and, he was equally sure that he had just committed an act that consummated his status as an enemy of the US government.  He was, finally, involved in a war to restore Constitutional government to the United States of America.

– – – – – – –

In 1995, The Prosecuting Attorney and the Defense Attorney, in the United States vs. Timothy James McVeigh proceedings, formally agreed that ALL documents obtained by the government, regarding the investigation of the Oklahoma City Bombing, be provided to the Defense Team.  This agreement was affirmed and ordered by Judge Matsch, who was also the trial judge.  As a result of this agreement, a new database was set up to track all documents relating to the case.  Virtually every document relating to the investigation was to be logged into the database.

Early on, however, Defense Attorney Stephen Jones asked for documents that were referred to in other documents, but were not listed in the database.  Frequently, he was told that there were no other documents.  He had little choice but to proceed with what was available.

On May 9, 2001, just a few days before the scheduled execution of Timothy McVeigh, and after months of knowing of the existence of thousands of documents which had been excluded from the database, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (remember them from Waco?) went public with the fact that over three thousand documents had been ‘found’ that were not included in the database, nor were they provided to the Defense Team – in direct violation of the agreement, the order, and the law.

The next day, the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, stayed the execution of Timothy McVeigh until June 11, 2001.  This, he said, was sufficient time for the Defense Team to study all three thousand documents and conclude that there was nothing that would clear their client – who had, by the way, already “confessed to the crime”.

As time went on, the number of documents that had been excluded approached five thousand.  Many of them dealt with the possibility of witnesses to more than just McVeigh and his two army buddies, Michael Fortier and Terry Nichols.  Perhaps so, but if justice is to prevail, all of the facts – especially those which are required to be turned over to satisfy Due Process – must be made available to the Defense Team.  Due Process, after all, requires a rigid adherence to the law.  If failure to advise someone that he has the right to the presence of a lawyer is a violation of Due Process, then, surely, denial of access to all evidence is, likewise, a denial of Due Process.

And, as for confessions, are the valid if they are not sworn to, or if they come through third party writings?  Evidence, perhaps, but not sufficient to deny someone Due Process of Law.

Even Judge Matsch realized the severity of the problem of the missing documents when he berated the FBI for their failure to comply with his order.  But, then, Judge Matsch, just a few minutes later, denied a stay of execution to allow the Defense Team time to complete their review of the documents.

– – – – – – –

Timothy McVeigh acted as he did because he saw that government was incapable of conducting itself with principle and integrity.  He saw a government resorting to “brute force” in dealing with other nations of the world, as well as its own people.  He wanted to expose the actions of the government – to bring attention to the fact that it was no longer operating as was intended.  He was willing to die to reveal these truths – but the government continued to insist that it was operating properly, and was capable of acting within the laws.

As his execution date approached, the FBI, in true form, once again exposed itself as a bungling, incompetent investigative agency in its inability to keep track of its own records.  Final proof of the need to protect Americans from a government who has set itself has the almighty knower of all truths.

Unlike the government, Timothy McVeigh’s head IS “bloody but unbowed”!

But, today, Timothy McVeigh is dead.  And, now, it is time to pass the torch.

Will you receive it?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The other two articles in this series:

An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh

What did Timothy McVeigh really say?

What did Timothy McVeigh really say?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 14, 1997

If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me.  He wrote, “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.  For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

That’s all I have.

Timothy McVeigh, August 14, 1997 — just prior to being officially sentenced to death

For weeks, now, I had been conjecturing, along with nearly everyone else in the country, what words would come forth on Timothy McVeigh’s day of sentencing. He had declared that he would make a statement — his first since he was accused of bombing the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 — and the word had spread, as had the anticipation. Many had expected a confession, remorse or denial of complicity. Very few, if any, expected so much acumen to come from McVeigh and just 47 words.

To fully understand the depth of McVeigh’s statement, it might be best to understand exactly what the Olmstead case was about. “Olmstead was the leading conspirator and the general manager of [a] business” (Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438) which employed “not less than 50 persons,” including executives, salesmen, deliverymen, dispatchers and an attorney. The business was “unlawfully possessing, transporting and importing intoxicating liquors,..” The crime, then, was a violation of the statutes enacted under authority of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition) which was ratified in 1919.

The general argument of the court was that although postal mail, once sealed, was prohibited from intrusion by government officers seeking evidence, a telephone line was not, and, although Washington state law made it a misdemeanor to tap a phone, the evidence obtained thereby was admissible. The court, in its opinion, also made clear that the government need not be ethical in its acquiring of evidence.

Brandeis, in his dissenting opinion, stated that “Tapping of one man’s telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone line of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him.” He continued, [a]s a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping.”

Although the comparison of any evidence gathering in the McVeigh case is inconsequential to the whole, the seizure of the papers in McVeigh’s car, his home, the homes of his friends and relatives, and the intimidation of his sister and the Fortiers falls well within the domain of what was once prohibited under the Constitution — but which has become an everyday occurrence under the federal government’s agenda.

I’m not so sure that this was all that Timothy McVeigh had to say when he uttered those few words — much to the chagrin of many. The implications of wrongdoing by government, and usurpation of authority not granted by the Constitution through the process of judicial review is much broader in its ramifications than this case, by itself, demonstrates. Brandeis does discuss other aspects of the Constitution, which have changed by their nature due to the nature of change in the society, especially from a technological point of view. How, for example, could the Founders have protected the right to communicate (theirs was limited to post and courier) over telephone lines when electricity had not been discovered. How, too, could they address the right to communicate freely on the Internet when just a few years ago the concept of this medium of communication was beyond the comprehension of most people. Brandeis states, with regard to the Supreme Court’s review of actions of the Congress, that “this court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of [the Constitution], over objects of which the fathers could not have dreamed.”

“Protection against such invasion of ‘the sanctities of a man’s home and the privacies of life’ was provided for in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language.” He continues, “[b]ut ‘time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.’ Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what was whispered in the closet.”

In appraising the consequences of the government’s overzealous tendencies to secure convictions, Brandeis discussed the actions of the government officials, and the government, itself. “When these unlawful acts [wire tapping in violation of Washington state laws] were committed they were crimes only of the officers individually. The government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the government, having full knowledge, sought through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers’ crimes… and if this court should permit the government, by means of its officers’ crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present the elements of ratification [of the crime committed by government officials, individually]. If so, the government itself would become a lawbreaker.”

Brandeis’ entire concluding paragraph is probably warranted. What McVeigh left out speaks volumes. From the record:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”

The act of anarchy that McVeigh committed was an act induced by observation of the government’s violation of numerous aspects of the Constitution. In Texas, for example, §9.31 (C) of the Texas Penal Code states:

“The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

“(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

“(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

There can be little doubt, regardless of your perception of what occurred in Waco, that the BATF and the FBI did create a situation in which the retaliatory action by the Davidians was fully justified, at least under Texas law. Other events in our recent history can lead us to conclude that the governments efforts at crime control have only generated a scenario where the government may commit crimes, with impunity, and convict others who have not committed a crime of the mere act of possibly contemplating a crime. A very far cry from what Brandeis spoke to some seventy years ago.

Some will suggest that I am attempting to justify McVeigh’s deeds. On the contrary, I have only attempted to explain them.

The previous post in this series about McVeigh,

An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh