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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 25, 2014

There are six provisions of the Constitution that are subject to your consideration and interpretation, when we look into what has become a means of punishment rather than any semblance of Justice — which was the purpose of the Constitution. We will consider these provisions in light of the historical enactments of “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” laws and their use, today, as a means of punishment of those who have committed no crime, in recent years, though the government has chosen to punish them with both illegal and unlawful prosecution/persecution.

We will start with what is referred to as the “Commerce Clause”. It is a power granted to the federal government to enact laws. It is found in Article I, Section 8, clause 3, and reads:

The Congress shall have the Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Now, “regulate” is a word that was commonly used by the Founders. So, let’s see what it meant to them, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

regulate  v.t.

To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

Now, if we were to desire to regulate commerce between the states, those regulations should be equal, and not be to the disadvantage of one state, or to the advantage of another. Obviously, this would apply to the citizens of each state, as well. Its purpose is to make equal between the states, conferring no advantage, or prohibition, on one over another. To achieve this, they can make rules and restrictions. These would only be rules and restrictions that apply in the act of commerce.

Now, being one of commerce “among the several States”, then it would only occur at the borders between states, not within a state. You might compare it to an elevated walkway crossing a street. The stairway goes up from one sidewalk, a walkway across the road, and down on to the sidewalk on the other side of the road. Commerce, to the extent granted by the Commerce Clause, is only the stairways and the walkway. To extend it up and down the sidewalk would be to intrude upon the rights of the state.

The “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is codified in 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1). The initial law was enacted in the early Nineteen-thirties, during the gangster era. Since the federal jurisdiction was, then, limited to interstate commerce (we will go there, shortly), the states were encouraged to enact similar laws, in accordance with their respective constitutions.

They did this because the Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

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.

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power. Therefore, the states could enact felony possession laws, which they did because of this provision.

The federal government could criminalize sending, transportation, and receiving, through interstate commerce, and the states could punish those who could not be prosecuted for possession that was not directly involved in commerce. States varied in their form of punishment, as well as the length and extent of punishment. The states, then, had jurisdiction once the firearms left the stairways at each end of the walkway. It was only those either sending (stairway), transporting (walkway) or receiving (stairway) who were subject to federal law. This is made clear in that portion of the federal law, when it says, “It shall be unlawful for any person [who has been convicted of felony] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

So, we must ask ourselves what this law really says. Well, “to ship or transport” is quite clear. It is the first stairway and the walkway. Surely, if a felon owned a firearm and then sold it to someone who was not a felon, and that second person then shipped or transported that firearm, the felon would not be in possession, since it is the stairway that begins the process. Neither would affect commerce, since the felon is out of the picture, at that time. So, now we get to receive. Receive is an act, in itself. The wording, now this is important, states, “which has been shipped or transported”. When the law was written, those who use words to create the rules of action that we were to be bound by, chose the word “has”, as opposed to the word “had”. “Has” is 3rd person present, meaning active in the action just completed, where “had” is past tense, meaning in a previous situation. If they had the lawful authority to extend the prohibition, the criminal act, they would surely have used “had” instead of “has”. “Had” would extend the prohibition indefinitely. This would explain the necessity of state prohibitions, and leave the jurisdiction fully within the state, if the firearm moved, absent commerce.

Now, in the above, we are discussing commerce. Commerce is, well, commercial, meaning that is done for compensation, for a fee, as a business. Is it commercial if I move myself from one state to another? Surely, it is not, because Article IV, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” That means that I can travel freely between states, without penalty by the state that I enter. This would also mean that the federal government is not a party to my free movement between the states. Only if I hire someone to transport my goods does that property enter the commerce realm, and then, it might still be questionable as to whether I could carry my property, as the commercial aspect is only one of movement, not of commerce leaving one state and entering another. It would be absurd to think that if I carried my firearm with me, from a state that manufactured firearms, to a state that did not, that I would not have the same “Privileges and Immunities”, once I travelled freely to another state.

So, what happens if a federal statute contradicts another federal statute? Better yet, what if a federal statute had the appearance of conflict, via one interpretation, though had no apparent conflict, by another interpretation? Wouldn’t it make sense that statutes cannot be in conflict with other statutes?

Let’s consider the explanation given above, with regard to 18 U. S. Code 922 (g). Then, let’s look at what statute was enacted in providing detail of the Second Amendment, the Amendment that reads:

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.

In support of this Amendment, we find 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

312 : US Code – Section 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Well, I have read that five times, and I cannot find that there is an exemption for someone that has been convicted of a felony. There must be a reason that this exemption was not included. Perhaps it has to do with a better understanding of what the Constitution granted Congress.

So, if the militia “consists of”, it appears to be obligatory and consistent with the Amendment. And, since felons are not exempted, then they are a part of the militia. The militia, however, must be able to “keep and bear Arms”. So, if this statute makes me a member of the militia, then it cannot infringe my right to “keep and bear Arms”. Now, this is not inconsistent with Congress’ authority to regulate commerce, if that regulation is as stated above. However, if we have already demonstrated a weak interpretation the government is currently using to target and punish people, then we have a very serious conflict between the government’s interpretation of the statute and the Constitution, as so far presented. Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Let’s look at how the government is trying to desecrate the Constitution (now, not in the thirties) by trying to use words to increase federal authority beyond what was intended. In 1990, the federal “Gun-Free School Zones Act” was enacted as a part of the “Crime Control Act of 1990”. Its language was modeled after that language used in 18 U. S. Code 922 (g), and was codified in 18 U. S. Code 922 (q). In 1995, the Supreme Court overturned the law by their decision in United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

In overturning the Gun-Free statute, Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

The Act exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined… Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite… nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

Rehnquist recognized that such authority was an authority of a state, not a federal, nature. He explained that the tie to commerce has to be either direct, or of an “economic enterprise”. It had to have a “nexus with interstate commerce”.

So, what did the Congress do? Janet Reno, then Attorney General of the United States, recommended changes to the Gun-Free provision that would give her department extraordinary power by obfuscating the tie to commerce. This was enacted in 1997, and we find that the tie to commerce has been rewritten in a form that doesn’t even sound like what you would expect a law to read, rather, it talks about why Congress enacted the law (warm and fuzzy), providing no substance, only flowers. For the sake of conservation of the length of this article, I will leave to you further research into “18 U. S. Code 922 (q)”. We need only understand that if the Supreme Court overturns an act for unconstitutionality, the government will endeavor to circumvent the prohibition, by whatever means they have, whether legal, lawful, or not.

Now, we shall enter into the world of Jurisdiction. Often, people will say, “that law is unconstitutional”. Here is the stickler; the law is possibly constitutional, though the question of “where” the law applies becomes the consideration, not of constitutionality, rather of jurisdiction, or, where it is applied.

We have just seen that with regard to the “Commerce Clause”, but we need to venture even further. There are two provisions that give Congress authority beyond what we usually perceive as the limitations imposed by the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, clause 17 says:

Congress shall have the Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 says:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Briefly, the Constitution does not define limits, in these instances, though practice, especially during the first 70 years of this government, have established the limits of those authorities. For those who wish a more thorough understanding of what was intended, I would suggest reading Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty. Otherwise, suffice it to understand that the limitations we have been discussing do not fall within those areas of exclusion — that an act of Congress (such as the Act of 1825, in the linked article) can appear to be unconstitutional, though it is only unconstitutional if applied outside of those lands that come under the extraordinary jurisdiction.

So, with this understanding, we, as the People of these United States of America, must allow the government to continually trample upon that sacred document, the Constitution, or must decide that they are not the proper party to make such judgment, as was true of Parliament and the King, when they enacted unconstitutional laws and imposed them on the colonies. If so, then we need to use whatever means necessary in assuring that the government abides by that document, or we resort to the provision of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that “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.”

“Are the people to serve the Government, or, is the government to serve the People?“

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 24, 2014

“Arbitrary and Capricious” is a rather interesting phrase. Most people have never heard of it, so perhaps, it is time to understand what it is and what the legal significance is.

Let’s start with some definitions, from the respective sources:

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Arbitrary. Means in an “arbitrary” manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure. Without adequate determining principle; not founded in the nature of things; nonrational; not done or acting according to reason or judgment; depending on the will alone; absolutely in power; capriciously; tyrannical; despotic; Without fair, solid, and substantial cause; that is, without cause based upon the law; Not governed by any fixed rules or standard. Ordinarily, “arbitrary” is synonymous with bad faith or failure to exercise honest judgment and an arbitrary act would be one performed without adequate determination of principle and one not founded in nature of things.

Arbitrary and capricious. Characterization of a decision or action taken by an administrative agency or inferior court meaning willful and unreasonable action without consideration or in disregard of facts or without determining principle.

Caprice (root of capricious). Whim, arbitrary, seemingly unfounded motivation. Disposition to change one’s mind impulsively.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

ARBITRARY, a. Depending on will or discretion ; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.

-Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.

Washington.

CAPRICIOUS, a. Freakish; whimsical; apt to change opinions suddenly, or to start from ones purpose; unsteady; changeable; fickle; fanciful; subject to change or irregularity; as a man of a capricious temper.

Many state and federal statutes make arbitrary and capricious actions “null and void”, since the concept of such application of law is far beyond any concept of “equal justice under the law”.

Now you probably have a picture of just what “arbitrary and capricious” means, so let’s take an objective view of many of the circumstances surrounding the incident, arrest, and accusations, against K. C. Massey. See if you can recognize where arbitrary and capricious come into play.

We’ll start with the shooting incident on August 29, 2014, when Border Patrol Agent Hernandez fired 5 shots, from 30 feet away, missing his target. The target was John Foerster. He was holding a firearm, which he placed on the ground, after the shots were fired. No testimony even suggests that he pointed the rifle at the agent, but, more on that, later. Now, agents are not to shoot at illegal aliens, unless fired upon. So, I suppose that this shooting is noteworthy in that he didn’t fire on an illegal alien.

After the shooting, Foerster, “Wolf” and Massey were asked to turn their weapons over to BPS, since BPS seemed to think that some “illegals” might sneak up to Massey’s Kawasaki mule, grab the weapons, and then start shooting at the BPS. Makes sense, since we have learned, so often, that “officer safety” is paramount to the safety of unarmed citizens.

So, the weapons that were not fired were turned over to BPS rather than contest the matter with the armed agents, one of whom had just fired at one of the citizens. And, there is little doubt that this incident should be classified as an “officer involved shooting”, since it was only an officer who shot anything. So, we have an officer involved shooting. First thing is to secure the officer’s firearm for the requisite “firearm audit”, which would include ballistics, ammunition count, etc. Instead, BPS Captain Cantu traded weapons with Hernandez, and then placed the shooting weapon in his own holster. Nobody read “Miranda Rights” to the citizens, but the firearms were taken then given to Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla. Still no receipt for the property taken, no Miranda, and no indication that there would be the requisite “firearm audit”. So, when armed, uniformed officers take your firearms, and they don’t provide a receipt, is that armed robbery — the act of highwaymen? (See Massey’s account of incident)

But, still no indication in the filed reports that any scrutiny, except a verbal report, was made regarding the only person that fired a weapon, that day.

Now, we jump to the criminal complaints that lead to an Arrest Warrant.

The Criminal Complaint is supposed to be an affidavit. Let’s look at what an affidavit is, and what standard we would be held to if we were to file an affidavit:

Affidavit. A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before a person having authority to administer such oath or affirmation.

First, it is a statement of fact. So, is it a statement of fact if someone tells me that something happened, or, is it merely a fact that someone told me what happened? I can attest to the fact that someone told me what happened, but, I cannot attest to what happened, since I don’t know that I was told was something factual. If someone told me that something happened, it is hearsay, not fact, at least to the extent of my knowledge. It is to be confirmed by oath or affirmation, and must be acknowledged by a person having the authority to administer such oath or affirmation”.

Now, this might be insignificant (arbitrarily not applied), if it were not for the fact that the Constitution, in the Fourth Amendment, states:

• 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.

Because the Crown had used “Writs of Assistance“, there was cause for the Framers to incorporate such protection against an overreaching government. Should not the government be bound by the document (Constitution) that created it? Or, let me use the words of a friend when discussing overreaching government authority. He said, “There is no effective bar by an individual to any action taken by the Federal government. Federal judges will NOT help dismember the system that created them.” He was a former AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney).

So, the Criminal Complaint begins with “I, Special Agent Anthony M. Rotunno, affiant, do hereby depose and state the following”. He does not state that he has knowledge, or, that what he is presenting is factual. He does not state that he has personal knowledge of what he has said, nor does he “certify” that what he has said is true, though U. S. Magistrate Judge Morgan, does state that it was sworn to him. So, the only element required in an affidavit that meets the standard was made by the judge, not by the affiant.

So, let’s see what he says, that is supposed to be certified as true and correct (from the Criminal Complaint):

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

This is the only source on file that says that Foerster pointed a firearm at the agent. He lets his “device” override our language when he says “intern” instead of “in turn” or “in return”. Kind of makes you wonder how much effort he put into making this a truthful statement. He also, decides, in this “sworn statement”, that Rusty’s Rangers” is a “militia group”. Is that personal knowledge or an effort at demonization? That can be nothing more than an opinion, which should never be presented as fact, and there is nothing that Camp Lone Star or Rusty’s Rangers has ever presented that indicated that they were “militia”.

In the third item, he states that Massey and Varner “were armed as well”. He was not present, so, he can have no personal knowledge of that fact.

4. While conducting the post-shooting investigation, five firearms were taken into custody by Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla. The firearms are described as…

The five firearms were all personal weapons and did not include the one that Hernandez had. Is that a presumption that a BPS agent cannot commit a crime worth investigating?

7. On October 16, 2014, your affiant spoke with Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Danny Cantu. SBPA Cantu was in the area of the shooting when the shots were fired and responded immediately to the scene. SBPA Cantu stated that he in-fact recovered the ZASTAVA, Model: PAP M92PV, 7.62 x 39mm pistol, SN: MP2PV005143 from FOERSTER and that he escorted MASSEY, FORESTER and Varner to the staging area for interviews; witnessing MASSEY carrying a holstered Springfield, Model: XDS, .45 caliber pistol, SN: XS664509 and the Centurion, Model: 39 Sporter, 7.62 x 39mm rifle, SN: 39NCO2585, which was slung around MASSEY’s neck.

Hearsay! This does not meet the standard that the Framers set out for government to abide by. This is an arbitrary and capricious acceptance of a piece of worthless paper as evidence with which to issue and arrest warrant for the arrest of Massey.

The Criminal Complaint is available, with all of the statements made by Rotunno. Why don’t you play “hidden picture” with it and find what he has “hidden” that is not personal knowledge and/or based upon hearsay.

Because of the arrest of Massey, the government was able to secure a “Search Warrant“. It differs slightly in form, though the absence of valid content is apparent. The Search Warrant affidavit is, at least, titled, “Affidavit for Search Warrant”, so the claim is made, though the document will still fall well short of what is required by the Constitution. First, he gives his credential as an expert because he went to many government school training classes (I hope these schools are better than the government public schools, or they are equally worthless).

Then, as he gets past his superior intellect, he says:

This affidavit is based on information received from law enforcement officers, law enforcement databases, as well as my own investigation. This affidavit seeking the issuance of a search warrant based on the following…

Then, he reiterates, sometimes reworded, most of the same content that was included in the Complain/Arrest Warrant. He fails to note that the camp, Camp Lone Star, is located on private property, with the consent of the owner, rather, he leaves it hanging:

E.  USBP Agents have had numerous encounters with members of “Rusty’s Rangers/Regulators”, as this group has set up a “camp” (referred to as Camp Lone Star) near the Rio Grande River in Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas. This “camp” appears to be their staging area for their patrols.

He also fails to point out that many of the “encounters” (rather suggestive) were favorable and cooperative, as they were the day of the shooting incident.

Then, in an effort to fortify his position, he says:

F.  During these encounters, on more than one occasion, USBP Agents have seen MASSEY carrying what appears to be a holstered firearm on his hip and a rifle slung around his neck. These encounters are videotaped by MASSEY, usually via a body mounted or vehicle mounted camera; and then posted to MASSEY’s Facebook page. Affiant has viewed MASSEY’s Facebook; viewing the posted videos that depict MASSEY on patrol with other individuals who armed with long guns. MASSEY’s Facebook page also depicts numerous still photos of MASSEY and others armed with firearms. Friday, October 17 of 2014, was the last time USBP Agents saw MASSEY carrying a firearm; more specifically what they referred to as “automatic firearms”.

Darn, he turned semi-automatic weapons into “automatic firearms”, and this guy works for BATF. Note that they arrested Massey with a firearm, so they need not revisit, and enhance, the Camp Lone Star aspect, but, then, they had to get the demonization in to make sure that the Grand Jury would have an earful as to how bad a dude K. C. Massey really is. That makes it easier to get the Grand Jury Indictment.

Now, we get to the arrest, where, miraculously, nobody was injured:

I.  As part of this investigation, it was discovered that MASSEY had been staying at the “Value Place”, an extended stay type hotel located at 995 Media Luna Road, Brownsville, TX, and to driving a white in color 2006 Ford F-150, TX LP [blocked out] (registered to Kevin MASSEY, at [blocked out] with various decals and stickers on the back of the truck. This same vehicle is used by MASSEY to drive to and from the Value Place to “Camp Lone Star” as witnessed by FBI Special Agent Joe Schneider.

First point of interest is that they “discovered” that Massey had been staying at the “Value Place”. This might have been the role that Foerster played, but then we have FBI Special Agent Joe Schneider witnessing Massey driving from Value Place to Camp Lone Star.

Now, I like this next part:

J.  At approximately 9:30 AM, ATF SA’s, with the assistance of FBI, USBP and CCSO agents and officers, established surveillance at the Value Place and located MASSEY’s vehicle parked in the front. Surveillance on this vehicle was maintained until MASSEY was arrested leaving the Value Place at approximately 1:00 PM, as he was walking toward his vehicle while talking to someone using a white in color iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 is a smartphone which is capable of taking still photos and uploading photos to Facebook via the internet, which affiant has performed on numerous occasions with his own iPhone.

So, they were there at 9:30 AM, waiting to arrest Massey. They arrested Massey at about 1:00 PM. According to Massey, there were between 20 and 30 armed agents that made the arrest, with guns drawn. They had waited three and a half hours to make the arrest. So, if we use even twenty agents, we can calculate that it took about 70 man-hours (nearly two workweeks) of time to make a simple arrest — and BPS has a shortage of people to conduct their job. It is that shortage of BPS agents that led to the establishment of Camp Lone Star and Massey’s involvement on the border — to ease the burden on BPS.

It is also interesting to note that Rotunno has sufficient skill to take “still photos and uploading photos to Facebook via the internet, which affiant has performed on numerous occasions with his own iPhone.” I wonder if that was part of the government training circular, or if his children taught him how to do this.

Let’s get some more hearsay, just to understand the deficiency of what was intended by the Framers to be legal sufficiency:

K.  After MASSEY was detained, ATF SA A. Rivas informed MASSEY that he was being arrested based on an arrest warrant, and asked MASSEY if he had any firearms or anything else on him that the agents needed to know about. MASSEY immediately informed SA Rivas that he had a firearm “in his pocket”. SA Rivas then pulled a loaded Springfield Armory USA pistol, model XD5, caliber .45, SN XS613495 out of MASSEY’s right side, front pocket. The firearm and the white iPhone 5 were seized by ATF.

So, BATF SA Rivas retrieved Massey’s firearm, but we have Rotunno making the statement. It might be proper if he had said, “I observed SA Rivas ask Massey if he had a firearm, and then observed Rivas securing that firearm.” However, we are, once again, simply left guessing as to what might really have happened. In addition, we must wonder how dangerous an iPhone 5 is in the hands of a notorious criminal, or even in Massey’s hands.

Then we get to where there should be a statement that meets the standard for an affidavit, though look as we might, we simply find:

Based on the above facts, it is respectfully requested that a search warrant be issued for the items listed in Attachment A, specifically looking for items listed in Attachment B.

So, he says that what he has said is fact, though he has no proof that it is fact. Very little in the entire affidavit suggests that it was personal knowledge, and some of it, obviously, is not. So, where is the chain of sworn statements as to facts that you or I would be held to?

And, while we are discussing “chains”, what about the “chain of evidence”? From the O. J. Simpson trial through other high profile trials, we find the necessity of the court to require a chain of evidence. If that chain becomes broken, then the evidence, itself, is brought into question. Where are the receipts for transfer of the evidence to BPS, CCSO, and then to BATF? Was it a “magical” transition of possession? I cannot find “magical” in the Constitution, or even the U. S. Code. Or, is it simply, if you have enough money, Justice might just work for you? Perhaps we can begin to understand why the statutes of Justice have a balance beam to measure the gold, and a blindfold, as if justice is based simply upon the values that the court, and players on the government side, place on it.

If we are to assume that such sloppy work can be considered within the intent of the Framers, then we are also bound to assume the guilt of a party by as equally sloppy practices within the halls of justice.

Perhaps it is time for us to read the words, and rely upon ourselves to interpret them, as we believe the Framers intended. So far, we have left it up to the government to decide what the words mean, and we have been sorely abused for our failure to insure that government abides by the document that created it (the government), and brought it into existence.

“Are the people to serve the Government, or, is the government to serve the People?”

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

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

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

KC’s personal ankle bracelet

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 14, 2014

On Monday, November 10, 2014, K. C. Massey was released from the “Correctional Institution Willacy County”, “a contracted correctional institution, operated by a private corporation”, after 14 days of incarceration.

Massey’s bail had been set at $30,000, and his wife had raised the $3,000.00 necessary for the bond (not to be returned) through a bail bond agency. Fortunately, Ronald G. Morgan, U. S. Magistrate Judge, Southern District of Texas (Brownsville), saw that Massey had led an exemplary life, with contributions to community and even law enforcement, saw fit to release him on an “unsecured bond of $30,000”, which means that the bondsman will not make his $3,000 and that the Massey’s will not have to pay that penalty for him to remain on the streets until trial. However, the freedom that you and I enjoy is not to be his to enjoy.

Though Magistrate Morgan chose not to impose the secured bond, the conditions of Massey’s release are far from being able to live his life in a normal manner. Instead, they have placed conditions, which would be considered by most, to be just a prison door away from incarceration.

The Grand Jury indicted Massey on four counts (subject of a future article), so he is, in accordance with the Constitution, accused, based upon “probable cause”, possibly guilty of the crimes alleged. The final determination as to innocence or guilt is, however, subject only to the determination of a jury of his peers. It is not the determination of the U. S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case, or the Magistrate. Therefore, he is “innocent until proven guilty”. This is, or was, the unequivocal foundation for the judicial system that our nation once so proudly hailed.

The release from detention was based upon a document styled “Appearance Bond” (includes all documents discussed herein). That would imply that it was to assure his appearance in court, when called to do so. This would be consistent with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, and would allow him to continue his life, as he had before, without impediment by conditions that take away his freedom. Appearance for that determination of innocence or guilt, not for punishment prior to conviction.

So, let’s look at what has been imposed on Massey that most of us would consider “cruel and unusual punishments” (Eighth Amendment).

The “Appearance Bond, on its first page, says:

“This appearance bond may be forfeited if the defendant does not comply with the above agreement. The court may immediately order the amount of the bond surrendered to the United States, including the security for the bond, if the defendant does not comply with the agreement. At the request of the United States, the court may order a judgment of forfeiture against the defendant and each surety for the entire amount of the bond, including interest and costs.”

So, let’s look closely at what is above that written statement of forfeiture. The only items checked, or otherwise indicated, are:

(X) to appear for court proceedings;

(X) if convicted, to surrender to serve a sentence that the court may impose; or

(X) to comply with all conditions set forth in the Order Setting Conditions of Release.

(√) (2) This is an unsecured bond of $30,000.00

That, in itself, is sufficient to assure his appearance. If he fails to appear are otherwise comply with the three conditions, that is it, the court will take the $30,000.

So, now we will look at what is below the statement quoted above. First is a statement regarding the property used to secure the bond. Then, it has an:

Acceptance. I, the defendant — and each surety — have read this appearance bond and have either read all the conditions of release set by the court or had them explained to me. I agree to this Appearance Bond.

Interesting that the previously set condition on the first page, then the append those conditions to include “conditions of release” on the second (final) page of the “Appearance Bond”. And, now we will look at those conditions of release that have nothing, at all, to do with Massey’s agreement to appear in court, etc.

The “Order Setting Conditions of Release”, being a part of the “requirement” that goes beyond simply assuring appearance, begins to eat away at Massey’s freedoms, which we, not the court, must determine if they are consistent with the intent of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

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

The pertinent parts of the Conditions (indented) and my comments thereto:

(1) The defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release.

(2) The defendant must cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if it is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.

(3) The defendant must advise the court or the pretrial services office or supervising officer in writing before making any change of residence or telephone number.

(4) The defendant must appear in court as required and, if convicted, must surrender as directed to serve a sentence that the court may impose.

Nothing wrong with these, because they have to stay in touch with you, and you shouldn’t go committing crimes, even if you don’t know that they are crimes (Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws) — EXCEPT — they want DNA samples, even if you are arrested or facing charges (42 U.S.C. § 14135). Neither of these are convictions, so what gives? They want a database, so all they have to do is charge you with a crime, get the DNA sample, and then let you go. Neat trick! At the same time, people are fighting, and winning, cases against unjustified collection of DNA samples.

Next, we will go to the “Additional Conditions of Release” (included in the linked “Appearance Bond”). This will include all of the applicable ones, but there are some that stand out and might be considered “cruel and unusual”, at least in the original concept of the phrase. So, as we go through them put, yourself in the mindset of those who committed those sacred words to the Constitution, and consider, also, the concerns that led to the Declaration of Independence. The indented portions are from the document, my comments after those that warrant such comment. Bolded portions are typed into a standard form.

(x) (7) The defendant must (checked items only):

(x) (a) submit to supervision by and report for supervision to the U.S. Pretrial Services Agency telephone number 956-548-2667 , no later than [date left blank]

(x) (b) continue or actively seek employment and provide proof to Pretrial Services.

(x) (e) not obtain a passport or other international travel document.

(x) (f) abide by the following restrictions on personal association, residence, or travel: Travel is restricted to the Northern District of Texas with permission to travel to Brownsville, Texas for court appearances and attorney visits only. No travel into Mexico.

“(f)” imposes travel restrictions within the Northern District of Texas. It also includes permission to travel to Brownsville, this being to attend court, as required. The implication, then, is that he is free to travel within the prescribed area. We will address this, later on, in this section, and once, more, later on.

(x) (g) avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any person who is or may be a victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution, including: co-defendants and any member of “Rusty’s Rangers”, an armed citizen militia group.

“(k)” imposes a restriction on the right to speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and, perhaps the right to petition government (First Amendment). It also sets the prima facie representation of Rusty’s Rangers, a private group of concerned citizens, well within the laws of Texas, as “an armed citizen militia group”, regardless of the fact that both state and federal constitutions provide for who is militia, under their respective constitutions and statutes (See Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?).

(x) (k) not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon; remove all weapons/firearms from residence prior to release and provide proof to Pretrial Services.

(x) (1) not use alcohol (x) at all ( ) excessively.

If alcohol was not a part of the alleged crime, why would they deny that freedom — to imbibe? And, they didn’t even give him the benefit of the qualifier “excessively”.

(x) (m) not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled substances defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802, unless prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner.

They had already said that the “defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release”, so, well, perhaps the one hand has no idea what the other hand is doing, or, there is an extreme deficiency in the intelligence of those who write these documents. It will also seem to suggest their inability to comprehend the Constitution.

(x) (p) participate in one of the following location restriction programs and comply with its requirements as directed.

(x) (ii) Home Detention. You are restricted to your residence at all times except for employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities approved in advance by the pretrial services office or supervising officer;

Back to the use of grammar in documents. The wording and punctuation here suggests that prior approval only applies to “other activities”. Suggesting that the intent was a degree of freedom, however, Massey has been instructed that if he leaves the house, not the yard, that it will set off an alarm and he would be in violation, as you will see, later.

(x) (q) submit to location monitoring as directed by the pretrial services office or supervising officer and comply with all of the program requirements and instructions provided.

(x) You must pay all or part of the cost of the program based on your ability to pay as determined by the pretrial services office or supervising officer.

So, the federal government, with all of the money that they waste, decides that someone under these constraints must also pay for what constitutes his imprisonment.

(x) (r) report as soon as possible, to the pretrial services office or supervising officer, every contact with law enforcement personnel, including arrests, questioning, or traffic stops.

The final page of this document explains the penalties for violation of the conditions given.

First, he has to contact the United States Pretrial Service Officer, Eric Zarate, in Dallas. Then, he has to submit to random “visits” to his home to assure that there are “No Firearms, Destructive Devices, or Dangerous Weapons” in the home. Darn, he has to agree to suspend the requirement for a warrant to search his home. Scratch the Fourth Amendment, but then we have already addressed that in “Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?“. This simply broadens the government’s ability to remove rights that were protected by the Constitution, and supported, as explained in the linked article, by the fact that when Massey’s wife said, “no, you can’t search without a warrant”, they had no way to look inside of the Massey home.

Then, it states that Massey is to give “FIVE days notice… for approval of travel outside the restricted area.” Now, this implies that he is free to roam in the “Northern District of Texas”, but we will soon see that additional document will erode, further, the rights that were supposed to be protected, absent a conviction. A map of the “Northern District of Texas” is included in the documentation provided to Massey.

The final document dealing with Massey’s release is the “Home Confinement Program Participant Agreement”. (Indent is from the pertinent parts, comments are mine):

1.  I, [K. Massey], have been Placed in the Home Confinement Program. I agree to comply with all program rules set forth in this agreement and the instructions of my probation or pretrial services Failure to comply with this agreement or the instructions of my officer will be considered a violation of my supervision and may result in an adverse action. I agree to call my officer immediately if I have any questions about these rules or if I experience any problems with the monitoring equipment.

3. I will remain at my approved residence at all times, except for activities approved in advance by my probation or pretrial services officer. Regularly occurring activities will be provided for in a written weekly schedule which will remain in effect until modified by my officer. I must obtain my officer’s advance permission for any absences away from home that are not included in my written schedule.

Does this remind you of being “grounded”, when you were a kid? Except that violation could land Massey in prison.

5. I understand that my officer will use telephone calls and personal visits to monitor my compliance. When I am at home, I agree to promptly answer my telephone or door. If I fail to answer my telephone or door when I should be at home, my officer will conclude that I am absent and in violation of my home confinement restrictions.

So, guilt (conclude) without trial. It wouldn’t take much for a pissed off officer to “violate” him and send him back to prison.

6. I understand that my officer must be able to locate me at all times when I am away from home. If I do not have a job with a fixed location, my officer must be able to locate me by calling my employer. I also understand that jobs that do not meet these requirements are not permitted while I am in the Home Confinement Program. I understand that all job changes require advance approval from my officer.
7. I will not deviate from my approved schedule except in an emergency. I first will try to get the permission of my officer. If this is not possible, I will call my officer as soon as I am able to do so. If I call during non-business hours, I will leave a message, including my name, the date, the time, a brief description of the emergency, and my location or destination. I agree to provide proof of the emergency as requested by my officer.

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

8. While in the Home Confinement Program, I agree to wear a non-removable transmitter that my officer will attach either to my wrist or ankle.

These transmitter cuffs were, at once only used for those convicted of crimes. I guess the manufacturer of them has convinced the government to buy more. Not much different than the ankle shackles of the past, except you only need one ankle, not two.

10. I understand that I will be held responsible for damage, other than normal wear, to the assigned equipment. I also understand that if I do not return the equipment, or do not return it in good condition, I may be charged for replacement or the repair of the equipment, and I agree to pay these costs.

13. I agree not to move, disconnect or tamper with the monitoring unit or place any objects on top of it.

14. I agree not to remove or tamper with the transmitter device except in a life-threatening emergency or with the prior permission of my officer.

15. I agree to allow authorized personnel to inspect and maintain the transmitter device and monitoring unit.

16. I agree to notify my officer immediately, or as directed, if I: a) lose electrical power at my residence for more than 24 continuous hours, b) remove the transmitter device from my wrist or ankle because of an emergency, or c) experience any problems with the monitoring equipment. During non-business hours, I agree to call my officer and leave a message that includes my name, the date, the time, and the nature of my problem. If there is a power problem, I agree that I will call and leave another message when the power is restored. I also agree to notify my officer of any problems with my telephone service as soon as I am able to do so.

If the monitor goes out in the middle of the night, and you don’t realize it because you are sleeping, you are in violation. If it comes on while you are still sleeping, well, another violation.

17. I understand and agree that all telephone calls from the monitoring center to my residence will be recorded by the monitoring center. I will follow all directives from monitoring personnel when they call.

So, you can see how they began with a fairly innocuous agreement, simply a return for trial, etc., and you are free to go. Next, they step it up a notch, increasing restrictions and limiting travel to the “Northern District of Texas”. Then, they remove nearly a third of Texas and reduce the “free to roam” space to the size of the house. The first, the Appearance Bond”, seems to satisfy a reasonable approach to assuring that an honest man will appear when required, even to the point of turning himself in to serve time. And, since the Court determined that it was an unsecured bond, there can be little doubt that the character of K. C. Massey warranted such a status. Then, piecemeal, they begin to inflict what could be considered no less than unusual punishment by hanging the threat of returning to prison for as little as failing to make a phone call, under the conditions described. This is a practice that used to be reserved for convicted criminals, either on parole or probation. That which might be considered leniency to the convict can be considered nothing less than punishment to a man who is simply charged with a crime and still assumed innocent. That would meet the standard of cruel as well as unusual.

This is also an education for those who might face charges, even if they have done nothing in violation of state laws, of what to expect if the government decides to charge you with a crime.

This, once again, leads us to question:

Do the people are to serve the Government, or, Does the government to serve the People?

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

Camp Lone Star – The Search Warrant or Fishing License?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 10, 2014

After the incident of August 29, 2014, in which BPS Agent Hernandez, who is bound by policy forbidding the firing of weapons upon illegal aliens, though apparently no such policy exists regarding American citizens, fired five shots from 30 feet away, failing to hit John Foerster (Jesus), a total of five weapons were “taken into custody” by the BPS and Sheriff’s Deputy. (See Massey’s account of incident). There is nothing to suggest that the perpetrator of that incident, Hernandez, had his weapon confiscated. These weapons were the basis for a “Criminal Complaint” issued on October 20, 2014, and lead to the arrest of K. C. (Kevin) Massey on Monday, October 20, and John Foerster, on Tuesday October 21 (See Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey).

We are going to look at the Search Warrant and related documents to better understand both the divisiveness of government, and the deviation from the intent of the Constitution –regardless of how the courts may have ruled on the matter, after all, how can we be bound by laws if the government is not bound by the Constitution?

On October 20th, the same day as the Criminal Complaint, the “Application for a Search Warrant” (included in linked PDF) is supported by an “Affidavit for Search Warrant”, and though it doesn’t have the legally required concluding statement:

Further affiant saith not.
I swear or affirm that the above and foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

or, variations thereof, it does comport the air of authority, as it is signed by “Anthony M. Rotunno, Special Agent, ATF”. However, should we expect the government to abide by the rules of legal sufficiency? Or, is that simply for “us peons”? After all, the government speaks only truth, and need not swear or affirm, simply, state. The Constitution does require that an affidavit be “supported by Oath or affirmation” (see 4th Amendment, below).

So, the Criminal Complaint was based upon what is referred to as “Felony Possession of a Firearm”. In fact, the Affidavit cites 18 U. S. Code, § 922 (g)(1), with the pertinent phrase being, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce”. Though I have written on the subject of 10 USC 922 (g)(1), before (“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher & Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?), I need to add another question regarding the applicability solely to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It has to do with the word “has”, as opposed to the word “had”. “Has” is 3rd person present, meaning active in the action just completed, where “had” is past tense, meaning in a previous situation. So, if one were the direct recipient, then this would be appropriate. However, if it were expansive — intended to include any firearm shipped in interstate commerce, then had would be the proper verb — to include any and all that had been so transported. I am sure that those who write such laws, or rules, have a grasp on the language and the meaning of words than those idiots who cannot even ascribe an affidavit properly.

That aside, Rotunno goes on with his explanation of his background, including with BPS from 2002 to 2008, then with ATF, since that time. Of course, the background also included special classes that he is familiar with, including the one mentioned above, though English grammar is not listed.

He then goes on to explain what the ATF National Academy teaches about what is reasonable to believe about what firearms owners “normally” do. For example, these rarely known facts, known only to the select few who have attended the appropriate indoctrination classes, are as follows:

1. That the ATF National Academy teaches that most Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that it is reasonable to believe that persons normally store their firearms in their homes;
2. That persons who possess firearms usually possess other items related to firearms, such as: gun cases, ammunition, ammunition magazines, holsters, spare parts, cleaning equipment, photographs of firearms and receipts for the purchase of these items;
3. That it is common for individuals who possess firearms and ammunition after being convicted of a felony, to secrete such firearms and ammunition in secure locations within their residence, motor vehicles and other real property over which they have dominion and control;
4. That documents which indicate their occupancy and/or ownership such as personal mail, checkbooks, identification, notes, correspondence, utility bills, rent receipts, payment receipts, financial documents, keys, photographs, leases, mortgage bills, vehicle registration information, ownership warranties, receipts for vehicle parts and repairs, telephone answering machine introductions; cell phone cameras or other electronic recording devices which may contain electronic data of evidentiary value; and
5. That those persons often take and store photographs of themselves with their firearms, of firearms they own or possess, and usually take or store these photographs using their personal telephones or the “memory” cards of their telephones.

If Rotunno is such an expert, he should be familiar with something known as “Tannerite”. Tannerite is sold as a two-part compound, with the parts separated. It is legal to sell and possess. Its nature changes when the primary part, ammonium nitrate (an oxidizer) and aluminum powder (a fuel), are mixed. At that point, when mixed, laws apply only to the transporting and/or shipping of the then Tannerite. So, in an effort to prepare for the demonization of Massey, when this matter goes to the Grand Jury for an Indictment, they will tell the Grand Jury that he possessed ammonium nitrate and fuel, the same substances that Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. This will be presented before any evidence of firearms so that the jury members will perceive Massey as a terrorist, as most people see McVeigh. At that point, the jury will follow the lead of the U. S. Attorney and not question other possible elements of the case. They will do what they have to do in order to indict Massey, and then the ordeal and expense of trial well begin to drain away Massey’s energy and resources, and the government a success, without even a conviction, in removing a committed patriot from our ranks.

Perhaps we need to look at this realistically. The Constitution provides, in the Fourth Amendment, that:

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.

Therefore, we have another misunderstanding between the intent of the Constitution and the application by government. Why did the Founders insert the adverb “particularly”? Why didn’t they just leave it out? Well, then it would have read, “and describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Is that what they meant?

But, wait a minute! They already have in their custody the five firearms listed in the Criminal Complaint and the two subsequently identified in the Affidavit for Search Warrant. So, keep that in mind as you read Page 3 of the Search Warrant (linked above).

On that page, you will see a list that is, at best, obscene, at least with regard to finding evidence that Massey had committed the alleged crime. You will note that the Warrant also says that they confiscated one firearm on Massey at the time of arrest, and that they knew that there was another firearm in the motel room. That is seven firearms, and they need to “confiscate” records, items, nearly everything but the toilet paper, to find “evidence of a crime”? Hell, if it really is a crime, then they had him, “dead to rights”, with seven firearms.

Can we attribute any other “justification” for this extensive and intrusive search other than “fishing” — to gather intelligence and profile others who have associated with Massey? Perhaps looking for evidence of another crime. Perhaps looking for picture so naked women, so that they can do something “productive”, during their long periods of surveillance.

Another thought that occurs is timing. If the original arrest was scheduled for 9:30 AM, though wasn’t conducted until Massey left the room, at 1:00 PM., one must wonder how the Affidavit, with all of the detail, could have been prepared, then the Assistance US Attorney found, to approve it, and, finally, a judge found who would sign it, within normal working hours, to be served the same day.

A final comment on the Search Warrant is the admission by the government that Massey showed the understanding that saying anything can only lead to disaster. By standing firm in not talking, he deserves the praise for the fortitude that held him to that conviction. Had he not, it is quite possible that he would have divulged information that might be detrimental to others. The quote, from the Warrant:

At the FBI office, your affiant (Rotunno) and FBI J. Schneider attempted to interview MASSEY. However, MASSEY invoked his right to an attorney.

What is clear is that the government’s regard for obedience to the intent of the Constitution is, without question, absent from everything done in this current exercise of despotic government. The primary evidence (5 firearms) was obtained without a warrant. Is it “forbidden fruit”, as it was obtained when government officers committed a crime by firing on John Foerster, and therefore within the limitations imposed by the 4th Amendment? Can that “evidence” then be used to secure an unsworn Search Warrant, so that, perhaps, they can make an arrest and find some evidence that is not as questionable? Would that evidence also be questionable, if obtained by improper (unconstitutional) methods? Come to think of it, the Search Warrant (page 6, item “H”) says that they had an arrest warrant, though Massey has never been provided a copy of the alleged Arrest Warrant.

So, we return to that necessary question, Are the people are here to serve the Government, or, is the government here to serve the People?

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 3, 2014

“Felony Possession of a Firearm” is the feds’ way of charging someone who is a convicted felon and possesses a firearm, which is found in 18 USC 922, at (g)(1). In two previous articles, we touched upon various aspects of that law. In “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher, we addressed the interstate commerce aspect of that law. It explained that the law can only be properly applied if a person is directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce of a firearm, as any other interpretation would result in unequal justice under the law, whereby a citizen of one state might be able to have both firearms and ammunition, in another state, one might be able to only have ammunition or a firearm, and in the remainder of the states, one could possess neither firearm or ammunition.

In a subsequent article, Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws, we discussed the conflict between state and federal laws. The Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

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.

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power.

Now, supposing that is the case, could the federal government, absent such delegated power, pass a law, or promulgate a rule (See The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM), that was Constitutional, or is it without jurisdiction – unless supported by another power or authority granted to the federal government? The “Clash of Laws” article refers to a Supreme Court decision, United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995), which removes any doubt as to whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, “To regulate Commerce … among the several States” (Art. I, §8, clause 3) allows that regulation to extend to any use, once removed from interstate commerce. The Court ruled, “To uphold the Government’s contention… would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States”. The Court, in declining to decide in the government’s favor, ruled that the government was unable to extend its “Commerce Clause authority” to encroach upon the authority reserved to the States.

So, that is two strikes against the federal government, in their intent to broaden their authority where it was never granted by the Constitution. Is it possible that there might be a third strike that would, without question, prohibit the federal government from imposing any limitation of the right to possess a firearm, leaving that power solely to the state government to do as they wish?

The first eight Amendments are prohibitions – things that the federal government cannot violate. Let’s start with the Second Amendment:

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

Before we proceed, it might be worth understanding what the definition of the most significant word in that Amendment is. This definition is from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — words as they were understood by the Founders.

infringe, v.t.
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

infringed, pp. Broken; violated; transgressed.

Well, that is pretty clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means that it is not within the granted powers and authorities granted to the federal government, for it to do “what is stipulated not to be done”.

That appears to be a good start, though we need to go a bit further to see if that infringement is contrary to a provision of U. S. Code that is very consistent with the Second Amendment, and in its provisions, does not exclude the right, under federal law, to possess a firearm — except, possibly, while directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, what about the militia? The government tells us how bad they are, but, what does United States Code (the Law of the Land, as per Art. VI, say about the militia? From 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

   § 311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

   § 312 : US Code – Section 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

    (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Nowhere in this law made in pursuance to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, does it prohibit a convicted felon from being in the militia. In fact, it is mandatory, since he is not exempted, that he be within those defined as “unorganized”. So, ponder this; can someone be in the militia that is unable to possess a firearm? That would seem to be contrary to the Constitutional provision pertaining for the militia. only the most absurd reasoning could devise to argue against a person’s right to possess a firearm, with the exception of that portion that prohibits direct involvement in interstate or foreign commerce.

Article VI, clause 2 tells us “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” So, if a law is made in pursuance, as opposed to without such authority, it is Constitutional. Otherwise, it is not.

So, do we allow the judges, who are constantly subverting the Constitution by ruling contrary to its provisions, or adding their personal beliefs, as enforceable points of law, to continue to rule in such a manner? Or, do we, as Americans, have every right to read, interpret, so long as we don’t err in that interpretation, abide by, and enforce the law as was intended by the Founders? Moreover, does this right extend to the use of whatever force necessary to free those shackled by government efforts to quash the Constitution in such a manner as to grant them powers that are tyrannical?

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 27, 2014

K. C. Massey was in the area when a shooting occurred that brought numbers of Border Protection Service (BPS) agents, and Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla, to the scene. The BPS agents asked that the weapons of all three individuals be turned over to BPS for reasons of safety (Explained in Massey’s account of incident). They were then turned over to Padilla, though at no time was Massey read Miranda rights, nor was the transfer of the weapons voluntary. It was simply done because they were agents, with guns, and in the principle of “discretion being the better part of valor”, they relinquished the weapons.

Those weapons then became the object of a Criminal Complaint, charging Massey and John Foerster (See Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey) with felony possession of a firearm, based on 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1).

Federal Authority and limitations

The theory behind laws, and the application of law, including ambiguity of the word, intent of the law, and misapplication of those laws is addressed in “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher (for those interested in that aspect of persecution), however, the purpose of this article is to discuss what might be termed “the clash of laws” between the United States and Texas, under a Republican Form of Government (Art. IV, § 4 of the Constitution, as a member state of the Union of these United States (yes, the plural is intended).

To understand this clash, we must first look at the powers granted to, and the limitations imposed upon, on the federal government, by the Constitution.

First, there is the inevitable, and truly sacred, Second Amendment.

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

Now, that reference to “free State” applies only to the states, not to the federal government, since the existence of a federal militia was never addressed in the Constitution, only the authority to call forth the militia. The first reference to what might be considered a federal militia occurred in 1916 with the enactment of law embodied in 10 U.S.C. § 311 (See A United States Militia). So, the Constitutional references to militia and bearing arms are contained in that Second Amendment and the following provisions in the Constitution”

Article I, § 8, clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, § 8, clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, Congress can call forth the Militia, which they could not “call” if they were already under federal authority, and next, they recognize that “Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. Leaving, of course, officers and training, to the “parent” of the militia, the States.

The only other provision is found in Article II, § 2, which reads,

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

This makes clear that the Militia belong to the States, not to the federal government, except when called into service. Now, the only mention of “arms” is associated with that militia in the Second Amendment, which links any firearms laws only to the authority to the states (we will go further on this subject, later). The only applicability to federal authority, or should we say, prohibition, is that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It appears that it wasn’t until the 1930s when the government first crossed that line drawn by the Constitution, and has continued to expand overarching authority into those Constitutionally prohibited realms, since that time (See The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend).

There is one more concern regarding federal authority that must be addressed, before we get to the heart of the matter. That is the authority granted regarding Commerce, Article I, § 8, clause 3, says,

“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

It does not grant any power within the states, only “among the several States”. That is interstate, not intrastate, commerce.

Then, we have the only other “commerce” provision in Article I, § 9, clause 6:

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Now, you need to keep these points in mind as we continue down a path of discovery — to determine what We, not the government, see as the powers granted and limitations imposed.

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Federal)

The only charge against Massey, according to the Criminal Complaint, is a violation of 18 USC §922(g)(1) (the full text of §922(g) at 18 USC 922). The pertinent part is as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, let’s look at the obvious intent of the law. First, “It shall be unlawful“, well, no problem with that.

Next, if that person “has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, that that criterion has been met — that Massey has such a criminal record. So, now we move on to the third portion of the Statute.

It is unlawful “to ship or transport in interstate… commerce“. Now, this next phrase is rather interesting. “Possess” means “To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control“. So this must mean that you have in your control the firearm when you affect the commerce. The possession must be done while participating in or affecting that commerce. Finally, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Well, that last one surely must be the direct recipient, the addressee – to “receive”, as opposed to “possess”. For if that were the case, it would read, “to possess any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.”

So, let’s revisit what we said about Commerce. “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue… one State over those of another.” However, if we consider the implications of the law, if you live in a state that manufactures a firearm, then you can posses it, as it has not been involved in interstate commerce. However, if you have ammunition that was manufactured in another state, then you are guilty because of the ammunition. If you live in a state that manufactures both weapons and ammunition, you can posses those “firearms” and ammunition. However, if you live in a state that manufactures one, the other, or neither, then you may have but one, or none. That seems to give Preference to one state over another.

Further, this absolutely defies the concept of equal justice; it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.” And, it would mean that if one moved to another state, with what was legal, from the federal standpoint, in the state from which he began, he would criminal in the other state.

Texas Possession Laws

So, let’s see what Texas has to say about a convicted felon possessing a firearm. The applicable law is found in Texas Penal Code, Section 46.04. The pertinent part is as follows:

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

(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or

(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than.

(f) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States…

So, if one is convicted of a qualifying felony, after he has served his time gone through post conviction service, the clock starts. After five years, he cannot possess weapons, except at “the premises at which the person lives.” Now, premises, in legal terminology, is the house, outbuildings and land. This is to afford protection — once the five years has expired. It does not say house, it includes his whole dominion. He can protect his property.

Now, a question arises as to if he relocates, and lives elsewhere. In Massey’s case, he has lived at Camp Lone Star for four months. The land is owned by “Rusty” Monsees, and the camp is located on his property, with his consent. That is where he lives, so the premises, though not owned by him, is the premises that are applicable in the statute. He encountered the BPS on those premises, so he had every legal right to possess the weapons, under state law.

When he was arrested, he was in a motel room, where he lived the night before he was arrested. This may be a gray area, though it seems that since he lived in that motel room, that night, and that the obvious purpose of the law is for personal protection, that he would still be legal, under state law. The alternative would have been to either secure his firearms in his truck, or to leave them unattended at Camp Lone Star. Though this may be debatable, if we look at intent, it is probable. If not, the only violation, under state law, might be him having his weapons in the motel room. However, he was not charged with that. The initial charge came when he surrendered his weapons, without Miranda, while still fully in compliance with Texas law. The Complaint was based upon his lawful (state law) possession. The Complaint led to the arrest, which might be the only exception to state law. However, the Complaint, itself, admits to “forbidden fruit”.

So, where do we go, next?

Collision of Laws

Recently, Washington state and Colorado enact laws legalizing marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice announced that they were going to suspend prosecution of federal marijuana laws in those two states. Shall we ponder their reasoning for making such a decision?

Let’s suppose that state law says you can posses marijuana, and federal law says that you cannot. To begin to understand this, and the subsequent discussion, perhaps we need to interrupt, for a minute, and understand what James Madison told us in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, law is “a rule of action”, or, perhaps, a prohibition. But, it is there to guide us in remaining within the boundaries of law, or suffering the consequences of deviation from the law.

So, if marijuana is legal in Colorado, and criminal by federal law, which “rule of action” are we bound by? Well, the government did not want to face the consequences of a legal challenge to their presumed superiority of their laws over the state’s laws. Let’s look at Article IV, § 4, of the Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

So, we have the only “guarantee” in the Constitution, and that is that we have a “Republican Form of Government”. That guarantee is that so long as the state does not enact a law in violation of the Constitution, they have every right to enact any other law — such as the marijuana law. Gee, it also provides that the government “shall protect… them against Invasion”. Golly, gee, isn’t that what K. C. Massey and Camp Lone Star were doing, since the government was having so much trouble fulfilling this obligation?

However, the marijuana laws are the “Conflict of Laws”, and, perhaps, the felony possession laws are also a Conflict of Laws. After all, the same dilemma arises. Can K. C. Massey possess firearms, so long as he does so in compliance with Texas Law, under their Republican Form of Government? Or, is he bound by federal law that depends so much on the Commerce provisions of the Constitution?

Let’s look at what the United States Supreme Court said about the extent of authority granted by the commerce clause. The case is United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

The federal government had enacted the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990”, which forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone.” The District Court denied Lopez, as they claimed that the law was “a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce.”

That decision was appealed to the Appellate Court, who then reversed the lower court decisions, when Chief Justice Rehnquist said,

Held:

The Act exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute [as is the charge against Massey] that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined… Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite… nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

In a Certiorari to the Supreme Court, the case was heard. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. After a lengthy discussion, affirming most of what the Appellate Court had said in their decision, and extending even further into limitations of federal authority, the Decision concludes, “For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.”

So, the Supreme Court, back in 1995, imposed a limitation of authority on the federal government, regarding the utilization of the Commerce Clause beyond its Constitutional intent. And, the law that was overturned, 18 U. S. Code Section 922(q), a part of the same statute that is being used against Massey, requires that there be an economic nexus to commerce for a law to be valid.

The first portion of this article explains the wording of the law, (922 (g)(1), and how it is clearly tied to commerce. Whether it was rewritten after the Lopez decision, or not, it must have the nexus to commerce. If the ownership of the gun by Lopez does not have that nexus, how, possibly, can the ownership by Massey have what the other did not?

Commerce begins when somebody “ships” something in interstate commerce. It continues when someone “transports” something interstate commerce. It finally ends when someone “receives” something that has been sent and transported. At that point, the nexus to commerce ceases, and we are back to “Equal Protection under the Law”, where the state that you live in is the authority as to whether you can posses guns or ammunition.

The final point to be made on this subject is the fact that the state of Texas has three branches of government. They have, like every other state, a Legislative, and Executive, and a Judicial branch. The Judicial, of course, is to render justice. The Legislative, to enact laws, under its “Republican Form of Government”, and the Executive to sign such enactments into law, and enforce them.

If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist. On the other hand, the government of Texas should take a more aggressive role, as the Supreme Court did, in limiting the overbearing and abused authority of the federal law enforcement agencies.

Let me repeat two quotations from the above. First is by Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision, the second, my observation, from over twenty years of reporting to the Patriot community, on the ramifications and consequences of the current round of persecutions by the federal government, contrary to the state’s constitutions and laws:

• To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.
• If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist.

Therefore, We must ask ourselves whether the people are here to serve the government, or, is the government here to serve the people? If the former, then we acquiesce to a condition of servitude. If the latter, then we must, in the Court of Public Opinion, rise above the government, and force them back to the limitations imposed on them by the Constitution, by whatever means necessary.

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 23, 2014

The Founders were concerned over certain practices of the British government. From a judicial standpoint, both Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2) and subsequently, in the Bill of Rights, with the Sixth Amendment, which reads, in part,

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

were to insure that the courts were not used to punish people, rather, to serve Justice and prohibit unlawful detention.

In the case of Robert Beecher, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Statesboro Division, Case CR614-018, this is not the way it is working.

Robert M. Beecher was arrested on May 7, 2014, after being told that he was not going to be arrested (See “No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher).

Let’s go through a calendar of events in Beecher’s case:

• July 31, 2013 – Investigation initiated (FBI form FD 1057)
• May 7, 2014 – Arrested
• May 24 – Beecher was denied Bail by FBI, PD out of town….Saw Judge
• June 4 – Grand Jury indictment
• June 19 – Arraignment
• Aug. 14 – Motions Hearing – Postponed by ATF/FBI to obtain further charges and records from GA, TN and Galveston, TX that were not computerized and were searching for paper records from 1977
• Sept. 4 – Postponed….Federal Judge had personal issues and Forwarded Caseload to another federal judge, who also has heavy caseload.

Some things that we can learn about persecution, as opposed to prosecution, can be gleaned from the above.

First is that the FBI and the BATF have been investigating Beecher since July 31, 2013. The arrest was made over 9 months later. However, at the August 14 hearing (over a year after the initiation of the investigation, they ask for a continuance so that they can research paper (not computerized) records so that the can prove that he is a felon, under the statute. That is over three months (over 70 days, as will be explained later). You would think that the government would have satisfied the requirement of proving that he was a felon, prior to arresting him as a FELON in possession of a firearm, than searching to see if they could find the firearms with which to satisfy the second part of the charge against Beecher. Let’s just suppose that Beecher wasn’t a felon, they get the warrants, make a mess of the property, find some firearms, then realize that he was not a felon, or that they weren’t sure, or could not prove that he was. Sort of a case of the cart before the horse, but, well, they are paid, just the same. This would suggest that US Attorney Edward J. Tarver (prosecuting); Carlton R. Bourne, Jr (AUSA & lead counsel); Special Agent Stanley H. Slater (FBI; and, Special Agent Lorin G. Coppock (BATF), are all bumbling incompetents, each making over $100,000.00 a year, but unable properly prepare a case.

Nearly a month later, we find that because a judge, presumably G. R. Smith, U. S. Magistrate Judge, who signed the Search Warrant on May 6, 2014, had “personal issues”, the law, and justice, apparently, can be set aside, while Beecher languishes in jail. This, now, really tops it. A man is deprived of time with his family, especially with his grandchildren. The Judge, however, has family problems, though he responding to his problems simply creates more family problems for Beecher.

However, it does bring to minds a rather interesting question, “Are the people to serve the government, or, is the government to serve the people?”

So, we have looked at an absolute lack of regard for Robert Beecher and the impact this has had on his family and his life. So, let us look at an even more important aspect, the laws that are put in place to define and satisfy Constitutional mandates. For example:

The Constitutional Mandate can be found in the Sixth Amendment, which says, in part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

In a previous article, we have addressed the facts that any records regarding the trial have yet to be released to the public. Is it fair to say that “sealed” judicial paperwork, for nearly six months, meets the “public trial” provision? I also addresed the specifics of the charges against Beecher, and it appear that they don’t apply to him, anyway.

So, now, let’s see what has been determined regarding “speedy trial”. Here are the pertinent portions of 18 U.S. Code § 3161, et seq:

18 U. S. Code § 3161 – Time limits and exclusions:

(a) In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial.

(b) Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges. If an individual has been charged with a felony in a district in which no grand jury has been in session during such thirty-day period, the period of time for filing of the indictment shall be extended an additional thirty days.

Note: The filing of the Indictment provision was satisfied.

(c)

(1) In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing to be tried before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.

Note: It is interesting that the “making public” provision, if not met, means that the government can simply keep the record sealed, and theoretically, keep Beecher in jail, “indefinitely”.

Well, (a) says that “at the earliest practicable time, shall… set the case for trial… so as to assure a speedy trial.” Not difficult to understand, at it appears to be supportive of what the Founders envisioned when the assured us a “speedy trail”. However, in what is an obvious effort to circumvent the intent of the Constitution, they have set a new benchmark by counting the seventy days “shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.” How thoughtful of them for using the last occurring date instead of the first. This allows them to detain someone for quite some time. For instance, in the current matter Beecher has had hearings cancelled on two occasions, so he has not been before the “judicial officer”. Well, how about the Indictment? The Indictment was filed with the Court on June 4, but it has not been made public, so even though Beecher has been in jail for over 5 months, the clock has yet to begin ticking from which we can gauge whether, or not, he is going to get a “speedy trial”.

Continuing on through the maze of legal complexity, we find:

***

(h)

(7)

(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Note: Therefore, the judge can continue the matter (trial) if he does it based upon “his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” There you go. He can arbitrarily determine that the continuance serves the “ends of justice” and therefore outweighs the defendants right to a “speedy trial”. This might be interpreted as, “yes, we have a constitution, but, I, with my black robes, can ignore it — for the sake of justice, as I see it.”

“Nothing to see here. Just keep moving.”

There is a bit of redemption, however, in:

***

(C) No continuance under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be granted because of general congestion of the court’s calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government.

Note: This last, this “failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government”, which, presumably, would also include certain “evidence”, seems to be at the heart of the current delay. As best I can find, the Prosecutor is still trying to determine if the “felonies” qualify under the statute upon which the Indictment was based. The statute is discussed, in detail, in “No bended knee for me – the Charge against Robert Beecher“. Though it appears that the prosecutor and the FBI and BATF agents had the cart before the horse in assuming that the felonies qualified under the statute. At least, that is what has been alleged to be the reasoning behind the continuance.

Next, we can go to 18 USC §3162 – Sanctions, which provides punishment for certain activity that results in the delay of the “speedy trial”.

18 U.S. Code § 3162 – Sanctions

(a)

(1) If, in the case of any individual against whom a complaint is filed charging such individual with an offense, no indictment or information is filed within the time limit required by section 3161 (b) as extended by section 3161 (h) of this chapter, such charge against that individual contained in such complaint shall be dismissed or otherwise dropped. In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice.

(2) If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161 (c) as extended by section 3161 (h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant. The defendant shall have the burden of proof of supporting such motion but the Government shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with any exclusion of time under subparagraph 3161(h)(3). In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice. Failure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under this section.

(b) In any case in which counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government

(1) knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;

Note: Would the term “witness” also include certified documents regarding previous convictions — showing proof of the felony?

(2) files a motion solely for the purpose of delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;

(3) makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining a continuance which he knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or

(4) otherwise willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with section 3161 of this chapter, the court may punish any such counsel or attorney, as follows:

(A) in the case of an appointed defense counsel, by reducing the amount of compensation that otherwise would have been paid to such counsel pursuant to section 3006A of this title in an amount not to exceed 25 per centum thereof;

(B) in the case of a counsel retained in connection with the defense of a defendant, by imposing on such counsel a fine of not to exceed 25 per centum of the compensation to which he is entitled in connection with his defense of such defendant;

(C) by imposing on any attorney for the Government a fine of not to exceed $250;

Note: This, however, would require the judge, whether of his own volition, or under pressure from other sources, pursue this token of justice. I wonder if there are very many judges currently sitting in District Courts who place justice before their job security and hopes for elevation to a higher bench.

It is interesting that the government attorney would only be fined $250, while the defense attorney would be fined 25%, which could easily exceed $10,000. But, I suppose that they look out for their own.

Now, as we continue through the maze of statutory befuddlement, we find another statute that might even force a more rigid implementation of the right to a speedy trial.

18 U.S. Code § 3164 – Persons detained or designated as being of high risk

(a) The trial or other disposition of cases involving—

(1) a detained person who is being held in detention solely because he is awaiting trial, and

(2) a released person who is awaiting trial and has been designated by the attorney for the Government as being of high risk,

shall be accorded priority.

(b) The trial of any person described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section shall commence not later than ninety days following the beginning of such continuous detention or designation of high risk by the attorney for the Government. The periods of delay enumerated in section 3161 (h) are excluded in computing the time limitation specified in this section.

Note: So, if Beecher is detained, but not high risk, the trial must commence within 90 days of detention. On the other hand, if he is high risk (the apparent cause for no bail being granted), and not detained (released), the trial must commence within 90 days of such designation of high risk. Is there a middle ground where if one is both high risk and detained, there is no provision for a speedy trial? Not very just, if true. A person of high risk that is not detained is, well, a potential threat to the community, where the guy that is both high risk and detained is not a threat, though it appears that he is to suffer, without recourse, or, that the Judge should use the wisdom that God gave him to be just.

(c) Failure to commence trial of a detainee as specified in subsection (b), through no fault of the accused or his counsel, or failure to commence trial of a designated releasee as specified in subsection (b), through no fault of the attorney for the Government, shall result in the automatic review by the court of the conditions of release. No detainee, as defined in subsection (a), shall be held in custody pending trial after the expiration of such ninety-day period required for the commencement of his trial. A designated releasee, as defined in subsection (a), who is found by the court to have intentionally delayed the trial of his case shall be subject to an order of the court modifying his nonfinancial conditions of release under this title to insure that he shall appear at trial as required.

Note: Now, this is a bit more clear. “No detainee… shall be held in custody pending trial after the expiration of such ninety-day period required for the commencement of his trial”.

So, why is Robert Beecher still in jail, nearly 180 days after is detention?

This can only be interpreted as Robert Beecher’s right to be released, with his family and able to regain the life that has been, punitively, taken from him, in violation of the above statutes.

What we have been discussing is the statute verses the intent of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. So, we will venture into one more statute, within the speedy trial provisions, to see if there is merit to my interpretations, given above.

18 U.S. Code § 3173 – Sixth amendment rights

No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted as a bar to any claim of denial of speedy trial as required by amendment VI of the Constitution.

That pretty much cinches it. Any interpretation that does not favor Sixth Amendment is contrary to the intent of the law, itself.

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

“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher

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

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

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 21, 2014

Yesterday, in the early afternoon, Kevin (K.C.) Massey, 48, was arrested in a motel room near Brownsville, Texas. Massey was one of the organizers of Camp Lone Star, which has been turning back, or turning over to the Border Protection Service (BPS), illegal aliens attempting to cross the Southern border. He was alone when the FBI and BATF arrested him, charging him with Felony Possession of a Firearm. He was convicted in 1988 of burglary – over a quarter of a century ago. To better understand the charge against Massey, I refer you to a previous article on a similar situation, “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher. It would appear that Massey is subject to the same intentional misinterpretation of the Federal Statute.

Sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 PM, FBI and BATF agents arrived at the home of Khristy Massey, Kevin’s wife, located in the Quinlan, Texas, over 600 miles from Camp Lone Star.. Massey had not lived at the home for the past four months, and the house is currently for sale. They wanted to search the house for firearms, though Khristy refused, absent a warrant. She was then threatened with arrest if she removed any firearms from the house. Interesting that one can be threatened with arrest for doing what they want with their lives and property – simply because the government went to search a house, though apparently unable to secure a warrant for that search. It makes you wonder if any laws, whatsoever, bind the federal government.

Massey was one of three members of Camp Lone Star involved in a shooting incident that occurred on August 29, 2014 (Massey’s account of incident). Massey, Allen Varner (Wolf), and John Foerster (Jesus), were patrolling on private property near the Texas/Mexico border. A BPS agent Hernandez, standing about 30 feet from Foerster, fired two shots at him, yelled “Stop”, fired two more shots, again yelled “Stop”, and then fired one more shot. Foerster placed his rifle on the ground, deescalating the situation. Hernandez claimed that he was pursuing some illegal aliens. It is noteworthy to understand that the BPS has been instructed not to fire on illegal aliens, unless fired upon — which did not occur, in this incident. Are we to surmise that the BPS IS instructed to fire on American citizens?

Subsequently, while meeting with a BPS Captain and other agents, Massey, Wolf, and Jesus, were asked to store their weapons in the Captain’s vehicle, for security — since there were still illegals in the area and they didn’t want the weapons unsecured and possibly stolen from the open “mule” which the three were travelling in. They also took Massey’s GoPro camera, with no explanation.

Additional BPS officials, Sheriff Deputies, FBI, and DHS agents arrived on the scene to investigate the shooting incident. A Sheriff Deputy then took possession of the five weapons, claiming that they were a part of the evidence in the investigation in the shooting incident — shooting by the BPS agent, not the three men legally possessing firearms on private property.

Shortly thereafter, Jesus was asked to leave Camp Lone Star because of suspected drug use. He had stayed away from the Camp since that time.

Moving forward to the recent events, Camp Lone Star had rented a motel room, a place to take a shower and get a good night’s rest. The evening prior to the arrest, the motel room was used by some of the Camp Lone Star members to conduct a conference call with militia members around the country. Earlier that day, at 1:58 PM, Jesus, for unknown reasons, called Camp Lone Star to say that he would be going over to the Camp. He never did show up. Perhaps he knew of the conference call, because he made two appearances during the course of that call, not at the Camp, but at the motel. He was described to me as fidgety and nervous during the two appearances during the conference call, as if he had something to hide. Is it possible that he was sent to the motel room to report if Massey was alone?

Well, let’s look into the background of John Frederick Foerster. Foerster served a prison term for three counts of burglarizing a building, beginning in May 2001. He was released from prison in August 2002. In 2009, he was charged with theft, in Missouri, disposition unknown. Foerster, however, has not, as of this date been arrested for felony possession of a firearm. He has also recovered his two weapons taken by the BPS and Sheriff on August 29. It has been alleged that Foerster was arrested again, for possession of cocaine, just four days prior to Massey’s arrest, though this has not been confirmed independently.

He claimed, in a phone call made late last night (20th), that he had heard about Massey’s arrest and had tried to call Archie Seals, of Camp Lone Star, numerous times — to find out what had happened with Massey. Archie Seals reports that he has had no contact, nor does his cell phone record show any calls from Foerster.

These occurrences (Beecher and Massey) should provide adequate warning to patriots, especially thus who have a felony record, that there is a concerted effort on the part of government to find cause to bring charges against you and take your guns away. They also provide insight into the tactics that the government is using to cull the patriot community of as many as they can, reducing the remaining numbers, and intimidating those who remain.

For an understanding of how informants and other infiltrators work, I would suggest reading “Informants Amongst Us?” and “Vortex“. To understand who the likely patriot targets of federal persecution are, I suggest “C3CM“.

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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

No Bended Knee for Me

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 8, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Demonization of Robert Beecher

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

From that investigation initiation report, we find:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Indictment

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

COUNT ONE

(Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

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

ROBERT BEECHER,

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

COUNT TWO

(Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

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

ROBERT BEECHER,

who before that time had been convicted of a felony offense, an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, did unlawfully and knowingly possess, in and affecting commerce, firearms, that is,

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

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

               A TRUE BILL.

(PDF of Beecher Indictment)

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

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

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

Search Warrant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Search

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

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

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

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

The Arrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Receiving & Possessing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher

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

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

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 5, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM