Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 21, 2015

In Camp Lone Star – “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” and Camp Lone Star – “a Fundamental Right”, I discussed the motions filed by K. C. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, the former being a motion to suppress evidence and the latter a motion to dismiss the charges. The government, surprisingly, managed to respond to those motions within the statutory time (20 days), when they filed the

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND
MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMNT [sic]

That is not an error on my part. The word “Indictment” is spelled, on the title of the document, as “Indictmnt”. Pretty good start for someone who receives over $100,000 per year plus amazing benefits from your hard earned money. You would think that they have spell-check on their computers, and that they would, to avoid error, have someone proofread what they write. But, heck, I guess that any form of diligence, whether as to grammar or truth, is not within their scope of responsibility.

Back on October 20, 2014, agents of the FBI and the BATF went to a home in Quinlan, Texas, to search for weapons (See Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey). Any authority to search this house would be based upon the assumption that it was where Massey lived — his residence. Based upon the “Conditions of Release” (See Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction), they also presumed that Massey lived in the Quinlan house as that is where his “Home Detention” requires him to be. The Response does point out that Massey “left his home and traveled to Cameron County, Texas during the summer of 2014“, confirming that Quinlan was his home, but that he had moved for an extended period of time, over the summer.

Subsequently, they had a search warrant issued to search the premises at the Value Inn motel in Brownsville, and at the time of the search, arrested Massey. So, it appears that they then presumed that he lived at the Value Inn. The question, however, is where did Massey live, during that summer. Well, he lived on the “Rusty” Monsees property, at Camp Lone Star, with the consent of the owner. The purpose was to protect the property and to assist Border Patrol in discouraging entry into the United States, or, if they did enter Monsees’ land, to turn them over to BPS. The room at Value Inn was arranged to provide a place to clean up, due to the limited facilities at Camp Lone Star, and allow others, as well as Massey, to get a good night’s sleep on a soft bed, from time to time. So, his primary residence was actually Camp Lone Star. This can be equated with a businessman who has a home in New Jersey and works in New York. He may have a room in New York that he uses five days a week, and then stays at his home on the weekends. Are they not both his residence? Or, is there a law that prohibits only the wealthy (the Clintons come to mind) to have more than one residence?

Let’s add another factor before we proceed. A Mr. Aguilar, curator of the Sabal Palms wildlife sanctuary, granted permission to include the sanctuary in the area to be protected from illegal entry by illegal immigrants (See Massey’s account of incident). This would put that sanctuary, along with the Monsees property, under Massey’s “control”, at least with regard to deterring entry on the property of trespassers.

Now, you may be wondering why I brought that up. Well, I brought that up because I am wondering why the government, in their Response, chose to bring up a law that was not within their jurisdiction. On pages 4-5 of the Response, they cite Texas Penal Code Sections 46.02 and 46.04. It seems that they want to use Texas law to justify their action under federal law, but Massey is not charged with violating Texas law.

Texas Penal Code Section 46.02 Unlawfully Carrying Weapons
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) On the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control

Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm
(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possess a firearm:
(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

The justification is based upon the fact that a Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy was on the scene shortly after the shooting incident, however, the Sheriff didn’t charge Massey with a violation of Texas law, so that whole subject is moot.

The shooting incident warrants our attention. The only shooting done that day was by BPS officer Gonzales who shot at John Foerster. From the Response, “Senior Border Patrol agent [sic] Danny Cantu was nearby, heard the shots, and secured the scene for investigation“… “Cantu told Massey all members of his group must remain until shooting is investigated” (page 2). So, if you have an armed officer telling you that you “must remain”, the question arises, were you detained? Or, were you free to go?

I asked Massey whether he was free to go and he explained that within the first few minutes of the “investigation”, he asked, since he and the third member of the party, could leave, they were told “no”. He explained that he asked, a number of times, that he asked in one form or another whether they could leave, and were consistently told that they could not leave.

At page 3 of the Response, “It was reasonable for BPA Cantu to disarm Massey and tell him he could not leave the area where the shooting occurred.” Well, this might be “reasonable” if Massey were a witness to the shooting, however, he did nothing more than hear the shots fired. So, he couldn’t be “detained” as a witness, as he witnessed nothing. The only two people that witnessed anything were Foerster and Gonzales. If you heard shots from a bank robbery, two blocks away, would they; could they detain you as a witness or participant?

On page 4 of the Response, “Police are allowed to stop and briefly detain persons for investigative purposes if the police have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot” (pages 3-4). Where does the reasonable suspicion come in when Foerster never fired a shot and Massey and the third party did nothing more than hear the gunshots? What “criminal activity [might] be afoot”? Perhaps the BPS officer, Gonzales, fired his gun outside of the BPS policy for use of firearms, but is there any other possible “crime afoot” that would justify such action? So, it would appear that their argument would only apply to Gonzales, not anyone else — Sort of government doublethink or some other screwy effort at justification of something that is unjustifiable.

Also on page 4, we find, “If an officer develops—–and is able to articulate—–reasonable grounds to believe that a suspect is armed and presently dangerous to the officer, third parties, or himself, the officer may take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized.” So, did Gonzales or Cantu have any reason to make any person other than Gonzales a “suspect”? Was there anything in the cooperation of the three that lead them to believe that any of the three were “presently dangerous to the officer, third parties, or himself”? And, if those conditions were met, to “take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized”, would be what was required. However, by the times provided, and the absence of any apparent threat, we find that they were detained from 3:45 to 7:00. However, that final item not being, in the least, justified, how can anyone perceive 3 hours and 15 minutes in which you are not allowed to leave, anything other than being detained, without Miranda warning?

We cannot stop here, however. The guns were taken from the Massey side, I suppose as “evidence” of some sort, however, the pistol that did the shooting was not taken, as evidence, nor even inventoried or audited. It seems that five shots were heard but that only four shell casing were found. Hence, the Response, as previous documents provide, the uncertain “four or five shots”. What kind of incompetence on the part of government is this? They don’t know how many bullets were loaded in the pistol, or they never did any investigation of the shooting weapon. However, they saw fit to seize weapons that were not involved in the incident.

From page 3 of the Response, we find some very cheap rationalization with, “Massy [sic] was not provided Miranda warnings during the investigation“, and “Massey was never handcuffed…” Golly, gee, he was detained, but since he wasn’t handcuffed, he doesn’t qualify for a Miranda warning, only they use what he said, and what he may have possessed, against him. This, because he “cooperated in surrendering his weapons and providing statements.” Darn, isn’t that the whole idea behind the Miranda warning? They didn’t Mariandize him, they didn’t let him leave, they were armed, and they asked him questions and then took the firearms. Actually, the government said, “surrendered”. Surrendering is capitulating — giving into force or threat of force. However, the government argues that the “evidence” that lead to a subsequent Indictment was obtained, was given freely — perhaps Massey wanted to be charged with a crime. We will just discount the facts and draw some conclusions about around that “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.

Has the federal government run amuck? Do they lie to rationalize achieving their objective — by whatever means necessary? Is their sole objective to prove that the government can do no wrong? I leave the conclusion to the reader.

Waco – A Lesson in History

Part II
Rules of Engagement

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 4, 2015

Within the few years following the events of February 28 through April 19, 1993, some investigations were completed, hearings held, and reports filed. New information came out after the Oklahoma City Bombing, since the tie between Waco and McVeigh’s actions were irrefutable.

During this same period, two individuals continued their pursuit of truth over the events in Waco, doggedly finding witnesses, filing FOIA requests, and looking into every nook and cranny, in an effort to expose more of the misdeeds of government, both during those fateful 51 days and the government’s continued efforts to cover up the truth.

As more information came out disputing the official version, the government and Congress moved into a defensive posture, setting up the Danforth Commission to “set to rest the idea that the government had done anything wrong at Waco”.

The initial report from that commission was published in July 2000, and in their findings, they did establish, at least in the minds of the government, that the government did no wrong — regardless of evidence to the contrary.

“Waco – The Rules of Engagement” (Academy Award nomination for best documentary – 2:15:51) relives the events, as they occurred, delves into, and challenges, with supporting evidence, many of the lies told by government officials. This is not what mainstream media reported. Rather, it is a presentation of events, unclouded by the FBI Press Conferences. It includes portions of hostage negotiation discussions (kept from the public during the standoff) that dispute the public asservations then being made and published. Finally, it begins comparing information and evidence that was brought to light through the persistence of Mike McNulty and David Hardy, which further dispute certain claims made by the government officials.

By the time you have finished watching this video, you will have a new understanding of those events of twenty-two years ago, and we will see that the tactics applied against the Church in Waco, Texas, have continued and expanded, so that at present, we can see the manifestation of a criminal government and the establishment of impunity for those actions.

Links to the other parts:

Waco A Lesson in History – Part I – Looking Back at Waco

Waco A Lesson in History – Part III – A New Revelation

Waco A Lesson in History – Part IV – The FLIR Project

Waco – A Lesson in History

Part III
A New Revelation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 4, 2015

The Danforth Commission concluded, contrary to the evidence, that the government had done no wrong. While that Commission was rationalizing the actions of the government, Mike McNulty and David Hardy continued their investigation, via both interviews and FOIA requests for documentation. Even before the initial report from the Danforth Commission, “Waco – A New Revelation” (Documentary film – 1:49:50) became available.

Speculation, however absent any proof of involvement by the military, of snipers shooting those who tried to leave during the fire, and of possible ties to the White House (Bill Clinton), had persisted early on. For example, one of the Davidians, a British citizen, who, after he left Mt. Carmel and was taken into custody along with the rest of those who came out of the fire, was released at the request of the British government and returned to England. He revealed to me in a phone conversation that when women and children tried to leave through the kitchen door, into the back courtyard, they were being shot. He told me this in confidence and assured me that he would never admit to what he had told me, as he did not want to take a chance of being returned to the United States to stand trial. Absent any corroboration, I could not publish what he had revealed to me.

You will hear some disclaimers from the government, such as that the Army was not involved (true, as the military involved was detached from the Army) and that the Delta Force was not involved (true, since the official name of the group is Command Application Group, assigned to the President’s command), and other obvious misrepresentations presented to evade an honest answer to the questions asked. However, you will see that some of the facts are available, and that the unfortunate, for government, truth is coming out. And, as these truths are revealed, you will see the government in a way that you have never seen them, before.

You will also see that snipers were, indeed, shooting into the courtyard, though the government insists that what you see is not what you see. And, that is a whole other story, but we will get there.

If you were upset after viewing Rules of Engagement, you will sickened as you see the government intent to justifying, rationalizing, and downright lying, about those events, even to the point of rewarding those who were participants in the activities.

Finally, and this question has long been asked, was Lon Horiuchi, the sniper who murdered Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, just months before the assault on the Waco Church, present during the events at the latter. You will see written proof that he was in charge of one of the three sniper teams deployed to assure that “no harm would come to the women and children”.

As you watch this video, you will see members of Congress assert “truths” that have no foundation in fact, absolutely contrary to logic and reason, born, we may surmise, from their desire to protect government agents from any accusation that the are less than honorable, honest, forthright, and truthful. You will be appalled at the political machinations of those we have allowed to enact laws and run government.

Links to the other parts:

Waco A Lesson in History – Part I – Looking Back at Waco

Waco A Lesson in History – Part II – Rules of Engagement

Waco A Lesson in History – Part IV – The FLIR Project

Camp Lone Star – “a Fundamental Right”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 21, 2015

It is normal, in any criminal proceeding, for the Defense Attorney to file a Motion to Dismiss. Most often, these are simple appeals about nothing of significance, though they do add chargeable hours.

In K. C. Massey’s case, however, we find a “Motion to Dismiss Indictment“, with merit. Perhaps not in a legal sense, but in a truly lawful sense – The difference that is anything can be enacted (legal), though unless it is firmly based upon the powers and authorities granted in the Constitution, it may be unlawful.

Constitutionality

Massey’s attorney, Louis S. Sorola, begins by explaining the Texas law (Texas Penal Code, §46.04) which allows Massey to possess a firearm, for his own protection. This and other aspects that will be addressed here are dealt with in detail at Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful.

He supports this by reference to, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, in reference to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in “District of Columbia v. Heller” (554 US 570), where the Court held that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep firearms at their homes for their self-protection. This decision is consistent with the Texas law that allows such possession five years after completion of a sentence as a result of a felony. However, the federal statute that Massey is charged with presumes a lifetime prohibition, if incorrectly interpreted (see Commerce Clause, below).

He further argues that the term “people”, as used in the Second Amendment is also used in the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments, and in none of those is there an exception that would allow rights to be taken away. The only notable legal exception is in the Supreme Court decision found in “Sampson v. California” (547 US 843), which allows a different criteria if one is a prisoner or a parolee. It does not extend beyond that period of time when the person is in custody, or is under conditions of parole, in which he can be searched outside of constitutional constraints.

Commerce Clause

The question as to what extent the Commerce Clause (Article I, §8, cl. 3, Constitution) grants authority to the federal government is raised. Heller addressed the Second Amendment, but did not address the Commerce Clause, however another decision, “United Sates v. Lopez” (514 US 549) addressed the Commerce Clause, but did not address the Second Amendment. In Lopez, the extent of the Commerce Clause did not grant blanket jurisdiction, which resulted in the overturning of the federal Gun-Free School Zone law. If the ruling in Lopez was applied to Massey’s case, it would necessarily require a “substantial effect on Interstate Commerce.

As Sorola argues, “[t]he interstate commerce began and ended with the Federal Firearm License dealers involved. After the importation into Texas the guns are under Texas jurisdiction. Thus the laws of Texas apply, not the federal government.”

Equal Protection Clause

What is meant by Equal Protection was best defined by the Supreme Court in their ruling in “Yick Wo v. Hopkins” (118 US 356 – 1886):

[E]qual protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights;… that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition; and that, in the administration of criminal justice, no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses.

Now, it must be understood that the Equal Protection requirement is federal, not to be confused with state laws. Otherwise, all state laws would be equal, but, they are not — they are enacted in accordance with the State’s constitution. (See Which Constitution Am I Protected By?) Where it does apply is in the application of federal laws, as described in Yick Wo.

If different states have different laws as to what a felony is and how much time is served, is it equal protection if one state might consider it third degree and have a light sentence while another state might hold a higher penalty and mandatory 1 year (federal criteria) in prison? The federal government has not even attempted to establish a uniform criteria for the applicability of 18 USC §922(g)(1) – the charge against Massey). This lends support to the Commerce Clause limitation, above, where the law would only apply to Interstate Commerce, not to the right of the people, in general.

In a Circuit Court decision, the court decided that, in enacting the statute, “Congress superimposed a patchwork of state law over a broad piece of federal legislation in a manner bound to produce anomalous results.” (McGrath v. United States, 60 F.3d 1005)

Perhaps what is most important about this Motion to Dismiss is the fact that it is, without a doubt, a challenge to federal jurisdiction, a preservation of State’s Rights, and the rights of the People.

Camp Lone Star – “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 19, 2015

We are all familiar, at least to some degree, with the concept of chain of evidence, Miranda rights, and the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution.

Evidence has to be acquired by legal means. A warrant is required, except under certain circumstances, to seize evidence. So, what happens if there is an incident, whether accidental, or, perhaps, even set up, to create a situation where, by stealthy means, “evidence” is secured without a warrant, or a crime (certain circumstances) in which the evidence can be rightfully secured?

On August 29, 2014, a Border Patrol Agent, claiming that a weapon had been pointed at him, fired five shots, from about 30 feet distant from John Foerster. Surprisingly, he missed hitting Foerster, indicating both poor marksmanship, and suggesting that the agent committed a crime, in violation of BPS policy.

Foerster, Massey, and the third member of their group, Varner, had their five firearms taken from their 4-wheel “mule”, without a warrant – a violation of the 4th Amendment. Then, without being read their Miranda rights, questioned by BPS, a local Sheriff’s deputy, and an FBI agent.

From the Affidavit for a Search Warrant, item 5.

1. During a post-shooting investigation, two of these armed individuals were identified as Kevin Lyndel MASSEY (aka KC Massey) and John Frederick FOERSTER, and both admitted to interviewing officers of the Cameron County Sheriffs Office (CCSO) and Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to possessing some of the firearms seized.

From the Affidavit for a Criminal Complaint (arrest warrant):

5. FBI Special Agent Caryn Chasteen and Cameron County Sheriffs Office Investigator Padilla interviewed FOERSTER. During the interview FOERSTER admitted to possessing the ZASTAVA, Model: PAP M92PV, 7.62 x 39mm pistol, SN: MP2PV005143; adding that he did not own this firearm but borrowed it from Kevin MASSEY.
6. During the interview of MASSEY, by FBI Special Agent David Cordoba and HSI Special Agent Jeremy Bergeaux, MASSEY admitted to both the ownership of the ZASTAVA, Model: PAP M92PV, 7.62 x 39mm pistol, SN: MP2PV005143, and to lending this firearm to FOERSTER.

Now, in reviewing those documents, we find no claim that there was a search warrant to allow them to seize the firearms, or that Miranda rights were read to them before taking testimony.

Because of the illegal seizure of the weapons, and the illegally obtained statements by Massey, Foerster, and Varner, the subsequent Search Warrant and Criminal Complaint (arrest warrant) were secured. If the rights of Americans are as intended by the Founders, then the invalidity of the actions of August 29 leave no lawful justification (excuse) to obtain the subsequent warrants.

If we are a nation of laws, and the “supreme Law of the Land” is the Constitution, then by what right does the federal government pretend that they can walk over the Bill of Rights, imposing hardship and expense on K. C. Massey?

Massey’s attorney, Louis S. Sorola, has the same question, so he has filed a Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence and Illegally Obtained Statements. As he points out in the Motion,

The August 29, 2014 search and seizure was illegal and the evidence and statements should be suppressed along with any subsequent statements and evidence seized on October 20, 2014 as they are fruit of the poisonous tree.

The Honorable Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division will hear this Motion. Judge Hanen recently ruled against the Obama Amnesty Plan, indicating a respect for both the Constitution and the fact that only Congress may legislate.

The Declaration of Independence Has Been Outlawed

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2015

“[W]hen 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.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

With those words, the War for Independence from British Rule began, in earnest. That Declaration of Independence is the premier founding document, for, absent the fortitude of those who supported it, with their lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and their willingness to die in the battle to contest the overreaching authority of British Rule, in violation of the British Constitution, the United States Constitution would never have been conceived. Instead, for the first time in the history of man, the people were the source of the authority that created the government.

Murder and theft, crime against people and property, are broken down into degrees of severity. That is the means by which certain crimes are graded, and punished, based upon the people assembled in a jury — so that the will of the people is supreme, and the government simply carries out the administrative function of the process of Justice.

What happens when the government enacts laws that make it a more serious crime to kill because of an emotion? They call them “hate crimes”, though they seem to be applied in only one direction. The result is that only a certain class of people can have harsher penalties applied, because the government says so, than if the killing was for money, jealousy, rage, or even random. Simply, the idea is to outlaw certain forms of thought (See Freedom of Speech and Thought Crimes). It is a form of social engineering, or more accurately, reconditioning to comply with the dictates of government’s control of not only our speech, but also our thoughts and actions.

Every state constitution, as well as the United States Constitution, recognizes that the creation of their respective governments, grants of authority, and limitations of power, are sourced from the people, themselves (“We the People”). It was presumed by the Founders that the authority of the people was such that they could, as so stated in the above quote from the Declaration of Independence, abolish a government that violated the limitations, and usurped authority, at the discretion of the people, not the discretion of the government. In fact, if you read closely, they even imposed the responsibility as a “duty”, to assure the perpetuation of the Great Experiment that they had initiated.

The FBI recently (August 20, 2013) published as an FBI Press Release, a description of the United States Code definition of Terrorism (Definition of Terrorism in US Code).

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:

“International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines “international terrorism” in a nearly identical way, replacing “primarily” outside the U.S. with “totally” outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

* * *

So, just to get you thinking about the ramifications and the authority presumed by the government, but not granted by the Constitution, let’s look from the other side. If police use force to “influence or affect the conduct of [people] by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against [people’s] conduct”, then they, too, should be guilty of terrorism, especially when they are armed as an army, and protected against most means of assault by use of armor far more invincible than knights of old.

However, like hate crime laws, terrorism is a one-way street. The government cannot be guilty of terrorism, whether around the world, or within the States of the Union, any more than a White person can be the victim of a hate crime.

Despotism (as understood by the Founders – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

Absolute power; authority unlimited and uncontrolled by men, constitution or laws, and depending alone on the will of the prince; as the despotism of a Turkish sultan.

If we simply replace “prince” with “president”, and then evaluate whether we have reached that definitive point in our history, then we understand that there is a mandate from our source documents (the Declaration of Independence) that has, in effect, been outlawed by a despotic government.

To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 5, 2015

Recent events have resulted in increased random shootings of police officers, around the country. Though the practice might not be deemed contemptible in one set of circumstances, it might be considered unjustified in the current situation.

Perhaps if we can separate what is acceptable and what is not, we can get a better grasp on what the variation in circumstances might warrant, as opposed to what is not warranted.

The shooting of police officers is a necessary consequence, when done with the proper circumstances, of forcing the government to submit to the will of the people, rather than the people submitting to the will of the government.

In light of both Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, circumstances were different than those of today. Police force was exerted on the branch Davidians in Waco, resulting in the death of nearly a hundred men, women, and children — at the hands of law enforcement.

The Oklahoma City Bombing, conducted by Timothy McVeigh, was in retaliation for what he had experienced in Iraq and what he observed in Waco. Though we may not agree with his method, surely, his actions were directed at the source of the problem — an overreaching government.

Examples of the circumstances, in the nineties, are explained in two interviews I did at the time, Popping Cops and Breaking the Bonds of Slavery, the latter being more demonstrative of the justification of such actions.

However, the current circumstances, including both the events that lead up to the current furor and the significant change in the nature of law enforcement, have created a bit of a quandary. For example, if a cop is shot, the assumption, in both Mainstream Media (MSM) and the alternative media, will be that it is an act of retaliation for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. This based upon the outrageous calling for killing any, and all, cops. Not that it would be outrageous under the proper circumstances, though that is lost in the current media hype, and there is little possibility of extracting an act against government from the story, if that were the motivation. Surely, the cops, if they caught the shooter alive, would sequester him so tightly that any story he had would never see the light of day. In addition, the presumption of retaliation would become the Prima Facie Story.

The perspective then would perhaps be “the right thing to do, for the wrong reason. It would place the patriot community in a position of supporting the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, without regard to the fact that black cops have shot both unarmed black and white people, and that most crimes, and killings, of blacks are by blacks.

During the sixties, the anti-war movement was intertwined with the black rights movement, placing the strictly “end the war in Vietnam” crowd with the mantle of black rights support or Women’s Liberation, though untrue to significant numbers of the anti-war crowd. They were stigmatized, by the press, into what they were not.

The same consequence is likely to occur, today, by tying the “restoration of constitutional government” group inextricably, to the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, which will co-join the two in the press, and might likely become a damper on, or destroyer of, the patriot movement.

However, there may be a solution — one that would provide a distinction, and also bring to light the fact that cops don’t discriminate because of color, when they kill unarmed people. They also kill unarmed whites, as well as other races, with the same impunity that they do when they kill blacks.

This past March (2014), Albuquerque Police Officer Keith Sandy shot and killed James Boyd, for illegal camping. Boyd was white, as was Sandy. However, there is complete video footage of the event, and leaves, without a doubt, the guilt on both Sandy, the other officers on the scene, and the entire police department that justified what can be called nothing but “murder”.

There are many that believe that Darren Wilson, who shot Brown, may well have been justified, as there had already been aggressive physical contact while Wilson was still in his patrol car.

When NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo used a chokehold, or other restraint method, resulting, directly or indirectly, in the death of Eric Garner, the justification for Pantaleo’s action and the cause of death are not so clear.

Of these three events, the clearest, in terms of justification of the officer’s actions is Wilson/Brown event. Next, we have the murky events surrounding the Pantaleo/Garner incident, though this seems to be the motivation for the current outrage. Finally, we have the Sandy/Boyd event, where clearly there was no justification for the action resulting in Boyd’s death.

However, the motivation for the “kill the cops” effort stems from the event that seems to have the most justification (Garner), and is supported by the questionable, though newsworthy story (thanks MSM, Mayor de Blasio, and the Executive Branch). This is founded upon the Brown event (thanks MSM and the Executive Branch), and used to support the resulting attitude. While Boyd’s death, the least justifiable, is lost to MSM and the Executive Branch, and seems to only have recognition in the patriot community.

What would bring this into an acceptable realm for the patriot community? Surely, supporting the “kill all cops” attitude can only bring discredit upon us. It might also lead to a race war, as the black verses white issue is predominant.

What if we supported the police position? Well, would we then be supporting those who, by their nature, are not fulfilling their sworn duty to enforce the law, and would also be giving implied support for their killing James Boyd. This, too, might lead to a race war, as the cops are perceived as white — against the blacks.

Is there a position that we can, and should, support? There are two things that can be done to promote both by social/political action and by force that can have a positive effect for the patriot community.

First, we can hold the position that cops are not above the law, and only the people can determine what those limits will be. This can be accomplished by requiring that any time a person is shot, or otherwise physically abused, by a police officer, or any law enforcement officer, unless there is an active gunfight involved, that the matter go to a jury trial, so that the people, of the nation supposed to be governed with the consent of the people, determine whether the act was criminal, or not. That jury determination (not a grand jury where it is at the will of the US Attorney, State Attorney, or County Attorney) will set the standard for what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, in the eyes of the local community — the local We the People.

Second, that any officer shot be one that is easily identifiable as having abused his authority (as in Sandy/Boyd), and warrants, without jury trial, as the evidence is so clear that guilt can only be ignored by obfuscation. The Internet provides many resources for the gathering of evidence sufficient to make such a determination (See Bad Cops and Targeting). This will have a two-fold effect on law enforcement. It will put those on notice who have not yet crossed the line, that there will possibly be consequences if they do cross that line. This might also lead them to want to distance themselves from those who have crossed the line. And, it will serve the effect suggested in Breaking the Bonds of Slavery.

Breaking the Bonds of Slavery

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 1998

NOTE: This interview was conducted over 16 years ago, and times have changed. It must be read in conjunction with “To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop”, which will put a perspective of on this article, based upon circumstances today.

* * * * *

 I had a conversation with a friend the other day. It turned into a hypothetical scenario, and I decided that it might make a good interview. John agreed. So, what you are about to read is a scenario developed around what COULD have happened in Germany in the mid to late thirties, when some of the German people first began to suspect that Hitler’s Reich was a little bit different than what it was set out to be. Only portions of the interview are included.

OPF: John, how are you, today?

JOHN: Fine Gary, and ready to go.

OPF: Okay, John, why don’t you lay out the basis for the scenario, first.

JOHN: Okay, it is 1938 and some of the people have begun to realize that the government has continued to expand its power, increase its revenue from the people, and imprison those who defy the rules established in this progression of what amounts to a submission to slavery. Now, when I speak of people, I intend that to mean only those who have begun to understand the existence of the problem. The rest of the people I will refer to as “the rest of the people”. The scene, however, is not very much different than the conditions that currently exist in America, except that America has not chosen a scapegoat race to direct negative emotions at. America has selected a portion of the people to direct their negative emotions. But, that is not the story line, so, back to Germany.

* * *

OPF: So, suppose the people of Germany wanted to protect their country from what was, apparently, a step in the wrong direction?

JOHN: Well, I think it was more than apparent. Work forces of citizens, paid from the common treasury, were put to work with shovels, building the Autobahn, and other public works projects. Having been denied the right to build an Army after World War I, the government realized that they could build an army with shovels, and then replace the shovels with rifles. Close quarter drills, maneuvers, bivouac, the workforce practiced every type of military function. Nobody did anything about it. Most realized that the workforce was training to be an army. Once trained, and given the guns, the government had a police force sufficient to control all of the people. Of course, the local officials were brought in as a part of the military force, and took their orders from the central government, enforcing whatever laws the government passed. It was at this time that the people should have acted. The prosperity for the few who were willing to submit to the government, and enforce their laws, at the expense of the rest of the people, placed them in a position of power. This power was abused, in many cases, but the rest of the people took it, without question — or, at least, not aloud. This, though, would have been the time to strike. Many people still had their rifles and some may have had explosives. Heavy equipment had not been developed for smaller jobs, and so it was not uncommon for farmers and others to have explosives. Had they used these explosives on the government force, random hits by small groups, they would have had an effect.

OPF: You mean that they should have killed the soldiers and the police?

JOHN: Had they killed soldiers and police, in random acts, they would have created more than what was then just a reward scenario for the soldiers and the police. They were acting with impunity, and were fed and paid better than the average worker.

OPF: That would have been dangerous. Wouldn’t they most likely get caught and executed?

JOHN: Many were killed, anyway. Most, eventually, as soldiers in war. Others that resisted were captured and imprisoned, many to die in prison. I suppose that the difference is whether you want to die fighting, or just die. I believe that some of the Germans that I met years ago really regretted what they allowed to have happened. I think that they would have, had they thought that it would get as bad as it did, done something about it.

OPF: Well, what would be the desired result, had they done these random acts of killing?

JOHN: Probably. Most importantly, is that they would have created fear within the government. Kind of like when the Oklahoma City bomb went off. I remember that you had written an article (Escalation & Fear: Fear & Escalation) about how the government had reacted to the bombing. They were scared. From what I have read, very few of those who were in the building have been willing to go back to work for the government. Then, others, like Bob Ricks, from Waco, retired shortly afterwards.

OPF: You mean, the idea of killing people would have been to get them to quit their jobs?

JOHN: That would be fair to say. You know that burglar alarms are as effective as burglar alarm stickers. The burglars see the sticker, and they decide that there may be too much risk and move on to the next house. Likewise, if they think that there is an angry dog inside, they go elsewhere.

OPF: So, killing them is just to scare them?

JOHN: Not exactly. It has a number of other effects, as well. As soon as it started, there would be very few, if any, individual soldiers or policeman doing anything. They would change their uniform before going home, and whenever something had to be done, they would travel in large enough groups to affect their safety. This would reduce the number of active units that could be imposing on the people, or breaking in doorways. It would also have the effect of reducing, or culling the herd. Each dead or injured soldier or policeman would have reduced the force by one. His death would also have a greater impact on his friends, and cause them some concern for what they were doing. I’m pretty sure that they knew what was happening, and this might have just moved them enough to refuse to go along with it. But, this never happened.

OPF: What about the political leaders?

JOHN: Well, there is no doubt that they could have been targets, as well. Had, say, Goering been killed, then much of what he did might never have happened. Just think about the world today. Didn’t we try to kill Gaddafi and Hussein? Didn’t we kill Diem and then plant our man as leader of South Vietnam? Taking the political leaders out is, definitely, a political tool.

* * *

OPF: What about the Deutsches Bank and other institutions that supported the government?

JOHN: Well, there is a lot of support of any government by many institutions in a country. Some may already be influential and others may be seeking influence. They do so on the premise that if they favor the government, they will be favored by the government. The government realizes that it needs all of the support, both financial and industrial, to achieve its purpose. So, each is scratching the other’s back. If something was done to create a risk greater than the benefit, then I think that they would think differently. After all, they, like the government, need employees to do anything. Can you imagine how effective a government would be if nobody worked for it?

* * *

OPF: Now, you have suggested that small groups of people could do this and get away with it. Do you really believe that they could get away with it?

JOHN: There is always a risk. If they were to operate properly — say, a group of two to five people, like they call cells nowadays, planned everything, scoped the job, wore rubber gloves, kept their “work clothes” somewhere else, set up alibis, and really did their homework, I would think that only chance or bad luck would keep them from safely doing their job. The more groups there were, the more thinly they would spread their opposition. And, they would have been wise to have established escape plans, and means to communicate with their families, once the had to flee.

OPF: Given the Gestapo tactics, wouldn’t there be risk of being infiltrated?

JOHN: Yes, there is always that risk. There is also the risk of having someone that is not an infiltrator get caught at something else and turn against his friends to reduce, or remove his punishment for another crime. Remember, you wrote about Don Bunds in Waco, and then there was Michael Fortier. That guy Marshall in West Virginia, and many other cases where informants or infiltrators caused the destruction of even innocent activity — like the Viper Militia. To protect themselves from something like this, they should watch for a change in the nature or actions of one of their members. You’ve seen the old black and white movies where someone gives himself away by having to make a call, or sneaks out, or some other activity. Every caution would have to have been taken to keep Gestapo informants from infiltrating, and if suspicion existed, plans would have to have been changed, or, maybe, the member taken out. No trial, but the possibility of error rather than the risk of losing the cell. If cells had to communicate, only one member of any given cell would be known to any of the other cells. Only one man could go down that way. This guy would have to be chosen by the others as the most stoic. The Gestapo could be pretty cruel when they wanted to be. Eventually, as successes were achieved, I think that it would have become more open, just like in France. Major operations were conducted after the cells were tried and hardened. Their communication became more wide based, even to the point of the BBC broadcasting instructions to various groups via the radio. By then, the cells were hardened and the chance if infiltration was almost non-existent. Had that happened in Germany, there would not be nearly as many American graves across the European countryside.

* * *

OPF: When should the people have begun acting in this way?

JOHN: It probably never would have been too early — once Hitler gained power. I would think, though, that, depending on where you lived and what you had experienced, that the time to begin would vary based upon your experience. I would like to think that as soon as you knew where things were going, like so many do today in this country, that you would form your cell and act. As each cell began acting, it would motivate others to do so. Soon the risk would have become so great that the Reich may never have even begun its attempt to conquer the world. But, starting could never have been considered too late. If cells began when the Germans were being pushed out of France, it still would have been effective.

* * *

OPF: Well, John, thanks for your time. I suppose, if people do act when they know something is wrong, like the Founding Fathers did, that they can achieve what they want. Perhaps World War II could have been avoided. It is something to think about.

JOHN: Your welcome, Gary. I think you are right. Many will probably, like those Germans I told you about, regret that they did not act sooner. I only wish I was younger and, well, if I had been a German…

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