Outpost of Freedom blog

Camp Lone Star — Down to the Wire

Ninth Amendment Rights

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 27, 2015

As was explained in “The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?“, Massey’s attorney had brought two matters up in his Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment. They were the Tenth Amendment and Intrastate v. Interstate commerce. The government, through their apparently novice attorney, Corley, argued that Massey did not have standing to challenge the government’s prosecution of him (sort of a “bend over, we will take care of everything” mentality).

This past Wednesday (September 23rd), Judge Andrew Hanen filed his Opinion and Order, addressing all three of the sought actions.

First, he addressed the government’s, stating that “Massey makes a… claim – that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him, impermissibly regulates intrastate activity. Therefore, he has standing to challenge § 922(g)(1).” So, we have dispensed with the government’s feeble effort to claim that Massey had n standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of the law he was charged with violating..

Next, he addresses the Tenth Amendment claim. Unfortunately, being a District Court, the Judge is bound by previous decisions of the Fifth Circuit, to which it is subordinate. Justice, perhaps not, but still the rules of the corrupt game for what passes for justice, in these times.

However the final ruling, this one has, apparently, not been addressed by the Fifth Circuit, at least to the extent that Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, has taken it. In what Hanen has described as “The Purely Intrastate Claim”, he states:

“Since the Government bears the burden of proving this element, and since the trial has yet to be held, the facts upon which Massey’s claim stands have not yet been established one way or the other. Until evidence has been presented, the Court is unable to evaluate this claim.”

“Therefore this argument is denied without prejudice because it is not yet ripe. Massey may reassert it at trial should he conclude that the evidence supports this claim.”

So, it appears that Judge Hanen is willing to venture into a substantive argument with regard to the difference between Interstate and Intrastate commerce. He has also placed the burden on the government to prove its jurisdiction. This leads us to review some things that have been brought up in discussion, though, perhaps, not in Court. We will revisit a previous article, “Massey is Protected by State Law” to put this argument before the people, if not the Court.

To begin with, the State of Texas has granted authority for federal agents certain powers with the enactment of Texas Penal Code, Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS. From that law (pertinent portions only):

(a) The following named criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search, and seizure under the laws of this state as to felony offenses only:

(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(3) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(4) Special Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshals Service;

 (c) A Customs and Border Protection Officer or Border Patrol Agent of the United States Customs and Border Protection or an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security is not a peace officer under the laws of this state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the agent or officer has probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice proceeding.

So, the extent of the authority to arrest, which would also include detaining a person, is only “the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state [Texas].”

Though the Tenth Amendment argument has been denied, there can be little doubt that the above enactment, by the State of Texas, is an assertion of the State’s rights (not the individual’s right, as per denied motion) to limit federal authority within the State.

So, it would be rather interesting to discover if the government’s witnesses are aware of this grant of authority, and the limitations imposed upon them, by Article 2.122. If they are not, was the government remiss in advising them, or did the government hope that they would assert authority not granted to them so that the federal government would have a broad reign over activities within the State, in the hope that case law would help affirm authority beyond that which was left to them by the State grant?

So, if the federal authority is limited by “any offense under the laws of this state”, they exceeded their authority by the detention of people who were not witness to any crime that might have been a felony under state law, and the only possible violation of that law was committed by the BPS shooter, and, perhaps even those who illegally detained (kidnapped) Massey and Varner.

Let’s revisit state law regarding firearms. From 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.

So, this law makes it illegal to possess “at any location other than the premise”. However, apparently exception was made in another provision, Texas Penal Code, Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS (again, pertinent portions):

(a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, “watercraft” means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Since Massey is no longer prohibited from possessing a weapon, and where we have a definition of “premises” (re: 46.04) and the ability to transport a weapon, then it is clear that Massey was not in violation of state law, and if in violation, it would only be a misdemeanor, unless he was in a place that sold alcoholic beverages, then clearly the state has no objection to his possession of a firearm under the circumstances surrounding Massey, throughout this entire ordeal.

Now, the enumerated right is the right to keep and bear arms. The government argues that 18 USC 922(g)(1) includes any firearm that is:

(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.

Intrastate Commerce

Now, let’s look at how 18 US Code defines “interstate commerce”:

18 U.S.C. § 921 : US Code – Section 921: Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter –

(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State…

However, I find no definition of “Commerce” in 18 US Code, so we will look at the legal authority, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition):

“The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchange of articles…”

So, commerce is the exchange of goods, barter, sale, trade, or any other means, to be “in and affecting commerce” would require that one be involved in such a transaction.

Defining that even further, we have “interstate or foreign commerce” specifically excluding “intrastate” commerce, to wit:

“but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State”

So, if Massey had purchased (commerce) a firearm within the state, it would take a real stretch to include “interstate”. However, Massey never purchased (commerce) any firearm, he merely possessed a firearm. Even if Massey had received it as a gift, it is inconceivable that this could create the necessary nexus to interstate commerce that the statute addresses. However, the government cannot even prove that he owns a firearm, and that is the burden that is placed upon them, by Hanen’s Opinion.

Now, that is twice removed from the apparent extent of the charges brought under 18 USC §922(g)(1). No interstate, and, no commerce.

Since the Fifth Circuit has ruled on the Tenth Amendment, and it is no longer a legal defense for Massey, it does not preclude the state from passing laws that are consistent with the Tenth Amendment, which, obviously, they have done.

So, let’s refer to this as the Ninth Amendment argument. The federal government has raised no objection to the state laws referred to above, so they must be constitutional. The Ninth Amendment reads:

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

The question is whether Massey has the right, under the Ninth Amendment, to possess a firearm, if he is totally in compliance with state law, and has not been involved in interstate commerce.

The Rise of Islam in Our Children’s Minds
Is This the Destruction of America?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 23, 2015

A friend sent a copy to me of the current assignment in Social Studies for her Seventh Grade son. Since the truancy people have threatened her if he doesn’t go to school, he has simply been instructed to face the back of the classroom and ignore the instruction. However, that solution is problematic, and what we are seeing is a program of enforced indoctrination.

Hitler arranged the educational system to propagandize the Nazi philosophy, and dwell on certain aspects of the German culture. He did not instill a foreign culture into the minds of the children. What country would even consider doing such?

The student’s previous historical education included California history, primarily the early Spanish portion with the Missions and Spanish settlement; Ancient history centered on the Mediterranean Sea (Byzantine Empire, Romans, etc.), and the Rise of Islam (current studies). No America history, no European history, no government studies.

So, before we look into just what is currently being studied, let’s think a bit about the near future. The students who have taught very little of our own history, but have been indoctrinated (I can’t think of a better word) in Spanish settlement of California, and Islam’s role in the world, including how badly the White Europeans treated them, will leave them with a foundation of culture that excludes that which they were born into, believing that their roots are from a Spanish and Muslim heritage.

They will object to any subsequent instruction that might dwell upon the settlement of the “New World” by English and French adventurers –those that brought civilization rather than chaos — because it would be foreign to the foundation that had been implanted in them. The “Great Experiment”, the first, and only real, government created by the people of the country, for the purpose of self-government, will be spurned as inconsequential, even though it laid the foundation for the freedom of those invaders (yes, that is the correct word) who have used those protected freedoms (which do not exist where they came from) to destroy the very structure that has led the world to the advanced society it has become. The result will be a regression of society back into a barbaric age, which should have been left to the dustbin of history.

Some of the atrocious effects of this program include:

• Teaching that Muslims pray five times a day, implying that this is acceptable within the school, yet the same school will not let Christians pray, even once a day.
• Teaches and honors a religion that has their five pillars, though they won’t allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed or spoken of.
• Teaches support of a religion that dictates both social and political behavior, though they limit that teaching to only the Sunni sect of that religion, the sect that is the primary elements of ISIS/ISIL, but disallow any discussion of the Christian religion or the Judea-Christian moral foundation of our country

It has become abundantly clear that the federal government, under the current administration, supports this effort by requiring such teaching in our schools, and funds that denigration of our educational system.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created in 1953. In 1979, the educational aspect of governmental control of education (that used to belong to the local School Board) was created and named the Department of Education, while the remainder of HEW was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services. It is that Department of Education that now dictates policy (curriculum, including Common Core) and provides the funding for the local schools.

Since the Department of Education is an Administrative Agency under the Executive Branch (the President), we can expect no change in this policy, except possibly getting worse, until January 2017, when a new President will take office.

If the new President chose to change the policy, it would probably not go into effect until the beginning of school in September 2017.

That would leave this school year and the next of total indoctrination of our children into the benefits of Islam as a state religion, and it would be very difficult to undo the mental damage to our children, since it is the parents who willingly send their children to the government schools, telling them that school is where they will be taught what they need to know to get along in life and in America.

This country was a “Great Experiment” in self-government. It has turned into an oligarchy that is not responsive to the will of the people, and often is beyond the ability of Congress, our chosen representatives, to retain control of what they have willingly passed on to the Executive Branch.

If this is to change, and if we are determined not to allow these two school generations to be taught that Islam is great, and then probably vote for Muslims running for office, then we must, as the Founders did, determine to take upon ourselves, regardless of the laws but consistent with the Constitution, the responsibility and the task of removing this cancer from our society. And, that, by any means necessary, with no restrictions.

* * *

The following is the study guide for the Seventh Grade at:

• Canyon Lake Middle School
• Lake Elsinore Unified School District
• Principal: Dr. Preston Perez
• phone number: 951-244-2123
• webpage: http://clm.leusd.k12.ca.us

The source for the instructional material:
Society for Visual Education, Inc., 1345 Diversey Parkway, Chicago, Illinois 60614,
or,
Society for Visual Education, Inc., 6677 North Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois, 60631
phone: (800) 829-1900; fax number: (800) 624-1678

* * *

The future of this country is now in your hands. If it is to continue as we have believed, and as many have fought and died for, then the call to act is greater than any other time in our history. Contemplation, procrastination, and delay, have become our enemy. The time is now, and the necessity is, again, by whatever means.

It is Time for Grave Concern
It is Time for Action

The handwritten portion is the due dates for the various assignments.

Five Pillars of Islam? Where are the Ten Commandments?

Quran & Sunnah (the Word of God &teachings and attributes of Prophet Muhammad)?

What about the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Mecca? A city for only Muslims?

Mosque? What about Church., Temple, and Tabernacle?

Take the time to read the words in the list and see which ones, if any, are and should be a part of a student’s vocabulary.

Also, look at the lack of care in putting this together, for example the absence of a space before the entrees 10, 16-24, 26, 29, 30, 32-34, & 37. It shows a very poor attention to detail by those who wish to indoctrinate our youth.

Well, at least Europe gets a bit of attention.

Why would they want someone to know the routes of the four major Crusades? And, Israel had to be handwritten in — I wonder if someone might get in trouble for that.

Shouldn’t Americans first learn where the Mississippi, Colombia, Ohio, Potomac, and other American rivers are?

Why simply the geography of Islamic nations on untended conquests?

This, apparently, is the map that the elements of Page 5 are to be drawn on.

More Muslim geography. Only one European country. However, they fail to suggest that we should keep it that way. And, this whole exercise tends to suggest that they want the United States to, eventually, join the list of Muslim countries.

Now, we have some “fill in the blanks”. Not that “male” is included, however, “female” is not.

Who gives a damn where Islam was first preached?

They ask what countries Islam spread rapidly through, though they fail to ask why it spread rapidly, and how much blood was shed.

Now, they must learn all about Mohammad, but there is nothing about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and the scores of truly phenomenal, peace loving, Americans — that helped form this great country that we live in.

Now, we get into the religious foundation of Islam, in a school that outlaws the Bible.
That should be sufficient to justify burning the school, and some of the teachers and administrators, to the ground.

Now, we have a structure of government under Islam, but the students have yet to learn the structure of government in their own country.

That last question is the real kicker. I wonder what the acceptable answer might be.

Nothing about baptism, but very much about a very foreign, and strange, religion.

It seems that the student is supposed to learn, and perhaps participate in, the five pillars, though neither the Bible, or Christian prayer, are allowed in the school.

It also seems to support only one branch of Islam, the Sunni, since the Shia branch has twelve pillars.

So, conquest, and demonstration of a few basic practices that we have evolved into our more progressed society. They are not, however, demonstrative of something that would not have occurred without Muslims, and are probably more substantially developed than Islam could very have achieved.

Now, we have the Christian persecution of the Muslims, though we simply ignore the fact that the Muslims persecuted not only Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, most of Africa, by execution, or committing them to slavery — which they still practice.

Now, at least, we see what happened in Europe (Spain, in particular) as a reaction, after the expulsion of the Muslims, to those who were not of the Catholic faith.

Camp Lone Star – The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 2015

At the last hearing, Judge Hanen had told KC’s attorney, Sorola, that the Motion to Dismiss Indictment wasn’t written correctly. That motion had been denied in, which is discussed in Act II – A Kangaroo Court – Scene 1 – How Case Law Subverts the Constitution. Judge Hanen allowed that Sorola might submit a supplemental motion, and said that he was willing to hear a jurisdictional argument. AUSA Hagen was not pleased with the decision; however, dates were set for both the motion and opposition to be submitted to the Court.

Sorola filed his Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment, which “incorporates” the previous Notion to Dismiss. So we will look at what has been entered in support of the jurisdictional aspect of the case.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Violates The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment provides: 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. As this Amendment makes clear, and as the Supreme Court has long-recognized, the federal government is one of enumerated, limited powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland. Accordingly, the federal government may act only where the Constitution so authorizes. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

A corollary to this rule is that Congress may not act in areas prohibited to it. As Justice Thomas noted in his concurrence in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring), the Constitution “places whole areas outside the reach of Congress,” such as the First Amendment’s preventing “Congress from ‘prohibiting the free exercise’ of religion or ‘abridging the freedom of speech.'” Id. Justice Thomas went on to explain that the “Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government’s authority,” and stated: This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” a colorable argument exists that the federal government’s regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment’s protections. Although Printz dealt with a successful challenge to the Brady Act’s requirement that state law enforcement officers conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers, the logic of Justice Thomas’s reasoning is compelling with respect to § 922(g)(1): the Tenth Amendment limits federal power; the Second Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing the individual right to bear arms; thus, it surely cannot be constitutional for the federal government to prohibit a person’s purely intrastate possession of firearms.

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Massey respectfully requests that the Court find 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him and dismiss the pending indictment.

Of course, AUSA Hagen has to answer this Motion, who knows, maybe even his future as a United States Attorney is in jeopardy, since this is a high profile case and Hagen has stated that he has been pressured from above to win this case. However, it appears that Mr. Hagen was not up to answering Sorola’s Motion, so we have a new player, AUSA Jason Corley (the new King), who filed the “Government’s Response” to Massey’s Motion.

Massey’s motion was simply three pages, the above being the substantial portions thereof. However, the Government’s Response was 24 pages. And, as I began reading the Government’s Response, a quote from W. C. Fields popped into my mind:

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

As I continued reading, I realized that the position Corley was taking, he was asserting as if he were King. He has his interpretation of what something means, and there is absolutely no attempt to balance justice with what he believes. This brought to mind another historical quote, most often expressed shortly before the ousting, or abdication, of a King, who refused to abide by the constitution or exercise any semblance of justice. – The King can do no Wrong!

Now, to restrain you from falling asleep or rolling on the floor laughing, I will only address some of the aspects of the government’s argument.

First, we will talk about legal theory, since that seems to be an important consideration on the government’s part. The following, though interspersed through the Motion, are consolidated simply to demonstrate their concern:

1. Defendant’s motion is not ripe for consideration as a factual matter. Defendant has presented merely a legal theory, namely that “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm cannot be infringed by the federal government of the United States. Defendant has not, however, presented any facts whatsoever let alone “sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.” (page 4)
2. Defendant now files a motion to dismiss the indictment based solely on a proposed legal theory that “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm by a felon (or presumably any other individual) cannot be regulated or criminalized by the federal government. (page 6)
3. But this factual issue does not tangentially create a legal dispute on a matter not in controversy, namely an unrelated constitutional theory cloaked as a suppression issue. (page 7)
4. Article III of the United States Constitution grants the Court authority to adjudicate ‘cases’ or ‘controversies’, not irrelevant and tangential legal theory… Defendant does not have standing to challenge any supposed government regulation or criminalization of “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm. (page 8)
5. Because Defendant’s second motion to dismiss proposes an irrelevant and tangentially reached legal theory, and because Defendant does not have standing to challenge that issue, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to dismiss the indictment. (page 8)
6. Because both legal theory and binding case law are contrary to Defendant’s proposition, the Government respectfully requests that Defendant’s second motion to dismiss be denied. (page 11)
7. The legal theory postulated by Defendant is just that, a legal theory. Other legal theory supports the proposition that the federal government through an act of Congress may indeed have the authority to criminalize “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm by a felon should Congress make the requisite findings that it is necessary and proper to criminalize possession of a firearm by a felon to promote the general welfare of the American people, insure domestic tranquility, and establish justice. (page 15)

So, let’s look at what he has said. In #1 and #2, he suggests that it is a “legal theory” the “‘purely’ intrastate possession of a firearm cannot be infringed by the federal government”. Well, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, the Commerce Clause is based ” foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. And, the government has yet to directly control intrastate commerce under the provision.

There is little doubt that the government has tried, by twisted abuse of our language (See Motion to Dismiss Indictment), tried to extent their authority to any firearm that had been in interstate commerce, though, as we will discuss, they change the language when it suits their purpose.

In #3 and #4, he suggests that it is an “unrelated constitutional theory”. In this same document, he cites the Constitution as the authority, as he sees it, as absolute, as if spoken by the King, himself. So, there is no theory allowed on the public side, since only the government side can cite their interpretation of the Constitution as legitimate. This kinda makes you wonder why they even use a pretext of justice when they simply want to imprison someone.

In both #4 and #5, he suggest that it is “irrelevant” that Massey challenge the Indictment because he has no standing, presumably, to defend himself. Once again, the King has spoken.

In 1936, in the Supreme Court decision of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (297 US 288), Justice Brandeis, in a separate but concurring decision, provided insight into the evolving role of the United States Supreme Court, wherein he said:

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

[Rule] 5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation…”

It was clear that the matter of standing had to do with matters brought to that Court, on certiorari, or error. It did not provide a means whereby a trial on criminal charges, in the lowest court of the federal system, could deny standing to challenge the law or the jurisdiction of the matter upon which one was charged.

In #6 and #7, he tends to give credence to the legal theory by stating that theory and case law are “contrary to [Massey’s] proposition”. However, we must understand that the government proposed another “legal theory”. That “theory” is suggested in the following excerpt:

Were Congress to make the proper findings and act in the interest of the “general Welfare” of the people of the United States, it is theoretically possible Congress could, and theoretically possible Congress does, have the constitutional power to regulate and criminalize all possession of firearms by felons. Congress, however, has not chosen to act pursuant to alternative powers and has instead relied on the Commerce Clause. Because of this, an interstate nexus relating to possession of the firearms is an element of the crime and any challenge the Defendant is raising in regard to “purely” intrastate possession is a factual challenge, not a constitutional one.

Now, this brings us into a whole new world of conjecture. He theorizes that Congress could, do, and does have the power to, criminalize any possession by any felon, anywhere within this (mythical) Kingdom. It has bee clearly established, when Equal Protection was discussed, that if a firearm or ammunition were manufactured in a state, those possessing such firearms and ammunition are not subject to criminal charges, since the firearm and/or ammunition had not entered interstate commerce. So, is Corley suggesting that Congress is too damned stupid to see the loophole that have left for those who live in certain states, or that they are wise enough to know that those living in those states are not the type that the felon in possession law was intended for, regardless of the fact that those with felony convictions are still felons. Or, his the King (government), perhaps, capable of doing wrong?

If his theory were correct, under the “general Welfare” provision of the Constitution, they (Congress) could dictate any, and every, aspect of our lives. Now, there is little doubt that they are slowly creeping in that direction, but AUSA Corley seems to think that we have already arrived.

Moving right along, we find, on page 6 of the Government’s Response:

“Article III of the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ In our system of government, courts have ‘no business’ deciding legal disputes or expounding on law in the absence of such a case or controversy.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno. “A controversy is mooted when there are no longer adverse parties with sufficient legal interests to maintain the litigation.” “Accordingly, an actual, live controversy must remain at all stages of federal court proceedings, both at trial and appellate levels.”

Talking about stretching the hell out of an argument, the controversy here is a criminal charge brought by the US government against Massey. It is not a dispute between parties, it is an accusation based upon the misapplication of a statute. Is it even conceivable that someone, especially a highly paid public servant attorney, could deny an accused person of challenging the misrepresentation? Or, can the King (Corley) do no wrong?

Now, I expect that you are getting as bored at reading this as I am at having to wade through it (I do have my boots on), to find the little gems that (if I were a psychiatrist) demonstrate the insanity, or at least the mental instability, of the person who prepared the Government’s Response. Surely, not even the King would allow him to pass the background check, on mental grounds, to own a firearm.

But, there are two more rather interesting point that warrant our attention. Sorola cited McCulloch v. Maryland with reference to “limited powers” of government, according to the Constitution. In what appears to be a DOJ (Department of Justice) boilerplate insert (page 10), he suggests that the limited powers of government have a broad interpretation. From the Government’s Response:

In citing from McCulloch:

“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.

“But, there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the Tenth Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word ‘expressly,’ and declares only, that the powers ‘not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people;’ thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.”

“So with respect to the whole penal code of the United States; whence arises the power to punish, in cases not prescribed by the constitution? All admit, that the government may, legitimately punish any violation of its laws; and yet, this is not among the enumerated powers of congress.”

Then, in Corley’s own words (the King has spoken):

It should come as no surprise then that the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that Congress had the power to incorporate a bank despite having no specifically enumerated power to do so. The precedent set nearly two hundred years ago in McCulloch v. Maryland works against Defendant, not for him.

Now, he talks about if not prohibited, and in the case of the matter of McCulloch, dealing with the creation of a bank, there is no prohibition against the government so doing.

But, the “legal theory” presented makes clear that there is a prohibition against the government’s intervention into the right to keep and bear arms, known as the Second Amendment, and the prohibition therein is called “infringement”.

Nowhere does the constitution address the government’s inability to infringe upon the creation of banks. In fact, there is much said about coin and currency, all implying such powers as necessary with regard to banks. So, just how does that work “against the Defendant”?

The second is an effort to conjoin “Militia” and “people”, as expressed in the Second Amendment, as only the “body of the people” (pages 11-13). He cites a “Second Amendment constitutional scholar”, which, apparently, he places the opinion of above the written laws.

If we consider that the framers of the Constitution were far more particular in the choice of words that the AUSA, we can easily dispute the effort to co-join, since they used both “Militia” and “people”. And Congress, surely, is more meticulous than the AUSA, when they enacted the following:

10 U.S.C. § 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) 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, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, here we have “members of the militia”, who are, clearly, individuals, like people. However, that doesn’t stand as the only element that suggests individuality.

10 U.S.C. § 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.

Though some are general in nature, others are, without a doubt, applied to individuals of certain character. So, if the “theory” of the AUSA is correct, and whether the Congress wanted to us the “general Welfare” provision, or the Commerce Clause, they would have, if what Corley wants to suggest, surely have included a class of people known as “felons”.

So, I wonder what the King will have to say about the obvious, and rather discomforting, exclusion of “felons” from the most logical source of limitation of the right to bear arms. Is it possible that the King (Congress) can do no wrong, and accordingly, will not “infringe”, except via the “Commerce Clause”?

Rule of Law, or, Rule of Man
An Analysis of the Kim Davis Fiasco

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 8, 2015

The Supreme Court and States’ Tenth Amendment Rights

The Constitution created a Union. That Union was of the several States, and the Constitution was written to join those States into a confederation, with a federal government that dealt only within the powers and authorities defined in the document. The autonomy of states was assured within the Constitution, though doubts arose as to whether the federal government might attempt to secure more power than was intended and granted to it.

The most significant clarification of that intent was laid out in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. A preamble sets forth the purpose of a document, and that which was ascribed to the first ten Amendments reads, as follows:

The Preamble To The Bill Of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The last two amendments made even more obvious the limited role of the federal government:

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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.

After the Civil War, a Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (the lawfulness of that ratification may be questioned, though that is not the topic of this article). It stated that no State could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However, it was not intended to, nor did early application of that provision even suggest that there was one set of laws that applied to all, and if the states were in agreement over an issue, or each State had addressed an issue, that the issue in question was not one that was subject to federal approval.

The rights protected by the Constitution would have to extend to all citizens, not all people, as was clear by the wording in the Amendment. Those rights, however, were deemed natural rights pertaining to “life, liberty, and property”. They were not rights which would take from one to give to another.

In 1973, a Supreme Court decision demonstrated that the rights of the States, so solidly secured by the Constitution, would no longer be exercised by the States, if the federal government decided that it wanted to bring any aspect of our lives under its wing. This is clearly demonstrated in the decision that expanded the government’s role in abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The decision defied previously held limitation of authority, was widely accepted by the public, perhaps not fully understood were the ramifications of the expansion of federal powers.

Justice Rehnquist explained the problem and the ramifications in his dissenting opinion, when he wrote:

“To reach its result [the majority opinion], the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”

“There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

So, we have seven out of nine justices expanding the power of the federal government; usurping from the States those rights that were retained by them. And, unfortunately, we had a naive public that applauded, or damned, the decision of the Court, not even considering the affect on our Constitution and the rights of the States.

Now, to get to where we are going, we must address another Supreme Court decision, this being made in June 2015, and bears heavily on the current situation regarding Rowan County, Kentucky, County Clerk Kim Davis, who, as of this writing, sits in Rowan County Detention Center (121 Lee Avenue, Morehead, Kentucky), under a Contempt of Court charge.

This charge stems from another Supreme Court decision, decided in June 2015. That case is Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., 576 US ___. It was filed “claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” So, by the simple wording in the complaint, “the right to marry”, we have something that was never considered a right, it was always, at best, a religious or civil choice, converted and accepted by the Court to be deemed a right, having nothing to do with “equal protection of the laws.” There is no “protection” in marriage simply the notification that two people, of opposite sexes, are bound together in matrimony. Or, as Noah Webster described it the first American Dictionary (Webster’s 1828), marriage is “the legal union of a man and woman for life,” which served the purposes of “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the maintenance and education of children.” So, is a legalized union to be considered, now, to be a “right”?

The conclusion to the decision reads:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

So, Kim Davis is free “to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” However, “[t]he Constitution… does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” What kind of double-speak is that? The “right” is a part of the First Amendment. The abomination is the contradiction that the Constitution does not permit. Try as I might, I cannot find that, anywhere.

In an age where the enumerated rights are under fire, we have courts granting rights that were never considered rights, nor were they enumerated, and, if they were rights, the came strictly under the purview of the state.

By definition, this process of expansion of federal power and usurpation of state power is known as the “incorporation doctrine- a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” So, we must ask which provision of the Bill of Rights is made applicable to the states, or, if the description needs to be updated to “Incorporation Usurpation Doctrine”

To exemplify this overarching expansion of federal authority, we can look to Justice Roberts’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell, where he wrote:

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

“Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history–and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.

Though our very mobile and fast-paced society has had an effect on the “lifelong relationship”, it has done nothing to warrant an extension of that purpose to achieve marriage, for marriage sake, as a right, rather than the original indentation of providing security for the children (posterity).

Whether we are a Democracy, a Republic, or both, we are, without question, to be a self-governing people. At this time, there are over 300 million people in this country. Of that number, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported, in 2013, that only 1.6% of the population was queer (homosexual, both sexes). That is not a minority, it is an insignificant number. And, there is nothing that prohibits them from living as they choose. Those laws have slowly fallen to our modern world, where they are not prosecuted; rather, they are allowed to practice their life-style, without legal penalty. Isn’t it enough that the biblical punishment is no longer inflicted, or are we to allow this insignificant group hold sway over our lives, our morality, and our culture?

Of those 300 million plus, they are represented in their respective state legislatures by hundreds of senators and representatives, chosen by the citizens of those states to enact laws. In no state is the court given the right to enact laws, simply, the “power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” ONLY the representatives of the people, and in accordance with the respective State Constitution make the laws.

Likewise, in the federal government, there are 435 representatives and 100 senators, those, also, elected to represent the will of the people, and enact laws accordingly.

So, we have thousands of the representatives of the people who have enacted laws in accordance with the will of the people, and those laws no longer act unfavorably on the insignificant number. That is what was intended, and that is what should continue to be.

However, we find that a simple majority of nine Justices, yes, just five appointed individuals, not chosen by the people, themselves, have established an apparent right to enact laws contrary to the will of the people and their representatives. That is an oligarchy (rule by a small, select group), and, as you will not find “marriage” in the federal Constitution, you will neither find “oligarchy” as our form of government.

Unless, of course, the people will stand idly by as those robed “oligarchs” continue to expand their authority, destroying our whole concept of self-government.

The Road to Contempt of the People

Based upon the Supreme Court’s contradictory decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al, James Yates, April Miller, and others, filed complaints with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland, against Kim Davis, individually and as County Clerk of Rowan County.

The Complaint by Yates was brought under 42 USC §1983:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Now, “secured by the Constitution and laws” will be addressed, later on. However, we see that the “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 [Article I, § 8, clause 17].” comes in to play here, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution and the laws are both supportive of the right of a State to make its own laws, and by the broadest stretch of imagination, does not include marriage, a civil bond.

The Complaint also incorporates a letter from the Governor, Steven L. Beshear, to the “Kentucky County Clerks, dated June 26, 2015. The letter reads, in part:

“As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky – and all states – must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act.”

“Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

“You should consult with your county attorney on any particular aspects related to the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision.”

So, the Governor first informs the recipients that they had “taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky.” Then, he provides his solution, whereby “same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

So, the oath is to the constitutions, and, presumably, the laws made in accordance thereof. And then, he talks about entitlements. What? I suppose he didn’t feel any more comfortable than I do in suggesting that they are “rights”, rather, that queers are “entitled” to a legal bond intended to assure that children are conceived and brought up in a healthy environment.

Finally, he wants to “implement” the Supreme Court decision. So, which constitution provides a directive, or even implies, that a decision must be implemented, if not an enacted law passed in accordance with those constitutions? Does the oath bind them to a Court decision?

The US Constitution provides the authority to enact laws in Article I, § 1, to wit:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

“All legislative Powers” means what it says, “All”. Nobody else in the federal government is empowered to make laws. The Court can only rule on the constitutionality of a law. Even without referring to the “Case Law Method”, which has moved the courts away from the Constitution, simply building upon previous decision, without regard to the Constitution, we can see that something is amiss — in violation of the Constitution.

Now, let’s look at the Kentucky Constitution, beginning with the Kentucky Bill of Rights:

Section 2. Absolute and arbitrary power denied. Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Section 4. Power inherent in the people – Right to alter, reform, or abolish government. All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

So, the Kentucky Constitution disallows “[a]bsolute and arbitrary power over the lives [and] liberty” of the people. So, just what about the decision regarding the current case (Yates, Miller, et al) and the charge of Contempt of Court (which will soon be discussed) is not “absolute and arbitrary”?

And, if “[a]ll power is inherent in the people” and “founded on their [people] authority”, how can a judge, at the lowest level of federal courts, make a decision, based upon a decision, though not enacted into law, be used to deprive Kim Davis of her liberty?

The Bill of Rights concludes with:

Section 26. General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights – Laws contrary thereto are void. To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

Just consider what “inviolate” means.

Now, from the Kentucky Constitution, the Legislative Branch:

Section 29. Legislative power vested in General Assembly. The legislative power shall be vested in a House of Representatives and a Senate, which, together, shall be styled the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Section 55. When laws to take effect – Emergency legislation. No act, except general appropriation bills, shall become a law until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed, except in cases of emergency, when, by the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each House of the General Assembly, by a yea and nay vote entered upon their journals, an act may become a law when approved by the Governor; but the reasons for the emergency that justifies this action must be set out at length in the journal of each House.

Section 68. Civil officers liable to impeachment – Judgment – Criminal liability. The Governor and all civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanors in office; but judgment in such cases shall not extend further than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under this Commonwealth; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be subject and liable to indictment, trial and punishment by law.

So, as in the federal government, “legislative power [enacting laws]” is vested in the General Assembly. Nobody else can make laws.

The Kentucky Constitution makes provision for “emergency legislation”, which, under the circumstances, would have to be done to “implement” the decision, and to protect the County Clerk, who is bound to uphold the laws enacted in accordance with both constitutions. It would appear that Kim Davis suffered in jail because the legislative branch was remiss in their responsibility to the people and the officials of the state.

Finally, absent an impeachment, it would appear that no legal action could be taken against an official of the state. The qualifier, “but the convicted party” would require such impeachment prior to legal action.

However, what we are finding, in this current situation, is that the lowest level judge in the federal system, can, single-handedly, deny an elected official, under the authority of the state Constitution, her liberty.

On September 1, 2015, April Miller filed a Motion to Hold Defendant Kim Davis in Contempt of Court, stating:

“Plaintiffs do not seek to compel Davis’ compliance through incarceration. Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, Plaintiffs urge the the [sic] Court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis’ immediate compliance without further delay.

However during a hearing on September 3, Judge David L. Bunning arbitrarily opted to incarcerate Kim Davis, in Contempt of Court. In that hearing, the minute notes show:

“Defendant Davis shall be remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal pending compliance of the Courts Order of August 12, 2015, or until such time as the Court vacates the contempt Order.”

It appears that the Judge opted for jail time in lieu if the requested monetary damages.

Kim Davis was released, on September 8, during the course of preparing this article. An understanding was made that the marriage licenses issued by the County will not bear her name or title, though the will simply say, “Rowan County, Kentucky” at the line for the Clerk/ Deputy Clerk signature.

Laws on the books

Many people are claiming that Kim Davis violated the law by not issuing marriage licenses to queers that wanted to be married to each other.

We have all been taught that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So, let’s look at what the responsibility of an elected official is, if their job requires that they obey the law.

First source is the Kentucky Constitution, which, in Section 223A states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Next, we have Kentucky Statutes:

“402.005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”

Well, Kim Davis has taken a position that requires that she uphold the laws. That pretty much settles it from the State side of the matter. But, since it was a federal judge, maybe we need to look at what the federal government has to say.

I find no reference to (marriage” in the Constitution, though I do find the specific reservation in the Tenth Amendment:

“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.”

So, we find that since there is no delegation to the federal government, or courts, regarding marriage, in the Constitution, then that authority must be one of those “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, does the federal government have anything to say about marriage? Yes, they do; however, it pertains ONLY to “administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States”, and has nothing, at all, to do with licensing (legal permission) for marriage. Clearly, that “right” is reserved to the state.

1 U.S.C. § 7 : Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

So, let’s review the Kim Davis incident. Kim is an elected official, the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. When she took the position, she also took an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions and the law of the land.

Both constitutions provide for the legislative bodies (Senate and House of Representatives) to have the sole authority to enact laws. If a judge rules an act unconstitutional, then the legislative body must enact a law consistent with the ruling. That is the only way that it can work. It is not up to the individual to determine what she can, or cannot, do. It is those who have taken the role in government to enact laws, well, to enact laws.

Kim Davis should not be held in contempt of court. If anyone is to be held in contempt of court, it should be those in the legislative bodies that leave on the LAW books laws that are unconstitutional. They are paid far better than Kim Davis is, and their job is to write the laws that she is to enforce. Every member of the state legislature should be willing to sit in jail, in lieu of Kim Davis, for she is the only one that is upholding the law. The same might be said of the Congress, as they, too, recognizing their limited role in the matter of marriage.

As a final thought, Kim Davis has stated that she refused to issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs. Had a law been lawfully enacted that allowed queers to marry, then Kim Davis would have to decide whether she wanted to continue in her job, or not, based upon a law that was properly enacted. To put that in more interesting terms, if any legislative body (not judicial) thinks that they have a right to change a definition this is thousands of year old, based upon the Bible, which defines marriage, then those in that legislative body have placed themselves above God.

Wolf Trap – The Entrapment

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 3, 2015

We first looked into the Setup of William Wolf (Wolf Trap – The Setup), this past April, when this whole exercise in injustice began. At that time, we could only speculate as to the motivation that led the government to entrap Wolf on manufactured (yes, manufactured, and that will be discussed) charges. What seemed most likely was that they didn’t like what Wolf was saying, whether talking about Committees of Safety (http://www.committee.org), an historical aspect of our foundation which without we would not have cast off the yoke of (British) government oppression, or when Wolf went even further by blaspheming the federal government, a current yoke that which operates outside of the constraints of the Constitution.

So, let’s look into what we have learned about this whole situation. To do so, we will be required to ask a number of questions. Additionally, we will be required to seek the most logical answers to those questions.

First, Wolf is not an advocate of violence, unless absolutely necessary, and only in defense of our constitutionally protected rights. Was this what motivated to government to identify, secure an informant, manipulate the situation, whereby Wolf pursued legal purchase of a legal shotgun, through private (legal) purchase, and then switched by the government agents to an illegal shotgun, at the last moment, in an effort to utilize gun laws to silence the outspoken patriot?

To answer this, we need simply look, not at the evidence since it is not yet available, but at the magnitude of evidence that lead to the eventual “illegal act” that has put Wolf in federal custody, for these past six months.

From the “Unopposed Motion To Continue Trial For 60 Days“, we find Wolf’s attorney, Mark S. Werner, inundated with evidence that cannot possibly be reviewed and gone over with Wolf to understand just what lay behind the charges being brought against him, within the current schedule. From that Motion:

2. Defendant and counsel have been making their way through the 524 pages of written discovery plus the 17 DVD’s relating to recorded conversations and podcasts concerning the Defendant. In addition, there are text messages and phone logs. It is necessary to thoroughly review all of this discovery as the Defendant is in need of knowing what, out of the entire amount, will and should be, introduced at trial.

So, there are 524 pages of written discovery (notes, FBI forms, etc., perhaps some emails are online discussions. Then we have 17 DVD’s. The lowest capacity of a standard DVD is 4.7 gigabytes. It is safe to calculate that each DVD could hold 6 hours of video or 72 hours of audio, or all 17 DVDs could hold 102 hours of video (2 1/2 work weeks), 1224 hours of audio (over 30 work weeks), or a combination thereof.

Then we have text messages and phone logs. Well, if we have audio on the DVD and text messages that show both parties and when the messages were made, why would they want phone logs? Would that be an effort to broaden the net and show some sort of conspiracy? So, in that event, what does the purchase of a shotgun have to do with, let’s call it, “nefarious criminal activity”, which is the only object that would justify such an intrusive and voluminous gathering of evidence? Could it possibly take that much effort, time, and expense to the taxpayers, to prove that he bought a shotgun? I’m pretty sure they even have audio and video of the purchase, as well as any relevant conversations.

Next, does this suggest that there is more than just the purchase of a shotgun that the feds are concerned with? To begin to understand that this is a lot more than just about a shotgun, we can look to the “Notice of Attorney Appearance” of federal “co-counsel”. For the shotgun, they are not bringing on a BATF attorney, nor are they bringing on an FBI attorney versed in gun laws. Instead, they are bringing on “Kashyap P. Patel, Trial Attorney, Counterterrorism Section, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20530, telephone number (202) 353-0184, e-mail: Kashyap.Patel@usdoj.gov“.

They are sending someone versed in Counterterrorism, all of the way from Washington, D.C., to be co-counsel on a simple purchase of an “illegal” shotgun. This has to amount to an absurd degree of absurdity. I doubt that they have put that much effort on tracking, and maybe even trying to set up, Muslims on the federal watch list. Kinda makes you wonder just who the enemy really is.

Now, let’s move on to the real subject of this article — entrapment. There are two relevant Supreme Court decision on entrapment (Sorrells v US 287 US 435 (1932) and Sherman v United States 359 US 369 (1958)). From Sherman, citing a portion from Sorrells, they explain what is, and what is not, within the acceptable duties of law enforcement:

“The function of law enforcement is the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals. Manifestly, that function does not include the manufacturing of crime. Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer. However, “A different question is presented when the criminal design originates with the officials of the Government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute.”

So, let’s weigh what happened in Wolf’s case verses the case law. Wolf, during a conversation with the informant, Ed Gray, stated that he wanted to buy a legal shotgun, preferably a Russian automatic shotgun (Note: Automatic, as in a handgun, is a self-feeding gun,). He wanted to buy it through a private sale rather than through a dealer, which is still legal in this country.

So, after some communication, Wolf is informed that a friend of Gray could get him the shotgun. The “friend” was really an FBI “UCE” (FBI undercover employee). The UCE said he knew a Class III dealer that could provide the shotgun. Well, if a Class III dealer is willing to sell the shotgun without a background check, it is no sweat for Wolf, as the dealer is the only one bound by the law. Wolf is dealing only with a private sale, though the private party just happened to be a Licensee.

When they met to make the private sale, Wolf was informed of an increase in price because the Licensee had modified the shotgun into full-auto, providing a video that showed the rate of fire. So, Wolf is in a parking lot with the CHS (Gray) and the UCE, making a gun deal. They have switched guns, and an additional cost for the conversion, so Wolf had little choice but to consummate the deal. Did he intend to violate any law? Or, was he, with fear that backing out of the deal at this late date (bait and switch) might have serious consequences, going along with the purchase because he feared for his life?

So, the inducement for Wolf to commit an illegal act, the possession of an automatic shotgun, resulted in law enforcement implanting “in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute.”

Could there be any other justification for the massive amount of “evidence”, the extraordinary effort in inducing Wolf to buy a shotgun that was “switched” at the point of sale, and the inclusion of a “counterterrorism” attorney on the prosecuting team, then to silence his speaking out, as he was, when, obviously, what he had said when speaking could only be used to demonize him to the Jury, since that speech, itself, was not illegal?

In my article, “Vortex“, I refer to an IRS letter dated February 26, 1973. That letter shows us that over forty years ago, the government would, “Use all available federal, state, and local laws” to go after those who spoke out against the income tax system. It appears that this “cancer” in government has spread to include using whatever tools, laws, or chicanery, available, whether legal, or not, to get those who are within their constitutional rights of free speech, taken and imprisoned, so that others will no longer be able to listen to them.

This is what justice has become in our nation, created by a Constitution that was intended, more than anything else, to limit the power of government; not to grant it the poser to target people and use divisive means in an effort to take away their Liberty.

Camp Lone Star – Massey is Protected by State Law

Federal Government Violates State Law

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 28, 2015

There is a presumption in the minds of many people that the federal government has jurisdiction, anywhere. We even see the FBI investigating incidents in foreign, sometime hostile nations. Our purpose here however is to look at the extent, if any, of federal jurisdiction, within the geographic boundaries of the member States of the Union. It should be understood that there is a lot more to the extent of jurisdiction than will be discussed here. We are simply addressing those limitations as the apply to the recent events involving KC Massey and Camp Lone Star.

To its credit, the Texas State Legislature, in its wisdom and understanding of the relationship with the federal government, enacted Article 2.122 of the Texas Penal Code. This “law” provides for granting of certain authority to federal agents. The pertinent parts of that Act are as follows:

Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS.

(a) The following named criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search, and seizure under the laws of this state as to felony offenses only:

(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(3) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(4) Special Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshals Service;

(b) A person designated as a special policeman by the Federal Protective Services division of the General Services Administration under 40 U.S.C. Section 318 or 318d is not a peace officer but has the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state.

(c) A Customs and Border Protection Officer or Border Patrol Agent of the United States Customs and Border Protection or an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security is not a peace officer under the laws of this state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the agent or officer has probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice proceeding.

So, the extent of the authority to arrest, which would also include detaining a person, is only “the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state [Texas].” We will address the limitation to the laws of the state, below.

BPS also has a greater degree of authority, but only at Ports of Entry and Checkpoints. So, at Sabal Palms, where the alleged “crime” took place, which may have been a violation of the laws of the state, the BPS agent who fired at Foerster had committed the only possible crime, and the BPS agent the only possible criminal. It might be stretching the point to say that Foerster, the only witness to the crime, might be detained, though that is a gray area that we need not address.

Clearly, Massey and Varner, not even witness to the crime, are well outside of the authority granted by the state to the designated federal agents. Take note, also, of the word “premises” in paragraph (c). We will also address that later.

So, the State of Texas saw fit to extend certain powers to certain agents of the federal government. The federal government has never contested the right of the State to enact such laws. If it had, and if they had the authority to refuse the state’s authority to limit their powers, then surely, there surely would have been a federal challenge, before now. If that is not correct, then, perhaps, the federal government needs to challenge that State authority now, or live by the law, as enacted.

Now, let’s revisit that word in paragraph (c), “premises”. Mr. Hagen has stated that KC was not on his premises, since he was not in his home. By that construct, we can assume that the word premises, in federal law led to Hagen’s presumption of the meaning under state law. However, I doubt that even Mr. Hagen would presume that the “premises of a port facility” would include ONLY the building that had “port facility” posted over the doorway. Surely, it includes the entire premises which comprises the entire port facility.

Now the federal government may have two definitions, though they have not provided an alternate definition. Texas Penal Code provides insight into the meaning of “premises”, under State law. Remember, the federal authority applies to felonies under State law. So, let’s look at Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 46.04.  UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM.

(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

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

Meaning that five years after the completion of all portions of the punishment, he regains the right to possess a firearm, subject to the limitation imposed by sub-paragraph (2).

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her 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; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, “watercraft” means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

So, the “person commits an offense” if he is not “on the “person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control.” It also provides for en route travel, but our concern is what “premises” means. Then, from (a-2), we find that ” For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. So, the “premises” is where you live, if you have control of it. It includes real property, not just the house. And, surely, if you were a guest, with the consent of the owner, to live on his property, or a motel, whether temporarily or permanently, then the premises would include his land, and any other land that you were on, if you had the consent of the owner and he had knowledge of your firearm. So, unless argued to the contrary by the federal government, Sabal Palms would be the recreational premises upon which Massey’s stay was temporary. Likewise, the motel room, over which he had control as the renter, though temporary, for recreational purposes, would include those “premises” where he was arrested. To assume that he can have a firearm in the motel room, though he cannot leave the motel room, then cross that premises to his vehicle, with the firearm is the sort of absurdity that the government excels in. To assume such would be to assume that a law with a specific purpose is impossible, since the construction that federal government has applied would say that you have a right, though there is no way in which you can exercise that right.

The question also arises as to whether the detail of the intent and application of the State Law is properly heard in the Federal District Court, or if the original jurisdiction can reside only in a state court, with the State of Texas as the Plaintiff.

Now, it may seem as if I am stretching the right to travel with a firearm, in support of the other provisions. However, Texas did clarify the broadness of the right to possess framers in their state, with Section 46.15 (pertinent parts):

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.

(b) Section 46.02 [prohibition of possession] does not apply to a person who:

(2) is traveling;

(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor’s residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

Now, let’s ask ourselves just why Texas thought that they could enact these laws. Did they do so despite the Constitution and what other tend to believe is the federal government’s overarching authority to enact any law that they want? Especially if the law they are using specifically cites “commerce” as the authority for such enactment? Or, as has been discussed previously, are the stretching their authority under the commerce clause beyond the scope granted by the Constitution and affirmed by the authors and proponents of the Constitution? See Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause.

The ratification of the Constitution came with instruction for the submission of a Bill of Rights, to assure that the assertion of federal authority did not exceed that which was intended by the document. There are two amendments that are applicable, one with regard to the people, themselves, and the other with regard to both the States and the people.

First is the Ninth Amendment:

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

And, more importantly and appropriately to this discussion, the Tenth Amendment:

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.

So, there can be no doubt that Texas, with powers not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the State, is, without question, acting within its purview, as were the Representatives in the State Government, in expressing the Will of the People in asserting their rights through the enactment of the laws cited above. None of those laws encroach, by any stretch of the imagination, on the powers granted to the federal government.

Camp Lone Star – Pressure Cooker of Just Us

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 24, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 20, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Role of the Federalist Papers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

… Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Necessary and Proper

Article I, §8, clause 18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insure: To make sure or secure.

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

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

secure: Free from fear or apprehension of danger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Commerce Clause

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

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

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

And, into doing, he provides insight into:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona Misfits
A Bad Operation Gone Worse

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 6, 2015

Part 1- The Characters

Three men from Arizona have been charged with “to intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together, to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II).”

One of the three has also been charged with, that he “did knowingly possess a firearm, in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, that is, Conspiracy with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, as alleged in Count 1 of this Indictment, a felony prosecutable in a Court of the United States.

Parris Frazier is charged with both counts. Robert Deatherage (aka Anthony Winchester) and Erik Foster are charged only on the first, cocaine, count.

We will begin with a look at the character of the main players, in this rather interesting story of the arrest of three men, who are professed patriots.

The ringleader was Parris Frazier, of Arizona. He is well known around some of the border operations, though he has been asked to leave some of the groups because he seems to have ideas, expectations, and methods which are beyond the reasoned thinking of those running full, or nearly full, time operations.

He had visited one group, probably the best continually working operation on the Arizona-border, and was asked to leave after three days. He seemed apprehensive, perhaps even scared that something might happen when on an operation and would frequently take a break in the shade, and wait for the others to return. One of the sources described him as possibly bi-polar. He had been known to change moods, without provocation, described as someone who “would go off” in a minute, and then become calm and sedate, in the next minute. Another source claimed that after a few miles, Frazier asked someone to carry some of his gear. Physically, at about 50 years of age, he was not up to the task.

Frazier had gone to the Bundy Ranch, April 2014. While there, if given an assignment, he would take charge and move the others working with him to completion. However, when left in charge in one situation where there was no oversight, he displayed unnecessary and offensive behavior by assuming that some friends of the Bundys, who were retrieving their cattle with cattle trailers, must be BLM and gave them a hard time, without verifying who they were. This was a rather embarrassing situation for the militia, though those competent people in charge were able to reconcile the situation.

It would appear, then, that though a good worker when in charge, he is not a stable leader, nor is he competent, as it appears that he does not think through the situation, or the consequence of his actions. He often talked of “kills” along the border, though most who know him doubt that he has the fortitude or the ability necessary to accomplish such a task. He has bragged about kills while in the service, though it appears that he was in an artillery unit and his entire service was stateside.

More than likely, when he conducts his own border operations, they are simple larks in the desert, with no useful purpose. He might best be described as a “wanna be”. As a result, many patriots within of the border protection community chose to maintain a distance from him.

His behavior is such that he probably has trouble keeping a group together for very long, which would explain why, after the events that led to his downfall began, he contacted someone he had met on Facebook and made an offer for him to join “something big”. Frazier never used any form of vetting before soliciting participants in any activities.

This irrational approach, bringing someone into some criminal activity, whom he had never met, or had never even tried to vet, demonstrates an irrational behavior that is inconsistent with any aspect of leadership requiring discretion.

Next, we have Robert “Rob” Deatherage (aka Anthony Winchester). It appears that he is an adherent to Frazier, committed to some cause but clearly associate with incompetent leadership. He attended Jon Ritzheimer’s Freedom of Speech Rally (Phoenix Muslim event), in full battle gear.

He has claimed to have been shot while working the border, though he has no wound scars to prove this point. He has also claimed to have made “kills” on the border, though this has not been confirmed by any source.

Deatherage has been close to Frazier for years, though there was a split up during the Bundy Affair that was reconciled a few months later. His military experience was in Navy Search and Rescue, though he has claimed to have made “kills” while in the service.

Erik Foster was from Idaho and he came on the Arizona scene about the time he attended Ritzheimer’s Freedom of Speech Rally. He was looking for a group to join, and by chance crossed paths with Frazier, he always has stories and exploits to impress the unknowing. Apparently, Foster felt that this was the group he should join.

Randon Berg was one of the early participants and participated in the first two Operations, which were cash grabs. He has not been charged federally, since he was not a participant in the third Operation (cocaine), though he may not be in the clear under state law. He had been a friend of Frazier for some time.

Frazier was the ringleader, however, he was not a competent leader, and whether he is a patriot is, at best, questionable, as he appears to be more of a gigolo, and has learned to live off of others, as long as he can, and then moves on to the next one. He simply found easy pickings within the patriot community.

The other two, unfortunately, bought a good line, and never seriously thought of the consequences, nor did they do an honest evaluation of the leader they chose to follow.

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

Part 2 – The Introduction

Frazier, Deatherage, and Foster were arrested on July 22, 2015. However, the story begins back in January. Task Force Officer (TFO) John E. Kelly, Federal Bureau of Investigation filed the Criminal Complaint. He acknowledges working “the Phoenix Division FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), squad NS-3, in Phoenix, Arizona. This squad is responsible for investigating many different types of criminal violations including domestic terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, illegal militia activities, and illegal sovereign citizen activities.” We are going to let TFO Kelly tell us most of the story (italicized).

On January 24, 2015, during a “traffic stop” by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Frazier began a conversation with the agents. The agents “mentioned that an informal source had been providing them with information regarding illegal border activities, but they could no longer operate that source. FRAZIER expressed his interest in contacting the source so he could use the source’s information to assist in protecting the border.”

Note that the purpose was to “assist in protecting the border”. Note, also, that this was a “traffic stop”. It does not say “checkpoint”. A traffic stop is when you are pulled over by an officer. I don’t recall that this is a common practice of CBP. Is it possible that they had identified Frazier as someone that they had wanted to set up?

On February 11, Frazier received a phone call from an unnamed individual, though identified later as an “undercover employee” (UCE) of the FBI. He claimed to be the “informal source” that had been mentioned on January 11. The conversation was recorded, though we don’t have the recording. However, what we are told is that the discussion went, immediately, to other than “protecting the border”. Parentheticals are from the Criminal Complaint:

In the conversation, the UCE asked what FRAZIER was looking for so he can start looking for jobs. FRAZIER said that he had a small group of Patriots that he trusted and they were trying to take care of (steal) anything that came up out of Mexico (drugs) or was going back into Mexico (bulk cash), but they preferred the cash loads going south. FRAZIER told the UCE that if he provided decent intel on stuff going south (bulk cash), FRAZIER would give the UCE a percentage of whatever is taken. FRAZIER said that his group is a bunch of professionals and none of them are tied up in law enforcement.

It appears that the purpose was to get rich, quick, rather than to protect the border. By this time, Frazier assumed that he was working with a disgruntled cartel member.

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

Part 3 – The First Operation

On March 4, in an in-person meeting, Frazier said that he wanted “cash loads going south”, and that he would give the “source” (UCE) 25% of the take. Frazier offered, “if we (his group) have to dispatch (kill) some people, we will dispatch some people. FRAZIER said that his guys are mercenaries and they just want to rip cash. However, he also said that he planned on killing all of the individuals guarding the cash to ensure that his guys go home at night. In addition, FRAZIER offered to kill anyone that the UCE wanted taken out.”

On March 11, in a phone conversation, Frazier said that “he would like GPS coordinates for the job location so he and his guys can get there before the package shows up. FRAZIER said that when the job does go down, ‘it will be very violent and very quick.’ He said that they can’t leave any witnesses.”

On March 25, Frazier and the “source”, in a phone call, hatch the following plan:

The UCE said he is going with his cousin to drop off a vehicle with $20,000. He said that if that gets taken off, it will make the UCE’s uncle mad at the cousin. The UCE said that if he can get the cousin out of the picture, then the UCE will be able to provide bigger stuff that his cousin will get blamed for. The UCE said that his uncle is making the cousin personally drop off the vehicle with the money. The UCE said that he and his cousin are going to drop off the vehicle and leave it so the backpackers can load it and take it up to Phoenix. The UCE said that FRAZIER and his group can get in the vehicle and take the cash before the backpackers arrive so that it makes the UCE’s cousin look like an idiot.

Between this and the next event, on March 29, Frazier tried to enlist another patriot, though he had never met him and had only communicated with Facebook and Facebook PM (explained in Part 1). The other patriot, wisely, declined.

Now we move into the action. On April 2, we have the following first attempt at seizing a “cash load”, and, perhaps, a demonstration of incompetence:

FRAZIER and an associate [unidentified] attempted to steal money from a staged “cartel load vehicle” that contained $8,000. The attempted cash rip was observed by FBI surveillance and captured by video surveillance equipment outside the vehicle and audio/video equipment inside the vehicle. During the rip, FRAZIER and his associate were dressed in camouflage clothing and were wearing facemasks. They also had on tactical vests and were carrying AR-15 style assault rifles with optical sights. Both individuals were observed searching the vehicle; however, the $8,000 in cash was not taken.

FRAZIER said he and another guy searched the load vehicle but didn’t find anything. The UCE tells FRAZIER that the cartel members found $8,000 in the vehicle but it looked like his cousin had pocketed the other $12,000 that was supposed to be there. FRAZIER explained how he and his guy searched through the vehicle for several minutes.

So, after the bungled operation, and, an interesting deception by the UCE, where he claimed that the “cousin” had taken $12,000 and left $8,000, that Frazier could not find. He was going to set up the cousin and get him in trouble with the uncle, but now we have a story line that would have gotten the cousin in trouble, and possibly killed, if it was really Cartel money. However, Frazier, apparently, didn’t even consider the shift in the story, and, perhaps, realize that something was fishy.

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

Part 4 – The Second Operation

Now, let’s move into something that sounds more like a gangster movie. On April 9, during a phone call, the following transpired:

FRAZIER asked if the UCE had another job for him. The UCE said he might have something coming up soon. FRAZIER said it looked like the UCE was slowly trying to get his cousin out of the way. The UCE said that was correct. FRAZIER said, “How about I lay an offer out on the table that we just get him out of the way for you.” The UCE asked how they would do that. FRAZIER said he has someone that could take care of it if they could be set up somewhere before the UCE’s cousin arrived. FRAZIER said that they could solidify an ongoing business venture from there. The UCE asked if he is going to have to pay them for killing his cousin and FRAZIER responded, “Yeah, we’ll have to definitely get something monetarily out of it.” FRAZIER said that the UCE would then be in a better position and that his guys are the ones to take care of any other competition that may get in the way of the UCE. FRAZIER said he still can’t believe that they missed the money in the last job. The UCE asked if they want to do one more load vehicle and then take care of his cousin. FRAZIER agreed. FRAZIER said that he is offering the UCE a faster route to get rid of his cousin. FRAZIER said that it won’t be cheap, but it won’t be super expensive. FRAZIER said that he and his guys are mercenaries.

So, now, Frazier is the head of some “mercenaries” and has moved on to “hit” jobs, a hired killer. Frazier has probably never fired on a human being in his life, though he has often claimed that he has.

However, on April 19, the opportunity for Operation #2 begins to come into focus, and Frazier will start looking at taking drugs as well as “cash loads”, in a recorded phone conversation.

The UCE asked if FRAZIER is ready for something on Thursday or Friday. FRAZIER said that those days are good and asks if the UCE would have more intel so FRAZIER can be closer, The UCE said he hopes so, but it depended on what way the backpackers go and when he finds out when they can be there. FRAZIER said that after this job they should meet in person to discuss the other thing (murder for hire) because FRAZIER doesn’t want to talk about that over the phone. FRAZIER again said that Thursday or Friday would work for him because that gives him time to take care of some things and to brief up his guys. FRAZIER asked what kind of impact it would have if he had 3 – 5 guys pick off the load (drug load) as well. The UCE said he is still trying to make his cousin look bad so it would be better if they didn’t take the drugs.

On April 23, this Operation was conducted. This time, Frazier and crew got the “cash load” they had been seeking. It began with a phone call:

The UCE asked if FRAZIER was ready. FRAZIER said that they have been ready. The UCE gave him the latitude and longitude coordinates for where they parked the vehicle. FRAZIER verified that there won’t be anyone out there with the vehicle, but there would be people watching them. FRAZIER said that they aren’t really worried about it getting too hot (with the cartel response); they are worried more about LEO (law enforcement officers) than anything else.

Based upon government observation:

FRAZIER and his associate stole $7300 from a staged “cartel load vehicle.” The cash rip was observed by FBI and Phoenix PD surveillance and captured by video surveillance equipment outside the vehicle and audio/video equipment inside the vehicle.

This was followed by a phone call:

The UCE asked how it went. FRAZIER said there was only $7300. The UCE said his cousin must have taken the rest of the money when he was driving the vehicle down there. The UCE said he’s got to sort everything out. FRAZIER told him to do that and then call if he has another job. The UCE said they should meet up to discuss the other thing (murder for hire).

Two people have confided that they spoke with Frazier during this two month interval and he had told them that he was in a motel in Flagstaff, had just ordered two hookers and some pizza, in an effort to recruit at least those two, and then demonstrate that what he was doing was beginning to pay off. Both sources wisely declined his offer.

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

Part 5 – The Third Operation & Bust

It appears that Foster was recruited about this time, perhaps to replace Randon Berg.

Then, in a phone conversation on June 21:

The UCE said he hasn’t been able to get a hold of FRAZIER for a while. FRAZIER said he picked up a job in the Midwest [Flagstaff?] and has been out of town. The UCE said he had everything set up (for the murder for hire) but he was never able to get a hold of FRAZIER. FRAZIER said he had to leave in a hurry for a job and didn’t have his burn phone with him. The UCE asked if they are still going to do stuff. FRAZIER said he was going to ask the UCE the same question. He said he knows they missed the opportunity in California [this is not explained] and told the UCE to tell him if he had any more ideas. The UCE asked if FRAZIER wanted anything else in the meantime while they earned back each other’s trust. FRAZIER asked if the UCE knows of any cash that could be “jumped up on.” The UCE said cash will be hard since it is so hot, but they could do some regular loads that the UCE could buy off of them or sell and then get FRAZIER the money. FRAZIER said they could do that and asked when the next job would be. The UCE said he will start looking. The UCE asked if FRAZIER was willing to take down some loads and FRAZIER said he would like to grab the cash and then wait for the load to show up. The UCE said he won’t be able to get the cash until he sold the load off. FRAZIER clarified that the UCE knew of some loads that they could rip and then get the money from the UCE for the drugs.

So, now we are seeing Frazier getting set up for what turned into the drug possession bust. Then we have a June 28 phone conversation where Operation #3 is beginning to be discussed.

FRAZIER asked what the UCE has. The UCE said he has a load coming up in late July. FRAZIER asked what will be in the vehicle. The UCE said it will be between six to ten kilograms of cocaine, maybe a little more. FRAZIER asked what the UCE is willing to pay for it and the UCE replied that he will pay FRAZIER $15,000 per kilo. FRAZIER said that is good, he just wanted to know the details of where and when with enough time so he could plan. FRAZIER said they will definitely do this one, but then said he wants to talk to his teammates first to make sure everyone was on-board. The UCE said he will be able to pay FRAZIER on delivery of the drugs. They agreed to talk again about it as they get more details. FRAZIER said he is meeting with his group next weekend to discuss everything.

The plan began to come together, as explained in this July 10 phone conversation:

The UCE asked if everything is good. FRAZIER said it is all good on his end. The UCE said that his buddy called him and said he should be driving up the load vehicle on the 19th, 20th, or 21st. The UCE also told FRAZIER that the group will probably use a warehouse located off of Interstate 17. FRAZIER said that works for him. The UCE said he and his buddy would take care of the other guy (entertain the security guard) so FRAZIER didn’t have to worry about him. FRAZIER asked how long he will have for the rip. The UCE said FRAZIER would have some time, but he couldn’t take too long. FRAZIER said he just needs 45 minutes. They discussed finding a place for them to meet up as they got closer to the rip.

More details emerged on July 20, in the following phone conversation:

FRAZIER asked if the UCE has good news for him. The UCE said that the driver will head up to Phoenix on Wednesday (July 22nd ) with the load vehicle. FRAZIER asked what time it will be and the UCE said that they would start driving in the morning and arrive in Phoenix in the afternoon. FRAZIER asked if the UCE has an idea where it will be stashed. The UCE said that it will be in a warehouse area off of I-17. FRAZIER said that is a big area and asked if it would be south of I-10 or north of I-10. The UCE said he doesn’t know yet because they used different places. The UCE asked if FRAZIER was good with it and FRAZIER said yes. FRAZIER said his guys were ready to move right now and they were all good to go. The UCE said he already had the stuff sold off to potential buyers so he could get the money to FRAZIER soon afterward. FRAZIER said that their only concerns are getting the package. FRAZIER said that he already had two spots picked out in the east valley where they can do the exchange with the UCE for the cocaine. The UCE said he will meet up with FRAZIER real quick beforehand and then show FRAZIER the location of the drugs. FRAZIER said that his guys thought it was going down today, but he was good with waiting until Wednesday. The UCE reiterated that he wanted to make sure FRAZIER and his guys (later identified as ROBERT DEATHERAGE and ERIK FOSTER) were good because he has buyers already. FRAZIER asked how much (cocaine) will be there and the UCE said it would most likely be 10 kilos, maybe more. FRAZIER said that was good and they already agreed on a price, so he told the UCE to call him Wednesday morning. FRAZIER said he would meet up with the UCE to have him show him where the drugs are and that his guys will be following them around. He said his guys were ready to go at the drop of a hat. The UCE said he just wanted to make sure it was done nice and professional so they could keep doing it a couple more times in the future. FRAZIER said his guys are good to go. The UCE asked if they’ve done this before and FRAZIER responded that they have. FRAZIER said they’ve done a lot of different things and they have all acquired a body count on different continents. FRAZIER said this will be a walk in the park as long as everything was cool on the UCE’s end and no “heat” was drawn in. FRAZIER said that if “heat” was there, there would be a firefight and that would be the last time they do business together. The UCE said no one will be there.

July 22, 2015, the really big day comes around. Frazier had bought bolt cutters to break the warehouse lock. Everything was a go. He met with the source that morning, in Phoenix,

to discuss final details of the drug rip. FBI surveillance observed FRAZIER, DEATHERAGE and FOSTER follow the UCE in a black Toyota Camry driven by FOSTER to a warehouse located on 39th Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona. The Toyota Camry did not have a license plate on the vehicle. Surveillance then observed the Camry drive around the vicinity of the warehouse for approximately 15 minutes in an apparent reconnaissance of the site. Eventually, the Camry containing all three defendants drove up to the warehouse gate and stopped. Surveillance observed FRAZIER and FOSTER exit the Camry and FRAZIER cut the lock on the gate. FRAZIER and FOSTER then proceeded on foot into the gated area of the warehouse. This gated area of the warehouse was under recorded video observation in addition to being observed by FBI surveillance. While under recorded video observation, FRAZIER gained access to a Hyundai Tucson while FOSTER acted as security. The Hyundai Tucson contained one package of actual cocaine weighing approximately one kilogram and nine packages of cocaine stimulant that also weighed approximately one kilogram each. These packages were wrapped in red plastic wrap and secured with packaging tape. While under recorded observation, FRAZIER grabbed six of the packages, including the one containing actual cocaine. Surveillance then observed FRAZIER and FOSTER proceed on foot back to the Camry where DEATHERAGE was waiting in the driver’s seat. The Camry containing the three defendants, drove away from the warehouse at a high rate of speed. As they were departing, FBI SWAT attempted to stop the Camry by pursuing it in several vehicles all of which were flashing their emergency lights and sounding their police sirens. The Camry didn’t yield and continued to flee from FBI SWAT at a high rate of speed. In the interest of public safety, the chase was called off, but surveillance of the Camry was maintained via an FBI aircraft. Surveillance observed one of the subjects throw a bag out of the window of the Camry in the vicinity of 43rd Avenue and Grand Avenue in Phoenix. This bag was eventually recovered by an FBI surveillance team and contained the six packages that had been removed from the Hyundai Tucson by FRAZIER, including the package containing the actual cocaine. Surveillance continued to follow the Camry and observed it pull into a garage of a residence located at on East Anderson Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona. FBI SWAT then surrounded the residence and called out all of the occupants, including FRAZIER, DEATHERAGE, and FOSTER who were placed under arrest. The fourth occupant was Frazier’s girlfriend, who was renting the property. Signed written consent to search the property was acquired from the Frazier’s girlfriend and during a subsequent search of the residence, and numerous rifles, assault rifles, and handguns were seized as evidence.

What good story doesn’t have a chase scene? However, it appears that Frazier, et al, failed to scope out the area, for surely they would have found the FBI SWAT vehicles, and the all of the other law enforcement personnel.

In the final scene of what now begins to look like a comedy, we have Frazier waiving Miranda (damned dumb), and telling all — on his buddies. Heck, don’t make them work to get a conviction, just hand it over to them.

Oh, yes, that final scene:

FRAZIER was interviewed after his arrest at the FBI building in Phoenix and the interview was recorded on video and audio. After waiving his Miranda rights, FRAZIER admitted to conducting the drug rip at the warehouse with DEATHERAGE and FOSTER and stated they intended to sell the stolen cocaine to the UCE later that day for a total and splitting the money evenly between the three of them. FRAZIER admitted that during the rip, he was carrying a pistol and had his assault rifle stored in the getaway vehicle. FRAZIER also stated that during the rip DEATHERAGE and FOSTER also had assault rifles and pistols in their possession and that these firearms were among those seized from the East Anderson residence. FRAZIER also admitted that near an intersection with Grand Avenue, while fleeing from the FBI SWAT units, they threw a bag out of the passenger side of the Camry and that this bag contained the stolen drugs.

When we look at the players and their very subjective purpose, for personal gain, we have to wonder whether they can be truly called patriots. A patriot is looking to serve his country, not himself. When the proceeds of their activities go into personal pleasures, rather than improving their mission capabilities, they have removed themselves from the cause and demonstrated that they are simply using the claim of patriotism for their own purposes.

There are lessons to be learned with this story, but most importantly, don’t trust anyone until you have done a thorough job of vetting them, including following someone claiming to be a “source” to see where he goes from the meeting, and then to where he goes to spend the night. That extra effort may save you twenty years of your life.

Terrorism? or, An Act of War?

The Oklahoma City Bombing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This leaves us, then, with the question:

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