Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 24, 2014

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

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

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

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

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

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

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

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

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

Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, I like this next part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

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

Camp Lone Star – The Search Warrant or Fishing License?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 10, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 27, 2014

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

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

Federal Authority and limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Federal)

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

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Possession Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, where do we go, next?

Collision of Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Held:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

Can Muslims fit into our society?
Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 7, 2014

 The question is rather simple, though the answer may be a bit more complex. However, with the current situation, both here and in Europe, an answer must be sought. If not, we have no means of understanding the severity of the problem, nor can we formulate a solution to the problem.

My observation has been that the “Moderate Muslims” allege that they do not support the “Radical Muslims”. Perhaps not overtly, however, if you listen, they never really create any distance. On the other hand, the “Radical Muslims” are killing some “Moderate Muslims”, but, then, there is justification to what they do, and we will discuss that, shortly.

What we don’t see is the Moderates endeavoring to impose sanctions, or even criticize, the Radicals. The extent of their interposition in the discussion is to claim that all Muslims should not be looked upon as Radical, while vociferously defending their “peaceful” position in the matter. They don’t want to be involved in a solution, and suggest that we have no right to judge them — we can only go after those who have proven to be Radical. They have distanced themselves and desire that we deal with the problem, even though the problem is with their religion. And, our government willingly defends that position, making us “own” the Muslim problem, though distancing themselves from any solution, except the government solution of violence in the Middle-East. They won’t even consider profiling Muslims as potential threats in this country.

As I understand Islam, there are a number of sects, as there are in Christianity. The largest sect appears to be the Sunni Muslims, so if we want a model to evaluate, the Sunni is the most logical subject.

In May 2013, there was a conference held by Sunni Muslims in Scandinavia. One of the subjects was Islamophobia, and that is exactly where we want to go. Below, you will find a link to the excerpted portion of a talk by one of the speakers, Fahah Ullah Quereshi. To make clear the point that is to be made, we have transcribed that portion of Quereshis’ talk that is pertinent, and demonstrative of the point that is to be made.

Note: The entire YouTube video of “It’s Not the “Radical Shaykh” it’s Islam” (6:39), by Fahah Ullah Quereshi
The transcribed portion (3:22) (Emphasis in red text is pertinent parts)

[begin transcription]

Quereshi: Can we have the camera focusing on all the audience there? Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they always come with the same accusations – “This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports death penalty for this crime or that crime, or that he is homophobic, they subjugate women,” etc. etc. etc. It’s the same old stuff coming all the time, and I always try to tell them that, “Look, it’s not that speaker in that writing who has these extreme radical views, as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has, every Muslim believes in these things, just because they are not telling you about it, just because they are not out in the media does not mean they don’t believe in them.”

So I will ask you, everyone in the room, how many of you are normal Muslims, you are not extremists, you are not radical, you are just normal Sunni Muslims, please raise your hands?

[most of the room raises their hands]

Everybody, masha’Allah, Subhan Allah. Ok, take down your hands again. How many of you agree that men and women should sit separate? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Everyone agree, brothers & sister, subhan Allah. It’s not just this “radical shaykh” then, Allahu Akbar. Next question – how many of you agree that the punishments described in the Quaran and the Sunnah, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it is, if it is from Allah and His Messenger, that is the best punishment possible for humankind and that is what we should apply in the world? Who agrees with that?

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row & a different man in the fifth row, raises their hands]  

Allahu Akbar! Are you all radical extremists? Subhan Allah. So, all of you are saying you are common Muslims, you all go to the different mosques. Are you a specific sect? Please raise your hand if you belong to an extreme sect.

[no one raises their hand]

No one, allahu akbar. How many of you just go to the mosques just to a normal Sunni mosque? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Allahu akbar! So, what is the politicians going to say now? What is the media going to say now? That we are all extremists? We’re all radicals? We need to deport all of us from this country? Subhan allah. Allahu akbar! Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: May we have the next question, please?

[end transcription]

Though he only gets specific concerning women sitting apart from men, in his next question, he incorporates the penalties imposed by the “Quaran”; death, stoning, etc. So, though he only mentioned the one crime and referred to adultery, he is completely inclusive of all crimes listed in the “Quaran” and the “Sunnah”. That would include the loss of a limb for theft, beheading for other crimes, anything that is written would have the appropriate penalty — regardless of the law of any country in which those crimes might occur, and where the penalty is dispensed.

Now, back to the original question, Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”? Well, he provides the answer in the very next question, when he asks if anyone present belongs to an extremist sect. No hands are raised, so none of the attendees — those who agree with the punishments provided for by Islam — is a member of an “extremist sect”. Yet they have agreed that they hold to values that are extreme in our country and culture.

What we can easily conclude form the above is that though they do not consider themselves to be “extreme”, there can be little doubt that when they bring their ideology to our country, our legal system, and our culture, they are nothing but “extreme”.

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 30, 2014

The charge against Robert Beecher is not based upon the malicious allegations made by FBI Special Agent Stanley H. Slater that Robert Beecher was involved in an operation, known as “Operation Mutual Aid”, to kidnap and torture a DHS agent. In fact, it seems that the threat implied by Agent Slater has, well, just disappeared. The only charge is “Felon in Possession of a Firearm”.

Now, before I proceed with discussing the charge, I want to establish a bit of background on the government and their US Code. Harvey A. Silverglate is an attorney. His book “Three Felonies a Day” is instrumental in beginning to understand the nature of that beast (government), when it targets someone for persecution (resulting in prosecution). It is suggested reading for anyone interested in the complexities, and chicanery of the federal legal system.

The Forward, by Alan M. Dershowitz, to Sliverglate’s book begins,

The very possibility that citizens who believe they are law-abiding may, in the eyes of federal prosecutors, be committing three federal felonies each day… But when the executive branch, through its politically appointed prosecutors, has the power to criminalize ordinary conduct through accordion-like criminal statutes, the system of checks and balances breaks down.” He continues, “These prosecutors threaten to indict underlings for conduct that is even further away from the core of criminality unless they cooperate against the real targets. Because federal criminal law carries outrageously high sentences — often with mandatory minimums — these prosecutorial threats are anything but illusory. They turn friends into enemies, family members into government witnesses and employees into stool pigeons. Silverglate believes that we are in danger of becoming a society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners because the threat of high sentences makes it too costly for even innocent people to resist the prosecutorial pressure. That is why nearly all criminal defendants today plead guilty to “reduced” charges rather than risk a trial with draconian sentences in the event of a conviction.

On to Silverglate’s Introduction, where we find reference to a 1952 Supreme Court decision, Morissette v. United States, [342 U.S. 246, 250-251]. This is interesting because it states that there must be intent to be a criminal act, to wit:

The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil. A relation between some mental element and punishment for a harmful act is almost as instinctive as the child’s familiar exculpatory “But I didn’t mean to,” and has afforded the rational basis for a tardy and unfinished substitution of deterrence and reformation in place of retaliation and vengeance as the motivation for public prosecution.

Finally, Silverglate refers to an anecdote told by Tim Wu in a 2007 article titled “American Lawbreaking,” published in the online magazine Slate:

At the federal prosecutor’s office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity — say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon. It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you’d see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like “false statements” (a felony, up to five years), “obstructing the mails” (five years), or “false pretenses on the high seas” (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The result, however, was inevitable: “prison time,” as one former prosecutor told me.

Hence the title, “Three Felonies a Day”.

The only charge against Robert, now, is a violation of 18 USC §922(g)(1) (the full text of §922(g) can be found at 18 USC 922). The pertinent part is as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

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

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

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

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

It is unlawful “to ship or transport in interstate… commerce“. Now, this next phrase is rather interesting. “Possess” means “To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control“. So this must mean that you have in your control the firearm or you affect the commerce. The possession must be done while participating or affecting that commerce. Finally, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Well, that last one surely must be the direct recipient, the addressee – to “receive”, as opposed to “possess”. For if that were the case, it would read, “to possess any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Otherwise, there would be an inequitable application of the law. The construction, if mistaken, would mean that you could possess the firearm, if it were made in your state, though you could not take it with you, if you moved. It would also mean that if the ammunition were not made in your state, then you could have the firearm, but could never use it. So, the only logical construction would be that you could not be the direct recipient – could not receive a firearm or ammunition shipped from another state. Otherwise, only those who live in a state that has a plant that manufactures firearms could possess one, and could use it only if the requisite ammunition were also manufactured within that state. If that were the case, then the federal law would only apply to those people who happen to live in certain states, which would fly in the face of the concept of equal justice for all. Further, it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.”

Finally, we need to look at what was intended by the Framers, as the prepared they plan for the creation of the federal government in devising the Constitution (Federalist Papers #62 – James Madison).

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

The manipulation of the intent of a law to serve the purpose of persecution and an effort to convert decent people into informants, or, at least, force them into a submissive condition, thereby removing that spirit that made US America.

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

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

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Appeasement

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 23, 2014

Last October (29, 2013), I wrote an article on “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“. In that article, I addressed the appeasement, by the government, regarding both foreign and domestic matters.

At the time, it had not crossed my mind that we have a choice between “Liberty or Laws”, only that we had to try to change what was happening – though the methods of achieving that end varied, greatly. This current series, however, delves into the supposition that the country belongs to us, not the government. Not really a strange concept, as it was that very way of thinking that led to the Revolutionary War — that the country, in fact, belongs to the people of that country — that when government violates the trust, the people will either accept the condition, or the will take back that government. This concept is embodied in the Declaration of Independence:

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

What happens, then, when the people continue with a doctrine of appeasement with government? Can there be any justification for such doctrine, and, if so, at what point in the invariable course of government do we determine to do our duty — for the sake of our posterity?

So, perhaps we should look at just how we are appeasing the government:

• The Constitution provides that only Congress can declare war (Art. I, §8, cl. 11), though we have allowed both the President and Congress to engage in war, without a requisite declaration. Over time, it has become the “prerogative” of the President to engage in war, absent an objection by the Congress.       The provision in the Constitution was so placed so that the power and expense of war would not lie in the hands of one man.

• The Constitution provides that only Congress call forth the militia to repel invasion (Art. I, §8, cl. 15), though Congress has failed to do so repel the invasion, in violation of existing laws regarding immigration, which can be described as no less than an invasion. If Congress called them forth, the President would be Commander in Chief but the obligation to utilize them to repel invasion could not be detracted.

• The Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to become a benefactor, taking money from those that justly earn it to give to those unwilling to earn their own livelihood. This has historically been an act of private people and organizations, and to some degree, within the local community (Not Yours To Give). It was never mandatory, until the government decided to buy the favor (chicken in every pot) of a class of people.

• The supporters of the Constitution, in addressing at least five of the state ratifying conventions, explained that “direct taxes” would only be imposed in an emergency (to pay for war, or other extraordinary events – See “Ratification” by Pauline Maier). Instead, we pay a minimum of 1/5th of our earnings directly to government. This does not include the taxes paid prior to purchase of an item by every person involved in the production of the item — compounding the true tax paid.       “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance” (Declaration of Independence).

• The First Amendment mandates that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion“.       This means that they cannot set one church above others (and, to Framers, Christianity was the acceptable religion, the various denominations being the object of the Amendment). However, by administratively creating and forcing churches into 501(c)(3) status, then limiting what they could include within their sermons (except Muslim churches), they have “established” a religion that has no moral values, and allowed another to espouse values foreign to our nature, without consequence.

• The Constitution makes no provision for the control of education of the children of the People. Public Education belonged, for over 180 years, to the public, not the government.       The Department of Education was created in 1867, under Reconstruction), though abandoned after a year of existence. Its purpose, at the time, was to “educated” southern children to Northern values. It was reconstituted in 1953 as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and has become a source of absolute and arbitrary control over the education process throughout the country, in a form of indoctrination which exceeds anything ever imagined by Adolph Hitler, as a tool of government propaganda, to the point that basic skills have nearly been removed from the curriculum and social engineering programs have replaced them as the focus of the educational system.

• With the recent militarization of police, and the ongoing efforts to restrict and outlaw gun ownership, we find that we are fast approaching absolute subjugation to government authority. We are far worse off than our English ancestors in the mid-seventeen-hundreds, when in Parliament, William Pitt said:

“The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all of the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement“

And, we find that concerns that are recorded in our document of Independence from despotic government included within its concerns:

“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us…          For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states” (Declaration of Independence).

For the sake of brevity, I will leave you to add your additional concerns regarding the intentions of government.

The question arises, do we stand for our Liberties, or, do we abide by fabricated laws? To continue on the path we walk renders us as guilty of appeasement as was Chamberlin prior to World War II, and our own government is today, as addressed in “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“.

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

Appease
v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Treason Against the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 24, 2014

Discussions regarding Treason are a common subject in the patriot community. Most often, if not always, they refer to the provision in the Constitution that defines Treason against the United States, specifically, Article III, §3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

This requires a specific act, not a general presumption. It also requires either “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Now, there has not been any “levying War” against them since World War II. Nor, surprisingly, have we (The United States) had any “Enemies” since then.

The matter of enemies came up in a Supreme Court decision (Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1) in that era when German soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes, came ashore and plotted to destroy infrastructure. In the Court establishing jurisdiction, they made clear that Congress had, in fact, declared war against Germany. This made Quirin and the other defendants “Enemies”. However, these elements only apply to the federal government, as the Constitution is the document that created that body. Treason then, according to the Constitution, only applies to enemies of the government created thereby.

However, as in the previous articles dealing with repelling invasion (Militia in Defense of the State) and militia (Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor), we must look in a different direction than just the federal Constitution.

In October 1776, Connecticut passed “An Act for the Punishment of High Treason and other atrocious Crimes against the State. It read, in part,

“That if any person or persons belonging to or residing within this state and under the protection of its laws, shall levy war against the state or government thereof, or knowingly and willingly shall aid or assist any enemies at open war against this state or the United States of America by joining their armies or by enlisting or procuring or persuading others to enlist for that purpose or shall form or be in any way concerned in forming any combination, plot, or conspiracy for betraying this state or the United States into the hands or power of any foreign enemy, or shall give or attempt to give or send any intelligence to the enemies of this state for that purpose, upon being convicted shall suffer death.”

Even though the Constitution was over a decade into the future, the separation/distinction between Connecticut state government and the national government was clearly expressed. One could commit Treason against Connecticut and not commit Treason against the United States, and vice-versa. Is it also possible that “the United States of America” could commit Treason against Connecticut, or vice-versa? After all, this enactment was to make criminal the support of the British government that had just been ousted.

The defining aspects of Treason, under this act, are far more extensive than those in the Constitution, and the requirement for two witnesses to the act, or “Confession”, are not imposed upon the need for conviction.

Had the United States of America, after that enactment favored the British, then Connecticut was totally within her authority to levy charges anyone from the United States of America with Treason. So, we have the same layering of jurisdiction on Treason that we have for the militia and repelling invasion. Since Connecticut was, in a sense, a lesser player (subordinate to the Continental Congress), and still had the authority to charge those above with Treason, if they committed the acts described, then we must also assume that the authority for such has come from the people of Connecticut, as they created the government of their choosing.

Of course, the consequence of charges of Treason against employees or agents of the federal government is grounds for potential armed conflict, unless handled politically, it is, surely, a possibility, should the federal government be determined to be aiding an enemy of a State. The State, however, does not have the requirement for Declaration of War by the Congress as a part of its limitations. Its perception of “enemy” does not fall within the constraints and limitations imposed upon the federal government. Nor, should the people of a state be required to abide by those constraints to determine whether someone is guilty of Treason. Our effort is not to arrest and try them. It is to understand the perspective of those who have seen so many violations of not only the federal Constitution, but the constitution of their own state.

For a more thorough understanding of the relationship between the people of any government, especially one such as ours, of the people, both state and federal, I would suggest an article on the subject, Sons of Liberty #14.

The final determination as to whether we have Liberty or are subject to laws foreign to our constitutions, resides wholly in our determination whether the governments are abiding by the documents that created them, or not.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Celebration of Independence Day – 2014

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, 2014, and in the Year of our Independence, Two-hundred and Thirty-nine

It seems that time, especially the last 150 years, has eroded away the Independence gained by the Founders, at the cost of their lives and fortunes, though their Honor is still preserved, for the time being.

Our traditions have been trampled into the dust of history (except the hot dogs and fireworks – though the latter is slowly becoming illegal).

An example is that of dating documents. If you go to your county courthouse and look at the public records and deeds from the early Nineteenth Century, you will see something like:

This 4th day of July, in the Year of Our Lord, Two-Thousand and Fourteen, and of our Independence, Two-hundred and Thirty-nine.

Yes, today starts the 239th year of what was gained, then, and is slowly dying.

We have lost the reverence we had for the moral foundation of this country, through subjugation of the churches to the dictates of an administrative agency known as the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). In those formative years, church pulpits were inspirational in discussing the rights of the people, and the necessity of opposing the creeping despotism from across the ocean. Now, they have become pulpits of political correctness — in order to retain their tax-exempt status.

Similarly, our educational system, I won’t say Public Schools, since they have been stealthily subverted into propagandized reeducation camps for our children, so I call them what they are, government schools. Their purpose is to propagate a belief in a government system whereby the words and ideals of the Founders have been distorted and in most cases, omitted, from the “knowledge” being taught to those who will soon hold in their hands the reins of the of this country.

As an old house, whose foundation is beginning to crumble, if not repaired, the house will soon follow. With proper maintenance of the foundation, and continual (education) repair to the house, itself, that house may continue to serve the posterity of those who first built it, for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years, becoming, once again, a beacon unto the world.

I am reluctant to say, “Happy Independence Day”, as there is nothing happy about the threatened failure of both foundation and house, though I do hold in my heart a celebration that the work to be done is, already, in progress.

Merry Christmas 2013
Duck Dynasty as a wonderful moral Christmas present

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
Christmas Eve, 2013

Just a week before Christmas, the Spirit of the Christian Faith has arisen to a degree unseen for decades.  It began when a reality program personality, in an interview, made observations about his faith and the Bible, principally directed at queers – those who have aberrational lifestyles.

In just a few days, the forces of the oppressed people of Christian Faith, or simply, Christian moral values, have come together by the millions to denounce those who would use social, political, or economic pressure to suppress what has been foundational to this country, and land, for nearly four centuries.

Under the guise of political correctness, “tolerance”, and verbicide (the changing of the meaning of a word to effect a social or legal change), our country has been chicaned (past tense of chicanery) into a submissive state, in terms of moral values.

Let’s look at how verbicide works (See Freedom of Speech).  We take a perfectly innocuous word, having a meaning that is readily accepted and has a positive connotation, such as:

Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary (1978)
gay:  1.) happily excited; MERRY, 2 a.)  BRIGHT, LIVELY, b.)  brilliant in color, 3.)  given to social pleasures; also, LICENTIOUS

Now, that third definition may border on immorality, though it is the least significant, and most often referred to the “gay blades” of the aristocracy.

Merriam-Webster on line (2013)
gay:  1 a.)  happily excited: merry <in a gay mood>, b.) keenly alive and exuberant: having or inducing high spirits <a bird’s gay spring song>, 2 a.)  bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>, b.)  brilliant in color , 3.)  given to social pleasures; also : licentious, 4 a.)  homosexual <gay men>, b.)  of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

In just over thirty years, we have a fourth definition, that, though in fourth place in Merriam-Webster, has become, in common usage, the only remaining definition of the word, as any other definition would tend to assign an improper connotation to the use of the word.

An example would be, say, the old “Donna Reed Show” (1958-1966), where, on occasion, the Stones would be invited to a “gay party” (actual expression in a number of the series episodes).  Of course, it was not a party of queers, rather, it was a party where the atmosphere would be jovial, and there would be humor in the telling of clean jokes.

However, if one were to say that they were going to a “gay party”, today, some would be excited, however most, being those of Christian moral values, would look askance at the person who made such claim.

What has happened is that a change in definition has had the affect of changing the moral and social acceptance of a lifestyle that might best be left in “the closet”.

Once the structure — the verbicide — has come into play, the next step is a demand for tolerance (how can you demand tolerance, isn’t that, in itself, intolerance?).

This call for tolerance came out because of the interview, mentioned above, when GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) responded to what Phil Robertson said, when explaining his religious beliefs.  He explained that there is a logical fit between certain parts of the human anatomy, and there is a “not logical” fit.  He then paraphrases Corinthians, in the Bible, when he lumps “the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers” into one lot, those that will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

GLAAD spokesperson, Wilson Cruz, condemned his Robertson’s words, saying that “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.”  I do find it interesting when a spokesman for queers asserts his understanding of the Bible and its moral values, contrary to the wording in that Bible.

But, wait, GLAAD admits, by their organization’s name, that they are “Against Defamation”.  So, they, then, defame Robertson for paraphrasing an ancient source of moral values, when they, GLAAD, have probably never taken the time to read, let alone understand, that book that was fundamental to the origination of our country and moral laws.

Instead, he reverts to a one-sided attempt at “tolerance” (the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with), which in his statement, is demonstrative of intolerance.  Cruz continues, “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”  Interesting that the presumption of what the majority believes is coming from one that is desperately seeking acceptance, and presumes to speak for those who have, as a result of both verbicide and “tolerance”, simply remained silent (tolerant) for the sake of “political correctness”.

Perhaps, however, the greatest gift that Providence has given to mankind, in recent times, is this demonstration of the deviation from holding moral principles and values, and the necessity to begin to stand, once again, for those values that are at the very heart of this great nation.

Like fireworks bursting forth, to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Christ, the rebirth of moral values, and against political correctness, is now bursting forth in a brilliance, and with a magnitude, that will propel us forward an return us to the moral nation that was once, and will be again, the greatest nation on this earth.

With that in mind, let me wish to all,

A Merry Christmas

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

What is Habeas Corpus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demand for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Habeas Corpus Suspended?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who can Suspend Habeas Corpus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Petition for Rehearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Supreme Court Docket 13-5008

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

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

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

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

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

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

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

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

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

Habeas Corpus Removed from the Constitution

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