Shortly after I posted Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland, K. C. Massey provided me with his analysis of the Response by the government to his motions for suppressing evidence and dismissal. I have made minor edits for clarification. Otherwise, these are Massey’s own evaluation of the Response.

In all fairness, if anybody from the government side wants to rebut, or refute, either Massey’s or my post, I will be happy to accommodate them.

Massey says:

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

BP agent, Marcos Gonzales, was pursuing a group of illegal aliens when he encountered an armed Foerster in heavy brush. BP agent Gonzales perceived Foerster as an armed and immediate threat when Forester pointed the weapon he was carrying at Gonzales who was emerging from the brush. Gonzales fired four or five shots which did not strike Foerster. Foerster was armed with 7.62X39mm pistol which contained a vertical fore grip and was slung around his neck. The shots were fired at approximately 3:45 P.M.

This is UNTRUE. We had been to only 3 crossing sites when we encountered the dismounted BP approximating the time to be no later than 3:00p approx 15 minutes into the assistance of the BP the shots rang out. Making the shooting closer to 3:15. The firearms audit investigation did not determine whether it was 4 or 5 shots. The original reports as issued by Border Patrol information officer Zamora to the press August 29th NEVER stated Foerster “Pointed” his weapon at the Agent, only he turned with it in his hands. How do you “Sling” a pistol around your neck? What is the point of mentioning what Foerster did or possessed have to do with me who was not at the scene? I also posted my account of the incident at https://www.facebook.com/kevin.kc.massey/posts/839070526105377 on Aug 30, 2014. That is my recount of the story, written just after it happened.

Senior Border Patrol agent Danny Cantu was nearby, heard the shots and secured the scene for investigation by Federal and/or State law enforcement. Cantu was not certain if the shooting was on State or Federal land and contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Cameron County Sheriff’s Office. Cantu requested Foerster to accompany him away from the river bank to an open area, “staging area”, approximately 100 yard away.

The staging area was over 200 yards away, and we were asked to move there due to illegals still in the area moving toward our position. He commanded myself and Varner to go to the staging area. Foerster rode on the mule to the interview site with us! We were told since it was private property the Sheriff had to be notified to investigate. Cantu KNEW we were on private property, they called the Game Warden to determine if we had trespassed on federal land prior to the shooting is what the Game Warden stated to me, which he was able to confirm we had not. They said the federal Agents had to investigate since it was a shooting by a federal agent. The picture, below, has the approximate locations of the shooting and interview area, on the right side.

Foerster was angry and wanted to fight BP agent Gonzales. Defendant, Massey, wanted to leave the area.

Foerster was angry because he was just shot AT by a BP Agent after we had been asked to assist the dismounted BP agent and the shooting was unprovoked. I NEVER asked to leave the area, that was the decision of Cantu!!! He said since there were still illegals in the area we needed to move locations. We stated we did not want to “press charges” for the shooting by BP, but BP said they had to conduct an investigation since a federal agent had discharged his firearm.

Cantu told Massey all members of his group must remain until shooting was investigated. Cantu requested that all members of Rusty’s Rangers disarm while the investigation was conducted.

This is another LIE Cantu NEVER requested we “disarm” We voluntarily decided to leave weapons on the mule after we moved to the staging area.

Massey turned over a handgun and rifle which was secured in a Border Patrol vehicle during the investigation. Foerster relinquished the pistol he was carrying and the third member of Rusty’s Rangers relinquished a pistol and a rifle. The weapons were all secured in a Border Patrol vehicle.

Cantu TOOK Foerster’s gun after Gonzalez shot at him which Foerster had laid on the ground. My and Varner’s weapons were left on the mule. It was articulated to us “For officer safety” and due to “Illegals in the area” BP wanted to remove our weapons from the mule along with my GoPro Camera and other personal equipment and “secure” them in the BP vehicle for our “safety”.

During the investigation criminal histories were requested that indicated that Massey and Forester had felony convictions. The pistol carried by Forester was believed to be a prohibited weapon due to the addition of the fore grip. CCSO officials decided to keep possession of the weapons pending further investigation.

The sheriff’s office DID NOT articulate any cause or reason for taking and keeping our arms, even after protest by myself and Varner. We were never given a receipt for the Arms or other equipment they took from the mule. The sheriff took possession of the Arms only 15 minutes or so before we were released from detention.

Massey and Forester were allowed to leave the scene and all officials departed by 7:00 PM.

Again another LIE, we were released from detention at approx 8:15 pm. We were detain nearly 5 hours and were not free to go.

Massey was not provided Miranda warnings during the investigation. Massey was never handcuffed and cooperated in surrendering his weapons and providing statements.

Only after BP and FBI, and HSI and CC Sheriff insisted we make statements even after we stated we (Varner and myself) were NOT witnesses to the shooting and had NO pertinent information. We gave statements under protest. We did not “surrender” the Arms, they insisted for officer safety that they be secured in the BP vehicle.

It was reasonable for BPA Cantu to disarm Massey and tell him he could not leave the area where the shooting occurred. Police are allowed to stop and briefly detain persons for…

“Briefly” is defined as 5 hours?

investigative purposes if the police have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot.

We were never informed. “We”, Foerster, Varner or myself, were not under any investigation for ANY crimes. The only criminal activity was the unprovoked shooting at a civilian, that were there at the request and in assistance of the BP.

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

The property was under our control by permission of the conservator for patrol and illegal immigrant deterrence and for cleaning, marking and clearing of illegal crossings. We had permission for 24 hour access to the property in which we routinely camped out on the border.

The CCSO was informed by Border Patrol agents about the shooting and the seizure of weapons. CCSO deputies made the decision to maintain custody of the weapons after it was revealed that Massey had provided Forester a weapon and that Massey and Forester both had criminal histories that included felony convictions.

We were told the weapons were being held for investigation pertaining to the BP shooting, not for any criminal causes relating to us. They confiscated Varner’s weapons and did not return his although he was NOT a felon. The above statement says the weapons were seized, yet earlier statement says they were voluntarily surrendered. Which is it? They had the Arms in the BP vehicle PRIOR to knowing any prior history of Foerster or me.

Statements obtained from Massey were not the product of custodial interrogation. Massey was never handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle or moved away from the staging area.

I was held under protest due to investigation of BP Gonzales illegal discharge of his firearm at Foerster for approx 5 hours. I was in custodial arrest/detention, I was not free to go despite several requests to leave due to my NON involvement and lack of knowledge in the shooting incident and me NOT witnessing anything since I was in a covered position on the river bank at the time of the shooting. Varner and I were over 75 yards away from the shooting through a lot of heavy brush.

Massey was interviewed by an FBI agent for approximately 35-40 minutes. Massy was not arrested and was allowed to leave the area as soon as questioning concluded.

I was questioned by Border Patrol, FBI and Homeland Security and the Sheriff’s office. Questioning lasted approx 30 minutes by each agency. We were not free to go until over an hour after the last “Interview” after approx 5 hours of forced detention.

The questioning took place on the side of a dirt road. Massey was cooperative during questioning and agreed to answer most of the questions asked of him. Massey did not want to provide his social security number and the FBI agent agreed he did not have to provide the number.

Massy and the FBI agent were cordial to one another with Massy indicating he appreciated the need to ask questions because he knew law enforcement officers.

What is the point of the above statement? Notice the misspellings? Why the reference to my social number? If they read the investigation report enough to see I didn’t give up my social security number, what couldn’t they determine the other facts of the case like the firearms audit of the BP agent to determine how many shots were fired?

Massey was not the focal point of the investigation;

Previously they said I was the focal point of an investigation of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Texas law. Why were the federal agents detaining me for a possible state law violation?

agents were primarily concerned with circumstances surrounding the shooting between Forester and BPA Gonzales. Custody for Miranda purposes requires a greater restraint on freedom than seizure under the fourth amendment. United States v. Cavazos, 668 F.3d 190,193 (5th Cir. 2012). “A suspect is … ‘in custody’ for Miranda purposes when placed under formal arrest or when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest. United States v. Begivanga, 845 F.2d 593, 596 (5th Cir. 1988).

Again notice the inconsistency of their statement “agents were primarily concerned with Foerster” Yet they took the arms from myself and Varner who were not involved in the shooting in any way, as defined by Blacks Law 8th – Physical Custody; Custody of a person whose freedom is directly controlled or limited. Detention; The act or fact of holding a person in custody; Confinement or compulsory delay. Investigative detention; the holding of a suspect without a formal arrest during the investigation of the suspects participation in a crime. Detention of this kind is constitutional only if probable cause exists. Arrest; 2.The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority. The term “formal arrest” is not defined.

In the instant case Massey was told, By BPA Cantu, to remain in the staging area while the shooting was investigated. Massey was allowed to leave after he was questioned. Massey was never in custody.

I was held against my will and under protest for approx 5 hours. I was not “allowed to leave after questioning” for almost an hour after the last of 4 interviews. I was in custody under arrest although not under restraints. I asked if we were free to go several times, prior to and after each interview. I was held in a “custodial arrest” and I was not free to leave. I was in custody (physical custody) as defined by Blacks Law.

Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 21, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Escapes – And My Journey to Freedom, by Du Hua
A review of a book that every Vietnam Veteran should read

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 11, 2014

Du Hua was just 7 years old when I left Vietnam. I never met him until, recently when I read his book and then spoke with him on the phone.

It was about 10:00 AM, September 19, 1967, when I boarded a commercial flight from Bien Hoa Air Base, Bien Hoa, Republic of South Vietnam. After a 15-hour flight, we landed at Travis Air Force Base, California, at about 10:00 AM, September 19, 1967. Because of the International Date Line, my flight, by local times, was a matter of minutes.

Not so for Du Hua. It was the spring of 1980 when he made his first attempt to escape the communist regime that we had left as our political legacy in Vietnam. Things did not work out so well for him, as the pre-arranged escape did not work out as planned. For various reasons, the next nine attempts also failed to result in his escape from Vietnam. Finally, on his eleventh attempt, and a harrowing ordeal at sea, he succeeded, along with the other passengers in the frail boat in which they had escaped. The Cap Anamur, a German ship, purposed to rescue the Vietnamese Boat People that had survived their ordeal by sea, picked them up. This was in June 1981, over a year after his first attempt to escape. Very different from that casual flight I had taken just 14 years earlier.

He and his companions were then taken to the Philippines. After months of effort, he received permission to go to the United States and join his brother, a Vietnamese Soldier who had escaped years before, after having been seriously wounded in combat.

Du went on to join the United States Navy, serving proudly until receiving a lifetime service related injury while serving with VFA-86.

Having lost his naval career to the injury, he worked his way through college, eventually becoming a registered pharmacist (this requires almost as much education as a doctor).

Du has achieved what he sought when he left Vietnam, 34 years ago. He has found his Freedom and his American Dream.

However, for Vietnam Veterans, treated so contemptuously upon our return from Vietnam, there is a far greater message in this story of Du’s escape and subsequent life. He is very active, today, speaking to children in classrooms and to other groups, of his experience and paying tribute to Vietnam, and other veterans who have served their country. He also speaks of his appreciation for the United States and the ideal of freedom, and what it meant to so many who, like Du, risked their lives to leave communist Vietnam and seek the freedom that they had heard so much of from those of us who had served with honor and imparted images of what life in the United States was all about.

Except for my family, other Vietnam Veterans, and their families, there has not been a “Welcome Home” that had any meaning — simply platitudes in keeping with Political Correctness.

This always left me with the feeling that since our own government did not have the same honor as the soldiers who fought in Vietnam, there was no purpose, any good, served by those who fought, and especially those who died, in what we believed at the time to be our duty.

As I read Du’s story, I began to realize that though we abandoned the Vietnamese when we left, we left a legacy that endured, and became that shining light that the Statute of Liberty once stood for — a Beacon to the World. Our efforts were not in vain, regardless of the failure of our government. For the first time in my life, I feel that my efforts have served far more than I had ever imagined.

This book has shed a completely new light to that service. It has served as redemption of what had been couched in guilt for the past 48 years. For the first time I can say not only that I was proud to have served, but also realize that that service has done far more for our country, and the world, than I ever imagined.

Vietnam Veterans can receive a copy of the book by contacting Du Hua via email at theescapes81@gmail.com

Others wishing to read Du’s story can purchase the book at:

http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000569324/The-Escapes-and-My-Journey-to-Freedom.aspx

or

http://www.amazon.com/The-Escapes-My-Journey-Freedom/dp/1477210628

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 24, 2014

Arrest of Jesus

As a follow up regarding the possible role of John Foerster (Jesus) in the arrest of K. C. Massey, it appears that he was arrested on Tuesday, October 21; the day after Massey was arrested. In my previous article, I mentioned some circumstances surrounding Foerster that raised questions about his possible role in assisting the government in the arrest of K. C. Massey. There were other pieces to that puzzle that weren’t quite strong enough for me to be willing to put them in writing (except my notes), but the arrest of Foerster has other factors that bring this into question.

As mention in the previous article (Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey), Foerster appeared at the motel room the night of the conference call, on October 19. Massey was arrested the next day, the 20th. Foerster claimed that he had tried to call Archie Seal to find out what happened, though Archie’s phone shows no record of any calls, missed or received, from Foerster. What I didn’t include in that article were the results of some investigative work conducted on the evening of the 20th.

One of the people I work with, let’s call this person “Joe”, called Foerster using a spoofed phone line. A member of Camp Lone Star and I were also on the line. Foerster seemed extremely troubled and nervous, during the call. “Joe” purported to have met Foerster at Camp Lone Star and feigned interest in doing what had to be done to keep “them” from going to prison. “Joe” used this ruse to imply status a federal informant. Foerster appeared to acknowledge meeting, and tried to get the real name of the “Joe”, though that request was diverted and never answered. He made no outright confession. The nervousness he displayed never abated.

About 30 or 45 minutes later, “Joe” made another call to Foerster, using the same setup. This time, Foerster was relaxed and casual, and agreed to a subsequent meeting of the two in order to discuss what they had to do to stay out of prison. Again, Foerster was unsuccessful in obtaining “Joe’s” real name, or any other substantive information, despite his attempts to do so.

Following that second phone call, we three remaining participants continued the discussion, speculating on his behavior, things that were said, etc., which appeared to support the theory that he was “bad actor”, and probably involved in the arrest of Massey. There was insufficient evidence to support inclusion of that information in the previous article. However, his change of character led us to believe that he had possibly called his handler and was given instructions to obtain what information he could, and otherwise play along. Apparently, he was trying to determine who was on the other end of the line and what they knew.

Now, if the government perceived risk to their “star witness”, they could not do without him. They would do what was necessary to assure his availability, when they needed him. Obviously, he had lost any ability to access additional information from Camp Lone Star, and any of its members — his usefulness, except as a witness, was destroyed.

Does this explain why he was arrested the next day? Was it to keep him safe, since it appeared to them that he had been compromised? All this even before that first article was even published.

We have obtained the “Criminal Complaint“, which includes both Massey and Foerster. However, there are some interesting aspects to the Complaint:

• The “properties” in the document obtained show that the document was created on 10/20 at 12:43, then modified on 10/22 at 11:40 (the day after Foerster was arrested).
• On page 4, of the document, the numbered items are hand-written. Foerster’s felony is first acknowledged on that page, not before.
• The “File” stamp show October 20, but it is just a rubber stamp, and the Case identification at the top is easily changed to show any date they choose.
• Since it was created on October 20, why would it be modified on the 22nd? Note: you can replace all of the pages in a PDF, but the created date will be retained.
• The stamp at the top of the page shows that the record is “Sealed”, so why is it made available, at this time?
• The Federal Judge or Magistrate is authorized, by law (Rules of Court), to make “corrections” in judicial records, as he sees fit.

Now, this is still speculative, at best, though it is being presented so that you can decide — and learn just how the government works. However, now you have the information, and you can decide what you believe to be true.

Operation Mutual Aid

There are similarities between what happened, last May, to Robert Beecher and what happened earlier this week to K. C. Massey. There is another similarity that begs our consideration. That is the now “underground” organization known as Operation Mutual Aid (OMA).

The article, “No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher, explains the government linking Beecher to OMA. Though they were way off base as to the real relationship, they saw a tie, and they pursued it. This would mean that if you were a participant or member of OMA, are a convicted felon, and have pictures out that show you in possession of a firearm, you might be targeted before others who may just be a convicted felon in possession.

1. C. Massey was a registered member of OMA. Though he did not go to Bunkerville, Nevada, this past April, he was serious in his commitment to the “OMA Mission Statement“, as well as his own efforts to stem the flow of illegal immigrants at the Southern border.

After the events in Nevada, the press, some congress critters, and other officials, had suggested that there would be prosecutions. Ryan Payne and I discussed the possibilities and determined that the only charges that could be brought would be felony possession of a firearm. That would include both OMA members/supporters and others who responded to the call and were present at the Bundy Ranch. It appears that our judgment of this potential was correct.

Back in June 2013, OMA released a Policy Statement regarding a number of matters. It was also published as a “Public Notice”, explaining the purpose and intentions of the organization and its members. Interestingly, it included its members in a Mutual Aid Pact, which warrants our attention, and is fundamental to the ability of OMA to pursue a mission, succeed, and continue life — until the next mission. It reads, in part:

“…who you will be taking action against should you be told by your controllers to impede, apprehend or assault any volunteer of Operation Mutual Aid at any time, before, during or after an operation… If you apprehend any of us at any time, we will exhaust every one of our considerable resources to free that individual with all vigilance.”

With this in mind, perhaps we can understand why the government has put OMA members/supporters on their “hit list”, and what those OMA members/supporters must keep in mind, as we travel down the road of restoring this country to what the Founders intended.

Related articles:

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 21, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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”.

Liberty or Laws?
… jealously guard our Liberties

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 11, 2014

Who will fire the first shot? Who can fire the first shot? Contemplation of these questions causes me to recall a situation, many years ago, when I was first confronted with the thought of aiming, squeezing, and taking the life of another human being. It is not difficult to recall that memory, as it is one that will stay with me the rest of my life; that thought and that first time that I did aim, squeeze and fire.

The thought first occurred as we began the second leg of a flight from California to Hawaii, and then on to Tan Son Nhut Airbase, Saigon, Vietnam. Our short stop in Hawaii was about long enough to get a Scotch and Water, and then re-board. We snuck our drinks onto the charter commercial aircraft, took off, and headed southwest, into a combat zone.

Shortly after we settled in at flying altitude, I finished my drink and began thinking of the adventure that awaited me. Through training and my previous two years in the Army, I had relived the adventures of war, as presented by the prolific black & white movies of action during World War II. However, it struck me that I was not going into training; rather, I was going to put that training into action. I would surely find myself, at some point, faced with the necessity of aiming and squeezing. Would I be up to such a task, when that time came?

My religious beliefs never distinguished between murder and killing, so there was a moral dilemma, which, for the first time in my life, I had to seriously contemplate. Could I do what I had surely been called upon to do?

As I reflected upon the moral consequences, I realized that back there, behind me, throughout the country, there was a government, representing the people of the United States, which had, by issuing my orders into combat, taken the burden of the moral responsibility from of me. My job was to do for my country what it had asked me to do.

Months later, even though there had been some long range exchanges of rifle fire, and some mortar attacks on our base, I did find myself with a clear view of the enemy. I was in the back seat of a Bird Dog. We were flying low over a Viet Cong transfer point at the “Horseshoe” of the Mekong River. My M-14, being as long as it was, was tucked behind me. The pilot, however, handed me his M-16. As I raised the barrel, I could see the one that I had in my sights running, rapidly, for cover. We were flying at treetop, with nearly full flaps, and I was probably not more than 60 meters from him. His hat flew off as he ran, and I could see the expression on his face, which I judged to be fear. This didn’t distract me, as I fired off about ten rounds. One of them struck him in the leg. His partner, ahead, apparently responded to his call, turned and grabbed him and helped him into some bushes, in the attempt to cover their location. The pilot then turned back to the location where they had sought cover, and laid a 2.75″ HE (High Explosive) rocket into the bushes.

As we flew back to base, I thought about what had happened, and I knew that I was able to do what is probably the most difficult single obstacle in combat, taking a human life for the first time. That thought, however, was not passing. No, it remains with me, and will do so until I have become the dust that those two Viet Cong became, because of our action.

Many records available demonstrate the difficulty in “fresh” soldiers being willing to aim and squeeze. They will often fire over the head of the enemy, doing their job, but doing so in such a way as to “protect” their moral values. Those records include from the Revolutionary War to the present, though nowadays, the Army uses electronic games, similar to “Doom”, to train the soldier to overcome that moral objection. They fire, and a very human looking figure reacts in a very natural manner, with the blood squirting or misting, just as in real life, to condition the trainee to accept that taking another life is nothing more than a game. However, for most, the moral stigma still attaches itself to our conscience.

So, who will fire the first shot, when that event that will spark the inevitable confrontation between a people wishing to be free, and a government which continues to encroach upon their Liberties?

In a previous article (He Who Leads the Charge), I address the consequence that will fall to many of us, as we take upon ourselves the task bestowed upon us by the Founders — to retain our form of government for “ourselves and our Posterity“. While we are at it, let’s look at another well-known phrase from our Founding, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Those phrases have historical significance, though we have some newer phrases that most are familiar with, such as, “… from my cold, dead hands“, “… one bullet at a time“, etc. Now, those last two are purely rhetorical, as they serve no purpose other than bluster on the part of the speaker. However, many in the patriot community often express the first two. The question is, when they are expressed, is it rhetorical, or is it sincere? If the former, then clearly you are not prepared to face the challenge that lies before us, nor have you seriously contemplated that challenge.

Let’s look at some more rhetoric, “They will soon declare martial law. We cannot do anything because if we do, they will declare martial law.” Isn’t that rhetoric a bit oxymoronic?

It is clearly evident that the law enforcement in this country is rapidly becoming militarized. Should we await the completion of the militarization before we act?

Perhaps we should heed the words of Patrick Henry, when he said, “The war is inevitable – and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come! ”

If we are to retain our birthright, Liberty, the object of the sacrifices of those who gave us this once great nation, it will come at a cost. Of that, we can be assured.

One thing is certain in combat. Once the action begins, those who have resolved themselves to the necessity of taking lives have taken the necessary action. Others, regardless of the moral hesitation, when the necessity has passed beyond rhetoric and into reality, will eventually follow. If they don’t catch on, they will probably be killed. The idea, quite simply, is to KILL him before he kills you. It will be the truly courageous — the heroes of our future history — who fire those first shots, with a clear understanding of the necessity of doing so.

Our choice, our actions, our future, depend upon whether we agree to obey the laws that currently protect the government and criminalize our actions, or to obey our conscience, and jealously guard our Liberties, an obligation imposed by the Founders and memorialized by our Founding Documents.

94th Rec. Airplane Co.
Duc Hoa, Vietnam
1967

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? – 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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 10, 2014

If a crime is being committed, and you assist in that criminal activity, you are guilty of a crime. If you aid someone who has committed a crime, assisting them in the completion of that crime, you have committed a crime. Of these two statements, there can be little doubt of those conclusions — that to act, in any way, in the commission or completion of a crime, is criminal. So, let’s look at some crimes that some federal and state officers, and, yes, even many border patriots, are guilty of.

8 USC § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)

(A) Any person who –

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

***

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

***

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs –

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

***

(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs –

(A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or

(B) in the case of –

(i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,

***

(4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if –

(A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;

(B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and

(C)

(i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or

(ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.

(b) Seizure and forfeiture

(1) In general

Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a) of this section, the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.

So, “any person who, knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, or, “engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts“, or, “aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished…”

As far as punishment, any person who commits those named crimes “shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs…” That is for “each alien”.

Punishment can be from one to 10 years, fines, and seizure of property (Asset Forfeiture), and a criminal record, precluding future ownership of firearms.

If you read the entire statute (presented above), you will find that there are even a few more “enhancements” that can rack up even more penalties.

Well, if that hasn’t awakened you, let’s continue:

42 U.S. Code § 264 – Regulations to control communicable diseases

(a) Promulgation and enforcement by Surgeon General

The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.

(b) Apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals

Regulations prescribed under this section shall not provide for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals except for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, or spread of such communicable diseases as may be specified from time to time in Executive orders of the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General.

(c) Application of regulations to persons entering from foreign countries

Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, regulations prescribed under this section, insofar as they provide for the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals, shall be applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.

(d) Apprehension and examination of persons reasonably believed to be infected

(1) Regulations prescribed under this section may provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and

(A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or

(B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. Such regulations may provide that if upon examination any such individual is found to be infected, he may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes, in addition to the several States, only the District of Columbia.

(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualifying stage”, with respect to a communicable disease, means that such disease—

(A) is in a communicable stage; or

(B) is in a precommunicable stage, if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals.

(e) Preemption

Nothing in this section or section 266 of this title, or the regulations promulgated under such sections, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States), except to the extent that such a provision conflicts with an exercise of Federal authority under this section or section 266 of this title.

Now, when it comes to communicable disease, the discretion is left with the Surgeon General, though we have not been informed of any proactive decision that would protect us from the infestations coming across the border. We do find that our hands are tied, since subsection (b) states that this section, “shall not provide for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals.” Wow, a law with no teeth, unless the President provides such teeth. Interesting that Congress abrogated their responsibility in providing protection for communicable diseases crossing the border, especially, illegally.

However perhaps we do find some salvation subsection (e), “Nothing in this section…, or the regulations promulgated under such section, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States).” So, if a state has a quarantine law, these statutes would not supersede it. It seems like some emergency legislation in the Border States is in order.

So, we can see that “Laws” make criminals out of anybody that aids and abets the commission of the crime of allowing illegals gain entry into the country. Though we know that the feds have yet to enforce that provision, it is quite possible that they could choose to apply that law selectively, disregarding such criminal activity on the part of state officials, but enforce it against patriots who are attempting to ease the burden on the overworked state and federal officials. And the punishment could even exceed what one might get for manslaughter or second-degree murder.

When it comes to aiding people illegally entering the country, and bringing with them communicable diseases, it is possible that the Surgeon General and/or the President have created rules that would make assisting them into the country a criminal act, though it, too, would probably only be enforced against patriots. Even without consideration of the implications, if such rules exists, is the disfavor of the American People for assisting in getting these diseased border crossers into the hands of the federal government so that they can be fairly distributed throughout the country, for maximum effect.

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #57:

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?

Can we even begin to rely upon the self-serving laws promulgated by the Congress, or even worse, Congress abrogating legislative authorities, and turning them over to the Executive Branch of government? Or, can we determine, for ourselves, using just a little common sense, what is necessary to stop both the invasion and the communicable diseases coming across our Southern border?

We (We the People) did create this government, and we have every right to assume, for ourselves, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment

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

Tenth Amendment

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

Do we determine that the ultimate power lies with us, the people, or that we are subject to the laws, no matter how ridiculous or impractical, when they are made in violation of the intent of the Constitution?

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? — … 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

Liberty or Laws?
Immigration or Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 23, 2014

The government and Mainstream Media tell us that there is a massive immigration going on at our southern border. Massive, however, is, in any historical context outside of active warfare, a gross understatement. Is it possible that what is happening at that southern border should be more appropriately described as an invasion?

First, we’ll look at immigration. It is defined as — immigration n. The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence. (from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — In the United States, it assumes compliance with 8 US Code §1101.)

There is no doubt that the United States is a nation formed from immigration, even though many of us have generations going back to prior to the Revolutionary War. However, whether an immigrant, or one born here, the purpose is to become a citizen. With citizenship, there must also be allegiance to the country. Can it be expected that the country protects its citizens, yet the citizens have no allegiance to the country?

Theodore Roosevelt discussed A Problem that Can’t be Ignored in explaining some of the requirements of citizenship, and solutions for those who did not seem to desire to assimilate (To bring to a likeness; to cause to resemble; To convert into a like.) into the host nation. To assimilate into an industrious nation, one must work, participate, and contribute, to at least maintain the nature of the country, if not to improve it.

So, with the above given, are these multitudes crossing the border, intending to assimilate, or is their purpose otherwise? Or, are they deceived into believing that there is one purpose, when, in fact, there is another purpose? Let’s look at what another possible, perhaps plausible, purpose might be.

First, let’s, once again, look at history. In 1775, some farmers and mechanics decided to take on the greatest military force in the world, the British Empire’s army and navy. The didn’t hesitate, even though Hessians, vociferous fighters themselves, were added to His Majesty’s forces.

The colonists, from the first battle, fought in what is now known as asymmetrical (having parts that fail to correspond to one another in shape, size, or arrangement; lacking symmetry) warfare. They fought like Indians; they avoided a major battle, unless there was a hope of winning; the fled to fight another day; and, they conducted completely unanticipated actions. They did so with financial aid from other countries, and, eventually, military and naval forces from France.

The story of the “Trojan Horse” is well known, so, perhaps we can learn something about asymmetrical warfare by reviewing what may have happened, or may merely be mythology. The people of Troy were lovers of beauty. When the Spartan army was unable to defeat them, they devised a means of playing on the weakness of beauty to gain access to the walled city of Troy. The built a beautiful wooden horse, believed by the Trojans to be a token of homage paid by the defeated. We all know what happened, next. However, it was the weakness of the worship of beauty that led to the downfall of Troy.

The United States has a weakness, as well. That weakness is the failure to grasp the nature and the severity of this threat, due to the constant barrage of misdirection and propaganda spewing from mainstream media acting as government proxies, disguising the problem as a “humanitarian crisis” and relying upon the world renowned generosity of the American people to “resolve” a crisis created, funded, and protected by the federal government. The American people are being held hostage in a sense, by their moral principles of giving humanitarian aid whenever and wherever needed, without a firm foundation build upon full disclosure of the nature of the issue. It is called “humanitarianism”, and though our coffers are bare, we will spend our posterity’s future in providing humanitarian aid.

Agencies of government are relying upon that moral mandate so well depended upon by the world at large, humanitarianism, to be the means by which this invasion can be facilitated, using children to force open the gates to this once fair country. ? The outpouring of sympathy for the wretched children, being accompanied by parents or sent unaccompanied through the most violent country in the Western Hemisphere, surely plays on the heartstrings of the humanitarian nature, especially when embellishment and omission, by press and government, divert our attention away from practical considerations while attempting to smother us with our own ignorance of the facts, using the ploy of “humanitarianism.”

Meanwhile, while the attention is directed at the children (paraphrasing Hillary Clinton, “it takes a nation to raise a child”), some unconfirmed, yet quite plausible, reports of increased border crossings, at least in Arizona, perhaps 4 time previous numbers, have been occurring since the current “children’s crusade” began.

Diversion is a masterful art of war. Every effort was made, for two years, to convince the Germans that Calais was the point of invasion. While the German High Command was so sure that they had good intelligence, their resources were directed to the wrong location. This was a fatal error, as they were watching, and relying upon the left hand, while the right hand was ignored.

Now, an “invasion” was defined, in the time of the Framers (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) as:

A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force.

Well, it seems that the definition just about covers the current situation. It is an entry into the possessions of Americans. It is hostile, as so often displayed by MECHA, AZTLAN, and other groups supportive of the invasion — and the rights of foreigners to our possessions and whatever plunder they can realize. And, according to those same groups, conquest is clearly a part of their professed plan.

Now, let’s look at weapons. The Spartans had their spears and shields with them. Surely, the Trojans would not have provided the means for arming other than those so designated. However, if someone wants to buy a gun in this country, they only have to prove that they have no criminal record, in this country. The sole exception being those veterans who have recently fought for this country and have been determined to be domestic terrorists, and those with mental disabilities.

If “Fast and Furious” had not been exposed, and cut short, how many weapons by those who were able to purchase huge numbers of weapons would have been acquired? Could those weapons have been stockpiled for future use?  How many weapons were supplied to foreign entities before Fast and Furious came to light?

The Soviet Union, during the “Cold War”, established arms caches throughout Europe and Great Britain (Soviet agents placed weapons caches across Europe during Cold War). Wouldn’t that be even more easily done in the United States, today? Caches, ready to arm those soldiers who have come across the southern border, apparently peacefully, simply waiting for the call to arms — to continue their invasion — this time, from inside of the gates?

A final consideration, which weighs very heavily on the side of invasion, is the cost of ‘immigration’, under the current circumstances. Reports indicate that the cost per person ranges from $5,000 to $50,000. Those in the $5,000 class are from a country with an average household income of $2,000. Who are those willing to pay $50,000 to sneak across the border? Who has the economic resources to pay such prices? It isn’t the everyday person looking for a better life, most certainly.

This leaves us to contemplate whether this is a massive immigration, which doesn’t, at all, resemble normal immigration, at any time in our historical past, or an invasion, using the concepts of asymmetrical warfare described above.

If the former, then they, and our government, should be abiding by the laws. If the latter, then we should be abiding by our rights. The final questions, however, and the most important aspect of this entire debacle, are:

• Should we prepare for the least offensive, or the most offensive of the possibilities?
• If we prepare for the least offensive, will we be able to deal with the more offensive, if it is the case?
• If we prepare for the most offensive, have we caused any harm by sending people back to where they came from, until they follow the law, and have we provided assurance that we are protecting the birthright of ourselves, and our posterity?
• What are the consequences of the wrong decision?

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? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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