Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 1
Introduction

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2016

This is the first of a series of articles about the events surrounding the investiture of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration buildings by a group headed by Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven and Carol Bundy. The Bundys are well known for the events in Nevada that played out in April 2014. In that incident, the Bundys, along with hundreds of other patriotic Americans, went beyond “civil disobedience” and entered the realm of “civil defiance”, defying, with arms, the intrusion of the Bureau of Land Management into the long time operation of the cattle part of the Bundy ranch operation – denying rights that had existed for years and denying them their pursuit of the family business.

Though this writer only spent five days in Burns, he was able to meet many of the key players on the side of the patriots, some townspeople from Burns, and some of those who gathered, on one side or the other, to observe, or attempt to affect, the ongoing activities.

As the world knows, the events neared completion when the motorcade, on a peaceful mission to a community meeting in John Day, Grant County, Oregon, met the undue wrath of the federal government, and local and state law enforcement, resulting in the death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum and the arrest on rather interesting charges of 11 participants of the activities at the refuge.

In an effort to be as factual as possible, many witnesses still have to be interviewed to ensure that what will be written is as factual as possible. Due to the rampant, and most often unsubstantiated, rumors in social media, those stories that will follow should finally put to rest many of those false claims.

Every effort will be made to corroborate the factual aspects of these stories, which will result in each story only “going to press” after exhaustive research and interviews have been completed.

Due to the nature of the interdependence of some activities, conjecture may be used to bridge gaps. This is deemed necessary as the government, at all levels, is notorious for misrepresentations, omissions, concealing evidence under the guise of “ongoing investigation”, or simply to cover their misdeeds. Absent available facts, though circumstantial evidence tends to support conclusions of that interdependence, such conjecture will be appropriately indicated.

If subsequent evidence becomes available, the original article will have an addendum, at the online site, rather than revision of the original story.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Demonization of Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 23, 2015

Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau is accused of failing to pay a tax and register a firearm with the federal government and that required that the tax be paid. However, the “firearm” was not a “firearm”, but separate parts, when the government received it, as explained in “The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau“. There were two barrels, a receiver, optical devices, and other items, in a case that was delivered to a Confidential Human Source (CHS), identified as Oliver Murphy.

Now, it is necessary to understand that all of the objects that were in that case were legally purchased. There is no crime in the possession of the objects. However, it is rather ironic that if the shorter barrel (10.5 inches long) is affixed to a rifle receiver, it becomes illegal, presumably, because the rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches (the “criminal” element), can be easily concealed because of the short length. The 10.5 inch barrel reduces both muzzle velocity and accuracy, when fired, so it is really less of a rifle. On the other hand, if you were to affix the 10.5 inch barrel to a pistol, or handgun receiver, it is legal. In contrast, the rifle receiver, which by description, must have a stock, while the pistol receiver does not. This makes the pistol with the 10.5 inch barrel considerably shorter, and more concealable, than the rifle version. So, it begs the question, is there any sense, at all, in this law that taxes the one (rifle) and not the other (pistol)?

So, now we have illustrated the extent of the charges against Barbeau. Clearly, this is about his demonization by the federal government, in an attempt to influence public opinion against Barbeau, because the law does not allow “fishing expeditions” to try to find a crime, nor did the Framers intend for the government to have such power.

The demonization begins with the information provided by the paid CHS. This is detailed in “Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License“. There are unsubstantiated claims that Barbeau claimed to have stolen “blasting caps and detonation cord” from his Army National Guard unit, though there is no indication that the well inventoried and secured items were ever stolen, nor were they found during the warranted search.

To understand the security involved in cataloging these items on a military installation, here is what Maureen Peltier, a disabled 15 year veteran that worked in supply, says about the control of such inventory:

I must add information for those not privy to our supply handling of certain equipment.
Soldiers, we all know Ammo, blasting caps, det cord are not just laying around in our Armories. We all have to go to ASP (Ammo Supply Point) to receive and only those authorized with specific Ammo handlers certification can sign out for such items for scheduled training. Transportation to and from Armory than to training site is all pre-determined. Much coordination is involved and I personally have overseen such coordination as I have in my logistics positions, coordinated from pre-planning to execution to return. Such items are handled under guard and with great caution. Storage points at Armories, just prior to live training execution, would be under weapons vault controlled by unit Supply Sergeants. Security alarm systems and a vault room inside larger weapons vault room is the proper authorized site until final movement to a designated training site.

If items such as that went ‘missing’, they would not only shut down and lock down all of the surrounding area or entire base, Soldiers would all be confined to unit AO or training site, until all missing items are recovered or an all clear by base Commanders have been issued. This would not go unnoticed. ~SSG Moe

However, when the FBI visited the National Guard unit, the only thing they had to say was that Barbeau had served eight honorable years in both the Marines and Army National Guard. There was no evidence to support the loss of the named items.

This, however, did not bar the FBI from “invading” the Aenk Ranch, some 280 miles from where Barbeau was arrested. This raid was a quasi-military operation, conducted by 25 goons, each using the same type of firearm that Barbeau is accused of possessing, and numerous other federal agents, as shown in video footage of the raid in “Domestic Terrorism“.

This raid was based on the very vague charges in violation of Title 18 (Criminal) US Code. Charges of possession of stolen federal property and possession of a machine gun. Neither of these charges have any substance, as explained above, except for the word of the paid CHS informant. So, again, it begs the question, were the “allegations” made by the paid informant simply an imaginary and contrived scenario to please those who were going to cut him a check for $3,500, or just bravado talk between friends?

Later, news channel, King 5, on December 17, did a field interview with Allen Aenk, where the damages caused by the December 6 raid on the Aenk Ranch can be seen. The segment also shows a portion of a document that had been recently unsealed at the Federal Eastern District Court, in Spokane, though not tied to the arrest and current charges against Schuyler Barbeau.

The referred to document, the affidavit supporting the search warrant that was executed on the Ranch of December 6, brings forward the additional unsubstantiated charges of violation of the criminal code.

It is important to note, since there is no proof of stolen property, it is reasonable to question, how can it be justification for such an overwhelming show of force when the nearly platoon sized army of federal agents stormed the ranch, knowing that, with the exception of Carrie Aenk who was alone at home, the other two inhabitants of the property were in federal hands, 280 miles away?

The raid, based upon such meager justification, surely cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars, which makes us ponder whether the intent of the law is, as suggested, a tax or revenue law, or is it an expansion of federal authority, outside of the constraints of the Constitution, in trying to circumvent the Second Amendment?

We are not yet finished with this story. There is little doubt that public disclosure of the raid did bring to the forefront the (obscure) possibility of criminal acts. That, of course, would produce a high degree of concern, and perhaps taint the minds of those who might sit in judgment of Schuyler Barbeau, in a jury trial. Rest assured, there is no intention, on the part of the government, or media, of letting it, at that.

On December 11, 2015, King 5 news aired a segment in which they described as a “rare insight”, especially “in light of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, last week, and other terrorist attacks across the country”, which raises a serious concern regarding Islamic Terrorism. That recently unspeakable phrase, which surely got the attention of the general public, most likely blinded or deafened to any of the above facts of the case, to date. As stated, the FBI is asking for the public’s help “in preventing the next act of terrorism.”

In that broadcast, the FBI begins by talking about “behavior that preceded the event”. They then suggest that certain individuals in the state may be in communication with ISIS, suggesting that Washington might see a brutal terrorist attack, in the near future. They are monitoring the behavior of those they have identified. Chris Ingles (King 5) suggests that Barbeau could be one of those cases the FBI had being speaking about. So, now they have classed this honorably discharged Marine/Soldier, a defender of the United States Constitution, in the same category as Islamic terrorists.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 8, 2015

In the late morning of December 6, 2015, Schuyler Barbeau had been helping Allen Aenk by rescuing service dogs as a business service run from the Aenk family Ranch, in Stevens County, Washington some 280 miles away from where the following events begin to unfold.

At the Weigh Station

After dealing with the dogs, Schuyler wanted stop to collect some money owed him by Oliver Murphy. Murphy texted to Schuyler to meet him at a weigh station at Interstate 90 and Washington Highway 18 (between Preston and Snoqualmie). When they arrived at the weigh station, Oliver’s car was there, but Oliver was nowhere to be seen. So, they parked next to Oliver’s car and Allen got out of the car, cell phone in hand to call his wife and to take the dog to the Dog Walk.

Before he could complete his intended tasks, he saw between 10 and 12 battle dressed people encircle the him and the car. He was told to lie down on the ground. He complied, though he questioned why they were being treated this way. They then handcuffed Allen, and since Schuyler was on the other side of the car, he didn’t really see what happened to him. Allen did note that he saw FBI, US Marshalls, and Coast Guard, though there were no apparent BATF agents on the scene. But, we’ll get to the charges shortly.

The agents were going through his car, but they had no warrant with them, they simply stated that they did have one (There was a warrant to search the car at the premises – ranch, but nothing identifying the car specifically).

They then moved Allen away from the car and began asking questions about Schuyler, but were told to ask Schuyler, not him.

After they had searched the car, one of the agents, acting rather rudely and assertively, asked Allen to sign a “Receipt for Property Seized”, which Allen refused to sign, and Special Agent Kera O’Reilly (did you ever wonder why gimp kids are special, and so are FBI agents?) affirmed that he refused. However, he was provided a copy, and it shows the following items seized from the car:

— Green “Bad Inc” Vest with visible firearms magazine with unknown contents inside pockets, bags, etc

— Grey “Universal” bag with yellow straps, with green sunglasses on strap and unknown contents

— FNH VSA pistol (FNX-45 Tactical Serial # FX3U025994) w/ [intelligible]

Inforce tactical light

1 round loose, 15 in magazine full metal jacket 45 cal

— Cellular telephone, Android platform,

Droid Turbo, w/ other box (grey w/ yellow outline)

Allen was not allowed to verify some of those seized item, in particular, the “Grey Universal bag with yellow straps”, so the feds can do anything they want with the contents. It was Special Agent O’Reilly who, rather rudely, refused Allen’s request to review the contents.

Just so we know who the rather rude agent that dealt with Allen is, she was Kera Wulbert, and may have been Kera Wulbert Wagner, prior to that. Around 2013, she married Brendan Gerard O’Reilly (age 46) and quit-claimed her house at 2914 S Hill Street, Seattle, to herself and her new husband. Enough of that, so, on with the show:

The other Special Agent was Matthew Acker, who acted courteously, as we should be able to expect our public servants to act toward us. These two agents were, apparently, assigned to Allen, while we can suppose that the rest of the jackboots were needed to assure that Schuyler did take over the surrounding forces, though we will have to get that information from him, when he is removed from sequestration and allowed visitors and phone calls.

The Criminal Complaint

Though we have no proof of the existence of an Arrest Warrant being issued prior to the arrest, we do have the Criminal Complaint that resulted in the arrest, as well as the search warrant.

The only Count in the Complaint says that Schuyler “knowingly possessed a firearm which was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, as required by law, namely, a particular black, semiautomatic AR-15 5.56 mm caliber assault rifle with a 10.5 inch barrel and holographic sight, a rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length”, for which the government wants a $200 tax The refer to Title 26, US Code, §§5861(d) and 5845(a)(3) as the violations. Title 26 is the tax code, so they are assuming that Schuyler owes a tax, and that he failed to pay it. Can you imagine how much it cost the government to persecute Schuyler, as opposed, say, to sending him a bill?

It appears that what he had was a Rainier Arms UltraMatch .223 Wylde Complete Upper – 10.5. This is advertised by Rainier Arms, and the add states that “ALL NFA Rules Apply”.

So, we know and understand that a Class III license holder has, by obtaining the license, agreed to do certain things. Among them would be to verify that if he sold such an item, alleged to be illegal in the Complaint, he would have to run a background check, provide the necessary paperwork to the purchaser, submit the paperwork, and fulfill all of the duties that the regulations require of him. But, that is because he contracted, by obtaining the license, with the government to perform those tasks required by those regulations. This would include 18 USC (criminal) and 26 US Code (tax), and perhaps others. But, it is only the licensee that has agreed to abide by those regulations.

However, the Second Amendment has confirmed our right to bear arms, without infringement. This leaves the government with only limited jurisdiction, via the Commerce Clause (interstate commerce) and the taxing authority, as the means of the government to try to circumvent the limits imposed upon the government by the Constitution. However, if someone hasn’t contracted with the government, they, as well as the government, should be bound only by the Constitution. Schuyler’s right to possess that firearm is sacred; there is no justification for the government to attempt to, by force of arms, pay a tax on that right — regardless of what the government thinks. And, it is his right to do so that we, the People, need to “support and defend”.

Back to the Complaint. Special Agent Michael Baldino executed the Complaint. He is a member of the Seattle Division’s Domestic Terrorism Squad of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). Those are the guys that let Muslims kill people in California, while they mess with Americans that are intent on defending America against those Muslim terrorists, and BLM wannabes.

In paragraph 5 (page 3/6) we see that a Confidential Human Source (CHS) provided information (snitched) to the FBI about Schuyler. The Complaint is a substitute for the constitutionally required affidavit, and a poor substitute, at that. An affidavit is sworn as to personal knowledge, and is not supposed to give any validity to hearsay. However, since Baldino didn’t “swear” to the document, well, he can say anything that he wants.

Back to the CHS. It has been confirmed that the CHS in the Complaint is none other than Oliver Murphy. Yes, that is the one that baited Schuyler and Allen to the Weigh Station, but it doesn’t end here. Before we proceed, perhaps we ought to look at Mr. Murphy. His father, Patrick Murphy, was Snohomish County Sheriff. He was appointed to that position in 1995, when then Sheriff Jim Scharf stepped down to become the Everett Police Chief. Murphy, however, didn’t stay long. He was charged with four counts of felony possession of prescription medication. Patrick died in 2006, so maybe Oliver wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps and become recognized in “law enforcement”. At any rate, Oliver was in from the beginning to the end of Schuyler’s ordeal.

Paragraph 7 (Complaint) tells us that CHS was invited to the trailer that Schuyler was staying in at the Aenk’s ranch, on October 19, 2015. The Aenk’s have confirmed that it was Murphy that stayed with Schuyler, on that date. There is only one CHS (if there are more than one, they are numbered), so it is Murphy in every instance in the Complaint.

Next, we have Baldino going to Facebook to see what “dirt” he could get on Schuyler. He found photographs where Schuyler acknowledged that he owned a “short-barreled rifle” (SBR), which would be the Rainier Arms UltraMatch. So, when Schuyler suggested that he wanted to sell it. Murphy, being such a nice guy, let Schuyler know that he had found a buyer for the SBR.

On November 22, Schuyler dropped the SBR off at Murphy’s “residence”. So now, Murphy possess the SBR, but he has not been charged, and, according to the available information, he is not law enforcement, nor is he exempt from any regulation that might be imposed, legally, or not, on Schuyler. But, Murphy was never charged with a crime, but, then, that is the nature of a police state, isn’t it?

Schuyler has given up the SBR, Murphy gives it to the FBI, but nobody has paid Schuyler for the purchase the SBR. That sounds awfully like what is commonly referred to as theft, fraud, swindle, or some other real crime that has an injured party, namely Schuyler. But, in this modern world where it is always somebody else’s fault, the only one that didn’t hurt anybody by stealing property was Schuyler.

It was probably to collect the money that Murphy was supposed to have sold the SBR for that was the enticement for Schuyler and Allen to go to the Weigh Station.

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

About the same time that those events were occurring at the Weigh Station across the state in Springdale, Carrie Aenk was facing her own ordeal. The following is based upon an interview and documents that have been provided.

Thirty to 35 people showed up in 7 or 8 vehicles. Carrie, when she saw them driving in, tried to call Allen. There was no answer. however, the used a battering ram on the back door of the house. They also released some of the dogs from their kennel.

The search warrant is marked “X in the daytime 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.” (Page 1 of pdf). It says nothing about “no knock”, so it must be served in a civil manner. A battering ram at the back door of the house hardly satisfies that expectation, but, then, we you give thugs a license, they can do as they please — the Constitution notwithstanding.

I think we need to note here that the search warrant among other things, states that “I find that the affidavit(s), or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property.” However, no affidavit, or recorded testimony, has been provided. And, if we were to assume that the Criminal Complaint somehow satisfies that requirement, then even more curious is the fact that the search warrant brings in charges that were not included in the Complaint, or anywhere else in any of the currently existing court documents.

As far as the Warrant, it gives permission to search for the person or property described in “Attachment A”. “Attachment A” says, “This warrant authorizes the search of Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau for any cellular phones. This warrant authorizes the search of any such phones for the items described in “Attachment B”. Then, it remarks that Schuyler resides in a trailer on the property. So, the warrant only allows them to search Schuyler for any phones, and then to search any phones for items in “Attachment B”. So, to make this clear, Schuyler can be searched for phones. Presumably, if phones are found, those phones can be searched for the items identified in “Attachment B”. There doesn’t appear to be any authority to search beyond that limitation. So, let’s look at attachment be to see just what might be found in the phones.

“Attachment B” begins with, “Items to Be Seized from the Phone Described in Attachment A.” Before we continue with Attachment B, let’s reflect on what they just said. The items to be seized are to be seized from the phone. I know that the concept of seizing items from a phone is difficult to digest, unless, of course, you are a government agent. I realize that smart phones are a bit over my head, but I still have a problem understanding how items can be seized from them. But, let’s continue and see just what those federal agents can “seize” from a phone.

Continuing in Attachment B, “All documents and items reflecting evidence and/or fruits of the commission of the crimes of (a) unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5861(d) and 5845(a)(3); (b) possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o), including:”, then it goes on to list, not items, rather, telephone serial numbers; sent, received, and missed calls; stored contact information; and, any stored photographs or Facebook posts –that might show something illegal.

This brings to mind an important part of the Constitution, you know, where they itemized some of the inherent rights of the People, not as grants by the government, rather, prohibitions against the government violating them. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment:

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

So, if information stored on a cell phone (since it can’t be the items that were to be seized) is simply a modern substitute for “papers and effects”, then it requires that the probable cause must be supported by “Oath or affirmation”. Unfortunately, the government has failed to provide such.

The Complaint was for a tax violation, only, and being singularly concerned with that SBR. If we assume that the “affirmation” (that is really stretching our language to an extreme), then the extent of that affirmation must be limited to the SBR and Title 26 (taxes). So, where the hell does “possession of stolen federal property” and “possession of a machine gun” come into the picture? Do this just make this shit up while sitting around the water cooler? Also, consider the judge, Thomas O. Rice; does he even read what he signs? And, all of these idiots, even the judge, probably make over $100,000 a year — of our money. It seems more like the Mafia than a government.

Just to throw a little confusion into the mix, both of these attachments mentioned above bear the case number directly below the title. There are two more attachment “A”s, but neither of them have a case number, so they are either sloppy, inserted these from some other source, or they could care less about the identification of legal documents. Take your pick, but when you are dealing with incompetence, it can only be a wild guess.

Given the limits of what could be searched for, let’s look at what they found “on the phone”:

1) Plastic bag with .223 ammo

2) Seven (7) 223 magazine

3) Verizon bill, ID cards, record book

4) Motorola mobile phone, model XT 912

5) Nylon bag with camping tool, tape (?)

6) Plastic box with gun parts

7) Large plastic bag with gun parts

It is hard to believe that any of those items, except No. 4, could satisfy the conditions of the warrant

However, the act of the service of this warrant, after the battering ram entry, gets even more interesting. After they entered the house, they flash-banged every room they entered. Carrie counted at least eight of them in the house. That’s right, they threw flash-bang grenades into each room, in order to clear it, perhaps, from evil spirits, since it would be difficult to otherwise understand the necessity of causing intentional damage, including gaping holes in walls, windows blown out, not to mention the back door that was battered open, and one helluva mess to prove that the government has come to “help you”. If there is an assumption being made here that the government will perform restitution for the damage they caused, especially if the charges are dropped against Schuyler, then you are sadly mistaken.

While this “search” (and destroy) was going on, Carrie was held handcuffed for about an hour and a half, and she was not allowed to contact her attorney. They also held a gun on Carrie throughout this entire ordeal. Perhaps there is reason for concern when there is just one pissed off woman, and only 30 to 35 armed men to keep her under control.

While searching the rest of the premises, they used at least ten more flash bangs, some of them apparently only to scare the dogs, which resulted in laughter by some of the agents, who apparently were enjoying themselves immensely while terrorizing Carrie. I will conclude by stating that this is, by far, the most egregious abuse of presumed governmental authority that I have seen since my visit to Waco, back in 1993.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on whether we are truly a self-governed nation, or have become subject to a government far more despotic that that one cast off by the Founders, 239 years ago. And, to reflect upon our obligation, as that “Posterity” identified in the Preamble to the Constitution, to assure that this once great nation returns to its intended object, for our own Posterity.

For the follow up; Schuyler’s description of what happened, see:

Barbeau Qued in Seattle – The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II – In Schuyler’s Own Words

Camp Lone Star – Show of Support for KC Massey

The Lone Warrior

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 1, 2015

Yesterday, September 30, 2015, was the big day for KC Massey’s challenge to the federal Felon in Possession of a Firearm law (18 USC §922(g)(1)). Though there were hopes that somehow Judge Andrew Hanen would rule, finding KC not guilty, that was not the case. However, there was a reason that Hanen could not come to that verdict, but had to rule Massey guilty.

What is known as “stare decisis” (The legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent), which requires that a Circuit Court judge must abide by previously decided cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts, was held to. Unlike some District Court judges, Hanen abides by his responsibility to the law and cannot use the Wisdom of Solomon to make his decision.

However, as pointed out in previous posts, Hanen has gone overboard to assure that the record of the current case is loaded, as the Appellate Court can only rule on the record (official court documents) of this case. He has, twice, extended to Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, the opportunity to load that record so that there is sufficient argument to make a good case before the Appellate Court.

In an interview with Mike and Khristi, who attended the trial, I can provide a little insight into the proceedings. A more detailed explanation will be provided, once the transcripts of the trial are available.

The government brought in an expert witness that testified that the weapons that had been taken form Massey had been manufactured out of state, explaining, in detail, how he was able to come to that conclusion. This does raise an interesting question. It would require that someone who provided you a gun to patrol the border knew that it was manufactured out of state, and, it would also require that you knew that the gun was manufactured out of state. I suppose that the federal law, as interpreted by the government, requires specialized knowledge for the people to come to the conclusion that the firearm was manufactured elsewhere, though by their own admission, it took an expert to make that determination on behalf of the government.

There is another possibility, that the government’s interpretation of the law is other than what the law really means. And, that is the subject which keeps the door open for Massey’s case to make law, once it is heard before the Appellate Court.

What we have been referring to as the “Has/Had” argument challenges the government interpretation that any gun that has crossed state line cannot be possessed by a felon, regardless of how long ago that felon was committed, and sentence served. In Massey’s case, that was 28 years.

So, Hanen, in open court and on the record, stated that the “Has/Had” argument seemed valid and that it was “ripe for appeal”. That means that the particular “Has/Had” argument has never been decided by a higher court, and it appears that he sees merit in the argument and believes that the higher court, the one that makes “stare decisis” (law), based upon the wording in the statute, needs to hear this case on appeal.

After the trial, Louis told Khristi and Mike that Massey’s case would rewrite history. With this, I am inclined to agree. And, we can consider the consequences to those who are patriotic, though fearful of being charged and convicted under this federal law, when the law is misapplied by the government and falsely creates a crime where none exists. Even transporting, not for commerce, would no longer be criminal for those who have a felony on their record.

KC had expressed his desire to speak to the judge, though if he went on the stand, it would open for the prosecution the right to extensive cross-examination. However, during closing arguments, Massey kept trying to state his feelings. After some discussion, the Judge decided that he could, as a part of the closing statements, say what he felt.

What Massey managed to get on the records (not verbatim) is, “As a common man, all I have is the letter of the law to go by. And you f***ers screwed up on the law, so, what else am I supposed to do?” To this, the Judge said that he was sorry and that he was held by case precedence.

Twice, during the trial, the Judge said that he didn’t agree with what was going on, in his heart. That is not what a judge intent on holding up the government’s position would say, and that, too, is a part of the record.

In a brief conversation, after the trial, Hagen, the US Attorney, expressed is apprehensive as to the results of an appeal. I believe he knows that he will, eventually, loose this case.

At the end of the trial, Hagen ask for permission to take pictures of all of the guns and then destroy them. Judge Hanen refused to give permission, most likely because the guns will have to be returned to Massey, after the Appellate decision, as his property. Apparently, Hanen is that sure that the conviction will be overturned and case law adjusted to limited the federal felon in possession law to apply only, and specifically, where it belongs, to the government’s overstretched authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Though Massey and I have frequently, for the last twelve months, discussed the probability that this would have to go to the Appellate Court, when the finding of guilty was given, it had an effect on him.

He called me as soon as he got back to jail, but he was forlorn. He said that he can’t take any more, that this guilty verdict has sapped all of his strength. There was nothing that I could say that would cheer him up. He feels that he has been abandoned by the patriot community and his friends. And, this leads us to where we can help this brave soul as he fights a battle that will serve the patriot community more than any other act in recent years. We need to show our support for KC Massey. It doesn’t have to be a lot, but it has to be numerous, so that he knows that we are behind him. So, here is what you can do:

Show of Support for KC Massey

Note: changed to this permanent address as of July 2016

Kevin Massey  76555379
FCI Seagoville
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, Texas  75159

KC is no longer at this address.

Remember, KC Massey is like a Prisoner of War, but still fighting the battle, the outcome of which will be a significant return to the Constitution, and curtailment of unwarranted government power.

Camp Lone Star — Down to the Wire

Ninth Amendment Rights

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 27, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s revisit state law regarding firearms. From Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm

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

(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

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

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

Intrastate Commerce

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

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

(a) As used in this chapter –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 23, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the atrocious effects of this program include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

It is Time for Grave Concern
It is Time for Action

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

Five Pillars of Islam? Where are the Ten Commandments?

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

What about the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Mecca? A city for only Muslims?

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

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

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

Well, at least Europe gets a bit of attention.

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

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

Why simply the geography of Islamic nations on untended conquests?

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

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

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

Who gives a damn where Islam was first preached?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 2015

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

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

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

The Tenth Amendment provides: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As this Amendment makes clear, and as the Supreme Court has long-recognized, the federal government is one of enumerated, limited powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland. Accordingly, the federal government may act only where the Constitution so authorizes. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In citing from McCulloch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

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

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

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

10 U.S.C. § 312: Militia duty: exemptions

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

(1) The Vice President.

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

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

(4) Customhouse clerks.

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

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

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 8, 2015

The Supreme Court and States’ Tenth Amendment Rights

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

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

The Preamble To The Bill Of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conclusion to the decision reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Road to Contempt of the People

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

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

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

Now, “secured by the Constitution and laws” will be addressed, later on. However, we see that the “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [Article I, § 8, clause 17].” comes in to play here, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution and the laws are both supportive of the right of a State to make its own laws, and by the broadest stretch of imagination, does not include marriage, a civil bond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bill of Rights concludes with:

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

Just consider what “inviolate” means.

Now, from the Kentucky Constitution, the Legislative Branch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laws on the books

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

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

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

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

Next, we have Kentucky Statutes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Pressure Cooker of Just Us

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 24, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 20, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Role of the Federalist Papers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Necessary and Proper

Article I, §8, clause 18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insure: To make sure or secure.

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

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

secure: Free from fear or apprehension of danger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Commerce Clause

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

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

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

And, into doing, he provides insight into:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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