Outpost of Freedom blog

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 3: To Be, or Not to Be – Forthright

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 14, 2015

In Act One: The Government Charade, Judge Hanen graciously gave Prosecuting Attorney Hagen, the opportunity to respond to the Motions to Suppress and Dismiss, in greater detail, since he had failed to address some of the points presented in Mr. Sorola’s motions. The deadline for the response was April 10. So, we anxiously awaited that filing to see if Hagen could dig out of the hole he had created for himself, with his prosecution (persecution?) of K. C. Massey.

Well, I received a copy of Government’s Supplementary Response To Motion Suppress And Motion To Dismiss Indictment, on Friday, April 10. Now, it is typical of the “case law” method, which, well, let’s use the description of Teddy Roosevelt’s thoughts on this method, from the book “Bully Pulpit”, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Case law method was developed at Harvard in 1872. “Though the pleasure he took in his studies is amply expressed in his journal, he was troubled that ‘some of the teaching of the law books and of the classroom seemed to me to be against justice.’ He noted critically that ‘we are concerned with [the] question of what law is, not what it ought to be.'” So, like Teddy, we are stuck with “what law is, not what it ought to be.”

Hagen’s Response addresses a number of higher court opinions, both Supreme and appellate, though we will only be looking at those opinions of the Supreme Court. So, let’s look at just how Mr. Hagen attempts to extricate himself from that hole. At this time, we will only address the Response to the Motion to Suppress.

First, he addresses the Motion to Suppress Evidence. In so doing, he lists the following:

(i) Defendant was observed carrying a rifle and that observation was made prior to any alleged search or stop;
(ii) Defendant was asked for his identification by law enforcement in the course of investigating a shooting involving a federal agent;
(iii) Defendant was detained after the shooting occurred as potential witnesses;
(iv) Defendant’s firearms were seized to protect both law enforcement and civilian witnesses; and,
(v) Defendant’s possession of two firearms was in violation of both state and federal law.

Regarding (i), this was discussed in the previous article. If the act was criminal, why did the government not arrest Massey when the observation was made? The answers rests on identification of Massey and determination of his status, none of which would have occurred had the “stop” or “detention” not occurred. Should we “cooperate” with law enforcement if going about our daily lives might result in subjecting ourselves to directed persecution? In this case, the shooter, in violation of both law and policy, and, the subject of the “investigation”, goes free, while the non-witness is subsequently arrested. One has to wonder if this whole thing was a set up to “get Massey”.

Regarding (ii) & (iii), that, too, was addressed in the previous post. Someone who, like the “investigator”, Cantu, had no more information than Cantu had, until Cantu received a radio message and passed that same information on to Massey, does not really qualify as a witness to anything. This leaves the question of “stop” or “detention” open, and that will be discussed shortly.

Regarding (iv), Foerster, Massey, and Varner, all retained their weapons, posing no threat, as testified to by Cantu. Subsequently, the decision was made, by persons unknown, that the weapons should be “secured”. “Seized”, as described in the Response, has no relationship to the testimony.

Regarding (v), here comes a problem, with Hagen’s comprehension skills. He quotes Texas Penal Code, as follows:

Texas Penal Code § 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, it says, in the singular, that he is in violation “if he possess a firearm”, before the fifth anniversary. Are we to assume that if he possesses more than one firearm, he is exempt from violation? It says nothing about any limitation after the fifth anniversary. Except, perhaps, in some secret version of Texas law that Hagen has hidden in his drawers.

Now, if Hagen is suggesting that Massey was not at “the premises at which the person lives”, the government also already stated that Massey had been at Camp Lone Star for four months. So, can there be any doubt as to where he lived at the time of this incident? The purpose of this provision is, without doubt, to provide the means for protecting the “premise”. Does that preclude someone from going on to his neighbor’s property, with that neighbor’s permission, to provide for that protection?

However, we can put that all aside, as Massey is not charged with violation of state law, Hagen has charged him with violation of federal law. The Sheriff’s Office has not chosen to file charges against Massey in their jurisdiction, so that makes Hagen’s argument somewhere on the other side of moot.

So, let’s look at the Supreme Court decisions that Hagen has cited to defend his position. First is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court Nevada 542 US 177. He argues that “A police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment“.

So, let’s see what Hiibel says:

At 177, setting the background of the case, it says, “Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.”

At 184, we find “Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.“

Then finally, at 185, the pages cited by Hagen, we find, “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. “‘[I]nterrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.”… the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.“

So, just what were the “suspicious circumstances”, or “reasonable suspicion”, that existed on August 29, 2014, on the Sabal Palms property? Perhaps Hagen should be instructing BPS, FBI, and others, as to what is required to “investigate” and require that one identify himself, absent the criteria established by the Supreme Court. I suppose that we could also ask Mr. Hagen what the difference is between and “interview”, as described in testimony, and, “interrogation”, as cited in this case.

Then, he cites INS v. Delgado 466 US 210. He does not, however, provide any quotation from that case, so I suppose that quantity rather than quality might be his motivation, here. So, to put a context on the current situation, I will provide the quotations. This case refers to whether INS could profile by asking questions of employees being suspected of being illegal aliens. So, here is what the cited page, 216, tells us:

In contrast, a much different situation prevailed in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), when two policemen physically detained the defendant to determine his identity, after the defendant refused the officers’ request to identify himself. The Court held that absent some reasonable suspicion of misconduct, the detention of the defendant to determine his identity violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure.

Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, one cannot say that the questioning resulted in a detention under the Fourth Amendment.

So, the Court has given us a situation, and then concludes, “Unless… a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded”, then the questioning was not a detention. However, Hagen as argued that this was a “stop” (Terry Stop), not a detention, and there is no doubt that when Massey “cooperated” in providing his identification, he had already been told that there was an investigation and that he could not leave.

Next, he cites United States v. Sharpe 470 US 675. At least he provides a context, and page (685), though, again, no quotation. So, we will begin at 684:

In that case, law enforcement agents stopped the defendant after his arrival in an airport and seized his luggage for 90 minutes to take it to a narcotics detection dog for a “sniff test.” We decided that an investigative seizure of personal property could be justified under the Terry doctrine, but that “[t]he length of the detention of respondent’s luggage alone precludes the conclusion that the seizure was reasonable in the absence of probable cause.”

And, at the cited page 685:

While it is clear that “the brevity of the invasion of the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests is an important factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion,” we have emphasized the need to consider the law enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably needed to effectuate those purposes.

So, in the first instance, a stop of 90 minutes was unreasonable, absent “probable cause”. And, in the second, there was an “invasion of the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests”, rests upon “reasonable suspicion”. They speak of “seizure”. That is what the Prosecution has claimed, and maintained by continue to retain, all of the firearms, except Varner’s. But, they were not “seized”, according to testimony. They were “secured” for Officer Safety.

Okay, just one more. This is United States v. Leon 468 US 897. Though no quotations are given, he points out that Rotunno, the agent who swore to the accuracy of the information used to secure the various Warrants and Criminal Complaint, was present neither at the shooting incident investigation on August 29, nor at the arrest on October 20, 2014. Quite simply, Rotunno “fabricated” (that is a polite form of lying) an important element of what happened on August 29, which implied that Foerster, and Foerster, alone, might have committed a criminal act by “pointing: his firearm at Gonzales. Massey and Varner were innocent parties to the entire episode. So, Hagen’s assertion might apply to Foerster, but the great leap to envelope Massey in his web is without any lawful or legal merit.

That doesn’t however, remove us from consideration of what the court said in U. S, v Leon.

In this case, a warrant was issued based upon observations during a drug trafficking investigation, by law enforcement officers. There was nothing illegal about the observations, nor were there misrepresentations, or outright lies, in the affidavit that resulted in the warrant.

The court held that “Application of the exclusionary rule should continue where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate, but the balancing approach that has evolved in determining whether the rule should be applied in a variety of contexts – including criminal trials – suggests that the rule should be modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate.”

Further, that “the courts must also insist that the magistrate purport to perform his neutral and detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police… However the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.”

And, that “A police officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth, or if the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his detached and neutral judicial role.”

So, though even Foerster may find relief by this decision, Massey was nothing more than a bystander in the events of August 29, and nothing conjured by Hagen can change that relationship. There was never the requisite probable cause, suspicion, or any other factor, that would ensnare Massey in this web. It is only Hagen’s desire to please those “up the river” that forces him to persist in the persecution of K. C. Massey.

Now, I realize that what was just stated might be considered by some to be overstepping the bounds of propriety. However, we must not detach ourselves from the reality that we are constantly presented with the excuse that, “there are only a few bad cops”. We have learned, over time that “few” is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Let us simply refresh our minds with a recent event wherein an innocent man spent thirty years on Death Row. He was released when his innocence was final acknowledged. His innocence was known by the Prosecutor, from the very beginning. That Prosecutor, Marty Stroud, has repented. Marty Stroud is demonstrative of the subject of the book, “Three Felonies a Day”, by Harvey A. Silverglate, in which the objective is to obtain a conviction, regardless of guilt, and to distort the wording of the law to achieve that end.

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 2: To Detain, or Not to Detain? That is the Question.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 12, 2015

Another question brought up in Sorola’s motion to suppress evidence was also addressed. At issue is whether he was detained, at which point he would have to be read his Miranda rights, which they did not do, or simply stopped for investigative purposes. The latter would be what is referred to as a Terry Stop. It is worth noting that a Terry Stop is defined as:

A brief detention of a person on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause for arrest. To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

As you read the testimony, decide what you believe the answer is. Remember that only two people were witness to any criminal activity — the shooting incident.

Mr. Hagen said, in his initial argument:

[T]he Border Patrol agent [then] fired several shots at Mr. Foerster, thankfully missing.

So that launched a — an investigation since a federal agent had discharged his firearm. That’s what brought the FBI and the Sheriff’s Department and Border Patrol Internal Affairs and all these people out to the area.

But as far as suppressing evidence, I think the government is on solid ground here because before the shots were even fired, there are multiple Border Patrol agents that observed Mr. Massey carrying a firearm, and that’s what he’s charged with is possession of a firearm. Even before he was ever detained or questioned, he was seen carrying a firearm on August 29th of 2014.

And the only relevant information or information I’d say that is critical to our prosecution is his identity, who he is, and I don’t believe that can be suppressed, although I think — I think law enforcement behaved accordingly in all respects in connection with this investigation. Even if it was a bad stop or a bad search or — you can’t suppress identity.

Yes, he is correct. If you were a criminal walking down the streets, absent a warrant, could they just stop and arrest you because you are doing something that many others are doing? We are a nation of laws, not of men. Those laws require that certain procedures be followed, even to the point of protecting a criminal — whether he is a criminal, or not. So, since there are no “Wanted Posters” for K. C. Massey, identification becomes a crucial point.

As Hagen said, “there are multiple Border Patrol agents that observed Mr. Massey carrying a firearm”. So, why didn’t they arrest him, then? Could it possibly be that the law, not men, are the rule?

Hagen continues:

I believe Mr. Massey said to Danny Cantu: Look, nobody got hurt. We’d like to — you know, we’re going to be on our way.

Danny Cantu said: Look, a federal agent discharged his weapon. There’s going to be an investigation. Y’all need to stay around.

Earlier, Cantu had said that he thought that the shots had come from the Mexican side of the border. He received radio communication that a federal agent had done the shooting. Why would someone that was very far from the actual shooting be a witness in an investigation?

Let’s keep in mind some recent events of which we are all aware. We have law enforcement people saying that if you don’t want us to shoot you, you had better cooperate. That might be sound advice if one wasn’t subject to persecution because he cooperated, however, if you believe that under state law you have every right to have a firearm on private property, with the permission of the owner, what are you going to do the next time a law enforcement, any law enforcing, officer wants to detain, stop, hold, or even ID you? It is somewhat difficult to reconcile yourself to the idea passive obedience when one realizes that even if they are not violating the law, the feds might use every trick in their toolbox, if they want to persecute or prosecute you.

So, then Hagen says:

Now, Mr. Massey was detained or was in the area for several hours. I think everyone left around 7:00. I think the evidence will show that shots were fired around 3:45.

Note that Hagen has framed the whole event into over 3 hours. This will be addressed more in Act Two, Scene 3.

Now, we move to the first witness, Agent Cantu, in examination by Hagen.

Q All right. Now, did you give any instruction to Mr. Massey after you first encountered him?

A After we encountered them, I asked him and Mr. Varner if they can hang tight. They were missing one of their — their friends that was with them, and I wasn’t sure where exactly he was. Again, I was still in the back of my head, the shots had rang out. They had called for a supervisor. I was trying to make my way down to where the agents needed me, ensuring safety, that everybody was okay. So I asked them to stay by their Kawasaki as I continued down this dirt road.

Q Okay. So you get to the area where the shooting took place. What do you see?

A As I approach, I see Mr. — Mr. Foerster holding a weapon in his hand. It was just hanging down to his side, but he was holding the weapon as an —

***

So as I came down, I saw Mr. Foerster there holding that weapon. I saw the agent, Marco Gonzalez, approaches me as I’m getting close, and he’s telling me that, you know, he shot at Mr. Foerster; that Mr. Foerster turned in his direction with the weapon and he opened fire. And I was trying to get — Foerster started talking, and so I was trying to get everybody to —

Now, according to Cantu’s testimony, he already had their identification, so essentially, they cannot leave. They have to consider that if they do leave, at best, they no longer have any identification, and, at worst, they might be charged for resisting arrest, or some other bogus charge. After all, who would leave their ID with an LEO, if they were free to leave?

Later, he testifies that he, and Massey, knew what had happened before they got to the ATV. That would, of course, make anything Massey knew nothing more than hearsay.

As we got to the ATV, Mr. Foerster started telling Mr. Massey what had occurred…

Cantu continues, in response to Hagen asking him what happened next:

A As soon as we… Mr. Massey tells me: You know, as far as we’re concerned, nobody was injured. We want to go on our way.

Q Okay. And is there a protocol that you need to follow when an officer discharges a weapon?

A Yes. We need to make notifications. We need to investigate why the firearm was discharged.

Q Okay. Now, at this point in time, did you know whether or not Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had been threatened or whether or not perhaps Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had irresponsibly fired upon Foerster? Did you know?

A From what I had gathered, he had fired in — from what Mr. Gonzalez told me. Again, this was preliminary. I was trying to — I had to speak with everyone to figure out kind of what was actually happening, so I wasn’t sure at that point.

***

Q Okay. Did you explain to Mr. Massey — and may I ask you this? When Massey said, “We want to leave,” who was he talking about when he — when he mentioned or by the word “we”?

A Well, Mr. Foerster, Varner and himself were inside the Kawasaki, so that to me told me they all wanted to depart.

Cantu knew that Massey and Varner knew no more than he did. The question involved three people, as Cantu puts it. If the majority should be excluded, reason dictates that he should have said that only Foerster had to remain.

Q Okay. So did you explain to them that an investigation was going to be conducted?

A I did.

Q And how did you explain that to them?

A I told them that they weren’t allowed to leave and that we were going to move to a staging area just further up, which is the — this area right here. My initial thought — and the reason I chose this area was to give us distance from the river that was close by. We moved here to stage the vehicles and kind of get a grip of what actually transpired.

Now, they were not allowed to leave. That means that they are not free to go. However, as explained above, they were being good, State law-abiding, cooperative citizens.

Later in testimony:

Q Okay. Now, did you ask Mr. Massey to provide you with an ID?

A I did, sir.

Q At what point in time did you make that request?

A Our initial encounter, as I approached him with Mr. Varner.

Q Okay. And did — did he provide you with an identification?

A He did.

So, it was when Varner and Cantu met up with Massey that the physical (identification papers, please) ability to leave was removed. This singular act sets the stage for the whole drama of whether it was detention or a Terry Stop.

So, let’s keep the stage set. Cantu has the IDs. Rather than return them he, well:

Q And when Sergeant Valerio showed up, did you provide the IDs from Mr. Massey and Mr. Varner to him?

A Yes, sir. I had not been able — had time to conduct any further investigations on those. When I say that, I mean run records. I mean, normally typically run records when we encounter people. I had not had the time. I was attempting to secure everything that — when Mr. Valerio showed up, I handed him the identifications and kind of gave him the rundown of what had occurred, and he took over at that point.

So, if he gave Valerio the “run down”, the Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy would know that there were only two witnesses to the shooting.

This is cross-examination by Mr. Sorola, and a repeat of part of Scene 1, and brings in the question posed by the Judge:

Q Okay. Later on do you find out who is shot — who is firing a weapon, a firearm?

A Upon approaching [where] Foerster and Mr. Gonzalez [were], yes.

Q And Agent Gonzalez is the only one that discharged a weapon; is that correct?

A At that point, that’s what I was told, yes.

Q And you were told that by Agent Gonzalez, right?

A Correct. And Mr. Foerster attested to that.

THE COURT: And you said at that time. I mean, nothing subsequent to that time has changed that, have they?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, no. It’s just that —

THE COURT: So as far as you know sitting here today, the only weapon that was shot was — the only weapon discharged was discharged by Agent Gonzalez.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

In confirming (that’s what good attorneys do) that Massey and Varner were detained, Mr. Sorola asks:

Q And this is about 3:45 in the afternoon, correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, you testified earlier that you told Mr. Massey he could not leave the area, right?

A Correct.

Q So he wasn’t free to leave.

A No.

Q He had to stay there.

A Yes.

Q What would you have done had he tried to leave?

A I could have detained — placed him in handcuffs, put him in a unit to secure him to prevent him from leaving the area. But he was being cooperative, and none of that was necessary.

Next, we look at whether there was any reason, at all, to believe that Massey and Varner were complicit, or even aware, of the shooting event — other than having heard the shots.

Q And when the shooting occurred, you didn’t take Mr. Varner’s weapon from him, did you?

A No, sir.

Q You didn’t disarm him?

A No.

Q You didn’t frisk him?

A No.

Q When you encountered Mr. Massey, did you check him for firearms?

A Just the one he was carrying, the longarm, the AK47 weapon.

Q But you didn’t take it from him?

A I did not.

***

THE COURT: Okay. But you had no — you obviously didn’t have any reason to think Mr. Massey was the one that had done the shooting because —

THE WITNESS: No, I —

THE COURT: — you went on. You left him there and went on.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

Here is a rather interesting side note, perhaps a contradiction that has to do with “Officer Safety”. At this time, there are just a few agents in the area. The recipient of the shots fired is still armed, as are Massey and Varner. After additional officers arrive, approaching “between 15 and twenty”, it is determined that the weapons must be “secured”, first to the open ATV, then, later, to the back of the BPS “unit” (why don’t they just call it what it is, instead of government double-speak?)

Q Okay. So Mr. Varner and Mr. Massey just tell you out of the clear blue: We also have firearms on us?

A Yes.

Q And you didn’t see these firearms prior to them telling you?

A I did not.

Q But then are you saying that Mr. Varner then handed you the — the firearm that he had?

A Yes, sir.

Q And what did Mr. Massey do?

A Same thing. They both removed the — their pistols and put them in the back of my unit. The pistols were downloaded and placed there with the remainder — with the other rifles.

Back to the subject of this Act, whether they were detained or stopped. Mr. Sorola still questioning:

Q How long was it that Mr. Massey was not free to leave this area?

A In its entirety, sir, or the investigative agency showed up?

Q In its entirety. From 3:45 when shots are fired, when is Mr. Massey free to go?

A He departed — I’m — I can’t tell you exactly who told him it was — after the investigative agency showed up, they began to interview him. And which agency ultimately told him they were done with their interviews, I couldn’t tell you.

Next Witness, Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Valerio. This will be the handoff of the ID cards, though there arises a question (good memories?) of whether there were two, as Cantu said, or three, as Valerio will testify:

Q Okay. Did you observe or did you meet with an individual by the name of Danny Cantu?

A Yes, I did.

Q And did he provide you with any ID cards?

A Yes, he did, with three ID cards from the persons that were there.

Q Okay. Did he provide you with three ID cards or two ID cards?

A As far as I can remember, it was three ID cards.

Q And soon after arriving, did you request criminal histories and a warrant search on the IDs that had been provided to you?

A Yes, that’s correct.

***

Q All right. Now, did you have reason to believe that Mr. Massey had been carrying a weapon or weapons on that date prior to your arrival?

A Yes, I did.

Q Why did you think that?

A I was informed by the — by David Cantu that this — the suspects, the persons that were there, they were carrying these weapons that he had shown me.

Q All right. Did you — when you first arrived, did you think Mr. Massey had committed a crime? And I’m talking about before you ran the criminal history or anything like that. When you first arrived, did you think he had done anything that — where he should be detained or arrested?

A No. I only had the information on the shooting, but we didn’t know at that point in time what actually had happened.

Q Okay. So if Mr. Massey would have asked you when you arrived at 4:18, told you, “I’m getting out of here,” would you have let him go?

A At that point, yes.

Q Okay. Now, after you learned that he had been in possession of a weapon and he had a felony conviction, did your position change on whether or not you would let him go if he would have asked?

A Yes, it changed based on the information I had and his record and him being in possession. It had changed, that he would have been asked to stay.

Now, wouldn’t the Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy know that after 5 years, Massey could have a firearm? It is suggested, in other testimony, that he knew. In response to Sorola’s questioning:

Q If I have a felony conviction on my record, is it against the law for me to have a firearm?

A It depends if it’s within five years, sir, or not. That’s something that we would have to further — be further looked into.

So, can there be any doubt, even with the hedging, that Valerio knows what Texas law says.

A Prior to his arrival there.

Q Okay. Now, Mr. Massey had a weapon and a felony prior, but is that why you were out there in the Sabal Palms area, to investigation Mr. Massey?

A No. We were out there for the shooting itself.

Q Okay. And what kind of investigation was conducted by the Sheriff’s Department in connection with the shooting?

A The investigation was at the — who — how it happened, who was the one carrying the weapons also, and who was the one that did the shooting, which was Border Patrol involvement.

Then, we have this:

Q All right. Now, did you speak with — towards the end of the shooting investigation, did you speak with your supervisor to determine whether or not you should return the weapons to Mr. Massey, Foerster and Varner or maintain custody of them?

A That’s correct. I spoke to Lieutenant Diaz. And based on the field investigation, he advised that we were going to collect the weapons. We were going to take custody of them for further investigation.

Q Okay. And was that because of the felony convictions?

A Correct. That’s correct.

Then, Mr. Sorola asks:

Q Sergeant, did you ever get a warrant to take possession of the firearms?

A No, I did not.

Q When you arrived at 4:18, was there any emergency? Was the shooting over?

A That’s correct, yes.

Q Well, when you arrived, the firearms were actually in the possession of Border Patrol, right?

A That’s correct.

Q And when you arrived at 4:18, as far as you’re concerned, Mr. Massey was free to leave?

A That’s correct.

Q Do you know if he was under orders from any other law enforcement not to leave?

A No, I did not. I had no knowledge of that.

Q You don’t know?

A I don’t.

Q But at this time, you have his identification card.

A That’s correct.

Q And you have Mr. Varner’s identification card.

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q Did you give them back to them?

A After I — after I did the inquiry, yes.

So, there was no justification for the Deputy to retain, or take custody of the firearms — even Foerster’s, as it was clear there was no criminal act on their part. And, they were free to go, if they left their ID with the Deputy.

Next on the stand, David Daniel Cordova, FBI Special Agent, being questioned by Hagen, and who testified that he arrived on the scene at about 6:00 PM, fully two hours after BPS had determined that Gonzales was the only shooter.

Q Okay. Why did you interview Mr. Massey?

A Mr. Massey? At the time it was my understanding that he was a witness to a shooting. A Border Patrol agent had discharged a firearm, and so I needed to obtain the details of what happened.

Q Okay. At that time — did you state earlier that you were investigating a possible assault on a federal agent?

A That’s correct.

Q And were you also investigating a possible assault by a federal agent?

A That is correct.

I suppose that there is a reason that he wanted to investigate the possibility that there was an assault on a federal officer. But, based upon what we know, is it at all possible that the known information wasn’t provided Cordova? If not, why wasn’t he informed what had already been provided by the participants in the shooting event.

Regarding the investigation as to whether there was an assault by a federal agent, we have heard nothing as to the results of that investigation, if it was every completed. Since Gonzales has not been charged with anything,, we must assume that the focus was on Massey, not on the shooter, Gonzales.

Just trying to understand how the investigators and government look at this, I suppose that we could compare it to you being two blocks away from a bank robbery, though you heard shots fired. The government then holds you as a witness, detaining you until they have fully satisfied themselves that, based up the eye witnesses to the account, and extensive, intrusive interviews, they determine that you are now, finally, free to go — subject to subsequent arrest because they have to check with their bosses to see how to charge you with a crime that you didn’t commit –under state law.

Another side note, in answer to another question, Cordova says, about Massey, “I ended up interviewing him along with an HSI agent.” HSI is Homeland Security Investigations, part of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Later on:

Q Do you know if any of the other FBI agents, your supervisor or anybody took any?

A One of our TFOs I believe took some photos.

THE COURT: What’s a TFO?

THE WITNESS: Task force officer.

So, why is a Task Force Officer present during the investigation? The only task force that I can find reference to that might want to be involved is the Domestic Terror Task Force (DTTF).

However, back to whether, or not, Massey was detained, we have the Hagen discussion with the judge:

HAGEN: No. I mean, my understanding, the motion to suppress is that the stop was illegal and that the arrest warrant was based on that, which, you know, my argument would be if Your Honor doesn’t like the stop, there’s certainly a good faith exception that would apply to the arrest and the search warrant wherein ATF agents were not present on the 29th relied on.

THE COURT: What are you referring to as “the stop“?

HAGEN: The August 29th encounter.

So, Hagen has to set the distinction that it was a stop, not a detention. You have read the testimony, and it appears quite clear that Hagen is grasping at straws. However, there is more coming in the next “Scene”.

 

Government was intended to govern the government,

not to govern the people.

 

 

Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions
Scene 1: Pointing Weapons, or Not Pointing Weapons?

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 11, 2015

In previous articles, we have discussed the Criminal Complaint, Arrest Warrant, and Search Warrant. In each of those documents, we have a set paragraph, to wit:

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

In each document bears the signature of “Anthony M. Rotunno, Special Agent ATF”. Below that, it states that it was “Sworn to before me and signed in my presence”, that being signed by “United States Magistrate Judge Ronald G. Morgan”. So, we have Rotunno swearing before Morgan that everything he has said is true. So, let’s see what the story is, now.

Hagen, the Prosecuting Attorney, in giving his response to Sorola’s motion, says:

[T]he way this all came about is there was one agent that was in heavy brush, and he was in hot pursuit of aliens. When he came through a clearing, he encountered John Foerster… Mr. Foerster had a weapon. It was an AK47 type pistol. And when the Border Patrol — and this is probably disputed. I don’t think that Mr. Foerster ever aimed or was planning on shooting the Border Patrol agent. But when the Border Patrol agent came through the brush, Foerster turned in his direction, and he was perceived as a threat by the Border Patrol agent who fired several shots at Mr. Foerster, thankfully missing.

The first witness was Danny Cantu, U. S. Border Patrol. Hagen is questioning him.

Q Okay. Now, at this point in time, did you know whether or not Border Patrol Agent [Marco] Gonzalez had been threatened or whether or not perhaps Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez had irresponsibly fired upon Foerster? Did you know?

A From what I had gathered, he had fired in — from what Mr. Gonzalez told me. Again, this was preliminary. I was trying to — I had to speak with everyone to figure out kind of what was actually happening, so I wasn’t sure at that point.

Well, Gonzales, the only witness to the shooting besides Foerster, made no claim that begins to suggest that the weapon was pointed at Gonzales.

In Hagen’s initial statements, he said, “I believe [Massey] made one res gestae statement in connection with the arrest when he was told that they were going to do a search warrant, and that statement was, ‘There’s another gun in the hotel room, but it’s not mine.'” So, he ‘believes’, based upon something that he didn’t articulate, he makes a claim without foundation, setting the stage for the entire government performance. Perhaps it was Divine Inspiration.

Now, res gestae is a legal term which provides an exception to the prohibition of hearsay, and is met when somebody makes a spontaneous statement, closely connected to an event, before the mind has an opportunity to conjure a falsehood. Hagen perhaps, attempted to lay a foundation that Massey “volunteered” the information about a firearm in the motel room. Perhaps the same applies to the initial interview with Gonzales and the failure to report any instance where Foerster “turned and pointed a firearm at a USBP Agent.”

It also begs the question, why did Cantu state that he had to “speak with everyone”, when the sole shooter had already said that he was the sole shooter?

In cross-examination, Mr. Sorola is questioning Cantu:

Q To your knowledge, at any time were any of those weapons [that were taken from the Camp Lone Star volunteers] fired at this shooting?

A The Winchester (Varner’s] was not, as he was speaking with me when the shots were fired.

Q So at the time of this shooting, do you know who’s discharging what weapons?

A No.

Q Okay. Later on do you find out… who is firing a weapon, a firearm?

A Upon approaching… Foerster and Mr. Gonzalez area, yes.

Q And Agent Gonzalez is the only one that discharged a weapon; is that correct?

A At that point, that’s what I was told, yes.

Q And you were told that by Agent Gonzalez, right?

A Correct. And Mr. Foerster attested to that.

THE COURT: And you said at that time. I mean, nothing subsequent to that time has changed… ?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, no. It’s just that —

THE COURT: So as far as you know sitting here today, the only weapon that was shot was — the only weapon discharged was discharged by Agent Gonzalez.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

So, Cantu knew, the moment that he was able to speak with Gonzales, that no other weapon was fired, except Gonzales’. And, he makes no mention of any pointing or aiming by Foerster.

From that point on, there is no further discussion of pointing because the shooter, Marco Gonzales, after making initial statement, lawyered up, and Foerster has also refused to talk.

Q Okay. Was he [Agent Marco Gonzales, the shooter] going to visit with anybody? Was he going to talk about what happened?

A No. They — we were informed that he was not going to provide a statement out there.

Q All right. And who gave you that information?

A Let me see. Mr. Gerardo Reyes “Rey” Gonzalez.

Q Okay.

A He was the one who informed me that Agent Gonzalez was not going to provide a statement. He was the union leader.

So, though the agents are employees of the Border Patrol, and I’m sure that they are required, as a part of their duties, to file reports on any incidents, especially an officer involved shooting, and the union can “void” that obligation. It kinda makes you wonder who runs BPS — the government, or the union.

Now, since Gonzales has hidden behind the law and his union, it would appear that he has something to hide. Though we have not heard Foerster’s side of the story, he has not been charged with any criminal activity related to the shooting event, only that he was charged, like Massey, with felony possession of a firearm, and has plead guilty to that charge.

Massey is also charged with felony in possession of a firearm and has, rightfully, plead not guilty. He was not apprehended in the commission of a crime, nor did he have any knowledge of any crime, except what he heard during the course of the investigation. He was not even a witness to the crime of the discharge of a firearm by an agent of the government.

So, let’s try to be objective as we look at this “scene”. We have an affidavit, sworn to by Rotunno, in front of a judge. His claims of the weapon being pointed at the Agent flies in the face of what Gonzales and Foerster told the other investigators. Even the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Hagen, says that he doubts that a firearm was pointed at the agent. That was a bald-faced lie on the part of Rotunno, and he was never even at the scene of the shooting. That smells, very strongly, of Perjury.

However, if you lie to a government agent during the course of an investigation, you are subject to 18 US Code § 1001, and subject to 5 years in prison.

Then, we have the only one that committed a possible criminal act who only made some statements to others, before the union got him to lawyer-up.

However, who is the government going after? K. C. Massey, neither Gonzales for shooting at Foerster nor Rotunno for lying in a sworn statement.

It appears that we have returned to that era in history where “The King can do no wrong”. And, the King includes his, not our, public servants.

Government should not be theoretically defensible,

it should be the object of general acceptance.

Camp Lone Star – Act One: The Government Charade

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 31, 2015

Yesterday, when Massey arrived at the courthouse, there were about twenty agents in battle gear and a number of DHS Suburbans parked in front of the courthouse. After going in to the courthouse, he had to visit the Pre-Trial Services. There, he was approached by two agents who wanted to see his sunglasses. They inspected them, thoroughly, and then returned them to Massey. I suppose this is the future — what we can expect because of Google-Glasses. However, finding that they were not dangerous, they were returned to their owner.

At 1:30, he arrived at the hearing. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, read his motion to Suppress Evidence and the Motion to Dismiss. The US Attorney, Hagen, then presented oral arguments against the two motions. Apparently, as we will see later, Hagen failed to address all of the pertinent parts of the motions.

Then, BPS agent Cantu testified. Now, Cantu was there shortly after the shooting took place. There were only two witnesses to the shooting, John (Jesus) Foerster and BPS agent Gonzales. Foerster has pled guilty to the charge of felony possession, though he has yet to be sentenced. Perhaps he is in acting school, being prompted on what his testimony will be if Massey ever goes to trial.

Gonzales has been conspicuously absent, throughout this whole ordeal. However, he is the only one on the government side that was witness to the shooting. However, this cannot be a bar to introducing testimony as to what happened that afternoon, so Cantu testified as if he were present and observed the shooting. I think that is most often referred to as hearsay evidence, and if someone not on the government side presented it, would probably not be allowed. However, Cantu asserts that the weapon was pointed at the agent before he fired at Foerster. Foerster placed, or dropped, his weapon to the ground. Cantu testified than when he arrived, Foerster was holding his weapon and Cantu then took the weapon from him.

So, let’s see, according to the government line, Foerster pointed the weapon toward Gonzales, Gonzales fired, from about thirty feet away, five shoots, all of them missing Forester. Foerster places the gun on the ground, and because of the sound of the shooting, people begin to gather. Cantu arrives and Foerster is holding his weapon — wait, you mean Gonzales, after a shooting incident, let Foerster pick up his loaded weapon? This is almost unbelievable — that Foerster was allowed to carry the weapon until Cantu arrived to join him and Gonzales. Gee, in movies, and even on Cop Block, they always kick the weapon away from the bad guy, even when he is dead.

Okay, on to the next fantasy. As was reported previously (Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland), they have claimed that Massey was not detained, since if he was detained, they would have to read him his Miranda Rights. So, Cantu takes Massey’s driver’s license, which will not be returned until the end of the investigation by even more government agents, hours later. Cantu also stated that if Massey tried to leave, he would have “cuffed” him and put him in the back of his vehicle. But, remember, now Massey was not detained (he just wasn’t allowed to leave).

Next witness is Sheriff’s Deputy Valerio. He testified that Massey’s driver’s license was handed to him when he arrived. He said that Massey was “free to go”, though he never gave Massey his driver’s license. Massey doesn’t recall anybody, at any time, telling him that he was free to go until the ordeal was over.

Final witness, FBI Special Agent Cordoba. He admits that there was a criminal investigation going on. However, the criminal, if there was one, would only be the person that shot at another person. It is difficult to believe that the criminal is the person that was shot at, and the investigation was directed at Massey and Foerster instead of Gonzales.

Cantu was reading from a notepad, which was not provided through discovery, nor was Massey’s attorney even aware of its existence. Surely agent Gonzales had to prepare a written report, so, that, too, will be made available. And, finally, we may get to see the weapons audit and chain of evidence on the only gun fired that day.

All three witnesses testified that Massey was on private property, which would make possession of a weapon legal under Texas law. So, here we have that conflict that was addressed in Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws.

At the close of the hearing, Hanen gave the government the opportunity to file an additional response, since they failed to address some portions of the motions. I suppose that it will also give them some time to ‘imagineer” (that’s a Disney term for those who make up stories) some effort to cover up what has been uncovered, though I doubt that they are able to undo the damage they have already done to their case. The government has until April 10 to file their amendment/response. The Sorola has until the 17th to respond to the government’s feeble effort to try to make their story believable.

An observation: Judge Hanen is being extremely lenient with the government in allowing them to try to get their story straight. However, with the discrepancies so far, it is nearly inconceivable that they can extricate their falsehoods and come up with a cohesive story supported by the evidence — some yet to be seen by the Accused and his attorney. Perhaps the Judge will find that even the lower levels of government are as prone to lying as those in the high chairs of the Administration.

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

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

Massey says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Briefly” is defined as 5 hours?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massey was not the focal point of the investigation;

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

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

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

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

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

 

Waco – A Lesson in History

Part I
Looking Back at Waco

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 4, 2015

 

On February 28, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), raided the Branch Davidians Church, just outside of Waco, Texas. After a firefight lasting about 2 1/2 hours in which the Davidians continue, through 911, to have the firing cease, the BATF finally withdrew, with their tail between their legs. The body count was four dead agents and four dead Davidians (a fifth died within a few days). BATF had far more injuries than the Davidians, and they did not accomplish their mission. Disgraced because of the failure of the ill-conceived plan for the raid, the big brother, the FBI, came in and took charge of the remaining operation.

Mainstream Media began coverage within hours, and would remain for the next 51 days. However, for the most part, the news that they “gathered”, and then fed to the majority of the American people, was nothing more than a rewrite of the daily FBI Press Conference, complete with coffee and donuts.

These events happened before the Internet became readily available, so that alternate media was relegated to fax networking and sympathetic radio talk shows.

Though I arrived in Waco on the evening of March 5, my reports didn’t begin flowing until March 8. Arrangements were made with Ken Varden, who had recently set up operation as the American Patriot Fax Network (APFN), while I continued to write under my recently established Outpost of Freedom. These reports, as well as additional information and pictures taken during and shortly thereafter, see Waco White Papers

Because of limitations (Ken used two fax machines to fax out each report to 800 people, each report), which it took all night to fax out to all recipients, I was limited to one page faxes. As a result, my releases were generally a supplement to the broadcast news, or clarification of MSM reported events.

What we didn’t know then was what the long-term effects of Waco would be, especially to the patriots of this once great nation. Time, however, has provided many answers to many questions, and we can also see that many recent events, such as the shooting, by “law enforcement officers”, of unarmed people, and then cheap rationalizations to justify the “legality” of those actions, has grown far beyond what occurred, over two decades ago.

Many of those currently involved in patriotic activates tend to look at Waco as ancient history, not realizing what we have learned about the misdeeds of government, and how those have expanded into what has become standard operating procedure of the government.

It is well worth your time to set aside a few hours and “bone up” on that travesty of American Justice. Look at what we learned over the next six years as a type of after action report from which we can define the Modus Operandi (method of operation) of government, and where it was born.

Links to the other parts:

 

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

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

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

 

Waco – A Lesson in History

Part II
Rules of Engagement

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 4, 2015

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to the other parts:

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

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

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

Waco – A Lesson in History

Part III
A New Revelation

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 4, 2015

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to the other parts:

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

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

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

Waco – A Lesson in History

Part IV
The FLIR Project

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 4, 2015

 

The “Rules of Engagement” documentary brought forth the possibility that the infra-red imagery (FLIR – Forward Looking Infra-Red) taken by the FBI showed that snipers were shooting into Mt. Carmel Church, keeping those inside from exiting during the fire. The Danforth Commission ordered a “re-creation” of the event, at least with regard to gunfire and FLIR, as to whether the imagery could possibly pick up gunfire, and, if so, would it appear as represented in the documentary. The results of this government exercise were included in the Danforth report.

When the producers of the two documentaries reviewed the report, they questioned the accuracy of the “re-creation”, and found that many of the methods were, to say the least, fabrications, since different rifles and ammunition were used.

“Waco – The FLIR Project” (34:10) reviews the government testing and conducts their own, using correct weapons, ammunition, and as much as possible, other conditions existing on April 19, 1993.

The viewer will have to judge, however, the last ten minutes of this study leaves with the understanding that if the study was properly conducted, it provides convincing proof that the FBI imagery from April 19 does show that there was automatic gunfire directed towards at least two locations, during the fire, which resulted in the deaths of over eighty people, including women, children, and infants.

Links to the other parts:

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

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

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

 

Escalation – What’s Next?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2015

 

We need to get a perspective on the patriot community that has been overlooked, probably because most of the people within our community are, although sincere, focused only where they stand on the “progression of involvement” (See The Other (not so) Thin Line) within their own community. Quite simply, many have still maintained that the election process is able to effect the change that we seek, while ignoring the failure of that process over the past many decades. Next, we have those who have recognized the failure of that process, but don’t know where to go. Then there are those who realize that nothing will change without violence, though they are not motivated, for whatever reason, to pursue that objective. Finally, there are those who are ready to act, though they are constrained by their fear of other patriots as much as their fear of the government.

Let’s put another perspective on the relationship between various groups of people who are known to commit violent acts. First, we have the Muslims. They are, by Mainstream Media (MSM), divided into two categories, Extreme and Moderate. The Extremes perpetrate violent acts such as the well-known beheading of Westerners, directed attacks with rifles, as in Canada and Paris, France, and many other activities such as the Boston Bombing, that have cost the lives of innocent people without any justifiable targeting of those killed. The moderates, however, sit quietly by, acting as if nothing is going wrong, yet they won’t object to the actions of the extremes. (See Can Muslims fit into our society? Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?)

Next, let’s look at law enforcement in our own country. Most tabulations of the number of unarmed people killed by law enforcement, this past year, approach or exceed 1,000. This doesn’t count those with serious, even lifetime, injuries, damage, or loss of a family pet that “threatened” the officer. Let’s call those cops that conduct these activities, even if only one, or many times, “extreme” cops. The remaining “moderate” cops, even though their job is to enforce the laws of the land, state, etc., do not arrest or charge their fellow officers, they do, however, offer support, if only by inaction, and will readily defend those officers who have, “for their own safety”, committed such acts. Not much different from those moderate Muslims, are they? (See To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop)

Finally, we get to the Patriots who realize that things are getting worse with each administration of government. Within that group, we have both “moderate” patriots and “extreme” patriots. The extreme patriots are those who are ready and willing to act, and often those contemplated acts, though directed, might result in the loss of innocent lives. A example of this would by the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. (See below)

Where the moderate patriots are making a mistake, to use the words of Chief Mark Kessler, is that we all “have an obligation to turn in to the government anybody who is going to do something that will cost innocent lives”. That quote is from a recent conversation I had with Kessler. What happened resulted in the arrest of three men in Georgia is explained in Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3. The FBI promulgated the suggestion that innocent lives would be lost when they interviewed “Blood Agent” This theme was carried on by Kessler and the MSM, that their acts would be random and would take innocent lives. However, recently the government has, in their official Indictment, made clear that “The three men were being monitored by the FBI in an online chat room where they discussed launching attacks at an Atlanta police station and other government agencies.” Initial MSM reports did not detail the limitations that the FBI placed upon the acts that the three had intended, making their plot to be far more sinister than it really was.

Mainstream Media often plays an important role in demonization. An example of this is the Hutaree Militia (2012-13), as explained in Thought Crimes, where the media, probably at the instigation of the government, laid out a story that was, well, fabricated. Otherwise, the Court would not have eventually dismissed the charges.

Our susceptibility to these divisive means of splitting our ranks is a result of “propaganda” and our willingness to judge those within our movement, turning against them if what they may, or may not, have planned is beyond our current (where we are along that Thin Line – linked above) conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not.

So, Muslim moderates and Law Enforcement moderates both support their extreme elements. Patriots, however, turn against our extreme elements, and, we turn them over to the government — our enemy, in our efforts to restore proper constitutional limits upon the government.

We will have to visit the past to get a better understanding of what I mean. In 1995, Tim McVeigh bombed a government building. Outrage was the response of the patriots, since there were innocent women and children in the building. McVeigh explained why he targeted a government building when he wrote “Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building“. Now, where could he possibly get the idea that it was a “retaliatory strike, and that federal agents had become soldiers… it was a preemptive or proactive strike… against their control center.”

In a Philadelphia Enquirer article, dated April 9, 1999, during NATO’s Yugoslavia (Kosovo and Serbia) War, declared, with full support of the Pentagon, that,

“In the air war, Pentagon officials said NATO’s warplanes would increasingly target government buildings, industries and state-run television relays in an attempt to shake the foundation of President Slobodan Milosevic’s regime [5th paragraph in the article].”

This practice has been carried through in all subsequent “wars” that we have been involved in, unless the government buildings were deemed friendly.

Let’s suppose that anybody that is a patriot can find the point on this list where they would feel comfortable. Go ahead, pick your number. Now, think back. Where were you a year ago? Two years ago? Presumably, you have progressed, as you realize the failure of your earlier position.

1. Voting for a political party
2. Voting for individuals (based upon their record)
3. Mass meetings to discuss problems (Tea Party, or other participation)
4. Street demonstrations (Overpass, etc.)
5. Trips to Washington for demonstrations (OAS, Veterans, truck drivers, tractors, etc.)
6. Civil disobedience (subjecting yourself to arrest by expressing yourself – Freedom of Speech)
7. Civil defiance (willing to retaliate with force, such as Bundy Ranch or the WWII veterans memorial)
8. Sabotage of government property (vehicles, etc.)
9. Breaking into government facilities (intelligence information, equipment, & supplies)
10. Sabotage of government property (destroying electronics, communication towers, etc.)
11. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in injury or destruction of property
12. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in death/serious injury of unarmed people
13. Targeting individuals who work for government
14. Sabotage of government property (destruction of facilities)
15. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities (Primarily serving Government facilities)
16. Prison breaks (selectively releasing political prisoners)
17. Ambushes (of targeted government vehicles or convoys)
18. Destruction of a Government Building (night time)
19. Raids (police stations, fusion centers, etc.)
20. Destruction of a Government Building (day time)
21. Prison breaks (releasing all prisoners)
22. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities – Primarily serving general population

Just for kicks, now suppose where you will be if Hillary becomes president, or the police kill another thousand unarmed people this year, or, well, use your imagination as to what events may change you position — move higher in the numbers of the list. That should bring to light what was explained in “The Other (not so) Thin Line“.

We should be able to understand that each of us has, through our own experience, found that we continue to move into a greater sense of necessity, if we are to restore constitutional government. The problem arises when we insist that others cannot go beyond where we are.

Unfortunately, if we continue to pursue this course, we chop off the experienced head, those who have, by their experiences, moved further along that line. Does it make any sense, at all, to have such a detrimental effect on our community, just because we want to constrain them to what we impose upon ourselves?

Think very hard before you do anything that sets us back rather than moves us ahead.