Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 21, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 25, 2014

There are six provisions of the Constitution that are subject to your consideration and interpretation, when we look into what has become a means of punishment rather than any semblance of Justice — which was the purpose of the Constitution. We will consider these provisions in light of the historical enactments of “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” laws and their use, today, as a means of punishment of those who have committed no crime, in recent years, though the government has chosen to punish them with both illegal and unlawful prosecution/persecution.

We will start with what is referred to as the “Commerce Clause”. It is a power granted to the federal government to enact laws. It is found in Article I, Section 8, clause 3, and reads:

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

Now, “regulate” is a word that was commonly used by the Founders. So, let’s see what it meant to them, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

regulate  v.t.

To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

Now, if we were to desire to regulate commerce between the states, those regulations should be equal, and not be to the disadvantage of one state, or to the advantage of another. Obviously, this would apply to the citizens of each state, as well. Its purpose is to make equal between the states, conferring no advantage, or prohibition, on one over another. To achieve this, they can make rules and restrictions. These would only be rules and restrictions that apply in the act of commerce.

Now, being one of commerce “among the several States”, then it would only occur at the borders between states, not within a state. You might compare it to an elevated walkway crossing a street. The stairway goes up from one sidewalk, a walkway across the road, and down on to the sidewalk on the other side of the road. Commerce, to the extent granted by the Commerce Clause, is only the stairways and the walkway. To extend it up and down the sidewalk would be to intrude upon the rights of the state.

The “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is codified in 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1). The initial law was enacted in the early Nineteen-thirties, during the gangster era. Since the federal jurisdiction was, then, limited to interstate commerce (we will go there, shortly), the states were encouraged to enact similar laws, in accordance with their respective constitutions.

They did this because the Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

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.

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power. Therefore, the states could enact felony possession laws, which they did because of this provision.

The federal government could criminalize sending, transportation, and receiving, through interstate commerce, and the states could punish those who could not be prosecuted for possession that was not directly involved in commerce. States varied in their form of punishment, as well as the length and extent of punishment. The states, then, had jurisdiction once the firearms left the stairways at each end of the walkway. It was only those either sending (stairway), transporting (walkway) or receiving (stairway) who were subject to federal law. This is made clear in that portion of the federal law, when it says, “It shall be unlawful for any person [who has been convicted of felony] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

So, we must ask ourselves what this law really says. Well, “to ship or transport” is quite clear. It is the first stairway and the walkway. Surely, if a felon owned a firearm and then sold it to someone who was not a felon, and that second person then shipped or transported that firearm, the felon would not be in possession, since it is the stairway that begins the process. Neither would affect commerce, since the felon is out of the picture, at that time. So, now we get to receive. Receive is an act, in itself. The wording, now this is important, states, “which has been shipped or transported”. When the law was written, those who use words to create the rules of action that we were to be bound by, chose the word “has”, as opposed to the word “had”. “Has” is 3rd person present, meaning active in the action just completed, where “had” is past tense, meaning in a previous situation. If they had the lawful authority to extend the prohibition, the criminal act, they would surely have used “had” instead of “has”. “Had” would extend the prohibition indefinitely. This would explain the necessity of state prohibitions, and leave the jurisdiction fully within the state, if the firearm moved, absent commerce.

Now, in the above, we are discussing commerce. Commerce is, well, commercial, meaning that is done for compensation, for a fee, as a business. Is it commercial if I move myself from one state to another? Surely, it is not, because Article IV, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” That means that I can travel freely between states, without penalty by the state that I enter. This would also mean that the federal government is not a party to my free movement between the states. Only if I hire someone to transport my goods does that property enter the commerce realm, and then, it might still be questionable as to whether I could carry my property, as the commercial aspect is only one of movement, not of commerce leaving one state and entering another. It would be absurd to think that if I carried my firearm with me, from a state that manufactured firearms, to a state that did not, that I would not have the same “Privileges and Immunities”, once I travelled freely to another state.

So, what happens if a federal statute contradicts another federal statute? Better yet, what if a federal statute had the appearance of conflict, via one interpretation, though had no apparent conflict, by another interpretation? Wouldn’t it make sense that statutes cannot be in conflict with other statutes?

Let’s consider the explanation given above, with regard to 18 U. S. Code 922 (g). Then, let’s look at what statute was enacted in providing detail of the Second Amendment, the Amendment that reads:

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

In support of this Amendment, we find 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “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 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

312 : US Code – Section 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.

Well, I have read that five times, and I cannot find that there is an exemption for someone that has been convicted of a felony. There must be a reason that this exemption was not included. Perhaps it has to do with a better understanding of what the Constitution granted Congress.

So, if the militia “consists of”, it appears to be obligatory and consistent with the Amendment. And, since felons are not exempted, then they are a part of the militia. The militia, however, must be able to “keep and bear Arms”. So, if this statute makes me a member of the militia, then it cannot infringe my right to “keep and bear Arms”. Now, this is not inconsistent with Congress’ authority to regulate commerce, if that regulation is as stated above. However, if we have already demonstrated a weak interpretation the government is currently using to target and punish people, then we have a very serious conflict between the government’s interpretation of the statute and the Constitution, as so far presented. Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Let’s look at how the government is trying to desecrate the Constitution (now, not in the thirties) by trying to use words to increase federal authority beyond what was intended. In 1990, the federal “Gun-Free School Zones Act” was enacted as a part of the “Crime Control Act of 1990”. Its language was modeled after that language used in 18 U. S. Code 922 (g), and was codified in 18 U. S. Code 922 (q). In 1995, the Supreme Court overturned the law by their decision in United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

In overturning the Gun-Free statute, Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

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

Rehnquist recognized that such authority was an authority of a state, not a federal, nature. He explained that the tie to commerce has to be either direct, or of an “economic enterprise”. It had to have a “nexus with interstate commerce”.

So, what did the Congress do? Janet Reno, then Attorney General of the United States, recommended changes to the Gun-Free provision that would give her department extraordinary power by obfuscating the tie to commerce. This was enacted in 1997, and we find that the tie to commerce has been rewritten in a form that doesn’t even sound like what you would expect a law to read, rather, it talks about why Congress enacted the law (warm and fuzzy), providing no substance, only flowers. For the sake of conservation of the length of this article, I will leave to you further research into “18 U. S. Code 922 (q)”. We need only understand that if the Supreme Court overturns an act for unconstitutionality, the government will endeavor to circumvent the prohibition, by whatever means they have, whether legal, lawful, or not.

Now, we shall enter into the world of Jurisdiction. Often, people will say, “that law is unconstitutional”. Here is the stickler; the law is possibly constitutional, though the question of “where” the law applies becomes the consideration, not of constitutionality, rather of jurisdiction, or, where it is applied.

We have just seen that with regard to the “Commerce Clause”, but we need to venture even further. There are two provisions that give Congress authority beyond what we usually perceive as the limitations imposed by the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, clause 17 says:

Congress shall have the Power… To exercise 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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 says:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Briefly, the Constitution does not define limits, in these instances, though practice, especially during the first 70 years of this government, have established the limits of those authorities. For those who wish a more thorough understanding of what was intended, I would suggest reading Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty. Otherwise, suffice it to understand that the limitations we have been discussing do not fall within those areas of exclusion — that an act of Congress (such as the Act of 1825, in the linked article) can appear to be unconstitutional, though it is only unconstitutional if applied outside of those lands that come under the extraordinary jurisdiction.

So, with this understanding, we, as the People of these United States of America, must allow the government to continually trample upon that sacred document, the Constitution, or must decide that they are not the proper party to make such judgment, as was true of Parliament and the King, when they enacted unconstitutional laws and imposed them on the colonies. If so, then we need to use whatever means necessary in assuring that the government abides by that document, or we resort to the provision of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that “when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 24, 2014

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

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

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

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

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

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

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

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

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

Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, I like this next part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

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

Camp Lone Star – The Search Warrant or Fishing License?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 10, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 3, 2014

“Felony Possession of a Firearm” is the feds’ way of charging someone who is a convicted felon and possesses a firearm, which is found in 18 USC 922, at (g)(1). In two previous articles, we touched upon various aspects of that law. In “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher, we addressed the interstate commerce aspect of that law. It explained that the law can only be properly applied if a person is directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce of a firearm, as any other interpretation would result in unequal justice under the law, whereby a citizen of one state might be able to have both firearms and ammunition, in another state, one might be able to only have ammunition or a firearm, and in the remainder of the states, one could possess neither firearm or ammunition.

In a subsequent article, Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws, we discussed the conflict between state and federal laws. The Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

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.

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power.

Now, supposing that is the case, could the federal government, absent such delegated power, pass a law, or promulgate a rule (See The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM), that was Constitutional, or is it without jurisdiction – unless supported by another power or authority granted to the federal government? The “Clash of Laws” article refers to a Supreme Court decision, United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995), which removes any doubt as to whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, “To regulate Commerce … among the several States” (Art. I, §8, clause 3) allows that regulation to extend to any use, once removed from interstate commerce. The Court ruled, “To uphold the Government’s contention… would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States”. The Court, in declining to decide in the government’s favor, ruled that the government was unable to extend its “Commerce Clause authority” to encroach upon the authority reserved to the States.

So, that is two strikes against the federal government, in their intent to broaden their authority where it was never granted by the Constitution. Is it possible that there might be a third strike that would, without question, prohibit the federal government from imposing any limitation of the right to possess a firearm, leaving that power solely to the state government to do as they wish?

The first eight Amendments are prohibitions – things that the federal government cannot violate. Let’s start with the Second Amendment:

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

Before we proceed, it might be worth understanding what the definition of the most significant word in that Amendment is. This definition is from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — words as they were understood by the Founders.

infringe, v.t.
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

infringed, pp. Broken; violated; transgressed.

Well, that is pretty clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means that it is not within the granted powers and authorities granted to the federal government, for it to do “what is stipulated not to be done”.

That appears to be a good start, though we need to go a bit further to see if that infringement is contrary to a provision of U. S. Code that is very consistent with the Second Amendment, and in its provisions, does not exclude the right, under federal law, to possess a firearm — except, possibly, while directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, what about the militia? The government tells us how bad they are, but, what does United States Code (the Law of the Land, as per Art. VI, say about the militia? From 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

   § 311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “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 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

   § 312 : US Code – Section 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.

Nowhere in this law made in pursuance to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, does it prohibit a convicted felon from being in the militia. In fact, it is mandatory, since he is not exempted, that he be within those defined as “unorganized”. So, ponder this; can someone be in the militia that is unable to possess a firearm? That would seem to be contrary to the Constitutional provision pertaining for the militia. only the most absurd reasoning could devise to argue against a person’s right to possess a firearm, with the exception of that portion that prohibits direct involvement in interstate or foreign commerce.

Article VI, clause 2 tells us “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” So, if a law is made in pursuance, as opposed to without such authority, it is Constitutional. Otherwise, it is not.

So, do we allow the judges, who are constantly subverting the Constitution by ruling contrary to its provisions, or adding their personal beliefs, as enforceable points of law, to continue to rule in such a manner? Or, do we, as Americans, have every right to read, interpret, so long as we don’t err in that interpretation, abide by, and enforce the law as was intended by the Founders? Moreover, does this right extend to the use of whatever force necessary to free those shackled by government efforts to quash the Constitution in such a manner as to grant them powers that are tyrannical?

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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