Outpost of Freedom blog

Lessons of History #3

Emotions that Led to Secession

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

December 31, 2014

On October 16, 1859, John Brown and 18 men took over the Harpers Ferry Armory, in northern Virginia (now West Virginia). His intention was to seize the arms and get them to slaves in the South so that they could rise up against their masters, and kill them. Brown’s effort was cut short when he was captured on October 18.

His trial began on October 27 and a jury convicted him on November 2, 1859.

Thomas J. Jackson, from Virginia Military Institute was in charge of the military security detail assigned to keep the crowds in order for the December 2 hanging. Just two years later, Jackson would be known as “Stonewall” Jackson, and would encourage his troops, at the Battle of Bull Run, to “yell like banshees”, which was the beginning of the famous Rebel Yell.

The people of the North, especially the abolitionists, considered the conviction and hanging of Brown to be a travesty, as Brown had become a folk hero in that part of the country.

The South, observing the North’s disrespect for the laws and the system that convicted and hanged Brown, were outraged. A popular hero had grown from the event, and his purpose was to foment a slave uprising by arming them so that they could kill their masters, and presumably, any whites they could find. The Yankees had overtly sought the death of the Southern whites at the hands slave population.

Is it any wonder that just a year later, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union? Could anyone remain in a union with other states that had openly and publically supported an effort that might well have led to their deaths?

We are often caught up in the events that may have led to secession, such as tariffs, slavery, or any other easily identifiable cause, however, we seldom, if ever, want to look at the social relationship that was straining both sides to a breaking point. The first, with open and exuberant support for a cause that may have left hundreds of thousands of dead fellow countrymen, and the other, who chose not to be identified as of the same nation as those who had called for their deaths. We fail to understand the mindset, dwelling on the actions, and focus strictly on those bits of history written in out textbooks (by the winner), rather than the emotional undercurrents that might reasonably justify the response, in this case secession.

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet
Part 4

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 11, 2014

Fox News Network’s Alan Colmes had a special guest on Tuesday, December 2, 2014. As so often happens on television, the guest was “coming out of the closet”, though this had nothing to do with sexual orientation.

The guest, Chief Mark Kessler, formerly chief of the Borough of Gilberton, Pennsylvania Police Department, explained why he got into going after patriots, apparently with a total disregard for the intention of the Second Amendment.

Here is an audio of the entire Colmes/Kessler interview.

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

Following are some excerpts from that interview:

COLMES: And you used these videos as not an expression of your own views, but as a way to get other people to respond?

KESSLER: Correct. We used them as a tool, and they worked overwhelmingly.

COLMES: Why wouldn’t your police force, since they are also a government agency, in Gilberton have been in on this so you wouldn’t have to lose your job?

KESSLER: I couldn’t tell anybody, I just couldn’t; it was complete deniability. I could not say a word to anyone about the operation. So again it was bigger than me. I seen an opportunity to advance my law enforcement career, and there was no way I was going to turn it down.

Observation: It seems that Kessler’s motivation was career oriented. Would this not be true, to some degree, for anybody in law enforcement?

* * *

COLMES: Were you promised a job by somebody in the federal government to do this?

KESSLER: No, it was volunteer work.

COLMES: What was in it for you?

KESSLER: I got to save a lot of lives, I can tell you that. I got to do a lot of undercover work that I always longed to do at a national level, I mean, I don’t know any law enforcement officer… [that wouldn’t jump at the chance to do what I have done?]

* * *

COLMES: Did it occur to you at the time that you would put your job in jeopardy, because you wouldn’t be regarded as a peace officer of all the residents of Gilberton?

KESSLER: Absolutely, but again, it was bigger than me. It was a lot bigger than me. I was given an opportunity of a lifetime to do work that I had always wanted to do, and I jumped on the opportunity. Unfortunately, it was volunteer work, because I was a law enforcement officer and you can’t get paid for that, but I got reimbursed for going different places.

Observation: This is the James Bond syndrome. Living in a fantasy world. However, Kessler was quite poor at what he did. If he had not come out of the closet, he may have had a career. Instead, he is out on both sides of the fence. He is no good to the feds, and, he is surely no good as a patriot.

* * *

COLMES: How many people would you say came out of the woodwork, or how many groups came to you as a result of the bait that you threw out there?

KESSLER: Thousands and thousands and thousands; they have no idea…

COLMES: And what? You turned them over to the feds?

KESSLER: My job was to find out if they were dangerous or not. If they were a dangerous group or deemed a threat to society, well then, we took care of business.

Observation: Be advised that if you had contact with Kessler, there may still be a surprise in store for you, Prepare for it. Relocate any equipment he may have been aware of. Take precautions to protect yourself.

* * *

COLMES: How is your name not attached to this? You don’t want to tell us what agencies, where you got this information, who you work for?

KESSLER: I was intel, I was strictly intelligence.

* * *

COLMES: You also have a reality show, do you not, in production?

KESSLER: Well, it’s still in the works, but we didn’t sign yet; we signed to get one in the works, but we didn’t sign to actually get one started.

* * *

COLMES: Where can the citizens go to see the results of this? Is there any place we can learn more about it?

KESSLER: My part is finished. I’m not at liberty, I can’t reveal which agencies…

COLMES: Will there to be a time when you will be able to reveal that?

KESSLER: Yes, I’m sure there will be, but right now, there are still pending investigations going on. I cannot reveal what’s going on…

Observation: There are still pending investigations. There is no telling how long that list is, or what may have been included in his reports. It is even possible that an exaggeration, on his part, might put someone at greater risk than their own circumstances warrant.

* * *

COLMES: You don’t think the Left are a bunch of libtards?

KESSLER: No, that’s not my job as a law enforcement officer. That was specifically designed to attract groups of people that are extremists, sovereign citizens, insurrectionists, and it worked absolutely fantastic. Again I’m happy to say that we took down several plotted attacks that didn’t go through, we took down a group in Georgia. We took down a group in Texas.

COLMES: Can you name any of the groups you took down?

KESSLER: The Triple X Minutemen is one group.

COLMES: Triple X-Minutemen? Who are they?

KESSLER: They are from the Georgia area, and they were planning to blow up a federal building.

Observation: He has claimed that 53 people will go down. So far, we only have three that we know of. If anybody has information on the Texas group or others that have suffered the wrath of government because of Kessler, please advise the author of this article.

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

By the evening of the interview, postings on the Internet, including Facebook, were being read or listened to. A hornet’s nest had been stirred up by Kessler, and it appears that he attempted to undo the damage he had brought upon himself when he posted, on his Facebook page, this comment (evening of December 3):

His coal miner background is apparent in both his grammar and word usage. However, his effort to distance himself from the truth failed, miserably, as the previous articles in this series clearly demonstrate.

There is little doubt that Kessler has “come out of the closet”, and though he tried to go back in, he has only managed to bring further discredit upon his name.

END

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – Recent Past – Part 2

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns
Part 3

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 11, 2014

On December 2, 2014, Chief Mark Kessler came “out of the closet” as an FBI informant, or infiltrator. His exact status with the FBI is uncertain, though there is little doubt that he is cooperating with them to expose patriots to criminal prosecution, even to the point of entrapment.

He, at one point, claimed that he had gone to Langley, Virginia, to offer his services to the government. If true, it should be noted that Langley is where the CIA is located, and domestic involvement by the CIA is forbidden. However, it does appear that he did “hook up” with the FBI, though it is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

When Kessler started the CSF (Constitution Security Force), he had copies of all applications sent to him. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people gave pertinent information to Kessler, as they believed that as leader of this organization, Kessler would be a source of defense against government encroachment upon constitutional rights.

As explained previously, with the exception of obtaining copies of applications, Kessler did little more than simply solicit membership — he never really involved himself in the workings of CSF, nor did he propose a plan of action.

Due to lack of support from Kessler, some of the CSF groups simply dissolved, while others restructured themselves, often with minor name changes. The Georgia CSF renamed itself the “Georgia Security Force” (GSF) and adopted the “Soldier’s Code of Conduct”, the backbone Army personnel conduct, for decades.

Article I
I am an American fighting man, fighting in the forces which guard our country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Kessler’s next step was the seemingly more formidable organization, III% BOG (Boots on Ground), which had a more suggestive name, III% meaning those who will fight, and BOG, implying active duty in combat territory. Again, he obtained all applications, and did little to communicate or provide direction, except, when he saw potential groups or individuals that might be a bit more serious, with regard to acting in opposition to government activities (See The Other (not so) Thin Line). One of these was the XXX Minuteman Militia, based in Georgia, with supporters in other states.

Nearly every person who joined the III% BOG completed and sent to Kessler an application, sufficient in detail to positively identify hundreds, perhaps thousands, who joined his organization. The information requested is far more extensive than you would fill out for a job, and includes questions that are appropriate for psychological evaluation, or, profiling.

One of the key players in Georgia goes by the moniker “blood agent” (Source “BA” – as he asked to be referred to during our interview). He felt that Kessler could send people in his direction, as he and Kessler spoke frequently. In early 2014, Kessler appointed him national commander of all CSF groups. This was done since Kessler was more concerned with getting a reality TV show than working with the organization he had begun.

The Set Up

In January 2014, in online discussions, Williamson, Cannon, and Peace (the Trio) discussed preparations for a “guerilla warfare” operation targeting “TSA, DHS, non-emergency FEMA, road blocks, etc.” It is apparent, here, that the targets were government agencies acting in the capacity of a police state. Note that only “non-emergency FEMA” is mentioned, to exclude those portions of FEMA that actually provide assistance during disasters, rather than targeting patriots.

In early February 2014, a conversation took place in an online chat at the “Blood and Scorched Earth” Facebook (FB) page. Participating was an informant known as CHS-1 (TS), using the Thomas Short FB account, along with Cannon, using his own account, and Williamson, using his own account. A meeting was arranged to take place on February 5, in Memphis, Tennessee. TS advised that he might be late for the meeting, due to weather. Cannon advised that an “anonymous friend” would be providing funding.

On February 5, TS was not present for the meeting, so the Trio left and returned to Georgia, then arranged to get back with TS via another means of communication.

Note that the Affidavit shows that Cannon’s phone was traced through cell towers from Memphis, Tennessee to Rome, Georgia, on that date – be advised. Note, also, that Thomas Short was named in the Search Warrant to Facebook for records (April 1), though he was not named in the Criminal Complaint, filed on February 28. This would suggest that Thomas Short is CHS-1, or someone acting as Thomas Short was CHS-1. Thomas Short, from Pennsylvania, was mentioned by two of the people who were interviewed for this article.

Later that day, arrangements were made to utilize a free, secure, chat site, www.chatcrypt.com, to continue discussing the operation. That discussion was attended by TS, “Chief” (probably Kessler), and another, unnamed. Since Peace had requested the password, it was most likely him. The chats were captured for evidence.

Note that those interviewed for this article made clear that Kessler always wanted to be referred to as “Chief”.

The only reported conversation from that chat came from “Chief”:

“We will be using Guerrilla style warfare tactics. I have been arguing with myself on what level of violence or what level of damage is acceptable. I do not want to kill or injure fellow Americans. So, at least for the guys with me we will restrain the violence toward people and target infrastructure. Then respond to violence with reciprocal violence.”

“The group with me will move first mainly to make a point. I stand by what I say. The other groups should start within the next 24 – 48 hours in order to keep the operational tempo up so that when one unit is done another is hitting nonstop. As soon as we complete mission one, we will relocate and start mission 2 then 3, until all is done.”

“We will get a post up after we complete our mission, then you will know the clock is started.” (Possibly suggestive that a number of teams were ready to jump in and begin a revolution.)

The affidavit reports that Chief talked about training, attacking small targets first, and then escalating to larger targets. Chief then described infrastructures as government vehicles, buildings, power, and communication… “If we can get decent intelligence could be obtained on roadblocks or VIPR, etc, then we go after them with the understanding it would be violent.” (VIPR is a TSA acronym for Visual Intermodal Protection and Response.)

Note that advocacy of violence came from “Chief”, not from Peace. The Trio had discussed targeting “infrastructure” and “TSA, DHS, non-emergency FEMA, road blocks.” It also appears that “Chief” was in a position to speak for a national, rather than local, participation.

On February 6, in an online chat, TS and Williamson discussed the need for ammunition and explosives. TS agreed to check with his “contact” to see what he could do to provide the necessary supplies.

On February 8, in a recorded telephone conversation, TS and Peace discussed what supplies were needed. The affidavit does not provide insight into what the wish list was. The only specific item discussed was “a thermite charge to go through the engine block of an MRAP” (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle). In that same phone conversation, Peace asks, in addition to the thermite, for 12 pipe bombs.

Also on February 8, a new “confidential human source”, CHS-2, has an unrecorded conversation with Cannon. In that conversation, Cannon states that they wanted to “start the fight” with the government by strategically planning to sabotage power grids, transfer stations, and water treatment facilities, with the intention of forcing the government into declaring martial law. This would put the patriots on the offensive rather than the defensive.

On February 9, TS calls Peace and advises him that the items can be produced, though it will take a few days. The meeting, to secure the items, would be held in Tennessee.

On Tuesday, February 11, BA received a call from Cannon, informing him that the revolution was going to begin in a few days, explaining, also, what would be occurring. Cannon also asked for Kessler’s phone number, which BA gave to him. BA then called Kessler and gave him all of the information that Cannon had just given him. Kessler responded, “I’ll take care of it.” He did not query BA over any details, nor was there anything that would indicate that Kessler was not already privy to what was going on. BA is of the firm belief, after reading the affidavits, that the “Chief” is Kessler.

On Saturday, February 15, the FBI visited BA and questioned him about what he had told Kessler. The told him that their concern was “protecting innocent lives”. He complied and answered their questions. He has stated that he will never talk to the FBI again, and that he will keep any concerns that he has within the patriot community.

Note that this is the first time that “innocent lives” has come up in any of the discussions. Perhaps a “warm and Fuzzy” to induce BA to cooperate.

Also, on February 15, TS advised Cannon that the items requested were available. After some discussion, it was decided that the items would be delivered in Cartersville, Georgia. TS met the Trio in Cartersville and provided the two thermite grenades. TS then went back to retrieve the remaining items.

Then, in an FBI-led operation that included FBI SWAT and the police departments of Rome, Floyd County, and Bartow County, raided 22 Tumlin Drive, Cartersville, Georgia and arrested Terry Eugene Peace, 45, Brian Edward Cannon, 36, and Cory Robertson Williamson, 28, charging them with receiving unlicensed explosive devices.

——————————

Much of the information used in developing this article came from an “Affidavit For Search Warrant“, filed on April 1, 2014, to secure a warrant for Facebook to provide information from their data to verify the various chats, PMs and other information stored in their database. Be advised that anything you say, or do, on Facebook, is retained and will be made available to the government.

Additional information was obtained from an Affidavit attached to the “Criminal Complaint“, also filed on April 1. It is rather interesting that the Affidavits were filed over a month after the arrests. Normally, a Criminal Complaint is the basis for the Arrest Warrant.

Other sources, who have asked for confidentiality, have provided information to fill in some of the details regarding Kessler’s escapades as an infiltrator, or, more likely, a provocateur.

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – Recent Past – Part 2

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

Mark Kessler – Recent Past
Part 2

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December , 2014

During the events that occurred on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, Ryan Payne and I were talking about the future of OMA (Operation Mutual Aid). OMA was the first real call to arms on behalf of the Ranch. At the time, OMA’s leadership consisted of two people, Ryan Payne and Jerry Bruckhart. The responders were a diverse assemblage of individuals from across the country.

Ryan had arranged to be liaison between the Bundy family and the militia. This was a necessary element in protecting Cliven Bundy from possible criminal charges (See The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question).

However, Jerry, back at home in Pennsylvania, had different ideas than Ryan, especially as to when the event was over, from the OMA standpoint. This, and other conflicts, demonstrated the need to overhaul the structure of OMA so that decisions could be made by a board, with a majority, rather than the conflicting 50/50.

OMD & BTFA

In June 2014, Ryan and Jerry came to terms on a breakup of OMA whereby Jerry would retain the name and would be supportive of a new organization that would be known as “Operation Mutual Defense” (OMD), more descriptive of the role it was intended to play in providing defense against overbearing governmental intrusions.

My role was to assist, as an advisor, though not a voting member, as my primary role is writing about events. I was also to be a media advisor, since in my over twenty years of experience, I have learned, well, how to use carefully written articles that can have an effect on even mainstream media’s presentation of stories.

We also determined that a sister organization needed to be created to deal with funding. If the government went after OMD, they could possibly confiscate any funds held by OMD. This would preclude any possibility of OMD providing financial assistance to those who participated in an OMD event.

We know well from the Bundy event that tens of thousands of dollars were raised, purportedly to support that cause, though very little was actually used to support the activities at the ranch.

Perhaps the largest organization, who claimed to have raised tens of thousands of dollars to support the effort, was Oathkeepers. However, with the exception of some direct support to members of Oathkeepers, there was nothing to demonstrate that any of the raised funds provided any necessary material support to the operation. Further, Oathkeepers has admitted that most of their membership is comprised of active and retired Law Enforcement Officers. That would explain why the “officer safety” aspect of law enforcement was applied when the Oathkeepers abandoned their mission to protect the Bundys when there was a threat of a drone strike at the ranch. (See The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II).

To alleviate the confusion over the proper recipient of contributions, so that contributors would know that the proceeds would go where intended, without preference to “members”, rather to provide to all that responded to the call, a new organization was warranted. And, as many members of Oathkeepers had, based upon the failure of Oathkeepers as described in the above linked article, been more concerned with “officer safety”, it was determined that this new organization should be one that was based not on education, as Oathkeepers claims, rather, on being committed to the oath previously taken.

This led to the conception of “Bear True Faith and Allegiance…” (BTFA), based upon the wording within the oath one takes upon entry into military service. Anyone with any law enforcement experience would be excluded from membership, except when the advisory board saw fit, based upon demonstrable actions, to override the prohibition. It would also be open to any person who chose to take an oath, in the presence of a notary public, and provide the notarized certification of the oath to the board. This opened the door to many thousands of patriots who have not had military service, though believe in and are willing to Protect and Defend the Constitution against all Enemies, Foreign, and Domestic.

The BTFA would hold a primary responsibility to raise funds, secure them in a trust account, and distribute, as needed, to any OMD event, as well as other events that might warrant consideration. This would be the sister organization to complement OMD, and to provide the funding, which was lacking in Nevada.

Taken together, these two organizations were, potentially, a serious threat to the government going beyond its constitutional authority in undermining the rights of the People. It was anticipated that both would immediately come under government scrutiny.

The selection of potential members of the advisory board for both organizations was left to Ryan Payne.

My dealings with Kessler

One of Ryan’s choices for the OMD board was Chief Mark Kessler, based upon telephone conversations where Kessler provided verbal support and encouragement during the Bundy Affair. Kessler never did go to the ranch.

Kessler, having been invited to sit on the OMD board, while on a July 2, 2014, board conference call, suggested that Rick Light was bad and that he would have nothing to do with him. This was rather interesting in that Rick Light was a guest on Kessler’s radio show (59 min) on Guerilla Media, back on January 17, 2014. During the show, they both talked about not bad-mouthing fellow patriots and patted each other on the back.

I had asked what Kessler knew that proved that Rick Light was bad, and he said that he “just knew it.” So, in an effort to help him, and the others, understand why Rick Light was bad, I posted a link to the Committee of Safety Common Law Court Unanswered Indictment of Rick Light, so that they could see evidence of Light’s relationship with the FBI.

Unfortunately, it appears Kessler “knew” everything and refused to read anything that might challenge his beliefs. What I had posted was supportive of, and would have enhanced his understanding.

A series of emails going through the maillist for the OMD Advisory Board demonstrates the immaturity of Kessler, and his propensity to use name calling, poor language (potty-mouth) and grammar, and circuitous (private emails to me) that I forwarded to the board so that they could see his true character. What is not included, since I don’t record private phone calls, is the dozens of calls I received from Kessler, during this period, where he would throw out a couple of sentences, vulgar, accusatory, and baseless, and then hang up, just like a child prankster.

In the emails, you will note that some of the members, even after the display by Kessler, wanted him to remain on the board which would decide whether an event was worthy of a call up for patriots to participate, as they did at the Bundy Ranch. This brought question as to whether the board could function as it was intended to, since there was not a common mindset to go deep enough to make the kind of determinations it would have to make.

At this time, BTFA was still separate from OMD, though there were three members who sat on each board. Mike Frye was aware of the membership of each board. On July 29, he started a group PM on Facebook. The conversation included members of both boards, and, of course, Kessler.

A couple of years ago, Randy Mack, on You Have Tread On Me Radio (2 hr 18 min), did a radio show dispelling the nearly two-decade-old accusation, by Bill Cooper, that I was John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City bombing. That information was readily available to anyone who chose to “investigate” the validity of Cooper’s allegation. Chief Kessler failed, in investigative skills. Even though he had my email address and phone number, he chose not to ask me about the accusations. Kessler failed in both interrogation and investigation skills.

The image of the conversation that occurred during this second Kessler tirade is shown, in its entirety, at the right (pdf of chat conversation). You can see that his character has not changed; however, it did have the effect of making ineffective all of the effort that went into bring some patriots together into both organizations — that would have surely been an objective that the government would want to see accomplished.

Some may question why all of this information is being presented. I have been active in the Patriot Community since Waco. In that time, I have had friends go to prison, and, in every case, except one, there has been an informant involved. That insight, and having had a friend that was offered a plea bargain, turned it down, and then provided me, against the government’s explicit instructions, a copy of the entire plea agreement (See Informants Amongst Us?), have, perhaps, provided me more insight into the workings of such activity than most (See Vortex – The threat that keeps us apart). It is to share that information so that, hopefully, many will be better informed and will raise questions, when such behavior becomes apparent in someone with whom they are associated.

Now, let’s proceed on to other activities of Chief Mark Kessler, again, to understand just how these infiltrators create a “presence”, so that they appear to be as much a patriot, or more so, than those hard workers who are doing what they are doing, with the best of intentions. It is those who really are doing that need to understand just how the operatives (informants, agents, etc.) work so that they can protect themselves and continue the good work that they do.

Kessler and the Southern Border

On July 7, 2014, Kessler expanded his now shattered groups (CSF and III% BOG) to include border operations. His first call out was in a Facebook posting (saved copy, if the page is taken down). This post, reads in part:

“Kessler here… we’re expecting to make contact and be engaged by heavily armed cartel escorts trucking dope into Arizona, Feel free to join if you want, but be prepared to get contacted by heavily armed cartel members with automatic weapons, & possible grenades… so I suggest those who live in az come to the front lines and assist in stopping the traffickers, murderes[sic], rapest[sic] from entering! Instead of bitching about it on social media

Well, perhaps he is just going to go to the border, where he has never been before. However, in talking with those I am aware of that have been actively working the border, there was no prior discussion or invitation for Kessler to come, especially under the circumstances outlined in that Facebook post.

In the years that those who have been protecting the border, there have been no grenades thrown, nor has there been any real contact with the cartels, though some of the people that they have made contact with may be cartel members. Most, however, are coyotes, drug runners, or illegal immigrants. Firefights have not erupted, though it seems as if Kessler wants to make that happen, or, it is false (amateurish) bravado, or, simply to entice people (of the wrong sort for border operations) to join him in his quest for fame and glory.

I have spoken with two leaders of border operations, one from Texas, the other from Arizona. Kessler contacted both, and both refused to extend the desired “invitation”, as they saw that he had no desire to learn how to run such operations, and determined that it would be dangerous to even have him in their Areas of Operation.

In a subsequent post, he says:

This is why we need funding to get as many people to join our Arizona border Mission on July 19th, we can not wait anymore! this illegal invasion by Cartel controlled Mexican Military must stop , they are using hit and run tactics, straing[sic] out of guerilla war fair[sic] manuals, Border agents are on stand down orders from the Liar in Chief,
I can’t believe Americans are letting this happen right before their eyes and do nothing !!!! this it way out of control on JULY 19TH Pack your gear, weapons, ammo, first aid kits, MRE’s or canned food A lot of bottled water and roll out to rally point in sierra vista Arizona, if you can’t make this mission, please assist by donating, this mission is going to be longer then[sic] 5 days, we are asking for patriots to do rotations every week to re-leave current units that will be their[sic] from July 19th , as once said, ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country!
rally point in sierra vista,
The Windemere Hotel & Conference Center
2047 State Highway 92
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

So, now he is asking for funding, which would only take away from those sincere people that are actually doing something. He also expects that he can do in five days what others have spent years, to even put a dent in border crossings.

In yet another post:

Anyone that has night vision monoculars or night vision scopes they want to donate towards the July 19th Arizona mission, we are in need of these items soft and hard body armor. if by chance their[sic] is a great American patriot out their[sic] that follows this situation on the border but wants to stay out of the lime light, and they have the ability to donate one of these thermal weapon scopes annonamusly[sic], it would be greatly appreciated, we are in need of gear like thermal scopes, night vision monoculars, night vision scopes, ammo, & MRE meals, soft & hardbody armor along with first aid kits , wet wipes & funding for gas and water. anyone willing to donate ammo we need the following for sidearms: 9mm, 40 cal, 45acp, for long guns we need 5.56 x 45mm, 223 caliber, 7.62 x 51mm, 308 caliber, 7.62 x 39mm, 5.45 x 39mm

He begins asking for high tech (expensive) equipment, and apparently has quite an arsenal in that he is asking for ammunition for 3 types of handguns and six types of rifles. Apparently, however, his entourage, when he arrived in Arizona consisted of himself and no more than 15 others.

After his trip, he reported:

“Learned a lot about how our border patrol protects our southern borders and that not everyone on the other side wants to jump the fence! They are perfectly happy living in their country! And not everyone is working for cartels! Not even the Mexican military.
“I’m sure their [sic] are small pockets of military units assisting/working with cartels but not every single unit as it was portrayed to me and the crew with me!
“I can say we were expecting to be attacked by heavily armed cartels and we drove 2500 miles to respond for assistance, willing to risk life and limb, not knowing what we were walking into, armed for an all out battle with drug smugglers… thank god[sic] that didn’t happen.

From sources on the Arizona border, it appears that Kessler & Co. did go to the border, and spent no more than a few hours, at best. How he was able to determine the conditions, when those who have spent many months, or years, on the border to understand what those conditions are, is hard to say.

He also says that he was expecting to be attacked. And, even though that was his intention, from the earlier posting, he now thanks God that it didn’t happen.

This appears to be showmanship at its finest; Endeavor to present an appearance of knowledge of conditions, the willingness to initiate a fight, and the humility to thank God when that fight did not ensue.

Other reports I have received from those on the Arizona border indicate that local sheriffs and Border Patrol did pursue Kessler and his group in a helicopter. They were desperate to find him and “kick him out of town.” The local law enforcement people had developed reasonable working relationships with the militia units, and between what the militia units reported their opinions on Kessler to be, that of a loose cannon, and law enforcement’s own investigation, they wisely decided that he had to be removed from the area, as persona non grata.

In Texas, as in Arizona, many of the border protection groups are reluctant to have their names included in this article, and I honor those requests. However, K. C. Massey is willing to lend his name to what he has reported to me. In written communication, regarding his contact with Kessler:

“I was personally contacted by Mark Kessler on or about the first of September. He inquired about joining us at Camp LoneStar, situated on the Texas border near Brownsville. I exchanged several texts and telephone calls with Kessler. He was talking about wanting to “come kick wetback ass” and his attitude was not what I considered conducive to our mission on the border. I denied his request to join Camp LoneStar and he broke off communications with me.”

It is interesting to note that Kessler’s call to Massey was just a few days after the shooting event that eventually led to Massey’s arrest (See Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey).

In a follow up conversation with Massey, he had been in contact with nearly all of the Texas border protection operations, and nobody seemed to want Kessler to visit their operations. They wanted to maintain distance from him, as well.

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past
Part 1

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 8, 2014

Benedict Arnold began his military career with accolades for his ability to gather fighting men and win battles. Somewhere along the line, disenchanted with not receiving the recognition he sought, he switched sides and joined the British against the American colonists. Mark Kessler appears to have been, at least, an advocate of certain rights, though he, with other motivation, turned against American patriots.

We will follow some of his controversial career, and detail some recent events, that should be a lesson to all true patriots. There are techniques that are used to establish “credentials” (a presence), which might induce some to trust someone who is not really on their side, eventually leading to their downfall. This process is explained, rather briefly, in Vortex, though this story is far more detailed and is a real life education in that process.

According to Linkedin, Kessler was Chief of Police in Gilberton, Pennsylvania (a borough of about 1.5 square miles, population approximately 800 in 2010) from July 2000 through February 2014. As Chief, he was the only full time employee in the police department.

On Linkedin, he claims to be Founder/CEO of CSF (Constitution Security Force) from February 2013 to present (more about CSF, later). Without explanation, he claims “Reality TV” from January 2014 to present. Finally, claims to be CEO of III% BOG (Boots on Ground) from January 2014 to present. He fails to mention his work for the government, but, then, that is the purpose of this article.

A number of articles indicate that Kessler began his working career as a coal miner. Depending on sources, he became Chief of Police in Gilberton in either 1998 or 2000. Regardless, he was law enforcement in Gilberton for over a decade before his first instance of questionable competence.

Questionable professionalism

On Saturday, August 27, 2011, while off duty, Kessler was in the Second Street Pub in Girardville. He was wounded by his own weapon when he intervened in a scuffle and shot himself in his left hand (link). A friend then drove him to the hospital, and it is reported that Kessler took the pistol with him. The Sheriff’s Department has never found the firearm to complete their investigation (link).

Then, in 2012, we find that the Borough of Gilberton Mayor, Mary Lou Hannon, and police Chief Mark Kessler were ordered to pay $15,000 to settle a federal lawsuit that alleged Councilman Robert Wagner had been unconstitutionally arrested, strip-searched, and imprisoned because he used profanity toward the mayor. Wagner filed the lawsuit after Kessler arrested him for two counts of harassment for calling Mayor Hannon to complain about youths riding quads and dirt bikes at late hours. Hannon had directed Kessler to arrest Wagner (link).

Support of the Patriot Community

After these two questionable events, Kessler stepped up his support of the Second Amendment when, on January 24, 2013, he obtained unanimous council approval for his “2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution” (link), which nullifies all “federal, state or local acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition [that] are a violation of the 2nd Amendment along with Article 1, section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution”, within the Borough boundaries. After passage, Oathkeepers member Larry Liguori presented Chief Kessler with an Oathkeepers t-shirt. It seems that Kessler had begun activism as an American Patriot. (Image of Resolution)

By January 2013, Stewart Rhodes, of “Oathkeepers”, had Kessler as a guest and praised his efforts (link, 1 hr 16 min). Interestingly, using the Revolutionary War as an example, Kessler says that we should have automatic weapons, since the government has them. He did not distinguish beyond firearms, and he did not address the fact that people could own any weapon the government owned, back then. This omission will be addressed, later.

On February 4, 2013, Kessler registered an Internet domain, “chiefkessler.com“, and posted the following:

ALERT! Anyone interested in joining a reserve force with the Gilberton Borough Police Department ,contact Chief Kessler immediately for details! Due to our Country’s current situation I’m compelled to form an auxiliary force, DHS (Department of Home Land Security) is stock piling ammunition, Stock Piling Machine guns at a alarming rate! I believe we have no choice for what MAY OR MAY NOT happen shortly!, Ask yourself this one question, can you walk into any sporting good store and purchase 22LR, 9mm, 45ACP , 40 caliber, 5.56/223 , 7.62×51 or 308 ammunition in quantity’s more then[sic] a box or two ? (OR ANY AT ALL) if you answer No, ask yourself why ???? I’ll tell you why because the GOVERNMENT is STOCKPILING BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition! (for what ????) even the police can’t get ammo ! DHS has enough weapons and ammo to wage a 30 year GROUND war, (BUT ON WHO and WHY) what is wrong with this picture???, Maybe the tyrants want to take as much ammo off the civilian market AS POSSIBLE! either way it’s very disturbing!

This quickly evolved into what is claimed to be an national effort to establish “reserve forces” under the name of Constitution Security Force (CSF), and was picked up by the alternative media (link), beginning a broader “presence” in the patriot community. In an April 2013 video, Kessler explains his creation of the CSF. Claims were made that 38 states had adopted the CSF concept and was recruiting members. It seems that Kessler tired of the CSF, since many of the designated state representatives seemed to have lost contact with Kessler.

In an April 18, 2013, article, “Spooks Threaten To Assassinate Patriot Police Chief Mark Kessler“, Kessler claims that he has been targeted and received death threats. The article states that he received a call, “with the caller warning he is going to get a bullet to his head if he doesn’t stop the work he is doing. The call was traced by the Gilberton police to a pre-paid cell phone purchased and activated anonymously.” Interestingly, the Gilberton police is Kessler, himself, though he provides no proof of the investigation and its results. However, receiving threats creates an image that would be suitable to impress other patriots. Another article (link) states that Kessler said that he “couldn’t tell you how many death threats that they have been receiving at borough hall where I work,” on his then Spreaker radio show.

By August, the people of Gilberton were really fed up with Kessler’s erratic behavior. Kessler was suspended from his duties as Chief of Police for thirty days, beginning on the 1st. In such a small town, where everybody knows nearly everybody, the extent of displeasure of Kessler’s activities was amply demonstrated when there was little opposition to a sign put up by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Termination of Kessler

With the suspension nearly over, on August 30, and Kessler and his attorney failed to appear for the meeting; as a result, the suspension was continued, indefinitely. At question was Kessler’s $30,000 annual salary and whether the Borough would have to pay him, even if he was fired (link). That final decision to fire him would have to wait. Even Mainstream media outlets were beginning to cover the story. Kessler was getting far more than his “fifteen minutes of fame”.

On September 19, 2013, the Borough Council met in a closed-door disciplinary proceeding, considering allegations that Kessler had improperly used a state-administered program to buy discounted tires for his personal vehicle, failed to submit required crime data, and made derogatory comments about borough officials. The decision was to fire Kessler (link).

On October 10, the Borough Council held a required public hearing. Kessler and attorney were present when one of his supporters “accidently” dropped a loaded pistol on the concrete floor, just inches away from where Kessler sat. The supporter was asked to leave and the meeting was “continued” (link).

On February 21, 2014, a final settlement was reached with regard to Kessler’s discharge. He would receive $30,000 over 11 months. He had been suspended without pay since August 1. He also agreed to withdraw his demand for a public hearing over his suspension and the borough would not challenge any attempt by Kessler to obtain unemployment compensation. Further, he agreed to not to have any contact with past and present Gilberton officials including the mayor, council members and their families, not to attend any borough meetings or comment in any manner on the settlement. Should he not abide by those terms, and return all borough equipment, Gilberton has the right to stop payments. He was also prohibited from any type of legal action related to his suspension and termination (link). The Council then voted to do away with a Borough Police Department (link).

Kessler’s new future

Due to the apparent lack of success with Kessler’s first venture into organizing patriots, the Constitution Security Force, on February 24, 2014, he announced that his new venture, III% BOG (Boots on the Ground) had already achieved membership in the thousands, in chapters around the country. He will “vet” all members, to assure that they are acceptable to the organization (or, perhaps, for other nefarious purposes).

In describing III% BOG, Kessler’s attorney says:

“Say there is some sort of a civil riot. Mr. Kessler’s group would not be part of the individuals who are promulgating the overthrow of government… He would be on the side of trying to assist government that there isn’t any kind of unruly behavior, the breaking of laws…”

Mark Kessler – Recent Past – Part 2

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

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 – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

KC’s personal ankle bracelet

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 14, 2014

On Monday, November 10, 2014, K. C. Massey was released from the “Correctional Institution Willacy County”, “a contracted correctional institution, operated by a private corporation”, after 14 days of incarceration.

Massey’s bail had been set at $30,000, and his wife had raised the $3,000.00 necessary for the bond (not to be returned) through a bail bond agency. Fortunately, Ronald G. Morgan, U. S. Magistrate Judge, Southern District of Texas (Brownsville), saw that Massey had led an exemplary life, with contributions to community and even law enforcement, saw fit to release him on an “unsecured bond of $30,000”, which means that the bondsman will not make his $3,000 and that the Massey’s will not have to pay that penalty for him to remain on the streets until trial. However, the freedom that you and I enjoy is not to be his to enjoy.

Though Magistrate Morgan chose not to impose the secured bond, the conditions of Massey’s release are far from being able to live his life in a normal manner. Instead, they have placed conditions, which would be considered by most, to be just a prison door away from incarceration.

The Grand Jury indicted Massey on four counts (subject of a future article), so he is, in accordance with the Constitution, accused, based upon “probable cause”, possibly guilty of the crimes alleged. The final determination as to innocence or guilt is, however, subject only to the determination of a jury of his peers. It is not the determination of the U. S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case, or the Magistrate. Therefore, he is “innocent until proven guilty”. This is, or was, the unequivocal foundation for the judicial system that our nation once so proudly hailed.

The release from detention was based upon a document styled “Appearance Bond” (includes all documents discussed herein). That would imply that it was to assure his appearance in court, when called to do so. This would be consistent with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, and would allow him to continue his life, as he had before, without impediment by conditions that take away his freedom. Appearance for that determination of innocence or guilt, not for punishment prior to conviction.

So, let’s look at what has been imposed on Massey that most of us would consider “cruel and unusual punishments” (Eighth Amendment).

The “Appearance Bond, on its first page, says:

“This appearance bond may be forfeited if the defendant does not comply with the above agreement. The court may immediately order the amount of the bond surrendered to the United States, including the security for the bond, if the defendant does not comply with the agreement. At the request of the United States, the court may order a judgment of forfeiture against the defendant and each surety for the entire amount of the bond, including interest and costs.”

So, let’s look closely at what is above that written statement of forfeiture. The only items checked, or otherwise indicated, are:

(X) to appear for court proceedings;

(X) if convicted, to surrender to serve a sentence that the court may impose; or

(X) to comply with all conditions set forth in the Order Setting Conditions of Release.

(√) (2) This is an unsecured bond of $30,000.00

That, in itself, is sufficient to assure his appearance. If he fails to appear are otherwise comply with the three conditions, that is it, the court will take the $30,000.

So, now we will look at what is below the statement quoted above. First is a statement regarding the property used to secure the bond. Then, it has an:

Acceptance. I, the defendant — and each surety — have read this appearance bond and have either read all the conditions of release set by the court or had them explained to me. I agree to this Appearance Bond.

Interesting that the previously set condition on the first page, then the append those conditions to include “conditions of release” on the second (final) page of the “Appearance Bond”. And, now we will look at those conditions of release that have nothing, at all, to do with Massey’s agreement to appear in court, etc.

The “Order Setting Conditions of Release”, being a part of the “requirement” that goes beyond simply assuring appearance, begins to eat away at Massey’s freedoms, which we, not the court, must determine if they are consistent with the intent of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The pertinent parts of the Conditions (indented) and my comments thereto:

(1) The defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release.

(2) The defendant must cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if it is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.

(3) The defendant must advise the court or the pretrial services office or supervising officer in writing before making any change of residence or telephone number.

(4) The defendant must appear in court as required and, if convicted, must surrender as directed to serve a sentence that the court may impose.

Nothing wrong with these, because they have to stay in touch with you, and you shouldn’t go committing crimes, even if you don’t know that they are crimes (Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws) — EXCEPT — they want DNA samples, even if you are arrested or facing charges (42 U.S.C. § 14135). Neither of these are convictions, so what gives? They want a database, so all they have to do is charge you with a crime, get the DNA sample, and then let you go. Neat trick! At the same time, people are fighting, and winning, cases against unjustified collection of DNA samples.

Next, we will go to the “Additional Conditions of Release” (included in the linked “Appearance Bond”). This will include all of the applicable ones, but there are some that stand out and might be considered “cruel and unusual”, at least in the original concept of the phrase. So, as we go through them put, yourself in the mindset of those who committed those sacred words to the Constitution, and consider, also, the concerns that led to the Declaration of Independence. The indented portions are from the document, my comments after those that warrant such comment. Bolded portions are typed into a standard form.

(x) (7) The defendant must (checked items only):

(x) (a) submit to supervision by and report for supervision to the U.S. Pretrial Services Agency telephone number 956-548-2667 , no later than [date left blank]

(x) (b) continue or actively seek employment and provide proof to Pretrial Services.

(x) (e) not obtain a passport or other international travel document.

(x) (f) abide by the following restrictions on personal association, residence, or travel: Travel is restricted to the Northern District of Texas with permission to travel to Brownsville, Texas for court appearances and attorney visits only. No travel into Mexico.

“(f)” imposes travel restrictions within the Northern District of Texas. It also includes permission to travel to Brownsville, this being to attend court, as required. The implication, then, is that he is free to travel within the prescribed area. We will address this, later on, in this section, and once, more, later on.

(x) (g) avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any person who is or may be a victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution, including: co-defendants and any member of “Rusty’s Rangers”, an armed citizen militia group.

“(k)” imposes a restriction on the right to speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and, perhaps the right to petition government (First Amendment). It also sets the prima facie representation of Rusty’s Rangers, a private group of concerned citizens, well within the laws of Texas, as “an armed citizen militia group”, regardless of the fact that both state and federal constitutions provide for who is militia, under their respective constitutions and statutes (See Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?).

(x) (k) not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon; remove all weapons/firearms from residence prior to release and provide proof to Pretrial Services.

(x) (1) not use alcohol (x) at all ( ) excessively.

If alcohol was not a part of the alleged crime, why would they deny that freedom — to imbibe? And, they didn’t even give him the benefit of the qualifier “excessively”.

(x) (m) not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled substances defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802, unless prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner.

They had already said that the “defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release”, so, well, perhaps the one hand has no idea what the other hand is doing, or, there is an extreme deficiency in the intelligence of those who write these documents. It will also seem to suggest their inability to comprehend the Constitution.

(x) (p) participate in one of the following location restriction programs and comply with its requirements as directed.

(x) (ii) Home Detention. You are restricted to your residence at all times except for employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities approved in advance by the pretrial services office or supervising officer;

Back to the use of grammar in documents. The wording and punctuation here suggests that prior approval only applies to “other activities”. Suggesting that the intent was a degree of freedom, however, Massey has been instructed that if he leaves the house, not the yard, that it will set off an alarm and he would be in violation, as you will see, later.

(x) (q) submit to location monitoring as directed by the pretrial services office or supervising officer and comply with all of the program requirements and instructions provided.

(x) You must pay all or part of the cost of the program based on your ability to pay as determined by the pretrial services office or supervising officer.

So, the federal government, with all of the money that they waste, decides that someone under these constraints must also pay for what constitutes his imprisonment.

(x) (r) report as soon as possible, to the pretrial services office or supervising officer, every contact with law enforcement personnel, including arrests, questioning, or traffic stops.

The final page of this document explains the penalties for violation of the conditions given.

First, he has to contact the United States Pretrial Service Officer, Eric Zarate, in Dallas. Then, he has to submit to random “visits” to his home to assure that there are “No Firearms, Destructive Devices, or Dangerous Weapons” in the home. Darn, he has to agree to suspend the requirement for a warrant to search his home. Scratch the Fourth Amendment, but then we have already addressed that in “Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?“. This simply broadens the government’s ability to remove rights that were protected by the Constitution, and supported, as explained in the linked article, by the fact that when Massey’s wife said, “no, you can’t search without a warrant”, they had no way to look inside of the Massey home.

Then, it states that Massey is to give “FIVE days notice… for approval of travel outside the restricted area.” Now, this implies that he is free to roam in the “Northern District of Texas”, but we will soon see that additional document will erode, further, the rights that were supposed to be protected, absent a conviction. A map of the “Northern District of Texas” is included in the documentation provided to Massey.

The final document dealing with Massey’s release is the “Home Confinement Program Participant Agreement”. (Indent is from the pertinent parts, comments are mine):

1.  I, [K. Massey], have been Placed in the Home Confinement Program. I agree to comply with all program rules set forth in this agreement and the instructions of my probation or pretrial services Failure to comply with this agreement or the instructions of my officer will be considered a violation of my supervision and may result in an adverse action. I agree to call my officer immediately if I have any questions about these rules or if I experience any problems with the monitoring equipment.

3. I will remain at my approved residence at all times, except for activities approved in advance by my probation or pretrial services officer. Regularly occurring activities will be provided for in a written weekly schedule which will remain in effect until modified by my officer. I must obtain my officer’s advance permission for any absences away from home that are not included in my written schedule.

Does this remind you of being “grounded”, when you were a kid? Except that violation could land Massey in prison.

5. I understand that my officer will use telephone calls and personal visits to monitor my compliance. When I am at home, I agree to promptly answer my telephone or door. If I fail to answer my telephone or door when I should be at home, my officer will conclude that I am absent and in violation of my home confinement restrictions.

So, guilt (conclude) without trial. It wouldn’t take much for a pissed off officer to “violate” him and send him back to prison.

6. I understand that my officer must be able to locate me at all times when I am away from home. If I do not have a job with a fixed location, my officer must be able to locate me by calling my employer. I also understand that jobs that do not meet these requirements are not permitted while I am in the Home Confinement Program. I understand that all job changes require advance approval from my officer.
7. I will not deviate from my approved schedule except in an emergency. I first will try to get the permission of my officer. If this is not possible, I will call my officer as soon as I am able to do so. If I call during non-business hours, I will leave a message, including my name, the date, the time, a brief description of the emergency, and my location or destination. I agree to provide proof of the emergency as requested by my officer.

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

8. While in the Home Confinement Program, I agree to wear a non-removable transmitter that my officer will attach either to my wrist or ankle.

These transmitter cuffs were, at once only used for those convicted of crimes. I guess the manufacturer of them has convinced the government to buy more. Not much different than the ankle shackles of the past, except you only need one ankle, not two.

10. I understand that I will be held responsible for damage, other than normal wear, to the assigned equipment. I also understand that if I do not return the equipment, or do not return it in good condition, I may be charged for replacement or the repair of the equipment, and I agree to pay these costs.

13. I agree not to move, disconnect or tamper with the monitoring unit or place any objects on top of it.

14. I agree not to remove or tamper with the transmitter device except in a life-threatening emergency or with the prior permission of my officer.

15. I agree to allow authorized personnel to inspect and maintain the transmitter device and monitoring unit.

16. I agree to notify my officer immediately, or as directed, if I: a) lose electrical power at my residence for more than 24 continuous hours, b) remove the transmitter device from my wrist or ankle because of an emergency, or c) experience any problems with the monitoring equipment. During non-business hours, I agree to call my officer and leave a message that includes my name, the date, the time, and the nature of my problem. If there is a power problem, I agree that I will call and leave another message when the power is restored. I also agree to notify my officer of any problems with my telephone service as soon as I am able to do so.

If the monitor goes out in the middle of the night, and you don’t realize it because you are sleeping, you are in violation. If it comes on while you are still sleeping, well, another violation.

17. I understand and agree that all telephone calls from the monitoring center to my residence will be recorded by the monitoring center. I will follow all directives from monitoring personnel when they call.

So, you can see how they began with a fairly innocuous agreement, simply a return for trial, etc., and you are free to go. Next, they step it up a notch, increasing restrictions and limiting travel to the “Northern District of Texas”. Then, they remove nearly a third of Texas and reduce the “free to roam” space to the size of the house. The first, the Appearance Bond”, seems to satisfy a reasonable approach to assuring that an honest man will appear when required, even to the point of turning himself in to serve time. And, since the Court determined that it was an unsecured bond, there can be little doubt that the character of K. C. Massey warranted such a status. Then, piecemeal, they begin to inflict what could be considered no less than unusual punishment by hanging the threat of returning to prison for as little as failing to make a phone call, under the conditions described. This is a practice that used to be reserved for convicted criminals, either on parole or probation. That which might be considered leniency to the convict can be considered nothing less than punishment to a man who is simply charged with a crime and still assumed innocent. That would meet the standard of cruel as well as unusual.

This is also an education for those who might face charges, even if they have done nothing in violation of state laws, of what to expect if the government decides to charge you with a crime.

This, once again, leads us to question:

Do the people are to serve the Government, or, Does 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 – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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