The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2014

Do you understand the difference between Rules and Laws? Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution, where the House of Representatives and the Senate concur on a Bill. The Bill then goes to the President, who can sign it into law. We needn’t discuss veto, here, as that has nothing to do with what we need to understand.

A Rule (Note: Rule includes regulations) is the desire of unelected officials in Administrative Agencies to implement laws without Constitutional authority. They become Rules when they are posted in the Federal Register, opened for comment, and then, after 90 days(with various exceptions, extensions, etc.), they are entered in the U. S. Code, having all of the appearance of Laws. The comment period, however, is only token — unless there is a major outcry.

Congress created the Administrative Agencies in their current form in 1946, and the Congressional Record shows that Congress admitted that they were creating a Fourth Branch of Government in the Administrative Agencies. So, put behind you the notion that the Congress enacts all “Laws” (forget that School House Rock stuff). They have abrogated their Constitutional obligation to be the only source of Laws. There is absolutely no authority to delegate that responsibility.

Article I, Section 1–All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

“All” used to mean ALL, when it was written.

Congress, however, has “plausible deniability”, since they don’t enact the “Rules”, only the laws that gave the agencies the power, as unelected officials (hired underlings), with no real allegiance except to their power, to take advantage of their position and assumed authority. Congressional representatives can be “fired” at the polls, though these administrative minions are protected by the Civil Service Act (“The act provided selection of government employees by competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. It also made it illegal to fire or demote government employees for political reasons…” – Wikipedia), and are almost impossible to get rid of.

An interesting aspect of the Rules is that many Rules have punitive actions if you fail to comply, but there are no punitive actions if the agency/agent fails to comply. There is also no means to punish those agents/agencies that violate their own Rules. It is sort of like the King and his minions can do no wrong. However, we subjects of his government, had better lockstep in obedience, or we will be punished.

A recent example is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Bundy Affair. BLM solicited certified inspectors to violate the law regarding both brand and health inspections. They also arranged for an auction house to ignore laws that require brand and inspection certificates before the cattle could be legally auctioned. Finally, the BLM killed privately owned livestock, and no one on the government side is being prosecuted for their crimes against both Rules and Laws.

The process of Rulemaking is ripe for intervention by lobbyists. They are paid “representatives” of clients who seek an advantage, either economic, social, or ideological. The last two will, most often, result in economic advantage, at least indirectly.

Another problem is Rules being promulgated for revenge. Let’s take, for instance, the result of the Bureau of Land Management’s effort, last April, to give the Desert Tortoise a “preserve”, by removal of the Bundy cattle from their historical grazing allotment. Fact has no role in their decision, since a study (Plight of the Desert Tortoise) suggests that since the deer and the antelope don’t play there anymore, the cattle do more to provide for the Desert Tortoise than any harm they might cause. This is demonstrated in the fact that the Deseret Tortoise has co-existed with the cattle, for over a century, with no apparent damage to the Tortoise population.

Now, in transparent vindictiveness, and seeking revenge for the embarrassment the BLM suffered when the rustled cattle were unrustled (when the cattle were taken back from the rustlers – BLM). That was when America stood, in an act of Civil Defiance against them, forcing them to put their tails between their legs, cower, and slink away, the BLM has another means of retaliation for the defeat that they suffered.

Judging by the attitude and arrogance demonstrated by the BLM agents and their hired help during the first two weeks of April, it was understood and often stated that they would retaliate by whatever means they had at their disposal. Predictably, those who direct BLM have joined the fray, using their “Rulemaking Authority” to punish not just the Bundys – nearly every person in Clark County, as well as some in Lincoln and Nye Counties who lives in a rural or agricultural area. They are restricting uses of substantial portions of the public land in Southern Nevada. The entire: Federal Register Notice.

They are doing so by proposing Four Alternatives (PDF file) based upon a government concept called Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB). ZBB begins with a status quo alternative, then proposes alternatives that are greater than what is current. Usually, there is an escalation in the various alternatives. In the instance, Alternative #1 is status quo. Alternative #2 is the greatest amount of change; Alternative #3 is less change, and finally Alternative #4, with the least change. In Alternatives 2, 3, & 4, there is a very pronounce inclusion into what is referred to as “Cultural/Biologic” area, the most severe restrictions, including trail, roads, camping, and essentially any human activity, and all three completely surround the Bundy Ranch. That Cultural/Biological area that abuts the Bundy property is, by far, the largest area of change in any of the Alternatives (shown below), and the only one, with a few very minor areas, that is consistent through all three plans.

Existing Conditions (Alt #1)                                                              Proposed Conditions (Alt 2-4)

So, someone could argue that there is remote possibility that this is not directed (revenge) at the Bundys, you can weigh the evidence, yourself, and decide.

Considering that all Alternatives afford protection for the Desert Tortoise and other critters, birds, insect, reptiles, etc., perhaps the government wants to amend the Preamble to the Constitution to:

“We the Animals of the United States…”

Therefore, we find that it is up to us, “We the People”, to do what is necessary to put the government back in its proper role as servants of, not master of, the People.

How can we achieve this? A start would be to play their game, by their rules, for the time being. We can see if the voice of the People will have weight on the final decision of those unelected bureaucrats at the BLM. As stated above, there is a 90-day period where this proposed rule is open to comments. So, rather than resorting to an effort that might lead to a violent confrontation, at this point, our energy should be directed at asserting our feelings on this matter. There are a number of ways to register your comment, for the record, though all of them will identify you. There is no means of anonymity, but, heck, they know who you are, anyway. The following is from the Federal Register Notice:

• You may submit comments related to the Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS by any of the following methods:

• Web site: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId:2900&dctmId=0b0003e88009debe
• Email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov
• Fax: 702-515-5023
• Mail: BLM Southern Nevada District Office, Las Vegas/Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130.
• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Lee Kirk, RMP Team Lead, telephone: 702-515-5026; address: 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130; email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov.

To make comments, begin with reference to the:

Notice of Availability Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada

My suggestion, to regain what was and should be, would be along the lines of:

* * *

I demand that you retain the status quo, also known as Alternative #1. Further expansion of restrictions on OUR Public Lands is unacceptable.

Further, since it has been proven that ranging cattle are beneficial to the Desert Tortoise, that any grazing allotments, past or present be reopened for grazing, under the original conditions, and that any future request, within such Desert Tortoise protection areas, be granted, when requested.

Please record my comment, as stated above.

Molon Labe (Come and Take It)

* * *

Now, this may seem like a waste of time. But, please, think again. If we set forth our position in sufficient numbers, and they fail to heed, then we have justified any subsequent action, and they have proven that we are merely specks unworthy of consideration.

Between now and January 10, we can participate — and, plan for the eventuality that we will be ignored on paper — but not in fact.

The question we must understand, and answer properly, is, “Are the people to serve the Government, or, is the government to serve the People?”

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 27, 2014

K. C. Massey was in the area when a shooting occurred that brought numbers of Border Protection Service (BPS) agents, and Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla, to the scene. The BPS agents asked that the weapons of all three individuals be turned over to BPS for reasons of safety (Explained in Massey’s account of incident). They were then turned over to Padilla, though at no time was Massey read Miranda rights, nor was the transfer of the weapons voluntary. It was simply done because they were agents, with guns, and in the principle of “discretion being the better part of valor”, they relinquished the weapons.

Those weapons then became the object of a Criminal Complaint, charging Massey and John Foerster (See Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey) with felony possession of a firearm, based on 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1).

Federal Authority and limitations

The theory behind laws, and the application of law, including ambiguity of the word, intent of the law, and misapplication of those laws is addressed in “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher (for those interested in that aspect of persecution), however, the purpose of this article is to discuss what might be termed “the clash of laws” between the United States and Texas, under a Republican Form of Government (Art. IV, § 4 of the Constitution, as a member state of the Union of these United States (yes, the plural is intended).

To understand this clash, we must first look at the powers granted to, and the limitations imposed upon, on the federal government, by the Constitution.

First, there is the inevitable, and truly sacred, Second Amendment.

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

Now, that reference to “free State” applies only to the states, not to the federal government, since the existence of a federal militia was never addressed in the Constitution, only the authority to call forth the militia. The first reference to what might be considered a federal militia occurred in 1916 with the enactment of law embodied in 10 U.S.C. § 311 (See A United States Militia). So, the Constitutional references to militia and bearing arms are contained in that Second Amendment and the following provisions in the Constitution”

Article I, § 8, clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, § 8, clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, Congress can call forth the Militia, which they could not “call” if they were already under federal authority, and next, they recognize that “Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. Leaving, of course, officers and training, to the “parent” of the militia, the States.

The only other provision is found in Article II, § 2, which reads,

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

This makes clear that the Militia belong to the States, not to the federal government, except when called into service. Now, the only mention of “arms” is associated with that militia in the Second Amendment, which links any firearms laws only to the authority to the states (we will go further on this subject, later). The only applicability to federal authority, or should we say, prohibition, is that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It appears that it wasn’t until the 1930s when the government first crossed that line drawn by the Constitution, and has continued to expand overarching authority into those Constitutionally prohibited realms, since that time (See The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend).

There is one more concern regarding federal authority that must be addressed, before we get to the heart of the matter. That is the authority granted regarding Commerce, Article I, § 8, clause 3, says,

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

It does not grant any power within the states, only “among the several States”. That is interstate, not intrastate, commerce.

Then, we have the only other “commerce” provision in Article I, § 9, clause 6:

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Now, you need to keep these points in mind as we continue down a path of discovery — to determine what We, not the government, see as the powers granted and limitations imposed.

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Federal)

The only charge against Massey, according to the Criminal Complaint, is a violation of 18 USC §922(g)(1) (the full text of §922(g) at 18 USC 922). The pertinent part is as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

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

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

So, let’s look at the obvious intent of the law. First, “It shall be unlawful“, well, no problem with that.

Next, if that person “has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, that that criterion has been met — that Massey has such a criminal record. So, now we move on to the third portion of the Statute.

It is unlawful “to ship or transport in interstate… commerce“. Now, this next phrase is rather interesting. “Possess” means “To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control“. So this must mean that you have in your control the firearm when you affect the commerce. The possession must be done while participating in or affecting that commerce. Finally, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Well, that last one surely must be the direct recipient, the addressee – to “receive”, as opposed to “possess”. For if that were the case, it would read, “to possess any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.”

So, let’s revisit what we said about Commerce. “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue… one State over those of another.” However, if we consider the implications of the law, if you live in a state that manufactures a firearm, then you can posses it, as it has not been involved in interstate commerce. However, if you have ammunition that was manufactured in another state, then you are guilty because of the ammunition. If you live in a state that manufactures both weapons and ammunition, you can posses those “firearms” and ammunition. However, if you live in a state that manufactures one, the other, or neither, then you may have but one, or none. That seems to give Preference to one state over another.

Further, this absolutely defies the concept of equal justice; it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.” And, it would mean that if one moved to another state, with what was legal, from the federal standpoint, in the state from which he began, he would criminal in the other state.

Texas Possession Laws

So, let’s see what Texas has to say about a convicted felon possessing a firearm. The applicable law is found in Texas Penal Code, Section 46.04. The pertinent part is as follows:

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

(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or

(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than.

(f) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States…

So, if one is convicted of a qualifying felony, after he has served his time gone through post conviction service, the clock starts. After five years, he cannot possess weapons, except at “the premises at which the person lives.” Now, premises, in legal terminology, is the house, outbuildings and land. This is to afford protection — once the five years has expired. It does not say house, it includes his whole dominion. He can protect his property.

Now, a question arises as to if he relocates, and lives elsewhere. In Massey’s case, he has lived at Camp Lone Star for four months. The land is owned by “Rusty” Monsees, and the camp is located on his property, with his consent. That is where he lives, so the premises, though not owned by him, is the premises that are applicable in the statute. He encountered the BPS on those premises, so he had every legal right to possess the weapons, under state law.

When he was arrested, he was in a motel room, where he lived the night before he was arrested. This may be a gray area, though it seems that since he lived in that motel room, that night, and that the obvious purpose of the law is for personal protection, that he would still be legal, under state law. The alternative would have been to either secure his firearms in his truck, or to leave them unattended at Camp Lone Star. Though this may be debatable, if we look at intent, it is probable. If not, the only violation, under state law, might be him having his weapons in the motel room. However, he was not charged with that. The initial charge came when he surrendered his weapons, without Miranda, while still fully in compliance with Texas law. The Complaint was based upon his lawful (state law) possession. The Complaint led to the arrest, which might be the only exception to state law. However, the Complaint, itself, admits to “forbidden fruit”.

So, where do we go, next?

Collision of Laws

Recently, Washington state and Colorado enact laws legalizing marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice announced that they were going to suspend prosecution of federal marijuana laws in those two states. Shall we ponder their reasoning for making such a decision?

Let’s suppose that state law says you can posses marijuana, and federal law says that you cannot. To begin to understand this, and the subsequent discussion, perhaps we need to interrupt, for a minute, and understand what James Madison told us in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, law is “a rule of action”, or, perhaps, a prohibition. But, it is there to guide us in remaining within the boundaries of law, or suffering the consequences of deviation from the law.

So, if marijuana is legal in Colorado, and criminal by federal law, which “rule of action” are we bound by? Well, the government did not want to face the consequences of a legal challenge to their presumed superiority of their laws over the state’s laws. Let’s look at Article IV, § 4, of the Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

So, we have the only “guarantee” in the Constitution, and that is that we have a “Republican Form of Government”. That guarantee is that so long as the state does not enact a law in violation of the Constitution, they have every right to enact any other law — such as the marijuana law. Gee, it also provides that the government “shall protect… them against Invasion”. Golly, gee, isn’t that what K. C. Massey and Camp Lone Star were doing, since the government was having so much trouble fulfilling this obligation?

However, the marijuana laws are the “Conflict of Laws”, and, perhaps, the felony possession laws are also a Conflict of Laws. After all, the same dilemma arises. Can K. C. Massey possess firearms, so long as he does so in compliance with Texas Law, under their Republican Form of Government? Or, is he bound by federal law that depends so much on the Commerce provisions of the Constitution?

Let’s look at what the United States Supreme Court said about the extent of authority granted by the commerce clause. The case is United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

The federal government had enacted the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990”, which forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone.” The District Court denied Lopez, as they claimed that the law was “a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce.”

That decision was appealed to the Appellate Court, who then reversed the lower court decisions, when Chief Justice Rehnquist said,

Held:

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

In a Certiorari to the Supreme Court, the case was heard. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. After a lengthy discussion, affirming most of what the Appellate Court had said in their decision, and extending even further into limitations of federal authority, the Decision concludes, “For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.”

So, the Supreme Court, back in 1995, imposed a limitation of authority on the federal government, regarding the utilization of the Commerce Clause beyond its Constitutional intent. And, the law that was overturned, 18 U. S. Code Section 922(q), a part of the same statute that is being used against Massey, requires that there be an economic nexus to commerce for a law to be valid.

The first portion of this article explains the wording of the law, (922 (g)(1), and how it is clearly tied to commerce. Whether it was rewritten after the Lopez decision, or not, it must have the nexus to commerce. If the ownership of the gun by Lopez does not have that nexus, how, possibly, can the ownership by Massey have what the other did not?

Commerce begins when somebody “ships” something in interstate commerce. It continues when someone “transports” something interstate commerce. It finally ends when someone “receives” something that has been sent and transported. At that point, the nexus to commerce ceases, and we are back to “Equal Protection under the Law”, where the state that you live in is the authority as to whether you can posses guns or ammunition.

The final point to be made on this subject is the fact that the state of Texas has three branches of government. They have, like every other state, a Legislative, and Executive, and a Judicial branch. The Judicial, of course, is to render justice. The Legislative, to enact laws, under its “Republican Form of Government”, and the Executive to sign such enactments into law, and enforce them.

If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist. On the other hand, the government of Texas should take a more aggressive role, as the Supreme Court did, in limiting the overbearing and abused authority of the federal law enforcement agencies.

Let me repeat two quotations from the above. First is by Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision, the second, my observation, from over twenty years of reporting to the Patriot community, on the ramifications and consequences of the current round of persecutions by the federal government, contrary to the state’s constitutions and laws:

• To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.
• If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist.

Therefore, We must ask ourselves whether the people are here to serve the government, or, is the government here to serve the people? If the former, then we acquiesce to a condition of servitude. If the latter, then we must, in the Court of Public Opinion, rise above the government, and force them back to the limitations imposed on them by the Constitution, by whatever means necessary.

Related articles:

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 21, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

“No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher

No Bended Knee for Me

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 8, 2014

The Search Warrant has been made available, though the Arrest Warrant, if there ever was one, has not been produced. The Grand Jury Indictment is based upon first, demonization of Robert Beecher, then, on the evidence obtained from a search under a Search Warrant. Or, was it?

Understand that what you are about to read is not an uncommon occurrence in this country, today. You may well find yourself facing similar circumstances, under trumped up charges, or intentional misapplication of the law — as in this present instance.

This is going to be a difficult story to follow, since there are so many quirks and appearances of injustice, and impropriety, at least based upon the concept that we have been led to believe in — Innocent until proven Guilty.

We will break this down into six parts, though since we have no Grand Jury records, we can only discuss what went to the Grand Jury, not what they deliberated over. Those six parts are: Demonization of Robert Beecher; The Indictment; The Search Warrant; The Search; The Arrest; and, Possessing & Receiving.

Now, within this narrative, you will see what the government has presented to the Grand Jury, to obtain an indictment, and you will see what the Grand Jury did not see, that being the other side of the story.

Demonization of Robert Beecher

So, what did the government do to “demonize” Robert Beecher? In a “Full Investigation” opened on July 31, 2013, by FBI Special Agent Stanley H. Slater, (912) 764-6311 (Note: Call him at your own peril). The “investigation is being initiated based on Internet postings attributed to Beecher that indicate he is planning to commit violent acts toward federal government employees.” So, what someone said on the Internet is sufficient to open an investigation, unless, of course, you are a Negro and say “Kill Whitey”, or, a Muslim who says, “No Democracy, only Sharia law!” But, I digress.

From that investigation initiation report, we find:

Subjects Ryan Payne and Jerry Bruckhart are recruiting militia members throughout the United States to participate in a plan called “Operation Mutual Aid”. The plan calls for the kidnapping of a DHS agent in hopes of creating an incident that will cause other militia groups to take supportive action. Bruckhart has used the Internet to promote this plan and is the administrator of the Operation Mutual Aid website “operationmutualaidl.webs.com [no longer on line]”.

First, we’ll address something that my investigation has turned up with interviews with people who discussed that certain scenario. Some of them were associated with Operation Mutual Aid (OMA), others were not. At the time, it was discussed, fairly openly (on the Internet), and was not initiated by, or an objective of, OMA. I am still able to find reference to this activity, or bits of it, on the Internet. The scenario was that if DHS (or its subordinate agencies) were to clamp down and post roadblocks on all, or most, major highways, the objective was to “capture” a DHS agent and “escort” him to Washington and demand that the roadblocks cease, thereby proving that we could both “capture” and “escort” through the roadblocks, regardless of DHS’s efforts to control the people and their movement. It was an “IF” scenario. Though it may have been discussed on the OMA website (I found no reference there), it was not, by any means, within the Purpose of OMA, nor an OMA “operation”. The OMA Mission Statement has not changed since its inception, but the government seems to want it to be something other than what it really is.

Let’s look at the evidence that has, as you will see, been misrepresented to demonize Beecher to the Grand Jury. From alleged discussions on the then OMA website, the FBI cites the following, attributing them the Beecher, using the pseudonym “Stalker” (pseudonym confirmed):

“… I am ready to do what is necessary to remove this rogue government that has taken over our Country. I grew up Free and will die Free, I will never submit, or bend knee, to a corrupt government. Neither will I ask for mercy nor give it, once the Battle is joined.”

“The way I see it, to win this fight, we must fight like the insurgents. We must disable their communications and supply using hit & run tactics. There can be no more ‘I’m just doing my job’ passes given. We must destroy their support system which is the ‘little man’, without the ‘little man’ doing their jobs we can force the top to tumble, take their legs out from under them, so to speak. This means anyone working for the government. This would mean that anyone doing so would have to be mobile and willing to give up all comfort as they know it. A lot of 3-man Teams could accomplish what one large force couldn’t.”

Note that Beecher said, “…once the Battle is joined.”. Also note that there is nothing in the report that suggests kidnapping and torturing a DHS agent, as claimed in the court documents. Now, that is not a call for action, rather, a statement that he will defend the Constitution, if the government goes “rogue” — a reaction. Heck, if that is illegal, then they should be charging hundreds of thousands of people, if not many millions, who are apprehensive that government is approaching the level of “Despotism” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence — it is our “right” and “duty” to act to preserve our nation. After all, the oath to the Constitution that all military personnel take (Beecher served in the Army, 1971-73) pretty much requires that the Constitution be preserved. However, that doesn’t play well when you submit your “evidence” to a Grand Jury, seeking an Indictment.

Now, we all know that the government likes lists (I think it makes them feel like they are accomplishing something). It is their way of classifying us so that they know who, by their very words, might be extremely dangerous (unless a Negro or Muslim). On November 8, 2013, we find that the government has labeled Robert Beecher “Domestic Terrorism – Militia Extremist”. They have also entered him on the “Terrorist Screening Database” (TSDB) and the “Known and Suspected Terrorists” (KST) list. This, apparently, based upon the erroneous and grossly misrepresented information above. However, inclusion on those two lists surely plays well with the Grand Jury.

So, let’s continue reviewing the “excellent” work of those well-paid “Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity” people. In a report dated June 21, 2013, they provide even more “intelligence”, to wit:

FBI Salt Lake City identifies Robert M. Beecher as a possible associate/member of the West Mountain Rangers 41st Mountain Field Force militia group based out of Montana. This group has a plan identified as “Operation Mutual Aid” in which they want to kidnap a DHS agent in hopes of creating an incident which will cause other militia groups to take supportive actions.

Well, they knew that Beecher was working in Georgia, so I suppose they think he went to Montana on weekends to join a militia that is, well, only for Montanans.

So, if you want to go to a Grand Jury and get an indictment for a crime unrelated to the above, you surely want to get the above information before the Grand Jury, regardless of the veracity of the information, so that the Grand Jury will know, before they evaluate any other information, that Robert Beecher is a despicable person, ready to kidnap and torture government agents, though he never left home or the surrounding area, in Georgia, for the period from the original investigation (July 31, 2013) to the date of the Grand Jury Indictment (June 4, 2014). They claim he was part of a Montana Militia and was conspiring with people in Montana (Payne) and Pennsylvania (Bruckhart), in open forums on the Internet, to commit these evil deeds, though they offer no more tangible proof than what is mentioned above — that aren’t even charges in the Indictment. However, that is the foundation laid before the Grand Jury, to assure Indictment on far lesser, and as will be explained, bogus charges.

The Indictment

The Indictment, duly signed by the Grand Jury Foreman and four members of the Department of Justice, show us the heinous crime, if it is, in fact a crime (See discussion of Possessing & Receiving), the has been manufactured by three government employees (DOJ, FBI, and BATF):

COUNT ONE

(Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

Between on or about February 5, 2014, and February 15, 2014, in Tattnall County, within the Southern District of Georgia, the defendant,

ROBERT BEECHER,

who before that time had been convicted of a felony offense, an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, did unlawfully and knowingly possess, in and affecting commerce, a firearm, that is, one Marlin .30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294, which had previously been transported in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1).

COUNT TWO

(Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

On or about May 7, 2014, in Tattnall County, within the Southern District of Georgia, the defendant,

ROBERT BEECHER,

who before that time had been convicted of a felony offense, an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, did unlawfully and knowingly possess, in and affecting commerce, firearms, that is,

one Marlin 30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294,
one Remington .22 caliber rifle, Model 597, serial number A2666353, and
one Hi-Point .45 caliber pistol, Model MP, serial number 460571,

all of which had previously been transported in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1).

               A TRUE BILL.

(PDF of Beecher Indictment)

Now, I have trouble understanding legalese, but I do understand words. So, if I read this carefully, I see that in both Counts, he is charged with possessing “one Marlin .30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294”. Except for the dates, the charges for that rifle are identical. So, we can conclude that dating the pictures (captions provided below) gave them, for Count One, dates of February 5 – 15, 2014, and for Count Two, May 7, 2014. So, if you get a Count for each occurrence of possession, why not give a Count for each day in between, if in fact Beecher did Possess such a weapon. This possession, however, will be discussed latter. However, we can conclude that the pictures played a role in the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury.

You might also note, for future reference, the phrase in both Counts, “did unlawfully and knowingly possess, in and affecting commerce, a firearm“. This, too, will play a very significant role in the subsequent discussion.

I will point out here that some of the court documents make a point of showing the expansive experience and training that some of the agents have acquired, over the years, which is used to conclude that the weapons in question were, in fact, manufactured in a state other than Georgia. Those same documents show that Jessi purchased the mentioned “Marlin .30-30 rifle, Model 336, serial number 231106294”, which raises the question of possession, which will be addressed, later.

Search Warrant

Now, we move on to the “Affidavit in Support of Application for Search Warrant”. The information I have has no date on the Affidavit, though it is prepared by Special Agent Lorin Coppock, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF when they raided Mt. Carmel Church, Waco, Texas). He lists his experience, including Deputy Sheriff and BPS, and then begins presenting his “evidence”. He, apparently, had an informant who logged into Beecher’s Facebook account and then allowed investigators to view Beecher’s Facebook account and access the pictures on Beecher’s page. Though I don’t have the pictures, by the captions and other information in the Affidavit, Beecher is apparently seen in thirteen pictures holding, or near, a weapon (rifle or pistol). The Affidavit then describes both III% slogans and memes that are commonly circulating through Facebook, on hundreds of pages. There is also reference to “Molon Labe” (Come and Take It), which, as was explained above regarding his statements in the discussion on the OMA webpage, purely defensive. Then, as absolute proof of his nefarious activity, it shows that Beecher is a member of a Facebook group, “Central Ga Guns & Ammo Trader”.

SA Coppock then talks about his experience and knowledge that people who own firearms, hold them for “lengthy periods of time and store them in their residence or vehicle”. That is a rather interesting revelation.

Though the copy of the Affidavit that I have obtained had poor quality photographs, the captions are, in themselves, telling (underline, mine):

• On February 15, 2014, Jessi Winkler posted a photograph to Beecher’s Facebook account. Winkler captioned the photograph “With Robert Beecher III”. The photograph is of Beecher sitting on a couch holding what appears to be a Marlin 336 rifle.
• b) On February 15, 2014, Winkler posted another photograph of Beecher holding what appears to be the same rifle. In this photograph Beecher is outside leaning over a box-like structure in a braced firing position. The caption for this photograph is “Target practice-with Robert Beecher III”. Beecher added a comment to the photograph which reads “Best present ever. Im glad this was shot from the back or I’d have been embarrassed”
• c) On January 7, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of a small child holding a candle standing next to what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “I light the candle, he blows it out. I just love a Saturday morning with him…” Beecher later added the comment “For the record: That is my Grandson’s (Aidan) .22 single shot rifle. Alex was dragging it by the sling earlier, its now secured…”
• d) On February 18, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of two boys outside. One of the boys is holding what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle while the other is holding what appears to be a BB gun. Beecher captioned the photograph “10 year old shooting-in Riverridge, GA.”. Beecher later added the comment “1 let this one try a .20 gauge, He went back to the .22. This is the future…”.
• e) On February 18, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of the same two boys. One of the boys is holding what appears to be a single shot Rossi rifle and the other is holding what appears to be a BB gun. Beecher captioned the photograph “More practice”. Clearly visible in the background of this photograph is a house that has been identified by your affiant as Beecher’s residence.
• f) On October 20, 2012, Beecher posted a photograph of a child holding what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle. One of Beecher’s “friends” posted a comment about the child’s finger ‘being on the trigger of the rifle when the photograph was taken. In response Beecher posted the comment “I corrected it. He checked to make sure it was unloaded after picking it up. That was a good sign he listens…”
• g) On March 29, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a child sitting on a tree stump holding what appears to be a Rossi single shot rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “Guard Duty”. One of Beecher’s “friends” posted the comment “CPS be looking into this, hope the kid has good aim! You teaching them right gpa!” In response Beecher commented “CPS will be stepping into a Hornet’s Nest they come out here telling me how to raise my Grandson…”
• h) On April 26, 2013, Beecher posted a picture of three children in a wooded area. One of the children is holding what appears to be an AR-15 rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “Aldan took the rifle, fight time…-at Beechers.”
• i) On April-26, 2013, Beecher posted another picture of the same child holding what appears to be an AR-15 rifle. Beecher captioned the photograph “He won’t put it down. I never argue with a kid holding a rifle…-at Beechers.”
• j) On March 31, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a baby sitting on the floor inside a house. In the corner of the room is what appears to be a scoped rifle leaning against the wall. Beecher captioned the photograph “Max hopes everyone has a Happy Easter”.
• k) On April 29, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a baby sitting on the floor inside a house. Directly behind the baby is what appears to be the stock of a rifle or shotgun that is leaning against the wall.
• l) On June 9, 2013, Beecher posted a photograph of a child leaning over a table looking toward the person taking the photograph. Beecher captioned the photograph “Papa. Papa. Papa. I want to shoot my gun.”
• m) On April 5, 2014, Beecher posted a photograph of a young child inside a home next to a dining table. Hanging on one of the chairs at the table is what appears to be a shoulder holster containing a pistol. Beecher captioned this photograph “Someone came to play with Papa…”

Note the effort to instill concern because there are children around the firearms? I doubt that the Grand Jury would over-look this with an understanding that firearm safety should be taught at home, by family.

He then points out that two of the firearms he was able to identify in the photographs on the Facebook page, a Marlin rifle and a Rossi rifle, are not manufactured in Georgia. Now, it begins to get interesting, at least in context to timing of events. The Affidavit resulted in the issuance of a Search Warrant signed on May 6, 2014 at 2:32 P.M.

When Coppock describes the “Items to be Seized”, he begins with:

Based upon the aforementioned facts, I believe probable cause exists that the following items listed in Attachment B, which constitute evidence of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922 (g) (1) will be found at the location to be searched. The items listed in Attachment B constitute contraband, evidence and/or instruments of the aforementioned offenses. (Attachment B is the Affidavit, complete with pictures.)

Wait a minute! He said that he needed the warrant and to search for these items to provide “evidence… of the aforementioned [18 USC 922 (g) (1)] offenses. Doesn’t that imply that they need more than pictures to get an Indictment? They have to find proof that an “offense” has committed.

Well, if the Warrant was issued on May 6, at 2:32 P.M., and the Warrant was executed on May 7, 2014 “at approximately 2:00 P.M.” Then they didn’t have the evidence necessary to bring charges against Beecher until after they verified that the weapons actually existed as “evidence… of the aforementioned offenses.” The search was not completed until nearly 5:00 P.M.

However, Beecher was first detained at work on May 7, 2014 at about 3:00 P.M. (See “Arrest”, below) — before the Search was completed. It sure appears to any observer that there was a presumption of guilt the led to the arrest, and then an effort to find “evidence… of the aforementioned offenses.” Rather backward, and contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the concept of: “Innocent until proven guilty.”

Now, the Fifth Article in Amendment to the Constitution says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” “Held to answer” means arrested and charged with something that you will have to answer to, in court. However, the Indictment (for arrest?) was filed by the Grand Jury on June 4, 2014, though the arrest occurred on May 7. Further, there is no record of an Arrest Warrant ever having been issued. So, hasn’t the government got the cart before the horse? Or, perhaps more likely, “cart attached; horse to follow.” Or, is it possible that the FBI Academy (as well as the BATF equivalent) failed to include a course on the Constitution — “just take the oath, we know you know that the law is what you say it is”.

The Search

Robert lives in an RV parked on Cindy’s property. Cindy lives in a house on a 0.6-acre parcel. The address of the house is the address on the Search Warrant. Being divorced, they live separate lives, though they are still on friendly terms, occasionally playing cards, watching a movie, or playing with the grandchildren, most often at Cindy’s house. However, whether Cindy goes to Robert’s home, or Robert goes to Cindy’s home, the visitor is a guest in the home of the other. The only thing shared is the mail delivery address.

May 7, 2014 about 5:00 P.M. When Jessi arrived at her mother, Cindy’s, house [JL]:

The living room, kitchen, and bathroom were fairly decent, but the three bedrooms (the master, the kids’ room, and the guest room/computer room) were absolutely trashed. A window unit AC was lying on my mother’s bed, her bedspread torn off, jewelry dumped out, closets emptied. In the kids’ room, everything from the closet was strewn around, and the same with the computer room. I never went into the RV [Robert’s home] but my mother said it was destroyed as well. My husband and I cleaned up the shed [Cindy’s] ourselves, and it was a complete wreck.

No surprise that the government, in acquiring evidence of an atrocious crime such as holding a firearm, warrants such destruction of property that doesn’t even belong to Robert Beecher.

The Arrest

The arrest of Robert Beecher deserves a detailed explanation, both as how the government operates and as a lesson on what to expect if you are ever confronted by lying government agents. We will repeat some of the elements of the timeline, so that a proper perspective can be put on what went down. Timelined events are factual, based upon documents in my possession. My commentary will be in separate paragraphs. This information, except the FBI interview report, was not presented to the Grand Jury.

Note: Sources: JL=Jessi Letters to OPF; RL=Robert’s letters to OPF; FBI=FBI Interview report, other unattributed are from court records

May 6, 2014 at 2:32 P.M. – Search Warrant signed

May 7, 2014 at 2:00 P.M. – Search Warrant executed (search begun)

May 7, 2014 at about 3:00 P.M. – Beecher ‘detained’ by Agents Slater (FBI) and Coppock (BATF).

This is based upon letter from Jessi Winkler (Robert’s daughter) to OPF. Jessi has an accurate timeline based upon times logged on her phone. At 4:01 P.M. she received a call from her mother (Cindy, Beecher’s ex-wife) saying that Robert’s boss had called her and said that the FBI and BATF had taken Robert away about an hour before. There are no available government records to substantiate this. A letter from Robert [RL] to OPF explains that the agents informed him that he was “not under arrest, that they needed to talk about some things and asked if [he] knew Jerry Bruckhart at OMA” (See “No bended knee for me” – the Persecution of Robert Beecher).

Now, I know that sounds self-serving — to claim that he was told that he was not going to be arrested. This same “set-up” happened to Ron Cole, back in 1997. However, the FBI, in their own Interview Report [FBI], tell us:

Beecher was asked if there was anywhere else private to talk. Beecher suggested talking in the parking lot near the business and began to walk toward where SA Coppock’s vehicle was parked. SA Coppock suggested talking in his vehicle and Beecher agreed. SA Coppock sat in the driver’s seat, Beecher sat in the front passenger’s seat and SA Slater sat in the middle of the back seat. Once inside the vehicle SA Coppock advised Beecher that he was not put under arrest and was free to leave at any time.

However, again according to the FBI, this about two-thirds of the way into the printed interview [FBI]:

At this point in the interview Beecher noticed SA Coppock and a uniformed Toombs County deputy walking around the front of SA Coppock’s vehicle toward the passenger’s side. Beecher turned back around toward SA Slater and asked if he was going to be arrested. Beecher was informed that he was going to be arrested for being a felon in possession of firearms.

This portion of the interview occurred at Beecher’s workplace. Considering the amount of information discussed, that would probably come close to an hour after the original detention. They then left the Leprechaun Car Wash, in Vidalia and took Beecher to the Tattnall County Jail. This is about 20 miles and 23 minutes, according to Google Earth. That would put the arrival at the Jail, at earliest, at 4:00, though more likely about 4:30 (the record reflects very few times).

Once they arrived at the Jail, we find this in the interview [FBI]:

Beecher was led into the conference room of the Tattnall County Sheriff’s investigator’s office. Beecher was advised of his rights with a BATFE Advice of Rights and Waiver form. Beecher signed the form and agreed to continue talking with Agents.

So, Beecher signed the form AFTER they arrived at the jail. The form (ATF form 3200.4) does bear Beecher’s signature, and it is witnessed by BATF SA Coppock, who dated and signed the form as a witness, “5/17/14 3:03”. Beecher later commented that the time was in error (See May 7, 2014 at 4:37 P.M., RL), and we must agree with him. The original detention occurred, at best, no earlier than 3:00. Then we have the initial interview, conducted in SA Coppock’s car. Later, they went to the Tatnall Sheriff’s Office and then Beecher signed the waiver. At the earliest, around 4:00, more likely later. However, by making the “official record” show that it was signed about the time of the original detention (3:03), it would mean that everything discussed prior to the waiver could be included on the record, and fair game (“can be used against you”). However, considering the apparent low IQ of most government agents, lying both about not arresting Beecher and about when he signed the waiver, it is not difficult to understand that they were stupid enough to leave the proof of their perjury in the written evidence.

You should find it outrageous that the FBI (or any government agency) can lie to the people, yet they impose criminal penalties on the people, if they lie to the government agents (See 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally), the people can be fined and/or imprisoned, though the government agents are immune from such penalties.

Jessi, being closer to where Robert was taken, attempted to find where he was detained. She was told at both the Tattnall County Sheriff’s and the Reidsville Police Department that he was not being detained at either facility. After over half an hour, and numerous phone calls, Jessi found that Robert was being detained in a building behind the Sheriff’s Office. We can let Jessi’s words speak for themselves:

May 7, 2014 at 4:37 P.M. [JL]:

Jessi “drives up towards the Sheriff’s office. There are two buildings located behind it, and as she asks a deputy outside of one where the proper one is, he points to the second one and she sees two men standing outside of it [Agent Slater and Agent Coppock].”

At this point, I pulled up and parked outside the proper building, and the agents introduced themselves as soon as I exited my car. We spoke for about five minutes or so. They discussed Dad’s militia and patriot group ties, told me that he had “great historical knowledge” of the III% movement, and that they were hoping he could help them out. I asked them what the charge was and they mentioned the felon in possession of a firearm, and also a possibility of conspiracy. I asked them what kind of time that would bring, and Coppock told me that it was a maximum of 10 years. At that point, Agent Slater spoke up and told me that while he didn’t think my father was dangerous, and that he seemed more of a patriotic prepper, he also believed that my father knew people who were dangerous. He blathered on about how my father might not want to hurt people, but how he could let them know who would, and how those people were dangerous to the cause my father believes in.

I was told that if he would cooperate, and give them some solid information, that it could play in his favor. I asked them what he meant by that, and Coppock told me that since Dad was 60, had a clean record for the past two decades, and since none of the guns were high-capacity assault rifles, but rather hunting rifles, that he could be looking at a slap on the wrist. His expression and tone made it clear that nobody would push hard for hard time based on the rifles found. Slater told me that it would be helpful if my family and I would help pressure Dad into cooperating, to tell him that his grandchildren needed him to stay home. At this point, we went inside the building where I saw my father.

He was handcuffed, but he smiled and joked a little with me about the whole situation. I asked for permission to hug him, and when they gave it to me, I hugged him and whispered ‘What should we do?’ He told me to not say anything, that I didn’t know anything, and that the guns were a bullshit charge. This is when he first mentioned the threat to arrest me in a roundabout way because he said ‘I’m not going to let them do this to you.’ He told me not to tell anyone other than Sean [Jessi’s husband] and my sister for the next few days, until he had a better grip of what they were wanting and what was going on. I had about five minutes with him before two officers took him away to take him to Savannah.

The agents gave me his belongings in a large Ziploc bag, and again told me that we should pressure him into cooperating, and that he could walk away from this if he did. They also told me to keep his arrest quiet since he couldn’t provide valuable information if everyone knew he was arrested. I told them I wouldn’t say anything (since my father had instructed me not to), but that if they didn’t get my Dad out on bail fast it was a moot point since he is very active online, and people would notice his absence very quickly. They said they would see what they could do.

This is corroborated by Robert’s [RL] statement:

I was questioned about various people involved in different groups and organizations. I kept telling them I wasn’t familiar with the names, and that because I dealt with a lot of people in different parts of the country, some with the same first names, that I was unsure of who they were talking about. Again I was told that if I helped them that they would help me, that they could help me get released if I helped them. Around 4:30 they read me my Miranda rights. [This statements refutes Coppock’s time of 3:03]

The important thing for people to understand is that if they did this to me, how many others have been snatched and agreed to inform? Good people, but outside their limits dealing with lying ass federal agents?

Conveniently, however, there is no mention of an effort to “turn” Beecher into an informant, though they do admit to asking him about some groups and some individuals.

May 7, 2014 at about 5:03 P.M. – [JL] …two agents came into the building, and from their conversation it was clear that they had just returned from searching my mother’s house. They were basically asked by Slater/Coppock if there had been any problems with the search.

This would put the completion of the search well after 4:30. Recall that the Search Warrant was granted because “The items listed [if found] constitute contraband, evidence and/or instruments of the aforementioned offenses.” So, the earliest time that they could even begin to suggest that there was evidence of alleged crimes would be at the completion of the search, or at least 1 1/2 hours after he was first detained — without an arrest warrant. Now, let’s look at:

Receiving & Possessing

Though I addressed this aspect of the charges in “No bended knee for me” – the charge against Robert Beecher, seeing the Indictment and reading the Affidavit, gives us even more to contemplate.

The statute, 18 USC 922 (g) (1), clearly states that:

It shall be unlawful for any person… who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year… [1] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or [2] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or [3] to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Now, the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), is titled, 27 CFR 478.32 – Prohibited Shipment, Transportation, Possession, or Receipt of Firearms and Ammunition by Certain Persons:

No person may ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce, or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess any firearm or ammunition in or affecting commerce, who… [then lists elements that would preclude]”

Note the subtle difference between the two wordings. In Title 18, the shipping and receiving are separated by the “in or affecting commerce”. However, in 27 CFR, the wording ties the first (shipping) with the second (receiving), then goes on to “in or affecting”.

There is one more ‘writing’ that might tend to mislead. It is found in the Indictment, and most likely the chicanery of the US Attorney (probably AUSA Carlton R. Bourne, Jr.) in suggesting contrary to the law, itself, when they cite “Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon”, in a very general sense, in identifying the charges. Titles, however, are not laws. It is the specific wording of the law that makes an act criminal, or not. And, we know that the government would never, ever, lie or try to mislead us — or the Grand Jury.

So, let’s look at the pertinent definitions of the words used in the statute [definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition]:

Possess: (pertinent parts)
To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control; to have exclusive detention and control of; to have and hold as property; to have a just right to; to be master of; to own or be entitled to.

Possession: (pertinent parts)
The detention and control, or the manual or ideal custody, of anything which may be the subject of property, for one’s use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who exercises it in one’s place and name. Act or state of possessing. That condition of facts under which one can exercise his power over a corporeal thing at his pleasure to the exclusion of all other persons.

Receive: (pertinent parts)
To take into possession and control; accept custody of; collect.

Now, common sense, a rather rare commodity, can also come into play, here — though probably not to the well-paid public servants (Slater and Coppock), and the US Attorney that will be prosecuting this case. That common sense has to do with the concept that words have different meanings, or we wouldn’t need different words. (This subject was addressed, to some degree, in a previous article – ‘No bended knee for me’ – the charge against Robert Beecher.) However, we will broaden the previous discussion, so that we can understand what the intent of the law is, verses the application in this current matter.

The statute has three parts, each of which defines an activity that is “illegal” under the statute. The first part is “No person may ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce“. This says that a “felon” may not ship or transport in interstate commerce. Commerce is commercial enterprise, it is not a person moving, vacationing, or just traveling, between states. That is a right and is excluded from the even overly-broadened federal definition of commerce.

The next provision is “to possess in or affecting commerce“. This agrees with the previous provision in that it makes clear that the possession has to be “in or affecting”. One would have to be involved in commerce, or doing something that affected commerce, to satisfy this provision. The relationship would have to be direct. Simply because the firearm were transported, in commerce, at some prior, or subsequent, date, does not affect the person that possess a firearm totally unrelated to the commercial aspect of its transportation.

Finally, we arrive at “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce“. This might appear to be inclusive of the receipt of a firearm or ammunition that had, somewhere along the line, been shipped in interstate commerce — unless we look at the word “receive”. By the definition of receive, “to take into possession and control; accept custody of; collect”, it appears that it must be tied to the transporting, as in that instance, one would collect or take into possession. Could it be that one would have to trace the entire history of the firearm before he acquired it, to assure that it had not, ever, entered interstate commerce (which would include leaving the state of manufacture and then returned to that state, via commerce in either direction), before you could rest comfortably in acquiring a new firearm? It is insane to think that one would have to trace the entire history of a firearm, and failing to do so could result in imprisonment for years. However, it is understandable, though perhaps not constitutional, to prohibit felons from involving themselves in the exercise of transporting, carrying, or receiving, directly, through interstate and foreign commerce.

Although one may “have exclusive detention and control of; to have a just right to; to be master of; to own or be entitled to” does not mean that it applies to possession other than in commerce. If one were to avoid the application of this law, he would have to purchase only firearms and/or ammunition that was manufactured within the state where he resided. If one, the other, or nether, were manufactured in his state, he would be denied the right that is protected by the Second Amendment, and denied what another, in another state, is not denied. That is not an equally applied law — equal justice under the law.

The problem is compounded if he chooses to move, for whatever reason, to another state. Property that he might have lawfully (federal law) owned in one state would, upon crossing the state line, make him a criminal as he entered the next state — if such a move were deemed “commerce”. It would deny him the protection provided for in Article I, §2 of the Constitution, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” His privilege to own a firearm would, instantly, be denied, and immunity from prosecution would, simply disappear.

Conclusion

What we might want to consider, however, since they were not going to arrest Beecher, and the warrant was to get evidence to support the possibility of a crime, we might deduce that the decision to arrest was a result of the interview. First lesson, do not talk to officials. They will lie about when you signed your waiver of Miranda, and can, since cops never lie, use everything that they learned from you, against you. During the course of the interview, Beecher admitted that he had some guns. Was that the kicker that allowed them to arrest, without the vital evidence sought via the warrant? Quite often, if they can get you relaxed, you might be surprised at just what you might say without realizing that you have given something that you should not have — and that might be misconstrued, resulting in a possible conviction — just because you thought you might be able to talk your way out of it.

The other possibility rests on the arrest, which appears to have been preplanned, was a result of the pictures — sufficient in their mind to determine guilt. What can be determined by a picture showing someone holding a firearm? Does it prove possession, or receipt? Or, is there something else that just might be the truth of the matter? Suppose you have gone shopping with your wife (or any other person) and they ask you to hold their purse while they, say, hold a blouse up to see what it might look like on them. Do you “possess” the purse? Or, are you simply holding it? Suppose that someone said, “look at this rifle I got for Christmas”. They hand it to you. Do you possess it, or receive it, or are you only holding it to observe it?

Compare these circumstances with the intent of the law, using the legal definitions, not the everyday definitions we might attribute to those words. The law is based on specific definitions for specific words. It has to be that way, as our use of language often doesn’t warrant the specificity that the correct interpretation of a law does. If having something in your hands, in a temporary situation, whether holding the purse or looking at someone’s new toy constitutes the legal definition that sets the standard to justify indicting someone for an alleged crime, then it would be a crime. However, if it does not meet that standard, then, surely, no crime has been committed.

However, if we look at this whole situation in context, it appears that the entire effort of the government was to turn Robert Beecher into an informant (See Informants Amongst Us?), as they tried to do with Randy Weaver — costing the lives of a U.S. Marshall, Randy’s wife and 14 year old son. Then we need to determine that that definition of Despotism that was written into the Declaration of Independence has been fully met by the current government, and that the solution is not in government, rather, in the hands of We the People.

Government should not be theoretically defensible,
it should be the object of general acceptance.

“No bended knee for me” – the Persecution of Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – No Speedy Trial – Just Punishment

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 10, 2014

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

8 USC § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)

(A) Any person who –

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

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

***

(v)

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

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

(B) in the case of –

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

***

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

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

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

(C)

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

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

(b) Seizure and forfeiture

(1) In general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Promulgation and enforcement by Surgeon General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) is in a communicable stage; or

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

(e) Preemption

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

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

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

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

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

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #57:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

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

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

Ninth Amendment

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

Tenth Amendment

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

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Treason Against the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 24, 2014

Discussions regarding Treason are a common subject in the patriot community. Most often, if not always, they refer to the provision in the Constitution that defines Treason against the United States, specifically, Article III, §3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

This requires a specific act, not a general presumption. It also requires either “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Now, there has not been any “levying War” against them since World War II. Nor, surprisingly, have we (The United States) had any “Enemies” since then.

The matter of enemies came up in a Supreme Court decision (Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1) in that era when German soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes, came ashore and plotted to destroy infrastructure. In the Court establishing jurisdiction, they made clear that Congress had, in fact, declared war against Germany. This made Quirin and the other defendants “Enemies”. However, these elements only apply to the federal government, as the Constitution is the document that created that body. Treason then, according to the Constitution, only applies to enemies of the government created thereby.

However, as in the previous articles dealing with repelling invasion (Militia in Defense of the State) and militia (Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor), we must look in a different direction than just the federal Constitution.

In October 1776, Connecticut passed “An Act for the Punishment of High Treason and other atrocious Crimes against the State. It read, in part,

“That if any person or persons belonging to or residing within this state and under the protection of its laws, shall levy war against the state or government thereof, or knowingly and willingly shall aid or assist any enemies at open war against this state or the United States of America by joining their armies or by enlisting or procuring or persuading others to enlist for that purpose or shall form or be in any way concerned in forming any combination, plot, or conspiracy for betraying this state or the United States into the hands or power of any foreign enemy, or shall give or attempt to give or send any intelligence to the enemies of this state for that purpose, upon being convicted shall suffer death.”

Even though the Constitution was over a decade into the future, the separation/distinction between Connecticut state government and the national government was clearly expressed. One could commit Treason against Connecticut and not commit Treason against the United States, and vice-versa. Is it also possible that “the United States of America” could commit Treason against Connecticut, or vice-versa? After all, this enactment was to make criminal the support of the British government that had just been ousted.

The defining aspects of Treason, under this act, are far more extensive than those in the Constitution, and the requirement for two witnesses to the act, or “Confession”, are not imposed upon the need for conviction.

Had the United States of America, after that enactment favored the British, then Connecticut was totally within her authority to levy charges anyone from the United States of America with Treason. So, we have the same layering of jurisdiction on Treason that we have for the militia and repelling invasion. Since Connecticut was, in a sense, a lesser player (subordinate to the Continental Congress), and still had the authority to charge those above with Treason, if they committed the acts described, then we must also assume that the authority for such has come from the people of Connecticut, as they created the government of their choosing.

Of course, the consequence of charges of Treason against employees or agents of the federal government is grounds for potential armed conflict, unless handled politically, it is, surely, a possibility, should the federal government be determined to be aiding an enemy of a State. The State, however, does not have the requirement for Declaration of War by the Congress as a part of its limitations. Its perception of “enemy” does not fall within the constraints and limitations imposed upon the federal government. Nor, should the people of a state be required to abide by those constraints to determine whether someone is guilty of Treason. Our effort is not to arrest and try them. It is to understand the perspective of those who have seen so many violations of not only the federal Constitution, but the constitution of their own state.

For a more thorough understanding of the relationship between the people of any government, especially one such as ours, of the people, both state and federal, I would suggest an article on the subject, Sons of Liberty #14.

The final determination as to whether we have Liberty or are subject to laws foreign to our constitutions, resides wholly in our determination whether the governments are abiding by the documents that created them, or not.

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? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Immigration or Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 23, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2014

What? Three Constitutions? What must he be talking about?

What we will be looking at is that there are, in the minds of various people, especially those within certain vocations, who perceive the Constitution from a perspective differently than others might. It may appear that when we speak of the Constitution, we think that we are all speaking of the same document. However, we will explore whether there is a document attached, at all, to one of these perspectives; what minimal role the original Constitution plays in another perspective, and finally, the Constitution, as written and intended by the Framers.

Well, the conversation began when I was talking with an Oath Keeper. I had asked, regarding their stated of purpose of keeping their oaths by not obeying unconstitutional laws, just how they interpreted the Constitution. My query was whether that interpretation included the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution they had “sworn an oath to”. Well, how do those come into play?

It that phone conversation with an Oath Keeper, that I first asked the question, “Which of the three Constitutions do they affix their oath of allegiance and obedience to?” Of course, he was as perplexed as I had been until the reality formulated in my head. So, let’s venture into the realm of, “I knew that, I just didn’t realize it”.

The Fourth Amendment:

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

I have no trouble reading the words. Quite simply, they say that “Writs of Assistance” are no longer recognized in this country and that “unreasonable searches and seizures” cannot be conducted. That means, you can’t search to find something that might incriminate a person, you have to have a Warrant, which must be issued based upon “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” It is clearly the intent of the Framers that the Warrant must be based upon knowledge of a crime, identifying the person or object to be seized. A judge, not a cop, must sign the Warrant and it is supported by an oath, which must be based upon personal knowledge.

Now, this is a tough concept to those of us who have been raised in a world where that line, as defined by the Constitution, and that which we recognize to have moved by interpretation, has been so blurred that we accept the latter, without due consideration of the former. (To understand how this worked in the time of our Founders, see Are Cops Constitutional?)

However, before we get to how this applies, we must visit, also, the Fifth Amendment, or at least a part of it:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Let’s start by attempting to understand what the (perhaps intentionally archaic) phrase, “held to answer” means. Well, I answer when I go to court to “answer” to the charges. Simple enough. So, let’s go to the other, “held”. Well, if you are arrested, you are held or detained. Again, quite simple.

Now, let’s visit the next portion, “for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime”. We all know what capital is, and, with a little research we find the “infamous crime” transitioned into “felony”, though its original meaning did carry with it a crime that could result in imprisonment for a year and a day, or more. Those crimes had to be against person or property. They were never, at least back then, applied to a rule violation, as they are in many states, now.

So, putting these two elements together and coupling it with the final provision of this portion of the Amendment, we get paraphrasing, based upon interpretation of the wording and apply it to our language of today:

No person may be arrested and charged in a court of justice (yes, that is what they were called back then, not a court of law), for the serious crimes bearing either the death penalty or over one year in prison, that crime being against person or property, unless a Grand Jury, comprised of “good and honest men” determine that there is probably cause that the crime alleged did appear to have taken place.

To better understand what was intended, I might direct you to The Right to Self Defense , which discusses both arrest, under the Constitution, and killing a law enforcement office attempting to serve an unlawful warrant. Yes, he could kill that officer.

Have you every scratched your head when someone is “arrested for resisting arrest”? First, where is the warrant demonstrating that he was to be arrested for resisting arrest? Second, where is the warrant for the alleged crime that he is to have committed, warranting the arrest that he was arrested for resisting? Wait! Where is our Constitution? Has it, too, been arrested? The answer to that last is, unequivocally, yes. So, let’s venture into that First Constitution.

Superiors tell Law enforcement officers what they can, and what they cannot, do. They accept those instructions as if they were firmly grounded in the Constitution; whether by deception or assertion of their “them or us” authority. Regardless, both the Second and Third Constitutions will be violated by this activity.

Before we get to that, we have to think back to many situations, mostly in those two unconstitutionally undeclared wars, on drugs and terrorism. Well, that can’t be all bad, can it?

As we have seen in Interstate highway stops, resulting in unlawful searches, they have been challenged in the Supreme Court. So, the Court decided that “just searching because of suspicion” doesn’t pass muster (note that I didn’t say “constitutionality, which will be addressed, shortly). However, once the person is no longer detained as the result of the traffic stop, whether valid or not, the rules change. The officer can then, after he has said, “you are free to go”, ask for permission to search. If the answer is yes, he searches. If the answer is no, then he can justify “suspicion”, based upon the answer, even though he may have to call the drug or explosive smelling dogs, he has achieved the point of an unconstitutional search, the Constitution notwithstanding.

So, this began, and not just in the highway searches, as an act by the officer, firmly believing that he has constitutional authority, because his boss told him he could do it — just obeying orders, sir — an act has been committed outside of any reasonable constitutional authority.

Thus concludes the First Constitution.

Now, let us eaxamine the Second Constitution. When the Supreme Court ventures into a matter before it, when they rule, we assume that the ruling is based upon the “constitutionality”. Silly us, we are so deceived. Let’s take a decision made just a few days ago, Hedges v. Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-758, wherein the Court said that Hedges had no standing to challenge the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as unconstitutional. Why can’t we challenge a law, made by the legislature, or even an administrative agency, to see if we are bound by that which the law applies?

Here is what James Madison said about laws in Federalist Paper #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, did they rule on the Constitutionality, as we would expect? No, they did not; they only said that they won’t hear the matter, since Hedges had no standing. But, more about standing, shortly. Just remember this, “Rule #5”, as we continue.

Now, let’s look at another decision from 2012, dealing with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, Supreme Court, No. 11-393. This is the case that many of us are familiar with because of Chief Justice Robert’s opinion, wherein he held that the “penalty” described in the Statute was not, in fact, a penalty, rather that it was a “tax”. Well, was he addressing constitutionality? Now, just remember “Rule #7”.

Finally, at least in subject matter for consideration of the Second Constitution, let’s look at our belief that the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of most, if not all, of the matters before it. I will refer to Rules #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6. Well, that’s all of the Rules, and you can find out what that means, in the words of Justice Brandeis, by going to About Ashwander v. TVA.

So, the Second Constitution is the one that most believe to be the “real” Constitution, as set forth by the Framers. Instead, we find that it is the “Constitution” promulgated (or, should I say foisted upon us?) by a Supreme Court that is unclear or ambiguous in their decisions, or is simply codifying the incremental expansion of police powers by slowly decimating our rights, from case to case, extending those powers to law enforcement and other agencies of government. Most attorneys (if not all) are taught this as Constitutional Law, most often dealing with cases decided after the early 1900s. After all, many of them are in direct conflict with the John Bad Elk decision from the Self Defense article (linked above). It was in the late 1800s that Yale began teaching case law instead of substantive law. That change allowed the Court to avoid consideration of constitutionality, in favor of what has resulted in incrementally undermining the written word and the intent of the Framers, along with our Rights, in favor of what can best be described as a Despotic government — death of the Constitution — by judicial activism.

So, on to the Third Constitution. This does not require any special skills, it only requires that you get a copy of the Constitution, remove those preconceived notions (based upon the above) of what you have been lead to believe it says, and digest each and every word of it.

So, what we have seen is that the First Constitution is an interpretation by a chief law enforcement officer who believes that he has to give his “troops” a greater discretion in fighting the evils of “them”, whether under the guise of the War on Drugs, terrorism, Officer Safety, or any other rationalization. This, then, becomes a practice that, when it appears to violate the Constitution, will be challenged by an individual, an organization, ACLU, SPLC, or even the Justice Department, for the purpose of getting a ruling from the Supreme Court, hopefully to obtain an extension of police powers or a further encroachment on our Rights. But, have no fear. They will run this same gauntlet, yet again, to revise the Second Constitution, each time, granting more powers and obscuring more rights. Each of these is a subversion of the Constitution that created the very government that is intent upon destroying the limitations within the Document, and expanding those powers that were intended to be limited.

So, the final question for you to answer is, which Constitution have you taken your Oath to?

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014

In these past few weeks, we have seen history unfolding right before our very eyes. Events in Bunkerville, Nevada, have been watched on the evening news throughout the country, and quite possibly, around the world. For the first time in a century and a half, Americans stood, defiant, ready to go to the wall, against the government, or at least one of her administrative agencies, to assure that the erosion of our liberties ceases, and we begin to restore our rights to what our forefathers intended.

From a people rather complacent for most of their lives comes a new test not unlike that which the Founders faced back in 1774 — the determination of who is on our side and who is not; who is committed and who is not; who is willing to give his life for a cause that he believes in and who is not, and that what this story is about.

Recent events in Bunkerville portray that test in vivid and sensational detail. I give a chronology to these events, and they will be presented in Pacific Daylight Time, regardless of the local time where some of them occurred. This is to insure continuity, and that the sequence is properly portrayed.

At about 2:30 pm, Friday April 25, 2014, Mr. X received a call from an associate. This call would provide for some interesting disclosure over the next 6 hours. The associate is described as a fellow participant in Open Source Intelligence, a nuclear physicist, a Democrat, a higher-ranking military officer, and that held a “Yankee White” security clearance.

I spent nearly an hour going over the details with Mr. X, to whom I have promised confidentiality. I am fully satisfied as to the veracity of what he told me. Though I did ask him if it would be possible to talk with the associate, with a guarantee of anonymity, he assured me that this would not be possible, as was made clear by the associate. I then asked him if Oath Keepers had asked if they could interview his source. His answer was, no they did not. This, to me, is a rather curious omission, even though the answer would be anticipated to be as it was — so much for the intelligence gathering ability of Oath Keepers, but, hey, I’m just a reporter. What would I know?

The story related in the conversation between Mr. X and the associate is that the associate had received information from a source he knew in the Defense Department (DOD). The source at DOD said that they had received orders from Eric Holder, of the Justice Department, to conduct drone surveillance of the Bundy property and to conduct a hot drone strike on the ranch and those on or around it. This was to occur within between 24 to 48 hours, and that there were to be no witnesses nor would any videos be allowed to leave the area.

Mr. X was quite shaken by what he had heard and expressed those concerns back at the associate. Wouldn’t this be going too far in the eyes of the public? Answer: They are prepared to deal with that. There is no way that this could be covered up. Response: They are prepared for that. It was suggested that this would lead to martial law based upon authority provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He was also told that the justification for the strike was based upon Harry Reid’s assertion that Bundy and those supporting him were “Domestic Terrorists”. To each of Mr. X’s queries, similar answers were provided to justify the story being conveyed.

Mr. X was, to say the least, perplexed and did not know what to do with this information. By about 3:00 pm, he contacted Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers. Rhodes, upon receipt of this information wisely dispatched Wes (aka “Mac”, Oath Keepers Intelligence Officer, about 6′ tall, older gentleman, prior Special Forces operator, driving a silver pickup truck) and Michelle to meet with Mr. X. and ‘vett’ him to determine whether he was sincere and to make an evaluation of the story.

Jumping ahead to 8:03 pm, John Jacob Schmidt, Radio Free Redoubt, interviewed Rhodes and other Oath Keepers (21’18”) regarding this story. Rhodes, justifiably, pointed out that the vetting had convinced him that the source (Mr. X) was sincere, though there was no way of verifying Mr. X’s source. Rhodes said that there was a risk to his credibility by putting this out, but since there was a concern for human lives, the story must be gotten out. Rhodes also pointed out, in releasing the story, that he was not going to “let my people die on my watch” and to “err on the side of caution for my guys.” Of course, the advertisement at the end of the radio interview was an enlistment ad for Oath Keepers.

Let me return to my interview with Mr. X. We discussed potential scenarios that might occur, considering the strike and its ramifications. Presuming the government had drone surveillance, and wanted to assure maximum effect, they would have a containment team to prevent any attempt of any of people to leave the area, as they did in Waco, where only those who came out in view of the cameras came out alive. They would have to insure meeting the objective of the strike — all personnel dead and evidence destroyed. As Rhodes pointed out, they would need a follow on team, though he didn’t address containment. That follow on team could surely serve as the containment team prior, and the follow on team subsequent, to the strike. We also discussed the ramifications — the effect on the American, and world, public, should such a strike occur. We all know how even the Mainstream Media (MSM) reacted to the directed drone strikes that killed two American citizens in Yemen, even though they had sided with our ‘enemy’. What would be the consequence of a general, indiscriminate, attack on men, women, and children, on American Soil, for merely resisting the enforcement of an agency rule to “rustle” Bundy’s cattle? No shots fired, no deaths, or even injuries. Would the public stand for it, and would Congressmen, even Democrats, scramble to condemn the action? Would a hundred million Americans realize that the government had gone berserk? Would they then flock to the cause of those who would resist such tyranny? Even MSM might even turn, drastically, against the administration. Would Jay Carney have trouble attempting to justify such action?

The probability of such an action is, at least, remote, and such intelligence should be used only within the confines of the current operations at the Bundy Ranch, rather than risk ridicule, when precautions could easily be taken, without public notice of such a threat?

Returning to the time line of events, we now go back to the Ranch to see what activity occurred because of this threat. At between 5:00 and 6:00 pm, Oath Keepers at the ranch began packing up their gear. At about 8:00 pm, about the time of the radio interview, Rhodes used the internal communication system and notified the Oath Keepers that they should move out. By 8:30 pm, 30-40 Oath Keepers in the encampment had moved out, as had the Oath Keepers command circle. Only about 5 Oath Keepers remained at the ranch to protect the Bundy family and property. Where did the others go? To the Virgin River Motel, possibly at the expense of the contributions sent to Oath Keepers, contributions having been made to provide protection for the Bundys, not for luxurious comforts for those who had abandoned their posts.

Later that evening (exact time unknown) a conference call was made between State Representative Michelle Fiore, Stewart Rhodes, Pete Santilli (patriot videographer), Booda Bear (Personal Security Detail for the Bundy family), Ryan Payne, Militia Liaison, and LTC Potter (who states, “I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.”). The result of the conversation was to request that Representative Fiore contact the Governor and request the State’s support, independent of the militia, to provide protection for those Americans on the ground at the ranch. To date, there has been no response from the Governor.

So, let’s put a bit of perspective on what can be deduced by the actions of some of the players in these events.

First, as explained in my article, Vortex, if the government wants to disrupt or bring ridicule on the patriot community, it would choose an innocent patriot who they hoped would be likely to spread the story, indiscriminately, throughout the patriot community. However, the chosen conduit, the Vortex, had enough sense to provide the information, discretely, to someone he respected, hence the message going to Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers could have contained the story and still benefitted, in every way, by preparing for that eventuality. Instead, they chose to go public with it, for reasons unknown.

The Oath Keeper mission, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, had, by their participation at the ranch, extended to “protecting the Bundy family”. They also declare that their purpose includes “education”. Now, if their mission is to protect the Bundy Family, just how far does that go? Given the choice of fulfilling their mission, by removing the Bundys, by force, if necessary, or holding their ground against the ‘enemy”, they chose to abandon that mission, for their own protection. Being that their membership is largely Law Enforcement, it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians. In this instance, the outcome would have been the same, had the strike occurred. In military parlance, this would be tantamount to desertion under fire. I can only suggest that the purpose for going public with the story was to justify their withdrawal, after the beating that they have recently taken as a result of an article, The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia, wherein one of their officers, in the comments section, is unable to address some of the concerns raised.

Various discussions around the Internet have also brought their true role and purpose at the Bundy Ranch into question. I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee. Not quite like the roles played in the American Revolutionary War, where militia fled and the trained soldiers held their ground — to the last extremity.

Now, some have suggested that this controversy between militia and Oath Keepers has caused division in the patriot community. I am inclined to see this in a different light, in that, in these times, we must separate the voices from the action; Those who will stand, and those who will not; those who are true patriots, and those who only mouth those words.

Epilogue: Yesterday, the militia command structure, which is a shared command rather than top down, held a Coalition meeting to provide insight into why Oath Keepers, with the exception of those few who stood their ground like real patriots, were deemed persona non grata, by those who still stand their ground, and truly honor their oaths. Coalition Meeting of April 28 – caution, language.

Finally, a Salute to all true Americans that seek a return to the government intended by the Constitution.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The Bundy Affair

The Battle Continues

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 16, 2014

Late yesterday early evening, I received a message and link to on on-line article about the events at the Bundy’s Ranch.  I was asked if the article was accurate.  The article is at National Report and is titled “Multiple Militia Members Arrested at Bundy Ranch, Charged with Domestic Terrorism.”  The article, though no time stamp, appears to have been posted yesterday (April 15) at about 3:00 PM PDT.  It has no byline.

I have been in contact with people who had been at the ranch, and I have spoken with Ryan Bundy, as my point of contact at the ranch.  Realizing that they have had their hands full, dealing with the events and after the events, I had minimized my contact with Ryan (a 45 minute interview on April 8, and a 5 minute conversation a few days ago), but this article warranted attention.

I called Ryan, yesterday evening, and asked if they were aware of any arrests.  He affirmed that there had been no arrests.  There is little doubt that had such arrests occurred, the Bundys surely would have received information to that effect.

So, why would someone want to publish an article that was such a blatant lie, and easily refutable?  Well, let’s look at some aspects of the article, and then I will conclude with what appears to be the reason behind this article, and perhaps many more that are circulating on the Internet.

The article begins with this assertion, “The standoff in Nevada reached new heights this afternoon as armed federal agents began arresting militia members gathered to protest in support of Cliven Bundy.”  Considering the time that it was published, early in the afternoon, it does raise suspicion.

Next, it claims:

In total, 16 protesters taking part in the rally are reportedly in custody and being held without bail on domestic terrorism charges, resisting arrest, creating a public nuisance, and trespassing.

Interestingly, they were charged with “domestic terrorism” and “creating a public nuisance”.  The former, probably quite severe; the latter, usually treated with arrest and then release; a rather strange assortment of charges.

Then, for whatever reason, the following conclude that paragraph:

Early reports indicate that protesters were verbally and physically abused prior to being arrested.

I would suggest that this sentence is intended to garner sympathy from, and credibility to, the patriots, for reasons that will be addressed, later.

Now, the next paragraph gets even more interesting.  In a single sentence, a warning is put out to instill fear in any who attend the protests going on outside of the Bundy Ranch:

Federal agent Paul Horner, a 14-year veteran of the force, spoke with National Report by phone and had this to say: “Under direct orders from the FBI and the DOJ, on behalf of the BLM, we have infiltrated the crowd with armed undercover agents.  The agents are collecting intel and coordinating that information with drones that are also overseeing the disturbance.  In addition, we have positively identified approximately 85% of the crowd and are running background checks for previous violations, warrants, etc.  License plate numbers of protesters are being collected and entered into the national database as well.  These right-wing extremists pose a serious threat to the safety of the operation and we have orders to make arrests and confiscate firearms.”

Now, I don’t like windmills, so I will not joust with one to see if Horner is real, though I doubt that he is.  However, within his statement, he “admits” infiltration by armed undercover agents, who we must suppose came out from their cover when they made the arrests.  Then, the subsequent threat of identification and inclusion in a “national database” sort of completes the effort of intimidation.

There is more to the article, however, what is above presented is sufficient for us to begin to look at, perhaps, is the purpose of this blatantly false article.

After the events of Sunday, where the BLM stood, stoically, for a few minutes, and then cowered away, in what appeared to be mortal fear, the government had lost the upper hand.  This was, without a doubt, a defeat of the worst kind for the government.  They had been publically humiliated, even in Mainstream Media, in having the will of the people asserted over their presumed authority.

If we look back at both our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, we know that when there is victory, enlistments increase and public support excels.  However, with defeat comes the opposite — not to mention the psychological effect on the participants.

Embarrassment in conflict often has rather bizarre consequences.  For example, in Waco, on the first day, the BATF suffered defeat.  They were shown  with their tails between their leg, dragging wounded comrades away from the battlefield for medical treatment, with the grace of the Davidians, who were not afford such medical luxury.  Their humiliation resulted, eventually, in the childish destruction of the property of the Davidians, after the fateful fire of April 19.  This was the result of an arrogant attempt to restore the superiority of the government forces over an enemy, the Davidians.

It is the psychology of defeat, and the psychology of victory, that instills, in each side, a mental framework that is either destructive, or brings enthusiasm.

This National Report article, and many other articles that detract from the truth of the events of the past week in Bunkerville, Nevada, appear to be an intentional Psychological Warfare (Psyop) operation by the government, their shills and supporters, to endeavor to reduce the moral effect of our victory, and enhance the believe of superiority in theirs.

Before I conclude this article, I want to bring to your attention a rather divisive tool implemented in the distraction of the article.  Many know that I have been in contact with the Bundys.  As I pointed out, above, I wanted to ascertain the veracity of the article.  Once the truth was known, I posted in the comments section.  There is no logging in required (strange) and I did check the box to receive notice of follow up comments, giving my email address, though I have, since, received none.

This morning, I received a message form a friend who had run across the article, and seeing the following comments, contacted me, saying that he believed it to be true, since the comment appeared to have been made by me:

Well, that would be about the time that I posted, though my last name, which I always use, was omitted.  So, what about the wording?  Well, what I wrote was, “This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.”  (This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.)  Rather interesting, and extremely deceitful.

This is to deceive, intimidate, discredit, or otherwise attempt to use Psyop to change the nature of the game, and it is in full force.  For those interested in the mechanics of such subversive tactics, they are explained in Vortex.  Understand, however, that though the first battle has been won by the People, it is not over, and the nature of the game can be expected to change.

We must remain vigilant, and retain momentum, and not allow a denigration as a result of their tactics.  We have prevailed, and we will continue to prevail — until Constitutional government is restored to our land.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM