Vortex

The threat that keeps us apart

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 24, 2012

 

Vortex

Noun:   1. a mass of whirling fluid or air, esp. a whirlpool or whirlwind.
2. Something regarded as a whirling mass.

So, why Vortex?  Well, when something goes down into the bottom of a vortex, it is spun around and emitted in a different form than when it went in.

Background:

A recent discussion brought up an issue that has been close to me, for quite some time.  I have seen many succumb to entrapment, or, just plain deceived, by agents, informants, infiltrators and other such ilk.

It seems that many think the government is squeaky clean, or, that issues, not being of national security levels of interest, don’t warrant the effort that would be necessary to ‘move in’ on the patriot community.

A few years ago, I learned that as many as fifty percent of the members of Richard Butler’s Aryan Nation Church (Randy Weaver country), and of the old Posse Comitatus, were people who, for whatever reason, had changed sides, or were not quite honest in their dealings with the respective organizations.

I had read the following memorandum, which is included in the Appendix of Congressman George Hansen’s book, “To Harass Our People”, while traveling through the Washington, D.C. area, after Waco.  I met with an associate of George Hansen.  He gave me a Xerox copy of the memorandum, and I have no doubt as to its authenticity.

As you read the excerpts from the memorandum, take note of the extent in which the government is willing to ‘get involved’ in the “Tax Rebellion Movement” (see note 5 to District Directors).  Remember, also, that this memo was written nearly 40 years ago.  It would be ludicrous to think that they have not enlarged and perfected their program. [Emphasis, mine]

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

Memorandum
FEB 26, 1973

to: Participants in Conference on Tax Rebellion Movement
from: Western Region
subject: Tax Rebellion in California

I am sending you the minutes of our meeting of February 9, 1973, on the Tax Rebellion Movement.  These minutes enumerate action items for the Los Angeles and San Francisco District Directors and for Regional Office officials.

I appreciate your past attention to this serious matter, and feel confident that all of us working together can successfully overcome this challenge to our tax system.

/S/
Homer O. Crossman
Regional Commissioner

Mr. Howard advised he has been conferring with state tax officials who are anxious to cooperate with IRS in the attack on tax rebels who also do not pay state taxes; often the state can move quickly to close up a tax rebel’s business or revoke his license; that we should see that the State uses its enforcement machinery on those cases which are not our targets.

Mr. Crossman reported on his discussions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Courts and Judge Crocker, Fresno, and of their interest in enforcement of the law in tax rebel cases.  Mr. Hansen commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be anti-IRS based on a belief that IRS is “highhanded”.  Mr. Howard reported on a change of attitude in federal judges in San Francisco after he met with a number of them and discussed the gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of giving prison sentences as deterrents.

There was a general discussion of the importance of meeting with U.S. Attorneys and federal judges to acquaint them with the full picture of the tax rebellion movement.  Mr. Crossman pointed out that after his meeting with Mr. Couris and Judge Crocker, they requested background information on the Movement which was furnished them.

Mr. Kingman suggested the possibility of requesting religious leaders to warn their following against participation in the movement, pointing to the beneficial effects of Mormon Church President Lee’s message.

***

Mr. Krause pointed out the importance of close planning on common targets by the tax rebellion project supervisors of the Los Angeles and San Francisco districts with planning meetings as needed.

Action items for District Directors:

1. Maintain the initiative in the attack on the tax rebels.
2. Know their plans before they arrive at our door to execute them.
3. Identify the leaders of the Movement and concentrate on them.
4. Have a plan of action in coordination with the Region rather than hit and miss defensive reactions.
5. Continue to step up the infiltration in-depth of the Movement.
6. Use all available federal, state, and local laws.
7. Use civil penalties on Porth-type cases.
8. Wage a campaign to educate U.S. Attorneys and federal judges with the importance of prison sentences on cases.

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

At the same time that the IRS was acting out the above to deal with what the termed “tax rebels”, the federal government also had to contend with the anti-war (Vietnam) movement.  In dealing with what was going on at the time, infiltration into that movement was also a part of the government’s program.

One of the larger groups that were active in the anti-war movement was a broad based group known as Student for a Democratic Society (SDS).  They were of so much concern to the government that the government actually started some of the SDS chapters so that they had a degree of control, and, received intelligence from other SDS chapters.  If they didn’t start them, they, at least, had agents and informants join the various chapters.

Another target of the government, during the anti-war movement, was Vietnam Veterans against War (VVAW).  Some of the VVAW members were from Gainesville, Florida.  Among them, however, were informants and agents.  The agents fed them information that the 1972 Republican National Convention (Miami Beach) was being set up to set up the anti-war demonstrators.  They were told that the police would shoot some protesters.  This would lead to sealing off Miami Beach by raising all of the drawbridges, trapping the protesters, and making for shooting fish in a barrel.  To counter this tactic, the Eight made plans to attack government buildings, police and fire stations, and then force the lowering of the drawbridges.  This was to draw the police away from the Beach and allow the demonstrators to leave the Beach, avoiding the catastrophic scenario that had been fed to them.  Of course, the informants and agents testified against them, however, their correspondence (which was seen by the jury) said that their plan was “for defensive purposes, only”, which lead to an acquittal.  However, it does demonstrate that forty years ago, the ability, means, and practice, of infiltration and entrapment were standard government tools.

For a detailed study of the infiltration of the anti-war movement, see http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/provoca.pdf

 

Who are the agents and informants?

There are any number of reasons and means by which some people will become agents of the government, or informants for the government.  Though there are variations of each of these, we will cover the more general types of people and what their relationship to government is.

Agents

Starting at the top, we have undercover agents.  They can be undercover agents for nearly any branch of the federal or state government.  Most often, they are very well trained, to include psychology, so that they can get close to the people they are supposed to encounter and infiltrate.  They generally receive very explicit instructions when they go on an operation, though they can also adjust, quite well, when a “Target of Opportunity” arises.  They are full time agents (Type I) and will become very close to those in leadership.  They will engross themselves in their work, often living a life outside of what would be normal for an FBI agent.  They have “handlers” that are often, for months or years, the only contact they have with the parent organization.

There is second type of agent, Type II, who is called in for support; for example, the FBI agent who alleged to have explosives and other material for sale in the Georgia Militia bust.  Often they have desk or other duties and are called only when needed.

A good example of the Type I is FBI agent Steven Haug.  Haug, who went by “Jersey Steve”, had infiltrated the Hutaree Militia.  He got so close to the Hutaree leader, David Stone, he was asked to be the best man at Stone’s wedding.  Later, he would testify against Stone.

Another was a man, back in the nineties, who went by the name of Bob Chapman.  Later, when he testified against the Florida Common Law Court, he identified himself as Robert Quigley, “IRS deep undercover agent” and instructor at the IRS undercover school. (See “Let me tell you about a man named Quigley”)

These agents are often ‘wired’, and the recorded conversations are transcribed to be used for evidence, when their task is completed and they have turned witness against former ‘friends’.  A partial transcription of such a recording can be found at “Record of Activity“.  BC = Bob Chapman = S/I Quigley is the agent.  You may note how he tries to blend in but does ask some questions attempting to entice information that can be used against the parties, later.  This is from the 1995 investigation of the Florida Common Law Court that sent all but one of the defendants to prison for 12 years.

These paid agents, regular employees of the government, on special duty, are a blight on our concept of self-government.  Though such agents go back to the Revolutionary War, where Washington had a staff of agents that mingled with the British to gain intelligence information, they did not join the British army or other government forces.  It wasn’t until early in the 20th century that the practice became common, to deal with organized crime.  However, currently, the government claims to have thousands of agents working within various patriot or political groups.  Must we assume that political activism is now criminal?

The other form of agent is the paid agent of a private organization.  These are best described as “infiltrators”.  One such organization using this tactic is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that claims to have many infiltrators within the various patriot groups, from militia to Tea Party groups, and everything in between.  Their primary purpose is strictly information gathering, though if given the opportunity, they will exploit a situation.

 

Informants

Informants come in different varieties.  Some are induced into informing on friends and associates when they are charged with a crime, themselves.  They will sign a “plea agreement” (plea agreement informants) and exchange their efforts for, most often, a “withheld adjudication” — meaning that so long as they provide good information (not necessarily truthful), and testimony, if required, they will not be prosecuted for the crime that they are alleged to have committed.  See “Informants Amongst Us?” for an explanation of this process.  In desperation, these informants are capable of lying (since they have already given up their integrity) and participate in entrapment, to ‘save their own skin’.  They are, by nature, weak and unwilling to stand up for their convictions.

A lesser version of this is the “states evidence” witness that will tell all to save his own neck.  Though not an agent, active informant, or infiltrator, he is often the source of conviction of patriots because he does not have the fortitude to be a true patriot.  An example of this is one of Schaeffer Cox’s fellow Alaska Peacemaker Militia members, Michael O. Anderson.  Cox, Lonnie Vernon, and Coleman Barney are currently (May 2012) on trial.  Anderson, who was arrested, along with the other, in March 2011, has had his charges dropped and will be testifying for the state, against the other three. (Reference: Alaska Militia Trial Opens With Former Defendant as Key Witness)

Others might become informants in custody (jailhouse informants), seeking favor, or reduction of sentence.  These jailhouse informants will usually testify to anything that is requested of them, to bring “jailhouse confessions” to trial.  They are often used to ‘enhance’ the evidence against a defendant to assure conviction.

Volunteer informants come in two categories.  First are those who have been charged with, or know that they have charges pending, for a crime.  They will contact a government agency and offer their services, hoping for a reduction, withheld adjudication, or dismissal of charges.  This is the probable scenario in the Joe Sims involvement with the Georgia Senior Militia, this past year.  Joe, according to an Esquire magazine article, was in jail pending child abuse charges.  He contacted the FBI and volunteered to provide information about members of the Georgia Militia.

Other volunteer informants are often James Bond wannabes or government employees seeking beneficial treatment by freelance work to aid law enforcement.  There was the Viper Militia, Phoenix, Arizona, in 1996, where about a dozen concerned patriots prepared for a Red Dawn type of event.  An aspiring firefighter joined the group.  In his John Wayne machismo, he began suggesting more active pursuits.  Later, he brought in an undercover Sheriff’s Deputy, and both encouraged testing bombs, often made with materials provided by the informant or agent, and making plans to attack government buildings.  Prison was the outcome for those that followed the lead of the informant and agent.  What bright future lay in store for the informant, we do not know.  Presumably, however, he was rewarded favorably.

Another type of informant, though not always intentional, is the “easily swayed informant”.  These sort don’t usually have any idea that they are an informant, though they are, just the same, because they pass on information that might have destructive ends, or, they are duped into passing information that is erroneous and, potentially, destructive to the patriot community.  They have, usually,  been contacted by a law enforcement agent (often FBI Special Agents), or even others down the chain, including others who have been easily swayed,  who convince them that they are really good guys, and an asset to their country.  They are then beguiled, and act in concert with agents against the best interest of the patriot community, most often thinking that they are doing right to the community.  Often, they will sway others (usually larger numbers) away from any activity that is not easily controlled.  If the person is susceptible to the charms of the agent, he can go beyond that easily swayed and become a de facto agent, and never realize that he is being used.  It is the psychological training that the agent uses to manipulate the person and use him to influence others, most often away from a professed course.  He is, in essence, a sleeper, and can always be put to greater purpose, if the need arises.  These relationships tend to be long-term, and quite congenial between the parties.

Of these last, a friend refers to them as “useful idiots”.  However, I think it more appropriate that they should be referred to as “guess what I know” types.  Often, they pass on information just because they have found it and think that everyone should be apprised of this “wonderful;” or “dreadful” information.  Rumors of foreign troops across the Mexican border, for example, have been circulating for twenty years, each time, with new adherents and a new life, with only minor revisions to the original story, and, most often, without any identifiable source.

All of those described above are contrary to the Framers concept of government.  They are, by their very practice, violating the concept of the Fourth Amendment, the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”.

 

How do they function in the patriot community?

All of the above identified sources of benefit to the government enter the patriot community, though they do so in various ways.

First is the coward who turns state’s evidence, but began by believing in a cause.  Once the chips were down, he cowers and turns against those that do hold the principles highly.  The turncoat, in a sense, is the worst of those who find themselves on the wrong side of the battle.  There is nothing, except his nature, that would lead one to believe that he is not really on the right side — since he was on the right side until imminent threat to his future freedom caused him to turn against those who had every reason to believe that he was as sincere as they were, and had nothing to hide.

Next, are those who become paid informants.  Often, they have joined with a true belief that something is wrong; however, somewhere along the line they change ideologies.  It may be the result of less conviction toward the cause; the fear of doing something ‘illegal’ (as the Founders did); or simply a change of heart.  However, they are in and, perhaps, they can make a little money by offering their services to the government.  This sort is as bad as the first; perhaps even worse, for he continues to gather and pass on intelligence, and may even go further, acting against the best interest of the Patriot Community and those he has gotten to know.

Next are those informants who have been charged with a crime and decide to “cop a plea” and become an informant for the government.  Like the first, those that turn state’s evidence, they are cowards and will send others to prison to avoid their own stay in the “gray bar hotel”.  However, since they continue to “play along” with you, they can pass on even more information, and often will set traps for you to fall prey.

Finally, in the informant category, are those who have joined in hopes of increasing their “job opportunities” with the government.  Most often, they are already employees of government, as noted above, but they are playing the “spy game” in hopes of enhancing their resume. (Reference: My Life as a White Supremacist)

Now, we get into the realm of professional spies.  These are the agents whose job is to invade your privacy, get dirt on you, and even more, which will be discussed later.  We’ll begin with the Type II agent.  His job is to be available and act the part, when the need arises.  Otherwise, he is just an employee with other duties.  He will be a witness only to what transpired during the course of his brief interlude with the subject of the investigation.

Next comes the Type I agent.  His dress, his manner, his whole life, revolves around his active participation in the group that is the target, or contains the target, of an investigation.  Since his job is playing spy, he will do whatever is necessary to obtain the accolades he will get for obtaining a conviction and getting the job “well done”, regardless of what techniques he uses to achieve that end.

Often, this person, let’s call him the Vortex, will use others to insulate himself from exposure, if things don’t go smoothly.  He will also use others to achieve specific ends.  He is, however, the point of contact between the government and the patriot community, hence, Vortex.  The information swirls in and out, on the patriot side of the Vortex.  His job is to sort out, manipulate, control that information, and pass it thorough to the government for their nefarious purposes.  He is also the source of misinformation, coming from the government side, and then thrown into the swirl on the patriot side, though more about this, later.

Often, the Vortex will never even see a patriot, though he could be directing the operation from a distance.  This is common with certain types of informants, where the Vortex is most often referred to as the “handler”.  However, for any such investigation, there will always be a Vortex; the agent or other government employee who passes information in both directions; plans, or passes on plans, for the control or expansion of the operation; and is the person, who, if exposed by the patriot community, damages or defeats the government’s operation.

These agents have a plan when they go into their job.  That plan can be revised to meet the exigency when circumstances warrant a change, or an expansion, of an investigation.  They will also know who most of, if not all of, those who are lower level informants involved in any case they are working on.  However, the informants will seldom, if ever, know who the agents are, until both find themselves on the witness stand.  (Reference for Type I and Type II agents: Patriot Games)

Agents, especially Type I, will seldom be used to testify, if informants can became the “fall guys” and provide sufficient testimony to obtain a conviction.  Once an agent testifies, he has probably blown his cover and will have to retire to some other duties.  His effectiveness is lost, so he is a commodity that has to be protected, unless exposure is absolutely necessary.

Often, these agents will create an organization to give itself legitimacy within the patriot community.  In so doing, they have established their “credentials”, though you may have never heard of the organization before meeting the agent.  If he can demonstrate that he has created a following, you will drop you guard, as he has apparently, achieved what all are trying to accomplish.  (See Patriot Games link, above)

In all cases, if the abilities of the individual, in whatever capacity, are such that he can move up the chain of command of an organization, he will do so.  This allows him to obtain access to information that others might not have access to.  It allows him to obtain information from individuals in casual conversation, when that individual doesn’t suspect that anything he says is going beyond the two of them.  It also allows him to move upward in command, and perhaps, replace the existing command, once it is taken out because of his efforts.

 

Objectives of infiltration – Surveillance, profiling, disruption

We must begin to understand just what capabilities the government’s has to keep track of patriots.  They have an identification program that includes anybody who is likely to read this article.  It will include most militia members, even those who have never gone on line, through use of informants and other means.  It will include almost any attendee at a Tea Party gathering, and, probably, anybody who had gone to a Ron Paul rally, if the participant gave a name, by any means.  Intelligence gathering is the source/foundation of the entire government verses the people program.

Once they get the information, they have to retain, store, manipulate, and provide access, to that information.  They also have to sort that information into meaningful data.  So, we’ll begin by looking at what the sorting aspect entails.

The government has developed a program for categorization of everybody in this country (except, perhaps, illegal immigrants).  The program is called “C3CM“.  It defines three major categories, though we will only concern ourselves with the first one.  That is those who have, to some degree, expressed their disenchantment with government — the patriot community.  This doesn’t require disobedience, or even advocacy.  It only requires that you don’t believe that the government is working the way that it should be.

If you are among this group, you will be categorized into one of three sub-categories.  Those who are simply dissatisfied, those who are prone to act because of their dissatisfaction, and, those who are capable of leading others into exerting effort to effect change.  It doesn’t matter if those leaders are of a violence oriented militia, or a group that encourages voter registration and voting outside of the mainstream agenda.  The fact that they are leaders and can obtain followers poses a problem for government, though the government may direct more resources at the more militant.  This does not mean that the peaceful sorts are beyond efforts of government to affect their ability to lead.  On the contrary, each of us has entered the patriot community rather naive, and has learned, as time went on, which can  move us, inevitably, toward the more extreme means of dealing with the despotic government that we find in control of our country.  If someone can influence large numbers, he is more of a threat than a few isolated die-hards.

Where would the government be able to store and manipulate such a large amount of data?  Well, that goes back to a story from the past.  Inslaw, Inc., had a contract with the Department of Justice to develop some tracking software — “Promis” could be plugged into the 12 petabyte (if you were wondering about the next level, a petabyte is 1,024 terabytes) database that Sybase (the company that developed SQL for Microsoft) is developing.  So, once all of the pieces fall into place, there will be little that you can do to keep from being tracked, along with almost everything that you do, by the government.  (References: see http://www.profoundstates.com/promis.htm)

Now, as they take out any leadership, if they have moved their resource up into the upper echelons of any organization, they have attained a position that may soon leave the government resource in charge of the organization.

We began this article with a memo from the IRS Western Division, nearly forty years ago, about a tactic to be used to disrupt the “tax rebels’.  Not that this was the beginning of government efforts to manipulate both people and truth, only to demonstrate, with a provable piece of evidence, that influencing, by whatever means, including judges and churches, is and has been a part of the plan for total control of the people and their actions.  Would we be doing ourselves any favors to think that they would not use these same tactics, today, enhanced by both technology and experience?

Methods of Disruption

So, now, let’s look at objectives that the government might pursue through their various types of informant, agents, and infiltrators:

• Discredit, or, take out, leadership or those who pose a threat to the continuation of the government’s effort to gain absolute control over the people, removing them from their means of influence over those who might follow them.
• Discredit those who might bring attention to government tactics by suggesting questionable behavior, or, accusations, that will occupy them and remove them from any effective contribution to the patriot community.
• Move those who are within government control or influence into positions of influence within the patriot community
• Create division, wherever possible, any organization that begins to grow and may become effective.  If possible, splinter the group into two, or more, factions, so that they don’t flee elsewhere, and the government can retain controlling interest, or at least positions of influence, within each faction.
• Use of a group the government has control of to create conflict with another group, creating doubt, disenchantment, and, perhaps, dissolution of the targeted group.
• If a group has a structure (rules) that would make it more difficult to create disenchantment, challenge, ridicule, or ignore the rules, to create as much disturbance as possible — hopefully to disrupt any group that might really organize into a cohesive and effective group working together for a common goal.
• Stimulate discussion of controversial subjects (Waco, Oklahoma City bombing, 911, Birth Truthers, etc.) to bring division and, perhaps, conflict, oral or physical, between adherents of each side of the issues.
• Promote identification of theoretical enemies (Rothschild, Illuminati, Free Masons, etc.) so that members pursue un-provable resolution, thereby creating endless squandering of time on insignificant objectives.
• For those with legal pursuit as means of attacking the government, direct them on fanciful flights with erroneous objectives such as Admiralty Law, Maritime Law, Uniform Commercial Code, United States government is a corporation, etc. (reference for the last three items: Divide and Conquer)
• Use of “trolls” on Internet discussion groups and other forums to detract from discussions that  might cause some to think; includes ridiculing opponent, specious arguments, diversion from the subject of discussion, and other tactics intended to discourage active participation in what might otherwise be productive discussions.

 

Consequences

The consequence of the government meddling in our affairs, if we are truly self-governed (We the People), is that the government manipulates us to achieve an increase in power and control over us.  It is not our disenchantment with government that is the problem; it is the government overreaching its authority that has caused us to be concerned as to the direction of the government and its impact on us and our posterity.

To achieve their goals, they must devise means for keeping the will of the people from being manifest and force them into compliance with that will.  By their efforts to fragment the patriot community, they have achieved their goal and will continue to do so.

When their efforts have identified targets of any effort at political change, outside of the two controlling parties (Democrats and Republicans), and have manipulated the others into ineffectiveness, they have effectively created a one party system, not unlike the Soviet Union’s Communist Party where all power was granted only to party members.

Effectively, the government has become the master and we have been subjected to their will — through the divisive means explained herein.

Solution

The solution to this otherwise overwhelming problem is to resist the infiltration, by whatever means necessary.

To begin with, look in to the background of all who join your organization.  In the modern world that we live in, we are obliged to provide a Social Security Number (SSN) to arrange for utilities to be turned on, to borrow money or establish credit, and for many other purposes.  If we wish to get a job, we are obliged to provide background information regarding previous work history, education, criminal and military records.

Why should something as important as our Liberty not require at least such evidence of background and personal history as our daily lives do?  After all, there is far more at stake than whether I can buy something when I don’t have the money, or even having electricity at my home.

Thorough background information should be required of all who wish to join any patriot organization, even those currently members.  If someone is reluctant to provide such information, then you must wonder if they have something to hide from you that they don’t have to hide from their employer or bank.  If the position they are seeking might have potential risk to others, then not only the background information, but a review of records* would be in order.  If any questions arise that are not properly addressed, then realize that absent satisfactory answers, you may be subjecting yourself to influence that is not in your best interest, or, worse, being set up to take a fall..
[*There are a number of sites on the Internet where court, criminal, and other records can be purchased for very nominal fees – perhaps a good investment for the security of your organization]

If someone has been charged with a crime and adjudication withheld, then they may have worked a deal with the government.  Don’t put them in a position that would allow them to work a deal with you.

If someone demonstrates any characteristics that lend to the possibility that they are pursuing any of the “Objectives” listed above, there may not be an indication that they have someone else’s interest at heart, though the method by which they pursue such objectives should be carefully considered.

Disagreement can be resolved through reasoned discussion/debate.  It should be organized and open to all, or many, of the existing members.  It should be void of both personal attacks and unsubstantiated (with real evidence) accusations.

Any organization would be wise to adopt some rules and methods of evaluating all of its personnel, including existing officers and members, as well as recruits.  They should be based upon the above information as well as interviews with the individual concerned.

Any organization should include within their structure a means to evaluate new members, investigate any member who comes into question, and, establish a review procedure that includes a review board, composed of already approved members, to evaluate any information, conduct hearings, and, proscribe remedies, including removal of membership.

There is no doubt that on occasion, someone may have the appearance of having the characteristics that would lead one to believe that their interest is elsewhere, though it may only be that the person’s personality brings about such suspicion.  However, is it better to exclude someone by error rather than allow a potential risk to the entire organization.  Weigh the risk against the lesser objection to hurting someone’s feelings.

These are the times that try men’s souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and women.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.  What we obtain to cheap, we esteem too lightly — Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value.  Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Tom Paine, The American Crisis (December 19, 1776)

 

Absent our policing ourselves, our groups, and, our own patriot community, we only leave ourselves open to the disruption that the government has desired to create.

 

Conclusion

At this point in time, we have many thousands of people being deprived of their productive time and participation by “chasing ghosts” created by the government to do just that — deprive us of time and confuse us with distractions.

 

At the same time, they have addressed and attacked many who would be useful to our purpose by accusations of crime, as explained in the IRS letter, in violation of federal, state, or local laws.  The have, thorough seminars, advised judges to “throw the book at” patriots charged with made up crimes, removing them from any active participation in our cause.

The time has come for us to change the game.  They laugh at us, now, because they are far more in control than we want to recognize.  We don’t recognize it because we have faith in the government — we just want some changes that return us to the Constitutional government that is our birthright.

They, however, are playing a serious, and often deadly, game, with every intention of winning.

We fear them, yet they have no reason to fear us — because they have subverted most elements of our movement, and have at least some influence or control on the reminder.

It is time for us to change the game around and get them to fear us.  Not through violence, rather, through exposure and removal of those who would seek to undermine our ability to function productively.  It is time for us to be as serious about ridding ourselves of these subversive elements as we are about our individual causes, for all are doomed to failure unless we regain control of our own activities.

-END-

 

A PDF version of this article: Vortex PDF

Quartzsite, Ariz., Where the Fox Guards the Chickens

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2011

In a rather interesting, and perhaps, bizarre, action by the Quartzsite Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert, sanctioned by the Assistant Town Manager, Al Johnson, ten of the fourteen Town policemen have been put on paid leave and confined to their homes, during certain periods of the day.

So, why is this bizarre?  Well, if it were a corporation/business and the CEO (Chief) decided that he wanted to suspend employees, pending firing; he could be serving the best interest of the company and the stockholders.  However, he would also be accountable to the stockholders, and could be dismissed, forthwith, absent the consent of those “owners” of the corporation.

However, when we look at a Police Department, whose purpose is to serve the citizens of that town, we should have an entirely different standard.  If the town requires 14 policemen to maintain control of the town and provide for the safety of the citizens, how can it be in the best interest of the town (and its citizens) to dispense with 71% of the force that was argued as necessary to provide that protection?  At least, this should lead to some serious questions about the Police Department’s budget — as a necessity — since the Chief has arbitrarily found that he can do with four, what he used to need fourteen to do.  This is especially true when you consider that recently the Town Council determined that the safety of the public warranted a special meeting and emergency measures (see The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council) be taken to provide for that safety.  How does that possibly justify the presumption that only 35% of the force can provide such safety?

Think about it, you have four officers who must serve a town of 3800 people, 24 hours a day.  That amounts to 1.3 officers on duty, for all shifts, seven days a week, with no time off.

Understand that Quartzsite sits astride Interstate Highway 10, the primary corridor from Phoenix (and points east) to Los Angeles.  With its truck stops and eateries, and the last significant town before entering California, it is a 24-hour town.  Parts of the town bustle all day, and all night.  How, then, can adequate protection be provided?

Well, the answer is quite simple.  Don Lowery, Sheriff of La Paz County, Arizona, and Chief Gilbert, worked together as officers on the Colorado River Indian Reservation.  Coincidently, they both ended up back in La Paz County.  One as Sheriff; the other as Chief of Police in Quartzsite.  Can there be any wonder why the investigation called for by the ten officers (No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert) ended up being dismissed?

The dismissal of the complaint has resulted in the current activity that imposes the following on the ten officers (only some of what is imposed by the “Notice of Investigation and Intent to Interview“):

• You have the right to have a representative with you during the interview
• Your representative may not participate in the interview
• Your representative must either be an employee of the Quartzsite Police Department who is not a subject of this investigation or a member of your professional membership organization
• Your representative cannot be an attorney

Let’s take a breather here.  A representative is one who represents you, but, in this case, cannot represent (participate) you in the interview.  And, in an even more surprising proclamation, he cannot be an attorney.  It appears that the right to counsel in proceedings that can result in disciplinary action, including termination, does not allow what has been considered a mainstay of the judicial process in this country.

The officers are then placed on “administrative leave”, with the proviso that they are “required to remain in at [their] place of residence (house arrest?) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and Noon and between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.”

It continues, “Failure to be present at your residence during those hours without express prior approval from the investigator, Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson, shall be considered dereliction of duty and may result in additional disciplinary action, including dismissal”.

This pretty much displaces the concept of justice, the judicial branch of government, which the law enforcement agencies are an extension of, as officers of the court.  And ironically, it is contrary to what occurred when the investigation of Chief Gilbert was conducted.

At the June 16, 2011 Town Council meeting, John Stairs, vice president, Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs (AZCOPS), specifically suggested, in his recommendation to the Town Council that “AZCOPS believes it is wise and prudent to place Chief Gilbert on paid administrative leave so these allegations can be thoroughly and impartially investigated by DPS.”  At that meeting, however, the Town Council rejected the recommendation, leaving Chief Gilbert in full control of the Police Department.

Now comes the emergency meeting (link, above) that places Chief Gilbert and Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson in total control, and they decide that ten officers should be placed on administrative leave, leaving the town with a very meager staff to maintain “law and order” (and, I use that phrase loosely), while the decision rests, for all intents and purposes, in the hands of Jeff Gilbert.

Can there be any better example of the fox guarding the chickens?

[Note: Do not construe this article to imply that the citizens of Quartzsite are the chickens referred to, rather, that the chickens referred to herein are the entire Town Council and administrative staff, with the sole exception of Mayor Ed Foster.]

 

Previous articles on Quartzsite:

Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona

No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert

Quartzsite Mayor declares meeting illegal, Town Council proceeds without the Mayor

The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council

 

 

How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 16, 2011

 

In this modern age of communication, it is easy for us to drop our guards and allow information out which will be gathered and used, perhaps against us, as patriots, in the future.

We are all aware of people losing their job because of something posted on Facebook, or any of the many social networking sites.  In some cases, criminal charges have resulted from such postings or YouTube videos.

Perhaps there is a more obscure and sinister threat than what I have described, above.  Suppose that you were involved with a group of peers, say, in a NING type site.  Now, I think that we all know that our email can be read, without us knowing about it.  I’m sure that we recognize that any VOIP (Skype, et al.) can also be “tapped” to hear our conversations.  Wouldn’t it be rather foolish to think that a website could provide any security against access by those who we perceive as opposed to us?

Surely, they have “agents” who are members of such sites who are acting as our friends, with the sole purpose of gathering information.  They can “copy and paste” or “capture” all information posted on the site.

Similarly, I doubt that there are more than a small handful of sites that can afford protection from outside sources.  The remainder probably have a “back door”, if not a “front door” that allows unwanted access.

Finally, disregarding “key stroke captures”, every byte of information you send over the Internet is subject to capture by sophisticated equipment. So nothing you do is sacred, unless encrypted..

Now, this, in itself, is nothing to be concerned about, or, at least, overly concerned.  After all, if you have expressed any thoughts about the misdeeds of government, you are, well, probably on a list.  That list, however, is extremely large.  Its size is, for the most part, predicated on where the line is drawn as to inclusion on the list.

With the current administration, many millions of people; Republicans, Tea Partiers, patriots, militia members, radicals, etc, on down the line, are disenchanted, or disenfranchised, and might well be considered “the opposition”. However, if the government has access to certain information, they can draw the list out in a line, sort of like establishing priorities.  (For more information about how this sorting is done, see C3CM).

Of course, in that massive list, of millions, we are nearly anonymous.  However, by choice, we tend to identify ourselves to a higher level of disenchantment with government.  Once we describe ourselves as patriots, militia, etc., we have set ourselves apart from those who are prone to rely only upon the voting booth to secure our future, for ourselves and our posterity.  To a large degree, we have even set ourselves out from those who carry signs on sticks.  So, you can see where this is beginning to focus.  We have reduced the more extreme of us to a much more “manageable” group that numbers in, perhaps, tens of thousands instead of millions.

Still, if the scenario that I expect to be the “start of something big” is that the government needs to swoop down on those who pose the greatest threat, and, to do so, they have to have a manageable sized group as a target, they can do so by gathering information (identifying) what those individuals will do, and whether those activities are more, or less, detrimental to government actions.

Let’s take some scenarios. And see what sort of people would be at the top of the “hit list”, (A group, as per C3CM).  First will be those in roles of leadership.  Obviously, the functionality of any organized group is severely affected when the leadership is removed.  This serves two purposes to the government. First, of course, is the removal of the leader that is capable of “causing grief” to the government.  Second, however, and more sinister, is that infiltrators or informants (see Informants Amongst Us?) we have “done well” may even be in a position to move into the vacated leader’s effectively putting the group at the mercy of the government.

Next on the list would be those who might provide safe haven to leaders and others who have been targeted by the government.  If those who would provide such protection can be identified, the government can, effectively, “remove” those resources, making more difficult the act of those fleeing to find help in their efforts.  Worse, still, is that staking out those who might provide such services to fleeing patriots might be the very “Judas Goat” which will result in their being captured, while believing that they are on their way to protection.

If we think about it, any expression of one’s willingness to perform and “task” for the patriot cause, in an open forum (as described above) might serve not only to the detriment of the patriot community, also, to the benefit of the government.

To assume that those on the other end of an Internet connection, especially if you have never met them and looked them in the eye, is, in itself, risky.  All care and caution should be utilized in any communication with them.  Even more importantly, any statement of what role you might play in the game, when the shit hits the fan, “may and will be used against you”, and, unfortunately, others, when that time comes.

 

The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 14, 2011

 

On July 10, 2011, the Quartzsite Town Council held an Emergency Meeting (see Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona).  The minutes of that meeting have been found (transcription of minutes and PDF links of minutes at bottom of this article) and show that the Council took 6 actions at that meeting:

First, they declare that there was an emergency “requiring the Council to meet without prior public notice”, though the “emergency is not stated within that declaration.  Reference is made to A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes) 38-341.02(D) – Notice of Meetings, which states:

D. In case of an actual emergency, a meeting, including an executive session, may be held on such notice as is appropriate to the circumstances.  If this subsection is utilized for conduct of an emergency session or the consideration of an emergency measure at a previously scheduled meeting the public body must post a public notice within twenty-four hours declaring that an emergency session has been held and setting forth the information required in subsections H and I of this section.

***

H. Agendas required under this section shall list the specific matters to be discussed, considered, or decided at the meeting.  The public body may discuss, consider, or make decisions only on matters listed on the agenda and other matters related thereto.

I. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, notice of executive sessions shall be required to include only a general description of the matters to be considered.  The agenda shall provide more than just a recital of the statutory provisions authorizing the executive session, but need not contain information that would defeat the purpose of the executive session, compromise the legitimate privacy interests of a public officer, appointee or employee or compromise the attorney-client privilege.

We have not been able to obtain a copy of the Agenda required, and, in a conversation with Mayor Foster, he was not aware of the meeting until the police arrived at his door, shortly before the meeting began.

Next, they suspended “Town Council Procedure Policy Section III.1, setting regular Council meetings for second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m., until the second Tuesday in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances[sic] no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointed town officials.”

So, here, we begin to understand the nature of the “emergency”; “emergent circumstances … which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointed town officials.”

Then, they suspended both the “Citizen’s Comments” and the “call to the public” provisions of the Town Council Procedure Policy.  They have disallowed any public comment at the meetings.

Now, they will proceed to change the meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., as if this will cure the problem, or reduce the threat.

At this point, we must wonder if we have alleviated any threat that creates “an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointed town officials.”  Based upon the actions, the threat either comes from having the meetings in the evening, when working people are more easily able to attend, or, they fear that what the public has to say creates a threat, by their very words.

So, just how does this constitute an emergency?  How does this provide protection to the public and/or officials?  Is there any logical reasoning behind these decisions, at all?

So, let us continue.  The next act is “to direct Town Manager and Chief of Police to implement procedures to ensure the safety of public attendees at future Council meetings.”  This is, to say the least, a bit ambiguous, and, perhaps, quite broad in its scope.  It might cause us to wonder what “procedures” might be necessary to “ensure the safety of public attendees” at Council meetings.  Since the public forum has been closed, we can only surmise that arresting any of the public who try to speak at a Town Council meeting would be all that can be derived from the decisions made at this “emergency meeting”.

In a final act of gracious consideration to the Town staff, they move the next Tuesday’s meeting to 10:00 a.m. to allow staff to properly prepare the required 24-hour notice.

Darn, now I have more questions than I had before I was able to read the minutes of the secret meeting.

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

Transcription from the PDF images of the July 10, 2011, Quartzsite Town Council meeting:

PUBLIC NOTICE
EMERGENCY MEETING

Notice of Emergency Meeting

Town of Quartzsite Common Council

Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:45 a.m.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE SECTION 2-4-1 AND ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES SECTION § 38-431.02.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE QUARTZSITE COMMON COUNCIL AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF QUARTZSITE, ARIZONA, DID HOLD AN EMERGENCY MEETING ON SUNDAY, JULY 10 AT 11:45 AM.  AT THE QUARTZSITE MUNICIPAL CENTER, 465 N. PLYMOUTH AVE., 1/4 MILE NORTH OF MAIN STREET (B-10).  SEE MINUTES WHICH ARE ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN.  MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ATTENDED IN PERSON.

/s/ Karen Norris        
Karen Norris, Town Clerk  

DATE POSTED:     July 11, 2011

TIME POSTED:       Noon

COUNCIL MAY NOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

{page 2}

MINUTES

TOWN OF QUARTZSITE
EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
SUNDAY, JULY 10, 2011 11:45 AM

CALL TO ORDER:    Vice Mayor Cowell 11:45 a.m.

ROLL CALL: Vice Mayor Cowell, Council Members Anderson, Kelley, Lukkasson and Winslow

ABSENT: Mayor Foster

STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Alex Taft, Town Attorney Brannan, Town Clerk Karen Norris, Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson and Police Chief Jeff Gilbert.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Council Member Winslow motioned to approve the agenda as written.  Motion seconded by Council Member Lukkasson.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

REPORTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Report from Town Manager and Chief of Police concerning emergent circumstances involving an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive town officers.

Mayor Foster arrives during the reports and refused to come into the meeting at 11:57 a.m.

NEW BUSINESS:
1. Declare the existence of an emergency requiring Council to meet without prior public notice pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(D).

Council Member Lukkasson motioned to declare the existence of an emergency requiring the Council to meet without prior public notice pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.02(D).  Motion seconded by Council Member Kelley.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

2. Suspend Town Council Procedure Policy Section III.1, setting regular Council meetings for second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m., until [date] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive town officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Anderson motioned to suspend Town Council Procedure Policy Section III.1, setting regular Council meetings for second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m., until the second Tuesday in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive town officials.

{possible missing text in PDF file}

{page 3}

whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Lukkasson.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

3. Suspend that portion of Town Council Procedure Policy Section V.1 relating to placing “CITIZENS COMMENTS” (call to the public) in the Order of Business and Agenda until [DATE] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Kelley motioned to Suspend that portion of Town Council Procedure Policy Section V.1 relating to placing “CITIZENS COMMENTS” (call to the public) in the Order of Business and Agenda until the second meeting in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Winslow.  Town Manager Taft asks Council Member Kelley to clarify which date in September, Council Member Kelley stated he wanted the same date as the previous motion, which is the second Tuesday in September.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

4. Suspend that portion of Town Council Procedure Policy Section VII.1 setting forth procedures for “call to the public,” until [DATE] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Kelley motioned to suspend Town Council Procedure Policy Section VII.1, setting forth procedures for “call to the public,” until the second meeting in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Winslow.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

5. Schedule regular Town Council Meeting for [dates and times] until [DATE] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Lukkasson motioned to schedule regular Town Council Meeting for 9:00 a.m. on normal meeting Tuesdays until the second Tuesday in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Winslow.  Discussion regarding this next coming up meeting.  Need to give 24 hour notice of that meeting.  Council Member Lukkasson amends his motion to state this coming Tuesdays meeting will be at 10:00 a.m. to give staff an opportunity to distribute the notice.  Council Member Winslow seconds the amendment.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote on the amendment.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  AMENDMENT

{page 4}

CARRIED.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote on the original motion.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

6. Direct Town Manager and Chief of Police to implement procedures to ensure the safety of public attendees at future Council meetings.

Council Member Kelley motioned to direct Town Manager and Chief of Police to implement procedures to ensure the safety of public attendees at future Council meetings.  Motion seconded by Council Member Lukkasson.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote on the amendment.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

ADJOURNMENT:
12:41 p.m.

CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Emergency Meeting of the Town Council of Quartzsite, Arizona, held on the 10th day of July 2011.
I further certify that the meeting was duly called by emergency and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 12^th day of July 2011.

{unsigned}      
Karen Norris, Town Clerk

APPROVED:

{unsigned}
Ed Foster, Mayor

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

PDF images of the minutes:

Page 1 – Notice

Page 2 – minutes

Page 3 – minute

Page 4 – minutes

Quartzsite Mayor declares meeting illegal, Town Council proceeds without the Mayor

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 13, 2011

 

An on again, off again, meeting was held in Quartzsite, Arizona, on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, at 10:00 AM. The meeting, according to sources, was called during an illegal meeting, as declared by the Mayor, on Sunday, July 10. This July 10 meeting was the subject of an early posting (Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona).

Mayor Ed Foster, at the beginning of the Tuesday meeting, pointed out that the Arizona State Attorney General had not declared the Sunday meeting to be illegal, since he had received no formal complaints regarding the illegality. The Mayor then encouraged all to file such complaints (complaint link contained in Illegal Town Council…).

The Mayor then declared that this (Tuesday) meeting was, also, illegal, since it was scheduled during the illegal meeting of Sunday, and is not being held at the normal 7:00 PM meeting time, as stipulated in Town Code. He further stated that Arizona Revised Statutes requires that “all persons shall be allowed to attend public meetings”, after pointing out that there were a number of people outside, who had not been allowed entry to the meeting. 

He then stated that he had directed the Town Clerk to arrange for a larger facility for subsequent meetings and that the non-meeting then being held would be rescheduled within 24 hours.  Mayor Foster then left the building.

The City Attorney then explained that the Sunday meeting was, “presumptively,” legal, since “there has been no judicial finding that it was illegal”.  The council, absent the Mayor, continued the meeting with Vice Mayor Barbara Cowell presiding over the meeting.

The first order of business, then, was to decide whether they should continue the current meeting, to which the Council voted, unanimously, to continue.  The audience, however, appeared to, resoundingly, vote “Nay”.

The meeting was then called to order by the Vice Mayor. An invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance were held, and then a roll call indicated that all were present, except Mayor Foster.

A consent agenda (three items, unstated) was approved and then discussion began on the tentative budget for 2011-2012. It was decided that the tentative budget would be published, another special meeting be held prior to approval, and then the meeting for the approval be held, approved unanimously.

The meeting was then adjourned about 11 minutes after Mayor Foster’s first statement. Nothing controversial, at all, was discussed, with the exceptions noted above.

* * *

Outside of the meeting, others who had come to visit Quartzsite and get an idea of what is going on in this little town of about 3800 full time residents, report that they were told that there was no copy of the “meeting rules” available. The “meeting rules” came to prominence when Jennifer “Jade” Jones was forcibly removed from the building after stating that the rules had never been adopted by the Council (see Arrest Jennifer Jade Jones June 28 Quartzsite Arizona Council Meeting Viral), though she was not arrested, only removed from the meeting).

It was also noted that the ten Quartzsite Police Officers who had signed a request for an investigation (No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert) were at the grounds outside of the meeting wearing red tee-shirts, while the on-duty officers were not signatories to the request. Quite a coincidence!

Channels 3, 5, 12 and 15 (Phoenix) were present, along with numerous reporters from other locations, including Blythe, California, just twenty miles west along Interstate 10.  Channel 3, a late arrival, chose only to interview Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert, who explained that he did not really know all that happened when he ordered the removal of Jennifer Jones on June 28.  It appears that they had no interested in what the Mayor of Quartzsite had to say about Tuesday’s events.

No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 12, 2011

The following is an unsigned, undated letter to the Mayor, Town Council, and Citizens of Quartzsite, Arizona.  Being unsigned and undated, it has a questionable background and source; however, it is simply a short version of a complaint — a vote of No Confidence — in the Chief of Police that is supported by 10 of the police officers (80%).

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

Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, and citizens of Quartzsite, Members of the Quartzsite Police Officers Association, representing approximately 80% of the department, met with AZPOST to make a formal complaint against Police Chief Jeff Gilbert.  These officers provided a detailed letter, outlining years of management abuses, misconduct, EEO violations, and political and criminal behavior against Chief Gilbert.  The Quartzsite Police Officers Association notified AZCOPS, who have also requested of AZPOST an immediate investigation of Chief Gilbert.

Some of the allegations against Chief Gilbert:

•  “White-out” the town manager’s signature on their leave request forms, giving the appearance the town manager had not previously approved the initial request.
•  Violating medical privacy acts under federal law.
•  Uses his authority as the Chief to intimidate both officers and members of the community if they disagree with his methodology and political affiliation
•  Chief Gilbert uses, or orders members of the Department to use NCIC to find “dirt” on political candidates or citizens supporting candidates the Chief Dislikes
•  “Friends” of the Chief who have warrants for their arrests are not placed in Custody
•  Officers are ordered to make traffic stops and arrest/cite citizens who the Chief believes are against him
•  Disciplines members of the Department on how “loyal” they are to him; not on the merit of the investigation
•  Ridicules and humiliates members of the Department he deems are “unfit” in front of others
•  Promotes those who are loyal/friends of his in violation of Department/HR rules and policies

In the past few weeks, members of the Quartzsite Police Officers Association made it known to members of the Town Council and other agencies our concerns involving the conduct of Chief Gilbert.

We advised the Town Council not only of policy violations, but criminal violations against citizens as well.  We notified the Town Council that we have a vote of “No Confidence” in his leadership.

In the interest of town unity we did our duty, and reported our concerns to the Town leaders, with offers of supporting evidence, in an effort to allow them to take this matter into their own hands and away from ours.

We have realized that the Town Manager, Alex Taft, continually attempted to delay, stall or prevent this investigation from taking place.  Alex Taft and Chief Gilbert approached his own known associates at other agencies in an attempt to direct the investigation in his favor.  We believe her personal friendship with the Chief has blinded her to her responsibilities to the citizens of this community, keeping her from doing her duty to the Town of Quartzsite, and to the employees under Chief Gilbert’s direct supervision.

As an example, over the Memorial Day weekend, Town Manager Taft scheduled interviews with the employees of the police department to be conducted by an outside firm.  These interviews are being conducted by a law firm hired by the Town Manager to determine the reasons for a morale problem in the police department, and does not involve an investigation into the criminal allegations reported by your police officers.

The Town Manager and Council do not appear to take these allegations seriously.  Alex Taft has failed to follow the Town’s Personnel Policy, which would be to place Chief Gilbert on administrative leave pending the results of an investigation of the allegations.  Department policy requires an impartial investigator from the Department of Public Safety to conduct a fair and honest investigation.  Again this policy was disregarded by the Town Manager.

To those Town Council members that did listen and take the concerns to the Town Manager, the Quartzsite Police Officers Association thanks you for your efforts.  You have tried, as is your duty, to have an honest and thorough investigation of Chief Gilbert’s actions initiated.

We would like to assure the Town Council and the citizens of Quartzsite that, despite claims to the contrary, the members of the Association stand behind their allegations concerning Chief Gilbert’s conduct.  These employees of your town have continued to do their duty and protect the public safety.

Since the allegations were reported, the officers who made the report have been threatened and intimidated.  The officers have been told that the Town Council and the citizens of Quartzsite would demand the termination of all the individuals that have made this stand and signed the complaint.  When these threats were brought to the attention of the Town Manager, no actions were taken again in violation of Town Policy.

Left with little other choice, it is the duty of the Quartzsite Police Officers Association to inform the citizens of this community and the rest of the public that we do not stand behind Chief Gilbert, or condone any of his criminal actions, nor will we jeopardize our own careers by following orders we know are unconstitutional and by not reporting his criminal behavior.

It is apparent that a vote of No Confidence in Chief Gilbert is not enough to ask for his resignation with cause.  This issue is not a popularity contest, and neither the officers nor Chief Gilbert are running for election.  This is not about personal friendships or politics.  We that stand before you are reporting years of management abuses, misconduct, EEO violations, and political and criminal behavior by Chief Gilbert against employees of your town and your fellow citizens.  A criminal investigation by the Department of Public Safety is called for, not only by policy, but in fairness to all involved.

The Quartzsite Police Officers Association has always stood behind the Town of Quartzsite and its citizens, and we will continue to do so.  We are asking for two things: an immediate investigation of Chief Gilbert’s conduct by D.P.S. and, if the allegations against him prove true, demand his immediate termination.  We would request that the Town Policy be followed and Chief Gilbert be placed on administrative leave until the investigation is concluded.

Sincerely,

Quartzsite Police Officers Association

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

Now, you may be wondering why I would even consider posting such an unsigned, undated letter.  Well, because it is just the short version of what is included in a signed (by ten officers) and dated (May 10, 2011) letter in PDF format.  To read the longer letter and request for an investigation, QPD.PDF.

[Thanks to http://www.quartzsitenews.tv for the above and the PDF file]

 

Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 11, 2011

[Note: There have been many rumors flying around about the request for Mayor Ed Foster’s attendance at an illegal Town Council meeting, on Sunday, July 10, 2011.  To assure that what is occurring in Quartzsite, Arizona, doesn’t get blown out of proportion with rumors, speculation and falsehood, I contacted Mayor Foster, this afternoon, to make sure that the truth does come out, and unfounded rumors return to whence they came.  GH]

Mayor Ed Foster, of Quartzsite, Arizona, was invited to a meeting.  He chose to go to that meeting and felt that there was no duress involved in making him attend.

When he arrived at the Town Council chambers, he was standing just inside of the doorway when he heard the door shut and the lock click.  A photographer who had wanted to attend the meeting was barred by that action.

Dozens of Town residents held their ears to the door in an effort to hear what was transpiring in a meeting that the Mayor described as an illegal meeting, meeting only the quorum criteria, under state law, for a meeting.  No prior notice; closed meeting; no agenda — all of the normal requisites for openness in government had been dispensed with.

The results of the meeting, under the watchful eye of the Town Manager, Alex Taft, and Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert, was that those two appointed entities have superseded the elected officials (people’s choice), and placed the Chief of Police in charge of the Town, as an emergency measure.

The nature of the emergency is said to be fear, based upon threats received by various members of the Council, Town employees, and officials.  When asked if any of the threats came from Quartzsite citizens, the answer was that the threats were coming from all over the country, and from other countries.  There were, apparently, no threats at all received from any local people.

Why, then, does the emergency warrant a change in Town government from elected officials to appointed, and, presumably, unable to be recalled, only fired?  But, then, if they are in charge, who can fire them?

The attention that the recent incident involving the ‘arrest’ of Jennifer Jones has gone viral.  It appears that the politicians in the capitol, Phoenix, in both the Governor’s and the State attorney’s offices are beginning to listen to what they had refused to acknowledge, in the past.  This may also be true of the La Paz County Sheriff, who had sent officers to Quartzsite, with instructions to not get involved.

Now, if we are, truly, a nation of self-governed people, then it behooves the rest of us to understand that if it can happen in Quartzsite, it can happen where you are — just as those in Virginia realized that what was happening in Massachusetts could also happen to them, 236 years ago.

So, in light of the Founder’s willingness to participate in support of others who found themselves under the yoke of despotic government, lend what you can by calling, or, at least, emailing, those involved in this charade of government tyranny.

(For some information regarding recent activity, see http://www.quartzsitemineshaft.com/)

Government officials with the capacity to support the citizens of Quartzsite – Ask them to aid Mayor Foster:

Governor Jan Brewer: (602) 542-4331
online email link: http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp

State Attorney General: Tom Horne (602) 542-5025 — Media Contact for SAG: amy.rezzonico@azag.gov
Also, Open Meeting Law Complaint Form  If you feel you have been the victim of or have information of Violations of the Open Meeting Law please file a complaint with our office.

La Paz County Sheriff, Don Lowery: (928) 669-6141 email: dlowery@lapazsheriff.org

* * * *

Bad guys – let them know what you think:

Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert: (928) 927-3889

Town Manager: Alexandra Taft:  (928) 927-3889

[Article on line at Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona]

Manifesto of a Dead Man

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 20, 2011

Tom Ball chose to “Live Free, or Die”. Since the system did not allow him to “Live Free”, he chose to “Die” free.

On June 16, 2011, Tom Ball self-immolated at the door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, New Hampshire.  Preceding his act of defiance against a system, well, he will tell you about that system, he sent his Last Statement” to the Sentinel. The Statement (Manifesto) is given, below, with only two redactions (removing reference to the name of his mother and children).

After you have finished reading his “Statement”, you may wish to read “About Ashwander v. TVA” and “Who Makes the Laws?“, to understand how what Tom Ball calls “The Second Set of Books”, came into existence, contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.   You may also want to read “Asset Forfeiture to fund expansion of Police State” to understand why local police departments comply with “policies” sent down from the Department of Justice.

Last Statement

by Tom Ball

A man walks up to the main door of the Keene N.H. County Courthouse, douses himself with gasoline and lights a match. And everyone wants to know why.

Apparently the old general was right. Death is not the worst of evil.

I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class.

I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.

There are two kinds of bureaucrats you need to know; the ones that say and the ones that do. The bridge between them is something I call The Second Set of Books. I have some figures of the success of their labors. You and I are in these numbers, as well as our spouses and children. But first let me tell you how I ended up in this rabbit hole.

My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.

When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work. Later on Peter, the parts manager, asked me if I and the old lady would be able to work this out. I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.

After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone. She told me that night she had called a mental health provider we had for one of the kids. Wendy, the counselor told my then wife that if she did not call the police on me, then she too would be arrested.

Suddenly, everything made sense. She is the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about. If both she and I were arrested, what would happen to our three children, ages 7,4 and 1? They would end up in State custody. So my wife called the police on her husband to protect the children. And who was she protecting the kids from? Not her husband, the father of these children. She was protecting them from the State of New Hampshire.

This country is run by idiots.

The police sergeant Freyer screwed this up from the get go. When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.

Labeling someone’s action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930’s. The entire legal weight of the state is coming down on him. But I consider myself lucky. My family was destroyed. But that poor bastard in Germany had his family literally annihilated.

Arrests are mandatory for the police in New Hampshire for domestic violence. That is not law. That is police department policy. Laws come from the Legislature and the Governor’s office together. God only knows where these policies come from. The State’s Attorney General also has a mandatory arrest protocol for domestic violence. I call these policies, procedures and protocols The Second Set of Books. You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books. This is America-we have the rule of law.

I am a regular guy, a coffee and cheeseburger type of fellow. As remarkable as my life has been, I figure that what happens to me must be happening to others as well. I was 48 years old when I got arrested here for my first time. So I went looking for the arrest numbers for domestic violence, this new group that I had unwilling joined. I could not find anything. So I wrote the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Washington. They wrote back that they did not keep track of domestic violence arrests. The FBI keeps track of all other crimes. How come not domestic violence? I thought some low level clerk was blowing me off.

At the time, I had mailing addresses in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. So I wrote to all six Congressional offices, the two Senators from each state and the two Congressman. They like doing favors for constituents hoping you will favorably remember their name in the voting booth. All six offices reported back the same thing. They do not know how many arrests for domestic violence have been made. I immediately knew something was wrong. And I also knew this was not going to be good.

Improvise, adapt and overcome. The Army teaches that to every soldier it trains. They say that no battle plan survives the first five minutes of combat. So your people on the ground had better be able to think for themselves. Taking casualties in war is just an occupational hazard. Taking casualties and not accomplishing your mission is a disaster. After 21 years of Army service, I am pretty good at improvising.

The first thing I found was a study not of domestic violence arrests but of domestic violence injuries for 18 unnamed states and the D.C. in the year 2000. In the study 51% of the injuries were ‘no injuries’. So I knew I had a study of police reports. Who else but a police officer would record no injuries? I populated that out to the 50 states and came up with 874,000 arrest in the year 2000.

I had originally populated the number back to 1994 when the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted into law. I would later find out these arrests stated with the U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force of Domestic Violence ten years earlier in 1984. As individual states data became available for various years and states, I would incorporated in to my informal study. The number I have now in 2011 is 36 million adults have been arrested for domestic violence. I have a gut feeling this number could be as high as 55 million. But I only have data to 36 million. So 36 million it stays. And there is a really cool trick you can do once you have this number. You can find out how many American men. women and children ended up homeless because of these arrests.

Most of the domestic violence statistics I have seen break down with 75% male and 25% female being arrested. So I am going to used the male pronoun for the one arrested spouse and the female pronoun for the victim spouse. That should make the domestic violence feminists ecstatic-man bad, woman good. But that is okay because that is probably the last nice thing I am going to do for them today.

When then a man is arrested for domestic violence, one of two things can happen. If they are only dating and have separate apartments, then he can head home. But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle. A feminist name Pence who wrote that was absolutely giddy at that outcome. So he can get his own place if he has enough money. Or he can move in with his mother, his sister or another relative. He might have a girl friend who would let him stay with her. And if none of this is possible, well then I guess he is sleeping in his car down by the river.

If he has minor children, money will soon turn into an issue. Most men I know do not mind paying child support. They want their kids to have food on their plates, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads. But it does stress that man’s finances. Child support is usually 33% of the man’s gross income. Withholding for taxes, social security and health insurance can range up to 28% of his gross paycheck. So a man making $500 a week gross has only $825 monthly left over after withholding and child support. That is not enough money for an apartment here in Central Massachusetts. That does not include other expenses like heating, electric, gas, groceries, telephone, cable, car payment and car insurance. So he is in a financial hole. Estimates of homeless men run 82% to 94%. I am going to round that down to 80%.

After the King has left his castle, his wife runs into a problem. She was use to getting his whole paycheck for the household. Now she get a third for child support. Figure they both work and made the same money, her budget went from 100% down to 66%. If she was running the house on $3,045. a month when the King was home, now without him she only has $2,220. Most households in America cannot withstand a 27% hit on the household account. She’ll juggle the bills but eventually most wives figure out that they can pay all the smaller bills if they just does not pay the big bill. That would be the rent or the mortgage. So six to nine months after the King is out of the castle, the Queen, the Princes and the Princesses are also on the street. Domestic violence feminists state that 50% of victim spouses of domestic violence end up homeless at some time in their lives.

The last group of homeless from these arrests are children. The domestic violence feminists state that 70% of domestic violence couple have children. So 50% female times 70% children equals 35%. But children is plural. So we will double to 70%.

(Odd isn’t it? They know that 50% of victim spouses end up homeless and that 70% of them have children. How can they know the percentages when they do not know how many total arrests were made? Those people at the U.S. Justice Dept. cannot even pull off a credible cover-up. )

Men are 0.8, women are 0.5, and children are 0.7 for a grand total of 2.0 homeless Americans for every domestic violence arrest. Multiply that by 36 million and you get 72 million men, women and children ending up homeless at some point in their lives over the last 25 years because of these domestic violence arrests.

That is a really large number even by Washington standards. That is almost 25% of the entire population of the U.S. using 2010 census figures. Which begs the question did these homeless people contribute to this latest economic meltdown, or did they cause it? Because if they did cause it then the recovery will not be measure in months or years but in decades.

Some of the boys in the Father’s Movement think Congress might have shot themselves in the foot over this one. Personally, I think they shot themselves some place anatomically higher. No wonder the Speaker of the House is always crying. The Dummies on the Potomac.

Twenty-five years ago the federal government start pushing these arrests on state’s legal systems. Now, we have an economy on the rope. They have thrown a huge amount of money at banks, big business and local and states government. And we are still in the mud. But no economist either at the Treasury Dept., Federal Reserve, universities or think tanks are even looking at the impact of all these broken families. If that 36 million arrest is correct, then 72 million men and women, have been throw out of the middle class into subsistence living. Or is the number 55 million and 110 million? No one knows and no one is even looking. But why should look? According to the Attorney General, we do not know how many arrests we have made.

And if the Tea Party is any indication, insurrection is brewing in the land. Just a coincident? Not likely. This is what happens when the government wipes out the middle class.

The idea for these arrests came from something called the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) of 1981-82. In the experiment police officers were given pads with one of three words written on them; counsel, send or arrest. Counsel meant the officer was to try to mediate the couple’s spat. Send was to send one of the spouses out of the house for eight hours as a cooling off period. Arrest was arrest one of the two spouses. The officer was to do as the top paper on the pad said to do. The experiment was set up by the Police Foundation and Lawrence W. Sherman was the lead researcher. The results show counseling resulted in a future assault in 24% cases, send was 19%, and the arrest option resulted in a future assault in only 10% of the cases. Perhaps a cheap way of cutting down future domestic violence.

In 1984 The U. S. Attorney General’s Task Force of Domestic Violence recommended arrest as the primary weapon in domestic violence assault. Lawrence W. Sherman recommend not using the arrests because the MPE was just one study and it could be wrong. They ignored him. And by 1992, 93% of the police departments in the nation had adopted some form of mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases.

But by 1992 five more addition studies similar to the MPE became available. Lawrence W. Sherman reviewed all five studies. Then once again he wrote that the police should not use arrest. In two of the five studies, they found the same result as they did in the MPE, that an arrest cut down the odds of a future assault. But in the other three studies an arrest actually increase the odds of a future assault. So arresting someone in a domestic violence situation to cut down on future assaults did not work any better than just flipping a coin. I do not know if Lawrence W. Sherman is still alive. But fortunately he wrote a book call Policing Domestic Violence that was published in 1992.

So we have 800,000 American police officers arresting one in every six adults in the country and throwing 25% of the men, women and children out on the streets in an effort to enforce a policy that they knew did not work back in 1992. And I had always assumed that you needed a man to really screw something up. Oh well, there goes another glass ceiling.

Why would they push an arrest policy that does not work? There are two schools of thought on the reason why. The first comes from Lawrence W. Sherman. He calls it the Law of Just Desserts. Revenge for slights and offenses, real or imagined. I am sure there are some that would argue that women are not vengeful. But what is that old saying? Hell hath no fury…..

The second idea comes from the mother of the second wave of feminism. I do speak of the brilliant Betty Friedan. In the Epilogue Chapter of the 20th Anniversary Edition of her book The Feminine Mystique, Betty relayed why she resigned as the first president of the National Organization of Women in 1970. Betty wrote that she, “was unable to openly fight the man haters and unwilling to front for them anymore…” So man hating bigots not only existed 40 years ago, they were also grabbing power. Now Washington is funding them. Makes you wonder what bigots they will fund next. Maybe the Klan?

Feminists had always claimed that when women took over, we would have a kinder, gentler, more nurturing world. After 36 million arrests and 72 million evictions what we got was Joe Stalin.

The third wave of feminists do not like to call themselves feminists. The word feminist could be perceived as gender oppression. These third wave of whatever-we-call-you got that right The treachery of our legal system over the last 25 years may end up giving all feminists a bad name. Which would make us as bigoted as the man-hating feminists who got us into this mess to begin with.

So let us talk about those bureaucrats that do. These are the ones that actually carry out the evil deeds. I like call them the do-bies.

Any one swept up into legal mess is usually astonished at what they see. They cannot believe what the police, prosecutors and judges are doing. It is so blatantly wrong. Well, I can assure you that everything they do is logical and by the book. The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright. And do not bother trying to argue with me that there is no Second Set of Books. I have my own copies at home. Or at least a good hunk of the important part of it.

I got my Second Set of Books when I sued the Jaffrey NH police department. Under the discovery rule, I write them with the material I wanted and it would arrive in the mail a few weeks later. I got the Police Academy Training Manual. I got the Department’s Policy and Procedure Manual. I got the no-drop protocol that the attorney general sent to all his or her prosecutors. I even got the domestic violence protocols for the court system, one hundred pages worth. Once you read the material, then you will know what the police, prosecutors and judges will do. They are completely predictable once you know what set of books they are using.

The police academy training manual states that an arrest in a domestic violence call is the preferred response. They cite the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) as its justification. But the author of the MPE, Lawrence Sherman, said do not use arrest because five follow up studies show that it did not work. The would be a violation of the 4th Amendment in the First Set of Books against unreasonable search and seizure. Then there is that whole issue of whether the police have the right to arrest for any reason other than they believe a crime was committed.

The Jaffrey Police Department Policy and Procedures Manual states that if a wife says she does not want her husband arrested, the police are to ignore her, arrest the husband, and get with the prosecutor to see what they can work out. In other words, make the arrest and then see if you can Mickey Mouse it. The wife is eligible for spousal immunity. If she invokes it, then no statement she makes, written or oral, are admissible because she cannot be cross examined about it under oath. ( Did you say that? What did you mean when you said that?) With no statements the police have no probable cause in most cases to make an arrest. Also a violation of the 4th amendment in the First Set of Books.

The actor Nickolas Cage was drunk in New Orleans with his wife. Everyone else is drunk in New Orleans, so why should Nick be any different. He and his wife were arguing over which house they rented for their stay. Nick grab his wife’s arm and started to lead her to his house. The police arrested Nick for domestic violence. His wife was stunned. That was not domestic violence. “Nothing we can do,” the police explained to her. “Just following orders.”

That is an accurate explanation for victims, even if they do not think of themselves as victims. The police have a zero tolerance towards any physical contact. Things might get worse in the future is the feminist logical for this present iron fist approach to domestic relations. I would have to agree with them. After all the arrests, poverty, homelessness and misery, I can assure you-things are going to get worse.

But that nothing we can do, just following orders the officers explain always sounds so timid and lame. The police need to punch their explanation up a bit, make it more authoritarian. And there is a quick, low cost way of doing it. The police officers only need to say it in its original German.

The state Constitution in NH said the prosecutors job is to promote justice. The Attorney Generals protocols said that domestic violence case are no-drop cases. (Unless, of course, they take the Deal. Continue the case for a year, go to counseling, and everything falls off the books after the year. They did after all find some way of getting rid of all these cases.)

The Attorney General can hire, fire, layoff, promote, demote, commend or award bonuses. The constitution is some old, quaint, dusty document up in the Statehouse somewhere. So which one do you think is going to get obeyed?

Prosecutors are funny. Some, maybe most, have egos the size of Cape Cod. But of the three, police, prosecutor and judges, prosecutors have the least protection. Micheal Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, was fired, disbarred, convicted of a crime, and actually jailed for trying to enforce the no-drop prosecution protocol for sexual assault in the Duke case.

The prosecutor in my criminal case fared a little better. I filed a complaint with his boss for summoning my two daughters, ages 7 and 4, to court. I had already conceded that the facts were not in dispute. The trial would be about the law. No witness were needed much less a couple of toddlers. He still summoned them. (The Second Set of Books tells the prosecutors to get a sympathetic face in front of the judge or jury. What’s more sympathetic than toddlers.) The prosecutor could not refute my allegation because I enclosed a copy of the trial transcript. I had to pay for the transcript. When the prosecutor read it, he gave his two weeks notice and then blew town. That transcript was the best $46 I had ever spent in this life.

There is a name for what happens when a bureaucrat is destroyed by the First Set of Books for attempting to enforce the Second Set of Books. It is called the Abu Ghraib Syndrome. The people within the law enforcement community no longer seem to know the difference between the law, with its checks and balances, and the policies, procedure and protocols that constitute The Second Set of Books. In some cases you do not even know who wrote the policy, procedure or protocol. It could have been the local high school gym teacher for all anyone knows. Many of these bureaucrats are eventually going to learn the different between the First and the Second Set of Books. And my guess is that many of them are going to learn it the hard way. Because the only checks and balances in The Second Set of Books is The First Set of Books.

Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips. Get the adult into counseling, continue the case for a year, and then drop it. This will open up the docket for the new arrests coming in next week. These judges that use our children are not honorable. Which is why I never use the term ‘Your Honor’ any more. I just call them judge.

Alex Baldwin, the actor, wrote that you have never seen a coward until you have seen a Los Angeles County judge. I call my judges-Sullivan, Arnold and even Runyon-cowards, too. When I first started observing them, nothing made sense. Arnold was completely infuriated when he was maneuvered into ruling not guilty. He verbally went up and down at me so many times I lost count. What was the big deal? If I was not guilty just say and then we could all go home. But that was back in the days before I knew about The Second Set of Books.

I lost visitation with my two daughters when I got arrested. One was the victim-the other was the witness. After a not guilty, I expected to get visitation with my girls. But the divorce judge, Sullivan, decreed that counseling was in order and they would decide when we would reunite. I told the judge that the decision on whether these two girls had a father or a fatherless childhood was not leaving this courthouse. There would be a couple of reason for that decision.

First, by then I knew of the Second Set of Books. As much as I had prayed for the return of my children, I knew that this counseling might get thrown in the way. Judges are addicted to counseling like a meth-head is addict to crystal meth. Sullivan wrote in the divorce decree that he envisioned only one or two meetings with the counselor. There is no counseling done in the first meeting or two. It is intake-who’s the players and what are the issues. But Sullivan was not interested in counseling. He merely wanted to unload the decision out of habit. And if we do not shut them down now, they will be doing it to our kids in twenty years from now when they have little ones running around the house.

Second, just exactly where does the buck stop with our legal system? Police have to make an arrest. The prosecutor has to pursue the case. Judges now also walk a away without rendering a verdict, and passing the buck does not constitute a decision. Can those mental health counselors slide the decision over to someone else? Just where does this end? Who is responsible? Who is accountable?

The mental health crowd is the third reason I said no. Some people think they are geniuses with their Masters and PH D’s. Others think they are so wacky that they call them fruit loops. Well, I have a third name for them. Suckers. They did not get hired for their medical ability. They got these because they were willing to take these cases off the judge’s hands. Which has done nothing for the credibility for their profession. We are not here to help-we are here to unload. And they created a liability that did not previously existed. If a judge releases a defendant and he goes and kills someone, that judge or the judiciary cannot be sued. But a mental health worker, and their employer certainly can be held liable. Our judiciary is now using the mental health field like a ten dollar whore.

I sued Monadnock Family Services to make them go away. I told their lawyer Byron that they were a legitimate target for men. We settled for no money. They would have nothing to do with this reconciliation. The counselor was released. And they would no longer get involved in any domestic violence cases.

Every time we ended back in court over whatever squabbles, I would ask Judge Sullivan for my children back. The decision belong to the counselors he would tell me. But he knew he had screwed up. I could see it in his face. But he would not fix it. He would not step out of that box those domestic violence/sexual assault advocates had built for him. After five years, he retired to a part time position at the Littleton courthouse 120 miles away.

So when guys like Alex Baldwin and I call judges cowards, we have legitimate reasons for doing so. It is not good for judges to be called coward. It is unlikely that it is good for the rest of us.

I do not claim to have all The Second Set of Book. I know of one book that I do not have. And I would have loved to read that one. That would be the seminar that the domestic violence and sexual assault advocates put on periodically for legal personnel including judges. These advocates are camped outside every state, and federal, courthouse in America. The U.S. Dept of Justice provides 50-100% of their funding depending on the program. They have three day seminars at resorts where everything is paid for except the liquor. Judges in NH are ordered to attend. Neither Sullivan or Arnold would confirm or deny they had attended. They actually said nothing. It must be like the Masons where they will not say anything about the organization until you show them the secret hand sign.

Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis once wrote that the best description of a judge is the impartial guardian of the rule of law. How does three days of wine, women and song contribute to impartiality? It does not. So it should not have been any surprise that they would not answer me. After all, they were not on trial. I was. But they are going to be. They were suppose to protect to rule of law not collaborate in its demise. They have failed miserably.

A guardian ad litem is an attorney appointed for a child. The attorney solely represents the child. I got one when I was first separated to get a neutral pair of eyes and ears on the family. I was disappointed in his findings.

A few years later, another guardian was appointed for one of the kids. A regular report filed with the Court painted me as some sort violent psychopath. I thought that was uncalled for seeing as we had never met. It start a flurry of nasty letters between us until we both came to the conclusion that this was not about us. We ended on a friendly note.

At a Court hearing later on I approached him. I asked him if he had had any domestic violence training. He said yes, that it was required to become certified as a guardian ad litem. Another chapter for The Second Set of Books that I never managed to acquire.. So men, if you were thinking about getting a guardian ad litem for an unbiased assessment, then you should ask for the domestic violence material that certified the guardian. And do not worry that you are not sure what you are looking for. It will stand right out.

There are more sections of The Second Set of Books. Medical personnel are supposed to report suspected domestic violence. The college professor Angela Davis has a story of a Latino couple in California getting in trouble feeding the dog his liver for dinner. Mental health employees are also required. Think of Wendy threatening our kids with foster care. Teachers, day care providers, the list just goes on and on. The East German secret police, the Stazi, had 25% of the population on record as informers. The United States is not that high yet, but we are still growing.

These people-police, prosecutors and judges-are suppose to protect us. They are checks and balances to prevent injustice. That is why we spend so much money of police training. But if the police screw it up, the prosecutor can catch it. If the prosecutor misses it then the judge can step in to fix it. But if all three have been compromised, then what does one need to do to get justice? Go to the appeals court or the Supreme Court? That seem a little ridiculous particularly when the zero tolerance has arrests for something as trivial as touching.

On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead. Now we have 50 states with legal systems as good as any third world banana republic. Men are demonized and the women and children end up as suffering as well.

So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along. They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out.

In the last 25 years they have arrested one in six adults in this country and forced 25% of the men, women and children into homelessness. In 50 years it will be one in three adults arrested and 50% of the men, women and children ending up homeless. Most of our kids will live to the age of 68 years old. As bad as it was for you, your children will have twice the odds of it happening to them.

Some of you will say that 50% homelessness sounds absurd. But 25% is absurd and that is already here. There is no evidence that the police, courts, or government is planning to do anything different in the immediate future. And they will not do anything different until we make it so uncomfortable that they must change. Bureaucracy at its worst. So burn them out. This is too important to be using that touchy-feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA trailers. If they still do not get the message, then burn down the trailers.

The easiest way of burning a building is with the Molotov cocktail. It was invented by the Finns when the Soviets invaded in 1939. You fill a bottle with gasoline and stuff a rag in the end for a wick. You light the wick and throw bottle, It shatters on impact spraying gas everywhere and the wick ignites the gas. Simple, readily available, and effective. And only two things to remember.

First, use a glass bottle. Thinner glass is better than thicker glass. You want it to shatter on impact. When I was teaching a kid at the high school on the West Side Worcester, MA. threw a Molotov cocktail into his school. Fortunately, he used a plastic bottle. It burned about three square inches of carpeting. I had to laugh when I said to myself, “Thank God for dumb kids.”

Second, you need to tie the rag to the bottle. Nothing worse that throwing a Molotov cocktail, landing where you wanted it, and having it shatter perfectly. Then you noticed the wick had fallen out on the way to the target. No wick-no fire.

Some of these building will have brick faces and metal roofs. Just break a window and throw the Molotov cocktail inside. Carpets, furniture, computer plastic, even paint on the walls will burn. It is okay if the sprinkler goes off. I wonder if you can get hip waders over a gun belt?

We had a kid in my hometown that burned down the old junior high school. He walked up to the front door one night with a can of lighter fluid. The applicator on the end squirts the lighter fluid out. He squirted under the door and along the seams and lit a match. The kid took out the entire old part of the building. Why are kids so competent when it is something they should not be doing?

There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.

Now, nobody wants to get killed. But let us look at your life. You are broke after paying child support. She and the kids are not doing any better. None of you are middle class any more. You have no say in the kids’ education, their health treatment, you may not even have visitation with your sons and daughters. And everything you thought you knew to be true-the rule of law, the sanctity of the of the family, the belief that government was there to nurture your brood-all turned out to be a lie. Face it boys, we are no longer fathers. We are just piggy banks.

So you are not losing anything by picking up the Molotov cocktail. It may be too late for us. But without something changing, your kids will have double the odds of it happening to them. That will knock them out of the middle class again, providing they ever get back in. And their kids, your grandchildren, will end up damaged goods before it is over. So it is okay to run. You just need to turn around and run at them. They are no way as imposing as they seem. They only do what they do for a paycheck.

Television would make us believe that people get arrested because of fingerprints, DNA, facial recognition, and instruments that can tell where a substance was made and here is the local distributors. It is Hollywood crap. Most of the people in prison are there for one key reason. They could not keep their mouths shut. They told someone. That someone told others. The cops hear it and start looking at them for a suspect. That how it works in real life.

This need to confess seems to be primeval. Just human nature. But if you cannot keep a secret, do not expect the one you tell to keep their mouth shut. There is only three people I know for certain they will keep their mouths shut. That would be Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me. They harmed my children. The place is evil. So take it out

Somewhere along the line I picked up the crazy notion that it is better to be dead as a free man than to live as a serf. The government needs to be a little more careful about what they teach in our schools.

And bring a can of spray paint to these fires. Paint the word COLLABORATORS ( two L’s with an S on the end) on the building before you burn it. Maybe we can shame them back to the rule of law. And we do want the police to know exactly who burned the building. Then the police can start interviewing the usually suspects, all 36 million of us.

We have covered the do-bies. Now let us look at the bureaucrats that say-ers.

The Second Set of Books originated in Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) which is part of the United States Department of Justice. Some of these policies, procedures and protocol were developed locally. But the local results would be sent up to OVW and, if approved, would disperse it out to all 50 states. They are smart, clever, bigoted and able to lie as well as any politician that ever called Washington home. In other words, they have now become Washington insiders.

But what makes them so uniques is their anger towards men, any man. They are so twisted in their hatred of men that they are positively scary. And it is not what they are doing to men that makes them frightening. You would expect that. No, it is what they are doing to the women and children that makes them so twisted.

When the Pentagon drops a bomb on innocent civilians the military calls it Collateral Damage. It sounds better than, “Yeah, we killed a bunch of women and children.” Those poor, innocent, stupid civilians have always been caught in the middle since the time we were fighting with rocks.. Your wife and kids are Collateral Damage in the war against you, the man in the family. For 25 years these feminists at OVAW have been willing to sacrifice the women and children to get you. And they cannot claim ignorance about what they are doing. Under the VAWA the federal government is funding at least 1,800 homeless shelters. As long as the Office for Violence Against Women exists in the U.S. Department Justice , no American man, women or child will be safe in their own home.

If you ask these feminists why are the shelters all full, they will not say because of all the arrests. The shelters are full because of men. But they knew from the beginning that this was not man bad-woman good thing. The year was 1976. Two things would happen that year.

First, someone at the U.S. Dept of Justice decided to count the dead bodies. In 1975 there were 1522 women killed in domestic violence. And for men killed in 1975? The dead for men was 1506. Statistically equal a friend tells me so.

If you had asked me before the study, I would have assumed that women were getting the worst of it. But I would be looking at it by genders. What I should have been looking at was species, homo-sapiens, human beings. Men are human-women are human. Being the same species you would expect the same results from both genders. And that is exactly what the dead bodies told us.

The second thing that happened in 1976 was the first domestic violence survey was released. It was so new the time that they called it family violence. Murray Straus of UNH and Richard Gellars from a school in RI were the researchers. They did not find two perpetrators of domestic violence, but three. Men initiated violence 25.7% of the time: women 25.2%, and the other 49.1% was the two going after each at the same time. These two people going after each other at the same time is well recognized in law. The law in NH calls that mutual combat. Men are human. Women are human. And once again we found both genders acting the same manner.

So how did we end up with the theory of man bad-woman good that the government at all levels is using? The feminist writer Susan Brownmiller wrote In Our Time that,” the way you get funding and church donations is to talk about the pure victims. If you talk about the impurity of the victim, the sympathy vanishes.” If women get to be good then men get what is left-bad. Man bad-woman good was originally a funding raising technique. After 35 years, it has turned into official government dogma at all levels, from the local cop on the beat to the White House. Men need to be punished, restrained and retrained. Your wives and children are, unfortunately, just collateral damage in this effort to punish men. So you were not dreaming it. There really is a government pogrom against men.

When a man batters or kills, there is no excuse. When a woman commits the same act, there is nothing but excuses. Simple though inaccurate. But there is one redeeming aspect to men being demonized. Now we men can act like devils. And we do not even need to apologize for it. Men are going to start acting just like they made us out to be. As an old high school semi-punk I can assure you boys of one thing. This is going to be fun. You guys are going to end up laughing like hyenas.

The money funded under the VAWA is split in two when it leaves the Treasury. Part goes the Health and Human Services for funding these domestic violence homeless shelters. If that 36 million number is correct, and it is all that we have, then the 1.44 million arrests a year will be made producing 2.88 million homeless Americans each year. Women and children constitute 60% of these homeless people, 1.7 million Americans a year. Shutting down these shelters would be cruel. What would these women and children do then? Go live under a bridge. No, we are stuck with these shelters for a while. But there is one thing that Congress needs to fix when they fund them again.

These shelters do not allow men on the property let alone inside the residences. Why is it against the law to use federal money on organizations that discriminate against black, Jews, gays or even women but it is okay to do so against men? Men contributed half that tax money. Eight years ago a man in California fled with his children after the police warned him to get out after they had arrested the wife and mother. None of the shelters would take him and the kids in because he was a man. I wonder if this would survive a legal gender discrimination challenge in a federal court?

A society without men is freakier than a world without blacks or Jews. That is not to say blacks or Jews are any less worthy. It just that there are more men in the world than blacks or Jews even if you combined them. If these feminist had to deal with men on a regular basis, then maybe the country would not be in the pickle we are in now.

There is a third reason to end this discrimination, something of a more practical nature. Apparently, some women like to have sex with men. But men are barred from the property. Suddenly, that 15 year boy two doors down starts looking real good. It might even be fun breaking in this new meat. So this woman driven into insolvency by the push for domestic violence arrests now finds herself charged as a pedophile because someone barred men from her world. With domestic violence advocates as friends, who needs enemies.

This shelters came up with a novel approach to fixing the pedophile problem. Male children over the age of thirteen are barred from staying there. Too troublesome. The family broke up when the father was thrown out of the house. Now a second break up is happening with the teenage boys. Perhaps a relative has one bed available. Maybe the family of a high school friend would take him in their home. If neither option works then that is okay. He can move in with his father. Then they will both be sleeping in the car down by the river.

Children of these parents also suffer. They used to have their own bedroom in a safe town with good schools. First they have a shelter, then Section 8 public housing. An urban school. Maybe good-maybe not. Kids learn how to be tough in an urban environment. The kids might go bad or they could come out just fine. But there will be no clunky car as a teenager. There will be no saving fund for college. There will be no monetary gift to use as a down payment for a starter home. This tradition of the older generation giving the younger generation a financial leg up has been ruined due to the older generation’s lack of money. Financially, the older generation is merely treading water. It will take generations after these present two generations to repair the economic damage to these families.

So we are stuck with funding these shelters for a while. These women and children have no place left to go. Some of you guys may think that these feminist caused the problem and then created the solution. But homeless shelters are not a solution. They are just barely a band aid.

The remaining money under VAWA goes to the United States Department of Justice for the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW). As long as OVW exists then the government is at war with men. As long as there is a pogrom against men, then women and children are going to end up as collateral damage. So there is no need for discussion about OVW going. The only thing we need to figure out is which of the two ways we can use to get rid of them-the easy way or the hard way.

And boys, do not try to burn down Washington’s Dept. of Justice Building in an effort to get rid of the Office of Violence Against Women. Their offices are over at N Street.

The easy way is using Congress. The VAWA comes up for funding every five to seven years. Next time it comes up, Congress votes no and everyone at the OVW gets a pink slip in late September. Nice and simple except nothing is simple in Washington. We, the people out here in the sticks, do not always know what the dynamics are in Washington. There might be one method of getting Congress on course. Have Congress demand that the Attorney General get, and release the arrests figures. Or have the President order it. He is usually fearless after he makes up his mind. And this is too large and too well known to continue the Washington plausible deniable routine. Then they will know how much trouble they are in because of these arrests.

There are 220 million adults 18 or older in this country of both sexes. If my figure of 36 million is correct, then that is 16.4% of the adults have been arrested. It could be as high as 55 million or 25%. It might be as low as 22 million or 10%. Whatever the number there are two things that Congress should know. First, is the fellow who discovered the arrests in Minneapolis back in 1992 said do not use it because it does not work. And second, the people arrested now constitute a Fifth Column here in the United States. Our loyalty to Washington is gone. But what did these geniuses on the Potomac expect? They have harmed our children. If they think Al Qaeda is a pain in the ass, wait to they see what Americans can do once their fuse is lit.

I am certain the Attorney General will sit for months on the request for the number of domestic violence arrests. Then he will explain that they do not readily have the number and that some sort of Manhattan Project effort will be needed in time and money. Nonsense. When Washington started these arrests in 1984 over 6.3 personal computers were sold here in the U.S. That figure does not include all the mini’s, midi’s and mainframe computers sold that year. There is no way they can pretend that this data does not exist in electronic storage. A request to Ohio for the arrests 1984-2010 would tie up a state clerk for an hour, including their 15 minute coffee break. Time for the truth boys and girls. Because this is not going away.

The hard way is more time consuming, cost more money and is full of headaches. Because the only way of removing a department from the federal government without the consent of Congress is to take out the entire federal government.

The first time I heard that, I said that is ridiculous. We cannot run this country without a federal government. But we will replace the old government with something new and improved. The new government would honor the debts incurred by the old government. There are a lot of useful reasons for starting with a clean slate.

The bipartisan debt commission released their recommendation for cleaning up the $14 trillion we have borrowed over the years. Convention wisdom has it that Congress has no stomach for any of the recommendations.

But a new government could install those recommendation on day one. Three years later, most Americans will not remember that anything is different. The old government laid off its employees when it closed. The new government is hiring. But instead of 65,000 employees at the Dept. of Education, the new government is only hiring 45,000. Instead of an average federal wage of $70,000 a year, the new average will be $52,000. The new government will have to write a tax code. Everyone pays 15% with no deductions. How many IRS employees could you get rid of if there were no more deductions? Anything is possible with a new government.

Normally over-throwing a elected government is considered treason. Treason is punishable by death here in the United States. But there is one way of over throwing the government. That is through the ballot box. Then it is not treason but democracy. Allegedly, Washington is in favor of democracy, particularly if their candidate wins.

There is no legal mechanism in the Constitution or the Federal code of the United States for dissolving the government of the United States. So that is what we need first. Congress would need to write it. We get them to do it through the ballot initiative.

A ballot initiative is when enough registered voters sign a petition to get a question on the ballot for the next election. The following would be a sample of what the question would look like in New Hampshire.

That all elected representatives from the state of New Hampshire to both houses of the United States Congress are to propose and advance a bill that would set up a legal mechanism to dissolve the United States government should the people decide to do so in a general election by a simple majority.

If this initiative passes in all 50 states then Congress will be stuck. They will have to write the law to dissolve. If they do not I suspect within ten years they will be standing in a stairwell at the British or French embassy with a suitcase in hand waiting to get to a rooftop helicopter. I doubt if they will be thinking about the humiliation of being thrown out of the country. They will be far too busy worrying about what will happen if the mob gets their hands on them.

Washington has not got a friend in the world. Even the British and Israelis loath them now. Kind of a bad time to be losing domestic support. And what they done over the last 25 years? They have wiped out the middle class pandering to a special interest group of bigots. And in typical Washington fashion, they did not even know they did it.

This Ivy League inbreeding in Washington has produced an elite that knows what best. Everyone else-husbands, wives, police officers, prosecutors, judges, attorney generals and guardian ad litems-are to shut up and do what they are told. The rule of law is gone, replaced by the policies, procedures and protocols of The Second Set of Books. Which means the federal government will be going shortly. For the government being unable to deliver the rule of law is like an auto mechanic who claims he does not know how to change the engine oil. A certain minimum competency is required. So it looks like the parents of the Washington elite were right. One can be too smart for their own good.

Betty Friedan wrote that the feminist revolution, like any revolution, would have its excesses. Losing the rule of law is too great to call it a mere excess. It is a catastrophe. It is the heart, mind and soul between the people and their government. These feelings of betrayal by losing it may be permanent. I have 21 years of Army service going back to the Vietnam War. My loyalty to the government should be a given. It is gone. I am certain it will never return regardless of how long I might have lived.

It was another woman that lead us in to this decision to clean house inside the beltway. Something she taught us fifty years ago. You simply look at those folks in Washington and then ask yourself the old Ann Landers question, “Am I better off with them, or without them? Are my children better off with them, or without them?” They are sinking like stones.

Washington, DC was chosen as the capital because it was the geographical center or the old Colonies. Today, the geographical center of the country is just west of St. Louis Missouri. The new government can set the capital anywhere in the United States it wants. Imagine how many rodents, insects and parasites they could lose by moving 1500 miles west.

Whether you replace the federal government or not, men are still going to need a legal defense center for men. Something like the NAACP used to get black people their rights. The only checks and balances in the Second Set of Books is the First Set of Books. Which means lawsuits. Now I know you guys are broke. Some of you have had your wives and kids thrown into homelessness. So I completely understand when you tell me that you are broke. But if everyone who has been arrested throws in $10.00 a year then the legal defense center will have a war chest of $360 million. You can buy a whole bunch of lawsuit with that kind of money.

The Ball family has been supplying sergeants to the Army since at least the Revolutionary War. Elijah served as a sergeant in Cushing’s Regiment at the Battle of Bennington. His commanding officer was a general from NH with a name of John Stark. General Stark was a clever warrior. He was responsible for the bulk of the heavy casualties the British suffered at their victory at Bunker Hill. His orderly, fighting withdrawal allowed the other units on the hill to not only retreat but collect their wounded on the way out.

General Stark would repeat this performance on three hill tops outside the village of Bennington VT one hot August day in 1777. At the end of the battle, the British lost over 900 men killed or captured. The Colonists suffered 30 dead. Two months later, the depleted British army would surrender at Saratoga. That victory at Saratoga would bring the French into the war. John Stark was the most competent general this country ever produced. For that reason alone his men loved him.

But as brilliant as he was on the battlefield, General Stark would become even more famous for something he said. In 1809 the veterans of Bennington decided to have one last reunion. A delegation called on the General with his invitation. But the General was old and frail. He could not attend. But he did send a message, “You tell the boys I said live free or die. That death is not the worst of evil.” Since 1945 the State of New Hampshire has stamped Live Free or Die on every pen, coffee mug, license plate and highway sign that they have gotten their hands on.

I think the General and his sergeant would be please that his words have elevated from the novelties and bric-a-brac to something more dignified like a courthouse door. Neither of them would give a second thought to the mess left over after the fire was extinguished. War has always been a grim business. Civil wars are usually worse.

But they would be trouble by the new enemy. Oh, they understood when a government betrays it people. They took up arms against the super power of their day to get relief for their grievances. But the enemy we face now is the government that these men birthed at places like Bennington, Saratoga and Bunker Hill. Government is no different than the food in a refrigerator. Given enough time both will go bad.

The smartest person I knew in this life was my mother. Perhaps that is true of all of us. Maybe I just got lucky. She was a nurse by trade. She worked in a time when Western medicine made that final transition from butchery to science. But it would not be her nursing skills that made her extraordinary. No, it would be this one incredible knack she had that I had only modest success at mimicking in my life. If she had something important to say to you, she would say and then never mention it again. She would talk about it if you raised the issue. But she never mentioned it twice on her own. And, oddly, you always heard her.

But she did have one favorite saying. I must have heard in a thousand times in the eighteen years I lived under her roof. It always came at the end of the conversation as she peeled away to see if it was time for Perry Mason or Lawrence Welk. She would turn her head to the side, and over her shoulder she would say, “And the only thing you really have in this world is your family.” Now, thanks to the United States Government, neither we nor our children have that.

I have three things to say to my children. First, Daddy loves you. Second, you are my three most favorite people in the world. And last, that you are to stick together no matter how old you get or how far apart you live. Because it is like Grandma always said. The only thing you really have in this world is your family.

***end***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picture of Tom Ball, thanks to Abusive Power by the State.

A Simplified Explanation of
“The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government”

I have been asked for a sentence, or two, to describe “The Plan For the Restoration of Constitutional Government”. Well, I could not provide such a short description due to the complexity of the Plan, itself.

However, in numerous phone conversations, I have tried to provide an explanation of the Plan, and I do believe that I have found a descriptive means of demonstrating just how it would work.

Suppose you had a map of the United States and it was all black. Black represents areas that are under the control of repressive government (yes, this also includes all state governments that have submitted to receiving federal funds — all of them).

Now, suppose a very small white dot appears on the map. Within a few days, a few more white dots appear. These white areas (even though very, very small, at first) represent areas that have returned to Constitutional government, regardless of the means. As time goes on, these small white dots become more frequent, and, they begin to become larger.

After a short period of time, some of the dots, now growing into definable shape, stretch out and merge with another white area.

As time goes on, these areas become even large, merging with other areas, and, soon, encompassing counties within their respective state. Growing and merging, the will soon encompass most of the state, perhaps wrapping around large population areas (cities and metropolitan areas).

As they continue to grow, they will cross state lines and begin absorbing the high population areas, until the map has been reversed, and the black areas are reduced to dots, and then disappear completely.

So, if I have been successful in reducing the Plan to a simple and easily conveyed explanation, perhaps you would like to go to The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government,  and download a copy of The Plan.

When you read the Plan, you will see that it is based upon our own history. It is an emulation of the same course taken by our own Founders in securing the colonies that were soon to become the United States of America.

Some Thoughts on the Judicial Process

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 16, 2001

Introduction

If you watch a child grow, you see every stage of that child’s life and cannot really discern the transition from infant to adult, except upon reflection.

If, however, you are introduced to an adult, you have no means by which to recognize the infancy and growth to the point where you have met.

Of course, if you look at a scrapbook, carefully prepared by a doting mother, though you will not have an entire picture of those many transitions of life, you will be able to begin to understand the foundation that brought that person from infancy to adulthood.

Our legal system is introduced to us in much the same way.  When we first become aware of what the entire judicial system is, we acquire most of our understanding from both the television and schooling.  We tend not to look for that scrapbook; rather, we accept what we are taught, at face value.

If we are among the older observers, we might recognize that there has been a lot of ‘growing’ in that judicial system since we were first introduced to it, though we tend to accept those changes as necessary, since we still rely upon television or other media, even the courts, to determine what course this system should take.

We understand those changes to be a result of progress.  Progress, however, is a rather interesting word, though we seldom give much thought to what it really means.

We can progress in our studies, with the objective of an education and a degree to be the goal of that progress.  If we make progress in a trip, we know that we are getting closer to a destination, with the goal being a location which course was set out at the beginning of our journey.  As we progress through life, our destination is what we perceive to be the end result of that journey, most often defined as passing out of this life — a goal which might not be sought though it is inevitable.  We can clearly see, then, that progress has in mind a goal — a purpose for the pursuit of that progression.

So, let’s return to the progress we see in the judicial system.  What, exactly, or even remotely, is the goal that we are pursuing?  Is it a higher degree of justice?  Perhaps a more equitable administration of justice.  Not much difference between the two, however, it is hard to conceive of a positive goal that would not pursue one or the other.

On the other hand, and, once again referring to the older amongst us, if we stop and look back at what has occurred in our lifetime, we can see that the changes that have occurred, though couched in the term of law and order, generate little semblance to a progression in that direction.

So, let’s see if we can find the scrapbooks that will give us a better picture of the transition, from the beginning to the present, of our American judicial system.

So as to develop a foundation upon which the judicial system was created, we will look, first, at the Constitution.

Constitution

In the Preamble, the Constitution sets forth the authority and responsibility of the government:

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

Establishing Justice is one of the principle objectives in the creation of both the government and the Union known as the United States of America.  Note that it does not say that it is to establish “Law”, rather, to establish “Justice”.  This is an important consideration in the transition from what was to what is.

Next, we can look at what created the federal judiciary, in Article III of the Constitution:

Section 1– “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish….  “

Section 2– “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…”

So, we have a supreme Court established as well as inferior courts that the Congress might “ordain and establish“.  We also see that the power of these courts “extends to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under” the Constitution and the Laws of the United States.  This, of course, would include all laws made pursuant to the Constitution, so, obviously, they cannot conflict with the Constitution.

Next, we find in Article III:

Section 2, clause 3– “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

So, all crimes shall be tried by a jury (more later on the proper role of the jury) and we have the introduction of jurisdiction, whereby such trial “shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed“.

To understand what is meant by this limitation on jurisdiction, we need to look back at Article I

Section 8– “The Congress shall have Power …”
Clause 17 “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;…”

Note that the Congress has the power for “exclusive Legislation” only in the venue (geographic area where the injury or crime occurred) defined as Washington, D.C. (District – not exceeding ten Miles square), all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State (which, too, have to have cession of jurisdiction to be included in the exclusive legislative jurisdiction) for purposes related to government functions.  Land simply purchased by the government, without the State having granted jurisdiction, does not fall in this category.

It might be worthwhile to point out that the Supreme Court has recognized that there are three United States’, from a legal standpoint, when they ruled in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, [324 U.S. 652], when they declared that, “The term {United States} has several meanings.  It may be merely the name of the sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.  “The lands described in Section 8, above, fall within the second definition, “territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends”.  It might also be worth noting that subsequent decisions extended that sovereignty over territories that have not become states.  The States which were members of the Union (the United States of America) fall, clearly, within the third definition.

The, in Article IV, we find a reference which suggests that the Common Law (more on that, later) is the means by which justice will be established.

Section 1– “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.  And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

“Full Faith and Credit”, this provides a means of establishing justice on an equitable, or, at least, relatively equal basis throughout the States.  This is a concept of common law, not of civil law.

The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.  It was prefaced with an oft-overlooked Preamble that included the following, to set forth its purpose:

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

First, we find in Amendment IV:

“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.”

This protection evolves from what was practiced in England, and was ignored here, here, in colonial times.  William Pitt, a Member of Parliament said, in the House of Commons, “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.  It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”  This might begin to explain that old adage; “a man’s home is his castle”.

Early on, well before the War of Independence, James Otis spoke out against Writs of Assistance.  A Writ of Assistance was, quite simply, a blanket search warrant.  It did not say exactly what was being looked for, nor, did it say exactly where it was to be looked for.  It might best be described as a “fishing expedition”, and was, without question, intolerable, in the eyes of the Framers.

The Oath or affirmation is a sworn statement of personal knowledge.  It is not third party, or hearsay, it is absolute knowledge.  That “John Doe told me that you robbed a bank” is only personal knowledge that “John Doe” told you something.  Only John Doe can swear to what you told him.

We are then provided the protections contained in Amendment V”

“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.”

So, we can see that the Framers were concerned over the power of the government to make arrests (held to answer), even in capital offenses (death penalty) or infamous crimes (felonies, which would be any crime that would include at least 1 year of imprisonment), unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.  The significance of the Grand Jury will become more apparent as we go on.

Next, we will visit Amendment VI:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.”

So, here we have a guarantee of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury (more on the petit jury, later), again, held where the crime was committed.  He is assured that he has a right o know the “nature and cause” of the accusation.  We also see that the right to confront all witnesses against the accused is assured and that he has a right to counsel (it does not say lawyer) for his defense.

Finally, within the Bill of Rights, we have Amendment VII:

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

This speaks for itself, except that it does say that the decision of thee jury may not be reexamined in any court.

There were subsequent amendments that had minor effect on the judiciary, though they are not worth mentioning.

What might be worthy of your consideration is that within the Federalist Papers, the arguments published in support of ratification of the Constitution, and, recognized as the best representation of the intent of that Constitution, mentions “courts of justice” eight times, though never once mentions a “courts of law.”

Common Law

To understand the Common Law is a rather complex study.  There have been numerous older books written on the subject.  Many recent claims that its foundation is on Christian or, Judeo-Christian principles is unfounded, though there is no doubt that these principles have influenced the course of Common Law.

In the earliest accounts, ordeal by fire was a means of judging, and, a person could not be compelled to enter the court (or, whatever forum was in use at the time).  That evolution had proceeded over 11 centuries when that Common Law, as it had evolved, was adopted by the new States who had come together under the banner of the United States of America.

Many old state statute books (perhaps some still do) included something similar to, “and adopt the common law of England as it existed on July 4, 1776”.  It was qualified that the common law so adopted could not be in conflict with the constitution or statutes.

So, in body, where not in conflict, and, in principle, the common law was adopted by all of the states except Louisiana (which had its Napoleonic Code).  Many state’s statutes have been revised to remove this reference, though we must wonder why.

To have a general understanding of the Common Law, sufficient to the purpose of this paper, we can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

From Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Common law.  As a distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the governments and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of a immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.  The “common law” is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution. 

Common-law consists of those principles, usages and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.

As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals.

California civil code, section 22.2, provides that the “common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decisions in all the courts of this State.”

In a broad sense, “common law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.

Judge.  An officer so named in his commission, who presides in some court; a public officer, appointed to preside and to administer the law in a court of justice; the chief member of a court, and charged with the control of proceedings and the decisions of questions of law or discretion.

“Judge”, “justice”, and “court” are often used synonymously or interchangeably.

Preside.  To occupy the place of authority as of president, chairman, moderator, etc.  To direct, control or regulate proceedings as chief officer, moderator, etc.  To posses or exercise authority.  To preside over a court is to “hold” it.  — to direct, control and govern it as the chief officer.  A judge may “preside” whether sitting as sole judge or as one of several judges.

Magistrate.  The term in its generic sense refers to a person clothed with power as a public civil officer, or the public civil officer invested with executive or judicial power.

U. S. magistrates.  A judicial officer, appointed by judges of federal DISTRICT courts, having some but not all of the powers of a judge.  In the federal district courts magistrates may conduct many of the preliminary or pre-trial proceedings in both civil and criminal cases.

Perhaps, from the above, you can begin to see what is relevant to the Common Law and what is not a part of the Common Law.

Properly, a Common Law Court (not those that you hear about on the news, rather, those which were acknowledged as our right), could only be deemed courts of justice.  A court of law is the administration of rules in an arbitrary manner and is based upon Roman Civil Law.

Common Law, then, is made more by the people and less by the government.  “How so?” you ask.  Well, to understand this we must look at who decides innocence or guilt, for that interpretation would tell us what crime really is.  The juries, both Grand and Petit, achieve this, in Common Law.

Grand Jury

Early reference to the Grand Jury process can be found in the Magna Carta (1215 AD), in Article 36, “In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs.  It shall be given gratis, and not refused.”

Grand juries have been described in numerous ways, over the centuries.  In 1694, Lord Somers described them as, “security of Englishmen’s lives”.  They have also been described as the “conserver of liberties” and “the noblest check upon the malice and oppression of individuals and states”.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Jury, n.
A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empanneled [sic] and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case.

Grand juries consist usually of twenty-four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments.

The purpose they serve is to consider complaints (not limited to those submitted by the state, rather, the including of any complaint against state officials), and determine whether a petit jury trial is warranted to determine innocence or guilt.

Through their history, Kings have enacted statutes that wrested control of the Grand Jury from the people and provided the King more leeway in prosecuting people, though these changes were apt to be turned over by outrage, violence, or even revolution.

They were not, as they are construed, now, especially on the federal level, simply an arm of government for the prosecution of people who violate laws.  They were instituted to determine if any crime, including a denial of rights, was committed, based upon investigation by the Grand Jury, itself, and having available to them the right to call any witness, including the accused, to determine if an indictment or true bill was warranted.

Once issued, the indictment or true bill could not be quashed and the matter had to go to trial.  Nowadays, many states and the federal government allow a prosecutor to refuse a true bill, denying a trial where the Grand Jury had called for it.  The best-known instance of this had to do with an FBI sniper named Ron Horiuchi, who was indicted by an Idaho Grand Jury under the charge of murder, based upon his killing of Vicki Weaver.  Probable cause was established by the Grand Jury, though the federal court usurped the authority of the State to try the case and moved it into federal jurisdiction.  The federal court then determined, contrary to the Idaho Grand Jury, that no crime had been committed and the accused never stood trial.

Each state has its own laws regarding grand juries, and they vary, often significantly.  The primary elements, however, used to include little or no control by government officers and gave broad inquisitorial powers to the jury.  Without these, they would not be safeguard to our liberties.

To fully understand the history and authority of grand juries in the United States, see an article by G. B. Edwards on “Essay on the Grand Jury in America” (1904), at the Outpost of Freedom Library.

Petit Jury

More often simply called “petty juries”, trial juries”, “common juries”, or, just plain “juries”.  These are the mainstay of a system of justice, and, can be a tool of oppression in a system of laws.

Here is how Webster’s 1828 Dictionary explains them:

Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions.  The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

Notice that he said that this jury would decide “both the law and the fact”, not just the fact, as we are told, today.  And, understand that Webster’s definition is the same definition understood by the Framers when they mentioned juries in the Constitution.

Through our history, from John Peter Zenger, in 1735, where the jury rejected the law, to trials regarding slaves, where juries refused to convict those who violated the laws regarding the return of slaves to their master, to during the Prohibition Era, where juries refused to convict many of those accused of “moon shining”, we have seen the jury reject law (which is often followed by the legislature overturning the law) when the facts presented clearly suggested a violation of that “law”.

The power to judge the law was an inherent right in the days of the Framers.  Since we are a self-governed people, the ultimate responsibility to judge what we must abide by MUST be in our hands, not the hands of those in government.

Here is how Lysander Spooner sets out the purpose of petit juries:

“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”

To understand more about petit juries and jury trials, see the entire Lysander Spooner “Essay on Trial by Jury” (1852) at the Outpost of Freedom Library.

Courts

First, let’ look at what a court is, as perceived by the Framers, according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (irrelevant definitions excluded):

Court.  n.

3. A palace; the residence of a king or sovereign prince.

4. The hall, chamber or place where justice is administered.

5. Person who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor.

6. The persons or judges assembled for hearing and deciding causes, civil, criminal, military, naval, or ecclesiastical: as a court of law; a court of chancery; a court martial; a court of admiralty; an ecclesiastical court’ court baron; &c.

***

7. Any jurisdiction, civil, military or ecclesiastical.

When we look at these definitions, we might wonder whether the meaning of the word (definition #4) as intended by the Framers is the one that the government has continued to operate on our behalf.

Courts, as they are perceived today, are tribunals intent on imposition of laws, fines and penalties, whose primary beneficiary is the State.  Restitution, “making whole” of a victim of a crime, is left to the victim.  If he has insurance, he has paid for the privilege of restitution; if he has none, then he must bear his loss.

This raises the question as to whether the courts that we have become familiar with are those same courts that the Framers intended for their Posterity.

As mentioned earlier, the Federalist Papers recognized “courts of justice”, though they made no mention of “courts of law”.

Courts of Justice are “The hall, chamber or place where justice is administered“.  They would include the grand and petit juries, as intended, and would have consideration of any injury, whether imposed by a private individual or a government official.

Courts of law, on the other hand, are courts of punishment.  They are intended to force the will of the government on the people and endeavor to impress upon all the consequences of violation of the government’s rules.

It is true that there are beneficial results couched in these forums of obedience, where truly bad people are sent to prison, though, often, those truly bad people are back on the streets in a short period of time, to redo their misdeeds.

It is also true that those in government who do misdeeds under color of law [“The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right” – Black’s Law Dictionary] are, for the most part, exempt from any criminal prosecution, regardless of whether their crime is simple, as a misdemeanor, or capital, as murder.

We need to return to courts of justice, and remove the taint of obedience to the King through courts of law from our landscape.  Without such change, we will remain vassals in the country of our birthright, which our forefathers were willing to give their lives to assure to us.

Crimes

Crime is a word that can be defined in many ways, today.  However, when crime is coupled with justice, the definition narrows considerably.  From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Crime.  n,

1.  An act which violates a law, divine or human; an act which violates a rule of moral duty; an offense against the laws of right, prescribed by God or man, or against any rule of duty plainly implied in those laws.  A crime may consist in omission or neglect, as well as in commission, or positive transgression.  The commander of a fortress who suffers the enemy to take possession by neglect, is as really criminal, as one who voluntarily opens the gate without resistance.

But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offence, or a violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public a wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offenses against the laws made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c.  The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors.  Crimes and misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured.  But in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.

2. Any great wickedness; iniquity; wrong.

Capital crime, a crime punishable with death.

The Framers, when they devised the Constitution, the document that defined just what powers the new government was to have, were very cautious in what was perceived as crime.  Of what they did perceive, there were two types of crime envisioned.  First would be those that were to secure rights and protect individuals from transgressions by others.  These provide the authority to pass laws that would give a source of recourse to those offended by another.  An example would be Article I, Section 8, clause 8, the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, which provided legal recourse if others violated that right.

The other is those activities that threaten the government directly.  Of this second class, in their wisdom, they were only able to define three crimes of this nature:

Article I, Section 8, clause 6, “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”

Article I, Section 8, clause 10, “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”.

Article III, Section III, clause 2, “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

Though they were given powers to enact other laws, it is apparent that they had determined that crimes against the state were the only crimes that could be defined by the federal government, except while in military service, or in service to the government — those being employees or officers of the government).

Crime is, by its nature, an offense, whether that offense be against another individual or against the public [understand that public is not the government, it is the people — see Charity and General Welfare].  When against an individual, a damage or injury would be the result.  When done against the public, it can only be appropriate to a crime that affects those within a limited community, for, how can it be an offense against someone in another state, or even another county, if committed in this county?  If it is too broad in its coverage, it is an attempt by a few (those who legislate) to dictate how others may live their lives.  This, in concept, is contrary to the ideals of self-government, and is indicative of an attempt at social engineering.

When the ability of any legislature to impose upon larger bodies of people their will, whatever the incentive, that power will grow in its effect and administration until the large body of people come under abject subjugation.  When carried to the next logical step in the subjugation and oppression of the people, even the remotest possibility of someone committing a crime becomes a crime, in itself.  (See Thought Crimes)

When determining what crime really is, when the activity causes a damage or injury, laws instituted to punish that crime make sense, so long as they leave the discretion of punishment to the jury.

However, when laws, by their very nature, create crime, which does not result in loss or injury, the laws, themselves, have become the crime.  The laws result in injury or loss where none existed, absent the law, when the accused has, then, become the victim.

Arrest

Arrest is nothing less than denial of liberty.  Liberty was one of the major maxims for the War of Independence.  It, unlike freedom, is best defined as being free, where freedom, generally, has to do with not being obligated or enslaved.

Let’s look at how these two words would be perceived by the Framers, from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Arrest v.t.

1. To obstruct; to stop; to check or hinder motion; as, to arrest the current of a river; to arrest the senses.

2. To take, seize or apprehend by virtue of a warrant from authority; as, to arrest one for debt or for a crime.

Arrest, n.

1. The taking or apprehending of a person by virtue of a warrant from authority.  An arrest is made by seizing or touching the body.

2. Any seizure, or taking by power, physical or moral.

3. A stop, hindrance or restraint.

4. In law, an arrest of judgment is the staying or stopping of a judgment after verdict, for causes assigned.  Courts have power to arrest judgment for intrinsic causes appearing upon the face of the record; as when the declaration varies from the original writ; when the verdict differs materially from the pleadings; or when the case laid in the declaration is not sufficient in point of law, to found an action upon.  The motion for this purpose is called a motion in arrest of judgment.

Freedom, n. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement.

Liberty, n.

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force a operates to restrain his actions or are volitions.

2.  Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.  It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life.  This liberty is abridged by the establishment of governments.

3.  Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society are, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation.  A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression.  Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another.  Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
                                                                                    Ames

In this sentence, the letter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

4.  Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty.  But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation.  Hence, we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or in the nations of Europe.

5.  Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshipping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control. 

Clearly, then, when someone is arrested, he is restrained of his liberty, as well as having his freedom removed.  It is liberty, then, that is offended when one is arrested.  This, according to the Constitution, can only occur when warranted (warrant), which can only be issued by a jury, grand or petit, or by “Probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation” [Article IV, Bill of Rights].  There have been some exceptions, under the Constitution, such as allowing a person to be arrested to stop the completion of a felony [John Bad Elk v. US, 177 U.S. 529 (1900)].

Now, if the arrest was made and no indictment by a Grand Jury, the person who sought the warrant was liable for false arrest.  After al, he denied the accused his liberty and could not prove his claim.

To begin to see the child that we have not been able to see grow, and must piece together the transition to what we accept as lawful, today, we can review what arrest was treated like by the United States Supreme Court in 1900.

John Bad Elk was told that he was under arrest by deputies, though they had no warrant for his arrest.  One of the deputies had a gun, but did not raise it to threaten John Bad Elk, though the means of threat of force to retrain liberty were present.  John Bad Elk shot and killed the deputy and was convicted of murder.  The case then went to the Supreme Court where the Court ruled that, absent a lawful warrant, John Bad Elk had every right to shoot and kill the officer who was trying to restrain his liberty — that it would be a misdemeanor, or not crime, at all.  (See The Right to Self Defense).

As astounding as they may appear to us, today, if we understand just what was intended, perhaps we can return to true freedom and liberty.

Can you imagine a world where the government hardly ever made an arrest?  Where if an arrest had to be made, the person filing the complaint was responsible for making the arrest?  Where the person making the complaint need simply go to a Justice of the Peace, a magistrate, or the Sheriff, swear out an affidavit, and get the arrest warrant?  Where he gathered a posse of citizens, and even the Sheriff, if he chose to, to make the arrest?  Where justice was administered not by the government, but, by the people, themselves?

Considering the apparent gross disparity between what we have today versus that which was, and that which we should still have, proof of that stated in the above paragraph, is even more lost in childhood.

More information can be found at Are Cops Constitutional?

The ability to arrest, as you will learn from the above references, was reserved to the people, not to the government.  Government was not allowed to restrain our liberty without the consent of at least a small body of people who were not a part of that government, or an individual who had been wronged and was willing to “swear out an arrest warrant”..

Indictment

To understand what an indictment is, we will refer to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Indictment, n.

The written accusation or formal charge of a crime or misdemeanor, preferred by a grand jury under oath to a court.

2.  The paper or parchment containing the accusation of a grand jury. 

Once the Grand Jury issues an indictment, it is indicative of the determination of “probable cause” for the accused to stand trial.  At trial, the accused will have the rights, protected by the Constitution, for a speedy and public trial with the right to meet the accuser and call the witnesses.

By the Constitution, there is no other means by which one can be held to answer to a criminal charge.  What is generally known as an “information” does not satisfy those judicial protections provided for in the Constitution.

Trial

Amendment VII (bill of Rights provides, as explained earlier, that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“,

This does not preclude the accused agreeing to be tried at the “bench”, where the judge sits as the jury, though it does guarantee his right to insist on the jury trial.  In either case, the other rights, as to witnesses, etc., is not diminished.  This, however, is the only instance where the judge becomes the trier of facts and law.

So, we have both civil and criminal trials before juries.  Interestingly, we have been raised to believe that the judge is senior to the jury and can overrule them; can instruct them, with an extensive checklist, what they must do to determine innocence or guilt; and, can actually tell them what the laws means/says, as if the jurors are incompetents, unable to even read our language.  Is this the sort of person that we should trust with the administration of justice?

That is not the way that it was intended, though we have, through a progression through over a century, allowed the exodus justice to be replaced by what is no less than Roman Civil Law, with all decisions made by the judge, or, at least, so strongly influenced as to effect, negatively, the ability of the people to judge both law and fact.

Another term that we have heard often associated with juries, though not written into the Constitution, is “a jury of our peers”.  Peerage is a separation of classes.  In olden times, it separated lords from serfs.  So, if my peer is one of equal rank, can I be judged by a jury that is composed of foreigners, or others, that, by the way that they accept the condition impose by government, believe that we must submit to such abuse of the judiciary process?

If one were to understand that he was a citizen of a state, while some of those sitting on a jury believed that they were citizens of a country, would they be peerage?  Can they judge lawfully if they believe that the government is all-powerful and always right (i.e.  The King can do no wrong)?

For a better understanding of the two classes of citizen, you would recommend reading Two Classes of Citizen.

Punishment

Punishment applies to both criminal and civil trials.  We’ll begin with the criminal variety.

Punishment can take two forms.  It can be intended to discourage future behavior, or, it can be intended to be retribution or revenge.  In the sense of justice that we have been taught, it is intended to be the former.  However, quite often in the press, it takes on the meaning of the latter.  In true justice, the former can be quite more severe than the latter, or, it can be much more lenient.

We can look at what has happened to the jury’s right to judge fact, law and determine punishment as a means where each case is judged, by supposedly intelligent people (or, why would we have the alternatives that follow?) who can review the evidence, are intimately familiar with the case, and, can look in to the eyes of the accused and judge his actions and reactions, if determined to be guilty, to determine if there is guilt, if it was an unintentional crime, if he shows malice or regret, and, from this information judge which punishment best suits all of the circumstances surrounding the crime.

Instead, we have had imposed upon us two rather cold and rigid ‘systems’ under the headings of “Sentencing Guidelines” and “The Three Strikes Rule”.

Sentencing guidelines require that if the accused stole bread to feed his starving children, he is subject to the same sentence as one who stole bread to sell for money to buy drugs.  Can that possibly be defined as justice?

The Three Strike Rule is based upon three convictions.  In some states, the mandate is life in prison for the third violation, regardless of the type of crime.  So, if you stole bread three times, or robbed a bank three times, you are destined to spend the remainder of your life in prison.  Of course, the judge administering such “justice” will apologize and say that the law made him do it.  Can that possibly be defined as justice?

We will not enter a realm that makes exceptions for certain behavior by certain classes of people, except to say that if you kill a cop, you will probably be sentenced, under statutory law, to execution, while, if a cop kills you, he will get time off, with pay, and more than likely not even go to trial.

Let’s go to the last step in punishment — Capital Crimes.  These would be any that may result in a punishment of execution.

We have all lived through the period of public proclamation that the death penalty is unconstitutional, or, is cruel and unusual punishment.

Of the latter, how can that be cruel and unusual when execution (recognition that there are capital crimes, see Amendment V, above) is in the Constitution?  Considering that cruel and unusual did not include a firing squad or hanging, we have opted for some very unpleasant “cruel and unusual punishments.  Gas chamber and the electric chair were fallible.  Reports of witnesses indicate grotesque contortions in the gas chamber and failures of the electric chair resulting in fried people waiting to die.

In an endeavor to be less cruel, we now watch people see a series of injections, each one depriving him of pain, awareness, and, finally, life.  Wouldn’t car exhaust into a closed area be less painful and less expensive?  However, we seem to have a passion for creativity in killing people.  Why?  They deserve the sentence that the jury finds, if justice is to be served.

Along that line, at what point do we consider, as a collective society, that some criminals serve no useful purpose to that society?  I believe that this was the purpose of the death sentence, in the first place.  What else would motivate a society to get rid of a human life?

Given that the purpose is to dispose of those who have nothing to offer to society, why have we set so many steps, expensive in lawyer’s fees, time and providing for the accused,

Now, in civil matters, the punishment comes in the form of restitution and rewards to the injured party.  The court will recognize these real damages and punitive damages.

Real damages can be easily calculated.  They are based upon loss, including, but not limited to, lost wages, medical expenses, replacement of damaged property, etc.

Punitive Damages used to be awarded, or not, based upon a rather simple formula.  If there was no negligence, then only real damages would be awarded.

For the other two, we can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Negligence (simple).  The omission to do something that a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations that ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or of the doing of something that a reasonable and prudent man would not do.

Gross negligence.  The intentional failure to perform a manifest duty and reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another.

Awards of up to three times the real damages could be awarded for simple negligence.  This was expected to encourage more caution in the future.

In the determination of gross negligence, the award could be up to 10 times the real damages.  This, obviously, was more punitive in nature, encouraging a greater concern for the life or property of others, in the future.

Understand that awards of millions of dollars, such as overly hot coffee causing serious burns, serve only to punish the society, as a whole.  When awarded by a jury, the millions of dollars must be paid.  The accuser’s attorney will probably receive 40% and the injured party will receive the remaining 60%.  However, the entire 100% will be paid by those who drink coffee and are intelligent enough to not to burn themselves.  Is this justice?

We have allowed attorneys to manipulate juries into thinking that unreasonable awards serve a valid purpose, that on top of the fact that we have a proliferation of rules requiring labeling (i.e. “coffee is very hot”), and those who don’t heed the warning are, as a result, worthy of receiving compensation from everybody for their idiocy.

We need to return to reasonable punishment for both criminal and civil crimes, for, without such reasonableness, we have a lottery and the luck of the draw.

The Ultimate Court

Going just a bit further, we can look at what has transpired in the judicial community of the United States.  When a trial is held, there is an appellate process that can lead all of the way to the United States Supreme Court.  If either party is dissatisfied with the verdict, the trial can be appealed.  It must stand “on the record”, meaning that the case will not be retried, only that based upon the record of the original trial, a higher court can rule on what has already been presented.

So, for instance, if you believe that your Constitutional rights were violated, or that the government was operating outside of its authority under the law, their methods, or any other aspect of what had occurred, you can seek redress in that Supreme Court.  Interestingly, that Court, in its early years, actually rode circuit to hear cases appealed from the lower courts.  Over time, however, they attained a more noble stature by holding all of their sessions in single building in Washington, D.C.

Within two decades of its creation, this Supreme Court established its authority to rule on the Constitutionality of any case brought before it.  Judicial review, then, became what we have, in our lifetimes, always respected as the ultimate decision on the Constitutionality of a matter that could be brought to that level of review.

We expect that any law passed by the Congress (or even under its authority) can be tested as to its Constitutionality by this ultimate review.  After all, if we have a Constitution that limits the power of government and affords them only certain privileges, this ultimate court must be our protection from the governments violation of that very Constitution that created it.

Occasionally, we read of a Supreme Court decision that makes us want to scratch our head in wonderment.  How could they possibly rule that a certain decision was decided in a manner that does not seem to fit what we perceive the Constitution to say?  We tend to assume that they, by their articulate arguments, must understand something that we are not able to comprehend — about the Constitution.

Well, quite often, we may be more correct in our interpretation than the ruling of that august body.  In 1937, that court, by its own admission, declared that ruling on the Constitutionality of a matter before them, well, let me use their words to say this, “The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it…  ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.”

To understand more why the Court will, only in a last resort, rule on the Constitutionality, I would suggest that you read About Ashwander v. TVA

Conclusion

Since that infant (the judicial system) was conceived in 1776 and came into life in 1789, it had grown through its infancy by 1860.  As it reached adulthood, it was well matured, though, perhaps, gone astray.

We have learned to look at it only in its very senior years, and have no idea what it was as in its youth.  Unfortunately, that wonderful child has gone through some changes during its lifetime that have obscured what it was when it was brought into life, with loving care.

As if relegated to a senior citizen’s home, cared for by abusive and self-serving attendants, the judicial process has been abused, manipulated, and, lost all semblance of that great and wonderful object of adoration that it was to the Framers.  It is only by virtue of a scrapbook that we can see that transition, and, perhaps, restore that child to the dignity and respect that it truly deserves.