Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 2
Ambush

LaVoy Finicum’s last ride
“I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
                                                                                    Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2016

The Death of LaVoy Finicum

Note: Times given are referenced to the aerial time stamps, minus eight hours. Quotations are based upon the best recollection of the witnesses.

I had lunch with Ammon Bundy while the Sharp family sang. It was the first time I had met Ammon, and we went over the articles I intended to write about the events that led up to the actions of January 2, 2016, with the investiture of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration complex, since renamed the Harney County Resource Center. The subjects for the articles were the misunderstanding of the people of Burns as to what source resulted in the fear and anxiety then extant in the town of Burns, and the information available in the “public” records contained in the filing cabinets at the refuge that might show the use of subterfuge in the obtaining of land to extend the federal “ownership”, not only in the Refuge, but throughout Harney County.

Ammon also indicated his pleasure for the upcoming meeting in the Grant County town of John Day, expecting to get additional support from Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer. As we discussed, it was to the backdrop of the Sharp family’s vary harmonious singing.

I then visited Ryan Payne, an old friend and fellow board member of the Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Advisory Board. Ryan, too, was looking forward to a productive meeting with the Grant County community, hoping to establish a Committee of Safety to become a voice from the disenfranchised people of that County, as they had in Harney County.

The meeting was to begin at 6:00 PM on January 26, 2016. The drive, which in that part of the country, is a rather fixed route. From the Refuge, you go west on Sodhouse Lane to State Road 208, then North into Burns where you pick up US 395 North, through Malheur National Forest, through Seneca, and finally to John Day. The trip is just over 130 miles and is, unquestionably, the only practical way between the two locations.

Vehicle #1, the lead vehicle, LaVoy’s white 4-door pickup truck, contained Robert “LaVoy” Finicum driving, Ryan Payne at shotgun, and, from driver’s side to passenger side in the back seat, Ryan Bundy, Victoria Sharp, and Shawna Cox. Vehicle #2 contained Mark McConnell, driving his brown 4-door Jeep, with Brian “Budda” Cavalier at shotgun and Ammon Bundy in the rear. This was the position of all of the people as they left the HCRC, and the position of each until they left their respective vehicles. Thus, they began their 33-mile drive to Burns, which resulted in an unexpected and tragic termination.

After leaving Burns, they traveled up US 395 about 15 miles north of the intersection with US 20. As they passed National Forest Road 2820 (NF 2820) on their right, they noticed a line of trucks and other vehicles stacked up to enter US 395. There were at least eight vehicles, rather odd for the middle of a forest. This was about 4:25 PM, and about an hour out from their destination.

Once those vehicles turned north, the same direction they were traveling, it dawned on them that this might just not be a coincidence. However, optimistically, they continued on their way.

Less than a minute later, Vehicle #2 pulled over in response to flashing lights and sirens. Those who pulled over Vehicle #2 identified themselves as FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) with a loudspeaker. They then instructed the driver to exit the vehicle and walk toward them, hands on his head. He approached them, he was instructed to lie on the ground, head away from them, and “low-crawl” back to them, where they disarmed him, cuffed him and patted him down. The same procedure was then addressed to the man in the back seat (Ammon), and finally to the man in the front seat (Budda), until all three were “secured”. All three acted without resisting, and fully compliant with the instructions given. They were then placed on the ground with their backs against one of the FBI vehicles, where they remained until after those from Vehicle #1 were finally returned to that area. Ammon’s hat and briefcase were still in the Jeep when it was recovered from impound, two days later

Vehicle #1, realizing that Vehicle #2 was no longer behind them, and not wanting to separate from and abandon their friends, slowed to a stop just beyond NF 31, about 3/4 mile from where the ambush began. They were followed by two FBI vehicles that stopped about 40 feet behind them. Ryan Payne then stuck his hands and head out of the passenger side window and a single shot was fired, striking the truck near the outside rear-view mirror.

The first shot having been fired, Ryan’s concern was for the women who were well within that line of fire. He exited the truck, hands held about shoulder level, and yelled, “There are women in here”. Seeing the number of guns pointed at him, when the command was given, “hands on your head. Walk toward us”, he complied. He was then searched, handcuffed, and taken back to where the three from Vehicle #2 were detained, a few hundred yards behind Vehicle #1.

After Ryan left the vehicle, LaVoy, seeing laser dots around him, and the observers in the back seat seeing a laser dot directly on LaVoy’s hat, he sticks his head and one hand out the window and yells, “Go ahead and shoot me.” He follows that with, “We are going to meet with the Sheriff [Palmer of Grant County]. We have a meeting with the Sheriff. You are going to have to shoot me. We are going to see the Sheriff. We are going to see the Sheriff.”

LaVoy then turned to the remaining occupants and said, “We are going to see the Sheriff. If you girls want to get out, then you can.” Victoria then replied, “I am not getting out.” She was terrified because Ryan had been shot at.

Shawna, a grandmother herself, was not going to leave a little girl by herself, opted to go with the flow. So, the three in the back seat slid down, knees against the back of the front seat, getting their heads as low as possible. In the forest, there was no cell phone service, so efforts to call out were futile. Shawna, however, had her phone video camera on and was filming these events, as they happened.

At 4:33:47 PM, LaVoy accelerates and the chase was on. Shawna then asked how far they would make it before the tires would be shot out. Receiving no answer, she asked, “How far is it to John Day?” LaVoy replied, “Fifty miles.”

Just over a mile up the road, at the end of a left sweeping curve, three vehicles block the roadway. The roadside has a snow bank about 2-3 feet high. After just about 1 minute of flight, hoping to get to Sheriff Palmer at John Day, their hopes decelerate as rapidly as LaVoy’s truck before it turns slightly to the left and plows through the snow. As an agent runs into the path of the truck, LaVoy swerves further to the left, probably to avoid injuring the agent. The truck comes to its final rest. Although past the vehicles blocking the road to John Day, the failed momentum of LaVoy’s efforts to reach sanctuary with Sheriff Palmer.

Unknown to those in the truck, and those back down the road, an effort was made to warn them of what was to come.

Victoria and Shawna were last minute passengers in Vehicle #1 because Victoria was late in preparing for the trip to John Day. Her family had left more than ten minutes ahead of LaVoy, in that they were scheduled to sing at the Community Meeting, the destination of all.

When the Sharp family passed the checkpoint at Seneca, they tried to contact those behind them, but cell reception was non-existent where these events were unfolding. Any chance to forewarn them of what they might expect was not able to be conveyed.

Within seconds, LaVoy is out of the truck, hands raised, and observing where the agents are, walks widely away from the truck and towards its rear to assure that if gunfire begins, that the truck and those inside of it are not in the line of fire.

[Note: A Witness has provided a correction — that the gunfire started even before LaVoy got out of the truck, that being the shots fired at LaVoy’s truck while he was still on the road driving toward the roadblock. opf ]

The rear seat occupants slowly rise, after LaVoy exits. They are still trying to stay low, but also to observe, as best they can, what is occurring outside of the vehicle. They see LaVoy, hands in the air, trying to negotiate deep snow and probably uneven ground, stumbling, occasionally, probably because he was wearing his narrow cowboy boots.

[Note: Ryan Bundy is recording, verbally, on his cell phone, what is transpiring. Shawna Cox is taking video of the events, as they go down. Neither phone nor camera have been returned to their owners. opf ]

LaVoy then, probably still attempting to remove the threat from those still in the vehicle, yells, “Shoot me, just go ahead and shoot me.” As he is being shot, he turns back towards his friends, still in the truck, as if in a final good-bye. Just 13 seconds after LaVoy left the truck, he falls to the ground, dead. However, his arm does move, slightly, after he lay on the ground, perhaps as a last gesture to those still inside, perhaps a reflexive reaction.

Note: Second person information from one of the witnesses, indicates that LaVoy was shot

[Note: The witness has provided a correction to the article – that the witness observed at least three shots that hit LaVoy, though there may have been ore. opf ]

There is no reason to believe that he was shot in the face, only in the body-mass.

Those inside are terrified; they see that LaVoy is shot, while unarmed. In reflection, if soldiers (or Marines) in Afghanistan, had acted as the agents and shot an unarmed man, without provocation, would have violated the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of war, and would have stood Court Martial, then probably imprisoned or discharged from service. Unfortunately, the ROE do not apply here, in our own “free” country.

At the same time that the gunfire was directed at LaVoy, by two agents clearly aiming at him, those inside of the truck begin seeing laser dots, perhaps thirty or forty at any given time, and Ryan Bundy is shot in the shoulder. Bullets begin to pierce the truck; windows break, impacted by bullets. All hell breaks loose as perhaps hundreds of bullets penetrate the vehicle or hit the snow, outside, sending clouds of snow into the air. All of the windows had been broken by gunfire, which was described as “coming from every direction”.

Ryan and Victoria had gotten on their knees, ducking as low as they could while Shawna remained in the previously described position. They began to wonder if the gunfire would ever stop, and that eventually they, too, would be killed by the agents.

Laser dots were appearing on knees, seats, all over, inside of the truck and they realized that other agents had come out from behind trees on the left side, and perhaps the right side of the road, firing randomly into the truck and surrounding area. Whether through the grace of God, or simply poor marksmanship, after nearly six minutes, those inside began yelling, “Stop, stop”. Then, gunfire, flash-bang grenades, and tear gas projectiles, ceased.

During this ordeal, Victoria, who had, just finished EMT school, said, “They shot him. I want to help him”, though she was restrained from doing so by Ryan and Shawna. At eighteen years of age, gentle Victoria had seen war come to her own country.

The right side of the truck had plowed snow, so the occupants were told to exit the left door, Ryan Bundy, being first, walks, with hands up, onto the paved roadway and is secured. Next comes Victoria, and finally, Shawna. With no female agents present, Shawna watched very closely as an agent simply ran his fingers around Victoria’s waistband of her pants.

The three were then detained, but allowed to lean against a van, in an effort to stay warm, as opposed to those from Vehicle #2, where they were forced to sit on the cold ground.

After a while, Shawna and Victoria were loaded in a van (not sure of the vehicle type) and driven back to pick up Payne, McConnell, Ammon and Budda. Ryan Bundy was transported by ambulance back to Burns.

They were detained at that location for what seemed like hours. Ryan Payne, after learning of LaVoy’s death, berated the forty, or so, agents, calling them murderers and that they had blood on their hands — something that those who took over the refuge had attempted to avoid, since January 2. However, those who had constantly expressed a desire for a “peaceful resolution” had, finally, drawn first blood in a contemptible act against American citizens, thereby proving the assertions made by Ammon Bundy throughout the course of the occupation of the refuge.

Victoria was extremely upset and constantly expressing her outrage over what the government had done. Mark McConnell, surely upset himself, took it out on Victoria, for her vocal expressions, until quieted by the others.

Somehow Ammon, when searched, managed to sneak his cell phone past the pat down, and as they drove towards Burns, the interior lights of the vehicle being left on, was able to call his wife, Lisa, and began telling her what had happened, including the first outside knowledge of LaVoy’s death. As they approached Burns, the interior lights were turned off, probably so that those on the street could not see who the occupants were. The glow from the phone face now showing brightly on Ammon’s face. They then stopped, pulled them out of the vehicle and found the cell phone.

Next stop was the hospital to check on Ryan Bundy, who still had a bullet in his shoulder, then on to a rest area west of Burns, where everybody was removed. About the same time, Ryan Bundy was also delivered to the rest area.

All were given their Miranda Rights, and it is unknown whether anybody answered any subsequent questions. They were then advised that they were being charged with “conspiracy to impede officers”. The document, the Criminal Complaint, must have been prepared after the arrests were made. A nefarious practice, and probably illegal even by the standards of justice that were intended by the “due process” concept of law. This is abundantly clear by the fact that “Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum” is not listed on the Complaint, for if it were prepared before the arrests were made, his name most surely would have been included, unless they had already intended to kill him. More logically, the Criminal Complaint, a requisite for this type of arrest, was prepared after the FBI Special Agent, Katherine Armstrong, signed the Complaint, and Stacie F. Beckerman, U. S. Magistrate, signed the document, purportedly in Portland, some 300 miles away by road. Certainly, not what we should expect from our government.

Finally, all were together, though, then, each was placed in a separate vehicle for transport to their final destinations. Two vehicles transported Mark McConnell and Victoria Sharp back to Burns, where they were released. The remainder went in the opposite direction, presumably directly to Multnomah County Jail.

As far as firearms, one witness said that LaVoy had a 9-mm in his shoulder holster, well under his armpit, and there is no indication that he reached high enough or deep enough under his jacket to even get his hand close to it. With the exception of Shawna and Victoria, all were probably armed, as was the practice. Ryan Bundy appears to have dropped his firearm into the snow as he exited the vehicle. Mark McConnell had his taken when he was “apprehended” at the first stop. LaVoy’s well recognized revolver was left beside the seat when he exited Vehicle #1 to draw fire away from the remaining occupants of that vehicle.

Camp Lone Star
AUSA Hagen: “Wah, Wah, Wah!”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 6, 2016

KC Massey was sentenced on Monday, January 4, 2016. The sentencing hearing was scheduled for 8:30 AM, in the morning session; however, the Prosecutor, AUSA William (Bill) F. Hagen, ably assisted by his sidekick, Jason Edmund Corley, had filed a “SEALED – GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR NON-GUIDELINE SENTENCE” on December 30, just five days before the scheduled sentencing. Judge Hanen reschedules the hearing until 3:00 PM, at which time Massey’s Sentencing Hearing resumes. The Sentencing guidelines statute, referred to in that Motion, especially paragraphs (a) and (a)(1), can be found at 18 USC §3553.

Hagen wanted to move up the sentence from the suggested 51-61 months, as per the guideline, to the next step, 61-71 months. Instead, Hanen gave Massey two minus points. Generally, if you choose to go to trial, instead of plea, you end up with two points against you. Hanen, understanding the merit of the arguments brought forward by Massey, was convinced that the merit of the arguments overrides the built in trial penalty.

Note: Article 6, Bill of Rights, provides for a “public trial”, so whether the document is sealed, or not, if it is to be public, then it is disingenuous of the government to “Seal” a document, since they are supposed to be working for us. As a consequence, and being one of those in the “public, I hereby unseal said document, so that you can see just what the government wants to hide from you, the rest of the public.

Before we get into the other subject matter of the Sealed Document, there is one “exhibit” that is simply referenced in the “Sealed Motion” (page 6), but is actually shown in the “Government’s Sentencing Exhibits” (page 13); it is a picture of DVD disc with a sticker marking it as “Exhibit 1-J”.

To know what was said, in this exchange between Massey, who had been sworn in, and Hagen, absent access to the audio DVD, we can get some direct partial quotes from the “Sealed Motion”, when he is speaking of Massey, to wit:

His appeals are not only to the public, but also to a higher power. In a phone call from the jail to his daughter, Defendant Massey stated that while he “[didn’t] hold hate in his heart” for the prosecutor and that he had “asked God to forgive [the prosecutor],” he did nevertheless expect “God to punish [the prosecutor]… to kill his kids” and “to kill his wife.

Now, that was written, but two other sources have described the spoken word, during the Sentencing Hearing. Massey’s wife, Khristi, recalls Hagen describing what Massey said as:

Hagen is a bitch. Fuck him. God will punish him. I hope God kills his wife and her kids.

And, Massey describes some of Hagen’s words as:

He didn’t hold that against me, but he wanted God to kill my family and he called me a maggot.

Now, According to Massey, this seemed to be a matter of great emotional distress to Hagen. Though we do not have Hagen’s voice, inflections, or body language, given the words, we have an idea. It appears that Hagen was concerned for his wife and kids. Apparently, he believed, possibly understanding the sinfulness of this prosecution, that God just might listen to Massey and act on his behalf.

I will take a moment to wave my own flag. In one of the allegations in the Sealed Motion, we find the following:

On April 19th, 2015, while Defendant Massey was charged in a four count indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, he provided a link on his Facebook account sponsoring an article related to the Oklahoma City terrorist attack.³ That article referred to the Oklahoma City bombing as the act of a “patriot who intended to light the fuse of violent resistance to the government’s overarching, and deadly, imposition upon the rights of the people.”⁴ This same article goes on to analogize the prosecution of Defendant Massey with the previously stated motives of the so called “patriot” who attacked the Murrah Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma City in an act of terrorism thereby murdering innocents, including children.⁵ One month later, on May 16th, 2015, Defendant made a lengthy statement on his Facebook account asking others if they were “willing to defend this countries(sic) constitutional republic with [their] life and property.”⁶ Defendant went on in that same statement to call for a “plan of action to restore our Constitutional Republic” including “committees of safety.”⁷ Most alarmingly, on May 3rd, 2015, Defendant called upon others through his Facebook account “to make a STAND and not back down.”⁸ Defendant elaborated in this post to social media stating: “I have suffered long enough under this illegal prosecution (over 6 months) and either the Judge will do the right thing or I will. I have been very patient and they have cost me my freedom of movement and cost me thousands of dollars UNLAWFULLY and against the Constitution, and I will not keep taking it laying (sic) down. I am not a criminal nor will I be treated as such without repercussion. This is my call for Action if the courts fail to adhere to law. When criminals get killed rioters tear down cities, when patriots get arrested we all sit back and do nothing. Its (sic) time to take a stand America.” (emphasis added).⁹ On that same date Defendant commented through Facebook on the above referenced post adding: “I am requesting ALL who can to come to my house incase (sic) the feds try and pull some bullshit. They have already been trying to set me up to revoke my bond. I will NOT allow them to retake my freedom. This is an urgent call and I am not taking this call lightly. I have several acres and home to secure to make sure no unwanted people come here. If people will stand for Bundys (sic) and the Sugar Pine Mine will they stand with a proven patriot. No matter I am on a heightened alert and I will NOT allow anymore harassment or abuses by the federal government toward me. If you are really serious about making a stand, Come make it with me on my PRIVATE property.¹⁰

[Footnotes]

³ See Attachment 3, Government’s Exhibit 1 C. This post was made on the twentieth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Terrorist Bombing.

⁴ See Attachment 4, Government’s Exhibit 1 D. “April 19, 2015” by Gary Hunt published to Outpost of Freedom. The writer of this article, Gary Hunt, has remained in close contact with Defendant throughout the pendency of the prosecution. Defendant has communicated with Gary Hunt on at least eighty (80) occasions from the jail since his detention. This article is still available online at http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog…

⁵ See Attachment 4, Government’s Exhibit 1D.

⁶ See Attachment 2, Government’s Exhibit 1C.

⁷ See Attachment 2, Government’s Exhibit 1C.

⁸ See Attachment 9, Government’s Exhibit 1K.

⁹ See Attachment 9, Government’s Exhibit 1K.

¹⁰ See Attachment 9, Government’s Exhibit 1K.

Exhibit “1 D” is the entire article. What Hagen, who by this time probably really hates me, has tried to demonize Massey by his association with me, as this is just one of the instances where he tried to make Mosey own my words.

Rest assured, however, whenever I suggest that my efforts might hurt rather than help (what I offer to all of those I work with for such stories), his response was, emphatically, I don’t care, but I believe you have helped immensely. And so he laughs whenever he mentions Hagen repeatedly trying to effect such demonization.

Back to the sentencing, as this is what it is all about. Although it is necessary to understand the rather childish name-calling nature of Hagen’s efforts, we left Hanen’s decision and the reduction of the two trial related points.

So, Hagen, once again, after those points are removed, revisits, with additional arguments, and tries to elevate it back up, an “upward adjustment” to the 51-61 category, and additional discussion ensues, primarily between Hagen and Massey (who has, obviously, taken up his own defense), we approach the two hour mark. Hanen asks if anybody wanted to continue the hearing. Massey says he does not. Hanen, then, sentences Massey to the minimum in the guidelines lever, to 41 months, with credit for time served. Once more, when Hagen wants to go up, Hanen goes down, in Massey’s favor to the lowest possible sentence.

For those that know KC Massey, since he was first arrested, I had not seen, in those entire 13 months, his spirits as high as they have been, these last few days. He has taken his task to challenge the “felon in possession” law to get it contained within the limitations of the Constitution, and “Bill” Hagen has been instrumental in laying the foundation for an appeal and eventually a limitation properly imposed on the application of that law.

A final note: As much ground as the government has lost in the sentencing of KC Massey, in their press release, they appear to gloat over their success of conviction, that conviction happened months ago, but they really don’t address this current failure to get “the last ounce of blood”.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Demonization of Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 23, 2015

Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau is accused of failing to pay a tax and register a firearm with the federal government and that required that the tax be paid. However, the “firearm” was not a “firearm”, but separate parts, when the government received it, as explained in “The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau“. There were two barrels, a receiver, optical devices, and other items, in a case that was delivered to a Confidential Human Source (CHS), identified as Oliver Murphy.

Now, it is necessary to understand that all of the objects that were in that case were legally purchased. There is no crime in the possession of the objects. However, it is rather ironic that if the shorter barrel (10.5 inches long) is affixed to a rifle receiver, it becomes illegal, presumably, because the rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches (the “criminal” element), can be easily concealed because of the short length. The 10.5 inch barrel reduces both muzzle velocity and accuracy, when fired, so it is really less of a rifle. On the other hand, if you were to affix the 10.5 inch barrel to a pistol, or handgun receiver, it is legal. In contrast, the rifle receiver, which by description, must have a stock, while the pistol receiver does not. This makes the pistol with the 10.5 inch barrel considerably shorter, and more concealable, than the rifle version. So, it begs the question, is there any sense, at all, in this law that taxes the one (rifle) and not the other (pistol)?

So, now we have illustrated the extent of the charges against Barbeau. Clearly, this is about his demonization by the federal government, in an attempt to influence public opinion against Barbeau, because the law does not allow “fishing expeditions” to try to find a crime, nor did the Framers intend for the government to have such power.

The demonization begins with the information provided by the paid CHS. This is detailed in “Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License“. There are unsubstantiated claims that Barbeau claimed to have stolen “blasting caps and detonation cord” from his Army National Guard unit, though there is no indication that the well inventoried and secured items were ever stolen, nor were they found during the warranted search.

To understand the security involved in cataloging these items on a military installation, here is what Maureen Peltier, a disabled 15 year veteran that worked in supply, says about the control of such inventory:

I must add information for those not privy to our supply handling of certain equipment.
Soldiers, we all know Ammo, blasting caps, det cord are not just laying around in our Armories. We all have to go to ASP (Ammo Supply Point) to receive and only those authorized with specific Ammo handlers certification can sign out for such items for scheduled training. Transportation to and from Armory than to training site is all pre-determined. Much coordination is involved and I personally have overseen such coordination as I have in my logistics positions, coordinated from pre-planning to execution to return. Such items are handled under guard and with great caution. Storage points at Armories, just prior to live training execution, would be under weapons vault controlled by unit Supply Sergeants. Security alarm systems and a vault room inside larger weapons vault room is the proper authorized site until final movement to a designated training site.

If items such as that went ‘missing’, they would not only shut down and lock down all of the surrounding area or entire base, Soldiers would all be confined to unit AO or training site, until all missing items are recovered or an all clear by base Commanders have been issued. This would not go unnoticed. ~SSG Moe

However, when the FBI visited the National Guard unit, the only thing they had to say was that Barbeau had served eight honorable years in both the Marines and Army National Guard. There was no evidence to support the loss of the named items.

This, however, did not bar the FBI from “invading” the Aenk Ranch, some 280 miles from where Barbeau was arrested. This raid was a quasi-military operation, conducted by 25 goons, each using the same type of firearm that Barbeau is accused of possessing, and numerous other federal agents, as shown in video footage of the raid in “Domestic Terrorism“.

This raid was based on the very vague charges in violation of Title 18 (Criminal) US Code. Charges of possession of stolen federal property and possession of a machine gun. Neither of these charges have any substance, as explained above, except for the word of the paid CHS informant. So, again, it begs the question, were the “allegations” made by the paid informant simply an imaginary and contrived scenario to please those who were going to cut him a check for $3,500, or just bravado talk between friends?

Later, news channel, King 5, on December 17, did a field interview with Allen Aenk, where the damages caused by the December 6 raid on the Aenk Ranch can be seen. The segment also shows a portion of a document that had been recently unsealed at the Federal Eastern District Court, in Spokane, though not tied to the arrest and current charges against Schuyler Barbeau.

The referred to document, the affidavit supporting the search warrant that was executed on the Ranch of December 6, brings forward the additional unsubstantiated charges of violation of the criminal code.

It is important to note, since there is no proof of stolen property, it is reasonable to question, how can it be justification for such an overwhelming show of force when the nearly platoon sized army of federal agents stormed the ranch, knowing that, with the exception of Carrie Aenk who was alone at home, the other two inhabitants of the property were in federal hands, 280 miles away?

The raid, based upon such meager justification, surely cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars, which makes us ponder whether the intent of the law is, as suggested, a tax or revenue law, or is it an expansion of federal authority, outside of the constraints of the Constitution, in trying to circumvent the Second Amendment?

We are not yet finished with this story. There is little doubt that public disclosure of the raid did bring to the forefront the (obscure) possibility of criminal acts. That, of course, would produce a high degree of concern, and perhaps taint the minds of those who might sit in judgment of Schuyler Barbeau, in a jury trial. Rest assured, there is no intention, on the part of the government, or media, of letting it, at that.

On December 11, 2015, King 5 news aired a segment in which they described as a “rare insight”, especially “in light of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, last week, and other terrorist attacks across the country”, which raises a serious concern regarding Islamic Terrorism. That recently unspeakable phrase, which surely got the attention of the general public, most likely blinded or deafened to any of the above facts of the case, to date. As stated, the FBI is asking for the public’s help “in preventing the next act of terrorism.”

In that broadcast, the FBI begins by talking about “behavior that preceded the event”. They then suggest that certain individuals in the state may be in communication with ISIS, suggesting that Washington might see a brutal terrorist attack, in the near future. They are monitoring the behavior of those they have identified. Chris Ingles (King 5) suggests that Barbeau could be one of those cases the FBI had being speaking about. So, now they have classed this honorably discharged Marine/Soldier, a defender of the United States Constitution, in the same category as Islamic terrorists.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 20, 2015

As we continue to investigate the curious circumstances that on December 6, lead to an arrest, the search of a car, and the search of a ranch some 280 miles away, in what appears to be a simultaneous effort, more revelations to come to light. Why were the Search Warrants served on the Aenk Ranch? What did that have to do with Schuyler Barbeau? Was the government grasping for straws?

The Affidavit of Special Agent Michael Baldino (BA), in support of the search warrants, provides additional insight into what led to those events of December 6, 2015.

The Affidavit starts out nearly identical to the Criminal Complaint (CC). However, we see some deceptions revealed in this second document. For example, in the CC, paragraph 5, we find, “On June 5, 2015, the Seattle Division of the FBI received information from a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) regarding potential threats to law enforcement made by Washington State resident, Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau.” This would lead one to believe that Oliver Murphy approached the FBI. However, in paragraph 9 of BA, we find, “On June 5, 2015, the Seattle Division of the FBI received information from another law enforcement agency that resulted in FBI Special Agent Daniel Bennett contacting a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) regarding potential threats to law enforcement made by Washington State resident, Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau¹.” So, now we see that there was another law enforcement agency involved, although we have no idea what led them to Murphy. However, the footnote to the superscript provides even more insight, when we read that footnote, “¹The FBI has paid the CHS for his involvement in this matter over $3,500.” That’s right; Oliver Murphy sold his friend, Schuyler Barbeau, out to the government. So, now, we have to evaluate whether what Murphy told the government is truthful, partially truthful, or fabricated. After all, that is an incentive to make sure that the feds get what they want so that he gets his “paycheck”.

Interestingly, as well, in the CC, it appears that Baldino has personal knowledge, where in the BA, we find that SA Bennett is the contact with Murphy. So, we can see from the beginning that they are just throwing words on paper in order to achieve their rather nefarious ends. And, that they bought a source to go after Schuyler Barbeau.

Interestingly, in CC paragraph 13, and again in BA paragraph 14, we find, “the CHS [Oliver Murphy] met with Barbeau and informed him that he/she had a buyer interested in purchasing his SBR for the 5,000 dollars Barbeau had asked for previously.” Rather ironic, in that on December 5, 2015, Murphy’s Facebook page shows that he started a relationship with Sam Erickson, which is confirmed on Sam Erickson’s Facebook page. However, the government was simply trying to protect the gender of the informant, but, rest assured, we will out the informants, as they arise.

The CC ends with paragraph 17, which is the same as BA paragraph 18. This is a rather interesting statement, as I spoke with the person that was with Barbeau the day (November 22) that he dropped the case off at Murphy’s house. The case contained a receiver and 2 barrels. This paragraph tells us that “ATF Special Agent Claudia Grigore inspected the SBR at the FBI’s office in Seattle and certified that the barrel was less than 16 inches in length“, however, they don’t mention that there were two barrels, nor do they say whether they had to affix one of the barrels to the receiver, to make that statement. Not very professional, but, it does appear to suit their purpose of demonizing Barbeau to omit such a crucial detail.

The Affidavit, however, continues, and this is where the justification for the raid at the Aenk Ranch begins.

On December 4 (this is the day before Oliver developed a relationship with Sam), in a recorded phone conversation, Murphy asked if the Aenks knew how much money Barbeau was getting from the sale of the parts. Was this an effort to try to implicate the Aenks in criminal activity? Barbeau’s answer, “They know what’s going on“, is rather innocuous, but it just might help to demonize the Aenks for having a friend like Schuyler Barbeau.

In paragraph 20, the Affidavit states that according to Murphy, “Barbeau said that he had stolen some blasting caps and detonation cord from his U.S. Army National Guard unit.”

In paragraph 21, FBI SA Bennett spoke with the National Guard on June 29 and 30. This then would be the first investigation after Barbeau came onto the government radar (June 5). However, they do not receive any information regarding the possible theft at the National Guard until October 19, over four months later. I suppose that the FBI has some mystical crystal ball with which to determine the course of an investigation, before the investigation develops information — or they are lying, or otherwise purposely excluding something.

However, it is interesting that in contacting the National Guard, they find that Barbeau had an Honorable Discharge from both the Marines and National Guard, over the course of his eight years of service. They do point out that he was a “combat engineer” suggesting that he would know what to do with blasting caps and detonation cord. However, whether they asked, or not, they do not tell us if any blasting caps or detonation cord was missing. If none was missing, it would blow the story. If some was missing, then surely they would have so stated. Either that, or their investigative skills are lacking.

So, we have no definitive proof that what might just be bragging, “I stole some blasting caps and detonation cord”, is supported by any evidence that any blasting caps or detonation cord is missing. However, if you want to “get your man”, why quibble over facts or details.

On November 8, Barbeau, Carrie Aenk, and Murphy met at a restaurant. According to the BA, Murphy was wired for sound. However, rather than providing quotations from the recording, we get Bennett’s interpretation, which does not let us know the context of anything said, or whether all present were privy to what was being discussed. Then, after the meeting, Murphy informs Bennett that they were planning to retrieve a bag from the woods. Why would Murphy have to inform Bennett, if Bennett has a recording of all that transpired? Bennett does provide some quotes, but the context that would suggest knowledge, as opposed to observations, demonstrates that deficiency is indicative of inability.

After the meeting, incompetence on the part of “law enforcement” is demonstrated, when Barbeau and Aenk left the restaurant. The tail apparently lost contact with the vehicle.

Later, that same evening, the FBI observed Aenk in the car, but does not mention Barbeau. Twenty-seven minutes later, the vehicle was gone. Boy, that’s twice in one night that law enforcement and/or the FBI could not keep track of a vehicle. No wonder that Muslims can shoot up Christmas parties, even though they are on the watch list.

The BA continues, with superfluous information, mostly to try to establish that Barbeau was a tough guy. The end result was that the Search Warrants were issued on December 5, and executed the following day.

Perhaps most interesting however, is the fact that the search yielded nothing that led to any additional charges being filed against Barbeau. The original charges, based upon the Arrest Warrant for tax violations, are all that the government can prosecute Schuyler on. They have simply gone through these additional exercises to be able to demonize him by referencing “stolen federal property”, which they cannot find, and cannot even prove that it was stolen, in the first place. The accusation of possessing a machine gun, based upon no direct observation, only upon a conversation (included in the BA), and, most recently, the effort to describe Schuyler as a “domestic terrorist“.

Oliver Murphy

Since we have a little more paper, let’s look at the primary witness against Barbeau. Oliver Murphy has been described by friends and family as a very close friend of Schuyler. I have been told that Schuyler began suspecting Murphy of being an informant, about a week before he was arrested. That would also be about a week after Schuyler delivered the case of firearms parts to Murphy (November 22). Perhaps this played out when Schuyler contacted Murphy to ask for the $5,000 (purchase price), and Murphy said that he didn’t have it. Then, Schuyler probably said that he wanted the parts back. But, Murphy would have to say that he didn’t have them — because he had given them to the FBI. So, no money, no parts. That might raise Schuyler’s suspicion of Murphy’s role in what was soon to play out.

There is more to Murphy, which has been alluded to, previously. Murphy had a wife and three daughters, according to sources. When he was first identified as CHS, there was concern that he may have been coerced by the FBI — charged with a crime and made to plea out so that he could continue to provide for his family. However, with the amount ($3,500) that he was paid as an informant (which is what the FBI refers to as Confidential Human Source (CHS)), and his new relationship, that theory speculation apart.

As can be readily understood, Murphy had abandoned family life for a new (and unfortunately rather common) queer relationship. Rather than concern for family, perhaps needing money to start a “new life” was instrumental in Murphy turning on his old friend.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

Domestic Terrorism?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 18, 2015

Update

Yesterday, Schuyler Barbeau was Indicted by a Grand Jury. He was indicted solely on the information in the Criminal Complaint. He is only charged with violating Title 26, US Code §§5861(d) and 5845(a)(3), to wit:

26 U.S.C. § 5861: Prohibited acts

It shall be unlawful for any person –

   (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; or

26 U.S.C. § 5845 : Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter –

   (a) Firearm The term “firearm” means

     (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

They have also included the forfeiture provision (26 US Code §5872(a)) which would allow them to keep any firearms, if Schuyler is convicted of the crime.

Before we get in to just who is a terrorist, it would not hurt to revisit the Search Warrants that were served at the Ranch. The search warrants included Title 18 provisions that were not included in the Criminal Complaint. Had the Search Warrant been in compliance with the constitutionally required limitations, “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”, the only items that could have been included were the Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and any other barrels or objects directly related to the SBR. However, what they took, they presumed the right to take based upon the Search Warrant reference to “(b) possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).”

To make matters worse, they have alleged that Schuyler was a “domestic terrorist”, and I’m sure they expressed that to the Grand Jury. I am equally sure that though the Search Warrant has yet to be filed on the Court Docket, that the Grand Jury was probably made privy to it — most likely to demonize Schuyler so that the Jury would feel no doubt that they had to indict him. However, the Grand Jury only indicted Schuyler on the original charges from the Complaint.

Is Schuyler the Terrorist?

However, this whole episode with the Search warrant leads us to consider who the terrorists really are. Schuyler was accused of having a rifle receiver, a 10.5 inch, and an 18 inch barrel, both of which would fit the receiver, but he didn’t register and pay the tax on what could have been made from the otherwise legal parts.

The government, in the hearing on December 14, accused Schuyler of being a “domestic terrorist”. To support these allegations, the Criminal Complaint states:

The CHS advised that Barbeau frequently told the CHS that the federal government was not abiding by the principles set forth in the Constitution and that many public servants, such as judges and police officers who had sworn to uphold it, had deviated from their oath of office. Barbeau told the CHS that it was his duty to educate public servants who were not living up to their oath and discussed “lynching” those he deemed unworthy if necessary. In one instance, Barbeau told the CHS that he and other like-minded individuals would physically remove a California judge presiding over a misdemeanor weapons violation he received there in the fall of 2014.

Well, that is hearsay, to say the least, but they also said that he was going to “hang a judge”. So, were these just words under Freedom of Speech, or was he serious about what he had said, such as in the context of a threat or incitement? He never moved in that direction, or otherwise indicated that he intended to carry out this “threat”. So, if this is the extent, well, we must also include a rifle (SBR) that, if he had registered and paid the $200 tax, would have been as legal as his political statements under Freedom of Speech. Schuyler never threatened (coerced or intimidated) the judge, and if the judge knew what he said, it would probably be because the government told the judge what they said that Schuyler said.

However, the government says that he is a terrorist simply because of their claims of Schuyler’s possession of a machine gun, stolen federal property, and the utterance of vague hearsay of THREATS.

So, what law would make him a “domestic terrorist? What is the government trying to tell the Court and the Grand Jury? Well, here it is:

18 U. S. C, §2331.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.

There would have to be “acts dangerous to human life”, and criminal in nature. Or, that appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population”, or to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.” So, with these three choices, which, if any, did Schuyler’s actions fit into? None? Well, that’s what I understand, too.

By the way, Schuyler was honorably discharged from the Marines Corp, after 4 years of service to his country. He then went into the Army and served another 3 years, and was again, Honorably Discharged.

Is the Government Conducting Terrorist Activities?

Well, that is a tough question. If we ask Mainstream Media, or the government, we know what the answer will most likely be. That, however, like what Schuyler has said, is just words, with no actions to back up those words. I suppose we could call that Freedom of Speech, though a gross distortion of Freedom of the Press.

However, on December 6, while Schuyler was arrested, and Allen Aenk was being detained and his car searched, without a warrant, other activity (actions) was taking place. However, it wasn’t “domestic terrorists” (or, was it?) that entered the Aenk Ranch. At 12:40 PM, fifteen thugs, dressed in battle gear, entered the property, bypassing a locked driveway gate. They were soon followed by two more squads comprised of five thugs, each.

However, rather than me telling the story, so there be no doubt, we will let the videos from the security cameras tell the story. I will assist be giving a description, the video time stamp, and the [true time], as we go through the five cameras (channels) captured that afternoon. The videos have been edited to reduce the over 7 hours of total footage into just the significant portions.

Channel 1 (at Front Gate, from house) (38:04 long):

0:46 [12:37:46] The goon squads turns off of Springdale Hunter Road, in the distance, onto a private easement road.

2:50 [12:39:51] The first vans of battled dressed goon squads arrive at the front of the property.

3:31 [12:40:32] The 15 thugs begin entering the property, SBRs at the ready, reminiscent of the military tactics used in villages in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7:27 [12:49:47] Five more thugs enter the property.

9:18 [12:55:06] Five more thugs enter the property, making 25 thugs, and a number of supervisory personnel.

12:28 [12:58:36] The front gate is unlocked using the key that was voluntarily given to the thugs by Carrie Aenk. Understand that the government already knew that Allen and Schuyler were detained near Seattle, nearly 300 miles away. If they had any intelligence (of either kind), they would have known that Carrie was home alone.

15:03 [01:00:59] Twenty-four minutes after the initial entry, Carrie is escorted to one of the kennels, handcuffed and with a coat thrown over her shoulder (this, after being thrown down in the mud. See “Carrie’s Statement“), to secure some of the dogs — without the use of her hands. After all, there are only 25 goons.

16:34 [01:02:20] Enter an important person with case in hand, and another important person with bag in hand.

32:17 [02:34:03] Vehicles begin leaving.

32:48 [02:43:27] Important person leaves with case (16:34), box and envelope.

33:25 [02:44:04] Important person w/baggage meets non-government looking vehicle. Important person walks from vehicle, without baggage, about 20 seconds later.

36:45 [03:30:11] Silver SUV pulls into driveway (SA Baldino), parks just out of frame, appears to reach into back seat (37:03).

Channel 2 (Right of entry gate, from house) (7:49 long):

0:15 [12:40:53] Goons “sweep” the property, anticipating major action from sole occupant (Carrie) One goon slips and falls on the ice (right side of frame), comes up prepared to fire his weapon.

4:42 [03:30:19] SA Baldino arrives (See Channel 1 – 36:45)

4:53 [03:30:29] SA Baldino does something, difficult to explain, at back door of SUV (See Channel 1 37:03.)

7:02 [03:40:38] Drives away with passengers. Thugs have left the property, 3 hours and 4 minutes after entry.

Channel 3 (West entry gate, from house) Note: This channel included for a little levity, and to watch taxpayer dollars wasted. (11:19 long):

00:04 [12:45:49] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment of pickup truck.

00:33 [12:46:47] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment, this time with SBR and Tactical Light aimed at potential threats.

2:45 [12:58:10] Goon wary of “vicious dog”.

3:39 [12:59:26] Other goon tries to befriend the “vicious dog”.

3:56 [03:56:55] Flash bang goes off, cracking window and forces security camera into black and white mode.

Channel 4 (storage area; Schuyler’s trailer – far left, from house) (48:21 long):

Note: Throughout this video, remember that the warrant listed stolen federal property and machine guns. Since then, we have learned that they were also looking for explosives. Note how cursory the search of the storage area is. A machine gun, explosive, and unidentified stolen federal property could easily have been overlooked.

00:14 [12:41:06] Goon passes entry tool to another goon, prefatory to breaking in through back door of house. Apparently, the entry team was not quite ready to enter.

1:28 [12:42:17] Note the camera shuttering, followed by smoke in about 15 seconds. This was probably one of the “flash bangs” set off while “clearing” the house.

1:55 [12:44:42] First goon enters Schuyler’s trailer (left, with ladder leaning against it).

11:50 [12:58:16] Carrie Aenk enters at left of frame, handcuffed and a coat thrown over her shoulders, escorted by a goon.

12:35 [12:59:49] Carrie enters at left of frame, escorted by one goon and one important person.

30:30 [01:36:47] Two goons go up the hill, above storage, for some reason. Probably to relive themselves.

41:50 [02:13:04] Box is handed out of Schuyler’s trailer.

42:54 [02:17:03] Trailer door closed. One hour and 33 minutes in the search of Schuyler’s trailer.

47:41 [02:37:24] Plastic tote box and cardboard box carried from 4-wheeler to leave scene left. Note the apparent weight of the two boxes and compare that with the inventoried items in the Search Warrants (page 4), and consider the apparent weight.  Also note, in Channel 1, that the plastic tote box never left the property through the gate.   So, where did it go?

Channel 6 (Southeast corner of house) (2:12 long): Short, simply another view of clearing the area.

 Conclusion

We saw that Schuyler had none of the elements of a “domestic terrorist”, and though we won’t have an exact match, we can look at what you have seen in the videos and see that 25 plus thugs, battle dressed and often raising their weapons, can readily be considered as an act “dangerous to human life”, even when performed by the government. After all, I believe that they are human, just like us, and since many of us, including Schuyler Barbeau, have received probably more training in the use of firearms, while in military service, then some of these goons.

There is little doubt that this display of force was intended “to intimidate or coerce”, though perhaps not a population, but the population of the Aenk Ranch, whether in Springdale or Seattle.

And, the Search Warrant, along with other misrepresentations, are accusations without any foundation, such as suggesting that Schuyler was a domestic terrorist, are, without a doubt, intended to “influence…a government” entity, specifically, the Grand Jury, to secure an indictment.

If government was granted, by the people via the Constitution, the authority to do anything, it was because we, the People, had the authority to grant them theirs. Should we expect them to act with as much, if not more, integrity than we would expect of ourselves? Or, did we, as they assume, make them our masters?

If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

That’s all I have.

Timothy McVeigh, August 14, 1997 — just prior to being officially sentenced to death

Camp Lone Star
Follow Up on a Show of Support for KC Massey

The Lone Warrior

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 7, 2015

I spoke with KC on Monday.  He had received a number of “I Care Gifts” (https://camerontx.icaregifts.com/), and some money has come in to his commissary account, via PayPal.  Letters, cards, and money orders would not have arrived since the Show of Support for KC Massey was put out last Thursday, but what has come in has given KC an understanding of just how many people support him and are willing to do something to demonstrate their concern.

Let’s look at it from KC’s perspective.  He is in jail and his contact with outside is very limited.  He talks to Khristi, his wife, regularly; he talks to me quite often; and, he is in phone contact with a few other close friends.  Beyond that, the world does not exist.  He has felt like the patriot community has abandoned him, since he has no idea of what transpires in discussions on Facebook and other Internet communications areas.  The government follows all of this, but they damned sure will not tell KC what support he has, so KC thinks, regardless of what we tell him, that he has been abandoned.

The display of support that has come in, so far, has given him to understand that the support is still there.  Reality has hit him, like “a 2×4 up the side of his head”, that people realize the potential effect of his battle with the misinterpretation of a federal law, and that the support that he was hoping that he had through this ordeal was really there, all along, but the means of showing that support has manifested itself in something quite demonstrable in the form of gifts, monetary, and especially, the letters of encouragement that he has, and, hopefully, will continue to receive.

Easily the least expensive and the easiest to provide, in terms of you showing support, is a letter or card.  And, perhaps, the most meaningful and long lasting, as the commissary account will, eventually, dry up, and the I Care Gifts will eventually be consumed.  Those letters and cards, however, will, like the Bible that he keeps close, always be there as a reminder of the good things that make his ordeal worthwhile.  You need not stop at just one letter.  He needs the Commissary for pen, paper, and postage, but I am sure that he will have plenty of time, until this gets before the Appellate Court, to reply to those of you who send their words of support.

For those who wish to participate in the Support for KC Massey, and for those who want to add to the support that they have already shown, mailing address and other information can be found at the bottom of the Show of Support for KC Massey.

Finally, I will pass on what KC asked me to express his thanks to those who have supported him with action, and those who have simply supported him with their thoughts:

“Express to them my Heartfelt Thanks for their support for me,
and, my standing against a despotic government.”

Camp Lone Star – Show of Support for KC Massey

The Lone Warrior

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 1, 2015

Yesterday, September 30, 2015, was the big day for KC Massey’s challenge to the federal Felon in Possession of a Firearm law (18 USC §922(g)(1)). Though there were hopes that somehow Judge Andrew Hanen would rule, finding KC not guilty, that was not the case. However, there was a reason that Hanen could not come to that verdict, but had to rule Massey guilty.

What is known as “stare decisis” (The legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent), which requires that a Circuit Court judge must abide by previously decided cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts, was held to. Unlike some District Court judges, Hanen abides by his responsibility to the law and cannot use the Wisdom of Solomon to make his decision.

However, as pointed out in previous posts, Hanen has gone overboard to assure that the record of the current case is loaded, as the Appellate Court can only rule on the record (official court documents) of this case. He has, twice, extended to Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, the opportunity to load that record so that there is sufficient argument to make a good case before the Appellate Court.

In an interview with Mike and Khristi, who attended the trial, I can provide a little insight into the proceedings. A more detailed explanation will be provided, once the transcripts of the trial are available.

The government brought in an expert witness that testified that the weapons that had been taken form Massey had been manufactured out of state, explaining, in detail, how he was able to come to that conclusion. This does raise an interesting question. It would require that someone who provided you a gun to patrol the border knew that it was manufactured out of state, and, it would also require that you knew that the gun was manufactured out of state. I suppose that the federal law, as interpreted by the government, requires specialized knowledge for the people to come to the conclusion that the firearm was manufactured elsewhere, though by their own admission, it took an expert to make that determination on behalf of the government.

There is another possibility, that the government’s interpretation of the law is other than what the law really means. And, that is the subject which keeps the door open for Massey’s case to make law, once it is heard before the Appellate Court.

What we have been referring to as the “Has/Had” argument challenges the government interpretation that any gun that has crossed state line cannot be possessed by a felon, regardless of how long ago that felon was committed, and sentence served. In Massey’s case, that was 28 years.

So, Hanen, in open court and on the record, stated that the “Has/Had” argument seemed valid and that it was “ripe for appeal”. That means that the particular “Has/Had” argument has never been decided by a higher court, and it appears that he sees merit in the argument and believes that the higher court, the one that makes “stare decisis” (law), based upon the wording in the statute, needs to hear this case on appeal.

After the trial, Louis told Khristi and Mike that Massey’s case would rewrite history. With this, I am inclined to agree. And, we can consider the consequences to those who are patriotic, though fearful of being charged and convicted under this federal law, when the law is misapplied by the government and falsely creates a crime where none exists. Even transporting, not for commerce, would no longer be criminal for those who have a felony on their record.

KC had expressed his desire to speak to the judge, though if he went on the stand, it would open for the prosecution the right to extensive cross-examination. However, during closing arguments, Massey kept trying to state his feelings. After some discussion, the Judge decided that he could, as a part of the closing statements, say what he felt.

What Massey managed to get on the records (not verbatim) is, “As a common man, all I have is the letter of the law to go by. And you f***ers screwed up on the law, so, what else am I supposed to do?” To this, the Judge said that he was sorry and that he was held by case precedence.

Twice, during the trial, the Judge said that he didn’t agree with what was going on, in his heart. That is not what a judge intent on holding up the government’s position would say, and that, too, is a part of the record.

In a brief conversation, after the trial, Hagen, the US Attorney, expressed is apprehensive as to the results of an appeal. I believe he knows that he will, eventually, loose this case.

At the end of the trial, Hagen ask for permission to take pictures of all of the guns and then destroy them. Judge Hanen refused to give permission, most likely because the guns will have to be returned to Massey, after the Appellate decision, as his property. Apparently, Hanen is that sure that the conviction will be overturned and case law adjusted to limited the federal felon in possession law to apply only, and specifically, where it belongs, to the government’s overstretched authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Though Massey and I have frequently, for the last twelve months, discussed the probability that this would have to go to the Appellate Court, when the finding of guilty was given, it had an effect on him.

He called me as soon as he got back to jail, but he was forlorn. He said that he can’t take any more, that this guilty verdict has sapped all of his strength. There was nothing that I could say that would cheer him up. He feels that he has been abandoned by the patriot community and his friends. And, this leads us to where we can help this brave soul as he fights a battle that will serve the patriot community more than any other act in recent years. We need to show our support for KC Massey. It doesn’t have to be a lot, but it has to be numerous, so that he knows that we are behind him. So, here is what you can do:

Show of Support for KC Massey

Note: changed to this permanent address as of July 2016

Kevin Massey  76555379
FCI Seagoville
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, Texas  75159

KC is no longer at this address.

Remember, KC Massey is like a Prisoner of War, but still fighting the battle, the outcome of which will be a significant return to the Constitution, and curtailment of unwarranted government power.

Camp Lone Star — Down to the Wire

Ninth Amendment Rights

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 27, 2015

As was explained in “The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?“, Massey’s attorney had brought two matters up in his Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment. They were the Tenth Amendment and Intrastate v. Interstate commerce. The government, through their apparently novice attorney, Corley, argued that Massey did not have standing to challenge the government’s prosecution of him (sort of a “bend over, we will take care of everything” mentality).

This past Wednesday (September 23rd), Judge Andrew Hanen filed his Opinion and Order, addressing all three of the sought actions.

First, he addressed the government’s, stating that “Massey makes a… claim – that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him, impermissibly regulates intrastate activity. Therefore, he has standing to challenge § 922(g)(1).” So, we have dispensed with the government’s feeble effort to claim that Massey had n standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of the law he was charged with violating..

Next, he addresses the Tenth Amendment claim. Unfortunately, being a District Court, the Judge is bound by previous decisions of the Fifth Circuit, to which it is subordinate. Justice, perhaps not, but still the rules of the corrupt game for what passes for justice, in these times.

However the final ruling, this one has, apparently, not been addressed by the Fifth Circuit, at least to the extent that Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, has taken it. In what Hanen has described as “The Purely Intrastate Claim”, he states:

“Since the Government bears the burden of proving this element, and since the trial has yet to be held, the facts upon which Massey’s claim stands have not yet been established one way or the other. Until evidence has been presented, the Court is unable to evaluate this claim.”

“Therefore this argument is denied without prejudice because it is not yet ripe. Massey may reassert it at trial should he conclude that the evidence supports this claim.”

So, it appears that Judge Hanen is willing to venture into a substantive argument with regard to the difference between Interstate and Intrastate commerce. He has also placed the burden on the government to prove its jurisdiction. This leads us to review some things that have been brought up in discussion, though, perhaps, not in Court. We will revisit a previous article, “Massey is Protected by State Law” to put this argument before the people, if not the Court.

To begin with, the State of Texas has granted authority for federal agents certain powers with the enactment of Texas Penal Code, Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS. From that law (pertinent portions only):

(a) The following named criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search, and seizure under the laws of this state as to felony offenses only:

(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(3) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(4) Special Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshals Service;

 (c) A Customs and Border Protection Officer or Border Patrol Agent of the United States Customs and Border Protection or an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security is not a peace officer under the laws of this state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the agent or officer has probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice proceeding.

So, the extent of the authority to arrest, which would also include detaining a person, is only “the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state [Texas].”

Though the Tenth Amendment argument has been denied, there can be little doubt that the above enactment, by the State of Texas, is an assertion of the State’s rights (not the individual’s right, as per denied motion) to limit federal authority within the State.

So, it would be rather interesting to discover if the government’s witnesses are aware of this grant of authority, and the limitations imposed upon them, by Article 2.122. If they are not, was the government remiss in advising them, or did the government hope that they would assert authority not granted to them so that the federal government would have a broad reign over activities within the State, in the hope that case law would help affirm authority beyond that which was left to them by the State grant?

So, if the federal authority is limited by “any offense under the laws of this state”, they exceeded their authority by the detention of people who were not witness to any crime that might have been a felony under state law, and the only possible violation of that law was committed by the BPS shooter, and, perhaps even those who illegally detained (kidnapped) Massey and Varner.

Let’s revisit state law regarding firearms. From Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm

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

(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

So, this law makes it illegal to possess “at any location other than the premise”. However, apparently exception was made in another provision, Texas Penal Code, Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS (again, pertinent portions):

(a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, “watercraft” means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Since Massey is no longer prohibited from possessing a weapon, and where we have a definition of “premises” (re: 46.04) and the ability to transport a weapon, then it is clear that Massey was not in violation of state law, and if in violation, it would only be a misdemeanor, unless he was in a place that sold alcoholic beverages, then clearly the state has no objection to his possession of a firearm under the circumstances surrounding Massey, throughout this entire ordeal.

Now, the enumerated right is the right to keep and bear arms. The government argues that 18 USC 922(g)(1) includes any firearm that is:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

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

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

Intrastate Commerce

Now, let’s look at how 18 US Code defines “interstate commerce”:

18 U.S.C. § 921 : US Code – Section 921: Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter –

(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State…

However, I find no definition of “Commerce” in 18 US Code, so we will look at the legal authority, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition):

“The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchange of articles…”

So, commerce is the exchange of goods, barter, sale, trade, or any other means, to be “in and affecting commerce” would require that one be involved in such a transaction.

Defining that even further, we have “interstate or foreign commerce” specifically excluding “intrastate” commerce, to wit:

“but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State”

So, if Massey had purchased (commerce) a firearm within the state, it would take a real stretch to include “interstate”. However, Massey never purchased (commerce) any firearm, he merely possessed a firearm. Even if Massey had received it as a gift, it is inconceivable that this could create the necessary nexus to interstate commerce that the statute addresses. However, the government cannot even prove that he owns a firearm, and that is the burden that is placed upon them, by Hanen’s Opinion.

Now, that is twice removed from the apparent extent of the charges brought under 18 USC §922(g)(1). No interstate, and, no commerce.

Since the Fifth Circuit has ruled on the Tenth Amendment, and it is no longer a legal defense for Massey, it does not preclude the state from passing laws that are consistent with the Tenth Amendment, which, obviously, they have done.

So, let’s refer to this as the Ninth Amendment argument. The federal government has raised no objection to the state laws referred to above, so they must be constitutional. The Ninth Amendment reads:

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

The question is whether Massey has the right, under the Ninth Amendment, to possess a firearm, if he is totally in compliance with state law, and has not been involved in interstate commerce.

Camp Lone Star – The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 2015

At the last hearing, Judge Hanen had told KC’s attorney, Sorola, that the Motion to Dismiss Indictment wasn’t written correctly. That motion had been denied in, which is discussed in Act II – A Kangaroo Court – Scene 1 – How Case Law Subverts the Constitution. Judge Hanen allowed that Sorola might submit a supplemental motion, and said that he was willing to hear a jurisdictional argument. AUSA Hagen was not pleased with the decision; however, dates were set for both the motion and opposition to be submitted to the Court.

Sorola filed his Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment, which “incorporates” the previous Notion to Dismiss. So we will look at what has been entered in support of the jurisdictional aspect of the case.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Violates The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment provides: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As this Amendment makes clear, and as the Supreme Court has long-recognized, the federal government is one of enumerated, limited powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland. Accordingly, the federal government may act only where the Constitution so authorizes. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

A corollary to this rule is that Congress may not act in areas prohibited to it. As Justice Thomas noted in his concurrence in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring), the Constitution “places whole areas outside the reach of Congress,” such as the First Amendment’s preventing “Congress from ‘prohibiting the free exercise’ of religion or ‘abridging the freedom of speech.'” Id. Justice Thomas went on to explain that the “Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government’s authority,” and stated: This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” a colorable argument exists that the federal government’s regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment’s protections. Although Printz dealt with a successful challenge to the Brady Act’s requirement that state law enforcement officers conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers, the logic of Justice Thomas’s reasoning is compelling with respect to § 922(g)(1): the Tenth Amendment limits federal power; the Second Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing the individual right to bear arms; thus, it surely cannot be constitutional for the federal government to prohibit a person’s purely intrastate possession of firearms.

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Massey respectfully requests that the Court find 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him and dismiss the pending indictment.

Of course, AUSA Hagen has to answer this Motion, who knows, maybe even his future as a United States Attorney is in jeopardy, since this is a high profile case and Hagen has stated that he has been pressured from above to win this case. However, it appears that Mr. Hagen was not up to answering Sorola’s Motion, so we have a new player, AUSA Jason Corley (the new King), who filed the “Government’s Response” to Massey’s Motion.

Massey’s motion was simply three pages, the above being the substantial portions thereof. However, the Government’s Response was 24 pages. And, as I began reading the Government’s Response, a quote from W. C. Fields popped into my mind:

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

As I continued reading, I realized that the position Corley was taking, he was asserting as if he were King. He has his interpretation of what something means, and there is absolutely no attempt to balance justice with what he believes. This brought to mind another historical quote, most often expressed shortly before the ousting, or abdication, of a King, who refused to abide by the constitution or exercise any semblance of justice. – The King can do no Wrong!

Now, to restrain you from falling asleep or rolling on the floor laughing, I will only address some of the aspects of the government’s argument.

First, we will talk about legal theory, since that seems to be an important consideration on the government’s part. The following, though interspersed through the Motion, are consolidated simply to demonstrate their concern:

1. Defendant’s motion is not ripe for consideration as a factual matter. Defendant has presented merely a legal theory, namely that “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm cannot be infringed by the federal government of the United States. Defendant has not, however, presented any facts whatsoever let alone “sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.” (page 4)
2. Defendant now files a motion to dismiss the indictment based solely on a proposed legal theory that “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm by a felon (or presumably any other individual) cannot be regulated or criminalized by the federal government. (page 6)
3. But this factual issue does not tangentially create a legal dispute on a matter not in controversy, namely an unrelated constitutional theory cloaked as a suppression issue. (page 7)
4. Article III of the United States Constitution grants the Court authority to adjudicate ‘cases’ or ‘controversies’, not irrelevant and tangential legal theory… Defendant does not have standing to challenge any supposed government regulation or criminalization of “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm. (page 8)
5. Because Defendant’s second motion to dismiss proposes an irrelevant and tangentially reached legal theory, and because Defendant does not have standing to challenge that issue, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to dismiss the indictment. (page 8)
6. Because both legal theory and binding case law are contrary to Defendant’s proposition, the Government respectfully requests that Defendant’s second motion to dismiss be denied. (page 11)
7. The legal theory postulated by Defendant is just that, a legal theory. Other legal theory supports the proposition that the federal government through an act of Congress may indeed have the authority to criminalize “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm by a felon should Congress make the requisite findings that it is necessary and proper to criminalize possession of a firearm by a felon to promote the general welfare of the American people, insure domestic tranquility, and establish justice. (page 15)

So, let’s look at what he has said. In #1 and #2, he suggests that it is a “legal theory” the “‘purely’ intrastate possession of a firearm cannot be infringed by the federal government”. Well, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, the Commerce Clause is based ” foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. And, the government has yet to directly control intrastate commerce under the provision.

There is little doubt that the government has tried, by twisted abuse of our language (See Motion to Dismiss Indictment), tried to extent their authority to any firearm that had been in interstate commerce, though, as we will discuss, they change the language when it suits their purpose.

In #3 and #4, he suggests that it is an “unrelated constitutional theory”. In this same document, he cites the Constitution as the authority, as he sees it, as absolute, as if spoken by the King, himself. So, there is no theory allowed on the public side, since only the government side can cite their interpretation of the Constitution as legitimate. This kinda makes you wonder why they even use a pretext of justice when they simply want to imprison someone.

In both #4 and #5, he suggest that it is “irrelevant” that Massey challenge the Indictment because he has no standing, presumably, to defend himself. Once again, the King has spoken.

In 1936, in the Supreme Court decision of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (297 US 288), Justice Brandeis, in a separate but concurring decision, provided insight into the evolving role of the United States Supreme Court, wherein he said:

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

[Rule] 5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation…”

It was clear that the matter of standing had to do with matters brought to that Court, on certiorari, or error. It did not provide a means whereby a trial on criminal charges, in the lowest court of the federal system, could deny standing to challenge the law or the jurisdiction of the matter upon which one was charged.

In #6 and #7, he tends to give credence to the legal theory by stating that theory and case law are “contrary to [Massey’s] proposition”. However, we must understand that the government proposed another “legal theory”. That “theory” is suggested in the following excerpt:

Were Congress to make the proper findings and act in the interest of the “general Welfare” of the people of the United States, it is theoretically possible Congress could, and theoretically possible Congress does, have the constitutional power to regulate and criminalize all possession of firearms by felons. Congress, however, has not chosen to act pursuant to alternative powers and has instead relied on the Commerce Clause. Because of this, an interstate nexus relating to possession of the firearms is an element of the crime and any challenge the Defendant is raising in regard to “purely” intrastate possession is a factual challenge, not a constitutional one.

Now, this brings us into a whole new world of conjecture. He theorizes that Congress could, do, and does have the power to, criminalize any possession by any felon, anywhere within this (mythical) Kingdom. It has bee clearly established, when Equal Protection was discussed, that if a firearm or ammunition were manufactured in a state, those possessing such firearms and ammunition are not subject to criminal charges, since the firearm and/or ammunition had not entered interstate commerce. So, is Corley suggesting that Congress is too damned stupid to see the loophole that have left for those who live in certain states, or that they are wise enough to know that those living in those states are not the type that the felon in possession law was intended for, regardless of the fact that those with felony convictions are still felons. Or, his the King (government), perhaps, capable of doing wrong?

If his theory were correct, under the “general Welfare” provision of the Constitution, they (Congress) could dictate any, and every, aspect of our lives. Now, there is little doubt that they are slowly creeping in that direction, but AUSA Corley seems to think that we have already arrived.

Moving right along, we find, on page 6 of the Government’s Response:

“Article III of the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ In our system of government, courts have ‘no business’ deciding legal disputes or expounding on law in the absence of such a case or controversy.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno. “A controversy is mooted when there are no longer adverse parties with sufficient legal interests to maintain the litigation.” “Accordingly, an actual, live controversy must remain at all stages of federal court proceedings, both at trial and appellate levels.”

Talking about stretching the hell out of an argument, the controversy here is a criminal charge brought by the US government against Massey. It is not a dispute between parties, it is an accusation based upon the misapplication of a statute. Is it even conceivable that someone, especially a highly paid public servant attorney, could deny an accused person of challenging the misrepresentation? Or, can the King (Corley) do no wrong?

Now, I expect that you are getting as bored at reading this as I am at having to wade through it (I do have my boots on), to find the little gems that (if I were a psychiatrist) demonstrate the insanity, or at least the mental instability, of the person who prepared the Government’s Response. Surely, not even the King would allow him to pass the background check, on mental grounds, to own a firearm.

But, there are two more rather interesting point that warrant our attention. Sorola cited McCulloch v. Maryland with reference to “limited powers” of government, according to the Constitution. In what appears to be a DOJ (Department of Justice) boilerplate insert (page 10), he suggests that the limited powers of government have a broad interpretation. From the Government’s Response:

In citing from McCulloch:

“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.

“But, there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the Tenth Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word ‘expressly,’ and declares only, that the powers ‘not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people;’ thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.”

“So with respect to the whole penal code of the United States; whence arises the power to punish, in cases not prescribed by the constitution? All admit, that the government may, legitimately punish any violation of its laws; and yet, this is not among the enumerated powers of congress.”

Then, in Corley’s own words (the King has spoken):

It should come as no surprise then that the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that Congress had the power to incorporate a bank despite having no specifically enumerated power to do so. The precedent set nearly two hundred years ago in McCulloch v. Maryland works against Defendant, not for him.

Now, he talks about if not prohibited, and in the case of the matter of McCulloch, dealing with the creation of a bank, there is no prohibition against the government so doing.

But, the “legal theory” presented makes clear that there is a prohibition against the government’s intervention into the right to keep and bear arms, known as the Second Amendment, and the prohibition therein is called “infringement”.

Nowhere does the constitution address the government’s inability to infringe upon the creation of banks. In fact, there is much said about coin and currency, all implying such powers as necessary with regard to banks. So, just how does that work “against the Defendant”?

The second is an effort to conjoin “Militia” and “people”, as expressed in the Second Amendment, as only the “body of the people” (pages 11-13). He cites a “Second Amendment constitutional scholar”, which, apparently, he places the opinion of above the written laws.

If we consider that the framers of the Constitution were far more particular in the choice of words that the AUSA, we can easily dispute the effort to co-join, since they used both “Militia” and “people”. And Congress, surely, is more meticulous than the AUSA, when they enacted the following:

10 U.S.C. § 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, here we have “members of the militia”, who are, clearly, individuals, like people. However, that doesn’t stand as the only element that suggests individuality.

10 U.S.C. § 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Though some are general in nature, others are, without a doubt, applied to individuals of certain character. So, if the “theory” of the AUSA is correct, and whether the Congress wanted to us the “general Welfare” provision, or the Commerce Clause, they would have, if what Corley wants to suggest, surely have included a class of people known as “felons”.

So, I wonder what the King will have to say about the obvious, and rather discomforting, exclusion of “felons” from the most logical source of limitation of the right to bear arms. Is it possible that the King (Congress) can do no wrong, and accordingly, will not “infringe”, except via the “Commerce Clause”?

Rule of Law, or, Rule of Man
An Analysis of the Kim Davis Fiasco

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 8, 2015

The Supreme Court and States’ Tenth Amendment Rights

The Constitution created a Union. That Union was of the several States, and the Constitution was written to join those States into a confederation, with a federal government that dealt only within the powers and authorities defined in the document. The autonomy of states was assured within the Constitution, though doubts arose as to whether the federal government might attempt to secure more power than was intended and granted to it.

The most significant clarification of that intent was laid out in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. A preamble sets forth the purpose of a document, and that which was ascribed to the first ten Amendments reads, as follows:

The Preamble To The Bill Of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The last two amendments made even more obvious the limited role of the federal government:

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

After the Civil War, a Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (the lawfulness of that ratification may be questioned, though that is not the topic of this article). It stated that no State could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However, it was not intended to, nor did early application of that provision even suggest that there was one set of laws that applied to all, and if the states were in agreement over an issue, or each State had addressed an issue, that the issue in question was not one that was subject to federal approval.

The rights protected by the Constitution would have to extend to all citizens, not all people, as was clear by the wording in the Amendment. Those rights, however, were deemed natural rights pertaining to “life, liberty, and property”. They were not rights which would take from one to give to another.

In 1973, a Supreme Court decision demonstrated that the rights of the States, so solidly secured by the Constitution, would no longer be exercised by the States, if the federal government decided that it wanted to bring any aspect of our lives under its wing. This is clearly demonstrated in the decision that expanded the government’s role in abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The decision defied previously held limitation of authority, was widely accepted by the public, perhaps not fully understood were the ramifications of the expansion of federal powers.

Justice Rehnquist explained the problem and the ramifications in his dissenting opinion, when he wrote:

“To reach its result [the majority opinion], the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”

“There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

So, we have seven out of nine justices expanding the power of the federal government; usurping from the States those rights that were retained by them. And, unfortunately, we had a naive public that applauded, or damned, the decision of the Court, not even considering the affect on our Constitution and the rights of the States.

Now, to get to where we are going, we must address another Supreme Court decision, this being made in June 2015, and bears heavily on the current situation regarding Rowan County, Kentucky, County Clerk Kim Davis, who, as of this writing, sits in Rowan County Detention Center (121 Lee Avenue, Morehead, Kentucky), under a Contempt of Court charge.

This charge stems from another Supreme Court decision, decided in June 2015. That case is Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., 576 US ___. It was filed “claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” So, by the simple wording in the complaint, “the right to marry”, we have something that was never considered a right, it was always, at best, a religious or civil choice, converted and accepted by the Court to be deemed a right, having nothing to do with “equal protection of the laws.” There is no “protection” in marriage simply the notification that two people, of opposite sexes, are bound together in matrimony. Or, as Noah Webster described it the first American Dictionary (Webster’s 1828), marriage is “the legal union of a man and woman for life,” which served the purposes of “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the maintenance and education of children.” So, is a legalized union to be considered, now, to be a “right”?

The conclusion to the decision reads:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

So, Kim Davis is free “to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” However, “[t]he Constitution… does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” What kind of double-speak is that? The “right” is a part of the First Amendment. The abomination is the contradiction that the Constitution does not permit. Try as I might, I cannot find that, anywhere.

In an age where the enumerated rights are under fire, we have courts granting rights that were never considered rights, nor were they enumerated, and, if they were rights, the came strictly under the purview of the state.

By definition, this process of expansion of federal power and usurpation of state power is known as the “incorporation doctrine- a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” So, we must ask which provision of the Bill of Rights is made applicable to the states, or, if the description needs to be updated to “Incorporation Usurpation Doctrine”

To exemplify this overarching expansion of federal authority, we can look to Justice Roberts’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell, where he wrote:

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

“Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history–and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.

Though our very mobile and fast-paced society has had an effect on the “lifelong relationship”, it has done nothing to warrant an extension of that purpose to achieve marriage, for marriage sake, as a right, rather than the original indentation of providing security for the children (posterity).

Whether we are a Democracy, a Republic, or both, we are, without question, to be a self-governing people. At this time, there are over 300 million people in this country. Of that number, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported, in 2013, that only 1.6% of the population was queer (homosexual, both sexes). That is not a minority, it is an insignificant number. And, there is nothing that prohibits them from living as they choose. Those laws have slowly fallen to our modern world, where they are not prosecuted; rather, they are allowed to practice their life-style, without legal penalty. Isn’t it enough that the biblical punishment is no longer inflicted, or are we to allow this insignificant group hold sway over our lives, our morality, and our culture?

Of those 300 million plus, they are represented in their respective state legislatures by hundreds of senators and representatives, chosen by the citizens of those states to enact laws. In no state is the court given the right to enact laws, simply, the “power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” ONLY the representatives of the people, and in accordance with the respective State Constitution make the laws.

Likewise, in the federal government, there are 435 representatives and 100 senators, those, also, elected to represent the will of the people, and enact laws accordingly.

So, we have thousands of the representatives of the people who have enacted laws in accordance with the will of the people, and those laws no longer act unfavorably on the insignificant number. That is what was intended, and that is what should continue to be.

However, we find that a simple majority of nine Justices, yes, just five appointed individuals, not chosen by the people, themselves, have established an apparent right to enact laws contrary to the will of the people and their representatives. That is an oligarchy (rule by a small, select group), and, as you will not find “marriage” in the federal Constitution, you will neither find “oligarchy” as our form of government.

Unless, of course, the people will stand idly by as those robed “oligarchs” continue to expand their authority, destroying our whole concept of self-government.

The Road to Contempt of the People

Based upon the Supreme Court’s contradictory decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al, James Yates, April Miller, and others, filed complaints with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland, against Kim Davis, individually and as County Clerk of Rowan County.

The Complaint by Yates was brought under 42 USC §1983:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Now, “secured by the Constitution and laws” will be addressed, later on. However, we see that the “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 [Article I, § 8, clause 17].” comes in to play here, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution and the laws are both supportive of the right of a State to make its own laws, and by the broadest stretch of imagination, does not include marriage, a civil bond.

The Complaint also incorporates a letter from the Governor, Steven L. Beshear, to the “Kentucky County Clerks, dated June 26, 2015. The letter reads, in part:

“As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky – and all states – must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act.”

“Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

“You should consult with your county attorney on any particular aspects related to the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision.”

So, the Governor first informs the recipients that they had “taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky.” Then, he provides his solution, whereby “same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

So, the oath is to the constitutions, and, presumably, the laws made in accordance thereof. And then, he talks about entitlements. What? I suppose he didn’t feel any more comfortable than I do in suggesting that they are “rights”, rather, that queers are “entitled” to a legal bond intended to assure that children are conceived and brought up in a healthy environment.

Finally, he wants to “implement” the Supreme Court decision. So, which constitution provides a directive, or even implies, that a decision must be implemented, if not an enacted law passed in accordance with those constitutions? Does the oath bind them to a Court decision?

The US Constitution provides the authority to enact laws in Article I, § 1, to wit:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

“All legislative Powers” means what it says, “All”. Nobody else in the federal government is empowered to make laws. The Court can only rule on the constitutionality of a law. Even without referring to the “Case Law Method”, which has moved the courts away from the Constitution, simply building upon previous decision, without regard to the Constitution, we can see that something is amiss — in violation of the Constitution.

Now, let’s look at the Kentucky Constitution, beginning with the Kentucky Bill of Rights:

Section 2. Absolute and arbitrary power denied. Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Section 4. Power inherent in the people – Right to alter, reform, or abolish government. All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

So, the Kentucky Constitution disallows “[a]bsolute and arbitrary power over the lives [and] liberty” of the people. So, just what about the decision regarding the current case (Yates, Miller, et al) and the charge of Contempt of Court (which will soon be discussed) is not “absolute and arbitrary”?

And, if “[a]ll power is inherent in the people” and “founded on their [people] authority”, how can a judge, at the lowest level of federal courts, make a decision, based upon a decision, though not enacted into law, be used to deprive Kim Davis of her liberty?

The Bill of Rights concludes with:

Section 26. General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights – Laws contrary thereto are void. To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

Just consider what “inviolate” means.

Now, from the Kentucky Constitution, the Legislative Branch:

Section 29. Legislative power vested in General Assembly. The legislative power shall be vested in a House of Representatives and a Senate, which, together, shall be styled the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Section 55. When laws to take effect – Emergency legislation. No act, except general appropriation bills, shall become a law until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed, except in cases of emergency, when, by the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each House of the General Assembly, by a yea and nay vote entered upon their journals, an act may become a law when approved by the Governor; but the reasons for the emergency that justifies this action must be set out at length in the journal of each House.

Section 68. Civil officers liable to impeachment – Judgment – Criminal liability. The Governor and all civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanors in office; but judgment in such cases shall not extend further than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under this Commonwealth; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be subject and liable to indictment, trial and punishment by law.

So, as in the federal government, “legislative power [enacting laws]” is vested in the General Assembly. Nobody else can make laws.

The Kentucky Constitution makes provision for “emergency legislation”, which, under the circumstances, would have to be done to “implement” the decision, and to protect the County Clerk, who is bound to uphold the laws enacted in accordance with both constitutions. It would appear that Kim Davis suffered in jail because the legislative branch was remiss in their responsibility to the people and the officials of the state.

Finally, absent an impeachment, it would appear that no legal action could be taken against an official of the state. The qualifier, “but the convicted party” would require such impeachment prior to legal action.

However, what we are finding, in this current situation, is that the lowest level judge in the federal system, can, single-handedly, deny an elected official, under the authority of the state Constitution, her liberty.

On September 1, 2015, April Miller filed a Motion to Hold Defendant Kim Davis in Contempt of Court, stating:

“Plaintiffs do not seek to compel Davis’ compliance through incarceration. Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, Plaintiffs urge the the [sic] Court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis’ immediate compliance without further delay.

However during a hearing on September 3, Judge David L. Bunning arbitrarily opted to incarcerate Kim Davis, in Contempt of Court. In that hearing, the minute notes show:

“Defendant Davis shall be remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal pending compliance of the Courts Order of August 12, 2015, or until such time as the Court vacates the contempt Order.”

It appears that the Judge opted for jail time in lieu if the requested monetary damages.

Kim Davis was released, on September 8, during the course of preparing this article. An understanding was made that the marriage licenses issued by the County will not bear her name or title, though the will simply say, “Rowan County, Kentucky” at the line for the Clerk/ Deputy Clerk signature.

Laws on the books

Many people are claiming that Kim Davis violated the law by not issuing marriage licenses to queers that wanted to be married to each other.

We have all been taught that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So, let’s look at what the responsibility of an elected official is, if their job requires that they obey the law.

First source is the Kentucky Constitution, which, in Section 223A states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Next, we have Kentucky Statutes:

“402.005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”

Well, Kim Davis has taken a position that requires that she uphold the laws. That pretty much settles it from the State side of the matter. But, since it was a federal judge, maybe we need to look at what the federal government has to say.

I find no reference to (marriage” in the Constitution, though I do find the specific reservation in the Tenth Amendment:

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

So, we find that since there is no delegation to the federal government, or courts, regarding marriage, in the Constitution, then that authority must be one of those “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, does the federal government have anything to say about marriage? Yes, they do; however, it pertains ONLY to “administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States”, and has nothing, at all, to do with licensing (legal permission) for marriage. Clearly, that “right” is reserved to the state.

1 U.S.C. § 7 : Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

So, let’s review the Kim Davis incident. Kim is an elected official, the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. When she took the position, she also took an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions and the law of the land.

Both constitutions provide for the legislative bodies (Senate and House of Representatives) to have the sole authority to enact laws. If a judge rules an act unconstitutional, then the legislative body must enact a law consistent with the ruling. That is the only way that it can work. It is not up to the individual to determine what she can, or cannot, do. It is those who have taken the role in government to enact laws, well, to enact laws.

Kim Davis should not be held in contempt of court. If anyone is to be held in contempt of court, it should be those in the legislative bodies that leave on the LAW books laws that are unconstitutional. They are paid far better than Kim Davis is, and their job is to write the laws that she is to enforce. Every member of the state legislature should be willing to sit in jail, in lieu of Kim Davis, for she is the only one that is upholding the law. The same might be said of the Congress, as they, too, recognizing their limited role in the matter of marriage.

As a final thought, Kim Davis has stated that she refused to issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs. Had a law been lawfully enacted that allowed queers to marry, then Kim Davis would have to decide whether she wanted to continue in her job, or not, based upon a law that was properly enacted. To put that in more interesting terms, if any legislative body (not judicial) thinks that they have a right to change a definition this is thousands of year old, based upon the Bible, which defines marriage, then those in that legislative body have placed themselves above God.