Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 27, 2014

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

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

Federal Authority and limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Federal)

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

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Possession Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, where do we go, next?

Collision of Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Held:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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

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

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 23, 2014

The Founders were concerned over certain practices of the British government. From a judicial standpoint, both Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2) and subsequently, in the Bill of Rights, with the Sixth Amendment, which reads, in part,

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

were to insure that the courts were not used to punish people, rather, to serve Justice and prohibit unlawful detention.

In the case of Robert Beecher, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Statesboro Division, Case CR614-018, this is not the way it is working.

Robert M. Beecher was arrested on May 7, 2014, after being told that he was not going to be arrested (See “No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher).

Let’s go through a calendar of events in Beecher’s case:

• July 31, 2013 – Investigation initiated (FBI form FD 1057)
• May 7, 2014 – Arrested
• May 24 – Beecher was denied Bail by FBI, PD out of town….Saw Judge
• June 4 – Grand Jury indictment
• June 19 – Arraignment
• Aug. 14 – Motions Hearing – Postponed by ATF/FBI to obtain further charges and records from GA, TN and Galveston, TX that were not computerized and were searching for paper records from 1977
• Sept. 4 – Postponed….Federal Judge had personal issues and Forwarded Caseload to another federal judge, who also has heavy caseload.

Some things that we can learn about persecution, as opposed to prosecution, can be gleaned from the above.

First is that the FBI and the BATF have been investigating Beecher since July 31, 2013. The arrest was made over 9 months later. However, at the August 14 hearing (over a year after the initiation of the investigation, they ask for a continuance so that they can research paper (not computerized) records so that the can prove that he is a felon, under the statute. That is over three months (over 70 days, as will be explained later). You would think that the government would have satisfied the requirement of proving that he was a felon, prior to arresting him as a FELON in possession of a firearm, than searching to see if they could find the firearms with which to satisfy the second part of the charge against Beecher. Let’s just suppose that Beecher wasn’t a felon, they get the warrants, make a mess of the property, find some firearms, then realize that he was not a felon, or that they weren’t sure, or could not prove that he was. Sort of a case of the cart before the horse, but, well, they are paid, just the same. This would suggest that US Attorney Edward J. Tarver (prosecuting); Carlton R. Bourne, Jr (AUSA & lead counsel); Special Agent Stanley H. Slater (FBI; and, Special Agent Lorin G. Coppock (BATF), are all bumbling incompetents, each making over $100,000.00 a year, but unable properly prepare a case.

Nearly a month later, we find that because a judge, presumably G. R. Smith, U. S. Magistrate Judge, who signed the Search Warrant on May 6, 2014, had “personal issues”, the law, and justice, apparently, can be set aside, while Beecher languishes in jail. This, now, really tops it. A man is deprived of time with his family, especially with his grandchildren. The Judge, however, has family problems, though he responding to his problems simply creates more family problems for Beecher.

However, it does bring to minds a rather interesting question, “Are the people to serve the government, or, is the government to serve the people?”

So, we have looked at an absolute lack of regard for Robert Beecher and the impact this has had on his family and his life. So, let us look at an even more important aspect, the laws that are put in place to define and satisfy Constitutional mandates. For example:

The Constitutional Mandate can be found in the Sixth Amendment, which says, in part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

In a previous article, we have addressed the facts that any records regarding the trial have yet to be released to the public. Is it fair to say that “sealed” judicial paperwork, for nearly six months, meets the “public trial” provision? I also addresed the specifics of the charges against Beecher, and it appear that they don’t apply to him, anyway.

So, now, let’s see what has been determined regarding “speedy trial”. Here are the pertinent portions of 18 U.S. Code § 3161, et seq:

18 U. S. Code § 3161 – Time limits and exclusions:

(a) In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial.

(b) Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges. If an individual has been charged with a felony in a district in which no grand jury has been in session during such thirty-day period, the period of time for filing of the indictment shall be extended an additional thirty days.

Note: The filing of the Indictment provision was satisfied.

(c)

(1) In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing to be tried before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.

Note: It is interesting that the “making public” provision, if not met, means that the government can simply keep the record sealed, and theoretically, keep Beecher in jail, “indefinitely”.

Well, (a) says that “at the earliest practicable time, shall… set the case for trial… so as to assure a speedy trial.” Not difficult to understand, at it appears to be supportive of what the Founders envisioned when the assured us a “speedy trail”. However, in what is an obvious effort to circumvent the intent of the Constitution, they have set a new benchmark by counting the seventy days “shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.” How thoughtful of them for using the last occurring date instead of the first. This allows them to detain someone for quite some time. For instance, in the current matter Beecher has had hearings cancelled on two occasions, so he has not been before the “judicial officer”. Well, how about the Indictment? The Indictment was filed with the Court on June 4, but it has not been made public, so even though Beecher has been in jail for over 5 months, the clock has yet to begin ticking from which we can gauge whether, or not, he is going to get a “speedy trial”.

Continuing on through the maze of legal complexity, we find:

***

(h)

(7)

(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Note: Therefore, the judge can continue the matter (trial) if he does it based upon “his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” There you go. He can arbitrarily determine that the continuance serves the “ends of justice” and therefore outweighs the defendants right to a “speedy trial”. This might be interpreted as, “yes, we have a constitution, but, I, with my black robes, can ignore it — for the sake of justice, as I see it.”

“Nothing to see here. Just keep moving.”

There is a bit of redemption, however, in:

***

(C) No continuance under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be granted because of general congestion of the court’s calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government.

Note: This last, this “failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government”, which, presumably, would also include certain “evidence”, seems to be at the heart of the current delay. As best I can find, the Prosecutor is still trying to determine if the “felonies” qualify under the statute upon which the Indictment was based. The statute is discussed, in detail, in “No bended knee for me – the Charge against Robert Beecher“. Though it appears that the prosecutor and the FBI and BATF agents had the cart before the horse in assuming that the felonies qualified under the statute. At least, that is what has been alleged to be the reasoning behind the continuance.

Next, we can go to 18 USC §3162 – Sanctions, which provides punishment for certain activity that results in the delay of the “speedy trial”.

18 U.S. Code § 3162 – Sanctions

(a)

(1) If, in the case of any individual against whom a complaint is filed charging such individual with an offense, no indictment or information is filed within the time limit required by section 3161 (b) as extended by section 3161 (h) of this chapter, such charge against that individual contained in such complaint shall be dismissed or otherwise dropped. In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice.

(2) If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161 (c) as extended by section 3161 (h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant. The defendant shall have the burden of proof of supporting such motion but the Government shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with any exclusion of time under subparagraph 3161(h)(3). In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice. Failure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under this section.

(b) In any case in which counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government

(1) knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;

Note: Would the term “witness” also include certified documents regarding previous convictions — showing proof of the felony?

(2) files a motion solely for the purpose of delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;

(3) makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining a continuance which he knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or

(4) otherwise willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with section 3161 of this chapter, the court may punish any such counsel or attorney, as follows:

(A) in the case of an appointed defense counsel, by reducing the amount of compensation that otherwise would have been paid to such counsel pursuant to section 3006A of this title in an amount not to exceed 25 per centum thereof;

(B) in the case of a counsel retained in connection with the defense of a defendant, by imposing on such counsel a fine of not to exceed 25 per centum of the compensation to which he is entitled in connection with his defense of such defendant;

(C) by imposing on any attorney for the Government a fine of not to exceed $250;

Note: This, however, would require the judge, whether of his own volition, or under pressure from other sources, pursue this token of justice. I wonder if there are very many judges currently sitting in District Courts who place justice before their job security and hopes for elevation to a higher bench.

It is interesting that the government attorney would only be fined $250, while the defense attorney would be fined 25%, which could easily exceed $10,000. But, I suppose that they look out for their own.

Now, as we continue through the maze of statutory befuddlement, we find another statute that might even force a more rigid implementation of the right to a speedy trial.

18 U.S. Code § 3164 – Persons detained or designated as being of high risk

(a) The trial or other disposition of cases involving—

(1) a detained person who is being held in detention solely because he is awaiting trial, and

(2) a released person who is awaiting trial and has been designated by the attorney for the Government as being of high risk,

shall be accorded priority.

(b) The trial of any person described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section shall commence not later than ninety days following the beginning of such continuous detention or designation of high risk by the attorney for the Government. The periods of delay enumerated in section 3161 (h) are excluded in computing the time limitation specified in this section.

Note: So, if Beecher is detained, but not high risk, the trial must commence within 90 days of detention. On the other hand, if he is high risk (the apparent cause for no bail being granted), and not detained (released), the trial must commence within 90 days of such designation of high risk. Is there a middle ground where if one is both high risk and detained, there is no provision for a speedy trial? Not very just, if true. A person of high risk that is not detained is, well, a potential threat to the community, where the guy that is both high risk and detained is not a threat, though it appears that he is to suffer, without recourse, or, that the Judge should use the wisdom that God gave him to be just.

(c) Failure to commence trial of a detainee as specified in subsection (b), through no fault of the accused or his counsel, or failure to commence trial of a designated releasee as specified in subsection (b), through no fault of the attorney for the Government, shall result in the automatic review by the court of the conditions of release. No detainee, as defined in subsection (a), shall be held in custody pending trial after the expiration of such ninety-day period required for the commencement of his trial. A designated releasee, as defined in subsection (a), who is found by the court to have intentionally delayed the trial of his case shall be subject to an order of the court modifying his nonfinancial conditions of release under this title to insure that he shall appear at trial as required.

Note: Now, this is a bit more clear. “No detainee… shall be held in custody pending trial after the expiration of such ninety-day period required for the commencement of his trial”.

So, why is Robert Beecher still in jail, nearly 180 days after is detention?

This can only be interpreted as Robert Beecher’s right to be released, with his family and able to regain the life that has been, punitively, taken from him, in violation of the above statutes.

What we have been discussing is the statute verses the intent of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. So, we will venture into one more statute, within the speedy trial provisions, to see if there is merit to my interpretations, given above.

18 U.S. Code § 3173 – Sixth amendment rights

No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted as a bar to any claim of denial of speedy trial as required by amendment VI of the Constitution.

That pretty much cinches it. Any interpretation that does not favor Sixth Amendment is contrary to the intent of the law, itself.

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

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

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Appeasement

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 23, 2014

Last October (29, 2013), I wrote an article on “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“. In that article, I addressed the appeasement, by the government, regarding both foreign and domestic matters.

At the time, it had not crossed my mind that we have a choice between “Liberty or Laws”, only that we had to try to change what was happening – though the methods of achieving that end varied, greatly. This current series, however, delves into the supposition that the country belongs to us, not the government. Not really a strange concept, as it was that very way of thinking that led to the Revolutionary War — that the country, in fact, belongs to the people of that country — that when government violates the trust, the people will either accept the condition, or the will take back that government. This concept is embodied in the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.

What happens, then, when the people continue with a doctrine of appeasement with government? Can there be any justification for such doctrine, and, if so, at what point in the invariable course of government do we determine to do our duty — for the sake of our posterity?

So, perhaps we should look at just how we are appeasing the government:

• The Constitution provides that only Congress can declare war (Art. I, §8, cl. 11), though we have allowed both the President and Congress to engage in war, without a requisite declaration. Over time, it has become the “prerogative” of the President to engage in war, absent an objection by the Congress.       The provision in the Constitution was so placed so that the power and expense of war would not lie in the hands of one man.

• The Constitution provides that only Congress call forth the militia to repel invasion (Art. I, §8, cl. 15), though Congress has failed to do so repel the invasion, in violation of existing laws regarding immigration, which can be described as no less than an invasion. If Congress called them forth, the President would be Commander in Chief but the obligation to utilize them to repel invasion could not be detracted.

• The Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to become a benefactor, taking money from those that justly earn it to give to those unwilling to earn their own livelihood. This has historically been an act of private people and organizations, and to some degree, within the local community (Not Yours To Give). It was never mandatory, until the government decided to buy the favor (chicken in every pot) of a class of people.

• The supporters of the Constitution, in addressing at least five of the state ratifying conventions, explained that “direct taxes” would only be imposed in an emergency (to pay for war, or other extraordinary events – See “Ratification” by Pauline Maier). Instead, we pay a minimum of 1/5th of our earnings directly to government. This does not include the taxes paid prior to purchase of an item by every person involved in the production of the item — compounding the true tax paid.       “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance” (Declaration of Independence).

• The First Amendment mandates that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion“.       This means that they cannot set one church above others (and, to Framers, Christianity was the acceptable religion, the various denominations being the object of the Amendment). However, by administratively creating and forcing churches into 501(c)(3) status, then limiting what they could include within their sermons (except Muslim churches), they have “established” a religion that has no moral values, and allowed another to espouse values foreign to our nature, without consequence.

• The Constitution makes no provision for the control of education of the children of the People. Public Education belonged, for over 180 years, to the public, not the government.       The Department of Education was created in 1867, under Reconstruction), though abandoned after a year of existence. Its purpose, at the time, was to “educated” southern children to Northern values. It was reconstituted in 1953 as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and has become a source of absolute and arbitrary control over the education process throughout the country, in a form of indoctrination which exceeds anything ever imagined by Adolph Hitler, as a tool of government propaganda, to the point that basic skills have nearly been removed from the curriculum and social engineering programs have replaced them as the focus of the educational system.

• With the recent militarization of police, and the ongoing efforts to restrict and outlaw gun ownership, we find that we are fast approaching absolute subjugation to government authority. We are far worse off than our English ancestors in the mid-seventeen-hundreds, when in Parliament, William Pitt said:

“The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all of the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement“

And, we find that concerns that are recorded in our document of Independence from despotic government included within its concerns:

“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us…          For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states” (Declaration of Independence).

For the sake of brevity, I will leave you to add your additional concerns regarding the intentions of government.

The question arises, do we stand for our Liberties, or, do we abide by fabricated laws? To continue on the path we walk renders us as guilty of appeasement as was Chamberlin prior to World War II, and our own government is today, as addressed in “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“.

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

Appease
v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
… jealously guard our Liberties

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 11, 2014

Who will fire the first shot? Who can fire the first shot? Contemplation of these questions causes me to recall a situation, many years ago, when I was first confronted with the thought of aiming, squeezing, and taking the life of another human being. It is not difficult to recall that memory, as it is one that will stay with me the rest of my life; that thought and that first time that I did aim, squeeze and fire.

The thought first occurred as we began the second leg of a flight from California to Hawaii, and then on to Tan Son Nhut Airbase, Saigon, Vietnam. Our short stop in Hawaii was about long enough to get a Scotch and Water, and then re-board. We snuck our drinks onto the charter commercial aircraft, took off, and headed southwest, into a combat zone.

Shortly after we settled in at flying altitude, I finished my drink and began thinking of the adventure that awaited me. Through training and my previous two years in the Army, I had relived the adventures of war, as presented by the prolific black & white movies of action during World War II. However, it struck me that I was not going into training; rather, I was going to put that training into action. I would surely find myself, at some point, faced with the necessity of aiming and squeezing. Would I be up to such a task, when that time came?

My religious beliefs never distinguished between murder and killing, so there was a moral dilemma, which, for the first time in my life, I had to seriously contemplate. Could I do what I had surely been called upon to do?

As I reflected upon the moral consequences, I realized that back there, behind me, throughout the country, there was a government, representing the people of the United States, which had, by issuing my orders into combat, taken the burden of the moral responsibility from of me. My job was to do for my country what it had asked me to do.

Months later, even though there had been some long range exchanges of rifle fire, and some mortar attacks on our base, I did find myself with a clear view of the enemy. I was in the back seat of a Bird Dog. We were flying low over a Viet Cong transfer point at the “Horseshoe” of the Mekong River. My M-14, being as long as it was, was tucked behind me. The pilot, however, handed me his M-16. As I raised the barrel, I could see the one that I had in my sights running, rapidly, for cover. We were flying at treetop, with nearly full flaps, and I was probably not more than 60 meters from him. His hat flew off as he ran, and I could see the expression on his face, which I judged to be fear. This didn’t distract me, as I fired off about ten rounds. One of them struck him in the leg. His partner, ahead, apparently responded to his call, turned and grabbed him and helped him into some bushes, in the attempt to cover their location. The pilot then turned back to the location where they had sought cover, and laid a 2.75″ HE (High Explosive) rocket into the bushes.

As we flew back to base, I thought about what had happened, and I knew that I was able to do what is probably the most difficult single obstacle in combat, taking a human life for the first time. That thought, however, was not passing. No, it remains with me, and will do so until I have become the dust that those two Viet Cong became, because of our action.

Many records available demonstrate the difficulty in “fresh” soldiers being willing to aim and squeeze. They will often fire over the head of the enemy, doing their job, but doing so in such a way as to “protect” their moral values. Those records include from the Revolutionary War to the present, though nowadays, the Army uses electronic games, similar to “Doom”, to train the soldier to overcome that moral objection. They fire, and a very human looking figure reacts in a very natural manner, with the blood squirting or misting, just as in real life, to condition the trainee to accept that taking another life is nothing more than a game. However, for most, the moral stigma still attaches itself to our conscience.

So, who will fire the first shot, when that event that will spark the inevitable confrontation between a people wishing to be free, and a government which continues to encroach upon their Liberties?

In a previous article (He Who Leads the Charge), I address the consequence that will fall to many of us, as we take upon ourselves the task bestowed upon us by the Founders — to retain our form of government for “ourselves and our Posterity“. While we are at it, let’s look at another well-known phrase from our Founding, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Those phrases have historical significance, though we have some newer phrases that most are familiar with, such as, “… from my cold, dead hands“, “… one bullet at a time“, etc. Now, those last two are purely rhetorical, as they serve no purpose other than bluster on the part of the speaker. However, many in the patriot community often express the first two. The question is, when they are expressed, is it rhetorical, or is it sincere? If the former, then clearly you are not prepared to face the challenge that lies before us, nor have you seriously contemplated that challenge.

Let’s look at some more rhetoric, “They will soon declare martial law. We cannot do anything because if we do, they will declare martial law.” Isn’t that rhetoric a bit oxymoronic?

It is clearly evident that the law enforcement in this country is rapidly becoming militarized. Should we await the completion of the militarization before we act?

Perhaps we should heed the words of Patrick Henry, when he said, “The war is inevitable – and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come! ”

If we are to retain our birthright, Liberty, the object of the sacrifices of those who gave us this once great nation, it will come at a cost. Of that, we can be assured.

One thing is certain in combat. Once the action begins, those who have resolved themselves to the necessity of taking lives have taken the necessary action. Others, regardless of the moral hesitation, when the necessity has passed beyond rhetoric and into reality, will eventually follow. If they don’t catch on, they will probably be killed. The idea, quite simply, is to KILL him before he kills you. It will be the truly courageous — the heroes of our future history — who fire those first shots, with a clear understanding of the necessity of doing so.

Our choice, our actions, our future, depend upon whether we agree to obey the laws that currently protect the government and criminalize our actions, or to obey our conscience, and jealously guard our Liberties, an obligation imposed by the Founders and memorialized by our Founding Documents.

94th Rec. Airplane Co.
Duc Hoa, Vietnam
1967

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Treason Against the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 24, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Immigration or Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 23, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Militia in Defense of the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2014

Prior to the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, each State (nation) had a right to defend its borders. The Articles created a collective pursuit of defense of borders against the British.

With the ratification of the Constitution, there was a greater consolidation of the collective into a Union. It also imposed upon that Union an obligation to protect each State against invasion, first, within the Powers of the Congress:

Article I, § 8, clause 15– The Congress shall have the Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Secondly, a guarantee (the only guarantee in the Constitution), with the mandatory “shall”:

Article IV, § 4– The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

It is apparent, then, that protection from invasion warrants the attention, and cooperation, of the federal government. However, we must consider whether the States lost their right to repel invasion, absent the federal government fulfilling their oblation and guarantee. This, then, leads us to the 10th 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.

Congress was given the Power, though nothing makes that Power exclusive. If it had been exclusive, surely a prohibition against the state protecting its borders would have been written as a prohibition in Article I, Section 10.

Well, that all makes sense; however, can that right to protect a State’s borders be affirmed by example? Answer: Most assuredly. Though the incidents being used to demonstrate this “Right of the State” to protect its borders were from the early part of the 19th Century, there have been no changes to the Constitution that would eliminate that right.

* * *

The Toledo War

In 1835, based upon an incorrect map of the region, two lines were established between the boundaries of Michigan and Ohio. The land within this disputed area comprised about 486 square miles. Ohio had become a state in 1803, though the boundary in dispute was between Ohio and the then territory of Michigan.

Beginning in late 1834, Michigan’s Territorial Governor Stevens Mason sent the Militia to the disputed line and claimed that he would not use force, so long as Ohioans stayed out of the disputed area. Ohioan responded by sending their Militia to the same area. Michigan’s militia ended up arresting some Ohio Surveyors and Officials, firing some shots into the air to scare off others from the survey party.

The dispute was finally settled where President Jackson and the Congress redefined the boundary between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan, give each portions of the disputed lands. Finally, in 1837. Michigan was granted statehood.

The extent of federal authority was limited to resolving the dispute politically. There was no federal armed intervention.

* * *

The Honey War

Missouri became a state in 1821. The boundaries of the state were defined in the Constitution adopted at statehood. The description of the Northern boundary, however, was unclear and lay in Indian lands. At the expiration of the Indian’s usage of the land, in 1836, Sullivan surveyed the boundary. The future Iowa was then a part of Wisconsin Territory. The land, based upon subsequent review of the description of Missouri’s boundary, and a correct interpretation, created an overlap of up to 12 miles.

When a Sheriff from Missouri entered the disputed land to collect taxes, the locals (future Iowans) disputed his jurisdiction and he was arrested. Iowa Governor Robert Lucas warned Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs that the Missouri sheriffs would not be allowed to collect taxes in Iowa. Boggs then threatened militia action to enforce the collection of the taxes. Both governors then called out their militia to the disputed area. The only damage being the destruction of some profitable honey trees, hence the name of the war. The two militia were called off when the dispute was submitted to Congress, and eventually, to the United States Supreme Court.

Although Iowa attained statehood in 1846, the Court did not settle the dispute until 1851. The extent of federal authority was limited to resolving the dispute judicially. There was no federal armed intervention.

* * *

So, there, we have it. The Constitution remains unchanged, and the States in these disputes, called forth their respective militia to protect their boundaries. Though nobody was killed, the face off and the potential for real war was present. The only federal solution was political or judicial.

Suppose, then, that the intrusion, without question of a boundary dispute, exists. Suppose, also, that the intruders were not Americans, rather, are foreigners. Would the federal government have any more authority than what has been discussed? Would they be limited, as they were in the past, to either a negotiated political solution, or a judicial determination? Is it possible that the right is inherent, in each State (or even as a territory) to defend its borders, by use of the militia?

If some unconstitutional law; Some federal mandate; Some divisive compact between the federal and state government; or, Some financial obligation, precludes the state from protecting its own borders against invasion, is it not, under the current onslaught of illegal immigration across state borders, an abrogation of the responsibility of the governor of any state who refuses to fulfill his duty?

If he should fail to do so, then the People themselves should recognize that the right to self-defense against invasion resides, ultimately, with them, whether under the Congress, the President, or the State governor, or the People who would become that militia force. In addition, nothing within that Constitution prohibits the militia from acting upon its own behalf. It only provides for subordination, if the higher governing authority does not abrogate its responsibility. 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.

This is further supported by the oft-overlooked Ninth Amendment:

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

Ultimately, the final decision to act is in the hands of the People. It is their country; It does not belong to the Government. If the government refuses to act, especially, when the laws of the land require such action, both of federal and state government, the People are left naught — except to act on their own behalf — for their sake and the sake of their posterity.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Dealing with the Current Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 11, 2014

The Continental Congress, being the first government of what was to become the United States of America, was able to assemble, without undue influence by the British government, though contrary to the law of the land. That Congress (like the many Committees of Safety) was created in violation of British law. The British Parliament often, subsequently, passed specific laws to criminalize some of the actions taken by the colonists.

Ultimately, based upon a political philosophy (see Sons of Liberty #14), a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, more commonly described as the Declaration of Independence from British rule, was signed on July 4, 1776.

The arduous efforts of the colonists, prior to that Declaration, were, without question, based upon illegal acts. Some of those acts were reacted to by the Parliament, with additional acts, making even more laws, which were soon to also be violated.

Beginning in 1765, with the Stamp Act, destruction of both personal, and government property held by the Crown or its representatives was conducted, in violation of the law. Personal injury was imposed on individuals, either because of their government office, or because of their violation of certain illegal agreements of non-importation.

The British continued to enact laws making certain activities, construed by the colonists as rights, illegal. This culminated in the seizure of arms and munitions by the British, as well as the colonists, coming to that final flash point on April 19, 1775, at a country village named Lexington. Within hours, tens of thousands of militiamen were converging on the area around Boston, ready and willing to break even more laws.

Today, we have many laws that denigrate the rights both fought for, and purchased at great cost, by those colonists of two centuries ago. We are facing the same proliferation of laws enacted to reduce, restrict, or otherwise deny our rights, redefining some as criminal and thereby subjecting Americans to incarceration and/or loss of property. We also see that laws enacted to protect our country from invasion, by force under arms, or by use of the “Trojan Horse” whereby invaders are placed within our communities, only needing the access to “cached arms”, are being ignored. Those arms possibly even held by government entities, to aid an invasion, from within, in order to render moot, and destroy that Great Experiment, known as the United States of America.

Is it possible to reclaim our birthright — that United States of America be returned to its intended form, and proper Glory — if we continue and abide by the very laws that were enacted to destroy it?

In recent discussions, the “rights” of those southern border invaders, under somewhat absurd laws, and contrary to the immigration laws of other countries, seem to have the “weight of law” in the minds of those individuals who should defend this country from invasion; Whether the children should be let in or, whether the parents should be let in, if they accompany their children; Whether we should allow those with provable or admitted criminal backgrounds, because of their youth, to be let in; Whether we should allow those in who have contagious, and often terminal, diseases, though by so doing, we expose our own children to those diseases, and bear the economic burden of care, form entry to grave, of those so infected, to be let in; Are the questions that we must answer, for ourselves, not according to the “law”.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to leave in the hands of the people, the first, and the most important, defense of nation, state, community, and family. Does that defense require a blessing from a higher authority than the people, themselves? Laws enacted by the Congress, or rules promulgated by executive agencies, have removed the right of the governors of these states from protecting the states from invasion. They have not removed that right from the people, regardless of what laws they may enact in an effort to do so. Reserving the right to determine if it is an invasion to those who have enacted the laws, removing their responsibility to even make such a determination, and leaving it solely in the hands of the Executive, who has steadfastly refused to enforce existing immigration laws, defies logic. These Executive actions defy the very purpose of the inclusion of Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment to the Constitution

Whatever the government (federal or state) uses to excuse the destructive activity currently going on along our southern border, does not remove from the people the rights embodied in the Constitution. Simply because Congress ignores our petitions and the state governments acquiesce to the unlawful influence of the federal government does not nullify immigration law. It is time for the People to enforce those immigration laws.

Do we not, as citizens of the various states of the Union, retain those rights protected by the Constitution? Do we have the inherent right to repel invasion? Are we required to restrict our actions simply because the federal government fails to enforce those laws?

Let’s ask ourselves some hard questions:

• If armed foreign invaders were coming into our country, do we have the inherent right to protect our state and country?
• If invaders, with the full potential of coming into your country, or state, unarmed, having arms readily accessible to them, by “law” (no criminal record in this country) or from stored arms caches, do you have the right to shoot them?
• Do you have an obligation to risk your life to separate those who are a potential threat from those who are not a threat, or only to endeavor to not shoot those who appear not to be a threat?

Let’s look at the war strategy of the federal government in the non-wars that they are fighting, throughout the Middle East. Smart bombs and missiles do not discriminate between good and bad, though we have this corrupt government insisting that we must abide by their laws, while their practices defy bounds of decency. The federal government’s wartime strategy is to shoot everyone, indiscriminately, around a single designated threat. Are we allowed to use the same strategy to protect our own borders?

The federal government has violated state, federal, and international law by providing arms, knowing that they will cross both international boundaries and go into the hands of the drug cartels, or possibly to caches on this side of the border. They have now opened the borders in an attempt render our sovereign nation status moot. It should be no surprise to anyone that arms and ammunition provided by the federal government has metastasized into wholesale violence in both of those nations. It does appear that the federal government is more than willing to allow those arms to be turned against American citizens, all the while pretending that we are blind to its actions, and will only see a “Humanitarian Crises” involving children, using Main Stream Media propaganda to berate Americans for being cruel and heartless because we insist the laws be enforced.

We are left with the choice of Liberty and our Responsibility, as intended by the Founders, or, laws, dictated by “the Crown”, which are self-serving and contrary to OUR Constitution, our rightful sovereign nation status, and individually, the right to the fruits of our labor. We have a decision to make, much the same as the decision made by those who bequeathed this great nation to their posterity, to apply the Laws of Nature, rather than the edicts of kings and princes, so that we may restore Constitutional Government, protecting our nation from assured destruction.

Has the time come for us to determine to break those laws, for failure to do so will, most certainly, lead to the destruction of our country?

Suggested Reading:

Tuberculosis
Murrieta
Information Blackout
Illegal Immigration: Diseases
MSM cover-up

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2014

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

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

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

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

The Fourth Amendment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus concludes the First Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bundy Affair -Is Anybody in Charge Here?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 23, 2014

There are events currently unfolding in Bunkerville, Nevada, that aren’t apparent to most, and especially not of interest to Mainstream media, however, they are extremely important to the Patriot Community, as you will see.

Let’s revisit this past Saturday, April 12, 2012. The Bundy family, friends, and supporters, numbering in the hundreds, massed in a wash, not far distant from the cattle that had been “arrested”, in conformity with a Court Order, for those cattle trespassing on government land.

Then comes Jerry DeLemus, US Marine Corp veteran (circa 1973), and leader of a Glenn Beck 9/12 Project group, but no known membership or contribution to the militia. Quite interesting that Beck has ridiculed the plight of Cliven Bundy, though Jerry seems to hold Beck in high esteem. According to reports that I have received, he arrived, after a nearly 3,000 mile drive, with 2 vehicles, one driven by his son, Josh, in an exhausted state, and has remained in that state (of exhaustion) since. His hyperactive state (an indication of exhaustion and lots of coffee) can be seen in this rather emotional interview by Stewart Rhodes – Bundy Ranch: We Came Risking Never Coming Home Jerry DeLemus.

Though he was absent from the event that might be deemed the Bundy Cattle Unrustling, which was attended by protestors, some militia members and, of course, the Cowboys. A reserve militia unit was standing by at the Ranch, ready to respond if the call that things were getting bad came from one of the Bundys who was a principle in the events then unfolding at the BLM camp 3 or 4 miles north of the Bunkerville exit on I-15.

While others were calling for additional assistance form volunteers around the country, DeLemus had other ideas. In the Nashua Telegraph, his hometown newspaper published the following from their April 18 edition (an excerpt – http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/1034411-469/nh-man-takes-prominent-role-with-armed.html):

Thursday afternoon, DeLemus was warning others not to come to Bunkerville because “we don’t want an escalation.”
DeLemus said, if a confrontation was to unfold, they would likely be obliterated by federal firepower. DeLemus said he is concerned that more people would enter harm’s way if the number of activists keeps swelling at the Bundy Ranch.
“We’d be able to bloody their noses a little … but we wouldn’t stand a chance,” DeLemus said.

A rather interesting lack of confidence for someone who has just taken charge, and assumed control, over all personnel except the Bundy family.

DeLemus didn’t arrive until well after that event, though upon reporting to the Militia Liaison, and he was delegated to assist Bill Keebler in maintaining organization within the militia camp. DeLemus then “relieved Keebler of “command”, asserting his authority over the entire militia contingent. In subsequent efforts for the Militia Liaison to work with, and pass direction on, from the Bundys, he was responded to with, “These are my guys, you must go through me if you’d like access to them”; “This is my camp and this is my command”; and “Just stay away from here.” Clearly, this late comer, who arrived after the Saturday event, has no known militia ties, had wrested control of the militia operation, even to the point of ignoring the Militia Liaison, which had been the means of communication and of the Bundys means of seeking assistance or requesting any activity of the militia contingent. Rather scary that what had functioned so well, all the way up to and beyond the Saturday event, was now being taken over by someone that had no dog in the fight, and was unwilling to relinquish any “power” that he had assumed, if to the extent of the previously fluid communication between the Bundys and the militia.

Now, to understand the role of the Militia Liaison, first established and approved by the Bundys. The Militia Liaison arrived at the ranch on April 8. He met with Cliven Bundy and explained that Operation Mutual Aid (OMA) had sent requests for militia to come to the ranch, and he had come to coordinate their activity. It was agreed that he would be the interface (liaison) between the family and the militia, and he agreed that a force of volunteers would could serve in the capacity of a Security Team (Personal Security Detail – PSD), to provide immediate protection for the family. These, however, would be detached for the militia contingent, while serving in that capacity.

As members of the PSD returned to their homes and replacements became necessary, efforts to secure replacements were met with the belligerent assertions of control quoted above, leaving securing additional person for the PSD difficult, and based upon DeLemus’ selection rather than that of the Militia Liaison, so rather than easily dealt with, now sometime requiring off-site visits to interview potential replacements.

To demonstrate the problem, let me provide a quote from a report concerning such difficulty, from an occurrence on April 19:

“I requested 3 men from Jerry’s [DeLemus] contingent for temporary ranch security while I vetted and approved a new PSD leader and personnel. I personally vetted and briefed the personnel that Jerry sent to me before I left to vet new PSD staff, which has remained a decentralized element from militia contingent, While I was gone from the ranch vetting a possible volunteer, Jerry came down to the ranch and found his men on the PSD at the house and proceeded to chew their asses, then he left the house and returned to the ranch entry checkpoint just before I arrived. When I arrived Jerry started yelling at me in front of 5 other men while I was still in my jeep. I exited the jeep and told Jerry we should have the conversation elsewhere in an attempt to not reveal a dissension in the ranks to the men. He followed for about 30 yards and then re-engaged the yelling. His complaint was that I had not informed him of what duty the 3 men I had requested were to perform (which is untrue, he was informed they were for temporary PSD), and that PSD at the house was so important that he had to personally vet all PSD personnel, to which I replied that I had vetted and briefed the men as they reported to me, I felt comfortable with all 3 as I had contact with one for the last 2 years and the other two made no triggers in my interrogation style vetting process. He continued yelling and making aggressive gestures, accusing me of a condescending tone, trying to own the entire situation and he was going to beat my little punk ass.”

So, from chaos brought to order by the Militia Liaison, we then come to a pompous “Napoleon” who must have absolute and complete control over all, though he has no demonstrable ability or prior relationship with militia, and a now disgruntled command.

Though there may have been others, I have received a report that a contingent of six militia members who arrived from the Phoenix, Arizona area, who, upon meeting the new Napoleon, determined that they would not “put up with his shit”, and began their 370 mile return trip, shortly after their arrival.

So, from what began, and succeeded, with a degree of controlled chaos, which should have evolved into a highly organized and cooperative effort has become the ‘command’ of a pompous, self-aggrandizing, untrained (since 1973, and no idea of what rank he held), Glenn Beck advocate (Do you wonder what Beck would say to them having guns, let along supporting Bundy), who is belligerent, abusive, uncooperative, hyperactive, exhausted, unable to demonstrate any leadership qualities, pusillanimous, and otherwise, a totally unqualified individual, who has assumed command, leaving the Militia Liaison in the ticklish position of having to be manly, polite, courteous, and to maintain his distance as not a part of the militia, deal with an insubordinate SOB, and try to reestablish a coherent defensive force in order to continue the operation begun by OMA to provide protection for the Bundys.

As a final thought; as resistance to government intrusions into our rights escalates, perhaps it is time to look back into our history at the militia of both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, where men who were volunteers fought better when they elected their own leaders, rather than having someone, not of their choosing, either by assuming or being appointed to command.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

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

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM