We The People USA

Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

Camp Lone Star - Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star - Search Warrant or Fishing license?

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 10, 2014

 

After the incident of August 29, 2014, in which BPS Agent Hernandez, who is bound by policy forbidding the firing of weapons upon illegal aliens, though apparently no such policy exists regarding American citizens, fired five shots from 30 feet away, failing to hit John Foerster (Jesus), a total of five weapons were "taken into custody" by the BPS and Sheriff's Deputy.  (See Massey's account of incident).  There is nothing to suggest that the perpetrator of that incident, Hernandez, had his weapon confiscated.  These weapons were the basis for a "Criminal Complaint" issued on October 20, 2014, and lead to the arrest of K. C. (Kevin) Massey on Monday, October 20, and John Foerster, on Tuesday October 21 (See Camp Lone Star - Update #1 on K. C. Massey).

We are going to look at the Search Warrant and related documents to better understand both the divisiveness of government, and the deviation from the intent of the Constitution --regardless of how the courts may have ruled on the matter, after all, how can we be bound by laws if the government is not bound by the Constitution?

On October 20th, the same day as the Criminal Complaint,  the "Application for a Search Warrant" (included in linked PDF) is supported by an "Affidavit for Search Warrant", and though it doesn't have the legally required concluding statement:

  • Further affiant saith not.
    I swear or affirm that the above and foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

or, variations thereof, it does comport the air of authority, as it is signed by "Anthony M. Rotunno, Special Agent, ATF".  However, should we expect the government to abide by the rules of legal sufficiency?  Or, is that simply for "us peons"?  After all, the government speaks only truth, and need not swear or affirm, simply, state.  The Constitution does require that an affidavit be "supported by Oath or affirmation" (see 4th Amendment, below).

So, the Criminal Complaint was based upon what is referred to as "Felony Possession of a Firearm".  In fact, the Affidavit cites 18 U. S. Code, § 922 (g)(1), with the pertinent phrase being, "to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce".  Though I have written on the subject of 10 USC 922 (g)(1), before ("No bended knee for me" - the Charge against Robert Beecher & Liberty or Laws?  Government Enforces Their Laws - Who Shall Enforc...), I need to add another question regarding the applicability solely to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  It has to do with the word "has", as opposed to the word "had".  "Has" is 3rd person present, meaning active in the action just completed, where "had" is past tense, meaning in a previous situation.  So, if one were the direct recipient, then this would be appropriate.  However, if it were expansive -- intended to include any firearm shipped in interstate commerce, then had would be the proper verb -- to include any and all that had been so transported.  I am sure that those who write such laws, or rules, have a grasp on the language and the meaning of words than those idiots who cannot even ascribe an affidavit properly.

That aside, Rotunno goes on with his explanation of his background, including with BPS from 2002 to 2008, then with ATF, since that time.  Of course, the background also included special classes that he is familiar with, including the one mentioned above, though English grammar is not listed.

He then goes on to explain what the ATF National Academy teaches about what is reasonable to believe about what firearms owners "normally" do.  For example, these rarely known facts, known only to the select few who have attended the appropriate indoctrination classes, are as follows:

  1. That the ATF National Academy teaches that most Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that it is reasonable to believe that persons normally store their firearms in their homes;
  2. That persons who possess firearms usually possess other items related to firearms, such as: gun cases, ammunition, ammunition magazines, holsters, spare parts, cleaning equipment, photographs of firearms and receipts for the purchase of these items;
  3. That it is common for individuals who possess firearms and ammunition after being convicted of a felony, to secrete such firearms and ammunition in secure locations within their residence, motor vehicles and other real property over which they have dominion and control;
  4. That documents which indicate their occupancy and/or ownership such as personal mail, checkbooks, identification, notes, correspondence, utility bills, rent receipts, payment receipts, financial documents, keys, photographs, leases, mortgage bills, vehicle registration information, ownership warranties, receipts for vehicle parts and repairs, telephone answering machine introductions; cell phone cameras or other electronic recording devices which may contain electronic data of evidentiary value; and
  5. That those persons often take and store photographs of themselves with their firearms, of firearms they own or possess, and usually take or store these photographs using their personal telephones or the "memory" cards of their telephones.

If Rotunno is such an expert, he should be familiar with something known as "Tannerite".  Tannerite is sold as a two-part compound, with the parts separated.  It is legal to sell and possess.  Its nature changes when the primary part, ammonium nitrate (an oxidizer) and aluminum powder (a fuel), are mixed.  At that point, when mixed, laws apply only to the transporting and/or shipping of the then Tannerite.  So, in an effort to prepare for the demonization of Massey, when this matter goes to the Grand Jury for an Indictment, they will tell the Grand Jury that he possessed ammonium nitrate and fuel, the same substances that Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.  This will be presented before any evidence of firearms so that the jury members will perceive Massey as a terrorist, as most people see McVeigh.  At that point, the jury will follow the lead of the U. S.  Attorney and not question other possible elements of the case.  They will do what they have to do in order to indict Massey, and then the ordeal and expense of trial well begin to drain away Massey's energy and resources, and the government a success, without even a conviction, in removing a committed patriot from our ranks.

Perhaps we need to look at this realistically.  The Constitution provides, in the Fourth Amendment, that:

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

Therefore, we have another misunderstanding between the intent of the Constitution and the application by government.  Why did the Founders insert the adverb "particularly"?  Why didn't they just leave it out?  Well, then it would have read, "and describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  Is that what they meant?  

But, wait a minute!  They already have in their custody the five firearms listed in the Criminal Complaint and the two subsequently identified in the Affidavit for Search Warrant.  So, keep that in mind as you read Page 3 of the Search Warrant (linked above).

On that page, you will see a list that is, at best, obscene, at least with regard to finding evidence that Massey had committed the alleged crime.  You will note that the Warrant also says that they confiscated one firearm on Massey at the time of arrest, and that they knew that there was another firearm in the motel room.  That is seven firearms, and they need to "confiscate" records, items, nearly everything but the toilet paper, to find "evidence of a crime"?  Hell, if it really is a crime, then they had him, "dead to rights", with seven firearms.

Can we attribute any other "justification" for this extensive and intrusive search other than "fishing" -- to gather intelligence and profile others who have associated with Massey?  Perhaps looking for evidence of another crime.  Perhaps looking for picture so naked women, so that they can do something "productive", during their long periods of surveillance.

Another thought that occurs is timing.  If the original arrest was scheduled for 9:30 AM, though wasn't conducted until Massey left the room, at 1:00 PM., one must wonder how the Affidavit, with all of the detail, could have been prepared, then the Assistance US Attorney found, to approve it, and, finally, a judge found who would sign it, within normal working hours, to be served the same day.

A final comment on the Search Warrant is the admission by the government that Massey showed the understanding that saying anything can only lead to disaster.  By standing firm in not talking, he deserves the praise for the fortitude that held him to that conviction.  Had he not, it is quite possible that he would have divulged information that might be detrimental to others.  The quote, from the Warrant:

  • At the FBI office, your affiant (Rotunno) and FBI J. Schneider attempted to interview MASSEY. However, MASSEY invoked his right to an attorney.

What is clear is that the government's regard for obedience to the intent of the Constitution is, without question, absent from everything done in this current exercise of despotic government.  The primary evidence (5 firearms) was obtained without a warrant.  Is it "forbidden fruit", as it was obtained when government officers committed a crime by firing on John Foerster, and therefore within the limitations imposed by the 4th Amendment?  Can that "evidence" then be used to secure an unsworn Search Warrant, so that, perhaps, they can make an arrest and find some evidence that is not as questionable?  Would that evidence also be questionable, if obtained by improper (unconstitutional) methods?  Come to think of it, the Search Warrant (page 6, item "H") says that they had an arrest warrant, though Massey has never been provided a copy of the alleged Arrest Warrant.

So, we return to that necessary question, Are the people are here to serve the Government, or, is the government here to serve the People? 

 

This article can be found on line at Camp Lone Star - Search Warrant or Fishing license?

 

Views: 15

Comment

You need to be a member of We The People USA to add comments!

Join We The People USA

Badge

Loading…

Online Magazines

Accuracy In Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
American Conservative
Amer Conservative Daily
The American Prospect
Atlanta Const Journal
The Atlantic Monthly
Boston Review
Blacklisted News
The Bulletin
Canada Free Press
Capitalism Magazine
Chronicles Magazine
City Journal
CNS News
CNIN Truth
Conservative Economist
Consortium News
Commentary Magazine
The Conservative Edge
Conservative Outpost
Corruption Chronicals (JW)
The Corzine Times
CounterPunch
The Daily Caller
Daily Mail UK
Deep Journal
Digital Journal
Dissent Magazine
The Economist
Examiner
Florida Pundit
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Policy
The Freemen Institute
The Gouverneur Times NY
The Guardian UK
The Foundry (Heritage)
Free Market News
FrontPage Magazine
Gateway Pundit
The Guardian UK
The Globalist
Harper's Magazine
Harvard Inter Review
The Hill
Human Events
In These Times
The Land of the Free
Liberty Unbound
Mission America
Mother Jones
Monthly Review
The Nation
National Interest
National Ledger
National Review
New Internationalist
The New American
The New Ledger
New Left Review
New Media Journal
News Hounds
Newstin
The New Republic
News Busters
News Fifty
NewsMax
Newsweek
News Daily
News With Views
Online Journal
Oohja.com
The Palestine Chronicle
Planet Daily
Policy Review
Poligazette
Politics Daily
The Post Chronicle
Pravda
The Progressive
Reality Check
The Real News Network
Reason
Real Clear Markets
Real Clear Politics
Red Pepper
Roll Call
Russia Today
Salon
Slate
Spectator Magazine
Spiked
Telegraph UK
Time
Toward Freedom
Townhall
U.S. News & World Report
Utne Reader
Wall Street Journal Magazine
Washington Examiner
The Washington Independent
Washington Monthly
The Weekly Standard
World Net Daily
World Magazine
World Press Review
World Reports
World Tribune
Vanity Fair

© 2024   Created by WTPUSA.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service