[OPF List] Burns Chronicles No 24 - To Plea, or, Not To Plea

Gary Hunt hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com
Wed Aug 17 23:47:54 JST 2016


Burns Chronicles No 24
To Plea, or, Not To Plea

white-flag-surrender-question

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 16, 2016

As some of those staunch defenders of our rights, in both Burns, Oregon, and
Bunkerville, Nevada, decide to make a plea agreement with the prosecutors,
the Internet has both armchair quarterbacks damning them and sympathetic
supporters who will stand by their decision.  However, perhaps it is
necessary to look a little deeper into who those people, at both the Ranch
and Refuge are, and to consider their respective objectives.

We can categorize those who participated in both events by comparing them to
those who stood up against the British, 240 years ago.  In so doing, there
are three general categories, so that we can consider them in a contemporary
context.

The first category is, for want of a better term, the politicos.
Historically, these would be those who served on local and Provincial
Committees of Safety and, those who went to Philadelphia and served in the
Continental Congress.  There may be others, such as newspaper editors and
others who were outspoken against the British, so that we can lump them into
this category, as well.

Now, in the past two years, we have, likewise, the politicos, those whose
involvement is to challenge the government concerning both rights and that
which should be right.  Their objective is educational as well as political,
desiring to provide understanding to other citizens as well as to attempt to
get the government to stay within its limits and to remain obedient to the
Constitution.

The second category is those with military inclinations.  For the most part,
they had prior military and leadership experience in the French and Indian
wars.  Their purpose was to use military force to protect the rights of
Englishmen and defend against forces thrown against them.

In the contemporary context, it would include those with military and
leadership experience who have taken the task of protecting those politicos
against attempts at violent suppression of their right to seek redress of
grievances and to speak freely on subjects of concern to others.

These first two categories can easily be equated to the First Amendment, for
the politicos, and the Second Amendment for those with military
inclinations.

The third category is those who offer support, which would include those
lesser military types (enlisted men) or those who provided food, blankets,
firewood, and other necessities to those in the other two categories.  They
were more than simply vocal supporters.  They acted to support those who
were defending their rights.

In both events, we also have members of this third category, whether it was
by standing guard, cooking, doing laundry, reviewing documents, or any other
necessary support activities.  They served with actions, not words.

Those men of words, those politicos, were the most feared by the British
government.  John Hancock and Sam Adams, for example, were exempt from the
amnesty offered early on as the Revolutionary War began.  They were also
secondary targets in the British march to Lexington and Concord.

Today, we see those men of words (not the armchair sort) not even being
considered for plea agreements.  They are the most feared, and the
government will do all that it can to silence them.  They cannot be flight
risks, as they have homes, businesses, and families that tie them to an open
life.  Now that the game is on, they are committed to presenting their case,
even though they know that the odds are against them when the judicial
branch (court) and the executive branch (prosecutors) gang up against them;
suppressing communication, disrupting them in jail, and doing their best to
deny communication with those who might be able to help them.  It was only
after more than five months that the Court decides that the co-defendants
could communicate with each other to prepare their defense.  These patriots
will not plead out, as they are on the proper battlefield, even though
disadvantaged, to fight their war of words and principles, and for our
Constitution.

Next, we have the militarily inclined participants.  Their job was to
protect the politicos.  At the Bundy Affair, many of those who had been on
the Ranch remained on the Ranch to protect the Bundy family, home and
property, as their assigned duty.  They did not participate in the
Unrustling of April 12, 2014.  They did not abandon their mission.  They
stayed at their duty station, as they should.  Others, who had only arrived
on the 12th chose to defend and protect those mostly third category people
who had come to demonstrate their support for the Bundy cause.

In Burns, the protection and defense were carried on throughout the
possession of the Refuge.  Unfortunately, failure to plan against an ambush
resulted in some of them being caught in an indefensible situation.  This
resulted in the arrest of some of the people and the death of LaVoy Finicum.


It is among this group that we see some entering into plea agreements with
the government.  However, taking a plea agreement doesn't necessarily
jeopardize the politicos or other military types.  The fact that they pled
is not admissible in the subsequent trials.  Only if they choose to abandon
any integrity will they turn state's evidence and testify against the
others.  Those, only, will become a pariah -- and no longer reasonably able
to consider themselves as patriots.

But, still, we have the dilemma that is the subject of this article.  By
pleading, have they given up their principles and their integrity? 

George Washington won against the British by doing his utmost to be able to
"fight another day".  Though a prisoner of war may be a burden on the enemy,
it is worse when that fighting man is lost to the cause that they champion.
If the prisoner of war can escape, he can rejoin the battle. 

As explained in Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process
<http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1601> , they were facing what they
believed to be a possible sentence of thirty years under the threat of
terrorism enhancement.  Their appointed attorneys conspired with the
prosecutors and the court to intimidate them with the threat of thirty years
in prison.  That would put them in their fifties, or older, and would
probably preclude them from "fighting another day". 

However, by pleading out, they will be back on the streets in a few years.
At that time, they can rejoin the battle, if they so choose.

Now, they do, according to the current interpretation of the "felon in
possession of a firearm" laws, give up their right to possess firearms.
However, there are two circumstances that would negate that prohibition. 

First is another battle, being fought since October 2014, when Kevin "KC"
Massey, acting as both a politico and in a military capacity, was charged
with "felon in possession of a firearm".  Massey was legally in possession
of a firearm, under Texas Revised Statutes.  This was at odds with the
federal charge brought against him at that time.  He has chosen, as a
politico, to fight the battle of words.  Though he was convicted and is now
in prison, he and his attorney, Phillip T. Cowen, are preparing an appeal
that will challenge the federal interpretation of 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1)
<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/189_usc_922_g.htm> .  If he prevails,
then the statute will only apply to those involved, directly, in commerce,
whereby the firearm crosses state or international boundaries.  Once out of
commerce, it could be lawfully possessed. 

Second is rather simple and easily understood.  If we come to open conflict
with the government, because of their abrogating their lawful
responsibilities under, and usurping authority never granted them by the
Constitution, we will all be enforcing the right to keep, bear, and use,
arms.  That prohibition then becomes moot.

Now, as to the third category, there is nothing to be said.  They are free
to choose to join the legal battle, or plea so that they can return to their
role much sooner -- should the government prevail at trial.

Now, let's change the perspective to a more realistic and individual one.  I
might be considered among the first group, the politicos.  When I was
younger, I found myself holding a firearm in protecting rights, though I
never found cause to use them.  I have also been encouraged to use the sword
of words, the Pen, as I have been doing since Waco. 

If I found myself in the circumstances that those patriots have found
themselves in, I can only speculate what course I would take.  If I chose to
take a chance that the courts in this country can serve justice, and I lost
-- facing thirty years -- well, my children are grown but then I would be
100 years old when I got out (I would probably die in prison).  Of course,
in prison, I would still have access to a keyboard, so I could continue to
wage the battles that I now wage, though access to events would be severely
limited.  However, if I could get out after only a few years, I could remain
a part of the patriot community, and quite possibly continue pretty much as
I have for the past few decades.

However, if I were younger, the considerations would be different from what
I would face, now.  If I had young children, would I be willing to forgo
helping and watching them grow?  With thirty years, I would miss the birth
of my grandchildren.  When I consider what is most important to me, it is
family, then country, to which I have made my commitment.  So, unless and
until I find myself in that circumstance, I can honestly say that I can only
guess at what choice I would make.

Now, back to those who have chosen to plea.  I don't wear their shoes, and I
am grateful for that.  I am also grateful for them, as they did what had to
be done, when it had to be done.  Not many of us can say that we, too, did
what had to be done, when it needed to be done. 

Nor do I wear your shoes, so I will not partake in speculation as to what
you would, or should, do if you found yourself in such a situation as they
have.  First, most who will read this have not taken a single step in that
direction.  Second, your particular circumstances, especially with your
family, are an unknown to me.  I can only say that so long as you did not
turn state's evidence, I would respect your decision, as you, not I, have to
live with it.

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles N
<http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1613> o 24 - To Plea, or, Not To Plea

 

Gary Hunt
 <http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/> Outpost of Freedom

 

So long as we fight only amongst ourselves, we will never have to face the
more dangerous task of fighting against our enemy.

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20160817/649153cb/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4022 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20160817/649153cb/attachment-0001.jpe 


More information about the OPF mailing list