Print 
Single Page
Enlarge This Image
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Militia: State drops charges against Alaska Peacemakers, but what about the federal case?A recent ruling by an Alaska Superior Court judge to nix more than 100 hours of surveillance recordings sounded the death knell for the state case against the five members of the "241" murder conspiracy plot. On Friday, state prosecutors dropped all charges, which included the more serious charges of conspiracy to kidnap and murder. It’s a huge win for those caught up in the probe, but one that only means freedom for one of the co-defendants, Michael Anderson. "With the suppression of the recordings, the state prosecution of these individuals is no longer possible," the Alaska Department of Law explained in a prepared statement. Alaska Peacemakers Militia leader Schaeffer Cox and associates Coleman Barney, Lonnie Vernon and Karen Vernon still face federal weapons charges and will remain in jail. For reasons unclear, state charges were also dropped against Ken Thesing, a sixth Cox associate. Thesing was not charged in the murder conspiracy and faced only minor state charges for serving the court with false legal documents. The state's decision to drop case came in the wake of an Oct. 17 ruling by Alaska Superior Court Judge David Stewart, who ruled that more than 100 hours of audio and video surveillance could not be used as evidence in the state's case. Under state law, which offers greater privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution, the judge ruled the warrantless recordings unconstitutional. The secret surveillance began as part of a federal investigation into militia activities in Alaska's Interior, and relied mostly on two confidential informants, later revealed to be military surplus store owner William Fulton -- who vanished five days after the initial arrests in the militia case -- and Gerald "J.R." Olson, a shady contractor who agreed to assist in the investigation in exchange for getting out of convictions and prison time in a string of separate crimes. Robert John, a defense attorney representing Schaeffer Cox, said he had anticipated the judge's decision to not allow the audio and video evidence might eventually lead to the case's dismissal. He just didn't think it would be so quick. "I saw this coming," said John, adding he thought the defense would have to go through a few more motions, "but I did anticipate that this is where it would go." Tim Dooley, who represents Coleman Barney in both the state and federal cases, called Stewart's decision to suppress the tapes "very courageous," but added that, in his opinion, the tapes would have been more help than harm for his client's case had they been entered into evidence, rather than resulting in the dismissal of the state's case. "Actually, it's really ironic that they got suppressed. We could have used them," Dooley said. Cox, Barney, and Lonnie and Vernon each still face federal weapons charges. And in a separate federal case, the Vernons are accused of plotting to kill a federal judge and IRS agent. Where does the case go from here? What does it mean for other militia members around the state, and the country? And what about Mike Anderson, who went free after Friday's dismissal? Schaeffer Cox: Martyr or thwarted menace?Cox apparently made plenty of friends in the militia world. In March 2009, Cox spoke at a "Freedom Festival" gathering in Post Falls, a town in northern Idaho where militias have strong roots. There, he electrified the crowd where he spoke of taking the word militia "back from the people who villainize it." At the time, Cox was speaking as a member of a growing movement, one intensely dissatisfied with the federal government, and its growing reach. Members of the movement, known as "sovereign citizens" (a moniker Cox embraced), do not recognize state or federal authority over them. El Bob Redress of Grievances (opening our pie hole) expressed in the first amendment is one of those peaceful ways of changing government. Your thoughts remind me of what President Kennedy said in 1962- “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Redress of grievances is what its all about. However, expecting that you, individually and personally, or in consort with fifteen of your closest friends, are owed the honor of the full succor and attention of the government every time you have something to say is just silly. Someone wrote ... Here is the exact quote from the above case. Layman's terms ... "The very fact that you're standing there with your pie hole open doesn't mean the government is required to put pie in it." Bill Mencken, Free Market Capitalism will always fail. It is based on the goodness of man. Man is motivated by our fallen nature of self interest. The founders attempted Free Market Capitalism under the Article of Confederation and it failed. They created Fair market Capitalism under the commerce clause of the Constitution. It put all States on an even playing field. We also started with checks and balances that have been lost to time. Originally, corporations were not allowed in the USA. Then they were allowed for only short periods of time and specific projects. Finally they were allowed as long as they did not become too big. Standard Oil and the AT & T break up are examples. In the 90’s mergers started to occur with the blessing of government. The final straw, that broke the economic back of the globe was the destruction of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It allowed mergers of commercial and investment banking. It happened in the 20’s and Glass-Steagall was the protection developed after the Great Depression. We are at the end of our current economic system. Can Alaska rebuild using Fair Market Capitalism to keep mans self interest in check? It's because of self-interest that only free market capitalism can lead to the best possible economic outcomes, and is the only morally justifiable system. Top-down regulation will always fail to improve things, partly because of the self-interest of the individual. You forget that the regulators are self-interested, too. They will regulate the system to benefit themselves and their buddies. Why do you think this "fallen nature" does not apply to the rulers? Why do you think it does not apply to those who help elect those rulers? The voters and politicians are each interested in their own selves - not you. They have their own pocketbooks in mind - not yours. The "failure" of the Articles were that they didn't give enough power to the power-hungry elite. The Constitution fixed that for the elite, and screwed-over everyone else. When you say, "Originally, corporations were not allowed," you're confusing two different types of corporations. The usage of the word has changed since then. At the founding of this country, a corporation was an institution with a charter granted by the government. Today, such corporations are the USPS and Amtrak. Companies like GE and Exxon would not have been classified as corporations back then. The problem with the repeal of Glass-Steagall was that it didn't coincide with the repeal of the Federal Reserve, FDIC, etc. The underlying problem isn't the lack of regulation imposed by Glass-Steagall; it's the existence of a central bank that inflates the money supply and creates moral hazards with its long-standing policy of bailing out well-connected insolvent companies. Glibbywibbly, A true Free Market would allow companies to fail. If we had a Free Market, those banks “too big to fail” would have been allowed to fail. Today they are even bigger. How did that happen? We have crony Capitalism. The result of an unchecked Free Market The Commerce Clause placed all States on an equal footing. That is why China can out produce us. We are not on an equal footing, just like the States were under the Articles of Confederation. The European Union is disintegrating for the same reason. However you describe corporations, the fact is, it was not what they are today. Who are the rulers? We the people are suppose to be. All of us need checks and balances because you are correct. The current regulators are not held responsible for their behavior. Have you read what is going on at the Federal Reserve and the private Banks? Glass Steagall issue is separating the Investment Banks from the Commercial. No regulation but separation. That would allow the Investment banks to fail when they took too much risk. We allowed these Wall Street speculators to latch on to real banking in the commercial sector. That is why they were not allowed to fail. It appears you oppose the Constitution. Bill Mencken, You are correct I misspoke. What I should have said is USSC has ruled that government does not have to “listen or respond” to Grievances. Here is the case law- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/465/271.html Here is the exact quote from the above case. Sorry El Bob, but you need to do a lot more research. Clearly the federal government poses the largest threat to freedom in this country. You are delusional if you really believe you can go up against the feds and win. You had better have the bank balance of Bill Gates if you really want to try. You are operating from a false premise and are a perfect example of a person who believes in all of the propaganda you have been spoon fed unquestioningly. You are a collectivist, a person who needs a large government to control all of those people who don't agree with you. Sad. Ray is also WRONG that the USSC ALLOWS redress of grievances, it is the first Amendment to the US Constitution that RECOGNIZES the RIGHT of the people to redress grievances. As stated; good luck with that. Ray also seems to think that we have free market capitalism in this country, that would be wrong. We have not had a true free market for over 100 years. What we have is corporatism, and that needs to end. I believe this is why we have fallen so far from our founding principles. Most of the people in this country have no idea what they are talking about and refuse to educate themselves, instead relying on a totally corrupted and wholly owned media and public school system. Gee, Bill, whatcha gonna do, get a group of your friends together and put me on trial? How about I get a bunch of my friends together and put you on trial? Then what? We play Hatfields and McCoys for a couple of generations? No, Bill, thanks, but I don't like your world. It seems small and hostile and bitter. You keep it. This one is surely not perfect, but I've seen enough of what its better than to be willing to work with it. El Bob, Are you sure- “That which provokes the greater fear is the gun-toten militia.” Or could it be the Medias presentation with the direction of the FBI? Supreme Court allows redress of grievances but does not force government to respond. Ray: We are sure. Your militia scares us. I sympathize with Cox, and to some extent he should be allowed to talk about the things he talks about and prepare the violence he prepares for. Yet, his apparent willingness to allow situations to be escalated, and his apparent willingness to respond to escalated situations with violence scares us. The government might scare us as well, but you scare us more. You might not realize this, but very few Alaskans disagree with me on that point. Our government infuriates us at times, represses us at times and flat out mistreats us at times. But, very few of us find that we have reason to fear the government. We may be naive, yet, it's armed libertarians with half cocked delusions of revolution that we fear. But, be content in knowing that we don't actually fear you that much either. Alaska has been a magnet for half cocked delusional revolutionaries for well over a century and we've generally learned that even though the surly guy at the end of the road is a little scary when he talks, he'll still stop his truck and pull us out of the ditch when we drive our Subaru off of the road. We kind of even appreciate that he lives at the end of the road. Even while we tell our kids not to visit his cabin. Skeptic, There is nothing I can say to address your fears. Fear is usually based on our perception of things. You fear me I fear the government. How you feel toward me does not matter. What does matter is the future for our children and grandchildren. Look around the world. We will not be immune to the economic collapse. President Truman said- I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell. Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller feared Gypsies, Communists, Trade Unionists and Jews. He did not speak up when Hitler arrested them. When Pastor Niemoller was arrested he realized he was all alone. Another Lutheran Pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, fought the Nazi party from its inception going to far as to participate in an attempt to assassinate Hitler. The Nazis arrested him, held him in prison for years and finally murdered him less than a month before the end of the war. He wrote some books about Christ and ethics and our place in a world of pain and suffering. I very seriously doubt that any of us are at great risk of ever being put to such a test of faith as he. At least not by this government. El Bob, Did Hitler ever openly execute any German citizen without some type of trial? Our President recently did with a US citizen, how about Hitler? Here are the thoughts from a University Law Professor concerning our president’s actions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P12zPdR3pyA Unfortunately, this law professor cannot force the government to hear and respond to his grievances. He is just one person. The really scary thing is that we all ARE the government. Yeah, Ray, I'm sure. Consider also that the greatest threat to the people comes not from self-motivated zealots such as Schaeffer Cox, but from the growing corruption of the fast-centralizing federal government. Easy answer, Norm. That which provokes the greater fear is the gun-toten militia. With the cops there is a system of redress of grievances that often works. With the militia there's only another gun. El Bob, We agree on the fallen nature of man. There must be checks and balances on our own self interest. You are concerned about Schaeffer Cox limits. What about the limits on the corporations also called “persons?” Free Market Capitalism has failed because there are no limits placed on these persons. You fear Schaeffer Cox. Look around the world, see what these limitless “corporate persons” have done to the people. I don't fear Shaeffer Cox. I fear all fools like him who seem to believe that they have the right to a world separate and apart from the rest of us ruled only by their likes and dislikes, and who don't mind doing violence in support of their delusions. I'm reminded of a quote from Mill, a very pro-individual sort of individual, yet one who recognized that if we fail to willingly put some limits on our personal desires we will surely cease to live freely as a whole. "The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people." Maybe Shaeffer Cox is some sort of hero to some, but I agree with those who consider him, and the whole "sovereign" movement a nuisance - a damn dangerous nuisance. Something stinks and it ain't old salmon. Consider that neither the District Attorney, the Attorney General, the Alaska Troopers nor the Fairbanks LEOs dropped even as much as a hint that the federals would have to obtain a legal warrant to proceed. Consider that from August of 2010 until they dropped the hammer in March of 2011, not one of the FBI's legal counsel brains ever asked the question about the legality of wire taps and paid informants in Alaska. Should they have known? Absolutely! There are several states that have laws written much like Alaska's. Isn't it strange that the feds never referred to the list? Certainly the feds have investigated and prosecuted cases in those states and yet they completely overlooked the laws that would hinder them here in Alaska. A mistake? I don't think so. What does this mean? Maybe it means that the whole thing was staged. Yup, something smells Speck... I hope you're right---that the weapons charges will be dropped also. However... It may be that Parnell wants to wash his hands of Schaeffer Cox by allowing the Feds to crucify him. Parnell then can boast that he and his judiciary did what was right according to Alaska law, but that he couldn't prevent the federals from executing their own brand of justice. By doing this, the Governor and the Alaska Courts can become the champions of fairness while splashing S**t on the federals for what happened to Mr. Wilde. Again, I hope you're right, but then again, we'll have to wait and see. Norm Olson I say that it was entrapment from the first and that the feds had sent some bully boys up to Fairbanks to scare Cox, which is why he was acting so edgy and fearful. The record says that yes, they WERE out to get him. Why is is so difficult for some people to understand? Haven't you been paying attention to the corruption and violence of your own government? I wonder....you missed the JFK assassination and RFK and Martin Luther King? The whole Vietnam War? How about 911? You actually believe the report the government put out about that? You approve of dumping our nuclear waste on Iraq? Think that the jokers we've had as Presidents for the past two decades are anything but evil monsters worse than anything in the movies? Come on, people, wake up! There's no doubt that Schaeffer is innocent and that the FBI was playing him from the start. There is also no doubt that the Constitution of the United States says that the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. "Arms" includes grenades, machine guns, and whatever else you wish, because the whole idea behind the Second Amendment is to make sure that average citizens can be as well-armed as military and police units. It is that way on purpose and the history of it is well-known, so I expect that Schaeffer will ultimately win out on the weapons charges, too. Ringgggg... "Good afternoon, this is Judge David Stewart's office, may I help you?" A little later. . . "Good afternoon, Governor Parnell's office, may I help you?" It makes no difference that charges were dropped by the State of Alaska. The Feds will take over from here, and you have no rights with the Feds. The U.S. Constitution is long gone. This and the Jim Wilde case show you have no rights, in spite of a good Alaska State Constitution, that is still upheld from time to time by the Alaska Judiciary. The U.S. Constitution is indeed just a dusty old document. We have moved forward into a new kind of society of the future where the U.S. Constitution and individual rights do not apply. I hate it, but I think most Americans like it. They like it now because they think the loss of liberty applies only to other people but not to them. They'll like it less when the heel of government comes down on them, which it will. Individuals have NEVER had any "rights" under the US Constitution, only the states, because the states are signatories to the compact. That has been well-established by the US Supreme Court for over a century. Got that? YOU, individually, have no rights. It is up to the individual states to enforce the provisions of the Constitution FOR and in BEHALF of their citizens. The State of Alaska should be defending Schaeffer's right to keep and bear arms. His attorney should enjoin them to make sure that they do so. There was a time when most Americans still believed that the United States Constitution would protect them from this sort of thing.While it is too bad that it no longer does, at least in Alaska we can all say, Ahhh, so we do have a constitution! (At least Alaska does) |
Comments