Fear is the Great Mind Killer

12 Days Until the Pre-Trial Hearing, 17 Days Until Jury Selection and 18 Days Until The Trial Begins

I have been working to get all of my affairs in order including filing taxes. During the tax filing process one of the decisions I needed to make was direct deposit of our return or have them send a check. It is strange how it is the little decisions that sometimes drag you back to the guillotine in front of you:

1) If I have them send the check and I am found guilty and incarcerated my wife would need to make arrangements (big hassle) for me to sign the check so that she could cash it and try to hold onto the farm a little while longer.

2) However, with direct deposit she will have no obstacles if I am jailed, she will be able to access the return funds directly.

While I am not in favor of giving the government more details about our personal affairs, such as my bank account information I suppose the reality is that they already have this data and the pragmatic approach is to make life easier on my wife and kids.

It is not the case that I am loosing hope (If I ever had any), it is my nature to look at the worst case scenario and plan appropriately. To a large extent, if I am found guilty and jailed, the real burden will be on my wife.  I do not think there is any possibility she will be able to hold onto the farm for more than a few months (our financial resources have been depleted in this battle) and she will need to focus on the stark reality of keeping a roof over the kids heads, keeping them fed and clothed. I truly do wish I could prepare for that event and provide for them but I see no possible remedy.

The last 19 months have not been easy, they have not been easy for me and they have not been easy on my wife. The last thought of each day, before I finally drift off to sleep, is a clinical review of the upcoming trial and the impact on those I love.

It is pretty strange to be facing a minimum of ten years in prison without ever having hurt anyone, stolen from anyone or in any way negatively impacting the lives of anyone. A felony crime without a real victim. Of course, the Sheriff’s Deputy and the Social Service workers are posing as victims — they were frightened by me. It is amazing that it never occurs to anyone that I was frightened by them!  I was not the one who decided to rapidly approach my home, I am not the one who saw me standing in my driveway holding my gun and decided to proceed. Bizarre.  I just can’t escape how strange these charges are or how persistent the D.A. is in pursing a guilty verdict in a case where no one was harmed.

Punishment Without Crime:

Dostoevsky’s great work “Crime and Punishment” was based on the premise that the guilt of committing a crime would drive the criminal to seek redemption through punishment. The first time I read that book I though the author was enlightened and saw through to the heart of humanity. Many years later I see that Dostoevsky was naive. Crime and Punishment have nothing to do with criminal behavior and are more solidly seated in “control and profit”. There are clearly some who believe that we must have a class structure in our society where a class of enforcers must control the People.

The class of the enforcers are the servants of the political class and to insure that the political class maintains control and the ability to profit from the People certain laws must be ignored and new social paradigms must be established. The founding fathers of Colorado must have understood the true nature of government and the nature of diabolical crime as they attempted to created a constitution that would firmly resist the natural corrosion of the political and enforcement class:

Article II Section 11. Ex post facto laws. No ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises or immunities, shall be passed by the general assembly.

Apparently, Sheriff’s Deputies and Social Service workers in Colorado have been granted “immunity” from the Trespassing laws of Colorado. They may ignore “Keep Out” signs and proceed to attempt to “surprise” their targets (victims) and if the target (victim) does not acquiesce and kiss the feet of the interlopers felony criminal charges will soon follow (or worse, they do have this nasty habit of stealing your children and placing them with pedophiles or “foster care” homes who’s only interest is profit).

While the Judge has not yet ruled on our Motion to suppress based on the admitted trespassing by these government provocateurs both Social Service workers and the Deputy stated (under oath) that the trespassing laws do not apply to them. (Look up the Colorado Trespassing laws: No waiver of the law is offered for these “employees of the People”). The law is dog gone clear and when applied to this case it is clear that the Social Service workers and the Sheriff’s Deputy trampled C.R.S. 18-4-503 (1-a) independent of their “intentions”.

Reality is actually much worse when you consider some salient sections of the Colorado Constitution:

Article II Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article II Section 7. Security of person and property ­ searches ­ seizures ­ warrants. The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.

Just in case it was not clear to you: When a government employee enters your property or detains you and starts asking you questions this is a “search” => It is a “search for information”. You need to dig a little bit into case law to find the definition of a search as it applies to “asking questions” but the bottom line is that when an Officer engages in any action designed to “look for evidence of criminal activity” they have engaged in a “search”.

However, just to make the point painfully clear to the government our founding fathers added the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which is duplicated in the Colorado Constitution as Article II Section 18: Essentially, you may not be compelled to give evidence against yourself which is why you must agree to answer questions after arrest (Commonly know and “Miranda Rights” => “The Right to Remain Silent”). While Miranda and the 5th Amendment primarily apply “after the arrest and during trial” it is the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and Article II Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution) that protects the People from “Police State Tactics” prior to the arrest.

Special Laws For the Police:

Try to reconcile the Colorado Constitution with the Colorado Revised Statutes: CRS 18-3-202 (e)

(e) With intent to cause serious bodily injury upon the person of a peace officer or firefighter, he or she threatens with a deadly weapon a peace officer or firefighter engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the offender knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter acting in the performance of his or her duties;

If you compare the assault law, section (e), that applies to Police Officers and firefighters with the law that applies to the rest of us (a), (b) & (c):

(a) With intent to cause serious bodily injury to another person, he causes serious bodily injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon; or

(b) With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate, or disable permanently a member or organ of his body, he causes such an injury to any person; or

(c) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious bodily injury to any person;

For the rest of us assault REQUIRES that another human being be harmed in addition to “intent”. For a Police Officer the bar is set much lower in that only a “threat” is required. Clearly this puts Police Officers in a protected class and based on how these laws are used I argue that this has delivered a “special privilege” to the Police Officers in opposition to the Colorado Constitution.

I agree that this interpretation is based on how the Police Officers and District Attorney’s Officers are interpreting the law.  I suppose it is not unreasonable to consider that assaulting a Police Officer should be a particularly heinous crime until you read through all of the Internet stories revealing how Police Officers across this nation are busy abusing the public (and public trust) operating as nothing more than a legalized gang (I know, not all Police Officers behave this way).  That is where I have more concern for the general corruption of the once prominent notion that no man is above the law and that the law applies equally to everyone. The punishment for assaulting a Police Officer is a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years and does NOT require that the Police Officer was harmed in any way   To achieve the same minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years for you and I we would need to sustain a serious injury.

How could anyone argue this is “equal protection under the law”? The fact is that the general public, who the Police Officer’s serve, is not as protected as the Police. It is this “inversion of the principle of law” that catapults the Police into an enforcer class. Here is one example story where the Police have abused their “special status” and attacked one of the People. Unfortunately, this is one story among tens of thousands where the Police leverage their protected status to abuse the Public Interest and the Judicial System.

I believe the Deputy D.A. has a hard task in front of them proving that I had intent to harm the Deputy Sheriff and that I did indeed threaten anyone. At the Motions hearing the Sheriff’s Deputy and both Social Service workers agreed on two key points (under oath): I never pointed my gun at anyone and I never verbally threatened anyone.

The D.A.’s only hope is that the Jury is ignorant of the law and will remain ignorant of the law throughout the trial and their deliberations. Of course, this is where the risk to my freedom lies, in the ignorance of the members of my community. Lord help them know the truth.

I ask myself, why is the D.A. pursuing these charges when the law and the facts are clear (although in conflict with my perception of the Colorado Constitution)?  Isn’t this a form of blackmail, of strong arming me into accepting a plea bargain? Isn’t the use of force to extract a guilty plea a crime in and of itself? (Maybe not — look at how the U.S. has embraced torture as a viable information gathering tool). Isn’t this form of extortion taking place right in front of the Judge’s eyes?

Is this how justice was meant to work? No damaged party, the force of the State applied against the individual to extract a guilty plea and verdict in a court of law?  Certainly does not fit my idealistic notion of Justice and it certainly feels like I am being pushed to plead guilty. You have to wonder if the D.A.’s office cares about justice or simply their conviction rate.

The felony assault charge against a Police Officer is the scary element in my case.  If I am found guilty I immediately head to jail to start serving my 10 year mandatory sentence.

Felony Menacing: The Crime of Fear

The assault charge is clearly the big ticket charge being used to strongly encourage me to plead guilty to lesser crimes.  However, the Felony Menacing charges are no picnic as I face two counts and could easily spend a few years behind bars if convicted. (1 to 4 years if the time served is concurrent or 2 to 8 years if the sentence is consecutive)

The Felony Menacing laws fly in the face of the Colorado Constitution as well when you review Article II Section 13:

Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

How could anyone claim that we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves, our property, our homes and our families when all someone has to do is approach you on your property, see you with a gun, and then proceed until they are close enough to claim that they are in fear for their lives?

Clearly, I believe my right to bear arms is being “called into question”! To a large extent I believe I have lost my right as I have spent tens of thousands of dollars attempting to protect this right and my freedom and yet I face trial in few short weeks.

Take a look at the Felony Menacing Law (C.R.S. 18-3-202)

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:

(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or

(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.

“By any threat of physical action” is a definition large enough to drive a bus through. If you have the right to keep and bear arms to protect yourself, your property and your home, and in my case, deep within your own property, then this subjective statute apparently takes precedence so that you may have your natural right called into question.

“Attempts to Place another Person in Fear” would seem to indicate that the Prosecution would need to prove that my desire was to create fear. However, as far as I am able to tell the application of the law only requires that the person “experiences or claims fear”. There is no common sense written into this law such as: If you approach a person holding a clearly visible gun then you are responsible for your own actions. The notion that you could approach a person you see holding a gun and then claim that you were put in fear for your life not by the action of the person holding the gun, but by your own action of advancement is the knife that slices through the Right To Bear Arms proclaimed in the Colorado Constitution. Effectively, the aggressor is not simply allowed to claim the “victim posture” but is encouraged to make the claim by the District Attorney in an attempt to undermine the natural rights of the People.

I think the District Attorney is treading dangerously close to usurping the Constitution and is minimally violating their oath of office to defend the Colorado Constitution. From a tactical perspective my focus is not aligned with proper fulfillment of their oaths of office but every once in a while I do wonder why no 2nd Amendment Gun Rights groups have attempted to assist me (I have contacted all of them that I know about). If the Second Amendment groups are focused on protecting us from any new laws that attack our fundamental right to protect ourselves they have completely missed the obvious: No new laws are required to effectively undermine the Second Amendment (Or Colorado’s Article II Section 13) when the District Attorney does not face public condemnation for their abuse of current laws.

A few years ago the Courts in Colorado attempted to proclaim that Article II Section 13 did not convey a fundamental (natural) right but rather a subjective right that could be abolished through judicial decree or local ordinance. In response to Judicial activism on the part of the Colorado Courts the Colorado Legislature reacting to popular pressure passed new laws in 2003: C.R.S. 29-11.7-101 which reaffirmed the fundamental right to keep and bear arms in Colorado:

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution, the article referred to as the state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which include the right to defend their lives and liberties;

(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution;

(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);

(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;

(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;

(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person’s residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;

(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.

(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:

(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;

(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.

I again wonder if the Judge, Sheriff’s Department, the Social Service Department OR the District Attorney’s office have ANY IDEA that this law exists. The intention of the law is quite clear: To reaffirm our fundamental right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves.

If the referee of a football game did not know the rules of the game and proceeded arbitrarily to officiate the “big game” would there be a popular uprising? I suspect the reaction would be immediate and severe. On the other hand the Sheriff’s personnel, the Social Service workers, the District Attorney’s staff who we all would be inclined to think would be experts on our laws apparently operate either out of ignorance or with an independent agenda. I have little faith there will be a popular uprising demanding reform of the judicial system and the stringent qualification and public supervision of our employees.

These are not idle thoughts expressed by one person facing the current corruption of Colorado’s Constitution. A Prior Attorney General for the State of Colorado (Gale Norton) wrote and published a preface to the the Colorado Constitution to inform all of us of the importance of understanding the “rules of the game”. Cutting through an academic description of the importance of the Colorado Constitution Gale makes a simple and fundamental observation: “As in any game, it helps if everyone plays by the rules.”

To prosecute someone under the Felony menacing statute while 29-11.7-101 is in the books is a malicious attempt to undermine the legal framework of Colorado and place law abiding people under the considerable weight of the force of the State. To claim that you may drive upon another person’s property past four Keep Out signs and approach a person who is clearly holding a gun and then charge that person with felony menacing is a mockery of the law. Worse, it is an abridgment of our State Constitution and is an extreme example of abuse of power.

Apparently, the Trespassing laws of Colorado do not apply to Social Service Workers, they do not apply to Sheriff’s Deputies and yet these same “employees of the People” are free to twist the laws of Colorado against those few who would dare to protect themselves from unknown intruders advancing dangerously onto their private property. This screams: “You are a Slave, You have no Rights, The laws are NOT for You!!”

I’ll state the facts again: The Sheriff’s Deputy and both Social Service Workers AGREE (testified under oath at the Motions Hearing) that I never pointed the gun at them and that I never issued any verbal threats. The DA’s case is that simply holding a gun on your own property is felony menacing IF the uninvited trespassers “fear for their lives”.  The crime is in the mind of the aggressor, the trespasser.

What do you think would happen if I drove onto a Police Officer’s farm, uninvited, past four Keep Out signs and saw him holding a gun and continued to proceed? Yes, I think I would have been shot dead as well.

However, I was not the aggressor, I am not an unkind person, I really have no desire to harm anyone but I am also not inclined to allow myself, my wife or my children to be harmed by unannounced strangers either.  I maintained my composure, I asked the obvious question: Do You Have A Warrant, and when the answer was “No” I instructed them (repeatedly) to leave.

The District Attorney in Adams County in cooperation with the Sheriff’s Department has taken up where the Colorado Courts failed and is attempting to circumvent the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes (Not to mention the expressed voice of the People).

A Land Without Law:

When the State Constitution and the State laws have no effect on the behavior of the employees of the State then you live in a land without law. Am I over reacting? If you take a walk in my boots or the shoes of my wife I don’t think you could come to any other conclusion.

What happens when the State determines you owe them back taxes? Is there any “due process” of law or do they simply confiscate your wages, your bank accounts and your property? There is no law, they confiscate and you are left scrambling attempting to deal with an organization that has no heart, no soul and absolutely no compassion.

Where in the law was the government given power to take our tax dollars and hand them over to banks who had made bad investment decisions?  They are “too big to fail” and we are “too small for any support at all”. In a country as great as the United States the inverse should be true: “Too small to fail”. The State and Federal Government were instituted at the pleasure of the People, we maintain the fundamental right to disband the current government and create a new government more to our liking. This is not some sentimental rhetoric it is a principle firmly enshrined within the Colorado Constitution:

Article II Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government ­ proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

I am not advocating any radical change of our government. From my perspective this would be a futile exercise because the fundamental problem we all face is basic ignorance of the nature of government. The greatest threat to me in the trial is ignorance of the law by the Jury.

The simple truth is that the “employees of the People” have exercised this “right” and usurped the Colorado Constitution to replace it with their own draconian “command and control structure” over the once free People. They proceeded without Constitutional amendments, they proceeded without Legislative process, the proceeded without referendums and they have achieved their goal through a process of selective enforcement and ignorance of our laws.

Is the Colorado Constitution admissible in Colorado’s Courts? As far as I am able to determine the answer is NO. The Jury will not be informed that we all have the right to keep and bear arms. We MIGHT be able to introduce the Colorado Constitution as an affirmative defense in the form of Jury Instructions but this is at the discretion of the Judge. There is no fundamental right to recite the Colorado Constitution to the Jury in a criminal trial (I am still having a very difficult time understanding how this is the reality).

The Sheriff’s Deputy who trespassed onto our property and who is claiming to be the victim of felony assault will sit at the table with the District Attorney throughout the trial.  This “witness” is not to be sequestered with the rest of the “witnesses” but rather will be free to help prosecute the case against me and unfairly prejudice the jury with his uniformed presence at the prosecutions table. Did you have any idea that the Police were provided this special privilege during criminal trials?

The Judicial system is apparently geared toward creating convictions and the concept of Justice For All has been lost through the march of time as we have been swept away from liberty by the ghost of Fear.  Were you aware that the prosecution masquerades as “The People” during the trial and “The People” are given the benefit of the doubt in criminal proceedings? In my case the prosecution clearly does not represent the People, the People have spoken through their Constitution and through their Legislators when they created 29-11.7-101. No, the Prosecution in my case clearly represents the government interests in protecting the abuse of power exercised by our employees. I have use that term “our employees” in my writing today but there should be no misconception that I believe these government workers do indeed work for us; They server their own interests.

Last Thoughts:

I have read about the suicide plane attack on the IRS building in Austin, Texas these last days and while I could never condone killing or harming innocent people (it’s just wrong) I wonder what could have driven Joe Stack to such a point of desperation.

I want to make it clear that I have no hate in my heart for the District Attorney, the Sheriff’s of the Social Service workers. I do not believe the D.A. or the Sheriff has fulfilled their oaths of office but that is an issue for their soul and not an issue for me to judge. I am extremely alarmed with the state of our Judicial system and yet I have no malice towards it. I would like to wake a few people from their slumber to encourage them to remember what the purpose of this system was.

Certainly, I am struggling under the pressure of the approaching trial and the stress is taking a toll on my life.  However, I am not depressed, I have no inclination to take my own life or reach out and harm another persons life. I am dedicated to the good fight even though I understand that with a 90+% conviction rate I am almost condemned to incarceration by the judicial process.  I do not back down because the odds are long and the pressure is extreme. I will stand for what I believe is right and pray that common sense and the rule of law will prevail.

if you read these words and have a few moment to send a prayer of support it would be appreciated. I pray God will protect my family even if I am jailed. I pray more for my family then I do for the rule of law for in the end I have lost faith in the law due to the general ignorance of man: Fear IS the Great Mind Killer.

Yes, today I required a cathartic exercise to express myself and vent my stress.