Michael Parsons’ Dream Trial of Escaping the Law through Diplomatic Immunity Turns Into A Defensive Nightmare for His Court Appointed Attorney

I have just read the criminal trial and sentencing transcripts filed January 3, 2019, as Documents 193,195,196,and 197 in The United States of America vs. Michael Wayne Parsons lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska (case no. 4:17-cr-03038-JMG-CRZ)

This three day trial took place August 28-30, 2018, with sentencing on December 7, 2018.  The indictment involved a felon in possession of a firearm charge.  Despite the extensive efforts of the defendant to thwart the prosecution’s evidence and witness testimony, and even the jurisdiction and laws of the United States of America, at the conclusion of the trial the jury found the defendant guilty.  A short news brief by the Department of Justice was released on the sentencing date.

In this article, I am going to extract portions of the courtroom testimony which illustrate the various tactics which Mike Parsons employed to counter the clear and convincing case against him. Since I am referencing only three percent of these 4 documents, note that these selections exclude vital testimonies and discussions of most of the exhibits referenced in this trial which were presented to the jury. (All bolding of transcript quotations is mine.)

Michael Wayne Parsons promotes himself as an Ambassador entitled to Diplomatic Immunity, using illegitimate legal documents created by a  Canadian-based sovereign citizen group.

On Day One, the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, introduced the prosecution as Mr. Jan W. Sharp and Mr. Jody B. Mullin, Assistant U. S. Attorneys; and the counsel for the defense as Mr. Donald L. Schense, Attorney at Law.

The Judge began by declaring, “This court has jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution and 18, United States Code, 3231 with respect to all charged offenses against the laws of the United States and Mr. Parsons has been indicted or charged with violating 18, U. S. C., Section 922.  A plea of not guilty has been entered on his behalf.”

Michael Wayne Parsons

Right from the start of the trial, the defendant Michael Parsons interrupted the Judge’s commencement of proceedings by saying “Your Honor–.”  Wherefore the Court replied, “Just a minute.  And this matter’s ready to proceed to trial.  Counsel, would you please enter your appearance…all right. And for the defense..”.  To which Parsons asks, “May I stand?”

The Court:  You have counsel at this point of time.

The Defendant:  No, No, your Honor, I do not have counsel.  That’s–

The Court:  Well actually you do.  What–Enter your appearance, please.

The Defendant:  I object.  I do not consent to this man in any form, shape, or fashion, I have never consented to him in any form, shape or fashion to do anything on my behalf.

The Court:  We will take this up in a minute.  Enter your appearance, please.

Mr. Schense:  Good morning–

The Defendant:  I object to his placing an appearance.

Mr. Schense:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Don Schense, counsel for Mr.Michael Parsons, who is present, as the Court knows.

The Defendant:  I object.  Michael Parsons is not present.  I am Ambassador Michael Parsons of the Tsilhqot’in Nation.  I am not the defendant. (Doc 193, pg 4)

And then Michael Parsons complains about defense attorney Schense Much later on, Schense notes all that he has done to assist the defendant.

The Court:  Just a minute. So are you wishing to proceed pro se? I mean, are you wishing to proceed on your own?

The Defendant:  I’m not pro se. I’m a live man. I’m not representing a corporate fiction here today. I am — I am a live man. I’m not here to engage in commerce with this — I’m not sure if it’s a court or administrative tribunal…(Doc 193, pg 5)

Michael Parsons proceeds to argue, employing commonly held “sovereign citizen”  legal reasonings. The Court asks the Defendant a series of questions, which Parson replies, but not with an answer to the actual question posed by the Judge. Thus the Court rules that Mike Parsons will not be allowed to represent himself, but is assigned Attorney Schense, as full counsel.

Obstructionism

The Court:  … I want to be real clear on my ruling here. I’ve found your conduct throughout the proceedings but particularly today to be obstructionist. It has directly interfered with my ability to determine whether you can provide a knowing and voluntary waiver of your right to counsel. I have no evidence to — to base that on and I’m so finding. You’ve been obstructionist and I am going –(Doc 193, pg. 19)

The Defendant:  I object to that determination.  There’s no basis for that.  Because I don’t know the rules of the court because Your Honor will not disclose the form, it’s not obstructionist. I have a right to know, Your Honor. The Supreme Court has said so. In Bonds [sic] v. United States Bonds was clearly — the Supreme Court overturned the ruling because she had a right to know the form of court, and Your Honor’s not telling me the form of court so I don’t know what rules you’re going by. (Doc 193, pg 20)

The Court: That was the first sentence that came out of my mouth, sir.  All right.  Now here’s–here are the rules that we’re going to follow during the trial, and there is going to be a trial that’s commencing today, and it will be conducted in regular order.  Everyone, the government, you, or anybody else, any other litigant must follow the rules, A, as a matter of law and, B, as a matter of common court decorum and if you do so, you’ll be allowed to participate fully in this trial. In fact, I encourage you to do so.

It’s a court that’s — this court’s every desire to have you participant fully in the trial just as I allow any other pro se participant or somebody that’s  represented to — to participate in the trial.  But if you do not follow the rules, if you become disruptive, if you continue to be interruptive, we’re going to — we’re not going to have an argument in front of the jury, we’re not going to have a public display. I will simply stop the proceedings, I’ll excuse the jury for a brief period of time, and then I will remove you from the courtroom if the obstructionist behavior continues. If, on the other hand, you’re going to participate in this trial, follow the rules, you will be allowed to participate  throughout the trial. whether you wish to come back in, follow the rules of court and — and not be obstructionist.

The Defendant:  So may I — may I get this straight?   Because I cannot answer questions without knowing the rules,  that is the determination of — your definition of obstruction,   because I’m not able to answer your questions?

The Court:  If you are — if you become disruptive during the proceedings and the — and the trial does not — is not allowed to proceed in an orderly fashion, I’ll make that  determination. All right? Okay? So if I — and I will give you every opportunity, A, to not be disruptive and, B, to follow the rules. I’m going to give you every single opportunity that you can have. But if you choose to violate that and continue to be disruptive, I’ll have you removed from the — from the courtroom and you can view the trial from another venue.

The Defendant: But for the — but for the record for purposes of appeal, the basis by which you are declaring me to be an obstructionist is because I do not answer your questions pertaining to a birth date, my educational level and these questions before the Court today. Is that what you’re basing your —

The Court: Every single question I asked you, you didn’t answer one of them. Yes, and that’s what I’m basing my ruling on as far as you being obstructionist. (Doc.193, pg. 22)

Obstructionist Parsons Changes His Mind Too Late:  Do-overs Not Allowed in this Court

Mr. Schense: (Doc 193, pg. 39)  Yes, Judge, thank you.  Mr. Parsons has asked me to request of the Court another opportunity for the Court to pose the questions that it asked Mr. Parsons early this morning in terms of his age, his date of — or his date of birth, his educational level and his desires. He has asked me to have — ask the Court to reconsider its ruling to allow Mr. Parsons to represent himself in this matter. So on behalf of Mr. Parsons, I’m making that  request of the Court.

I believe Mr. Parsons would like you to pose the same 5  questions. I suspect he may give you different answers.

The Court: All right. Well, we don’t get do-overs in — in this court. I am — you know, I was concerned obviously about the obstructionist behavior this morning, and you can’t just say, oops, I want a do-over at — at this point in time.  But I’m also concerned, Mr. Parsons, with your view of the law and this Court’s authority. You’re entitled to that view  but that will not serve you well acting as your own counsel.

The government does have an interest in ensuring the integrity and the efficiency of a trial and — and at times, and this is one of those times, that outweighs your interest in — in acting as your — your own lawyer. Just a moment. Self-representation is not — is not something that can be utilized for disruptions, for distortion of the system or for manipulation of the — of the trial process and that is everything that I heard this morning. And it’s not just been this morning, but it’s been throughout the process.

So I will, number one, deny your right to self-representation.  Mr. Schense is a very experienced,  competent lawyer. He’s demonstrated that this morning. He’s  demonstrated that in the preparation for trial. (Doc 193, pg 40)

I’m a Judge too!

The Defendant:  (Doc 193, pg 43) Yes, sir. My — my objection was not to those instructions. It’s to before they retire to deliberate, those instructions would be the ones that if they’re not certain to the degree that they’re supposed to determine these facts, they may not even know the component of interference with interstate commerce, what that even means because Mr. Schense doesn’t understand these points of law. I — I’ve actually been a judge for the Universal Supreme Court now going on two years. I do have cases myself and am aware of these — these laws of this country.

The Court: All right. Well, the jurisdiction in this courtroom is — is the federal statutes and the United States Constitution. But we will talk about and argue about and discuss jury instructions before they are given…

I want the right to cross-examine certain witnesses (although I am not pro se)

The Defendant: And one last point. I would ask that I also be allowed to cross-examine certain witnesses. There are key points of information that need to be brought to the Court and the jury’s attention that Mr. Schense would not be aware of because he has not apprised himself of all these facts.

The Court:  Well, then I would suggest that you and Mr. Schense get together over the course of the next one hour and 15 minutes and this evening because Mr. Schense will be the one that will do direct examination and cross-examination. You will not be allowed to do so…(Doc 193, pg. 44)

The witnesses are sworn in and questioned by both the prosecution and the defense.

No tail identification on Michael Parsons’ airplane!  I wonder who erased that?

Weverka-Direct-(Sharp) (Doc 193, pg 91)

Sharp:  Was there anything unusual about that plane that you noted at that time?

Weverka:  Not exactly at that time, but when we went to put fuel in it, one of the things — or part of the information that needs  to be entered into the terminal was a tail number.

Sharp:  Okay, And what is it you noticed?

Weverka:  It had no tail number.

Day Two:  Collateral Attacks, Offers of Proof of Sovereign Citizen Counterfeit Court Proceedings

On Day 2, more witnesses are examined and cross-examined, and Mike Parsons allows his court appointed full counsel to represent his interests. Defense attorney Schense presents Offers of Proof involving documents prepared by those British Columbia sovereign citizens who have  unilaterally established a fake court and “legal” documents.

Document 195, page 160 shows the following comments.

Mr. Sharp: I do object, Your Honor, on relevance grounds.

The Court:  All right, very well. As the Court has noted earlier, diplomatic status cannot be unilaterally established.   There has to be some recognition by the Department of State. That’s the United States vs. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12 — it’s a 1984 case — as well as Mazengo vs. Mzengi, 542 F. Supp. 2d 96. There are other cases along those lines, but any testimony with respect to Mr. Parsons being appointed as an ambassador or being a diplomat or not being subject to laws of the United States is not relevant.

The offer of proof — or the objection to the offer of proof is sustained.   You may go to the next offer of proof.

Conspirators!

The Court:  Okay. The next offer of proof is with respect to Patricia Parsons. You may proceed.

Mr. Schense: I’m not sure if I indicated or not before I talked to Mr. Parsons she’s in Aliceville, Alabama, in the Bureau of Prisons. Mrs. Parsons would testify to that she’s been married to Mr. Parsons for three — 33 years, that he’s engaged in the ministry, and she would obviously testify as to his character. Also, Judge, that in Mr. Parsons’ word — words, Mrs. Parsons was railroaded into her federal conviction.  Mrs. Parsons would offer testimony that since Mr. Parsons has lost a local election back in Tipton County, Alabama, some time ago that he has been the target of a conspiracy.  That conspiracy involves numerous people that work in the local law enforcement community and that, as a target, that has brought on his legal issues and problems within the local judicial system of Tipton County, Tennessee.

And she would offer testimony in that regard if — this goes to, apparently, the sheriff by the name of Donna Turner all the way down, and there’s been a concerted effort by all of those people in Tipton County to — against Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, and that would be the extent of the offer of proof.

The Court:  All right.  Any objection?

Mr. Sharp:  Objection on relevance grounds.  Also, it’s an attempt to undermine the prior conviction, which is an improper collateral attack. (Doc. 195, pg. 166-167)

International Protections

Mr. Schense:  Judge, the offer of proof would be that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1116(b)(2), as a matter of law, Mr. — Mr. Parsons should — is not under the jurisdiction of this court or of the United States and that he could not be prosecuted pursuant to the charge presently against him contained in the indictment irrespective of recognition by the United States.

The Court:  All right.  I’ve taken judicial notice of the entire statute, including 18 U.S.C., Section 1116(b)(2), which I think Mr. Parsons wants me to look at.  I have pulled up the code section.  I will note that this particular statute is not relevant at all to this case or your argument for diplomatic immunity.  18 U.S.C. Section 1116 defines murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons, and for purposes of that particular section, the murder of an individual, it defines “foreign government” means the government of a foreign country, irrespective of recognition by the United States.  That simply refers to that particular statute.

I guess, Mr. Parsons, you would be relieved to know that if someone attempts to kill you that the perpetrator can be prosecuted in federal court, but other than that it has no relevance to this particular case.

The Defendant:  Except under 1201, kidnapping, it does.  It takes you right back to that, and I’m effectively kidnapped by the United States.

The Court:  Okay.  Well, it doesn’t matter whether it’s kidnapping or murder.  This does not define your diplomatic status.  So I will take judicial notice of the code section.  I have.  I find that it’s not relevant to this case, and this is but another reason why Mr. Schense has been appointed and will remain counsel to provide you with a professional and vigorous defense.

Day Three:  The Court gives the defendant Michael Parsons a formal warning.

The Court:  All right, very well.  Now, I’m not going to get into a big dispute or debate, Mr. Parsons.  I do want to issue this as a formal warning.  If there are any more disruptions or disorder in front of the jury, I will have you removed from the courtroom, and I don’t want to do that.

The Defendant:  I apologize, Your Honor.  I didn’t realize how loud I was talking.  I have virtually no hearing in my left ear, and I didn’t realize I was talking — my intent was not to be disruptive.

The Court: All right, very well.  As long as we have an understanding of each other.  This is a clear warning. (Doc. 196, pg. 20)

The Magic Document Exonerating Parsons-or so he hopes!

Mr. Schense: (Doc. 196, pg 44)  Defendant’s Exhibit 117, this is a 12-page document, and it’s got a file number, a stamp of the Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilhqot’in, January 18, 2016, Alexis Creek Court Registry. The hearing date was December 2nd, 2015.  The caption is In The Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilhqot’in between Michael Wayne Parsons, the appellant, and the State of Tennessee, the appellee.  This exhibit, Judge, goes as an offer of proof to the Court asking the Court to allow the jury to know that this matter was decided in the Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilhqot’in, and it was decided back in December of 2015.

And this has to go to the exoneration of Mr. Michael Parsons in the case from the state of Tennessee and specifically in terms of the — in terms of the conviction and judgment rendered against Mr. Parsons which is contained in Exhibit No. — that’s been offered by the government, Exhibit 31, and this — reasons for judgment.  That was signed by — well, there’s no signature on mine, but it’s The Honorable Chief Justice of the Universal Supreme Court, and that would be Sue Holland….

Sue Holland has her own mugshot, and it appears her probation terms disallow her from communicating with the Parsons. You see, she was involved in a scheme to kidnap a U. S. sheriff and judge.  This was the scheme that got Mrs. Parsons incarcerated.  And Mike Parsons thinks he can sway the court to trust the “legal” documents created by Sue Holland?

After going through the history and the facts and her legal analysis, Chief Justice Holland concludes on page 12, For the reasons above, it is hereby ordered that Mr. Michael Wayne Parsons was wrongfully and falsely charged and wrongfully and falsely convicted on counts of aggravated assault, burglary of a vehicle, theft by the state of Tennessee.  The wrongful convictions are nullified and set aside, and Mr. Parsons is fully pardoned [sic] henceforth by myself.  I make a Vancouver (City) versus Ward, 2010 SCC 27, ruling.  The state of Tennessee is ordered to pay Mr. Parsons $5,000 per diem accrued for each day Mr. Parsons spent in incarceration with respect to the 2007 conviction.

Also, she then concludes in paragraph 28 of the 12-page document, Exhibit 117, that Mr. Parsons is free to seek further relief and compensation for business lost, aggravated and punitive damages and libel and slander.  The 2007 felony conviction is to be expunged from Mr. Parsons’ record.  The appellees are to pay court costs to the Universal Supreme Court in the amount of $10,000.  The 2014 indictment will be dealt with separately.

So, Judge, I would offer Defendant’s Exhibit 117 in support of the offer of proof.

The Court:  Very well.  Thank you.  Any objection?

Mr. Sharp: Objection on 401 and 403 grounds.  This issue was addressed in the government’s trial brief that was filed before we started.  What constitutes a conviction is determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held, and that’s out of the statute 18, U.S.C., 921(a)(20).  The U.S. Supreme Court has held determining whether someone’s civil rights have been restored by expungement or set aside, et cetera, is governed by the law of the convicting jurisdiction.

In other words, even if the Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilhqot’in Nation exists, it’s not up to them to decide whether or not that conviction is overturned.  For all of those reasons, the government objects on relevance grounds.

Michael Parsons Complains about the YouTube channel Frater I*I , and about paid government officials (Document 196, page 58-61).

Frater I*I has a YouTube channel which has downloaded a number of videos on Michael Parsons’ court cases.  Rudy Davis of Lonestar1776 routinely vilifies Frater during his recorded jailhouse conversations with Mike Parsons.  Apparently, there has been an ongoing email exchange between Frater and Rudy Davis, and Davis reports back to Parsons. However, I am acquainted with Frater and he has studied the sovereign citizen movement for many years, and has obtained many court documents that provide insight into these cases.  In fact, it was Frater that generously allowed me to view documents 193, 195, 196 and 197 in this criminal case, which he had paid for out of his own pocket.

Mr. Schense:  Thank you.  Judge, I don’t know if this goes to my offer of proof or not, but I’m going to offer to the Court — Mr. Parsons has asked me to.  Mr. Parsons has heard through the grapevine or through — from somebody that all of these proceedings that are going on in court are being uploaded on the internet, and there’s some website called trader —

The Defendant:  Frader 67II.

Mr. Schense:  There’s a website with Frader, something, F-r-a-d-e-r or something.  I don’t know.

The Court:  Well, let’s stop for a minute.  This is not an appropriate offer of proof.  I will tell you this is not being recorded in any form or fashion.  If somebody is uploading anything on the internet, it has nothing to do with the United States Courts or anybody in this courtroom.

There’s —

The Defendant:  They said the trial is being uploaded, the audio of this hearing.  Yesterday’s is on the internet as of 30 minutes after I left and got back to the jail.  I called, and they said it’s playing right now on the internet for people to hear yesterday’s hearings.  So I don’t know if the clerk’s putting it out on the internet or if someone else is getting it from the clerk, but it’s out there, and there’re people that are blogging about this case and the proceedings as —

The Court:  Well, number one, this is a public courtroom, so if somebody is recording it or if it is out there, this is a public proceeding.  Anybody can walk into this courtroom, friends of yours, the government, or anybody else.  This is not a sealed proceeding.  So if anything is out there, there is nothing illegal or improper about that, but I can tell you nobody is recording this proceeding other than this court reporter right here.  She’s taking down every word that we are emitting in this court, but there — so I’m not sure what the objection is, if there is one.

The Defendant:  I would move the Court to make a verification, because it’s prejudicial for this matter to be out there in case someone — since the jury has not been sequestered, someone could be relaying information to the jury.
There’s actually — what I’ve been told, this Mr. Frader has made a threat to Mr. Schense regarding petitioning or submitting a complaint to the bar against him, and I find that threatening to him, and I’m concerned that there might be some undue influence upon this proceedings.

The Court:  Okay.  Well, unless somebody brings something to me as a matter of evidence, I’m not making any ruling.  There’s no objection that is pending.  The jury has been instructed clearly each and every day not to have communication with and not to consult the internet or any other source other than the evidence adduced in court.

So Mr. Schense, are we ready to proceed with the —

(An off-the-record discussion was had between the defendant and counsel.)

The Court:   Just do it briefly.

Mr. Schense:  Mr. Parsons would like to know if anybody — if there’s being any payments made to federal employees for cooperating and/or testifying in this matter, and as a result of this trial, are — any federal employees who are assisting and/or testifying in this matter, are they going to be awarded time off?  In support of that he cites 5, U.S.C., 4503, 4504, 5, U.S.C., 7342(a) —

The Court:  Okay.  Counsel, I’ll stop you there.  That is a matter of evidence.  If there are any cooperating witnesses that were to receive time off or any payments, that is to be adduced as a matter of evidence.  There has been no evidence.  In fact, there has been evidence adduced that there has been no promises and no payments, and the Court’s not going to make any findings on that.  That’s a matter of evidence.

The Defendant:  This is not pertaining to witnesses, Your Honor.  It’s pertaining to court officials, the judge, the prosecutor, and the attorney assigned to me.  This is what this pertains to.

The Court:  Well, I’m not going to — I can tell you the Court, the prosecutor, anybody involved in this case is — are public officials and are paid as public officials, not as a result of this case or any other case that’s in this courtroom.

Last Ditch Claims by Parsons:  An Imposter called as a Witness?

The Defendant: (Doc. 196, page 135-136)  And one other thing, Your Honor.  I
have not rested.  I didn’t know that Mr. Schense had said we rested, because I was going to call Mr. Bill Bittings [sic], because this gentleman over here is not Mark Anderson.  That’s not his name.  I believe he’s committed perjury before the court.

The Court:  Well, this case has been submitted, all right, and we will stand — this case has been submitted by the government and by the defense.  There will be no further argument, and there will be no further evidence.  I shouldn’t say there won’t be further argument.  There will be closing arguments at the time that I instruct the jury.

Parsons claims that he was assaulted by a U. S. Marshall during break.

The Court:  All right, very well.  We will go through the instructions one by one.  I will let counsel know and Mr. Parsons know that the Court will be instructing the jury based on the law and the evidence that’s been presented, and that will be the law as set forth by the Eighth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court and not the law as maybe we wish it were, so that’s what the instructions will be based on.

Counsel, Mr. Parsons has a question for you.

The Defendant:  I would like to notify the judge of the assault on me by the U.S. Marshal sitting over there and ask for a copy of the video surveillance for preservation of the record for potential prosecution for the U.S. Attorney.  I was assaulted by the —

The Court:  Hold on a minute.

Mr. Schense:  Judge, well, I guess the Court could hear Mr. Parsons.  Could the Court hear Mr. Parsons’ comments?

The Court:  I heard him claiming something that he was assaulted by a marshal.

Mr. Schense:  I wasn’t even in the courtroom so I don’t know, but Mr. Parsons has indicated that to the Court and made a request for a video and so —  (Doc 196, pg 137)

Court Rules Parsons Not an Ambassador.

The Court: (Doc 196, pg. 147)  Okay, all right.  Well, for the record — I mean, there is an objection that’s pending on the record.  I will overrule the objection.  I have found that he’s not an ambassador and does not have diplomatic immunity.  I’m referring to Filing No. 146 and my various other statements during the course of the trial.  I have determined that this Court has proper jurisdiction.  That was raised in the testimony so I think the jury needs to be instructed on that.

And, finally, I have ruled in Filing No. 146 and in other rulings that there is no international court or universal supreme court with authority to vacate the judgment of the — of a court of the state of Tennessee or to exonerate the defendant in any way, and so that instruction will be given.

If there is a pending objection, it is overruled.  All right.  Instruction number 14.

Mr. Sharp:  No objection.

Mr. Schense:  No objection.

Extracts from the Closing Argument of the Plaintiff

Mr. Sharp: (Doc 196, pg. 150) Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.  I haven’t had a chance to directly address you yet.  Again, as you heard me introduced at the beginning, my name is Jan Sharp. I’m an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska.  This has been a short trial.  Probably a little unusual, some of you may think.

But what you’ve heard over the course of the last two and a half to three days is that an individual who happens to think that he is above the law took off with charges pending against him in another jurisdiction and traveled cross-country with a sleeping bag, blankets, survival gear, and, most importantly, an LAR-15 .556 or .223 — they’re the same thing — .556 rifle and literally hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

We’ve played telephone calls for you where you have heard his own words where he is freaking out about the fact that that plane is up here in Nebraska, and he’s wanting somebody to come get it, and he’s talking cryptically about something that is on that plane.

And, lastly, you’ve heard that we are able to trace that gun from the manufacturer to a man who bought it in Alabama to Michael Parsons.  And, in fact, when Michael Parsons took the stand today, he admitted that he had possessed that gun at some point in the past.

So let’s turn to what the issues are that you’re going to be charged with deciding.  There’s three instructions that you’ve — or three elements that you’ve just been instructed on, and we’re going to talk most of — most of the time we’re going to be talking about one particular element, but I want to at least brush over all three elements….[discusses exhibits and element one of the law]

Mr. Sharp:(Doc. 196, pgs. 155-157) Which brings us to element number two, which is really what we’re going to be talking about and have been talking about over the course of the last two and a half days, and that is the United States has to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm.  And by the way, one of the instructions the judge just gave you is that a firearm doesn’t have to be operable for it to be considered a firearm under the law.

If it was designed to expel a projectile through the use of an explosion — I forget the magic words, but Special Agent Shelton told you that’s a firearm, and Matthew Lovan told you he had actually fired that gun, so it is a firearm.

But we have to prove not just that there was a firearm that was present in the plane, we have to prove that the defendant knew it was there, because if it was there — if you look at the definitions of “possession,” it doesn’t have to be physically on his person to be in his possession.  Constructive possession is enough.  If he knew it was there, he was clearly in possession of the firearm.

So what evidence do we have that Mr. Parsons knew that that gun was on that plane? Well, I would submit at the outset you’ve got the obvious problem that it is on the plane. It’s a very small space. We’re not talking about a derringer, something that’s 2 or 3 inches long that somebody tossed into a corner. This is a gun that is 3 to 3 and a half feet long. It’s in a black bag. It’s got all kinds of accessories. It’s got an upper for an interchangeable barrel. There’s an ammo box with hundreds of rounds of ammunition in it, and all of Mr. Parsons’ belongings are packed into that space with that gun. He flew the plane to Nebraska, and only he flew the plane to Nebraska.

That’s our starting point. It’s inconceivable that he would not know that that gun was in there, but we have more than that. You have heard three telephone calls that the defendant was on — two with Suzanne Holland, one with his wife — where the defendant is greatly concerned about the fact that his plane is in Arapahoe, Nebraska. I’d encourage you to listen to Exhibits 35, 36 and 37 and ask yourself whether he’s talking about some Walmart blankets. On Exhibit 35, his call with his wife, this is, like, I think a day, maybe two, after he’s been arrested. Before the plane has been searched, he knows all they have is just the personal belongings that were in the administrative office, and he is freaking out.  Three times in that call he says that plane has to be moved.  I think the last time he really puts emphasis on it immediately.

If you listen to Exhibits 36, 37, calls with Suzanne Holland, he starts off by saying we’re being recorded, don’t say anything, and then says don’t mention the Nation’s item or don’t mention the Nation’s gifts.

We put up Exhibit 26 during this trial. Exhibit 26 was the picture of all of the items that had been taken off that plane, and the plane was stripped down to the metal. We went through every item on there. There was not one earthly thing found in that plane that anyone would have to be afraid to mention on a telephone call or would be illegal to possess except an LAR-15 and several hundred rounds of ammunition if you’re a convicted felon.

It gets better than that in terms of proving the defendant’s knowledge of the possession of that weapon. The gun is traceable. We can trace it to a gun dealer in Alabama, to a man from at the time Alabama who bought it, who then took it to Tennessee and sold it to Michael Wayne Parsons. Matthew Lovan is not some drug dealer that’s trying to work off a sentence.   He’s just a guy. He met him once, maybe twice, and I sold — yeah, I sold the gun to Michael Parsons. And

Mr. Parsons takes the witness stand today and says, yeah, I had that gun, but I don’t have it anymore. I traded it to some guy that’s now dead. And the elephant in the room is how does this gun get from Mississippi to Nebraska in the defendant’s plane?

The Jury finds Michael Parsons guilty!

The Court: All right. You may be seated. Looks like juror number 2 has the envelopes. I will ask you, sir, has the jury reached a unanimous verdict?

Foreperson:   Yes, we have.

The Court: All right. Please hand the envelope to my courtroom deputy. I’ll examine it as to form. Thank you. Briefly hand it to counsel and examine for form. Then I’ll read the verdict. As to form, thank you.

The Court will now read the verdict. This is in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, United States of America versus Michael Wayne Parsons.  On the charge of possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, we, the jury, find that the defendant, Michael Wayne Parsons, is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition under instruction number 8. The foreperson signed and dated the verdict form on this 30th day of August, 2018.

A Sentencing Comment by the Prosecution

Mr. Sharp:  (Doc. 197, pg. 45) That said, I think even looking at the facts of the case, there are some factors here that are really troubling. His underlying conviction, if the Court looks at the PSR, involved the use of a firearm. He was awaiting trial on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and then he was caught here in the State of Nebraska with an LAR-15 on his way to Canada after having failed to appear.

If he truly believed that he was an ambassador, he would have proudly claimed that gun as his own, saying it’s okay for me to possess it. The arguments that he is making are not made in good faith. That said, I think all of the conduct that has been presented by Mr. Parsons, both leading up to the offense and during these proceedings, is captured by the guidelines.

It’s a substantial sentence the guidelines call for.

For a felon in possession, especially for a non-armed criminal career case, 97 months is — on the low end is about as long a sentence as I’ve seen on a felon in possession of a firearm case around here. I think the conduct is captured by that guideline range.

I am recommending a guideline sentence. The probation office has recommended a 97-month sentence.   I actually think that’s a fair recommendation, and I join in it. He is obviously enamored with guns. I frankly suspect that anytime Mr. Parsons is not in jail, he is going to have a gun. He is defiant of the courts’ authority, not just this court, but all courts. We’ve seen that from the first time he appeared in court here all the way up to today.

He has testified that he doesn’t believe he was — is a convicted felon or that he possessed — and he did not knowingly possess a firearm. I would submit to the Court that he doesn’t really believe that, because if you look at the trial record in this case, it establishes that the defendant, when he was in jail, was trying to get that plane removed. He was talking cryptically about the Nation’s item, gifts for the Nation. He continues to maintain that he didn’t knowingly possess a firearm.

The Judge Pronounces the Sentence

The Court: (Doc 197, pg. 79) I have considered all of the statutory Section 3553 factors for sentencing.

First, I have considered the nature of this particular offense.  You were scheduled to appear in Tipton County, Tennessee, on January 10, 2017, for the purpose of a jury trial for felony possession of a weapon.  Instead you were — you removed your ankle monitor, and you were pretty clearly headed north somewhere, whether it was from — to Montana or someplace else.

Unfortunately for you, you were intercepted in Furnas County, Nebraska, resulting in the present offense.  And despite your protestations, a jury of your peers found that you had in your possession an AR-15 assault-style rifle and enough ammunition to arm that automatic weapon as well as six other automatic weapons.

The Defendant:  Objection.

The Court:  No.  This is my time to speak.  This is the sentencing.
In addition, I have considered your personal circumstances and your background.  There’s no question that you are an educated man and a man that believes in your own principles.  I think that’s come through throughout all of the proceedings, but that education and your law-abiding ways went south somewhere along the path.  As a result you’ve been convicted of more than one felony, and the public needs protection from your behavior for a significant period of time.

As a result I will be pronouncing a seven-year prison sentence in this particular case, and that’s taken into account all of the Section 3553(a) factors.  And I want to be clear.  I would be pronouncing this sentence regardless of any guideline calculations.  In other words, whether an obstruction of justice enhancement applies makes no difference to me.  Whether you are a total offense level 28, category III or total offense level 26, category III makes no difference.

And more to the point, I would be pronouncing this 84-month sentence based on consideration of all the factors, and that includes the sentencing that occurred in Tennessee in September of 2017, and that’s based on my careful consideration of all of the sentencing factors regardless of the niceties of the guideline sentencing calculations.

So now to the sentence.  To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law and to provide just punishment for this particular offense, recognizing that the guidelines are advisory in nature, and considering all of the statutory goals for sentencing, I hereby sentence the defendant, Michael Wayne Parsons, to a term of 84 months in prison, and this sentence shall be served separately and consecutively to the three-year prison sentence imposed by Tipton County, Tennessee, Circuit Court in Case No. 9058.
I will recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that Mr. Parsons be incarcerated in a federal facility as close to Tipton County, Tennessee, as possible.  That’s a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons.  They will classify you and place you as appropriate.  I will make that recommendation.

Mr. Parsons, you’ll be placed on three years of supervised release when you’re released from prison, and I do intend to follow the special conditions of supervised release set out in the sentencing recommendation for the reasons that we have stated earlier.

Either counsel have any objection to any of the other special conditions other than those we talked about?

Mr.  Sharp:  I do not, Your Honor.

Mr. Schense:  No, Your Honor.

The Court:  All right.  The special conditions of supervised release set out in the sentencing recommendation are therefore imposed, and the standard conditions in the Court’s judgment will also apply.

I’m not going to impose a fine because the defendant cannot pay one.  He’s not expected to be able to pay one in the foreseeable future. A $100 special assessment will be imposed.

And the defendant should receive credit for time served.  He’s been detained on the federal case since February — or since September 12 of 2017.  I will make a recommendation that he receive credit for time served since that date at least, and the Bureau of Prisons will make the calculation as far as how much credit he will actually receive.

And if he’s not already done so, the defendant shall cooperate with the collection of a DNA sample at the direction of the Bureau of Prisons.

Now, in crafting this order I have considered all the factors in determining that this sentence should be sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of Section 3553(a).

That is my judgment and sentence.

Counsel, either one, do you have any questions or would like any further elaboration of my statement of reasons?

Mr. Sharp:  No, Your Honor.

Mr. Schense:  No, Your Honor.

The Court:  Very well.  Mr. Parsons, you do have a right to appeal this matter to a higher court, to the Eighth Circuit, and you have 14 days in which to file an appeal. (Doc 197, pg. 82)

Michael Wayne Parsons has filed an appeal, but the Appeals Judge has not ruled as yet on that case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE POINT OF NO RETURN: David Hawkins Bores into the Weather Underground Tunnel and Discovers Jewish Communists who are “psychopaths and sociopaths and unindicted killers”

Keep your tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.  Psalm 34:13

In the poignant song, The Point of No Return, songwriters Jeff Limbol, Hank Sherman, and Pete Steiner capture the end result of the dangerous seductions of the Phantom of the Opera in these words, Past the point of no return, the final threshold, the bridge is crossed, so stand and watch it burn.  We’ve passed the point of no return.”

There is a point of no return which is real and identifiable in the life of the individual who engages in sin, justifies it when reproved, and tries to turn the tables upon the messenger who warns of the final threshold.  One characteristic of someone who goes from telling a lie to becoming a LIAR is banality.  Banality is lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.

So I was interested in what Jason Goodman said to David Hawkins, as he related that Kevin Marsden had called him up one time to warn him that Hawkins was lying to him. Goodman reiterated his support for David Hawkins’ banal stories, and now both men work in conjunction to attack the man who tried to turn them back from the path they are treading.

One is not a conspiracy; it takes at least two.  And Jason Goodman and David Hawkins show us how it is done.

Jason Goodman produced another video on March 22, 2019 featuring the strange musings of David Hawkins, Can Split Tunnels & Broken Chains Allow EVL Teachers to Attack Federal Bridge?  With David Hawkins. This 49 minute preview of a Patreon show for subscribers only, features once again another absurd photo collage aimed at disparaging Dave Sweigert, who is portrayed as a janitor cleaning up evidence, and presumably disposing or “spoliating” it.  That Sweigert is the main point of this collage is highlighted by the caption Jason Goodman has assigned it, calling it Tri-Tunnel-SweigertYet the underlying theme of their show has nothing to do with Sweigert, but has much to do with modern day Jewish American domestic terrorism.

What does Jason Goodman mean when he references his Jewish heritage?

I recently posted Document 78 of the Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman lawsuit, and on page 10, line 1, the author, Jason Goodman, states, “Defendant Goodman is not and has never been associated in any way with Mossad…”.  He asserts, “The rumor was started by the co-conspirators in order that their network could spread this information to earn money on Steemit and through other methods, and to play upon rampant, hateful, anti-Jewish sentiment among their fans and viewers.  The Campaign has allowed them to persecute Defendant based solely on his Jewish heritage, denying him of his constitutional right to presumption of innocence, retarding his financial and psychological well-being and inciting hate speech and foul threats in live comments from viewers.  The Campaign leverages this totally false claim to defame Goodman and engender hatred for Defendant throughout the world via the internet.”

Since I was named as one of the third-party co-conspirators, without any evidence provided by Goodman, I have to state at this juncture that I have never posted anything on Steemit, my blog can be read for free, I have never asked for monetary support ever, and I have never asserted that Jason Goodman is employed by Mossad.  I have always felt that the Israeli Intelligence agency, Mossad, was too professional to risk employing unstable personalities.

I have no idea what Jason Goodman considers his Jewish heritage to consist of.

As noted earlier, in the photo collage shown below, Jason Goodman targets Dave Sweigert, who he continually insults in an unrelenting campaign of lies.  Also inserted in Goodman’s image is a photo of an affectionate couple, sitting together in embrace, who were once leaders of the now defunct Weather Underground terrorist group in the sixties/seventies era of student activism against the Vietnam War.

March 22, 2019 Jason Goodman CSTT video, showing collage labeled Tri Tunnel-Sweigert

That history, which is brought to our remembrance by Hawkins and Goodman, represents the out workings of the American Jewish privileged class that exalted Communist domination and oppression over millions of persons,  during the Vietnam era.  Since its takeover of Russia in 1917, Communism has slaughtered millions, and destroyed the lives and hopes of the citizens of Russia, China, North Korea, and other nations.  It represents the Marxist/Leninist/Trotsky elitist socialist philosophy that when radicalized becomes Communism; for once the promise of freedom for oppressed working class citizens is put into place, these radical leaders turn and steal the fruits of the labor and the land and possessions of these very same persons.

The Vietnam War was a troublesome era, when military escalation by America attempted to stem the tide of Communism sweeping across Asia.  This is a very complex story, as some of the most interesting first hand stories of Vietnam veterans  relate.  (As an example of a Vietnam/Laos narrative written by a very fine man, I reviewed in 2016, The Expendable Elite:  One Soldier’s Journey into Covert Warfare, by Lt. Col. United States Army Special Forces (Ret.) Daniel Marvin,  here and here.)

Bill Ayers looking like a wimp and Bernardine Dohrn, the radical Communist agitator

Returning to the topic of Jason Goodman’s March 22, 2019 video, David Hawkins made several remarks beginning at the 1.5 mark, referencing “the woman who is an un-intercepted, unindicted terrorist leader by the name of Bernardine Dohrn“, followed by, (2.11)  “I would allege that this woman never stopped being the leader of the Weather Underground organization because the Weather Underground organization was never dismantled, it just went into a different level of camouflage  which can be described by the evil (EVL) teachers’ community…”, concluding that,  (3.26) “they’re psychopaths and sociopaths and unindicted killers.”

The Vietnam War shed the blood of my generation

I KNOW this era, although I was a few years younger than Ayers and Dohrn. When I was in high school, my father, who published the weekly newspaper, The Outlook, took me to see Timothy Leary, the Harvard lecturer in Clinical Psychology who promoted LSD. We sat cross-legged on the floor, listening to him speak nonsense.  In hindsight, the influence of these uncaring intellectuals on my generation, which had no previous experience with drugs, was unconscionable.  At some point in his career, Leary was jailed, and one of the groups which helped him to escape to Algeria, was the Weather Underground terrorist group.

I began freshman classes at the University of Washington in 1968.  It was during the Vietnam student demonstration days, and often various radical speakers such as Susan Stern of the Seattle Liberation Front lectured the students outside of the common area called the Hub, on the “revolution”. I can recall sitting in a classroom listening to Michael Lerner and I think I also heard Mark Rudd, who was one of the major leaders of SDS.

I was familiar with the faces of what became known in 1970 as the Seattle Seven; in fact, my father and stepmother were close friends with a Jewish couple whose son was in the Seattle Weather Underground, and indicted as part of the Seattle Seven. Another recollection I have is two members of this group justifying to my father why the Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara was their idol.  Looking at FBI reports from that time period, I see that Bernardine Dohrn, was one of those who visited not only Cuba, but the Vietnamese communists.  I was working back then as a clerk collecting parking fines for the campus police, when one of these violent agitators placed an ill constructed explosive device in a pile of UW student newspapers on the counter top. By the grace of God, that device failed to explode.

Although Bill Ayers provided the Gentile face of the Weather Underground, the group was overwhelmingly Jewish radical communists. Before Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn became the affectionate couple seen in Jason Goodman’s photo collage, Bill Ayers’ girlfriend was Diana Outghton, and Bernardine Dohrn’s boyfriend was John Jacobs, considered to be the founder of the Weathermen.

In an article published November 15, 2017, on The Occidental Observer.net, titled A Forgotten Revolutionary:  John Jacobs, Founder of Weatherman, Karl Nemmersdorf writes, “Bernardine Dohrn, the new ally and lover of Jacobs, was a twenty-six year old, half-Jewish radical with a law degree.  She was ‘brilliant, cool, focused, militant, and highly sexual.’  She had thrown herself into the antiwar movement and hit New York in the fall of 1967 in a miniskirt and high leather boots.  In June 1968 she won election as one of three SDS national officers; during the election a suspicious member asked her, ‘Do you consider yourself a socialist?’  She ‘eyed him evenly for a moment and then answered:  ‘I consider myself a revolutionary communist.’  She won in a landslide.  Well, well, well:  two Jewish communists suddenly spring up like dragon’s teeth out of the foam of the New Left.  Together she and Jacobs began planning to take over SDS and lead a revolution.”

When the Weathermen accidentally set off one of their bombs in an apartment, Bill Ayers’ girlfriend, Diana Outghton, died when she was shredded to pieces. Bill Ayers’  Fugitive Days:  Memoirs of An Antiwar Activist, recalls the phone call he received giving him this dreadful news.  It was Bernardine Dohrn, calling as a friend, and Ayers remembers hearing,  “You’ve got to leave now.  Tomorrow at the latest.  We’ll meet up in a week at the shore.  There’s been a terrible accident.”  Bill Ayers was in shock from the news of Diana’s death.  He says, “I am running for my life, but I don’t know where I’m going.  In a minute I’ll be making lists-ditch the cars, they’ll say, hide the evidence. In a minute I’ll be panting to repair, struggling to understand where things went so awfully wrong.  But not yet, Now my mind is exploding and I’m running all alone, virtually on empty.  That was March 1970, and the American war in Vietnam was half done, though we didn’t know it yet.  The woman on the other end of the phone, would save me soon, and soon after that we would plunge together into a subterranean river, the strong, swift brown god of life pulling us forward for decades to come, but we didn’t know that yet, either.  All that was certain was this:  Diana was suddenly dead and I was-in a flash-unhinged and going under.”

What is interesting is this statement taken from Roots of Radicalism:  Jews, Christians and the New Left, by Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, published in 1996. They state, “…the early SDS was heavily Jewish both in its leadership and its activist cadres. Key SDS leaders included Richard Flacks, who played an important role in its formation and growth, as well as Al Haber, Robb Ross, Steve Max, Mike Spiegal, Mike Klonsky, Todd Gitlin, Mark Rudd, and others.  Indeed, during its first few years, SDS was largely funded by the League for Industrial Democracy, a heavily Jewish socialist (but anti-communist) organization.  SDS’s early successes were at elite universities containing substantial numbers of Jewish students and sympathetic Jewish faculty, including the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Brandeis, Oberlin, and the University of California at Berkely.  SDS leaders were not unaware of their roots.”

Quoted elsewhere in this book is a statement from Alexander W. Astin’s “Personal and Environmental Determinants of Student Activism”, which says, “At many schools, Jewish predominance continued into the late 1960’s.  In a national survey sponsored by the American Council of Education in 1966-67, the best single predictor of campus protest was the presence of  a substantial number of students from Jewish families.”

One of the notable things about radical activists is that they often take an existing organization which has a comparatively moderate orientation, and enter into leadership positions to either take it over, or splinter off a group using the resources others have provided.  It not only happens in political organizations like SDS, which floundered after suffering internal turmoil created by the radical activism of Bernardine Dohrn and her former boyfriend, John Jacobs, but I have seen the same process at work in church take-overs when a few persons enter in covertly and get the church by-laws changed, to give them unparalleled authority.

So why didn’t David Hawkins and Jason Goodman enter into a deep discussion of American Jewish domestic terrorism?  After all, they are the ones bringing up the Weather Underground philosophy…

So at the ten minute mark, Jason Goodman says to David Hawkins, “But why wasn’t she, I mean, I don’t understand why she’s not in jail (a), and even if she’s not, we need to look into why she’s not, but like you know, there’s cases of course where, uh, technicalities related to evidence or whatever, someone who should be in jail maybe is not, but why would a respected university then hire that person and doesn’t it allow us to question virtually anything that, that person is doing at the university and be suspicious of what they’re doing as you said these are Marxist subversives who are now educating the youth of America and there are some people on the internet who want to criticize you and I for asking valid questions about this.  They don’t seem to be criticizing anyone else, they’re very, very focused on you and I, they’re very focused on discouraging people from participating in our weekly subscriber only show on Patreon.com slash…….”.

Now, that is banality par excellence!

I  have just illustrated the reason why Ayers and Dohrn have been employed at universities, despite their violent background.  Jason Goodman says he asks valid questions, but then he fails to get to the heart of the answer. He despises anyone who does provide answers. Why does he not post source references in the show description, like Kevin Marsden does, so we can understand those technicalities related to his evidence and all that? 

It’s always Patreon dot com.  Patreon dot com…Patreon dot com….signs of a paid conspiracy.

 

 

 

 

Jacquelyn Weaver, Author of Tracking the Leopard Meroz, Responds to Jason Goodman’s False Accusations of a Co-Conspiracy

On March 15, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division docket for Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman posted Document 79, 79-1, and 79-2 as the Declaration of Jacquelyn Weaver with two Exhibits.

These documents represent Jacquelyn Weaver’s response to Jason Goodman’s allegations in Document 78 that he is being harassed by a campaign of co-conspirators who have committed felony crimes in conjunction with the Plaintiff, Robert David Steele and  Intervenor Applicant, D. George Sweigert.

Document 78 Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion to Intervene filed 3/8/2019 describes the conspiracy   rds doc 78   (If you want to read Document 78 including the exhibits, the entire documents are posted here.)

The following documents represent Jacquelyn Weaver’s response to Document 78 allegations:

Document 79 Declaration of Jacquelyn Weaver   rds doc 79 3 15 2019

Document 79-1  Exhibit A  rds doc 79-1 3 15 2019

Document 79-2  Exhibit B  rds doc 79-2 3 15 2019

The WALLET Bible of “Son of Man Prophet” Anthony Troy Williams: Thou Shalt Not Steal UNLESS you are a Card Carrying Private Attorney General with Diplomatic Immunity

Anthony Troy Williams, a sovereign American National, and no longer a U. S. citizen

About a month ago, Rudy Davis’ prison ministry at yearofjubile.com (aka I Hate the FBI.com) and the LoneStar1776 YouTube channel, added Anthony Troy Williams to his roster of American Political Prisoners. Anthony Williams is a 48 year old man, divorced twice with four children, who says he sold insurance, and served in the United States Army for 4 years with an honorable discharge as an E3 Private, First Class.

In a 2015 Competency Evaluation, Williams stated that as an adult he had been arrested for Driving with a Suspended License, Aggravated Rape, Child Molestation and Fraudulent Check.  In a separate indictment regarding a mortgage rescue scheme involving 200 properties/victims, we find other felony convictions noted in an Order Denying Motion For Disqualification of Judge Leslie Kobayashi.   Given that Rudy Davis is promoting Anthony Troy Williams as an American Political Prisoner, I decided to view the March 1, 2019, Rudy Davis video titled, State’s INSANELY SATANIC Motion in Limine for Political Prisoner, Anthony Troy Williams.  Davis begins by saying, “This is a letter which arrived in our P. O. Box today.  It’s from Anthony Troy Williams, who is a political prisoner.  He’s being targeted because he was standing up to the FBI and the bankers, specifically Bank of America, and other banks which were participating in mortgage fraud…”.

Whoa, Rudy! It was not the banks that were participating in mortgage fraud. Anthony Williams is incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center in Honolulu, Hawaii  because HE WAS INDICTED ON 30 COUNTS OF WIRE AND MAIL FRAUD INVOLVING MORTGAGE FRAUD.

The Grand Jury Indictment filed February 15, 2017 in the United States District Court (District of Hawaii) as United States of America vs. Anthony T. Williams and Anabel Cabebe provides some interesting facts about this case.  [anthony williams indictment Hawaii].    It seems that Williams had registered his Mortgage Enterprise Investments (MEI) business in 2013 in Hawaii; however, his other business The Common Law Office of America (CLOA) was not registered in the State of Hawaii.  This latter business offered services that included mortgage reduction, foreclosure assistance, UCC filings, document writing, and Power of Attorney.

What saith the Wallet Bible about thieving con artists?  Make sure you carry the right ID!

The Indictment, page 2, states, “Defendant, Anthony T. Williams, would identify himself as a Private Attorney General.  He carried an identification card identifying himself as a Private Attorney General, from the United States Office of the Private Attorney General, citing  42 USC 1988The identification also claimed that the holder had diplomatic immunity and stated, ‘Do Not Detain-Do Not Arrest’.”

Paragraph 5 adds that Williams was identified as an attorney in fact on informational materials for CLOA, although “Anthony T. Williams was not a licensed attorney in the State of Hawaii, who was permitted to practice law and provide legal advice to clients”.  The Indictment, paragraph 9 notes, “MEI and CLOA did business in Hawaii, Texas, Florida, and other states, at the direction and under the control of Anthony T. Williams”.

The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud charges include telling clients that Williams could cut their mortgage balances, their monthly mortgage payments, and their mortgage loan pay-off terms by ONE HALF. Paragraph 12 of the Indictment states, “In truth and fact, MEI and Anthony T. Williams, did not hold the licenses or have the ability, to provide a new mortgage, service a pre-existing mortgage, or provide loan modification services to the homeowners.”  What Williams did was convert the money paid by homeowners to his own use.  None of it was used to pay the mortgage on the homeowner’s property.

The Florida Motion In Limine:  [anthony williams limine state motion 2019]

Rudy Davis gives one of his usual rants against the FBI and the Department of Justice in his March 1, 2019 video; however, as we shall see, the prosecution’s use of a motion in limine in the Florida case against Anthony Williams was entirely reasonable.  Davis did not inform his viewers of the back story of State of Florida vs. Anthony Williams.  And I observed that Davis read the Motion in Limine almost in its entirety, leaving out one important detail when he arrives at the last paragraph.  He read, “I hereby certify that a true copy hereof has been furnished Electronically this 22nd day of February blah blah blah.”

Did the court document say BLAH, BLAH, BLAH? The dictionary defines “Blah” as something that is without meaningful content. The Court Document stated “2016”, not “blah, blah, blah”. Why did Rudy Davis not reveal the year of this Motion in Limine? I have to presume it was because Rudy Davis did not want his viewing audience to question why he was so wound up about a three year old court document from 2016.

3/1/2019 Lonestar 1776 video

2016 was a busy year for Anthony Williams, as I find that on May 17, 2016, he was Re-arrested in Florida for practicing law without a license due to a 5012 warrant violation of community control.  And then 3 weeks later on June 7, 2016, a U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale case was filed as Williams vs. Williams.  Anthony Williams decided to sue HIMSELF as seen in this docket report. However, this case was dismissed for lack of prosecution as his mail was undeliverable. For some reason he failed to leave a correct forwarding address.  Was he fleeing from himself, so that he could not serve himself notice of his lawsuit?

Rudy Davis and Anthony Williams are like two prisoners in a pod in their view of lawful authority.  I note that the yearofjubile.com website displays an email dated February 24, 2019 from Anthony Troy Williams that represents a “Notice to the Court” for his case in  Hawaii. The Notice to the Court has the rather unconventional case title, United States of America (Lucifer’s Enemy Kingdom)-LEK vs Anthony Williams (Son of Man Prophet).

In this notice, Williams writes a one page paragraph citing Psalms 94:12-23, addressed to “the satanic agents of the government” and an “unjust demonic ruling”.  Williams refers to himself as a Private Attorney General, Counsel to the Poor (Psalms 14.6), and Common Law Counsel (28 USC 1654, First Judiciary Act of 1789, section 35).  Williams declares that “Yahweh has been my defense (that’s why I don’t need a satanic attorney bar member), and my Elohim the rock of my refuge…”.

Trouble in TWO Paradises: Sitting in a jail cell, when one could be walking along the beautiful beaches of Florida and Hawaii

As we noted, the State’s Motion in Limine read by Rudy Davis is dated February 22, 2016 regarding the State of Florida vs. Anthony Williams, in the Circuit Court of the Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Or, “Blah, blah, blah”, as Rudy would say.  [anthony williams limine state motion 2019]

There are 6 items listed which the State Attorney requests of the Court,  that the “Defendant refrain from making any direct or indirect mention whatsoever at trial before the jury…without first obtaining permission from the Court outside the presence of the jury, on the grounds that said matters are incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to the issues involved herein, and will serve only to unfairly prejudice the jurors against the State.”

The items listed are those irrelevant issues used by sovereign citizen pro se defendants to waste the court’s time with their nonsensical “legal” arguments.  In addition, quoting from the Bible and using lofty sounding religious titles to divert from the relevant issues at hand is also listed.  These irrelevancies arose because of the past court room conduct of Anthony Williams who has filed numerous frivolous motions in the past.  I have read numerous of these documents which can be found at the sovcitbullshit.com forum, and the courts have given him due consideration of his Constitutional rights.

Rudy Davis is familiar with what a Motion in Limine is, as I had discussed this topic in a previous article written on July 19, 2018 called Lonestar 1776:  The Meet and Greet Club for THE OXYMORONS.  See excerpts from this article below where Rudy Davis is named in a U. S. District Court of Nevada document.

If Diplomatic Immunity does not work, declare yourself a Jailhouse Lawyer

Just one day prior to the February 15, 2017 Indictment filed in the United States District Court, District of Hawaii, in United States vs. Anthony T. Williams and Anabel Cabebe, Anthony Williams filed a document he wrote on February 10, 2017, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida.  He titled this document, Demand for Recognition as Sovereign, Freeworld and Jailhouse Lawyer.

Williams begins, “Defendant, through his undersigned Common Law Counsel, who is a servant of the Most High Yahweh Elohim and Yashua the Messiah Demand for Recognition as Sovereign, Freeworld and Jailhouse Lawyer…”.  He then describes Sovereign in 4 points, and his two points on the Freeworld Lawyer begin, “The 6th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution which guarantees the right of the accused to the ‘assistance of counsel’ was written in 1791 and the term counsel did not mean an attorney at law or member of the Bar Association which wasn’t created until 1879 in Indiana by the Rothschild banking family.  Therefore counsel meant anyone who gave lawful advice…”.

The problem here is that when Williams had been practicing law without a license, he was giving UNLAWFUL advice.  But he denies those facts, and in point 2 under Freeworld Lawyer, he states, “It has been the business of the undersigned common law counsel for the past 15 years to give lawful and legal advice and therefore because of the above facts the undersigned common law counsel demands to be recognized on the record by this court as a freeworld lawyer without licensing or being a member of any bar association to compel one to be associated violates international law Article 20 (2).”

And then Williams provides 6 points to argue that he should be recognized as a jailhouse lawyer, stating that “The undersigned Common Law Counsel have given lawful advice to numerous inmates which has resulted in many of his jail clients winning at trial or getting the case dismissed”.  No examples are given, and so Anthony Williams’s final paragraph is IV.  Notice to the Court Upon Denial of this Demand. In this final demand, he claims that if the court does not provide reasons of all decisions overturning the authorities he has cited, then “failure to do so is silent acquiescence that the foregoing is true and correct and this court has recognized the undersigned common law counsel as a sovereign, freeworld and jailhouse lawyer…”.

Let’s move on to this next court filing by Anthony Williams.

Opposition to Motion for Judicial Determination of the Mental Competency of the Accused

In Document 270-2 (Exhibt A) filed in the Hawaii federal court case 1:17-cr-00101-LEK on June 8, 2018, Anthony Williams filed an Opposition to Motion for Judicial Determination of the Mental Competency of the Accused.  He began, “Comes now, defendant, by and through the undersigned Common Law Counsel, Private Attorney Williams, who is a servant of the Most High Yahweh Elohim and Yashua the Mahshyah”.  Then Williams objects to the prosecution’s request for a mental competency examination in his Hawaii case, as he had already undergone such an evaluation in 2015 during his Florida trial, and had been found competent to proceed.

Included in Exhibit A is a 4 page handwritten Declaration of Anthony Williams, as a “Private Attorney General”, claiming that the purpose of a new competency evaluation is to delay trial, because the prosecutor “feels insufficient, inadequate and intellectually incapable of opposing the declarant in a court battle and is terrified what his colleagues will say when he loses miserably to the declarant at trial.”

Williams “maintains that the court lacks jurisdiction because there was no crime of mail or wire fraud committed…Your declarant is in fact a sovereign American National and not a U. S. citizen as of 2011 when a Declaration of Expatriation was notarized and filed and published in the newspaper for 4 weeks”. Also, Williams has invited CNN, Dateline NBC and 60 minutes to record and publicize his future trial.

Anthony Williams also references his Motion for Exposition of Spiritual Warfare which he filed on April , 2018.  He “defends and reiterates that there is a Divine Nine Alphanumerical (DNA) code that has been revealed to the undersigned which expose Lucifer, his demons and all unrighteousness and reveal who Yahweh Elohim and Yahshva is, the son of man and those who are righteous.  The DNA code is unerring, beyond manipulation and cannot be refuted and the DNA code did reveal that the United States of America has the same numerical value as ‘Lucifer’s Host Kingdom’ and ‘Lucifer’s Enemy Kingdom’ and declarants name Anthony Williams has the same numerical value as ‘Son of Man Prophet’.  All these were mathematically proven in that Motion for Exposition of Spiritual Warfare.”

“Your declarant did in fact expose that Timothy Rodriguez and Ronald Johnson’s names according to the DNA code had the same numerical value as ‘That’s Satans Lawyer’ for Timothy Rodrigues and ‘Satans A Lawyer’ , ‘Profane Lawyer’, ‘Racist’s Swine’, ‘Racists Demon’ and ‘True Enemy’ for Ronald Johnson.  Those numerical values weren’t manipulated and are a true and correct correlation to their names numerically.The numerical value for the USA according to the DNA code is in fact 666 as proven by the Chart supplied with the Motion for the Exposition of Spiritual Warfare. The DNA code in fact reveals that the declarants name Anthony Williams has the same numerical value as ‘son of man prophet’ and ‘I’m Yahshua Messyah’ and yes the whole world will get to witness me with my father Yahweh when we are revealed from heaven.”  [anthony williams mental state]

There’s more…there is always more when it comes to Anthony Troy Williams.  And most of it is irrelevant to the charges filed against him.  That is why a Motion for Limine was filed in Broward County, Florida. And because of the voluminous irrelevant paperwork submitted by Anthony Troy Williams to the court in Hawaii, it is taking a long time to move his case to the trial stage.  Now that Anthony Williams is one of Rudy Davis’ American Political Prisoner Boys, will we see Rudy Davis named in a future  Motion In Limine in the Hawaii case?

 

Poking the Bear or Provoking God? Rudy Davis Justifies Murder In the First Degree by his Endorsement of the Falsehoods of Patrick Hoffman

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.  Proverbs 17:15

In the above  February 26, 2019 Lonestar 1776 video, at the 8.28 mark, Rudy Davis says to incarcerated first degree murderer Patrick Hoffman, in a recorded jail conversation, “…these cowards who’d like to walk up to the bear and because there’s a, they think there’s a huge piece of glass between them and the bear and they make faces at the bear and they poke at the bear and they make fun of the bear and they all say this disparaging comments if that glass was removed they wouldn’t be saying the things that they’re saying and these are big-time cowards for anybody that picks upon the prisoner and wants to make his life even more hell than it already is, I got no respect for them.  They’re just the biggest cowards I’ve ever seen in my life.” (8.56)

Poking the Bear…?

Over the years I have heard the poking the bear warning in many different contexts. The Bear has been referred to as the Russian bear, or the Great Bear Constellation which represents the Luciferian Priesthood, or as a reference to a person who when provoked, becomes dangerous.  Interestingly on the same day, Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth used the same expression in his February 26, 2019 video shown below to describe poking a Legal Bear.In the live chatroom of the Jason Goodman Legal Bear video was Darrell McClanahan, who is a regular commenter on the Lonestar 1776 video channel. As seen in the screenshot below of the Crowdsource the Truth channel, McClanahan was promoting Rudy Davis as a good man, as well as Davis’ prison ministry’s Lonestar videos and yearofjubile/I hate the FBI website.  And someone who calls himself the AR-10 Bear replied, “amen Darrell”.  I guess the 3rd quarter moon of February 26th marked the day of the Bear.Rudy Davis has been called out numerous times by persons who object to his  falsification of facts and his reframing of the histories of  felons in order to declare them  innocent of the crimes which they were charged with. One of the results of this revisionism is that  he has defamed the victims of criminal acts,  judges, juries, witness statements made under oath, and American jurisprudence.  And should a viewer question the false narratives of Rudy Davis, they are labeled as devils and hyenas who are going to hell.

So it is no great surprise that one of Rudy Davis’ fans was promoting his videos to the kindred spirits in the chatroom of Crowdsource the Truth. Jason Goodman, the owner of the CSTT YouTube channel presently has two open federal civil lawsuits against him involving defamation and RICO complaints.

But before Rudy Davis accuses others of foolishly poking the bear, perhaps he ought to consider in what manner he is provoking God when he sets forth a false narrative which exonerates Patrick Hoffman, who is serving life without parole for aggravated murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree.

The Washington State Appeals Decision on State vs. Hoffman

The document which I will be quoting from in the following discussion is a 57 page Appeals document of the Supreme Court of Washington regarding State vs. Hoffman.

Numerous false statements have been made by both Patrick Hoffman and Rudy Davis regarding the murder of tribal police officer Louis Millard while in the line of duty. A small sample can be heard at the 14.58 mark of the February 26, 2019 video, when Rudy Davis says to Hoffman, “… you were at home, you were at your home with your father.  You didn’t like go out and plan anything with your father.  You’re just living your life at your home, they came to your house at 2:30 in the morning and the shootout you know ensued and they broke their orders they were ordered not to go to your house and they broke their supervisor orders to even go out there and your father ends up shot. You think your father’s going to die so I don’t agree with their analysis….”.

To begin with, Hoffman and his father were NOT in the home at the time of the shootout, as the person who had the only key to the house was not present to open the door. After the shootout, Hoffman abandoned his father who had been shot in the out-of-doors near a chicken coop, and he escaped to a friend’s house in another town, leaving his wounded father to be found by the police.

So what is the context of this incident?

In the January 10, 1991, Appeals document linked above, the Facts of the Case begin:  “Patrick Gene Hoffman and his father, Elmer Edward McGinnis seek reversals of their convictions for aggravated murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree.  The convictions were based on charges filed after the August 27, 1986, shooting death of tribal police officer Louis Millard and wounding of tribal police officer John Dick.”

Trial had commenced on February 17, 1987, and years after the conviction of these two defendants, Elmer McGinnis passed away in prison in 2001.  The focal point of this post will be on McGinnis’ son Patrick Hoffman; however, this story begins with the actions of Elmer McGinnis.

The Appeals document, page 2, relates, “On August 25, 1986, 2 days before the shooting, several tribal police officers arrested McGinnis at the Tribal Council headquarters pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant which had been issued by the chief judge of the Tribal Court.  The arrest warrant was issued on a trespass-lands charge.  It was issued after a Mr. Ferguson had complained to the prosecutor that McGinnis had trespassed on his land several times and had threatened and intimidated Mr. Ferguson, his wife, and his daughter.”

“The Tribal Court had originally mailed a criminal summons to McGinnis on the trespass charge but it was returned unopened with his refusal marked thereon.  The warrant for his arrest then issued from the Tribal Court based upon the trespass-lands criminal charge and on the judge’s determination that McGinnis was an immediate threat to the community.”

“McGinnis physically resisted the arrest and assaulted tribal police officers and the ambulance attendants who were called after McGinnis complained of chest pains. McGinnis was taken to the Tribal Health Clinic and the Coulee Community Health Facility where he was booked on the Tribal Court trespass-lands warrant and placed on a tribal police hold for resisting arrest and assaulting the tribal police officers and ambulance crew.  McGinnis continued to complain of pain and, therefore, was ultimately taken to the Mid-Valley Hospital.”

Did Patrick Hoffman have a prior police record?

At this point, I want to introduce a fact sheet which is not found in the Appeals document, which is posted at everytownresearch.org on Washington state law enforcement deaths and illegal guns.  It would appear that the age of Hoffman at the time of the murder of Millard is incorrect, as he was born in 1949, making him 37 years old. But the prior convictions of Hoffman are of interest in considering his overall character.

everytownresearch.org

On page 30 of the Appeals document, an interesting comment is made, saying, “Furthermore, the fact that the trial court refused to admit into evidence the outstanding arrest warrant for defendant Hoffman (because of its potential for creating prejudice) did not prohibit the trial court from considering the warrant in making the determination it did regarding the legality of the search for the defendants.”  Thus we can see that Hoffman had a history with police prior to the August 27, 1986 shootout.

Back to our story…

So returning to our story when McGinnis was in the hospital attached to a heart monitor, the tribal police did not post a guard because of a personnel shortage. According to the Appeals document, “The tribal prosecutor informed McGinnis’ attorney and his daughters that McGinnis was still under arrest and gave McGinnis’ children permission to visit their father in the hospital.  McGinnis was unexpectedly discharged on August 26, the evening before the shooting.  When one of the nurses realized that he was on tribal hold, she attempted to detain him and told him to wait or the police would come after him.  However, McGinnis, in the company of his son (the defendant Patrick Gene Hoffman) and his four daughters, drove away from the hospital.”

Hoffman was the driver of the automobile, and a tribal police officer chased them, at times accelerating 75-80 m.p.h. with the emergency red and blue rotating lights on.  “Hoffman later admitted to knowing that a police car was following him and that he accelerated to get away from it.”  After eluding the police, McGinnis and Hoffman decided to walk the 6-8 miles back to their house. “Hoffman removed a gym bag from the trunk of the car which contained a loaded .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol with 40 rounds of ammunition, a holster and holster belt for the .45 pistol, a loaded .22 caliber revolver, an Interdynamics KG 99 9 mm. semiautomatic pistol with two magazines of ammunition, at least one and possibly two Olin flare guns with flare rounds, a knife, a can of mace and a set of nunchucka sticks.  Hoffman testified that it was his habit to carry these weapons at all times.”

“Upon arriving at the McGinnis’ residence, McGinnis and Hoffman hid behind a chicken coop and armed themselves with the guns from Hoffman’s gym bag.  The police had earlier placed an officer on surveillance of the McGinnis property. An officer also testified that the police believed McGinnis kept a large arsenal of weapons in his house…At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 27, shortly before the shooting, the officer watching the property observed two individuals whom he could not identify.  Pursuant to his orders, the officer on surveillance radioed the police dispatcher for assistance.  Five marked police cars and a rescue truck arrived at the scene within a short time.  The officers used their patrol car headlights and spotlights and the searchlights on the rescue truck to illuminate and search the property…for approximately 15 minutes.”

As we can see from the Appeals document, the summary of events which Rudy Davis presented is inexcusably inaccurate, because these court tested facts are readily available on the internet.

The Appeals document on page 4 states, “At trial, Hoffman admitted to firing the .22 caliber revolver, the .45 pistol and a flare gun from his position behind the chicken coop.  Two ejected 9 mm. cartridges were found behind the chicken coop near the .22 revolver and a flare gun.  McGinnis was discovered by police early the next morning near the scene of the shooting.  He had been shot with a bullet which was later identified as consistent with Officer Dick’s police revolver and ammunition.  Hoffman escaped, to appear 2 days later at the home of one Jeff Epperson in Keller, Washington. Hoffman told Epperson that McGinnis had fired the 9 mm. gun.  Epperson testified at trial that when told that an officer had been killed, Hoffman replied, ‘good deal’.”

On page 25 of the Appeals document, it was noted that “Defendants also object to the argument, ‘Now, what happened to this gun is that Hoffman knew a police officer had been shot with it and he took it up in the hills and got rid of it.  He hid it where nobody would ever find it.’  This argument was supported by evidence.  Hoffman admitted the gun was at the scene; the gun was never found after an exhaustive search of the area, and Hoffman admitted to the witness Epperson that he had disposed of the gun.”

Another argument Hoffman made in his Appeal on page 13 is that “Hoffman maintains that he was prejudiced because the prosecution was allowed to impeach him with this statement when he testified that he did not know if McGinnis had fired a gun.  This argument, however, does not withstand scrutiny.  Only if a defendant has the right to lie on the stand would such an effort at impeachment unfairly prejudice him, but that is not the law.  The prosecution had the right on cross-examination to impeach the witness with the witness’ own prior inconsistent statement.  The trial court offered to allow Hoffman to recall Epperson to allow him to testify regarding Hoffman’s statement that McGinnis had fired the 9mm.gun, but Hoffman elected not to recall Epperson.”

The Appeals document addresses 20 issues which Hoffman and McGinnis wanted the Court to review. Let’s look at excerpts of  just 3 of these issues.

Issue Seven:  Was sufficient evidence presented from which the jury could find premeditation and intent to kill, as it did?

Conclusion of the Court:  The State produced substantial evidence at trial showing that the killing of police officer Millard was both intended and premeditated.

On page 18 of the Appeals document, several statements are made including, “Premeditation is an essential element of murder in the first degree as charged herein. Premeditation must involve more than a moment in time…the factual record in this case contains evidence which would allow the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendants each premeditated the killing.  There was evidence of prior threats by the defendant McGinnis regarding tribal officers; a number of deadly weapons were brought to the scene of the shooting by the defendant Hoffman; multiple shots were fired by each defendant; one of the victims of the shooting was shot from behind; and several statements indicating premeditation were made by each defendant.”

In addition, it was noted in Issue Seven that “There is substantial evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found that both defendants armed themselves, hid and waited for the officers to approach and then opened fire on the officers.  Evidence from a number of witnesses indicated that it was the officers who were fired upon, rather than the other way around, and that the officers were not the ones who initiated the gunfire…Eight .45 caliber shell casings, eight .22 caliber shell casings and two 9 mm. shell casings were recovered near the chicken coop behind which the defendants were hiding, and all of the expended shells were consistent with having been fired from guns owned by Hoffman.”

“Hoffman also admitted reloading the .45 caliber pistol.  Evidence of multiple acts of violence also supports an inference of premeditation. After both officers were shot, and Officer Dick was crawling and attempting to drag Officer Millard to cover, the defendants continued to coordinate their gunfire with the flares they fired to illuminate the scene of the shooting.  Such conduct is evidence of calculated actions and premeditated intent to kill.”

Issue Seventeen:  Were the trial court’s accomplice liability instructions to the jury erroneous?

Conclusion of the Court: The accomplice instructions given to the jury correctly declared the law of accomplice liability and did not violate defendants’ rights to jury unanimity.

“On the accomplice liability issues, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:  A person who is an accomplice in the commission of a crime is guilty of that crime whether present at the scene or not.  A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either (1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime….”.

“Defendant Hoffman argues that the jury must find that he had knowledge of his father’s premeditation in order for him to be convicted of murder in the first degree….”.

“Accomplice liability represents a legislative decision that one who participates in a crime is guilty as a principal, regardless of the degree of participation.  Additionally, as discussed above, there was substantial evidence in this case from which the jury could reasonably find that each of the defendants premeditated the officer’s killing…the jury in this case need not have decided whether it was Hoffman or McGinnis who actually shot and killed Officer Millard so long as both participated in the crime.  The accomplice instructions were not erroneous.”

Issue Nineteen:  Did the jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of others correctly state the law and allow defendants to argue their theory of the case?

Conclusion of the Court:  The trial court’s justifiable homicide and self-defense instructions correctly stated the law and allowed defendants to argue the defense theories to the jury.

“The trial court gave the following instructions to the jury on self-defense. To convict a Defendant of the crime of Murder in the First Degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about the 27th day of August, 1986, the Defendant shot Louis A. Millard; (2) That the Defendant acted with intent to cause the death of Louis A. Millard; (3) That the intent to cause the death was premeditated; (4) That Louis A. Millard died as a result of Defendant’s acts; and (5) That the acts occurred in Okanogan County, Washington.  If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.  On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.”

Several instructions were given to the jury to explain the law.  Instruction 17 is interesting because it ties in with the poking the bear theme of this article.

Instruction 17 stated, “No person may, by any intentional act reasonably likely to provide a belligerent response, create a necessity for acting in self-defense or defense of another and thereupon kill or use, offer, or attempt to use force upon or toward another person.  Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the aggressor, and the defendant’s acts and conduct provoked or commenced the fight, then self-defense or defense of another is not available as a defense. One who acts in defense of another, reasonably believing the other to be the innocent party and in danger, is justified in using force necessary to protect that person even if, in fact, the person whom the actor is defending is the aggressor.”

“The briefs and record herein show that the argument defendants wanted to make was that the police had provoked the event and that the defendants were therefore justified in shooting the officers.  Any such theory could be, and was, argued under the self-defense and justifiable homicide instructions to the jury.”

The Court Record is 6,000 pages long.  However, the Appeals Document summarizes the facts and legal arguments in 57 pages, and it is readable on the internet.  It is inexcusable that Rudy Davis, who claims to be an ordained chaplain of the Christian faith, would alter the details of a story involving murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree, in order to falsely assert that Patrick Hoffman is innocent of the charges brought against him. 

Proverbs 17:15:  He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

 

Larry Klayman Sues Pete Santilli for Libel and Slander

On February 9, 2019 Larry Klayman filed a 174 page complaint against Pete Santilli with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division, case no. 2019 CA 000896 B.  See link below:

larry klayman vs pete santilli 2 9 2019

 

Why Rudy Davis’ “Francis Schaeffer Cox” Business Cards Cause Others to Want to Dial the Police

On February 19, 2019,  LoneStar1776 published a YouTube video called, Buc-ee’s Is Going To Call Police if You Put More Schaeffer Cox Cards On Their Gas Pumps. In this short 2 minute audio, a woman representing Buc-ee’s in Itaska, Illinois called Rudy Davis to inquire into the origin of LoneStar1776’s Schaeffer Cox business cards which had been left on their gas pumps.

Rudy Davis explained to Buc-cee’s that, “I don’t have any control over that, you realize I do print the business cards and I distribute-, they’re all over the country, but I don’t have any control over what people do with them…even, even if you call the police, I mean I’m just the guy who prints the cards…”.

Rudy Davis is correct that he cannot control where another person leaves these cards. But he incorrectly states his responsibility for the CONTENT of these cards.  In truth, Vista Print is the printer of these cards; not Rudy Davis, – and it was his wife,  Erin Davis, who created the design on Vista Print’s website.  The purpose of these cards is to provide three resources which recipients of the business card can  research, to find out Schaeffer Cox’s version of the events which lead to his incarceration in a federal prison.

Based on the simple fact that the sole phone number on these business cards belongs to Rudy Davis, it is apparent that  these cards are an advertisement for his LoneStar 1776 video channel featuring his prison ministry’s phone calls. Schaeffer Cox is just Davis’ favorite poster child for his roster of self-described American Political Prisoners.  The Buc-cee’s employee called Rudy Davis because his phone number is on the card.

Rudy Davis once again gives Christianity a bad reputation

The caller from Buc-cee’s was under the impression that these cards originated from a Christian church, most likely because Davis had termed  Schaeffer Cox a Christian American Political Prisoner.  When  Davis avoided naming his wife as the creator of the content of these cards, the Buc-cee’s employee wanted to know the identity of the church distributing them.

Although Schaeffer Cox was raised in a Christian family and his father is a pastor, he departed from that path when he entered into the world of sovereign citizen styled militias and purchased illegal weapons and silencers. Rudy Davis is fond of issuing imprecatory prayers commanding destruction and death on anyone who disagrees with his mission of covering over the crimes of the felons he promotes.

Rudy Davis showing off his gun

What are these “resources”?

Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with FreeSchaefferCox.com, as I had referred to that website in connection with a Schaeffer Cox defamation lawsuit written by attorney Larry Klayman and his nonprofit Freedom Watch, Inc. against BenBella Books and William Fulton.

In another Schaeffer Cox lawsuit filed pro se on February 5, 2018, but terminated on October 5, 2018 when the Plaintiff filed for a voluntary dismissal based on a jurisdiction issue, the defendants named were Terry Dodd, Stitching Trust for Two, Inc., the Estate of Steward Skrill, Maria Rensel, Eberle, Inc., Tami Cali, Ryan Mobly, DMP, Inc. dba Free Schaeffer Cox, Edward Snook dba US Observer, Ron Lee, James E. Leuenberger, and James E. Leuenberger, PC. (Leuenberger is Edward Snook’s attorney, and Ron Lee is a reporter for the US Observer). Those defendants marked in bold represent the two resources, in addition to LoneStar 1776, that are referenced on Rudy Davis’ Schaeffer Cox cards.

In respect to that February 5, 2018 lawsuit,  MadisonRecord.com published an article on March 16, 2018, Alaskan Man Convicted on Conspiracy Charges Sues Individuals Over Money Collected for Legal Defense, written by Noddy A. Fernandez. This article stated that “The plaintiff alleges that ‘there were ongoing efforts from multiple parties to assist’ his legal defense and the defendants intended to take possession of any funds collected by the partnership by fraud.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants used his identity to collect more than $3 million dollars under the false pretense that the money would be used for his legal defense.”

This is awkward, as the go-to resources for background information on Cox are the very same defendants accused of fraud in a Cox lawsuit!  Although Cox dropped his February 5, 2018 lawsuit, he reworked his complaint into a new lawsuit in a different jurisdiction,  naming fewer defendants.

The US Observer is a premier example of  Checkbook Journalism

The US Observer publication is owned by Ed Snook of Grant’s Pass, Oregon. Here is a Justicia.com reference to a complaint which Schaeffer Cox had made regarding Snook.  Ed Snook, for a hefty price, writes “investigative journalist” reports which he publishes in the US Observer to create a one-sided narrative to the liking of his clientele.  These reports are financed by persons who are either accused of crimes or are incarcerated felons, or their supporters.Someone had financed the US Observer to write two articles on The Federal Framing of Schaeffer Cox.

Shown below is Rudy Davis’ recommendation of this article as a “must read”.

From another perspective, let’s consider an interesting November 13, 2010 Bendsource.com article discussing an entirely different party that was in need of laundering their legal narrative, and so they purchased an investigative report from the US Observer.  Written by The Wandering Eye, this article discusses Tami and Kevin Sawyer, who “were high flyers during Bend’s real estate bubble era but were shot down in flames last month when a federal grand jury in Eugene indicted them on 21 criminal counts including wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and false statements to a financial institution.  They’re also facing civil suits by about 20 former investors in their various business enterprises.”

The Bendsource article continues, “But now a publication called US-Observer is painting the Sawyer’s in a new light- as innocent victims of a vast, sinister conspiracy involving The Bulletin, the FBI, the U. S. Attorney’s Office and, yes, President Barak Obama himself.” The US-Observer article was written by Joseph Snook and Edward Snook, “Investigative Journalists”, and The Wandering Eye notes, “…I need to explain that Edward Snook, who lives in Grants Pass and is the editor of US-Observer, practices checkbook journalismThat means, in his case, that if you’re accused of a crime and you take out your checkbook and write him a check, he’ll write a story “proving” your “innocence.”

And Rudy Davis has no problem with this form of journalism; in fact, you might say that LoneStar1776 is a kindred spirit with the US Observer’s approach to turning the guilty into innocent victims of a vast conspiracy.

A new lawsuit filed by Schaeffer Cox in connection with “Free Schaeffer Cox” fundraising

But let’s see….Francis Schaeffer Cox filed his “reworked” lawsuit in the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division on November 7, 2018 against Eberle Associates, Tami Cali, President/CEO, William D. Griffins, Vice President, and Mike Murray, President Direct Mail Processors, Inc. It has taken awhile, but it looks like Cox was able to make his final installment on the $400 filing fee as of February 5, 2019.

This lawsuit begins, “Plaintiff is the sole principal of Free Schaeffer Cox, because he is in fact the Schaeffer Cox targeted by the fraudulent Free Schaeffer Cox “Project”. The complaint has yet to be served on the defendants; however, as a judgment,  the Plaintiff wants $38,000 for the funds raised on his behalf by the test mailing conducted by the defendants.  In addition Cox desires the entire $3 million dollars raised by the defendants as a result of the direct mail program that was conducted by the defendants on behalf of plaintiff.  And then Cox wants a list of the persons who made donations, and $1 million for the loss of the comfort and society of his supporters.

How many embarrassing legal issues can one discover on a LoneStar1776 “Schaeffer Cox” business card?

Check out all three resources, and you will descend into a deep abyss of sovereign citizen styled militia groups and politics, illegal weapons, threats against government officials, fraud, lies, pseudo Christianity, checkbook journalism,  lawyers that have had  their fair share of Bar complaints…and on and on!  Is it any wonder that a legitimate business would not want these cards distributed on their private property?

UPDATE 2/23/2019:  Bondo77 made an interesting comment today about the fact that there are no Buc-cee’s in Illinois.  The woman caller claimed to be from Itasca, IL.  However, I just checked and there is a gas station called Bucky’s in Itasca, IL. Rudy Davis posted the graphics from the wrong gas station, it would appear.