Rudy Davis Asks God to Curse A Prison Warden but he ought to take heed of these Cautionary Tales of “The Downfall of the Unmanageable Shill”

Hal Turner and National Socialist Movement Nazis

Once upon a time Shock Jock and White Supremist Hal Turner thought he could not be held responsible for his words, as he played everyone for gain as an on again-off again paid FBI informant. As he became the Unmanageable Shill, Turner brazenly tried to extort his FBI handler.

Of late we have been observing the downfall of another internet host, who has embellished his civil court documents with a conspiratorial twist to place the blame for his own actions on other people. One day that ongoing story will be retold as a Campfire Tale of Horror, but in today’s post my caution is directed to Rudy Davis of LoneStar1776 who sidesteps the laws governing unprotected threatening speech, by invoking the name of God in imprecatory prayers against law enforcement officers and judges.

What has Christianity to do with Shock Jock Manipulators?

Alternative Media internet hosts and their guests often exhibit an anti-government, anti-judiciary bias that runs like an underground stream, beneath the terra firma of the self-indignant, self justified world of the Shock Jock broadcaster. This philosophical bent has nothing to do with a genuine Christian belief in the Scriptures dealing with justice and  legitimate governmental authority.

Consider the following example of Pete Santilli, who was known for his foul mouth and Shock Jock opinions. Some will recall that on February 12, 2015, Pete Santilli exposed himself in a Shock Jock brief phone call to the office of Judge Rodgers, who was presiding over the trial of Kent Hovind.

At that time, other self-proclaimed Christian internet broadcasters such as Doug Hagmann, Steve Quayle, and Dave Daubenmire were likewise promoting the false legal narrative of the “innocence” of Kent Hovind.  The instigator of that unified storyline appears to have been Rudy Davis, the Christian Chaplain of the LoneStar1776 YouTube channel, who signifies his mission with a I Hate the FBI slogan.

Pete Santilli’s YouTube channel was later suspended; thus the video which featured his phone call to Judge Rodgers has disappeared from the internet.  However, Robert Baty had transcribed that particular phone call on his kehvrlb.com website.

Before reading a portion of that phone call below, consider that  Title 18, United States Code, Section 115(a)(1)(B), the statute under which Hal Turner had been convicted, prohibits threats to assault or murder United States judges with the intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with them while they are engaged in the performance of their official duties or with the intent to retaliate against them on account of their official duties.

Although Pete Santilli’s phone call represents a more nebulous manner of intimidation, it is clear that his intention was to threaten a Judge in an ongoing trial from making a decision that departed in any way from Santilli’s opinion.

The phone call began, “Tell her, my name is Pete Santilli, OK!  Santilli, S-a-n-t-i-l-l-I.  I understand she’s got a little bit, a little bit of a problem with Christians.  Namely Pastor Hovind.  And she’s abusing her black robe:  her power and authority on the bench.  And I am going to tell you something right now.  We’re whipping up the biggest firestorm that she’ll ever see.  First of all, she needs to recuse herself from that case.  I am going to demand that on behalf of all Christians in the United States of America, OK.  Your system, we have it all figured out. OK.”

“The communist regime that has a strangle hold on our government using the judiciary to go after people like Pastor Hovind, using the IRS in a very hypocritical fashion whereas you don’t go after Al Sharpton and Timothy Geithner, OK.  Going after Pastor Hovind will not stand, OK.  She should recuse herself.  She has tremendous bias.  We have her on the record for what she has stated is not acceptable and conduct unbecoming of a judge, OK.  So, I’d like to call upon her to just remove herself or face the wrath of the people here in the United States of America.  They are going to come against her:  make sure, basically, she will be unemployed.…See you at the trial; semper fi.” (End of call).

After the call,  Pete Santilli continues speaking, “Frickin’ pigs.  I’m sick of this system.  I’m fed up, aren’t you fed up? I’m serious.  I’m literally…I’m also upset at the following…How many people do we need to send down there to get him released?”

Eventually Shock Jock Pete Santilli found himself  incarcerated for 600+ days in regard to the Cliven Bundy/Nevada “Bunkerville” encounter with government officials.

Jason Goodman and Larry Klayman’s view of Santilli as a double crosser

Almost a year ago, on June 12, 2018, Jason Goodman was live on the Pete Santilli Show. However, when Santilli later filed an official BAR complaint against attorney Larry Klayman, Jason Goodman was placed in the awkward position of having to favor one guest over the other, and in the end it was Larry Klayman who was brought to the forefront of  Crowdsource the Truth, and Santilli was shelved.  As of May 15, 2019, Robert David Steele is requesting Discovery documents from Jason Goodman that center around his communications with several CSTT guests, including attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.

At the 37.50 mark of this June 12, 2018 show, Jason Goodman discusses attorney Larry Klayman, saying, “I always like to promote Larry’s website and what Larry is doing because it’s you know, there’s not that many lawyers out there…there’s not that many lawyers out there with integrity. Larry is one of them.” The recent Discovery document 113 filed May 15, 2019, in the Robert David Steele defamation lawsuit, requests copies of communications between Jason Goodman and Larry Klayman.

Shock Jock Hal Turner Received the Shock of his life when he had to live with those he Double Crossed.

Returning to our discussion of Shock Jock Hal Turner, the headline for a Jersey Journal nj.com article written by Michaelangelo Conte on May 18, 2011, declared Convicted North Bergen Internet Radio Host fears life in prison unit with notorious terrorists.  Interestingly, at that time, one of those prisoners in that feared unit, Russell Landers, was later to became one of Rudy Davis’ LoneStar 1776 so-called American Political Prisoners.  No doubt most federal prisoners hate the FBI, so it is little wonder that Hal Turner who was an on again-off again paid FBI informant, thought he was going to be murdered in prison.

Turner’s “rabid commentaries on his internet radio show made him a magnet for hate groups such as the Aryan Nation, Ku Klux Klan and Nazis” who loved his rhetoric.  Yet he was not loyal to these groups because of his love for money.  It appears that he never considered that he might end up incarcerated in the Terre Haute, Indiana Communications Management Unit (CMU)which house notorious White Supremists and Muslim terrorists. The Jersey Journal article quoted Turner as saying, “I probably won’t even see it coming,” and “They are facilitating my murder by putting me in the direct physical presence of the very terrorists  I defended the nation from”.  In reality, Turner served his sentence, and was able to re-enter a more subdued reality in society. However, as we will discuss later in this article, another prisoner associated with Rudy Davis’ prison ministry WAS murdered in that same CMU.

Hal Turner’s Government Sentencing Memorandum Discusses Unprotected Speech

Turner was convicted of threatening to kill three Chicago judges and sentenced to 3 years in prison.  The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York’s 13 page Government Sentencing Memorandum for United States v. Turner can be read in full on Wikisource.org.

This memorandum explains that because of a federal court ruling which Hal Turner disliked, he attempted to “intimidate the three judges”, as he “switched from offering his opinion on the merits of the decision to threatening death to the judges…The differences between political commentary with which Turner tries to affiliate himself and the threatening postings in this case are stark.  Turner’s statements in the charged postings were not general exhortations about political conditions but were instead targeted attacks against three individuals whom Turner desired to intimidate by methodically identifying them and placing them before his Internet audience on a spot lit platter…Turner not only used violent language in his postings but he intentionally linked violent phrases and graphic images with the three judges themselves (“walk up to them and kill them”…)”.

(page 4) “Threats of violence in general, moreover, are both unprotected by the First Amendment and inimical to it.  In this case, when Turner used the Internet to issue threats of violence, he sought not to persuade, but to coerce by intimidation.  Turner traded on fear of violence in a way that has no place within the marketplace of ideas.  Like other classes of punishable speech, true threats serve “no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942).”

“There is another reason why threats of violence constitute unprotected speech-they instill fear in their victims.  No matter whether a threatener carries out an attack, his victim lives under a cloud of uncertainty as to whether or when the threatened violence will be meted out.  Seldom do the threat victims have the luxury of minimizing, much less eliminating, the risk of an attack.  They must carry on with their lives, facing the grim possibility of a violent attack against themselves or their loved ones.”

(page 5)  “Turner’s earlier public statements and private emails also demonstrate that Turner reacts with venomous fury and uses his public platforms and Internet access to instill fear when someone expresses views contrary to his own or levies criticism  against him personally….Turner has spent years trying to undermine the judicial independence in all types and at all levels of courts….by attempting to coerce judges to render decisions based on fear and not on the law. Turner used his website, radio broadcasts, emails, and personal correspondence as platforms to disseminate information about judges’ rulings with exhortations about violence against the judges that should be levied in response.”

“Turner claimed during his trials in the instant case that he issued these criticisms in his public persona as a shock jock.  But the hard reality is that the Turner harsh words about these targeted judges, launched by Turner to an audience containing members of violent and extreme groups, prompted the United States Marshall’s Service to assign protective details to many of the judges for extended periods of time.  The intensity of Turner’s postings about judges increased substantially between April 10, 2006 and February 20, 2007, when Turner was not open as an FBI source.”

(page 7)  “Turner has also consistently demonstrated that he has no respect for the law.  Turner lied under oath…he demonstrated his disregard for the seriousness of his offense by sending text messages to Agent Haug (his handler agent) in an effort to intimidate him into silence.”

(page 10)  “The relationship between the FBI and Turner, however, was a stormy one”..(page 11)  “The FBI admonished Turner about the danger of using these public forums to incite individuals to commit acts of violence based on Turner’s inflammatory statements…the FBI closed Turner twice as a source due to his dangerous rhetoric and serious control problems…Turner’s persistent effort to extort the FBI after the FBI cut him off as a confidential source…”

Rudy Davis curses, in the name of God,  the Warden for the Terre Haute CMU

It might be interesting to discuss unprotected free speech which is disingenuously disguised as religious free speech, spoken in the name of God, to threaten government officials.  Even if one is confident that God will not answer the prayer request, will some misguided soul consider it his duty to fulfil the petition in the name of his religion?

In Christian theology, the law of God is equivalent to the will of God.  I John 5:14-15 addresses the subject of answered prayer,saying, And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:  and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Rudy Davis has extensively marked his Bible, so he ought to understand the whole counsel of God in regard to judgment and justice

So what happens to frivolous prayers spoken in the name of God?

Viewers of Rudy Davis’ Lonestar 1776 YouTube channel have observed the many imprecatory prayers that Davis has declared, requesting the destruction and/or death of various persons.  Despite Rudy Davis’ pretensions to legal ignorance of the American system of jurisprudence, he is in fact exhibiting a keen attention to the enforcement of law with every imprecatory prayer he utters, as seen in the above video screenshot.

For prayers to be answered, there is a basic requirement that the petitioner to the throne of heaven state the facts accurately and apply the Scriptural law appropriately.   The Frivolous Man, the Double Crosser, the Hypocrite and Shock Jocks are not countenanced by the Judge in heaven, just as they are not by American federal judges who have admonished that “The judicial forum is a place in which serious people attend to serious business.” Morris v. Jenkins, 819 F.2d 678, 682 (7th Cir. 1987). In addition, when it comes to appeals, “[T]he judicial system cannot tolerate litigants who refuse to accept adverse decisions.” Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 1995).

Rudy Davis provided this video description for his May 6, 2019, Lonestar1776 You Tube broadcast called, More Rejected Mail to Schaeffer Cox: May God Almighty Place Massive Hemorrhoids on Warden J. R. Bell in CMU in Terre Haute, Indiana“.

On what basis does Rudy Davis expect to have that prayer answered?  

The danger of frivolous prayers is that they will be cast aside by God, or worse, return as a curse against the person who prayed with a malicious and defamatory intent.

The May 6th Rudy Davis imprecatory prayer is based on two complaints against Warden Bell; the return of mail not in compliance with prison guidelines,  and a prior homicide of an incarcerated felon in the CMU.  Rudy Davis makes the astonishing claim that that murdered felon “Robert David Neal could have been beheaded“.   I assume that the curse of massive hemorrhoids is related to Rudy Davis’ malicious surmisings that the Warden might be a transsexual.

It does not appear that the manner in which Robert David Neal was murdered is public knowledge

Mywabashvalley.com posted an article on November 14, 2018, reporting that, “Terre Haute, IN-Authorities are investigating the death of an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute.  On Saturday, 68-year-old Robert Neal was found unresponsive at the facility.  He was pronounced dead by the Vigo County Coroner.  The FBI was notified and the incident is being investigated as an apparent homicide… Neal was sentenced in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to 327 months for Wire Fraud and Aiding and Abetting.  He had been in custody at FCI Terre Haute since December 20, 2010…”.

An eyewitness from the prison described that incident as follows:

December 2, 2018 Lonestar 1776 video image

Rudy Davis’ Prayer

Rudy Davis begins his imprecatory prayer video against Warden Bell, saying, “Peace and blessings.  It’s Monday, May the 6, the year 2019 and even though nobody’s paying attention, nobody seems to care, I’m gonna keep speaking the truth anyway if I’m the only one that’s talking.  Um, you see we got a secret prison;  it’s called a communications management unit and they torture and they murder people in a secret prison that was put together without the proper funding, without the proper oversight of Congress.  You say, why do you say that?  Because I got a letter from Congress that proves it.  And they used this prison to put charismatic people like Schaeffer Cox and to torture him and to break his will and to control all his communications.”

“So they banned myself, they banned my wife, when I say “they”, I’m talking about the son of Belial Warden J. R. Bell and I pray that God sends a massive case of hemorrhoids to Warden J. R. Bell, who is the warden of Terre haute, Indiana prison who keeps blocking all my mail, won’t let me communicate with Schaeffer, rejects everything that I send, I pray that God interrupts any relationship that Warden J. R. Bell tries to have with his wife, although he could be a transgender person, he could have a husband, I don’t know what his orientation is, but whoever he considers his loved ones in this earth, whether it be his children or his family, I pray they become estranged to him and that he cannot have a good relationship with his family, because he is an incredibly wicked man who I believe has oversaw the murder of Robert David Neal in November of 2018.  He’s tried to cover it up.  He won’t let anyone write any letters to the prisoners.”

“We get very few letters out from the prisoners and what little we do know is that there is no way that Robert David Neal could have been beheaded and murdered, beheaded by the Muslims without the consent and the approval of the authorities of that prison.  What else do we know about Robert David Neal?  We know that Robert David Neal had a pending lawsuit against the BOP director, Charles E. Samuels, Jr. with a massive legal list of abuses.  We also have a phone call-multiple phone calls from Robert David Neal stating that he had been hospitalized and beaten previously as retaliation for his legal efforts against the BOP.  So there’s a pattern of abuse, torture and beatings of Robert David Neal…”.  (3.03)

The Communication Management Unit (CMU) at Terre Haute

The Federal Correctional Complex at Terre Haute, Indiana has high, medium and minimum security units housing 3,000 inmates; included in this complex is a Special Confinement Unit for federal death-row inmates, and a Communications Management Unit (CMU) that severely restricts all outside communication of inmates.

According to a Wikipedia article Communication Management Unit, this specialized federal prison unit was created, “As part of the Bush Administration’s War on Terrorism, the April 3, 2006, Federal Register included proposed rules by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) that ‘Limited Communication for Terrorist Inmates’. The changes were in response to criticism that the FBOP had not been adequately monitoring the communications of prisoners, permitting several terrorists convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to send letters to other terrorists overseas. ‘By concentrating resources in this fashion, it will greatly enhance the agency’s capabilities for language translation, content analysis and intelligence sharing’, according to a government statement released with the rules.”

The article continues, “The public was given until June 2, 2006, to comment, as required by law. Civil liberty and human rights groups immediately questioned the constitutionality and stated that the provisions were so broad that they could be applied to non-terrorists, witnesses and detainees. The bureau appeared to abandon the program, but on December 11, 2006, a Communication Management Unit (CMU) was quietly implemented at Indiana’s Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute. “From April to June 2010, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) opened up a period for public comment around the establishment of two Communications Management Units” with several civil rights groups and advocates ‘coming together to urge the federal Bureau of Prisons to close the experimental prison units.’  It is unclear who authorized the program; it was either the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, FBOP Director Harley Lappin or United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.”

The Reasons for the BOP rejection of Rudy Davis’ letter

In the May 6, 2019, LoneStar1776 video around the 5 minute mark, Rudy Davis displays a letter he received from the Terre Haute prison explaining that the attached correspondence was rejected because “It has been determined the correspondence included unauthorized third party communications.” Rudy Davis mocks Warden J. R. Bell for “feeling so proud because he can quote prison policy”, and in response opens his Bible to quote some Scriptures.

The prison rules for correspondence vary between facilities, and it appears that Rudy Davis does not take the time to read these rules, so that his correspondence will be found acceptable.

Was Robert David Neal beheaded by Muslims?

Rudy Davis’ version of the murder of Robert David Neal, is that “…there is no way that Robert David Neal could have been beheaded and murdered, beheaded by Muslims, without the consent and the approval of the authorities of that prison.”

I could not find any public documentation online of the means by which Robert David Neal was murdered. As a 68 year old man, it would not be difficult for another prisoner to kill him with bare fists, before prison authorities could intervene.  Beheading is not something which is easily done unless a large sharp weapon is available, and the question is how such an instrument would be acquired in a CMU.

Rudy Davis does not provide any evidence to back up this possible scenario, but he does provide what he considers the motive for the BOP desiring the death of Robert David Neal. He suggests that the latest legal campaign of Neal against BOP director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. would cause a retaliatory response from prison authorities. However, prisoners regularly write pro se complaints against prison authorities, and there are means for prisoners to file complaints against prison practices.  I have read a number of such complaints, and often procedures are corrected by that means.

Rudy Davis considered Robert David Neal to be innocent of the charges which got him incarcerated, ignoring the established facts that Neal was an astute and learned con artist, whose resume included graduating from college, holding bank management positions, etc. And as shown in this excerpt of a letter from Neal, he could talk the Christian talk, while covering over the multitude of his sins with financial and legal buzz language.

But who did the courts say that Robert David Neal was, in reality?  When I checked PACER, Neal’s lawsuits both as a defendant and as a plaintiff was 2 pages long. The heart of Robert David Neal’s legal troubles is summarized in an October 1, 2007 U. S. Department of Justice, Northern District of Texas press release headlined, Local CPA Sentenced to More than 27 years in Federal Prison, Without Parole, on Fraud Conviction.

Interestingly, while Rudy Davis considered Neal to be innocent, in truth Robert David Neal aka Michael Skinner aka Albert David aka David Nelson had pleaded GUILTY in April 2007, “one day before his federal trial was to begin, to all six counts of an indictment charging him with wire fraud.  Neal, a former resident of Trophy Club, Texas, is currently in federal custody because of a supervised release violation stemming from a May 2002 federal felony conviction, also in the Northern District of Texas.”

The 2007 DOJ press release then describes the elaborate insurance fraud scheme, which Neal created, using the names of well known legitimate insurance companies such as Lloyd’s of London, to conduct his fraudulent scheme.  Using his aliases, he marketed fraudulent workers’ compensation insurance plans at below-market prices.

A 2002 DOJ press release stated that he had pled guilty in federal court for presenting a false claim to the United States Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service.  It notes that Neal had also been indicted for health care fraud.

In a September 3, 2014 United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Opinion on Robert D. Neal, Petitioner-Appellant v. Leann LaRiva, Respondent-Appellee, Chief Justice Wood begins, “Robert Neal seems unable to resist dishonesty. After he was caught on the brink of establishing a fraudulent worker’s compensation insurance program, under which he hoped to bilk his clients out of more than $11 million, he was convicted on federal charges of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and sentenced to 327 months’ imprisonment. See United States v. Neal, 294 F. App’x 96 (5th Cir.2008). He is currently serving that sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana.”

Continuing, the Opinion says, “Neal has not been a model prisoner. The case now before us arose after prison administrators discovered that he had signed a court document with the alias “David J. Nelson.” They disciplined him for violating a prison rule which forbids the “forging of any document, article of identification, money, security, or official paper” by revoking his commissary and telephone privileges for 180 days. Neal challenged this decision by seeking a writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241, on the ground that he was sanctioned without due process.”

What?  Robert Neal was not a model prisoner?  He still used an alias while in prison to forge a court document?  The Opinion notes, “On the merits of the section 2241 petition, the district court noted that the only penalties Neal suffered from his violation of the rule concerning forgery were the loss of commissary and telephone privileges we mentioned earlier. Neither of those sanctions affected Neal’s custody, as the court correctly held, and so relief under section 2241 is unavailable. See, e.g., Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). Neal appeals, but he does not address the merits of the district court’s order denying his petition; instead, he reasserts his entitlement to arbitration.”

Additionally, the Judge says, “Ordinarily, that would be enough for us to resolve this appeal. But, as we point out in Rivera v. Drake, No. 14–1458 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2014), the judicial system cannot tolerate deception from litigants. Neal has persisted in his false assertion that an arbitration agreement exists between himself and the Bureau of Prisons throughout this case, up to and including a motion for judicial notice that he filed in this court on August 25, 2014, in which he re-submitted his phony arbitration agreement with the following statement:  [see 2013 Opinion on Robert David Neal vs. United States]

[He] brings forward an uncontested document which was identically filed in six (6) separate [sic ] but related proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (“USDC/SDIN”) as follows: (lists cases individually).

“To that list, we can add case numbers 2:12–cv–344–LJM–WGH and 2:13–cv–175–WTL–WGH, both of which also reflect Neal’s effort to rely on his “arbitration agreement.” In short, by his own admission, Neal has over and over again flouted his duty to be honest with the court.

“We note as well that Neal’s course of conduct before this court has earned him a sanction for his repeated filing of frivolous appeals and documents.”

We can go on, but it is clear that there would be no need for the BOP to murder Robert David Neal if his next legal missive had been filed against the BOP Director, as his history of filing frivolous appeals and documents suggests that his last effort would have been of the same low quality.

In a U. S. Court of Appeal 5th Circuit Opinion dated September 24, 2008, it was noted that Neal had forged the signature of U. S. District Judge Barbara Lynn.  Also, it was stated that following his October 26, 2006 indictment, Neal had sent numerous letters from prison attempting to coerce testimony from witnesses.

Further, the Opinion adds that “the court heard evidence not only regarding Neal’s pre-indictment conduct, but also his efforts to obstruct justice, coerce witnesses, and continue his scheme after he was indicted. While Neal might spend the rest of his life incarcerated, his flagrant disregard for the law suggests that a long sentence is the best way to incapacitate him. His sentence also makes clear that wire fraud is not a victimless crime, but here, had the potential to disrupt the lives of thousands of individuals. Neal’s lengthy sentence demonstrates that such behavior is intolerable.”

Let’s face it:  Rudy Davis loves the Criminal Mind and shows no mercy for the victims

None of the above statements from court documents involving Robert David Neal recommend that one should believe his pretensions of being a Christian.  Again Rudy Davis displays his self righteous indignation over the untimely death of a man who had no qualms in stealing insurance premiums from honest, hard working persons, who were unaware that they were being defrauded. So who is the Son of Belial here?  Rudy Davis’ prayer against Warden Bell is without merit. However, I would be interested to know the real reason why Neal was murdered in prison; we must remember that these incarcerated felons have preyed on others, without remorse, and can turn on each other in an instant.

Rudy Davis is himself a Shock Jock, an unmanageable shill, who disgraces the Christian faith.  He repeatedly turns justice and judgment upside down, without compassion for the victims of his favored criminals, which he terms American Political Prisoners.  Rudy Davis may find himself someday to be regarded as just another Cautionary Tale, spoken in hushed tones around a campfire, as sparks fly out, enumerating the endless supply of Alt media boogeyman who continually unsettle their listeners.

Rudy Davis of LoneStar1776 displaying his rifle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Ross Ulbricht, Founder of the SILK ROAD Dark Web Marketplace: Part I – The Reasons for the Lifetime Prison Sentence

“Since Ross Ulbricht’s arrest, my family and I have endured the persistent drumbeat of his supporters who proclaim Mr. Ulbricht a hero and persistently portray his crime as victimless.”  The American father of Bryan, testifying at the sentencing of how his son lost his life from heroin purchased on the Dark Web “Silk Road” marketplace.

“Silk Road made it easily accessible to anyone, children included.” Court transcript quote of The Australian mother whose 16-year-old son died from an illegal drug his friend purchased from the “Silk Road”.

ROSS ULBRICHT is one of the “American Political” prisoners featured on Rudy and Erin Davis’ Year of Jubile website, under their Prisoner Pen Pals section.

To their credit, yearofjubile.com warns those who might want to be pen pals with their featured prisoners, that “many are just looking to con kind-hearted people from their money”.

Who is Ross Ulbricht?

In the 18 page Government Sentencing Submission filed 5/26/15 as Document 256 in Case 1:14-cr-00068-KBF(ross ulbricht presentencing letter), the first paragraph states, “…Ulbricht stands before the Court convicted of all seven counts of the Indictment in connection with his creation and operation of the Silk Road website.  The evidence at trial established that Ulbricht ran a massive narcotics-trafficking enterprise that dramatically lowered the barriers to obtaining illegal drugs.  As the Presentence Report (“PSR”) filed by the Probation Office makes clear, that enterprise resulted in serious real-world consequences, including at least six drug-related deaths.  Such consequences were entirely foreseeable to Ulbricht, who understood that his business was fueling drug abuse and addiction.”

“Ulbricht profited greatly from his operation of Silk Road, ultimately amassing millions of dollars in commissions.  He was willing to use violence to protect his enterprise, as evidenced by his solicitation of multiple murders for hire in attempts to eliminate perceived threats.  At no point has he acknowledged full responsibility or shown true remorse for his actions.”

At the Conclusion of this letter to the Judge, the Government requested that “the Court impose a lengthy sentence, one substantially above the 20-year mandatory minimum, in order to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. 18 U. S. C. section 3553(a).”

We are left to hazard a wild guess as to why Rudy Davis has included Ross Ulbricht on his “American Political Prisoners” Roster.

Ross Ulbricht: He has a degree in Physics and a Masters in Applied Materials; yet he chose to found a dark web worldwide criminal drug enterprise, earning him a life sentence in prison, without parole

After I pondered in my October 12th article whether or not the prison ministry of Year of Jubile.com and the Lonestar 1776 YouTube channel  exhibited the values of a genuine “King James Bible believing follower of the Lord Jesus Christ”, founder Rudy Davis responded by leaving a lengthy comment on this blog, consigning me to hell.

Although failing to address the key points in the article, Davis took issue with my characterization of his ministry as exclusively focusing on sovereign citizen “I am above the law” legal theorists. That particular phrase of mine was utilized to contrast his prison ministry’s narrow focus on domestic terrorists, to that of other Christian prison ministries that offer face-to-face Bible studies behind prison walls to all who desire to participate, without discrimination.

But since this gauntlet has been thrown down at my feet, I have decided to examine over the long haul, “those other prisoners” of Rudy Davis’,  who are not expressly sovereign citizens.

In the midst of his rant-styled comment, Davis presented a long list of prisoner names, which excluded Kent Hovind,  one of his most infamous, formerly incarcerated, tax protestor/sovereign citizens, as well as two of his other current sovereign citizen felons which I have written about, Mike and Pat Parsons. It will take a long while to go through every name on Rudy Davis’ list, but I have noted that the following fourteen names are listed on the seditionists.com PDF of J. J. MacNab’s  Anti-Government Extremist Violence and Plots-2000 to 2018, as of March 31, 2018. 

They include: Patricia Parsons (Sovereign) “plot to kidnap judge and sheriff”; Bryce Cuellar (Sovereign/Militia) “terroristic threats; Michael Emry (Sovereign/Militia) “unlawful possession of machine gun”; Greg Burleson, Gerald Delemus, and Todd Engel (Militia/Sovereign/Sagebrush) who were part of an “April 12, 2014 armed confrontation”; Schaeffer Cox, Lonnie Vernon, and Karen Vernon (Sovereign/Militia) “plot to kidnap/kill police/feds/judge”; Charles Dyer-active duty military (Oath Keeper) “theft of grenade launcher, child rape”; Ed Brown, Elaine Brown, Daniel Riley (Tax Protestor/Sovereign) “armed standoff/plot to kill officers/judge”;  and David Hinkson (Sovereign) “plot to kill judges/IRS agent/AUSA”.

Ross Ulbricht’s political model was Libertarianism, but like Sovereign Citizens who engage in criminality,  he shared the common denominator of considering himself to be personally beyond the law.

In records kept by Ulbricht used as evidence in his trial, he stated, “I’m running a multi-million dollar criminal enterprise.” However, after he was indicted, he painted himself as a rather naïve, young man on a misguided path. This turnabout in Ross Ulbricht, who was living a double life, was addressed by the Court.

The Hon. Katherine B. Forrest, the United States District Judge over U. S. v. Ross William Ulbricht, stated during the sentencing, as transcribed in document #277, (page 67, line 15), “It wasn’t game and you knew that.  It was an enterprise the stated purpose of which–the stated purpose of which–was to flout the law, to be outside of the law, to be beyond the law.  In the world that you created over time, democracy that we had set up with our founding fathers that provide for the passage of laws and the enforcement of those laws through our democratic process did not exist.  It wasn’t about democracy.”

“You were captain of the ship, as the Dread Pirate Roberts, and you made your own laws and you enforced those laws in the manner that you saw fit.  So it wasn’t a world without restriction.  It wasn’t a world of ultimate freedom.  It was a world of laws that you created, they were your laws.  It is fictional to think of Silk Road as some place of freedom.  It was a place with a lot of rules and if you didn’t comply with the rules you would be bumped out of Silk Road, you would have various kinds of things done to you that are all set forth in the seller’s guide, and here and there, and ultimately there were, of course, some commissioned murders for hire when people were making threats against that enterprise.”

So while Ross Ulbricht cannot be classified with the Sovereign Citizen movement, he exhibits the same amoral, arrogant attitude, of being above the law; entitled to establish his own rules, including the right to employ assassins against anyone who threatened his empire.

This dark world of criminal thinking is condemned by  Christian doctrine. So what words best characterize the core ideology of Rudy Davis’ American Political prisoners, if the sovereign citizens “I am above the law” label is inadequate?  The Bible stands against the hardness of the impenitent heart which results in seditions, lawlessness, murder, callous disregard for the lives of other people….etc.

Two Interesting Facets of the Ross Ulbricht criminal case

I am going to cover in two parts, the Ross Ulbricht case:  today’s post will cover the life imprisonment without parole sentence on the defendant, with the second part focusing on the side story intersecting the Ross Ulbricht case, which involved two corrupt federal agents that were tried in a separate court case, for their illegal behavior undertaken while investigating the Silk Road dark web marketing scheme.

Part I: The Reasons Behind the Length of the Sentence Given Ross Ulbricht

The court transcript of the sentencing of Ross Ulbricht is contained in Document 277 (98 pages), filed 6/30/2015 in the United States District Court Southern District of New York in Case 1:14-cr-00068-KBF, with Hon. Katherine B. Forrest as District Judge.

On page 53, Assistant United States Attorney, Serrin A. Turner is discussing the motives of the defendant, and adds, “He was motivated, in part, by a political agenda but that is not excuse for what he did.  If he wanted to pursue a political agenda he could have done so through the political process.  He was not entitled to legislate his own policies on the Internet whether it was drugs or fake I. D.s or computer hacking or guns or child pornography.  You don’t get to say that I think these things should be sold without restriction and therefore I am going to do it, whatever the law says.  You can’t do it on the street, you can’t do it in cyberspace.  The internet is not a license to flaunt the law.

On page 65, line 22, the Hon. Judge Forrest asks, “What sentence serves the ends of justice? I start with the nature and circumstances of the crime and we have talked about some of it already.  The nature and circumstances of the crime can be summed up as a planned, comprehensive, and deliberate scheme to do that which was unlawful and something which posed serious danger to public health and to our communities.”

“I, and you all know that Silk Road was a worldwide criminal drug enterprise with a massive geographic scope.  And, Mr. Ulbricht, you don’t fit the typical criminal profile…You are educated.  You have two degrees; you have a physics degree, you have a master’s degree in applied materials.  You have an intact family…”

On page 68, the Hon. Judge Forrest continues, “So I don’t find supportable the argument that the website was started by an impulsive or naïve young man. I give you a lot more credit than that.  I don’t think you did something thoughtless, I think you did something very, very thoughtful with which I disagree entirely.  I disagree with the choice that you made but I don’t think it was a choice that you made without giving it deep thought.”

“I don’t find it supportable the argument that Silk Road was an economic experiment.  It was, in fact, a carefully planned life’s work.  It was your opus. It may have been based on some theory or some philosophy that you held, but it was no experiment  of philosophy and provides no excuse.  You wanted it to be your legacy–you said that in some of the communications introduced at trial–and it is.  It was a project that you had an idea for, you carefully nurtured it, you took deliberate acts to set it up over years to put your plan into motion and to perfect it and to continue to perfect it and to improve it.  That was not anything impulsive.  That is not the definition of impulsive.  There was no experimental quality to it, it was slick, it was professional, it was built to last.
And, but for the very hard and creative work of law enforcement, it would still be going right now.”

Page 69, line 24:  “All the evidence shows that you viewed Silk Road both as above the law, and the laws didn’t apply, and in this context, the fact that the laws are what distinguished us from what is uncivilized that they are the embodiment–laws are the embodiment–and they are the manifestation of our democratic process.  When that gets lost, it becomes meaningless.”

Silk Road’s birth and its presence asserted that its creator–you–and its operator–were better than the laws of this country and there are posts which discuss the laws as the oppressor and each transaction is a victory over the oppressor. This is deeply troubling and terribly misguided and also very dangerous.”

Analyzing the intent of the defendant

“Your own words I have looked at very carefully and I have reread certainly more than once in this whole process.  They reveal a kind of an arrogance and they display an intent that is very important to the Court’s determination, and the Court will go through some of the chronology of putting some of your words into chronological order here now…”

Page 70, line 23:  “…and you say,  ‘The idea was to create a website where people could buy and sell anything anonymously with no trail whatsoever that could lead back to them.’  And that is not so much the economics of it, of an economic experiment, that is about a method of law evasion.”

Page 71, line 15:  “Also in 2011, you wrote proudly that Silk Road was getting its first press from Gawker but you also wrote that two senators came out against the site.  And then you said:  ‘I was mentally taxed and now I felt extremely vulnerable and scared.  The U. S. government, my main enemy, was aware of me and some of its members were calling for my destruction.’  And then you changed your name to Dread Pirate Roberts; you devised a cover story.”

Assassination drugs and hitmen? Ross Ulbricht personally paid $650,000 in Bitcoins to eliminate his adversaries!

Page 73, line 12:  “Then, in 229C, still in May 2012, you were informed that a vendor is selling cyanide.  You were told, ‘It’s only the most well known assassination suicide poison out there.” And you consider whether to allow it to be sold because you are the decision maker…”

Page 74, line 12 concerning entries in the defendant’s journal:  “March 28:  ‘Being blackmailed with user info.  Talking with large distributor, (hell’s angels).’  Then, March 29th:  ‘Commissioned hit on blackmailer with angels.’  April 1:  ‘Got word that blackmailer was executed.  Created file upload script.’  So, you went back to the technical work right after getting word that the blackmailer had been executed…”

Page 75, line 3:  “Two days later on April 8 you write:  ‘Sent payments to angel for hit on Tony76 and his three associates.  Began setting up hecho as standby’–I have no idea what that is–‘refactored main and category pages to be more efficient.’  These are the words of a man who knows precisely what he is doing and they’re the words of a man who is callous as to the consequences or the harm and suffering that it may cause others.

“You joke about an addict unable to contain his addiction because of Silk Road and you seek to kill people that you don’t even know–these are the words of a criminal and that is truth.”

“The crimes as to which you stand convicted, Mr. Ulbricht, are crimes which are intentional, they occurred over a lengthy period of time, you knew exactly what you were doing.  This was not some sort of experiment, it wasn’t some sort of game.  This is the general nature of Silk Road.”

Page 76, line 11: “..Silk Road also distributed drugs anywhere that the delivery service would take it worldwide–DHL, Fed Ex, USPS–bringing drugs to communities that previously may have had no access to such drugs or in such quantities.  That was an assault on the public health of our communities.”

The defendant’s defense of minimizing the impact of his actions on others

Page 77, line 9:  “There appears to be, in some of these articles that were presented to the Court, some view that there is a moral ambiguity about some of the drug distributions.  There is no moral ambiguity about it.  It was just wrong.  And that is what our democratic process had said and there is a way to change the law but it is not by doing what occurred.”

“No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court.  It is a privileged argument, it is an argument from privilege.

“Let me start with the basic proposition:  The impact of heroin, crack, and meth sold in the Bronx, the impact of those drugs sold in the Bronx are no better for our society than those drugs that were sold through Silk Road.  When those drugs arrive, they are the same drugs. You are no better a person than any other drug dealer and your education does not give you a special place of privilege in our criminal justice system.  It makes it less explicable why you did what you did.”

Violence of the defendant

Page 82, line 17:  “So, let’s talk about your own violence. So, we also have your own violence and there is no doubt–really none–that you wanted to and paid for the murders of five people to protect your drug enterprise.  That is not the conduct of conviction but it is relevant conduct, so how is that consistent with harm reduction?”

“The submissions by the defense experts that you folks put in say that we should ignore that because it wasn’t charged.  But, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  How do you ignore that?  I just really don’t understand that argument at all.  It happened, it is there in black and white.  Now, did the murders happen?  Well, they can’t find any bodies.”

Did you commission a murder?  Five? Yes.  Did you pay for it?  Yes.  Did you get photographs relating to what you thought was the result of that murder?  Yes.  So, I have read many articles about the harm reduction and it is just fantasy.”

Money laundering involving Bitcoin-based systems and forfeiture

On page 90 a forfeiture amount of $183,961,921 is discussed.  On page 92, Judge Forrest states, “The Circuit has held even where a defendant does not retain money laundered property he will be subject to substitution of assets, I. e., a money judgment…money laundering allowed people on the website to exchange money that, circumstantially the inference is clear, was obtained for one purpose to exchange it into currency and cash out and launder that money.”

“So, in this case, all funds passing through Silk Road’s Bitcoin-based payment system were involved in the money laundering offense in Count Seven.  The Bitcoin-based system promoted and facilitated illegal transactions on Silk Road and concealed the proceeds of those transactions.  It also concealed the identities of and locations of users.

“Page 93, line 3:  “I also note that the forfeiture amount is not an ‘excessive fine’ under the Eighth Amendment but I say it sua sponte given that is over $180 million.  While the amount is significant, it is no more significant than the revenue that was generated through the sales of illegal drugs and fraudulent identification documents on Silk Road and money laundering, a criminal enterprise which the defendant designed and operated.”

The Sentencing by the Hon. Katherine B. Forrest, United States District Judge

Page 94, line 16:  “So, Mr. Ulbricht, would you please stand, sir? Mr. Ulbricht, it is my judgment delivered here, now on behalf of our country, that on Counts Two and Four you are sentenced to a period of life imprisonment, to run concurrently; on Count Five you are sentenced to five years’ imprisonment to run concurrently; on Count Six, you are sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment also concurrent; and for money laundering in Count Seven, you are sentenced to 20 years, also concurrent.  In the federal system there is no parole and you shall serve your life in prison….”

Page 95, line 4:  “There must be no doubt that lawlessness will not be tolerated.  There must be no doubt that no one is above the law, no matter the education or the privileges.  All stand equal before the lawThere must be no doubt that you cannot run a massive criminal enterprise and because it occurred over the Internet, minimize the crime committed on that basis.…”.

Ross Ulbricht appealed this verdict in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, docket no. 15-1815.  On May 31, 2017, the Appeals Court decided, “Because we identify no reversible error, we AFFIRM Ulbricht’s conviction and sentence in all respects.” 

 

 

 

 

 

Another “Woe Is Me” Jason Goodman Guest, “Targeted Individual” Michael Barden: An Illustration of the Dangers of Reframing Reality Through Social Media Videos

When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.   Luke 12:58-59

I don’t know where Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth picks up some of his guests…maybe the Jail House Blues Club on Pan Handler’s Lane…I don’t know…but his September 27, 2018 video called Michael Barden Targeted Individual-Psychological Assault and Weaponized Mental Health Evaluation, has an interesting exchange at the 47.08 mark which reminded me of the scriptural warning in Luke 12:58-59.

Michael Barden,  silently reflecting on the prospect of  his next criminal court meeting.

Jason Goodman:  … of course you’ll have had your settlement meeting which is strange.  They’re settling it, I’m concerned about this notion of you taking a plea deal, I, I think somebody has told me, if you’re innocent you should never do that.

Michael Barden:  Yeah, as a TI,  judging from repetition in the past, getting screwed over on pretty much everything, it’s really tough to take that risk.

Jason Goodman:  But the question is, is it a bigger risk to take the plea deal? I don’t know…

The foundational reality on  whether or not to take a plea bargain hinges on Actual Innocence.  And therein lies the problem for many YouTubers who roam the streets looking for trouble with other citizens and law enforcement, filming their conspiracy complaints about the long lines at the grocery store, asking for a dollar from the honest working man, because THEIR precious free time is spent on their endless cause of photographing their endless rambling complaints….

Michael Barden has labeled himself as a TI, a Targeted Individual, who has been singled out by organized gang stalkers, presumably with connections to the government.

Meet 43-year-old Michael Barden, who has labeled himself as a Targeted Individual, a descriptor which is repeatedly driven into his viewer’s mind through both words and images.

While claiming to be documenting  the reality of his own life as a victim of gang stalking since youth, it would appear that he is also establishing a narrative to justify himself as the innocent victim in all of his real life dealings with others.

The Michael Barden YouTube channel states, “My channel is dedicated to ending Cult Ritual Abuse and Organized Stalking and Harassment.  I have been a Targeted Individual for years now, and fighting the illegal use of FISA to target innocent individuals around the world. The videos I make take up a lot of my time and my finances have been drained through targeting and legal fees.  Any donation you can give even if it’s a dollar would be very helpful in our fight.  I am an Air Force veteran of 15 years and have no retirement.  You can send money via PayPal.”

I had to look up FISA to see what this acronym represents, and after reading this brief introductory sentence on the Wikipedia page, I have to wonder why Michael Barden is paranoid about the purposes of this agency. As a former Air Force employee, why would he be personally interested in surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the U. S.? Notice in this Google search of Michael Barden videos, the repeated attachment of the label Targeted Individual with his name.

Here is a screenshot of the titles which were chosen by Jason Goodman to headline his interviews of Michael Barden. The overuse of the phrase Targeted Individual is beginning to suggest that someone is creating an alibi,  writing a false legal narrative to explain the rewriting of a personal history….

Will the mere mention by this blog, of the fact that Michael Barden is referenced in a court filing in the D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman RICO lawsuit, be offered as “proof” that Barden is in fact a targeted individual?  Has Jason Goodman even broken this bad news to his new friend?

On October 1, 2018,  in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, docket entry #32 was added, representing Plaintiff’s Eighth Request for Judicial Notice [RJN].  The three public artifacts which have been entered into the court record can be viewed here:   sweigert RJN 8 10 01 2018.

Public Artifact One displays the current criminal charges against Michael Barden, for which Jason Goodman had been pondering the plea deal question. Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Disorderly Conduct with a Weapon are serious charges. Jason Goodman and Michael Barden are both non attorneys, facing potential legal judgments in two different arenas.  Whereas Barden is facing criminal prosecution for  aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct with a weapon in the State of Arizona, Goodman is representing himself in two federal civil lawsuits involving defamation and RICO complaints.  Both men are looking for the perfect alibi to get out from under these complaints.

Let’s ask this simple question:  how foolish is it for Michael Barden to publicly weigh his legal options with Jason Goodman and his “Crowdsource the Truth” viewers?  

I am not an attorney, so perhaps a brief look at another story which has nothing to do with Goodman’s or Barden’s legal situations, might provide us with some cautionary advice before we attempt to override the legal counsel of a person facing a criminal conviction.

The story of Shawn Stuller who believed the advice of his friends over his attorney

The January 8, 2016 Santa Rosa Press Gazette at srpressgazette.com presented a short news story headlined Stuller sentenced to 20 years for drug trafficking, burglary.

Shawn Stuller was one of Rudy Davis’ featured  “American political” prisoners on his LoneStar 1776 YouTube until recently, when there was a falling out between the two men.

Like Michael Barden, Shawn Stuller was looking for the perfect alibi to escape the consequences of his own actions.

Let’s pick up Shawn’s story from an October 7, 2016 article on Robert Baty’s kehvrlb.com website, ‘Kent Hovind’s False Legal Narrative Challenged!” (I have added bolding to highlight points of interest).

Under a post headlined, Another Hovind False Narrative-The Shawn Stuller Case, Robert Baty writes:

“I and others have been following Shawn Stuller’s case because of its association with Kent Hovind and his convicted co-conspirator Paul John Hansen and their sovereign citizen theology.

Shawn met Kent and Paul while they were all in county jail together.  Shawn has a long rap sheet and things were starting to get serious with his latest criminal activity.

Kent and Paul convinced Shawn to try their sovereign citizen antics instead of making a deal as he had always done before and which typically put him back out on the street without any serious jail time.

So Shawn tried that and, of course, it got him nowhere.  Because of Shawn’s problems with lawyers, private and public, he is the one who caused his case to drag on and ultimately get scheduled for trial after a number of delays.

The judge was not of a mind to allow any further delays and Shawn was not properly prepared to try his case (i.e., still had lawyer problems and couldn’t seem to get any witnesses, or even his mother, to show up for the trial/sentencing).

The judge was not pleased with Shawn’s further attempt at delay and was going to proceed to trial.  Shawn decided to do what he had always done before, plead out.  In this case it was a blind plea and he would be at the mercy of the court as to sentencing.

Because of Shawn’s antics, the State introduced his criminal history which resulted in him being classified as an “habitual felony offender”.

Kent didn’t mention that the crimes in this case not only included illegally entering a residence, but also stealing controlled drugs [enough of them to qualify as him as a “trafficker”), defecating in the kitchen sink, and stealing some other small item(s)].

Shawn had a change of heart, still playing games, and decided to try to withdraw his plea before being sentenced.  Shawn claimed some unnamed criminals who were in the courthouse when he was sent for trial threatened him into making the plea.

The judge didn’t buy it, and when Shawn came back for sentencing he got the 20 years; all thanks to the influence of Kent Hovind himself and his co-conspirator Paul John Hansen whose sovereign citizen antics not only failed but put Shawn in a worse case scenario instead of allowing him to plead and get a sentence that could have resulted in him being free today, October 7, 2016.

Shawn recently filed his appeal brief, through a private attorney whom Kent’s visitor Barbara may have helped to significantly finance.  The State’s reply is due soon.”

According to an update by Robert Baty, a transcript of court proceedings on September 20, 2018 reveals that Shawn Stuller was granted considerable mercy by the court in allowing his charges to be reinstated using the original plea deal which had been withdrawn. The link to the 35 page transcript is here.

Here is an excerpt beginning on page 6 of a few of the questions asked Shawn Stuller:

Q. At some point in time, did Assistant Public Defender Nash-Early convey a plea offer of five years in prison to you to resolve the case?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Did she explain to you that the maximum sentence that you were facing, if you chose not to–did she explain to you the maximum sentence you were facing if you chose not to accept the five-year plea offer?

A. Yes.

Q.  At some point in time did she tell you that the plea offer of five years was no longer available?

A. Yes.

Q.  Now, after you found out that the plea offer of five years was no longer available, did you at some point become aware that you were now subject to an enhanced habitual offender–you were now subject to an enhanced habitual offender sentencing?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And that you were now facing a maximum of life in prison?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Had you known that you were subject to an enhanced sentence of life in prison as an habitual offender at the time of the five-year plea offer was on the table, would you have accepted the five-year plea?

A.  Yes.

When questioned, the asst. public defender who had formerly represented Stuller,  recalled explaining the habitual felony offender sentencing to him, but added, “I do recall that he didn’t believe me because he had never been to prison before.”

Back in 2016, Robert Baty had wondered, “More important from the aspect of my coverage is that failure of Kent Hovind, Paul John Hansen, Rudy Davis (LoneStar1776), and Erin Davis to accept responsibility for the roles they played in putting Shawn away for 20 years, barring a successful appeal and subsequent developments. If Shawn gets a do-over, his prospects might be greatly improved if he could get Kent and Paul to admit to their responsibility as to how it all played out and the three of them would admit to just how silly and frivolous their sovereign citizen antics were.”  Thus in the recent 2018 appeal, we observe that  Shawn Stuller was very fortunate in his circumstances to be granted a merciful return to the original sentencing proposition of the five-year plea deal.

In this recent update on Shawn Stuller, there was a falling out between Stuller and one of his friendly advisors, Rudy Davis, who has a prison ministry for self-proclaimed “Innocent” American Political Prisoners on his YouTube Channel, Lonestar 1776.

from Robert Baty’s website kehvrlb.co

I suppose it is not for me to say who Jason Goodman should feature on his CSTT show.  But given his past troubles with some of his former guests, he might want to start selling T-shirts with a line from Alexander Pope’s An Essay on CriticismFor fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.

Update 10/6/2018Prepper Kitty has provided this link to Didn’t Do It Bail Bonds in connection with Michael Barden.

Update 11/25/2018

Yesterday Michael Barden posted a link to the above article on his Facebook page. Comments which were made, have obliged me to respond.   Other than the two Facebook groups I am a member of, I rarely post comments to other Facebook pages.I have never commented on YouTube or Twitter.  As shown below, comments were made attributing the authorship of this blog to Dave Sweigert, thus denying the true author of the Tracking the Leopard Meroz blog as being Jacquelyn Weaver, who is identified in the copyright notice.

Numerous persons who know me personally can attest that this blog represents my writings.  WordPress has the unique identifying features which authenticate my authorship of this blog.  Thus I felt compelled to correct the record on Barden’s FB page, and have screenshot several comments to document that fact.

Near the end of the comments, the following was asked and this Update comprises my answer. So let’s begin at the beginning….

To begin with, Michael Barden rhetorically asks who wrote this article which he claims discredits good people.  He calls it is a huge article about him, in spite of the fact that half of the article concerns an incarcerated felon named Shawn Stuller who made the mistake of listening to the advice of a couple of men with Sovereign Citizen beliefs.  When he rejected a 5 year plea deal on the table, Stuller was given a sentence four times longer for his crimes.  Fortunately for him, the Court later had mercy on him and allowed him to accept the original plea deal.

This blog is a Christian commentary, thus this article is tied together with a Scripture quote which serves as a sound warning to those involved in legal matters.  I transition what I wrote on Mike Barden’s situation in early October to the Stuller story, by stating that cautionary advice was necessary BEFORE “we attempt to override the legal counsel of a person facing a criminal conviction”.  In this case, Mike Barden was discussing legal options in a YouTube video with Jason Goodman, who is not an attorney.

I displayed verifiable public documentation on Barden’s aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct with a weapon charge, and I gave the opinion that these were serious charges. I also displayed some screenshots to reflect that both Jason Goodman and Mike Barden repeatedly play the theme of his claim to be a Targeted Individual, which implies that his troubles are the fault of others.  I quote from a Jason Goodman interview of Barden, where the interviewer is asking whether it is a bigger risk to take the plea deal.  The title of this article emphasizes that this cautionary piece involves the dangers of reframing reality through social media videos.

As I understand it, after this article was written, Mike Barden pleaded guilty, and now desires to reverse that and try a different approach to his case. He is not helping himself in that effort when he videotapes himself in his everyday life, or when he discusses his case in detail on the Jason Goodman show. “Evidence” relevant to his case is something that needs to be examined in accordance with the established rules of evidence and in a court setting which is under oath.  This cannot be properly done in videos, where the viewer cannot prove the soundness of the testimony of witnesses, and hard facts and evidence.

Immediately after Mike Barden posted my article on his Facebook page, the Facebook Administrator for Crowdsource the Truth (CSTT), Casey Whalin claims without any evidence,  that Dave Sweigert wrote the article.  He says he can tell by the way the words are put together.

 

I write a blog which is presently being read by 3 categories of persons: those interested in the Christian Alternative Media; those following the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident which is now referenced in 2 federal civil lawsuits; and those who are interested in antigovernment/sovereign citizen/ tax protestor issues.  The article I posted involving Michael Barden addresses two of those general categories of interest.

I state in my blog under “history and foundation” that I write a commentary to encourage readers to think critically about what they read and hear so that they are not deceived by deceivers. I also state that I use information found in the public domain which anyone can access, and my point in doing this exclusively is to demonstrate that reasoned judgments can be made by analyzing the face of a topic, without knowing all the hidden details. I am not a professional investigative journalist, although I came from a family that published a weekly newspaper for over 50 years. My blog/commentary is free and does not ask for donations. A professional investigative journalist seeks out original sourced material, which requires both time and expense. I have never claimed to be a professional investigative journalist, but rather someone who writes a Christian commentary, which is a different standard of writing. However, I do document everything I comment on, from video transcriptions, screen shots, links to the written works of other authors, etc. Thus Mike Barden has lied about the substance of the article involving him.

It is readily apparent from the Facebook comments displayed above, that the content of this article was not addressed by Michael Barden, nor Casey Whalin.  Rather, the main focus of Mike Barden and Casey Whalin and Jason Goodman was to use this article as an opportunity to create a false accusation against Dave Sweigert.  I routinely post the public domain court documents of the lawsuit which Sweigert has filed against Goodman, as a courtesy to my readers that follow that case.  I also did the same in the Robert David Steele defamation lawsuit.   Dave Sweigert has never written anything on this blog, and from what I have observed, when he desires to publicly comment, it is through his own YouTube channel, or through commenting on a social media site.

It is wrong for anyone to attribute the writings of this blog to anyone other than the real author, and these men are fools to promote falsehoods which can be easily overturned in any court room.

 

 

 

 

In Defiance of Jesus Christ, Rudy Davis’ Lonestar 1776 Prison Ministry Promotes the Whitewashing of Sovereign Citizen Mike Parsons’ Crimes and Contentious Behavior

How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom?  And how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?  To whom hast thou uttered words?  And whose spirit came from thee? Job 26:3-4

On July 6, 2018 I received an email from Rudy Davis in regard to a video which he had published at his Lonestar 1776 YouTube channel titled, Mike Parsons asks Jacquelyn Weaver to Apologize, Retract, Correct Her ArticleThe article which they want to eliminate is my June 30, 2018 post called Sovereign Citizen Mike Parsons Demonstrates How Not To Make A Citizen Arrest.

I listened to Rudy Davis’ and Mike Parsons’ video; it is nothing more than 38 minutes of the ramblings of two men who are clueless as to where my Tracking the Leopard Meroz blog  fits on their Sovereign Citizen Conspiracy World map.

The globe for the Hollow Mind.

On my Contact page I state,  I welcome any comments, even those which disagree with me, as long as you sincerely explain your position.

I have never censored anyone’s opinions, if general rules of civility are observed.  So boys, if you want me to apologize, retract or correct anything, try writing it out in plain English as a comment on the article you find fault with. Then perhaps I will be able to understand what your complaint is. Yesterday, I was told that another video was published on Lonestar 1776 which featured a recorded prison phone call from Mike Parsons speaking once again against Frater I*I and my person.

I will address one minor point which was mentioned in the first Lonestar 1776 video, since it leads into today’s article. Rudy Davis is of the opinion that as a King James Bible believer, I should have directly contacted Mike Parsons, a felon,  before I wrote my article. Pardon me if I failed to perceive Parsons as a Christian saint after reading about his behavior that got him into jail, in the first place.

While the Bible has a procedure for dealing with differences between Christians that are of a personal nature, my article on Parsons was not personal but rather a means of educating and cautioning my readers against sovereign citizen ideologies, which are fraudulent at their foundation.  Mike Parsons represents a real life example of a sovereign citizen taking it upon himself to affect a citizen’s arrest.  The broader topic at hand involved the issuance of  “international” citizen arrest warrants by  sovereign citizen ideologues, as a means of retribution against their perceived enemies.

Mike Parsons has been taken under the wing of Rudy Davis’ prison ministry, which  paints sovereign citizen criminals as innocent,  persecuted Christian Patriots. The façade of this prison ministry is that of a King James Bible, Independent Fundamental Baptist form of religious speech. The late Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, a notable IFB preacher, was known for his prison ministry work, which included preaching the Bible in various prisons, by which he exhorted the doctrine of the genuine fruits of repentance.

In contrast, the Rudy Davis ministry, publishes on YouTube,  phone calls from prisoners that encourage a continuation of self-serving falsehoods in regard to the facts of their cases. This failure on the part of Davis to not counsel repentance and remorse for the behavior that got these felons incarcerated is aggravated by the fact that Davis encourages his prisoners to malign those who accurately speak to the facts and evidence of their cases.

The Witness of American Jurisprudence

As I was reading State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Parsons, Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tipton County No 6030 [No. W2010-02073-CCA-R3-CD-filed December 15, 2011], one sentence on page 18 stood out: “The Defendant also testified during cross-examination by the State that he is a ‘sovereign citizen’.”

As we see in this screenshot in another legal document (Memorandum and Order), Mike Parsons refers to himself as follows:As was stated on page 8 in 4:17-cr-03038-JMG-CRZ Findings, Recommendations and Orders filed 2/7/18, “Defendant (Michael Wayne Parsons) has not been afforded diplomatic status by the State Department of the United States, and he is not entitled to diplomatic immunity.  And while he asserts he is not a United States citizen, Defendant is nonetheless subject to the laws of the United States for criminal conduct performed within this country.  Defendant’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of diplomatic immunity should be denied”.

So here we have the situation where Mike Parsons, who has denied that he is a United States citizen, is railing against two American citizens,  Frater I*I and me, because we respect the laws of our nation, the law enforcement community, and the judges who have made reasoned decisions based on the facts and evidence and laws which pertained to his various criminal actions.

On page 26, of the first case noted above, it was stated, “Our close and painstaking review of the record before us demonstrates that, under the particular facts of this case, the Defendant was making an impermissible attempt to simultaneously represent himself and to have the counsel of his choice assist him in that endeavor.  Additionally, the Defendant repeatedly engaged in systematic, calculated, delaying tactics and also engaged in attacks upon his lawyers and the trial judge in a concerted effort to obtain counsel of his own choosing, to which he is not entitled.  We have concluded that the Defendant’s antics placed the trial court and the Defendant’s appointed attorneys in a no-win situation.  Our careful, detailed review of the record demonstrates that the Defendant had no intention of following and/or accepting long-standing legal precedent.  Instead, from the outset of these criminal proceedings, the Defendant engaged in an intentional pattern of obstinate, dilatory, bullying behavior in an effort to threaten, coerce, and egregiously manipulated the entire judicial system.  We will not now hear the Defendant complain”.

On page 31, we read, “The Defendant also presented inconsistent narratives to the trial court.  After writing a letter ‘firing’ Ms. Mills, the Defendant claimed to the trial court that it was she who initiated her withdrawal.  After telling the trial court in very clear terms that he wanted to proceed pro se with advisory counsel, he subsequently told the court that he had not waived his right to counsel and demanded that counsel be appointed to represent him.  As our Supreme Court has observed, ‘[d]isingenuous invocations of the right of self-representation that are designed to manipulate the judicial process constitute an improper tactic by a defendant and are not entitled to succeed.’ Hester, 324 S. W. .3d at 33.  And, on the day of trial, the Defendant demanded another continuance.”

Finally, on page 32, “As did the defendant in Willis, the Defendant in this case used the tactic of refusing to communicate and/or cooperate with his lawyers; filing lawsuits against his lawyers; filing complaints with the Board of Professional Responsibility against his lawyers; and refusing to cooperate with a court-ordered evaluation.  Additionally, the Defendant filed with law enforcement a complaint of assault against one of his lawyers; sued the trial judge; sued the district attorney; and sued the victims.  This course of conduct was an egregious manipulation of the judicial system, and of the constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants, in order to delay, disrupt, and prevent the orderly administration of justice…”.

In yet another legal document, Mike Parsons was described as “employing a convoluted discussion of English tense and grammar” in arguing for the dismissal of a “pending indictment”.

The Witness of the Bible

The Book of Romans, chapter 2, displays the seven great principles of God’s judgment, summarized as Truth, Accumulated guilt, Works, Without Respect of Persons, Performance-Not Knowledge, Secrets of the Heart, and Reality-Not Profession. In verse 8, a form of rebellious mindset, which is under the judgment of God, is described as, But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.  

It is self evident from reading various criminal case documents pertaining to Mike Parsons, that Rudy Davis’ assessment of this unrepentant and unremorseful felon as being a King James Holy Bible believing Christian is an attempt to whitewash the testimony of the public record which documents the facts, the evidence, and the legal reasoning, wherein Mike Parsons became incarcerated for his criminal actions.   Rudy Davis is a partaker in the sins of Mike Parsons by virtue of his continual support of his falsehoods, which are allowed to be publicly broadcast on the internet, including threats of a lawsuit against Frater I*I for merely bringing forth archived court records.

One of the reasons why I am interested in the sovereign citizen groups which tout themselves as King James Bible believers, is that I never ran across such thinking in the IFB churches I was associated with. While I was a member of a moderate IFB church, I was also very well acquainted with the Pharisee church in the same city; but even in that case, the pastor preached that government was to be respected, and taxes were to be paid in accordance with IRS rules.

Sovereign Citizen ideology is not supported by the Scriptures, unless one takes it upon himself to privately interpret the Bible, removing verses from their context.

The book of Jude speaks of men who privily enter the church who despise dominion and speak evil of dignities. Sovereign Citizen ideology creates cults where the narcissistic individual, who disregards the rights of all others, can reign as king, judge, jury and executioner. We all can agree that all human institutions have corrupt persons who must be countered by standardized procedures, but in the world of the sovereign citizen, the concept of the corruption of governing agents is used like the ink of the squid, to provide a cover for their own personal wrongdoing.

The Book of Judges and Gideon’s Army

Rudy and Erin Davis of Forney, Texas  who are known for their Lonestar1776 You Tube channel and year of jubilee.com,webpage claim that they are assisting  American Political Prisoners. The common denominator of all of these so called American political prisoners is their Sovereign Citizen ideology, which ranges between hardcore believers and those on the fringe, whose criminal cases were negatively affected by sovereign citizen “legal” counsel.

year of jubilee.com Gideon’s Army

Rudy Davis has chosen Gideon’s Army as the motif for his year of jubilee website. The story of Gideon is found in the Old Testament book of Judges, chapters six and seven.  During that time period in the history of Israel, the repeat theme is that when Israel “did evil in the sight of the LORD”, they were delivered as a nation into the hand of various oppressors until such time as God chose a Judge to be their deliverer.

In chapter 6, verse 12 we read a statement of the angel of the LORD, saying, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty men of valour.  This has been a favorite saying of various Christian Patriot groups promoted through the Christian Alternative Media.  We are entering into a realm where an “elite army of men” believe they are chosen to deliver an entire nation from oppression.

There are many important aspects to Gideon’s story, but Rudy Davis first chooses a partial sentence found in Judges 7:3 Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return…In choosing an army for Gideon, the LORD poses several tests which must be met; thus the troop numbers are diminished until 300 men are chosen to overcome the Midianites. Another theme of Rudy Davis is expressed in his Make Noise and Shine Light, which is taken from Judges 7:20. Once after making noise,in his videos on Obama, Rudy Davis was paid a personal visit from the Secret Service, who wanted to inquire as to whether he posed a real threat to the President.

Setting the Captives Free From God’s Point of View

The next image on the year of jubilee website makes use of several Scriptures, without identifying them for easy reference.  I am assuming the title, Set the Captives Free is a play off of Luke 18, which was read by Jesus Christ in a Nazareth synagogue as he read Esaias, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

The instruction is given, “Check out our list of brothers and sister in bonds below.  Educate yourself about the cases.  Most of them have been sentenced to “death by prison”.  Find out why.  Ask questions.”  I have no idea how many persons have actually looked into the cases of the prisoners which are referenced on Rudy Davis’ website. I only know of one man who did just that, and because he has been posting his findings on YouTube, he is highly disliked by Rudy Davis.  Of course, I am talking about  Frater I*IKeeper of the Orb and Gazer into the SovCit Abyss.

The Witness of Frater I*I Who Educated Himself on The Cases and Asked Questions

Frater I*I’s  YouTube account  has garnered over 25,000 views since March 6, 2018; but I suppose it was after he started emailing Rudy Davis about those cases, and asking questions, that the alarm bells started sounding off over at the Lonestar1776 prison ministryFrater I*I has 155 subscribers as compared to Davis’ channel which has gathered over 17,000 over a nine year period. The problem with those statistics is that very few Rudy Davis subscribers even watch his videos; whereas Frater I*I views are growing in number.

Frater I*I’s Email to Rudy Davis

One of the Frater I*I emails which received a public response from Rudy Davis and Mike Parsons on a Lonestar 1776 video, was published recently by Robert Baty at his Facebook group Kent’s Hovind’s Worst Nightmare!.

The Lonestar 1776 and Mike Parson Response to Frater I*I

On July 3, 2018 Lonestar 1776 published their response,  Mike Parsons (unsentenced) Defends Himself Against A Pack of Devilish Hyenas.  At the 1.24 mark, Rudy Davis says, “…also this guy that I don’t even want to mention his name because I can’t stand to even mention his name but he sent me an email and he attached some sort of PDF file (linked here) and here’s what he said, he said, ‘His motions are denied in full though this is just a recommendation to the trial judge from the magistrate judge.  It is rare they do not adopt them.  This is bad for Parsons; he’s looking at 8 to 10 years if he is convicted due to his prison record and calling the jury in this matter.  The best advice you can give him is to plead guilty if you truly consider him your friend’ and then he signs it via his traitorous signature, which I cannot stand so anyway just wanted you to be aware of that’.”

Mike Parsons: “Well, I don’t know what this traitor guy means by calling a jury, that, that’s an idiotic statement, nobody calls a jury, you know and the fact is, is that he keeps pushing for people to plead guilty which means that he’s obviously working for the prosecution because if he really cared about the public he would want to make sure somebody went to prison for a long, long time that is as guilty as he seems to think that I am.  The fact is, he nothing but an evil lowlife vermin from the pit of hell liars.”

Rudy Davis:  “Amen to that!”

Mike Parsons:  “Maybe that isn’t a..”

Rudy Davis:  “Amen.”

Mike Parsons:  “… this, this guy is pond scum in the worst degree, now he claims that he can get a transcript of this hearing of the failure to appear.  What he needs to get if he’s got the guts to do it, I would tell you to get an audio and post it both on the internet, the transcript and the audio and compare it because what you’ll find is that they have butchered the transcript and it does not comport to what the audio is, and that when I ask every one of the state’s witnesses, Do you have an order for me to appear in court, No, the answer is ‘No’, so how could you be convicted of failure to appear when the law clearly says you had to have an order to appear in court, a lawful order, that you fail to comply with.  There was no order; that’s the whole point.”

“He dances around this like some slick attorney.  He’s a professional liar and, you know if he claims to be studying to be an A & P mechanic–he’ll never make it because there’s no lying in that trade.  I’ve got many of friends that are A & P mechanics  and they are not liars-they are all about the truth and accuracy and he is nothing of the kind.  He’s not truthful nor accurate.”

Rudy Davis:  “You know, Mike, if I could just interject real quick.  There’s a very popular documentary that just came out on the case of Darlie Routier.  She was accused of stabbing both of her babies in Rowlett, Texas.  What you’re saying about doctoring the transcripts, that was exactly the case in her case.  It’s not surprising at all that you’re saying they doctored the transcripts, that they do that all the time.”

Mike Parsons:  “Well, here’s the thing.  This guy is, is stalking me, while I’m locked up and, and basically unable to deal with this fraud.  He hides behind a screen name.  He threatens me, he basically threatens me my wife, he insults me and my wife, and as well as chief justice Holland.[he is referring to Sue Holland, a so-called chief justice of the same fabled tribe he associates with.  She is also in prison.]  He insults the entire Chilcotin nation and the sovereignty of that nation.”

“He is, he’s relying on people’s ignorance of what the truth is and their laziness to not look at this stuff up, but if anybody, if what you sent me, a copy of that transcript, if he posted it, if anybody listening will review what he says, and then go to those pages and look for it, you’ll find it’s not there, plus you’ll find notations that Mrs. Parsons put in the margin of that transcript denying everything that he’s saying just because some cop who got fired for planting evidence, Michael Green, wasn’t there to testify so they had, the parole hearing read his report, that’s hearsay, he ought to know that, he ought to know better than that, that he’s a liar, so he’s not going to acknowledge it, that’s the problem with the guy.”

“Now if he will not expose his real name at least expose the name of your attorney, so that when I contact him, give me some kind of a way to let me, let him know who you are, so that when I can file my lawsuit against you, then we’ll be able to do battle like real men since you’re too much of a coward to step out of your closet.  Now I never said you’re a pedophile, I said what you’re doing is supporting  pedophiles because I’m helping natives get their children back from the foster care system which ranks with pedophiles and obviously you support those people so you must be a supporter of pedophiles, because if you’re opposing me, you’re supporting the other side, which is the pedophiles.”

“Now someone made a comment that you might be homosexual because you’re hiding in a closet.  I don’t know that, you know I don’t care about that, I just care that you are committing libel and slander.  Now it’s one thing for you to say in here that it, it’s not illegal for someone to insult you.  No, insults or not, but posting false information there is willfully done with the intent of harming someone and painting a jury, that’s a crime.  And sir, you’re criminal, you’re a fraud and a coward, you are no Marine, you have no integrity, you’re a scumbag.”

“Now he says that ‘he fully knew the kidnapping plot’, well, there was no plot, first of all, and second of all, I’m locked up for over a month while the indictments and the court orders for my release and the arrest warrants for those two people were issued just because you have a job as a judge and a sheriff for a corporation does not immune you from prosecution by a court.  The fact is that under color of law, crimes committed by these people can get them put in prison and an international warrant issued and served upon a law enforcement, in this country is what they did which is lawful, you ought to know that, if you do your homework, but the thing is you know it’s lawful, you’re just a liar, you’re going to spread false information to people who won’t read the information.”

“Now you put in here little excerpts, I don’t believe a word of it that you’ve got in here, you claim these people that work with my wife made these statements.  I don’t believe a word of it that you’ve got in here, you claim these people that work with my wife made these statements.  I don’t know this to be true, but I guarantee you I’m going to ask that Pat would provide some kind of a response to these statements to see if those were in fact true or not, I don’t know if she even saw those.  If she did, they’re not true.  I’ve never verbally abused anybody in my life, but maybe I’ll make an exception to your case.”

“Alright, but otherwise there is no mental distress, there is no manipulation.  She’s upset about the abuse by Tipton County government who’s been hounding me for the last 14 years because I dared to sue to expose a rigged election.  Do your homework once again.  You’ll find out that I’ve never been in jail or anything until all of a sudden when I sue to challenge the election, then we’re attacked and uh even when the grand jury when I was falsely accused for punching a guy in the nose, yeah, when, when somebody attacks me, yeah, I’ll fight back, whether it’s in court or wherever you attack my family, you got a fight.  If you want to fight, bring it on.”

“Step out of the closet you hide yourself in,  behind a screen name, chump. I’m locked up in a jail, I don’t have access to a computer.  The fact is, is that you’re a coward, I guarantee you that if you step out and give me your lawyer’s name, I will contact him and I’ll make sure that I file it properly.  The lawsuit will be in your proper name sent to your proper address or to your attorney, either way.  That’s fine.  Makes me no difference, but what you’ve done is a crime, sir.  You’re a coward and a criminal, you’re supporting other criminals.  Now the rest of the letter is pathetic and again anyone out there that’s reading just nonsense, it’s false information.  He puts in here operative word, she seems to have told her co-workers, well there’s no seeming to it, she didn’t tell them anything except about the abuse by Tipton County.”

“So we’ll get a copy of this and she will have the ability to respond.  Otherwise, in the number six, he says ‘he fully had access to the house in question’. That’s not true.  I didn’t even have a key to the thing when I travel, Mrs. Parsons has the only key.  The house is in her control, that way she can have her guns there unlocked in the safe so can easily access in case some lowlife like you comes up, tries to mess with her and she can blast you back in the pit of hell from which you came from, you low life coward, but regardless of that, the fact is, is that she has a right to bear arms so as the rest of my family, so stay away from them.  And he seems to think that they’re going to talk about find a –there’s nothing in there about finding a rifle anywhere.  That’s not in there.”

“Oh, and please call the FAA, you moron, to tell them that this is a transport plane that’s owned by another country being moved out of this country.  It is, it not a fact that you are supposed to cover the N number because it’s no longer registered in the United States.  There is no registration required when you’re not a U. S. citizen and it’s going to another country, moron.”

Rudy Davis: “They’re a pack of devilish hyenas, you nailed it on the head and uh I pray that justice comes to them…there is a group in a pack of devilish hyenas that seems to take great pleasure.  They hide behind anonymous screen names in the destruction of Mike and Pat’s life and uh they seem to be obsessed with you know, every little detail and finding fault in every little word and you know raising accusations and it’s upsetting Mike a great deal.  Me personally, I don’t have time to get into the details of the situation here. I have too many other prisoners that need my attention, and so Mike can fight his own battles.  I do pray that Mike gets his freedom soon and I have no doubt that Mike will sweep the floor with the whole pack of devilish hyenas that have come against him.”

Praying For Justice, When You Are The One In The Wrong

Will Mike Parsons “sweep the floor”? I would like to remind Rudy Davis of Isaiah 28:16-17, Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste: Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

When one prays for Justice, it is not something to ask for in pride… for when it comes forth from the holy throne of mercy, you may wish you had pondered your prayer request with a humble heart.