Archive for February, 2012

FBI Turns Off Thousands of GPS Devices After Supreme Court Ruling

fbi-HANDS-OFF_freedomphoenixBy Julia Angwin

Original source:

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices has caused a “sea change” inside the U.S. Justice Department, according to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann.

Mr. Weissmann, speaking at a University of San Francisco conference called “Big Brother in the 21st Century” on Friday, said that the court ruling prompted the FBI to turn off about 3,000 GPS tracking devices that were in use.

These devices were often stuck underneath cars to track the movements of the car owners. In U.S. v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that using a device to track a car owner without a search warrant violated the law.

After the ruling, the FBI had a problem collecting the devices that it had turned off, Mr. Weissmann said. In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly – only in order to locate and retrieve them.

Mr. Weissmann said that the FBI is now working to develop new guidelines for the use of GPS devices. He said the agency is also working on guidelines to cover the broader implications of the court decision beyond GPS devices.

Please read entire article at source link –

1 Comment

Sheriffs Help We The People Wake Up

Forty-two minutes of hope — authorities on the UN’s Agenda 21 pave way for Sheriffs to stand tall. Includes inspiring rants by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Leave a comment

Important Update on Tonight’s General Meeting 2/28/2012

Ron Thomas will NOT be speaking tonight due to not feeling well. Ron Thomas will be speaking at our next scheduled General Meeting.

As always it’s still going to be a very important meeting to attend. We will be discussing updates on the Fullerton oaths that were pulled and the Rawesome Foods raid & case. NDAA updates & Oath Keeper Ham network also on agenda.

Orange County Archery LLC
18792 Brookhurst Street, Fountain Valley, CA

The OC Archery is on Brookhurst between Ellis and Garfield in Fountain Valley (Near the 405 FWY Brookhurst off-ramp)

Visit our Meetings page for information and schedule of our General Meetings.

Click to enlarge

Leave a comment

Oath Keepers of Orange County General Meeting for Feb 28, 2012 with Speaker: Ron Thomas

Update on General Meeting Tonight –  Ron Thomas will NOT be speaking due to not feeling well and will speak at our next scheduled meeting.

Ron Thomas, father of Kelly Thomas, Former Army Ranger, Marine Consultant, and OC Deputy Sheriff will be updating on the Kelly Thomas/Fullerton PD case.

We will also discuss and update on the Fullerton oaths that were pulled and the Rawesome Foods raid & case. NDAA updates & Oath Keeper Ham network also on agenda.

Here are some previous posts about the Kelly Thomas/Fullerton PD case:

Kelly Thomas Memorial Rally and Protest
Update on the Kelly Thomas Beating and Death

Orange County Archery LLC
18792 Brookhurst Street, Fountain Valley, CA

The OC Archery is on Brookhurst between Ellis and Garfield in Fountain Valley (Near the 405 FWY Brookhurst off-ramp)

Visit our Meetings page for information and schedule of our General Meetings.

Click to enlarge


Quartzsite Update: County Attorney Writes To FBI


Original article is here on

Quartzsite, Arizona:

Paul Staudt has sent a pdf copy of a letter from the La Paz County Attorney to the FBI, requesting assistance and investigation into allegations of corruption in the Town of Quartzsite.  At present time, we have yet to receive an update from Representative Seel, who attended the Oath Keepers muster and march at Quartzsite and vowed to get the records which the Town Council has been withholding from public scrutiny.

Not familiar with the conflicts at Quartzsite? Read our initial coverage here:

Here is a copy of the letter sent by the La Paz County Attorney to the FBI. URL for the pdf is:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Attn: Agent Frank Farley, Public Corruption Unit

201 East Indianola Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

January 3, 2012

Agent Farley:

I would like to express my concern to you in reference to the Town of Quartzsite, Arizona Council (Town) and the Quartzsite Police Department (QPD). I have been the La Paz County Attorney since January 2009 and the Town of Quartzsite is located within the exterior boundaries of La Paz County.

At this time I am requesting the FBI conduct an investigation into the Town and the QPD. I request an investigation because I believe there have been facts and circumstances, during the course of my term as the La Paz County Attorney, which have led me to the belief that certain citizens within the Town of Quartzsite may have been, and may currently be, targeted for arrest and prosecution simply because they are in political opposition to the Town, QPD, Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert or other Town Officials.

I believe the circumstances warrant an investigation for the following reasons

  1. Chief Jeff Gilbert has requested felony charges against certain citizens for which I believe no criminal conduct occurred, or, at the very least, did not rise to the level of felony conduct: Russell Sias (Aggravated Assault on a Peace Office), Jennifer Jones (Influencing a Witness), Michael Roth (Resisting Arrest) and Ed Foster (Obstructing a Criminal Investigation).
  2. It is my belief that the arrest of Ed Foster (the former Town Mayor) for conduct that arose out of the same incident in which Chief Gilbert requested Mr. Foster be charged with felony Obstructing a Criminal Investigation, was a politically motivated arrest.
  3. The former Town Prosecutor, Matthew Newman, was tried after approximately twelve years as the Town Prosecutor. Mr. Newman was fired during the period of time he would not succumb to pressure by Town Officials, and Chief Gilbert, to prosecute certain people with crimes.
  4. Chief Gilbert formally requested that this office no longer prosecute misdemeanor cases in which the QPD is inVOlved and his request occurred after Me. Newman was fired.
  5. Chief Gilbert has requested that this office conflict off of certain cases, referred to this office by the QPD, in which there is no conflict of interest.
  6. The Town, through Councilwoman Patricia Anderson, publicly criticized this office for declining to prosecute Michael Roth for an incident that took place at a Town Council meeting in June 20 II, It is the same incident in Which Chief Gilbert requested this office charge My. Roth with felony Resisting Arrest.
  7. Chief Gilbert, through the Town, has fired numerous police officers, and the Town Evidence Custodian, after they had alleged misconduct on the part of Chief Gilbert.
  8. One Police Officer, now a Sergeant with the QPD, had previously contacted this office concerned that if he carried out the order(s) of Chief Gilbert he may violate the civil rights of a citizen or citizens.
  9. The Town has recently been found in violation of the Open Meeting Laws by the Arizona Attorney General.
  10. The Town has, on more than one occasion, been found in violation of the Public Information Laws by the Arizona Ombudsmen.
  11. Chief Gilbert is currently under investigation by the Arizona Department of Public Safety for alleged criminal violations. However, to my knowledge, no investigation has ever been commenced in reference to potential systemic public corruption involving the Town, the QPD, Chief Gilbert and town Officials.
  12. Most recently it has been alleged the Town, through Martin Brannan, who serves as Town Attorney, Town Prosecutor and Town Parliamentarian, created and published a website, or websites, that have the sole purpose of insulting, embarrassing and intimidating persons being prosecuted by the Town of Quartzsite or who are in political opposition to the Town, the QPD, Chief Gilbert or Town Officials.

While each individual issue may not rise to the level that would warrant an investigation, I do believe the totality of the circumstances does require a full, fair and thorough investigation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this further and please know that I would be willing to travel to Phoenix to meet with you person to discuss this with you.


Sam Vederman

La Paz County Attorney

1 Comment




Who’s Next on the Corporate Media’s Chopping-block?

by James Jaeger

On 09 February 2012, FOX Business News (FBN) cancelled FREEDOM WATCH, hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano, after just one year of truth-telling.

FBN vice-president, Kevin Magee, announced that, in addition to the cancellation of FREEDOM WATCH, his network was going to cancel POWER & MONEY with David Asman and FOLLOW THE MONEY with Eric Bolling and replace all these shows with what?


Yes, shows known in TV parlance as, RE-RUNS — similar to what’s known in Hollywood as, SEQUELS. So, it seems that the New York media is catching up with Hollywood in its pursuit of maximum profits through minimum effort.

Yes, when a TV show takes a viewpoint, or serves a vital, public interest, THAT show requires more than minimum effort. Worse, that show is sometimes “controversial,” “truth-telling” or even “revolutionary” — all attributes inappropriate for mass consumption. After all, today’s audiences are supposed to simply sit on the couch, stuff their faces with the food and pharmaseuticals authorized by advertisers and pay their cable bills on time. No mention of thinking or LEARNING. JUST WATCH, STUFF and PAY.

So, when millions of people across the nation were suddenly confronted with a show like FREEDOM WATCH, the network executives didn’t know how to “handle it.”

The WATCH, STUFF and PAY paradigm was challenged. An extra, hence unwanted, element, LEARN, was injected into the WATCH, STUFF and PAY Formula.

But while network execs were freaking, millions of WE THE PEOPLE were rejoicing. With FREEDOM WATCH, millions across the nation began to feel there was hope for the so-called corporate-dominated, mass media — hope led by the FOX network, a network that dared to run GLENN BECK, FREEDOM WATCH and even STOSSEL.

But — with the Axing of 9/2 — we are all reminded that our mass media joy was but a mass hallucination.
Media Consolidation:

We were reminded that the reality is that, prior to 1990, there were over 50 media corporations.

We were also reminded that, from 1990 to 2000, those 50 media corporations consolidated down to just 17 media companies: DISNEY; AOL-TIME WARNER; NEWS CORP.; VIACOM; SEGRAM/UNIVERSAL; SONY; LIBERTY-AT&T; BERTELSMANN; GENERAL ELECTRIC-NBC; COMCAST; HEARST; NEW YORK TIMES; WASHINGTON POST; COX; ADVANCE; TRIBUNE CO.; and GANNETT.

Then, as of 2012, these 17 media corporations consolidated down to just 6 multinationals that now dominate all global media: COMCAST; DISNEY; VIACOM; CBS; TIME-WARNER and NEWS CORP. More specifically:

  • COMCAST owns 14 television stations, NBC, Universal Pictures, Telemundo, E Entertainment, Versus and Hulu.
  • DISNEY owns 10 television stations, 277 radio stations, ABC, ESPN, A&E, the History Channel, Lifetime, Discover magazine, Bassmaster magazine, Hyperion publishing, Touchstone Pictures, Pixar Animation, and Miramax Film Corp.
  • VIACOM owns 10 television stations, The Movie Channel, Comedy Central, BET, Nickelodeon, TV Land, MTV, VH1, and Paramount Pictures.
  • CBS owns 30 television stations, Smithsonian Channel, Showtime, The Movie Channel and Paramount Network Television.
  • TIME-WARNER owns HBO, CNN, Cartoon Network, Warner Bros., Time magazine, Turner Broadcasting and DC Comics.
  • NEWS CORP owns 27 television stations, FOX Network, FOX Business News, FOX News, FX, National Geographic Channel, The Wall Street Journal, TV Guide, the New York Post, DirecTV, HarperCollins, Twentieth Century Fox and MySpace.

Actually NEWS CORP owns many more entities than this. See for a current and complete list and realize that each one of the other 5 multinationals has an expanded list as well. See
Ownership and Government Mandates:

So, it’s easy to see that when FOX Business News terminated FREEDOM WATCH, it may have done so in order to avoid conflicts of interest with its advertisers, stockholders and the people in political office who not only run the White House, the Congress and the military-industrial complex, but also the people that grant their broadcast licenses, namely the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

But, many people forget that WE THE PEOPLE own the airwaves. The FCC is supposed to grant licenses to broadcasters, like FOX News, with the understanding that such broadcasters will serve the public interest. Unfortunately, to the stockholders of FOX News-type media corporations, these companies don’t exist to serve the public interest, but to make profits.


But today, given the consolidation and axing of important public service shows — such as FREEDOM WATCH and GLENN BECK — it seems the mass media is serving its stockholders more than the public interest. And this is no accident.
The Media Lobby:

K-street lobbyists for the New York media corporations and the Hollywood-based MPAA studios have pumped over a half a billion dollars into the Democratic and Republican Parties since 1990. Given this, is it any wonder that, when a Judge Napolitano gives platform to a libertarian-conservative like Ron Paul, the Romney’s, Santorum’s and Gingrich’s of the Establishment are going rise up from the grave and spit blood?

And so entrenched are these Establishment candidates, they are the ones that get into government. And when they are in government, who runs the FCC? And if the FCC is in charge of broadcast licenses, who does this concern? Follow the dots and you will get the REAL picture as to why the Networks have axed Beck, Buchanan and now Napolitano. Too much “truth-telling” begets too much “regulatory capture.”

But as the Supreme Court once stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969:

“It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
Market-place of Free Ideas:

So what are we going to do about this folks, as Bill O’Reilly would never say? The Supreme Court and the Constitution SEEM to be on the same side of the game. Wow, that’s the good news! And we DO live in a media landscape where it seems we now have many more choices, if one remembers the days when we had only ABC, CBS and NBC. Today we have hundreds of channels on our cable TV so to proponents of deregulation, this is proof that we now have incredible diversity. But the reality is, as discussed above, all of these stations are owned, hence controlled, by just 6 multinational corporations. This permits centrally-planned propaganda at a level Joseph Goebbels could never have dreamed of.


But all this Goebbels-style media consolidation not only costs WE THE PEOPLE our wisdom and knowledge, it costs us our money as well, for our cable bills have risen more than 90% since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This Act was SUPPOSED to increase competition in the industry but it was sabotaged by K-street lobby firms and now we’re lucky if our cable bill is less than $70 per month. AND we have to suffer through endless, repetitive obnoxious commercials, something the cable companies originally promised we would NOT have to do if we paid a monthly fee.


Obviously the answer is NO. Commercialism creates an environment where good journalism and political diversity suffocate. Is it any wonder Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan and Andrew Napolitano were cancelled? And these media personalities weren’t even critical of the media itself, as was Ted Turner in his famous article, MY BEEF WITH BIG MEDIA, and John Cones in his controversial book, WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD.

As the new Russian TV network, RT, constantly reminds us, “question more”. RT, and industry observers, maintain the American mainstream media consistently misses some of the most important stories and airs only that narrow spectrum of speech acceptable to the thin zone between its corporate interests and its FCC mandate.

Is this crazy? Americans now have to watch RUSSIAN TV in order to get comprehensive reporting about what’s going on in the UNITED STATES. The demise of the USSR and the Berlin Wall could be envisioned for 50 years, but Russian TV broadcasting out of Washington DC using a U.S. multinational satellite to give a supposedly free nation their own news in their own back yard was never on anyone’s radar. But this makes sense if you think about it. The Russians have already been through all this controlled media stuff. They know where it leads — totalitarianism and dissolution of the union. So now they — like Germany who learned about hyper-inflation and now props up the European Union with the most sound monetary policy — have learned their lessons about an unfree media, in the U.S. case, a corporate-controlled, mainstream media, and its rogue, anti-Constitutional accomplices in government.

Thus, in the U.S. media, you will rarely see any “news” that’s CRITICAL of functionalities of big government or big corporations, critical news pertaining to: the military-industrial complex; fiat currency; fractional reserve banking; the Federal Reserve System; the war on terror, the war on drugs; the war on poverty; gun control; pharmaceutical drugs; big corporate “agriculture”; food supply control; the FDA; the Democratic or Republican parties; Israel Zionism; or Jewish domination of Hollywood; equality, diversity or multiculturalism; socialism, cultural Marxism; gay marriage or abortion; the poor, unions or the welfare state; global warming; the New World Order, globalization, the CFR or the UN, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, the IMF/World Bank and other UN organs; public schools; the New York media or the Hollywood-based MPAA studio/distributors.(1)

Accordingly, material that’s SUPPORTIVE of Christianity; the U.S. Constitution; the Founding Fathers; traditional values; the nuclear or paternal family unit; stay-at-home mothers; home schooling; tariffs; lower corporate taxes; term-limits; third political parties; the militia of the several states; libertarian ideology; border control; gun rights; non-interventionist foreign policy — material supportive of these issues will always be ridiculed or suppressed by the mainstream media.
It’s the Media, Stupid:

It’s particularly important to remember: a consolidated media will NOT discuss any issues relating to itself. Given this, it’s obvious that:


Note, in the Buchanan case, and the more recent case with Napolitano, there was, and still is, a complete media black out on the real issues as to why these two well-received experts were canned. I saw no coverage on CNBC or CNN that Buchanan was let go because of his views set forth in his recent book,Suicide of a Superpower. Only FOX commentators like O’Reilly, Hannity and Napolitano touched on the subject in Buchanan’s defense. BUT they all touched on it gently. I’m sure their corporate masters made sure of this, for were the public in general to have been made too aware of what actually happened to Buchanan — one of America’s most respected and studied academics, censored by a corporately-controlled, left-wing socialist network — there would be outrage and further dismissals. But as quiet as it seems out there, the outrage is building. Believe it; CNBC’s days are numbered as a network. And sensing this, little hack apologist bloggers, are coming to the Establishment media’s defense to “justify” this dirty deed. Liz Spikol of The Philly Post, for instance, wrote:

“Pat Buchanan has been suspended from MSNBC since October. Apparently, someone at the network turned off the TV and picked up a book, namely Buchanan’s latest opus, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?. Buchanan has been saying the same things for years, but he always metes out his extremism with care. You almost don’t notice what he’s saying, which I suppose is the only excuse for MSNBC’s late arrival to the party.”

Since Buchanan doesn’t have a nightly TV show like Napolitano, his departure wasn’t as obvious to the viewing public. But it would have been just as obvious had he had his own show. The outcry on the FREEDOM WATCH cancellation was so great, Judge Napolitano was practically begging people to stop “screaming” at the FOX executives in emails with all capital letters. On Facebook, Napolitano stated:

“It will be far more productive for my work at Fox and the work of my friends and colleagues here — many of whom share our values — if the email traffic to Fox is toned down considerably. I will continue to voice the message of freedom in many more Fox venues, and you will hear that message . . . . You have been very strong in your views and generous in your comments about the show, but now is the time to relax and lay low and prepare for the future. God bless each of you.”

Many feel FREEDOM WATCH was — by far — the most hard-hitting, yet tempered and balanced, political show to have graced network TV.

World Net Daily founder and senior editor, Joseph Farah, said:

“Say goodbye to the most uncompromisingly conservative program on TV. It may have been the only show on TV that measured politics and economics through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.”

But obvious to loyal viewers, Napolitano was much more than just a conservative: he was a conservative with a strong libertarian bent and a sincere advocate of the U.S. Constitution — very rare in the media cesspool we wallow in today. Thus, when a Constitutionalist like Napolitano is silenced, we have a serious problem Houston.

When the case for liberty is not proclaimed loud and clear throughout the land — or silenced by functionaries of some faction or elite — it creates a bottleneck for all other issues, issues that must be freely discussed amongst a well-informed public so that decisions can be made and the democratic process can breath.


Thus, if the Freedom Movement is to survive — if THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION is to flourish — we MUST make the media an ISSUE. We must make media apologists like the Liz Spikols and executive cowards hiding behind corporate board meetings the issue, for unless we do, no one will ever know the sole, 3, 5 or 7 executives that actually voted to terminate Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan or Andrew Napolitano. These cowardly and ignorant “decision makers” know that if they were known, fans would chop off their heads and place them upon a pike before their corporate headquarters at Rockefeller Plaza and Avenue of the Americas. Yes WE THE PEOPLE are coming to understand the MO of this mentality — the way plutocrats in the corporatocracy and government work — hidden in boards of directors, at DAVOS, secret meetings, behind high gates of “security” or on days like December 23rd, 1913 while most of Congress was away for Christmas vacation. Not only was the Federal Reserve Act “passed” on a day like this, so were acts like the criminal and anti-Constitutional PATRIOT Act and TARP Act “passed” on days like this.

So, just like auditing and phasing out the Federal Reserve is a major issue; just like tax reform is an issue; just like getting out of NATO and down-sizing the empire is an issue; just like term limits is an issue — we MUST make the mainstream media an ISSUE.


As the book states, IT’S THE MEDIA, STUPID. And the media deserves to be made an issue because WE THE PEOPLE own the airwaves, not the media; not the multinational corporations that dominate the media; not Kevin Magee, Rupert Murdock or Jeff Zucker.

Although some allies exist in Congress (such as Senator Paul Wellstone, Representative Bernie Sanders and Representative John Conyers) the Democratic and Republican parties WILL NOT be the parties to make media an issue because, again, they are too dependent on the media to get their candidates elected. Media reform won’t come from the conservative right either because, as author, John Nichols, states: “Conservative critics of the media in the end, are handcuffed by their allegiance to maintenance of corporate and commercial rule, so they are incapable of providing real explanations for, and real solutions to, the problem they describe.”

More than likely, media reform will have to be launched by a new third party or a coalition of existing parties. See “SPOiLER — Why a Third Political Party Could Win” at

Internet Reformation:

Without media reform, a fundamental building block of political reform is inhibited or made impossible. Had the Internet not come along when it did, the mainstream media would have had its way with WE THE PEOPLE from 1990 on.

As Anthony Wile, editor of The Daily Bell has maintained for years:

“The Internet Reformation is changing the context of elite dominant social themes. These themes, enunciated throughout the mainstream media, are intended to separate middle classes from wealth and power while supporting globalist institutions.” Wile goes on to say, “The Internet Reformation is the culmination of the power and glory of Western civil society and free-market thinking. It is NOT just an “Internet Revolution.” The Internet Reformation, a much more deeply disruptive concept, is truly a revolutionary one affecting every aspect of human society and human relationships with modern elites, for it is focused around the INSIGHTS generated by the Internet, NOT just the Internet itself.”

This is a time for a new war. The War on Media — a war between the free marketplace of NEW IDEAS and a mainstream media that wants to KILL ALL NEW IDEAS, a media that’s dominated by corporations hell-bent on little more than PROFIT. Hey, no one is saying that honest PROFIT generated through the free market is bad. The bigger picture is: a free market of SPEECH is GOOD. And a free market of speech will always lead to honest competition for a free market of products and services.

So here’s to the Judge, Patrick J. Buchanan and Glenn Beck. We salute you for your unprecedented courage in the media and look forward to your next incarnations for the cause of liberty.(2)
(1) What may have been the REAL reason FBN cancelled FREEDOM WATCH was his show with Michael Scheuer, former Head of the CIA bin Laden Unit. In this installment of FREEDOM WATCH — which you can watch at — Scheuer said the following:

“The only people that would benefit from that would be the Israeli’s and the Saudis … and I think if I was looking at a counter-intelligence operation to decide where this information came from I’d be very interested to see if I could find an Israeli hand, or Saudi hand… because in the long run, Judge, both Israel and Saudi Arabia are much more dangerous enemies to the United States than the Iranians are. The Iranians are a third-rate military power that we could handle very easily. But you know, the Congress is CRAZY for war with Iran … listen to senator Graham, and senator McCain and Joe Lieberman … they’re owned by the Israeli’s… the Saudi’s are VERY influential so when you look at these kind of things you have to ask who would benefit from the war? The Israeli’s and the Saudi’s would LOVE to see our money and our young men and women being killed to fight their enemies in Iran.”

Giving platform to things like this over U.S. airwaves, as was done on FREEDOM WATCH, is apparently not “authorized” by AIPAC — The American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

(2) The Judge’s final broadcast of FREEDOM WATCH on 14 February 2012:
Originated: 13 February 2012
Supplemented: 14 February 2012




Oath Keepers of Los Angeles has been invited by coordinators at Liberty HQ to hold our February meeting at their headquarters in Venice.  This invitation by Oath Keeper and veteran Bryan Matthews is proof to the providence of the freedom movement, as at the time of his invitation we had already decided that the topic for this month’s meeting would be national and local food freedom issues.

On the local level we will present on the Rawesome Foods co-op raid in Venice, which occurred on August 3, 2011.  This issue is now pressing as owner James Stewart is facing 13 state charges ranging from improper food labeling to conspiracy.  His court hearings begin at the beginning of March.

Nationally, we will cover other food freedom cases including Constitutional Sheriff Brad Rogers of Elkhart County, Indiana who has vowed to protect the citizens in his county against the FDA’s unconstitutional search and seizure infringements.


TIME: 7:15PM
: 1728 Abbot Kinney Blvd., Venice, CA, 90291

Parking is limited to the street.  Please account for time required to find a parking spot.

This information is also location on the Meetings page in the Los Angeles Oath Keepers General Meeting section.

1 Comment

College Student Writes Paper On Oath Keepers


Elias Alias note: One of our more active Texas chapter members has a daughter in college.  He has sent in a copy of a class paper written by his daughter, which received excellent marks from her professor. I want to acknowledge her paper here at Oath Keepers’ national website and salute her father for raising an outstanding and patriotic daughter. I have withheld the names of both father and daughter, pending permissions. Enjoy –


Political Science 2301

26 January 2012

Stewart Rhodes founder and president of the nonprofit organization Oath Keepers has dedicated his life to the Constitution of the United States. His extensive knowledge on the Constitution has led him all across the country educating the American people about the Constitution and what it really means.

Oath Keepers and its members is an organization dedicated to educating the American people about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and how our members of congress took an Oath to defend and protect them. “We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted,” (Gooch). The Oath Keepers are not right winged or left winged, they just support and vote for the people who are loyal to the Constitution. Most of the members of Oath Keepers are of the military, law enforcement, and firefighters but openly welcome other members. All they ask is for you to help them in the fight to educate people more about the Constitution, before going to the polls, other than just the basics that are taught in the schools.

Although Oath Keepers are not the traditional political organization in which they support one side or the other, they are political in that they support the Constitution which states who get what, when, and how and anyone who violates that for their own selfish gain or any other reason is going against the Constitution and therefore going against what America is all about.

Most, if not all, the sponsors of Oath Keepers are in some way involved or related the military, law enforcement, or firefighters, such as: Solder Assist- care packages for all deployed military personnel, Tactical Graphic Design- Visual Communication Specialties, SWAT Magazine- Stewart Rhodes writes a column (Enemy at the Gate), Rat Cutlery- Knives and Survival Gear, Pro Troop Events- Calendar for Pro Troop Events, Liberty Rider- a cross country bicycle ride promoting the value of Liberty, Gathering of Eagles- Defending the Liberty our servicemen have fought to protect, JPFO- Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, Sheldon Law Firm- Military Law and Litigation. I believe that the reason that all the sponsors have to do with military, law enforcement, and firefighting is people they understand what it really means to take an oath to protect the Constitution, but they want others to understand what it means as well.

My father is a very active member of this particular organization and I’ve actually met Stewart Rhodes and in reading what they are all about and talking to him I believe it to be a valuable site and information because everything that they stand for can be summed up in one word Constitution. As an American citizen I hold the Constitution to be true, firm, and right. It’s not biased because they support all members of Congress who uphold the Constitution and stay true to their oath. For someone who doesn’t really know the Constitution their efforts may seem extreme, but they took an oath to defend it and will use whatever lawful mean necessary to protect it and they believe others should do so as well, so we Americans don’t lose our freedom. The website can help with this because it aids in educating the public about the Constitution and the laws that are a being made and have been made that violate the Constitution.

Work Cited

Gooch, Gregory. “Oath Keepers.” Oath Keepers. Drew , n.d. Web. 26 Jan 2012.


1 Comment

Rob Natelson: NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022: Scary Potential


Please read article at the Tenth Amendment Center:

NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022: Scary Potential

by Rob Natelson

Are the detainment provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act serious?

Yes they are.

This is a complicated area, and there has been a lot of word-fudging in spinning this subject. So bear with me as we take things step by step.

*    The U.S. Constitution generally guarantees the “Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.” The writ of habeas corpus is a court order a prisoner can obtain requiring the jailer to come into court and justify his detention of the prisoner. It is a traditional way in which those held can demand a fair trial by jury in a civilian court. The writ of habeas corpus is a treasured part of our traditional liberty. Belief that the British were infringing it was one cause of the American Revolution.  (The writ is called a “privilege” rather than a “right” because it is a creation of the legal system rather than a natural right, like the right to free speech.)

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, the privilege of habeas corpus is guaranteed to all those in “allegiance” to the United States. “Allegiance” is an old technical legal term that includes both citizens and aliens legally in the country.

*    By successfully convincing a judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus, citizens, foreign visitors, and legal residents may obtain a hearing that may induce the judge to order a civilian trial. It matters not how heinous the crimes they are accused of. For example, a person charged with trying to blow up a building on behalf of a foreign power can be charged with treason. But while still merely accused, he is entitled to all the protections of due process, including a fair, public trial before a jury of his peers.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, habeas corpus does NOT apply if the Congress, as an incident to its war power, “suspends” the writ for a particular time and place. However, the Constitution says that Congress may “suspend” the writ only “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Congress has not suspended the writ, and it is doubtful that occasional acts of terrorism constitute a sufficient “rebellion or invasion” to justify doing so. Even if Congress could suspend the writ, a Bill of Suspension would be a serious, much-debated measure for which Congress would have to assume direct political accountability. Political accountability is not a big priority with Congress right now.

*    Members of all belligerent armed forces (both sides) are subject to military, not civilian, law.

*    Thus, by the law of war, the executive (and the military officers under him) may incarcerate for the duration of the conflict any enemy combatants captured in the theater of war.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning the executive has no constitutional power (without formal congressional suspension of the writ) to lock up citizens or lawful aliens apprehended outside the war theater. If accused of crime, the accused has the privilege of a jury trial in a civilian court. By the Constitution’s original meaning, this constitutional right does not apply to enemy aliens, wherever apprehended.

*    In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (erroneously, in my view) held that alien Guantanamo detainees have the right to habeas corpus to determine if they are really enemy combatants. Still, under this case if they are found to be enemy combatants they can go back to prison indefinitely.

Now, with that background, let’s look at the critical language of the Act, again step by step:

§1021: (a) Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.

Comment: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is the resolution passed in the wake of 9/11 authorizing the President to fight terrorism. The National Defense Authorization Act is sometimes justified as mere clarification of the AUMF.

(b) . . A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

Comment: This provision includes people accused of certain terror-related crimes. Fine— but it does not exempt U.S. citizens or legal aliens with U.S. territory. Thus, far, it appears they can be “detain[ed] . . . pending disposition under the law of war.” But what does that mean?

c) . .  The disposition of a person under the law of war . .  may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. . .

Comment: This clarifies that the government may detain anyone so charged “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” Apologists for the law point out that it permits other dispositions “under the law of war,” including civilian trial. But the point is that the law does not require those other dispositions. The administration can simply decide to detain you “without trial until the end of hostilities.”

(d) . . . Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Comment: This is a basis for the argument that all Congress is really doing is clarifying the AUMF. But this is cold comfort, because the position of the Obama administration is that the AUMF always authorized rounding up citizen-suspects and holding them without trial!

(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial.

Here are the principal Supreme Court decisions the law preserves:

(1) A post-Civil War case (Ex Parte Milligan) saying a citizen non-combatant  incarcerated outside the theater of war is entitled to habeas corpus. (This holding doesn’t help those accused of being combatants.)

(2) The World War II-era Quirin decision that permitted President Roosevelt to detain, try in a secret military hearing, and execute a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. territory and accused of being a German spy. Obviously, this decision—which is widely acknowledged to be egregious—offers no protection against the National Defense Authorization Act.

(3) The 2004 Hamdi case, which says that a U.S. citizen captured bearing arms in the war theater is NOT entitled to habeas corpus. He is entitled only to a minimal military hearing without a jury and without many of the traditional due process protections.. (Some apologists for the National Defense Authorization Act are claiming the Hamdi case granted a right of habeas corpus; this claim is flatly wrong.)

(4) The 2008 Boumedienne decision, which held that alien Guantanamo detainees are entitled to habeas corpus and a civilian hearing to show that they were non-combatants.

Obviously, none of these prior holdings addresses the habeas corpus rights of a U.S. citizen or legal alien apprehended within the U.S. and charged with being an enemy combatant. So there is no Supreme Court case providing the necessary protection preserved by the law’s provision that “existing law or authorities” are preserved.

§ 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Comment: This section says that the administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite military custody. But it does not prevent the administration from doing so.

* * * *

When you look at sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act objectively, they become scary in their potential. If the administration does try to use it to lock up American citizens without habeas corpus, the Supreme Court probably will void the incarceration and require a civilian trial. But in the normal course of events, vindicating one’s rights could take years.

Of course, in America, we traditionally don’t lock up citizens on mere suspicion. . . .

Or is that is now changing?

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

1 Comment

Today is the day. REPEAL the NDAA! Call any time all day long



Oath Keepers encourages everyone to saddle-up and ride hard on this national effort to express outrage over the NDAA-2012.


Don’t forget to call your “representatives” today!!!



Conservative Action Alerts had reported the dangers relating to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 in the last months of 2011 before it was signed into law by Barack Obama on New Years Eve.

Section 1021 of the NDAA contains language that endangers American citizens by nullifying essential liberties guaranteed by the Constitution — rights to privacy and a fair trial.

HR 3785 — which repeals section 1021 — was introduced by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) on January 18, 2012. A portion of Rep. Paul’s statement is as follows:
“Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authority under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects – including Americans — and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely. No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court.”

HR 3785 reads simply: “Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) is hereby repealed.”

Tell your representative to co-sponsor

The Ron Paul amendment. HR-3785





Tell Congress: Support HR 3785


WHY must we always have to defend our constitutional rights with new state legislation when these people were elected to defend our liberty in the first place?

VA bill to Nullify NDAA indefinite detention of US citizens

Bill Introduced To Challenge Authority Of NDAA

Tenth Amendment Center explains how this bill threatens you.

Please spread the word and this video aggressively!


Leave a comment


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,731 other followers

%d bloggers like this: