Waco police continue to lie about what happened before during and after the Twin Peaks Massacre on May 17.
In a written statement issued last Friday, June 12, police announced:
“There were 16 uniformed Waco Police Department Officers to include 5
Supervisors (3 Sergeants, 1 Commander and an Assistant Chief). Included
in that number was a Tactical Element (SWAT Officers) assigned and
present. None of the Officers were assigned in a sniper capacity and all
Officers were in their vehicles at the time the suspects began the
shooting. Those Officers were stationed in the parking lots adjacent to
the Twin Peaks and were visible to patrons entering the Twin Peaks
parking lot. There were 6 marked Waco Police units and 4 unmarked Waco
Police vehicles. This does not include DPS vehicles. There were also
Texas Department of Public Safety Officers assigned to the event as
well.”
The press release is disingenuous and forces the public to calculate
the Waco Department’s lies of omission. The carefully worded statement
refers to Texas Department of Public Safety officers but declines to
specify how many of them were there or why. Although there were agents
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on scene, the
official statement ignores them. It also declines to count undercover
police officers on scene. In an earlier statement, spokesman W. Patrick
Swanton flatly stated that there were “no undercover” police on scene.
Game Wardens
Last Friday’s statement also declines to specify who showed up after
the shooting started, whether those reinforcements were staged and
where, and how long it took them to arrive.
Among the participants or reinforcements at the Massacre were sworn
peace officers from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. There are
three game wardens assigned to the Waco office at 1601 E Crest Drive
which is about four miles from the Twin Peaks restaurant. Those men are
Michael P. Serbanic, Roger O. Nichols and Matthew S. Kiel. The Aging Rebel believes that at least one of those wardens, 36-year-old Matt Kiel, was in the Twin Peaks parking lot.
The statement issued last Friday states, “Videos of the incident have
been transferred to FBI Investigators for analysis.” The statement does
not explain how many videos are being analyzed, where they came from or
whether videos have been withheld from analysis in order to maintain
secrecy about the Massacre. For example, the statement does not say
whether smartphone video and still photos taken by Kiel have been turned
over to the FBI, destroyed or locked away in an underground bunker in
Area 51.
When reached by phone on Tuesday afternoon and asked about his part
in the Twin Peaks Massacre, Kiel referred all questions to the
headquarters of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in Austin.
OFF THE WIRE Jessica Kline Civil asset forfeiture is a tool that allows law enforcement
officials to seize property that they assert has been involved in
certain criminal activity. Forfeiture rests on the legal fiction that property
itself can be guilty of a crime. This means that police and prosecutors
can seize cars, homes, money, or valuables without ever having to
charge, much less convict, the property owner with a crime.
The roots of civil forfeiture can be traced back to Medieval English
common law, but in the U.S., these laws only came to the forefront
during the Civil War and later during Prohibition, to enable the seizure
of vehicles transporting illegal alcohol.
Today, though, the use of these once-dormant laws has expanded
exponentially, with the value of forfeitures measured in the billions
and instances of abuse cataloged in nearly every state.
So how did we get to where we are today?
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news
organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and
keep you informed.
During the 1980s, federal and state law enforcement officials
dramatically expanded the use of civil forfeiture as a tool in the war
on drugs. Their reasoning was simple: By seizing the assets and
ill-gotten gains of criminal kingpins, they could remove the financial
incentive to commit crime. >>> Read more in “Arresting Your Property: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Turns Police Into Profiteers“
In 1984, Congress went a step further. It created the Assets
Forfeiture Fund and enabled law enforcement agencies to retain the
proceeds of their seizures. Prior to this reform, forfeiture funds were
directed to the General Fund of the Treasury. Agencies now had a direct
financial stake in generating forfeiture revenues, creating a perverse
incentive for some overzealous investigators to engage in a form of
legalized bounty hunting.
States quickly followed suit—42 states dangerously shifted their law
enforcement priorities toward the pursuit of profit. It is not
surprising that with these direct financial incentives, civil forfeiture
actions skyrocketed. Innocent and guilty citizens alike became targets
for forfeiture.
In 2000, Congress took up the cause of innocent property owners and
passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA). CAFRA afforded
modest due process protections for citizens but left in place
forfeiture’s perverse financial incentives. The result: A system that
encourages forfeitures and is stacked against innocent property owners.
While many of these forfeitures involve people who have committed
crimes, startling stories continue to surface of cops and prosecutors
seizing homes, money and cars on dubious grounds and leaving innocent
victims in their wake. As abuses abound, it has become clear that the
system is broken and is in dire need of reform.
Grand Rapids, Mich. – In a stunning
violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western
Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals
that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a
firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.
The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this
constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement
for engaging in a completely lawful activity.
Officers detained Johann Deffert
in early 2013. He was walking down the sidewalk with a holstered FNP-45
pistol, after receiving a 9-1-1 call from a woman who spotted Deffert
with the open carried, but holstered, handgun on his person.
The dispatcher initially informed the caller that Michigan is an open
carry state. However, the woman subsequently explained that she found
Deffert’s presence alarming, due in part to his wearing of camouflage,
although she admitted that he wasn’t threatening anyone. Somehow the
dispatcher made the decision that someone engaging in a completely legal
activity, as earlier in the call noted by the dispatcher, should now be
inspected by police, due to caller saying they found wearing camo
disturbing.
The absurdity in logic; that someone wearing camo takes the situation
from being a completely legal situation not to be interfered with, and
raises it to a level of needing police assistance, shows the extreme
arbitrary nature of the entire situation.
The incident was captured on responding officer Moe Williams’ dash
cam, and lasted 14 minutes. Williams had indicated he believed that
perhaps Deffert was suffering from some type of mental illness, as he
seemed to be “talking to nobody” when the officer arrived on scene. Upon
further investigation, Deffert was revealed to have been happily singing the song “Hakuna Matata” from the Disney movie “The Lion King” while strolling down the sidewalk.
The video shows the officer command Deffert to lay face down on the
ground upon arrival on the scene. Deffert was treated as if he were a
criminal that needed to prove he was not doing anything wrong, as the
officer detained him while running a mental and criminal background
check. Deffert was polite and respectful throughout the encounter, but
strongly asserted his rights regarding open carry laws in the state of
Michigan.
Remember, all of this transpired despite Deffert’s total compliance
with Michigan law, in respect to open carry of a firearm. Eventually,
Deffert was released, as he had violated no laws, done nothing wrong,
and there was no legitimate reason to hold him. Shortly after the
incident, in what seemed like a vindication for Deffert at the time,
Grand Rapids Police Sgt. Steve LaBreque recommended to Moe’s commanding
officer, that Moe “would benefit from some additional training in
handling ‘open carry’ issues.”
Several months later Deffert filed a federal lawsuit alleging his
constitutional rights were violated and that he was assaulted and
falsely imprisoned. The legality of open carry in the Michigan was never
in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an
individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm, according
to court records.
In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff
claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the
officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using
swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a
need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”
When a call to 9-1-1 is made in regard to a completely legal
activity, the police should not even be dispatched. If in fact the
police needed to “determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a
need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood,” they need not
impeded a citizen from going about their legitimate and legal business,”
as Neff asserts, but rather could passively watch from a distance to
determine if there is any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
afoot, and if so act accordingly.
The most glaring problem with Neff’s logic, is that there is no
reason for police to ever assess someones behavior who is simply
engaging in constitutionally protected and lawful activity, regardless
if another citizens takes issue with the activity. If the activity fails
to rise to the level of criminality, then police have no business
getting investigating or getting involved. The police, as public
servants, aren’t paid to investigate non-crimes.
The idea that someone needs to prove their innocence for engaging in a
constitutionally protected activity is contrary to everything America
teaches its children to believe about liberty and freedom.
The case will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The National Rifle Association and others have offered to assist in the appeal.
It will be interesting to see what open carry advocates across the
nation, and specifically those in Texas, a hotbed of open carry
activism, think about this ruling; and how they would respond if this
were to become the standard of law in their state.
Sound off in the comments!
Be sure to share this critical information with all your liberty loving friends!
Read the decision below.
Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, free thinker,
researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a
graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global
Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on BenSwann.com and
WeAreChange.org. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.
Read
more at
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-court-rules-police-detain-individuals-open-carrying-firearms/#JKDzvOLQEEeFlwY7.99
OFF THE WIRE The Mongols Nation case, which may be the government’s last,
best chance to seize the Mongols Motorcycle Club’s patch, may be
drawing to a conclusion. The case is currently assigned to District
Court Judge John A. Kronstadt – who seems not to be thrilled with the
assignment. Judge Otis D. Wright had presided over the case for almost
two years before he quit in shame on May 26.
At a hearing on June 4, prosecutor Christopher Brunwin and Mongols’
attorneys Joe Yanny and Elliot H. Min told Kronstadt they would need
about nine weeks to try the case. Mongols Nation has always been a do-over of a racketeering case called United States versus Cavazos et al. That case never went to trial. The government tried to seize the Mongols patch in Cavazos and two judges told them they could not do that.
Baseless Case
Last week Yanny and Min filed a motion that brought Cavazos and another case titled Ramon Rivera v. Ronnie A. Carter, et al.
to Kronstadt’s attention. Rivera is pertinent because two judges ruled
that the government could not take the patch from a Mongol in San Diego
who had broken no laws and who had done nothing wrong. As Min explains
it, “the Government has already attempted to strip innocent third
parties, persons who never had their day in court, of their right to
wear the Mongols patch, and were not only denied but sanctioned by Judge
David O. Carter to the tune of a quarter million dollars for making an
innocent citizen bring a baseless lawsuit.”
Both Cavazos and Rivera were originally assigned to
the late Honorable Florence Marie Cooper. When Judge Cooper died in
December 2009 her case load in Cavazos was split between Wright and
Carter. Carter was assigned to preside over Rivera and he ruled the government could not seize the Mongols patch.
Judge Shopping
The motion filed last week accuses Brunwin of “judge shopping” when
the case was assigned to Wright and asks Judge Kronstadt to turn the Mongols Nation case over to Carter. “Judge Carter has extensive experience and is extremely familiar with the
facts, defendants, witnesses, and even the parties in this designated
complex case dating back as far as January 2010. Assigning the instant
case to Judge Carter would be in the best interest of the accused, the
parties, and judicial economy.”
It seems likely that Kronstadt would be delighted to pass the case to
Carter. And, it seems unlikely that Carter would reverse himself if he
does get the case.
The Mongols, in other words, may be just a motion or two and a judge away from winning.
From
the MRF. Besides the helmet info, note the comment down at the bottom
regarding Obamatrade. Washington Weekly Updates June 15, 2015
From Jeff Hennie Motorcycle Riders Foundation, Vice President Government Relations and Public Affairs Amendments to FMVSS 218
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation submitted its official comments to the
proposed amendments to FMVSS 218 regarding motorcycle helmets, and you
should too. The proposed amendments would fundamentally change the
definition of a DOT-approved helmet by moving away from a performance
standard and instead using construction standards that would federally
mandate the thickness of the helmet liner and any energy absorbing
materials. Here’s how the changes would work: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) wants to add a new component to
the definition of a helmet based on lining thickness. NHTSA has
determined that 25mm (about one inch) is the bare minimum thickness of a
helmet that could possibly meet the federal definition of a motorcycle
helmet as defined by FMVSS 218. If a helmet cannot meet this new
thickness requirement (as would be the case with novelty helmets), then
you will be treated as if you have no helmet on at all in a universal
helmet law state. This proposed amendment would essentially make a
helmet that was too thin illegal, thus putting you in front of a judge
for essentially not wearing a helmet at all. Additionally, the amendment
would give law enforcement the ability to ticket anyone wearing a
novelty helmet in a universal helmet law state. This proposed change
is coming directly from law enforcement. According to NHTSA, they have
been contacted by law enforcement officials from a few states citing
that novelty helmets are a problem and that they need to be addressed.
Because of the costly nature of testing helmets on the side of the road,
law enforcement does not pull over novelty-helmeted riders and test the
headgear. Instead, the police want an easy way to ticket and enforce
helmet laws. This proposed change could result in law enforcement
pulling people over just to measure a helmet, even when there’s been no
infraction of any motor vehicle law. There’s another problem:
NHTSA’s proposed change stymies innovation. What happens when helmet
manufacturers develop a new energy absorbing material that is thinner
than the proposed mandated thickness but still works just as well? Where
is the motivation for motorcycle helmet designers and manufactures to
continue to use modern technology to develop better and lighter
materials? It was not that long ago that carbon fiber technology was so
expensive that it was cost-prohibitive to use; now it’s everywhere.
These proposed amendments stymie the creative process that is invaluable
when coming up with new ideas. What can we do about this proposed
rule? Comment. Get your kids to comment, your mother-in-law, your
doctors, your elected officials—anyone who will listen to reason. The
proposed rule currently has a ridiculously low number of comments
submitted, and we should take this opportunity to flood the list with
positive comments against the proposed amendments. Your comments
count. They don’t have to be poetry or a doctoral thesis. Just let them
know how you feel. Please keep the comments clean and please do not cut
and paste other comments and use them as your own, as those sorts of
things will result in your comment being removed from the pool. This statement is from the regulatory website:
“Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may
choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof)
such as those containing private or proprietary information,
inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a
mass-mail campaign.” Please visit: http://www.regulations.gov/…
leave a comment, or you can go to www.regualtions.govand search for
"motorcycle" and it will be the first link to come up. Deadline is July
20th, 2015 so get your comments in well before then. If you are sitting
at your computer or tablet, why not do it right now? Obamatrade
It has been a wild ride in Washington this week. A trade bill known as
“Fast Track” or “Obamatrade,” which would grant Obama the power to
negotiate trade deals with Pacific Rim countries without the approval of
Congress, was defeated in the House in a rare Friday vote. Its defeat
is a bit of a shock because of the unlikely allies aggressively pushing
for passage. The bill is widely supported by House Republicans and
President Obama, but it’s vilified by House Democrats because it would
scrap a program that provides financial assistance to union workers who
lose their jobs due to international trade. President Obama made a visit
to Capitol Hill to lobby Democrats who were going to vote no on the
trade measure. (A Hill visit by a president is the ultimate in
presidential lobbying.) Politics do have strange bedfellows, but it
doesn't get much stranger than this.
“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL and BILL SHOW”,
A HARDCORE BIKER RIGHTS SHOW THAT HITS LIKE A BORED AND STROKED BIG TWIN! ON LIVE TUESDAY'S & THURDAY'S AT 6 PM P.S.T. 9 PM E.S.T.
Waco police continue to lie about what happened before during and after the Twin Peaks Massacre on May 17.
