My friend Chip Saunders who lives in Phoenix and owns a hot dog stand, posted this story on his wall today:

So someone about 10 minutes ago was getting in the guy’s face,…literally,…trying bait the guy into flinching in a way that would allow him to claim self-defense in beating down the dude. I knew I should stay out of it, but hate bullies with a purple passion. I walked over after I saw him actually put hands on the guy with the sign.

“Just so you know,…if I see you put hands on this guy again, I’m the witness that’s gonna put you in jail.”

He didn’t know to react, and I stepped back over to my cart. About a minute later, he starts prancing around my cart;…

“Oh THANK YOU Mr. Hot Dog Man! Yeah,…THANK YOU for helping out the godless asshole!”

“You’re welcome,” I said. “I’ll defend your rights too. You can come out here and act like an even bigger ass and I’ll defend you too.”

Deer in the headlights.

He finally left.

If you call yourself a Christian and feel that you need to curse or even physically attack the man in the photo, you are deeply confused about Christianity. I’m a born-again Christian, and I feel nothing but pity for the man. My God doesn’t need anybody to defend Him.

This is one big difference between Christianity and other religions: Jesus Christ let himself be mocked, flogged, and spit upon. He let them nail him to the cross. And yet he said, “Bless your enemies. Love them, and pray for them. Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Fight hate, with love. Thank you for the reminder, Chip!

This sounds too absurd to be true. Yet, it is true: the federal government concluded that a school district just outside of Chicago violated Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, because they won’t allow a male high school student take showers with his female classmates.

Let’s get this straight: the school district already went way beyond what is reasonable to accommodate the mentally ill boy, who thinks that he’s a girl trapped in a boy’s body. They changed his name and gender on all school records, and refer to him as a “she”. They allowed him to use the girl’s bathrooms, and play on girls’ sports teams. They even agreed to let him change in the girls’ locker rooms. That is not enough, however: he wants the girls to see him changing.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The student, who has identified as a girl for a number of years, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in late 2013 after she was denied unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room. District and federal officials negotiated for months, and a solution appeared imminent as recently as last week, when the district put up privacy curtains in the locker room.

But talks stalled after school officials said the student would be required to use the private area, as opposed to offering her a choice to use it. Although the student said she intends to use the private area or a locker room bathroom stall to change, the stipulation constitutes “blatant discrimination,” said John Knight, director of the LGBT and AIDS Project at ACLU of Illinois, which is representing the student.

“It’s not voluntary, it’s mandatory for her,” Knight said. “It’s one thing to say to all the girls, ‘You can choose if you want some extra privacy,’ but it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone, must use them.’ That sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the district does not see her as girl.”

Superintendent Daniel Cates’s comments are an island of common sense in the federal sea of insanity:

“The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one’s gender is not the same as one’s anatomy,” Cates said in a statement. “Boys and girls are in separate locker rooms — where there are open changing areas and open shower facilities — for a reason.”

It is common sense, isn’t it — that teenage girls should not be forced to shower with teenage boys? The very fact that we have to state this self-evident truth, is absurd. But wait, it gets more ridiculous:

The student, whom the ACLU said does not want to be identified for privacy reasons, said in a statement that the federal ruling “makes clear that what my school did was wrong.”

The boy, who insists that it is his right to be seen naked by his naked girl classmates, is worried about his privacy! You really can’t make this stuff up.

I know lots of people will get angry about this, as they should. They will call their representatives, and their senators. They will write letters to the editor, and maybe even lobby to get rid of the law. Unfortunately, none of these good and proper actions will stop the public schools’ relentless march toward total depravity. Eventually, the parents will acclimate to the new reality where their teenage daughters are forced to take showers with teenage boys. Furthermore, anyone challenging the new normal will be referred to as an intolerant bigot.

The so-called “public” government-run school system is rotten to the core. It is built on the false foundations of collectivism and obedience to the state, and is antithetical to the core American values of individualism, liberty, and virtuousness. It cannot be salvaged or reformed, it must be scrapped and replaced with a capitalist, free-market system. I pray and hope that someday, we will have such a system. Until then, my wife and I will continue to homeschool our kids.

Exactly one week ago, Anthony Bosworth was found guilty of carrying a gun on federal property. You can read the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for a summary of the arguments, and the court findings.

This was my first time attending a federal trial and while I expected manifestations of tyranny, injustice and double standard, what impressed me the most was the the cluelessness of federal employees.

A Taste of Police State

If governments did not mislead their citizens so often, there would be less need for secrecy, and if leaders knew they could not rely on keeping the public in the dark about what they are doing, they would have a powerful incentive to behave better. – Peter Singer

Secrecy is the freedom tyrants dream of. – Bill Moyers

The federal building is a microcosm of the federal government. When it comes to privacy and secrecy, the premise is simple:

1. Maximum secrecy for the government
2. Minimum privacy for the citizen, 4th Amendment be damned

I went through the checkpoint where visitors’ IDs were checked, belts and keys removed, cameras and camcorders confiscated, bags X-rayed, and bodies passed through the metal detector. On the positive side, I did not get a patdown.

After meeting up with the Bosworths in the lobby, we boarded an elevator to the 7th loor where we were greeted by a sign warning that “NO CAMERAS RADIOS OR RECORDING DEVICES ALLOWED ON THE 7TH 8TH AND 9TH FLOORS”. Fortunately, smartphones are OK.

As soon as I entered the courtroom, a DHS agent, warned me that he would remove me from the courtroom if I “pulled out anything electronic out of that backpack”. When I pulled a bottle of water out of the backpack, the agent immediately walked over and gave me the option to either put it away, or get out of the courtroom. When I asked the bald, 5’9″, Caucasian agent with a black goatee and mustache to identify himself, he refused: “You don’t need my name”.

While private recording was strictly verboten, the courtroom was being continuously monitored via cameras by an agent sitting in the lobby, and two agents with earpieces inside the courtroom. At various points during the trial, there were up to seven federal agents in the courtroom, most of them sitting in the back of the room, behind a small handful of Bosworth supporters.

Duggan: AK-47 “Multi-Shot” Magazine

After the rising in honor of His Honor Judge John T. Rodgers, and the introductions, the prosecutor Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew F. Duggan introduced the evidence:

• Video of the arrest
• Map of the south side of the federal court building
• Permit form from the GSA
• Photos of firearms, including:
  • Pistol
  • Baggie of bullets
  • Long-gun with “multi-shot” magazine

The “long gun” is an AK-47, not an air rifle. Clueless.

No Protest, No Permit

According to Mr. Duggan, Anthony Bosworth did not hold a permit to hold a protest in the plaza. Bosworth’s attorney Dave Stevens pointed out that Anthony was neither holding a sign, nor handing out literature. He wasn’t protesting, therefore he did not need a permit.

No Signs on Plaza

Duggan alleged that Bosworth was in violation of 18 USC 930 knowingly carrying firearms on federal property. Stevens retorted that the statute requires that signs designating the plaza as a “gun-free zone” must be posted conspicuously; therefore, the order given by the agent to Mr. Bosworth to leave the courtyard, was unlawful.

Stephen Yewcic: “Bosworth Was Protesting Amendment 10”

The prosecutor called his first witness, Federal Protective Services Officer Stephen Yewcic, who proceeded to recite his long list of accomplishments including serving as an Air Marshal, Airway Heights Police reserve officer, and police specialist for the US military. Yewcic recounted the conversation with Bosworth, and recalled that Anothony was in the plaza “protesting Amendment 10, or the 10th Amendment, or something like that”. It was clear that he did not want to be testifying against Anthony: he was making apologetic statements and repeating that it was Marshal William Downey who made the arrest ad confiscated the weapons.

Yewcic recalled that there were four long guns at the scene: Anthony’s AK-47, Maria’s AR-15, and two rifles carried by the Bosworth children. In addition, he recalled that Anthony had a “Browning” (later referred to by Bosworth as his “Glock 17”) pistol had a loaded magazine, but did not have a round in the chamber (a statement later disputed by Anthony). He said that the AK-47 had the magazine attached, but he could not check to see if it was loaded, because he “is not familiar with that weapon.”

Paul Zambone: “General Knowledge” that Permit Needed to Protest

General Services Administration Facility Manager Paul Zambon was the next witness to testify. He explained the map of the federal property, and mentioned that the parking garage extends under the plaza — a key argument for the prosecution, allowing them to claim that Bosworth was “upon” a Federal Facility.

When asked by Dave Stevens how a person would know that a permit is required to hold a protest, he said it is “general knowledge”.

William Downey: He Wanted to Debate, I Placed him in Handcuffs

Next to testify was U.S. Deputy Marshal William Downey, a 20-year veteran of the force. He described how he rushed to the scene, after someone called him from the control room, saying that there were “people with firearms” in the plaza. Downey described what happened next: “He wanted to debate. I placed him in handcuffs.”

Motion to Dismiss: Denied

Attorney Stevens made a motion based on Rule 29, to dismiss the case. Judge Rodgers denied the motion.

Six Hours in Federal Custody: Irrelevant

When asked to explain what he was doing in the plaza, Anthony explained that he came to Spokane to attend the Kettle Five/10th Amendment rally.

Attorney Stevens: “Describe your six hours in federal custody”
Prosecutor Duggan: “Objection! Relevance?”

Judge sustained the objection.

Bill of Rights the Only Sign on Plaza

Dave Stevens asked Anthony if there were any signs on or around the plaza, designating it as federal property, or “gun-free zone”.

— No. The only sign I saw, was the Bill of Rights.

Isn’t it True that You WANTED to Get Arrested?

I thought this only happened in Hollywood courtrooms. In a desperate attempt to get Anthony to implicate himself, Duggan charged at Bosworth: “Isn’t it true that you wanted to get arrested?”

Anthony responded without hesitation: “Absolutely not.”

Duggan: Why Do You Need Ammunition to Exercise Your Rights?

The absurdity of the question raised a chuckle out of the audience.  Understandably, Bosworth looked dumbfounded, and asked to clarify.

— Why do you need a round in the chamber?
— For the same reason I need the gun: for self-defense. To protect myself, my family, and other citizens.

The comical exchange that followed, made it absolutely evident that the prosecutor did not mis-speak; he really could not understand why a person needs a loaded gun, to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights.

Maria Bosworth: “I Don’t Always Listen to Him”

The biggest laugh of the day came from Maria’s exchange with attorney Dave Stevens:

— When Anthony asked you to stop filming, why didn’t you?
— I don’t always listen to him.
— I think a lot f husbands can sympathize!
— I felt that something may go wrong, and I wanted to record it.

Selective Enforcement

The guilty verdict is not surprising — I mean, who nowadays expects justice from a federal court? What is also not surprising, is the cowardice of the federal government.

I took part in the March 6 rally, an act of civil disobedience against the tyranny of the federal government. I was in the same plaza where Anthony Bosworth was arrested by the federal agents, carrying a Mosin Nagant rifle on my back. There were 100 or so other patriots armed with AK-47s, AR-15s, and a variety of other firearms, who defied the judge’s orders and held a protest on what she claimed was “federal property”. None of us got arrested.

There were armed people in that same plaza, on the very day of the verdict. None of them got arrested, either.

Selective enforcement is a form of legal abuse, and a threat to the rule of law. The federal government doesn’t have the guts to jail one hundred armed Americans, but they want to make an example of Anthony Bosworth.

At times like these, we must put away our differences and stand together. You don’t have to agree with Anthony on every issue or tactic, but as a patriot, you should offer him your support.

Share his story. Pray for him. Send him money. Tell him you are standing with him. And ridicule the cluelessness of those who ask why we need ammunition to exercise our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Appeals are expensive. If you wish to help Anthony financially, send your donations via PayPal: Edkrumpe@hotmail.com, or by check/money order to 750 Dusty Lane Yakima, WA 98903.

The use of unmarked vehicles by law enforcement for routine police work and wanton arrests for “obstruction” are hot-button issues for people who call themselves “Constitutionalists”. A 74-year old local pastor was killed by a Spokane Sheriff’s deputy who was sitting on his property in an unmarked police car.  People have been threatened with arrest (and some actually went to jail) for asking questions and videotaping police encounters.

In response to my Public Records Request, Spokane County Sheriff’s Office mailed me some documents. Among them, I was surprised to find a 2-page memo dated January 20, 2015 that touches on both issues. It reads:

Recently, law enforcement personnel have been approached while in the middle of a call-for-service or traffic stop. Based upon these events, coupled with other societal events (protests) throughout the United States, the training unit offers the following information. If any Sheriff’s Office commissioned Personnel is approached by a person(s) who wish to discuss the legality of the vehicle being used for “official purposes,” or, what “rights” they wish to exercise in order to enter a secure premises (PSB, U-City, etc.), please consider the following:

Per our mission, we will treat all people with dignity and respect. Additionally, if any person hinders, delays, or obstructs you in the discharge of your duties, you have the authority to make an arrest for obstructing a law enforcement officer. (See RCW below).

If possible, give the person(s) a warning that they are “obstructing” and that they are subject to arrest if they continue. A call for back-up is highly recommended, and if appropriate, make an arrest.

[Full text of the memo (PDF)]

No doubt the memo was the Spokane County Sheriff’s reaction to Gavin Seim’s video of a citizen making a traffic stop on a deputy for driving an unmarked vehicle. The video gathered well over 5 million views, and received local press coverage. Grant County Sheriff Tom Jones explained in a Facebook message that the patrol car the deputy was driving was awaiting vinyl graphics to be installed.

Unlike Sheriff Jones, who admitted that the car should have been marked, the memorandum reveals that Spokane County Sheriff Knezovich responded in a characteristic heavy-handed fashion, by advising his deputies to threaten citizens with arrest for exercising their constitutionally protected right to question the actions of their peace officers.

It is clear that the memo played a key role in my arrest on June 24. When I asked why my niece was being detained and what she was being charged with, the deputies ordered me to leave and threatened to arrest me for obstruction if I didn’t comply. I could not abandon a teenage girl with two male deputies on a deserted highway, so they acted out on their threat, and took me to jail — just as the memo prescribed.

Free Speech Is Not “Obstruction”

The Washington State Supreme Court made it clear in their “STATE OF WASHINGTON v. E.J.J.” decision, that you cannot be charged with obstruction for merely speaking:

The obstruction statute provides, “A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.” RCW 9A.76.020(1). To save the obstruction statute from being unconstitutionally overbroad in a First Amendment setting, we have construed the statute narrowly. Our cases have consistently required conduct in order to establish obstruction of an officer. State v. Williams, 171Wn.2d474, 485, 251 P.3d 877 (2011). In other words, a conviction for obstruction may not be based solely on an individual’s speech because the speech itself is constitutionally protected. This review is also consistent with the approach established by the United States Supreme Court. See Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 578, 89 S. Ct. 1354, 22 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1969).

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, noting that “obstruction statutes may not be used to limit citizens’ right to express verbal criticism, even abusive criticism, at police officers” and quoting from another US Supreme Court decision:

“[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.“

When I asked Sheriff Knezovich via a Facebook message if he knew about the decision, he dismissed it with:

[..] this case was not in affect at the time you were pulled over.  It was filed June 25, 2015 you were arrested on June 24,2015.  No one knew of it and therefore the Deputies can not be held accountable for a new court decision they never knew about.  So this is really a pointless discussion.

Two months later, a woman who filmed the arrest of a pro-life protester was herself threatened with arrest — you guessed it — for “obstruction”.

The authoritarian Sheriff spits on the rights of Spokane citizens and violates state law, while gloating about his election record (70% of voters foolishly cast their ballots for Knezovich). If you care about your rights, I urge you to contact the Sheriff’s office, and demand that:

1. They use unmarked vehicles only for undercover police work, as the law and common sense demand.
2. Issue a correction to the memo, advising the deputies that a person may not be threatened with arrest for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

Also, please take the time to educate your friends and family about these issues. You can start by sharing this blog on your Facebook page.

P.S. As the murder of Pastor Creach so clearly demonstrates, using unmarked vehicles for non-undercover police work is reckless and fatally dangerous. A plain reading of the law leads one to the obvious conclusion that such use is also illegal. However, instead of admitting his mistake, Sheriff Knezovich added insult to injury by successfully lobbying the Spokane County commissioners to pass an ordinance authorizing the use of unmarked patrol cars.

I remember turning on the TV that morning in our tiny one-bedroom apartment, and seeing the incredible footage of the airplanes striking the towers. “This can’t be happening”. It looked unreal.

The following Sunday our church was packed. People were looking for answers. The government and the media said the terrorists “hated us for our freedom”. It didn’t quite make sense, but nobody offered a better explanation.

And so my friends and I cheered when the US invaded Afghanistan. We cheered when George Bush gave the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Watching the coverage of air raids on Baghdad was like watching fireworks on Independence Day, it was exciting!

Many years have passed, before I discovered the truth about the real reasons behind the attacks. They don’t hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because our government topples their governments, installs and supports puppet dictators, and wages or funds wars that kill millions (yes, MILLIONS) of their people.

The red pill is not easy to swallow. The truth is bitter, and unpopular. But learning (and speaking!) the truth, is the only meaningful way to honor the memory of those who died on 9/11 and in its aftermath.

 

Last week, the prosecutor finally mailed the Order of Dismissal to my attorney. While I am relieved that the criminal charges are no longer hanging over my head, it is frustrating to know that nothing has changed. The system is still broken. The Sheriff’s deputies and the staff at the Spokane County jail will continue to violate people’s constitutional rights, and use the term “constitutionalist” in a derogatory manner. You too can end up in jail, for exercising your constitutional rights.

For thirty-three years, I’ve lived as a law-abiding citizen, with no criminal record or history of violence. Then one night, I got arrested for refusing to obey an order to abandon my teenage niece on a dark deserted country highway with two aggressive, yelling, cursing Sheriff’s deputies. I was taken to jail, where I spent 12 long hours shivering in a cold holding cell, and subjected to harassment and intimidation — explicitly because I exercised my Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions, and asked to call my attorney (a right protected by the Sixth Amendment).

The message the state is sending is simply this: if you dare to exercise your constitutional rights, be prepared to pay a hefty price. It cost $1000 to bail me out. I had to appear in court, and spent $4000 in legal fees. They took my gun and held it for 21 days, and “lost” $100 worth of items from my backpack. The incident took an emotional toll on my family. Meanwhile, the Spokane County Sheriff spared no time out of his busy day, to drag my name through the mud, both publicly and in private conversations with my friends — calling me a liar, a hothead, and a bully. He was clearly more interested in covering for his deputies and saving face, than seeing that justice be done.

Several people reached out to me after I posted my original account on Facebook, and shared their stories of police abuse. Here’s one very similar to mine (unfortunately, this friend had a bad attorney and got convicted):

Hi Vitaliy, your whole situation on these bogus charges sounds like a nightmare. I have also been arrested for “obstruction of justice.” I went to a jury trial with my case and lost. My case was loosely similar to yours. A friend of mine was being given a field sobriety test, I was watching from a distance, and the police officer screamed at me to get in my vehicle. I told him I prefer to be outside…then bam, I am arrested for obstruction of justice. In my case it came down to the fact that the officer made a “lawful command” that I “disobeyed.”

People have asked me, why I refused to answer questions and requested an attorney. This is why:

The advice given in the video, is consistent with what several attorneys told me in person. It is a fact that innocent people do go to jail, and spend many decades there, or even end up on death row. In many of those cases, the “evidence” that put those people behind bars was nothing more than their own words. Remember, the founders wrote the Fifth Amendment into the Bill of Rights not to protect the guilty, but the innocent. So, don’t incriminate yourself. Don’t answer questions.

People have also suggested that I got arrested because I was “obstructing” the officers’ investigation by interfering with the deputies’ questioning of my niece (when they told me they were detaining the girl, I asked what they were charging her with). The trouble with this reasoning is that you can’t “obstruct” by merely speaking. Here is how the Washington Supreme Court put it, in their “STATE OF WASHINGTON v. E.J.J.” decision:

The obstruction statute provides, “A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.” RCW 9A.76.020(1). To save the obstruction statute from being unconstitutionally overbroad in a First Amendment setting, we have construed the statute narrowly. Our cases have consistently required conduct in order to establish obstruction of an officer. State v. Williams, 171Wn.2d474, 485, 251 P.3d 877 (2011). In other words, a conviction for obstruction may not be based solely on an individual’s speech because the speech itself is constitutionally protected. This review is also consistent with the approach established by the United States Supreme Court. See Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 578, 89 S. Ct. 1354, 22 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1969).

The Washington Supreme Court also said that “obstruction statutes may not be used to limit citizens’ right to express verbal criticism, even abusive criticism, at police officers” and reversed the conviction. One of my favorite quotes from this decision, is actually a quote from a US Supreme Court decision:

“[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

Unfortunately, our country is well on its way to becoming a police state. It shouldn’t cost $5000, an arrest, and a night in jail every time you stand up for your God-given, constitutionally-protected rights. You shouldn’t be arbitrarily deprived of your property, and the means of defending yourself and your family. Alas, it can and does happen.

If you believe that the Bill of Rights actually means something, make up your mind to resist tyranny — no matter the cost. Here are a few of the things you can do, to prepare yourself and effect meaningful change:

1. Watch the video.
2. Share this article. Much of the war for liberty happens on the battlefield of ideas. Knowledge is power.
3. Find a good criminal attorney. I didn’t think I would ever need one, either.
4. If you find yourself on a jury, educate your fellow jurors about constitutional rights.
5. Help elect a constitutional sheriff, and hold him accountable for protecting people’s rights.

Most importantly, remember to live as a free man: exercise your rights!

“Based on the facts of this case, the State declines to prosecute”

PDF

The story of my illegal arrest is getting more ridiculous, as more facts come to light.

Last week, I submitted a Public Disclosure Request, and just received a copy of the radio log of the call that eventually led to my arrest and imprisonment. It reads:

NEAR RR TRAX SOME TEENAGERS GETTING READY TO GRAFITTI THE BRIDGE

I literally laughed out loud. The Tribal Officer, traveling at 45 mph down a dark country road, was able to determine that the “3 MALES ON BIKES” he saw for a split second, were “GETTING READY TO GRAFITTI THE BRIDGE”.

The officer’s unique ability to predict future crime is astonishing, especially considering that one of the “teenage males” he saw was a 33-years old, 230-pound, bearded yours truly, and another was my petite, pony-tailed, 17-year old niece.

The Sheriff’s Deputies’ reports make it clear that they were disappointed when they didn’t find any spray paint in our backpacks, or fresh graffiti on the bridge. May I suggest that you should make sure that an actual crime was committed, before you pull people over?

Next time you hear the law enforcement officials complain about the “lack of resources”, show them this story, and ask why they waste taxpayer’s money on harassing and arresting innocent citizens.