In United States District Court For the District of Columbia

DON HAM RICK , U.S. MERCHANT SEAMAN )

5860 Wilburn Road )
Wilburn, AR 72179 )
PETITIONER )
v. )
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH )
White House )
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. )
Washington, DC 20500 ) CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
) 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988
ALBERTO GONZALES , ATTORNEY GENERAL )
U.S. Department of Justice )
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW )
Washington, DC 20530-0001 ) CIVIL ACTION: No. 03-2160 (RBW)
) JUDGE: ___________________
M ICHAEL CH ERTOFF , SECRETARY ) DECK TYPE: ___________________
Department of Homeland Security ) DATE STAMP: ___________________
Washington, DC 20528 )
)
ADM . THOM AS H. COLLINS )
Commandant (G-C) )
U.S. Coast Guard )
Washington, DC 20593-0001 )
)
CAPT . SALERNO , DIRECTOR , )
Field Activities, Marine Safety, Sec, & )
Environmental Protection )
Commandant (G-MO) )
U.S. Coast Guard )
Washington, DC 20593-0001 )
)
REP . FRANK LO BIONDO (R-NJ) )
House Subcommittee on Coast Guard )
and Maritime Transportation )
Washington, DC )
RESPONDENTS )

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

A GAINST THE U.S. D EPARTMENT OF T RANSPORTATION (D O T),
THE U.S. D EPARTMENT OF H OMELAND S ECURITY ,
THE U.S. C OAST G UARD , THE FAA, AND THE CSM I/WSS, L TD .
P ERMANENTLY P ROHIBITING THE E NFORCEMENT OF THE D O T’S
“ACTION: DO NOT ADMIT” (B AR N OTICE) A GAINST THE P LAINTIFF
D ON H AMRICK
A ND FOR A P ERMANENT INJUNCTION A GAINST A NY O THER F EDERAL
A GENCY WITH S IMILAR A CTIONS (IF A NY )
 On Thursday, August 10, 2006 I visited to U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters at 2100
2nd Street SW, in the District of Columbia as the unrepresented civil plaintiff and as a
documented U.S. merchant seaman unsuspecting that their was a U.S. Department of
Transportation Bar Notice (ACTION: DO NOT ADMIT DONALD HAMRICK File Number
#04008 issued by Michael Prendergast, Associate Director of Security Operations.

As a result my luggage was searched and a pair of scissors were confiscated without a
giving me a receipt on the basis that the scissors were a weapon. This constitutes theft of private
property under color of law. There was no reason to confiscate the scissors because the Plaintiff’s
entrance into the Coast Guard Headquarters was prohibited by the DoT. In addition to the
confiscation of the scissors, a crowd of lookyloos gathered around to watch the spectacle. This
constitutes public humiliation and defamation.

That Bar Notice is attached herein. The notice does not detail any offense that would
cause such a notice to be issue. The only clue is the photo that is included in the Bar Notice. This
photo is shows the plaintiff Don Hamrick sitting in front of a computer. That photo is of poor
reproduction quality from a copy machine such that the face cannot be seen. There is no clue as
to when or where that photograph was taken. The Plaintiff had himself photographed at an
Internet Café in Klapeida, Lithuania in 2002 after the Capt. J. P. Brusseau of the U.S. Coast Guard
in Washington, DC had the Plaintiff taken off the U.S. Government vessel anchored off the coast
of Lithuania in an ignorant and misguided act of retaliation over the Plaintiff’s emailing of a
publishable article and what innocent murder victims see the split moment they are killed by a
criminal with a gun. The article was intended to be a Second Amendment article in support of
the Plaintiff’s application for “National Open Carry Handgun” endorsement on his Merchant
Mariner’s Document.

The Capt. Brusseau dispatched two civilian special agents of the European Branch of the
U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service to conduct a criminal interview with the Plaintiff. The
duration of the interview was 2 hours and was held the Plaintiff’s hotel room in Klapeida,
Lithuania. The NCIS special agents were satisfied that the Plaintiff intended no harm toward
Capt. Brusseau or anyone in the U.S. Coast Guard so the Plaintiff was led to believe.

Now comes this DoT Bar Notice that is now 2 years old. The Plaintiff was never informed
of this action against him. He was given no opportunity to respond to any allegations causing the
issuance of the Bar Notice.

2
 Retaliating Against the Plaintiff for
Exercising His First Amendment Right to Petition
This Bar Notice violates the Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to petition the government
for redress of grievances. It violates my right to travel. It violates my duty to visit the Coast Guard
on merchant marine business. It is retaliatory in nature for criticisms against the U.S. Coast
Guard and the U.S. Government over the Second Amendment.

The Plaintiff was instructed that he would be arrested if he again attempt to enter the U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, the DoT, the FAA facilities in the District of Columbia without
approval from OST Security Operations. That alone in conjunction with the photograph in the
Bar Notice establishes a tortuous retaliatory action relating to his lawsuit for defamation and
damages against the U.S. Coast Guard in 2002.

42 U.S.C. § 1981. Equal rights under the law.

(a) Statement of equal rights.
(b) ''Make and enforce contracts'' defined.
(c) Protection against impairment.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

42 U.S.C. § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror.
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges.
42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent.

42 U.S.C. § 1987. Prosecution of violation of certain laws.

42 U.S.C. § 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights.

The Plaintiff had a First Amendment right to petition incursion with the U.S. Marshals
Service and was told not to enter the District of Columbia. Presuming there may be a connection
with the DoT’s retaliatory Bar Notice the Plaintiff requests the Permanent Injunction to include
any and all federal agencies prohibiting any enforcement orders prohibiting the Plaintiff from
free and unfettered access to federal buildings and agencies.

This incident will be included as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to harass the Plainiff
over his Second Amendment case. I will soon be filing my amended Civil RICO Act Complaint
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division. The amended
complaint is now more than 2,000 pages.

3
The Original Photo! The Plaintiff’s location here was at an Internet café in Klapeida, Lithuania
wrongfully detained for 12 days because Capt. Brusseau had the Plaintiff above taken from his
employed ship for questioning aboard the attached Second Amendment article. The very next
day after being taken from the ship the Plaintiff’s ship departed for a 10-day U.S. naval exercise.
The Plaintiff nearly lost his employment over this incident but he persuaded his employment
company (managing the U.S. Government pre-position ship) to allow him to return to the ship
because the incident occurred due to no fault or wrongdoing by the Plaintiff. The Capt.
Brusseau’s vivid imagination perceived a threat where none existed. Common sense and
reasoning are the the casualties of war against terrorism. An innocent Second Amendment
article is snowballing into an national U.S. Government retaliation against the Plaintiff for
simply criticizing Capt. Brusseau specifically and the U.S. Government generally. The the rate
of escalation of this snowball effect the Plaintiff fears that he may be facing arrest on some
trumped up charges sometime in the future. Is Plaintiff’s Second Amendment case for National
Open Carry Handgun somehow the real source of the U.S. Government’s retaliation? The
Plaintiff seeks a cease and desist order from the Court prohibiting the U.S. Government from
harassing the Plaintiff when there is no probable cause for any stop & search or any arrest
resulting therefrom.
The only way the Department of Transportation could have gotten this photo was from the
Internet. The

4
 The Plaintiff hereby motions for the Permanent Injunction and for such other relief the
Court my deem necessary.

Respectfully submitted.

Don Hamrick
5860 Wilburn Road
Wilburn, Arkansas 72179
Email: ki5ss@yahoo.com
Email: 4donhamrick@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On August 10, 2006, I, Don Hamrick, hereby certify that I delivered a copy of the above
by Federal Express Ground to:

M Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General

Room 5614;
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW; Washington, DC 20530-0001

M Michael Chertoff, Secretary

Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC

M Executive Secretary
Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection
Commandant (G-LRA)
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second St.
Washington, DC 20593

M Michael Prendergast
Associate Director of Security Operations
Department of Transportation

Don Hamrick, Petitioner, Pro Se

5860 Wilburn Road
Wilburn, Arkansas 72179
(501) 728-4235
4donhamrick@gmail.com

5
 Commandant 2100 SecondStreet,S.W.
United States Coast Guard Washinqton,DC 20593-0001

il;H#IW
Staff Sv?rbol:G-MO
Phonei (202) 267-2201
Fax: (202) 267-4839

t6450

DOCUMENT #9
Mr. Don Hamrick
s86owilburnRoad IAY 2 I ilm
Wilburn, AR 72179

Dear Mr. Hamrick:

Thank you for your e-mails rlatedMay 4thand 6th,2002.in responseto my letter of Apr:il 19,
2002,denying yo.rt appealof a decisionby the CommandingOfficer, National Maritime Center,
.Nationaf Open Carry Handgun" endorsementson Merchant Mariner Documents.
concerning
title 46
My letter to you of April 1g,2002, constitutesfinal agencyaction under subpart 1.03 of
- to take action has
Code of FederalRegulations(CFR). See46 CFR 1.03 l5 (t). The authority
been delegatedby the Secretaryof Transportationto the Commandantof the Coast Guard
pursuantto a9 cFn l.as@)(2) and subsequentlydelegatedby the Commandantto this office and
- (g) and
the Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center,pursuantto 46 CFR 1.03 15
(hX3). Becausethe Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center, took initial action on your
have
iequest, the appealwas handledby this office. As a consequenceof the foregoing, You
Department of Transportation and
exhaustedall administrative ,"*.di"s available to you by the
the Coast Guard.

you have asked whether final agency action bars your right to presentyour casebefore an
and the
administrativelaw judge. pleasebe advisedthat the subjectmatter of your initial inquiry
at subpart 1.03 of
appealare not heardby administrativelaw judges. Rights of appealappear
and
title 46,CFR. Only hearingsinvolving the suspensionand ievocation of mariners' licenses-
judges. 46 CFR 1.03 15(a)'
merchantmariners' documentsare heardby administrativelaw $

your e-mail of May 4,Z11l,requests adviCeconcerningpoints of law you should focus on to

persrlarlethe Coast Guard tc apprcveyour request. You also requestadv;ce concefiling the
your
points of law the Coast Guard relied upon in denying your initial requestand in denying
appeal. Moreover, you seekadvice from the Coast Guard concerningyour next legal steps.

please be advised that our final agency action of April 19, 2002, has put an end to further
not consider
administrativeconsiderationof ttre issuesyou have raised. Accordingly, we will
further argumentsraised in connection with your appeal. The points of law relied upon for the
with
determinationmade by the CommandingOfficer, National Maritime Center,in connection
your initial requestare containedin his letter to you datedFebruary22,2002. Essentially,his
point was that endorsementson merchant mariner documentsauth onzing the carriage of
and is
irandgunsis beyond the scopeof professionalrequirementsfor crews on merchantvessels
by this office on the
not auth onzed. The points bf law relied upon for the determinationmade
for the
appealare containedln the letter datedApril lg, 2002. Finally, it would be inappropriate
we recommend' if you
Coast Guard to provide you with advice of a legal nature. Accordingly,
provide
have questionsof a legal naturerelating to this matter,that you hire an attorneywho can
you with appropriateadvice.
 16450

Subj: RESPONSETO MR. HAMRICK'S E-MAILS OF MAY 4rH AND 6t", 2002
REGARDING ''NATIONAL OPEN CARY HANDGTAI'' ENDORSEMENTS ON
MERCHANT MARINER DOCUMENTS

Your e-mail of May 6,2002, requestsa copy of the "text of . . .[my] denial of . . . [your] request
for the 'National Open Carry Handgun' endorsementon . . . fyour] MMD, and the text of any
internal directives to field offices advising them not to issue such endorsements. . . ." Pleasebe
advised that the "text" of the denial of the appealwas contained in my letter to you dated April
19, 2002. Similarly, the only directive issuedwas containedin that sameletter, wherein I
advisedthe Commanding Officer of the National Maritime Center,as an information addressee,
"not to place any endorsementsregarding firearms on any merchantmariners' licensesor
documents."

Your e-mail of May 4,2002, requeststhat we return to you all documentssubmitted with your
initial application and with the appeal. Pleasebe advisedthat we are maintaining a file on this
administrativeproceedingand the documentssubmittedby you are part of the record of those
proceedings. Accordingly, we will not be returning the documentsto you.

Sincerelv.

Captain,U.S. CoastGuard
Director of Field Activities
Marine Safety, Security and EnvironmentalProtection

This Article Does Not
Convey A Threat of
Any Kind. It Merely
Seeks to Question and
Inform.
The purpose of photo is meant to
convey the fear that citizens live
with everyday of their lives. . . the
fear of being shot to death because
they don't have a gun to defend
and save their lives.
This paragraph explains the
content & purpose of the
remaining pages as a simple
collection of news stories
focusing on a particlular subject
of constitutional rights.
"being added to the growing
caldron of bubbling national
resentment" is a metaphor used as
a descriptive for public reaction to
my story's then planned posting on
the Internet, which was eventually
posted on the Internet. At no time
was there ever any threat implied or
otherwise made against Capt.
Brusseau or others. Any threat
Capt. Brusseau perceived extended
from his over-active imagination.
Addendum to Request for Reconsideration
May 25, 2002, Don Hamrick
In the News!
Who Do You Want Holding This Gun?
The Criminal/Terrorist in Offensive Use?
Or
The Innocent Law-Abiding Citizen (Merchant Seaman while ashore) in Defensive Use? The "In the News title with its three
questions, and the three disclaimer
paragraphes serve to inform the reader
that their is no personal threat intended
for the reader. The author is taking a
dramatic literary approach to the topic of
personal security by questioning the
reader's preference on which side of the
featured gun would the reader rather be
on.
Ref A: National Center for Policy Analysis, Myths About Gun Control, Policy Report No. 176, The author attemp[ts to convey that the
December, 1992. by Morgan O. Reynolds and W. W. Caruth III. era of irresponsibly depending on the
In this Addendum, I present reported news items reflecting the current trend of federal and
mercy of the criminal not to kill their
state governments to deny us, We, the People, our Constitutional rights, not limiting themselves victims is over. By its very nature a free
to stripping us our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms but every right we possess and open society is anti-social governed
under the U.S. Constitution and even under the Constitutions of the individual States. Denver
Colorado is the worst transgressor in this endeavor as a Denver court judge has effectively by law and social norms.
banned the Colorado Constitution and the U.S. Constitution from Denver court proceedings
where the Second Amendment is on trial. Lunacy? Absolutely. Is the Coast Guard exhibiting this
same lunacy? Maybe.
The author suggests that the National
Open Carry Handgun is the
I tender wise and fair warning to the U.S. Coast Guard to treat my application with great fear constitutional norm of the Second
and trepidation if they have the slightest inclination towards denying me my Second Amendment
Amendment and should be reinstated as
right to keep and bear arms as requested with the National Open Carry Handgun endorsement.
Any threat of possible consequences to a Coast Guard denial WILL NOT COME FROM ME, but a social norm in order to achieve a more
the risk of such consequences will be in the Coast Guard's denial being added to the growing
civil society.
caldron of bubbling national resentment against the government's continuing infringements
upon our Constitutional rights. Are We, the People justified in possessing anti-government
sentiments?
Writing about
The photograph above represents the essence of our Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Thirteenth
Amendment rights to "brandish" and aim a gun at anyone threatening their Constitutional rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also represents our right to aid in the common
defense of other citizens, our county, our state and our nation. I am asking for the Coast Guard
to acknowledge my right of armed personal security with the National Open Carry Handgun
endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document, lest I consider the way of the Writ of
fear & guns does
Mandamus.
not imply a threat!
 Addendum to Request for Reconsideration
May 25, 2002, Don Hamrick

In the News!
Who Do You Want Holding This Gun?
The Criminal/Terrorist in Offensive Use?
Or
The Innocent Law-Abiding Citizen (Merchant Seaman while ashore) in Defensive Use?

DOCUMENT #10

Ref A: National Center for Policy Analysis, Myths About Gun Control, Policy Report No. 176,
December, 1992. by Morgan O. Reynolds and W. W. Caruth III.1
In this Addendum, I present reported news items reflecting the current trend of federal and
state governments to deny us, We, the People, our Constitutional rights, not limiting themselves to
stripping us our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms but every right we possess under
the U.S. Constitution and even under the Constitutions of the individual States. Denver Colorado is
the worst transgressor in this endeavor as a Denver court judge has effectively banned the Colorado
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution from Denver court proceedings where the Second
Amendment is on trial. Lunacy? Absolutely. Is the Coast Guard exhibiting this same lunacy? Maybe.
I tender wise and fair warning to the U.S. Coast Guard to treat my application
with great fear and trepidation if they have the slightest inclination towards denying me
my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as requested with the National
Open Carry Handgun endorsement. Any threat of possible consequences to a Coast
Guard denial WILL NOT COME FROM ME, but the risk of such consequences will be in
the Coast Guard’s denial being added to the growing caldron of bubbling national
resentment against the government’s continuing infringements upon our Constitutional
rights. Are We, the People justified in possessing anti-government sentiments?
The photograph above represents the essence of our Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Thirteenth
Amendment rights to “brandish” and aim a gun at anyone threatening their Constitutional rights to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also represents our right to aid in the common defense of
other citizens, our county, our state and our nation. I am asking for the Coast Guard to acknowledge
my right of armed personal security with the National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my
Merchant Mariner’s Document, lest I consider the way of the Writ of Mandamus.

1
www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/index.html

1
 Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-
control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four
years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since
Australia’s 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed
robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%, manslaugrhter rose by 16%. Gun-control advocates conveniently ignore
that the countries with the highest homicide rates have gun bans.2
“In the wake of Erfurt [Germany] massacre, it was perhaps inevitable that many Germans
should call for tighter gun controls. In fact, the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament, only
recently approved stricter gun legislation. This didn’t prevent the bloodshed and nor is it likely that
any further such tightening of the law would prevent future outrages.3
Whenever such mass shootings occur in the United States, critics blame America’s “love
affair with the gun”. So what do they say after what has happened in a country with no post-war
history of such shootings?”4

COLORADO
Following is the text of the speech given by Robert Teesdale at the State Capital in Denver,
Colorado on April 21st, 2002.5
“We’re here today because all of us share a common outrage. That
outrage is directed, along with our disgust and contempt, towards
those who gtrossly abuse official power – and thereby spit and tread
upon the most sacred right of our society, which is to speak out
accounding to your conscience.
All of us here today are criminal extremists, according to the Denver
Police Department. You’re not allowed to possess a conscience in
Denver. If you do, it’s serious enough to prompt them to put your
name in a file, in a police basement somewhere.
If you speak out according to that conscience of yours, you’ve upset
the file-keepers even more. Now you’re the target of their resentment,
the disturber of their comfortable control and the rocker of their
political boat.
Your file’s going to be just a bit thicker. Perhaps your wife’s
photograph is going to be in there, too…or the kind of car you drive,
and whom you spend your time with.
You’re in good company. Over three thousand of your fellow citizens
have made the same permanent mistake in thinking that the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean exactly what they say.

2
Lott, John R., Jr., Firearms restrictions make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable, USAToday, Editorial
Section. John R. Lott Jr. providing the Opposing view to USAToday’s debate: Limits on firearms. May 10,
2002; Page 9A.
3
The Daily Telegraph (Scottish Edition), Gun laws are no answer, Editorial Section, Comment, Page 19,
Monday, April 29, 2002. www.dailytelegraph.com
4
Id.
5
Teesdale, Robert, Invade the State, Longmont, Colorado. www.teesdale.com/rt040422w_02.html.

2
Now, perhaps you’re a leader. Perhaps your conscience speaks so
loudly to you, that you must follow its dictates. You’re willing to stand
up in front of people of the city, and say that the emperor has no
clothes. That the emperor isn’t just naked, but he’s also an idiot and a
tyrant. That his court is corrupt, and nothing more than a gang of
thieves with uniforms and guns, who prey upon everyone else.
Perhaps other people listen to you. And sometimes, they are drawn
to hear this conscience of yours, in the mountain air of Denver.
If so, you’re incredibly dangerous now. Because you’ve
demonstrated to these tyrants that you possess the single talent which
holds the power to overthrow their entire cynical and manipulative
house of cards:
You can inspire other human beings to heed their conscience…and
to take that final, daring and tremendous step – putting their hearts
and voices in action together, in the street.
That is what overthrows governments. It’s why the dictator of Serbia
sits in a cell, on trial for war crimes. He lost an election, and so he
invalidated it in a brazen act of tyranny. Hundreds of thousands of
Yugoslavians showed up on the streets of their capital, and within
days they had a new national government.
So many consciences spoke that day, that the police and the army
threw their support to the masses, in order to save their own
miserable skins.
This is why, if you’re a leader, the file-keepers do a bit more than
excite themselves with their rampant voyeurism. It’s why they follow
you through the city, and record the homes of your friends. It’s why
they call you a “criminal extremist” and ensure that their vicious
slander is passed around under the table of the State.
It’s why they are filled with a terrible dread when a leader arises in
the land, one who has the ability to awaken and call the people
together.
Because that person is a threat.
Because that person has power equal to their own.
Because that person represents what they fear:
The voice of those they rule.
I am fiercely – and grimly – proud to have my name and body under
the surveillance of Denver Police Intelligence units.
I am proud that they are afraid.
By demonstrating their fear of me, they acknowledge my power. By
expending resources upon me, they acknowledge my capability. By
monitoring my movements, they acknowledge my importance.
And by labeling me criminal for simply exercising the rights that the
founders of our nation, considered a sacred gift from God… they
show themselves in opposition to the sacred imperative of human

3
freedom, and prove to me that my opposition to their tyranny is not
only right…it is not only necessary…
…it is also my sacred duty, as Jefferson said, to swear my hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of Man.
They fear me because I am the needle through the cloth of their own
power, pulling the fabric of the people after me. That is my intention,
they wonder?
They puzzle over my goals, and seek assurances that I am, ultimately,
controllable and containable.
Thus they watch me.
They expend money track me – your money, the People’s money,
my money - for what wealth, after all, has the State ever created? No,
they pay their uniformed gangsters to spy upon us all, from wealth
they have stolen from us to begin with!
How amusing these tyrants of ours must find it, for the People to
finance their own state of humiliation and oppression. For the sweat
of our brow, to fuel the infernal engine which grinds us.
A cycle that the cruelest Fascist, the most hardened Communist, and
the most cynical political operative would heartily applaud.
By monitoring my movements, they hope to contain me; and learn of
others who might share this same power to lead the conscience of
our people. And in learning, to identify other challenges to their
intended control over our minds, our hearts, and our will.
Some of us have found ways to defy this ridiculous and illegitimate
nonsense perpetrated by the Denver Police Department.
Many of you are wearing masks today. Not the mask of the bandit…
but the mask of the revolutionary, of the one who knows our city will
use its power to intimidate and destroy those who speak out against
injustice.
These young people must wear masks in order to feel safe when
exercising their rights – our society has lost its way and begun to feed
upon its young.
Some of you aren’t masked. You’re older, and you’re too tired of
tyranny to try to hide your face any longer. Maybe some of these
masked citizens are your own children. What parent would not offer
themselves as a target, place of their own flesh and blood, when the
brutal knock at midnight arrives at the door?
When parents must risk their freedom against the tyranny and
intimidation of the State, in order to preserve the future of their
children’s freedom – our nation is failing both generations.
I stand before you, in defense of my rights, the rights of all of you,
and the future of my beloved son. And when doing so, brings me to
the dark, malevolent attention of the State – our free society is

4
infested with a sickening rot, and covered with the gore of disinterest
and dishonor of everyone who chose not to stand with us today.
Our heritage is cheapened by those who have bought into the idea
that displeasing the State, will call down official oppression fearful
enough to warrant abandoning your conscience and your rights.
In their secret heart they believe it is safer to be weak instead of
proudly free. Be sensible, they convince themselves… you’ll
accomplish nothing with any public protest. You’ll just get a police
feile that will inhibit your future success, maybe hurt your career.
I call that rank cowardice and I have nothing but contempt for it –
and for those who hold that attitude.
There are also those people who are missing today because the have
bought into the idea that rocking the boat is somehow ill-mannered.
That standing in public and speaking the truth makes you strange.
That holding political views and expressing them makes you,
somehow, unsavory.
I call that ridiculous social pretension. If a human being favors the
pretended social station of his class, over the rights of his fellow
citizens – then he is a disingenuous fool.
There are also those people who are hiding today because they
disagree with some of us on narrow, trivial issues. Who consider their
own petty, small-minded ideological tribalism to be more important
to them than the real life facts of tyranny and freedom.
Who say, this group; or that group; we don’t agree with them, so
we’re not coming.
I call them hypocritical idiots by which the tyrant profits and prospers.
For their silence in the face of injustice, feeds the success of those
who take advantage of it.
I call them traitors to the principles of our Republic, and shirkers of
the sacred duty they have to their fellow citizens. I call them what
they are… for they show that feeling ideologically pure, is more
important to them than being free. That is the fertile seed of
arrogance that all tyranny, ultimately, springs from.
For as Thomas Paine said, at the very dawn of our nation’s birth:
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent which will reach to himself.”
And there are those who are here today, but not to stand with us.
They are here for another reason, not to demand justice. They are
here with another mission, not to exercise their God-given rights.
They are here to watch us.
They are here to memorize faces and make false friendships.
They are here to gather what they call “intelligence” on those they
consider “criminal extremists”.

5
They are here to put rifle sights on our backs, and to take
photographs of our children. They are here to whisper amongst
themselves, to build secret collections of information that might,
someday, be useful to a tyrant who seeks yet more security in his
position of power. They are here to preserve their own. Illegitimate
stranglehold upon the conscience of the People, to search for any
microscopic bit of information that might be useful in beating down
those who dare to stand up and say, This is wrong.
They are here, if we are fully honest with one another, to save their
own miserable skins.
They seek to terrify those who dare to demand injustice be stopped,
and that the free exercise of our rights be respected.
Who dare to lead, to work for a better nation, a better future, a better
existence as Men amongst ourselves.
Who care not for the intimidation of tyrants, if those tyrants oppose
the greater freedom of the citizens of the Republic.
But most importantly, they seek to attack those who are not afraid of
them.
Those who are not cowards.
Those who are not hypocrites.
Those who are not fools, or traitors to the fundamental dream of
freedom which established the foundation of America.
Those who recognize that the injustice against the few, is an injustice
against all.
Those who dare.
I dare!
I have the courage to say what is right, and to say it aloud.
I have the strength to bring others to this understanding of rights, and
to teach it with love and passion.
I have the determination to lead my fellow citizens to action in
defense of these principles, and to stand forward and welcome the
brunt of the tyrant’s anger.
I accept the file, the crosshairs, the tyranny. I welcome the displeasure
of the ruler, I dare to challenge the power of the State when it treads
upon my fellow men!
For by such boldness is victory won, and by such resolve are nations
founded, and history changed.
For thus are tyrants overthrown; rights seized; and freedom preserved
for the next generation.
The blood in my body is nothing compared to the future of our
people. The threats of the tyrant are nothing compared to the legacy
of freedom and justice I will leave to my child.

6
 I say to the State, that you will not tread upon me. You will not tread
upon my people. And you will pay the price for having done so.
I demand that these files be opened!
I demand that these files be read!
I demand that those responsible, be brought to justice before the
courts of our People.!
I demand their names. I demand the names of their masters.
And most of all, I demand justice in the name of all of us.
You have trodden upon us.
Now, my tyrants – you feel us bite.
For the choice we have is simple.
Do we accept our assigned role as peasants under the foot of the
sovereign lord?
Or do we shoulder the responsibility we bear as free men and
women, to dictate to the State how we will consent to be ruled?
Make no mistake.
The machine of the State will not accommodate us. It will give little
weight to our presence here, and it will ignore our demands so long
as we have not power to destroy it.
My goal is therefore clear, and my path is laid before me.
If the State will not answer the demands of the People, then the
People must force the State to heel.
Our rights are not idle pleasures of the privileged. They are the
exercised prerogatives of the true rulers of the land – you, and I, and
all of us who bear the title Citizen.
A state which disputes this title, has lost the moral legitimacy it
requires to govern with just powers.
If the State will not adhere to the demands of the People…then I say
I will enter the State. I will seize power. And I will smash down
through the layers of whispering tyrants that have infected our
government with their presence.
Mark my words, tyrants.
You will be brought to heel.
I will make you.
Thank you.
On December 15, 2001 Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate, Rick Stanley, CEO
and owner of Stanley Fasteners and Shop Supply in Denver, in an intentional act of civil
disobedience during a rally celebrating the 210th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights, was arrested for
openly carrying a firearm in violation of Denver’s Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b).

7
 On May 15, 2002. Rick Stanley appears in court with defense attorney Paul Grant with
Judge Patterson presiding. During this first day at trial:6
Judge Patterson denied defense attorney’s move for a twelve-man jury but authorizing six
jurors, citing a Colorado Statute.
Judge Patterson ordered everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of
the room, violating defendants Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial. A compromised
was reached.
Jury selection process: out of a pool of 12 prospective jurors – 5 were employed by the
Plaintiff, The City and County of Denver. One prospective female jury member was a Denver Police
Officer. Defense objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues. Judge
Patterson did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time.
Defense questioned the female police officer juror a hypothetical question: “If the judge were
to instruct you that the Second Amendment5 of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section
13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that
instruction?”
Pandemonion erupted halfway through Defense’s question with the City Prosecutor
objecting at the top of his lungs to the form of the question, as the Judge pounded his gavel for
attention.
Judge Patterson dismissed the jurors for lunch. After they left the courtroom Judge Patterson
began to lecture the Defense.
“I already sent you an order in this case. The order has been mailed to your offices. You are
not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand?”
Defense replied that he did not.
Judge Patterson said, “Then I’ll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in
these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening
remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses,
and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you
understand my instructions?”, questioned Judge Patterson.
Defense again replied he did not understand, and the judge proceeded to repeat his
previous orders. He also stated that Defense had already violated these orders during the voir dire
process when questioning the police officer.
Defense objected to the judge’s statement and replied, “Your honor I did not ask a question
about the Constitution. I asked a question about jury instructions.”
The judge then asserted, “You did no such thing.”
Defense countered, “Yes, I did.” He peered at his notes and said, “Here’s the question I
asked her. If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment5 of the United States
Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case,
would you be able to follow that instruction?”
In the presence of numerous observers, and despite an audio recording and at least one
court reporter the judge then asserted, “That’s not the question you asked.”

6
The word “Defense” inserted in place of defense attorney’s name. Paraphrased in parts.
www.stanley2002.org/release5_15_02b.htm
www.stanley2002.org/release5_16_02b.htm

8
 At that point it was clear Judge Patterson was visibly upset. He began advising counsel that
he was on dangerous grounds and threatened him with court sanctions. Patterson then recessed the
proceedings for a lunch break.
As Judge Patterson left the courtroom one Stanley supporter, Mr. Joe Johnson stood and
addressed those left in the courtroom, “Hear Ye, Hear Ye, The Constitution of the United
States of America has just been repealed by a Denver County Court Judge.” Two
reporters from the Denver daily papers scribbled furiously and then bolted for the doors.
Throughout the afternoon’s proceedings lawyers, judges, and others who apparently worked
within the judicial system were seen coming in and out of the courtroom for short periods of time.
On May 16, 2002 Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate, Rick Stanley was found guilty
of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b).
. . . Defense argued, the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Colorado, Article II,
Section 13, both protect Rick’s right to keep and bear arms. On this latter point Defense argued
forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which is controlling in this case.
In response to Grant’s argument about People vs. Ford, Judge Patterson replied that
precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court, and indeed the constitution of Colorado, are not
applicable within the city and county of Denver, because it is a home rule city. Patterson then
proceeded to reject all of Defense’s motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the bailiff
went to get the jury.
The jury retired to deliberate about 9:20 AM. At this point, David Bryant, who is the current
Public Information Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, approached the city attorney to
clarify his understanding of Judge Patterson’s remarks when he ignored Defense’s argument based
on a state Supreme Court ruling.
“As I understand it,” stated Bryant, “Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver,
the Bill of Rights, and the constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect any of my rights from
the government of Denver. Is that your understanding also?” Bryant asked. “Is the city government
free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the
constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?” Bryant questioned further.
“Yes,” said the city’s attorney. “The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver,
because this is a home rule city.” . . . He stated that as things stood right now, the Constitution
has no force or effect in this city, and it’s been that way since 1906.
COLORADO again7
Zero tolerance takes toll on pupils: CENTENNIAL, Colo. – When Nepata Godec
received a call from Dry Creek Elementary School last month telling her that her son and his friends
were being sent home from school, she prepared herself for the worst.
“I thought somebody was in the hospital or something.” Said Mrs. Godec.
But she was even more shocked when she discovered the real reason. It turned out 10-year-
old Aaron Godec and six other fourth-grade boys were being suspended for the rest of the day for
pointing their fingers like guns during a game of army-and-aliens on the playground.
“So I thought, ‘Yes? Then what? Did somebody fall or poke somebody in the eye?’” she
said. “But that was it, and we needed to come to school to pick up our son. I couldn’t believe it.”

7
Richardson, Valerie, Zero tolerance takes too on pupils, The Washington Times, May 13, 2002.
www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020513-9519286.htm.

9
 That wasn’t all. As the stunned parents later discovered, the principal, Darci Mickle, also
quizzed the boys on whether their families owned guns.
For 10-year-old Connor Andrew, whose father formerly worked as a licensed hunting guide,
the question placed him in an impossible position. He had been warned not to discuss his father’s
firearms in front of other children lest they become curious and ask to see them.
Torn between obeying his parents and obeying the principal, he chose his parents. “I asked
Connor about it, and he started to cry, and he told me he lied to Mrs. Mickle and answered ‘no,’”
said his father, Charles Andrew.
“he was afraid he would get in more trouble, and that [the family] would get in trouble,” Mr.
Andrew said.
Because Dry Creek is located 20 miles from Columbine High School in the south Denver
suburbs, it would be easy to dismiss what happened March 25 as an isolated incident, an extreme
but understandable reaction from a community with reason to be paranoid. Easy, but wrong,
because Colorado isn’t alone.
That day, the Dry Creek seven joined a growing fraternity of students across the nation who
have learned the hard way about “zero tolerance.” A popular stance for schools grappling with the
specter of school shootings, drugs and alcohol abuse, the strict no-second-chances policy has
resulted in maximum punishment, including detention, suspension, expulsion and even arrest, for
what was once viewed as normal horseplay.
School officials defend zero tolerance as an unfortunate but necessary reaction to increased
demands for school safety. The decade-old policy generally goes hand in hand with anti-bullying
programs that have become widespread across the country since the April 20, 1999, shooting at
Columbine, which left 15 persons dead.
At the Cherry Creek School District here, school officials insist the Dry Creek incident was
handled properly. They maintain that the punishment was not a “suspension,” although some of the
parents say that is what the principal first told them.
“School safety is the Cherry Creek School District’s first concern and the primary concern of
parents who entrust their children to our care every day, said district spokeswoman Tustin Amole.
“Our handling of this incident is well with the boundaries of district policy and common sense.”
Who’s bullying whom?
But critics argue that the harsh policies have had the unintended consequence of
traumatizing children for what is still widely viewed as acceptable behavior. They also ask whether
zero tolerance actually makes schools any safer.
“This is just more bullying, but it’s worse because it’s bullying by the school administration,”
said Dave Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank in Golden
Colo. “It’s absurd, and it’s an example of the reactions to Columbine, where something terrible
happened and you want to do something. Unfortunately, in this case, you’re doing something by
hurting innocent people.”
The issue has become one of the few on which libertarians and liberals find themselves in
agreement. In a June 2000 report, the Harvard Civil Rights Project criticized zero-tolerance policies
as “needlessly harsh” at best and barriers to minority education at worst.
“Obviously teachers and administrators need to retain the authority to remove students who
endanger safety of themselves and others,” said the report. “However, needlessly harsh measures
are being taken against students who pose no threat whatsoever to the school or to others --- all

10
under the guise of Zero Tolerance. A ‘one size fits all’ approach is inappropriate and is causing great
harm to many students who deserve more compassion and a ‘second chance’.”
The American Bar Association has also weighed in against zero tolerance, recommending in
a February 2001 report that school districts adopt more flexible disciplinary policies.
“Unfortunately, most current policies eliminate the common sense that comes with discretion
and --- at great cost to society and to children and families --- do little to improve school safety,” said
Ralph C. Martin II, chairman of the ABA Criminal Justice Committee.
Even gun-control advocates aren’t sold on the policy. John Head, founder of
SAFE/Colorado, said the Dry Creek finger episode sounded harmless enough to him.
“It sounds to me like innocent child’s play,” Mr. Head said. “I’m not sympathetic to
disciplining for that kind of play. What I have a problem with is when children have guns and point
them at each other.”
Other examples of what critics sea as zero tolerance run amok include:
• March 15, 2000: Four kindergarten students playing cop-and-robbers in Sayreville, N.J., are
given three-day suspensions.
• Feb. 2, 2001: An 8-year-old boy in Jonesboro, Ark., is suspended for three days after point a
chicken finger at a teacher and saying “Pow, pow, pow.” Jonesboro was the site of a 1998
school shooting that left two dead.
• March 23, 2001: Two second-graders playing cops-and-robbers in New Jersey are charged
with making terrorist threats.
The incidents have become so widespread that they are now chronicled on several Web sites
– including overlawyered.com, ztnightmares.com, and thisistrue.com. But zero-tolerance proponents
argue that such episodes are anomalous and misleading.
Ken Lane, Colorado deputy attorney general, says the occasional overreaction to student
mischief is outweighed by the benefits of keeping schools safer.
“You hear these horror stories from time to time, but you have to remember that zero-
tolerance policies didn’t develop out of thin air,” Mr. Lane said. “The schools are dealing with sojme
serious situations here.”
Because school districts are required to protect the privacy of their students, he said, they
cannot always reveal everything they know about each disciplinary action.
“Sometimes what’s reported isn’t the whole story,” Mr. Lane said. “You have to respect the
school districts and allow them to respond based on what they know of the situation.”
‘That would mean tolerance’
According to parents, the seven boys at Dry Creek were playing a game in which some were
soldiers and some were aliens. They pointed fingers at each other to simulate guns but stayed in a
remote part of the playground away from other children.
When a playground monitor found what they were doing, she called them to the patio, then
marched them to the principal’s office. The boys said they didn’t realize that they had done anything
wrong until the principal told them.
Mrs. Mickle said she asked the boys if they understood that what they did was against the
rules, and she said they admitted that they did. She pointed to the district’s conduct code, which
parents and students must read and sign at the beginning of the school year.

11
 The Student Policy and Discipline Handbook defines “violent and aggressive behavior” as
“threats directed, either orally (including by telephone), by non-verbal gesture, or in writing, at an
individual, his or her family or a group.” Under “intimidation/bullying,” the code includes “any
written or verbal expression, physical act or gesture, or a pattern thereof, that is intended to cause
distress upon one or more students.”
Even without the school policy, zero tolerance is the law in Colorado, considered at the
forefront of the movement. Colorado law mandates expulsion for students who “carry, bring, use or
possess a firearm or firearm facsimile at school.”
Nowhere does the law mention fingers, but Mrs. Mickle said the conduct code gives
administrators the latitude to deal with problems as they arise. “It’s definitely not spelled out in the
district discipline policy because we can’t predict what every student is going to do,” she said.
“That’s what we’re here for: to interpret those details.”
In other words, one principal’s harmless gesture can be another principal’s violent act. To
clear up any confusion, the fourth-grade teachers went back a few weeks later and told their students
in no uncertain terms that finger guns were forbidden.
By that time, word of the incident had already spread throughout the school. “The teacher
was telling the kids a bout the policy, and Aaron said that everyone in the classroom was looking at
him,” Mrs. Godec said.
Given that the finger-gun ban was never explicitly stated in the rules, what parents really
want to know is: Why not first give the boys a warning? Parents say none of the seven boys was a
chronic troublemaker, and most had never seen the business end of the principal’s office before.
“I told [Mrs. Mickle], ‘That’s not right. They should have been given a warning first,’” said
Kristine Kinney, mother of Jorge Marquez, one of the seven boys. “If she had told any one of those
boys –- if she had said, ‘That’s not proper behavior’ --- I guarantee you they all would have said,
‘OK.’”
But that’s why they call it zero tolerance. “ ‘No tolerance’ means more than just a warning,
because that would mean tolerance,” Mrs. Mickle said.
To some parents, such rationales sound like zero judgment, not to mention a breach of due
process. “They weren’t throwing pine cones, they weren’t playing with sticks; they were off by
themselves not bothering anyone,” Mr. Andrew said. “It just burns me up. I just don’t think you treat
kids that way.”
Mr. Andrew was also angry over what he saw as the principal’s chutzpah in asking the
students about private family matters such as gun ownership. “It’s none of her business,” he said. “If
she wants to know that, she needs to ask me, not Connor.”
But the district is standing behind the principal. “The district must know whether a student
has the means to carry out a threat of violence to help us determine the level of the threat of
violence against other students or staff,” said Ms. Amole, the spokeswoman.
Mr. Head backed the district on that decision, saying that society has a legitimate interest in
knowing where the guns are. “I know that doctors are doing it, and increasingly parents are doing it
--- asking if there are guns stored in the home before letting their child play at someone’s house,” he
said.
For teachers or principals to ask such questions, however, amounts to invading a family’s
privacy by targeting its most vulnerable members, say critics. “Clearly that’s outrageous,” Mr. Kopel
said.

12
 That’s like asking what political party your parents belong to, or how they voted, or whether
they’ve ever had an abortion,” he said. “It’s none of the school’s business how parents exercise their
constitutional rights. The first thing I’d say is, that’s extremely bad judgment. The second thing is,
that principal should be fired.”
Safety first?
Of course, if zero-tolerance policies worked, that might be the end of the argument. As critics
point out, however, there’s little evidence to show that they actually make schools any safer. Indeed,
a 1997 study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that even after four years,
schools with zero-tolerance policies had more incidents of violence than those without.
Zero tolerance’s defenders argue that schools with significant violence problems are more
likely to enact such extreme measures in the first place. But critics argue that the policy better start
showing results or risk losing its legitimacy with the public.
“Zero-tolerance strategies have begun to turn schools into supplemental law-enforcement
agencies but demonstrate little return, despite a decade of hype,” said Russ Skiba, director of the
Institute for Children with Behavior Disorders.
In an April 2000 article for Education Digest, “Zap Zero Tolerance,” the two concluded that
policies were more effective at providing cover for school administrators than students.
“In the face of an apparent inability to influence violence in schools, harsh measures are
intended to send a message that the administration is still in charge,” they said. “Whether it is
effectively received or actually changes student behavior may be less important than the reassurance
that sending it provides to administrators, teachers and parents.”
Chris Dunmall, whose son Travis was one of the boys suspended in the Dry Creek case,
called the action so much window-dressing. “It makes the administration safer --- from legal action
in the future,” he said. “It doesn’t make the school any safer.”
Dreading school
Harder to measure is the effect on students caught up in the no-tolerance climate. For Travis
Dunmall, said his father, the experience has made him more cynical.
“He’s learned that there are some really small people out there who actually get in power
sometimes,” Mr. Dunmall said. “He’s learned to question authority, which is probably not a bad
lesson.”
Other boys took the punishment harder. As they waited to leave school, one of the boys
began crying for fear of lhis parents’ reaction. A couple of the boys wondered aloud whether they
would be arrested.
When Aaron arrived home that afternoon with his father, Mrs. Godec said he looked
“discombobulated.”
“I looked at him, and he had been trying to be brave for his dad, but when he saw me his
bottom lip was quivering,” she said. “So I just held him. He kept saying, ‘Mom, I don’t know, I don’t
understand. I’m bad, but I don’t know why.’”
“After that, he dreaded going to school, and my son loves school,” she said.
Upon their return to Dry Creek after spring break, the seven were given a week of lunchtime
detention, during which they had to sit in the school foyer or hall during recess. That week, Aaron
came down with a series of headaches, something that had never happened before, said his mother.

13
 “He’s not inclined to get into trouble --- he’s never been to the principal’s office before ---
and he was freaked out,” she said.
Because they were seated in public, she said, the detention turned into a week of public
humiliation. Other children laughed and made jokes as they passed them on the way from the
cafeteria to the playground, said parents.
“They were sitting in the foyer and they were supposed to read,” Mrs. Godec said. “But
Aaron told me, ‘Every time somebody would pass by, Mom, I just put my book up over my face and
hoped they wouldn’t recognize my shoes.’” 8
His friend Connor was plagued that week by stomach aches. His mother tried to ease the
punishment by taking him out to lunch one day, “but that was a mistake, because then he didn’t
want to go back to school,” Mr. Andrew said.
“It was an embarrassment,” Mr. Andrew said. “To set those kids up for peer persecution,
that’s not right, either.”
Even as the backlash against zero tolerance builds, however, parents say they don’t expect
the public schools to ease up any time soon. Even with expert opinion and public outrage on their
side, all it takes is the specter of one teen-age gunman to send the schools back to zero tolerance.
“I told her [the principal], ‘I know you’re trying to prevent a Columbine situation, I know
you’re trying to create a peaceful environment, but it’s almost like you want them to walk around
like robots,” said Mrs. Godec. “And she kept saying over and over, ‘We have a zero-tolerance
policy, and we won’t deal with anything.’”
“It’s not going to change,” said Mrs. Godec, “and it’s just going to get worse.”

UTAH 9

Setting up a classic separation-of-powers battle, a board representing Utah’s

70 district judges has voted to ignore a new state law ordering all courthouses to
install gun storage lockers for holders of concealed-weapon permits.
The Board of District Judges, representing the trial benches throughout
Utah, announced Monday that its 10 elected leaders unanimously declined to install
gun lockers, opting instead to continue a longtime policy of prohibiting the public
from carrying guns in courthouses.
ARIZONA10
PHOENIX, May 17: Even as a strong libertarian and political activist who
had sued the state over more issues than he could remember, Ernest Hancock was
never much bothered that his wife, Donna, was always told to check her gun or
leave it in the car before paying her taxes at the Arizona Revenue Department.
State law allows residents to carry concealed weapons, and building
operators have the right to keep them out --- a violation of constitutional rights, in
Mr. Hancock’s opinion. But it was not enough of an inconvenience to warrant
another suit, he said.

8
The return of . . .
9
The Salt Lake Tribune, Board Says ‘No’ to Guns in Courts, www.sltrib.com/05212002/utah/738687.htm
10
The New York Times, Gun Owners Take Their Concerns to Court, by Michael Janofsky, May 17, 2002.
Describing events in Arizona, Ohio, and Michigan

14
 That all changed last month, after Mrs. Hancock went to the department
again, only to have security guards tell her that she now had to check her gun in a
storage locker at the State Capitol, half a mile away.
Not a chance, said her husband, who then tested the system for himself
and, like his wife, was turned away.
Reverting to form, Mr. Hancock drew up a complaint against the state,
challenging all its restrictions on gun ownership. He headed straight for State
Supreme Court, where the inconvenience this week became Case No. CV-02-
0161-SA, the SA standing for special action.
OHIO
One of six states that forbid concealed weapons, two groups are suing to
have the prohibition declared unconstitutional. On April 10, 2002, in the Court of
Appeals, First Appellate District of Ohio, Hamilton County, Ohio, Chuck Klein, Et
Al. v. Simon L. Leis, Jr., Sheriff, Et Al. 11 Mark P. Painter, Presiding Judge.
“We are not a country where power is maintained by people with
guns over people without guns.” Judge Mark P. Painter
This Ohio case ruled a statute, R.C. 2923.12, banning concealed weapons,
as unconstitutional. Judge Painter said:
“Rather than view this case myopically, as the appellants urge us to do, and
consider only a single statute in isolation, we must consider a broader scope. And
the broader scope, as the evidence introduced in the trial court reflects, is that R.C.
2923.12, in conjunction with other statutes and the practice of arrest for openly
carrying a firearm, acts as a total prohibition on the carrying of firearms. Either way
the citizen goes to jail. No Ohioan can exercise the constitutional right to bear arms,
whether concealed or unconcealed, without risking jail.
The exercise of no other fundamental right subjects a citizen to arrest.
Should a citizen go to jail for voting, and be required to prove innocence of multiple
voting? Should a citizen first go to jail for marrying, and then get out by proving
innocence of bigamy? Should we jail people for publishing a newspaper, then
require them to prove that what was published was not libelous or obscene?
We hold today that R.C. 2923.12 is not fair, proper, moderate, or suitable
under the circumstances, and that it is indeed excessive. It acts to deprive law-
abiding citizens of the right to bear any arms and, in so doing, thwarts a
fundamental right that was granted by our forebears and the drafters of our Ohio
Constitution.”
MICHIGAN
The Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners has sued Ferndale,
contending that a new ban on carrying weapons into City Hall and other municipal
offices violates a state law that prohibits guns in schools, churches and other public
places with no mention of municipal buildings.
Robert J. Spitzer, a professor of political science at the State University of
New York at Cortland and the author of a 1995 book, “The Politics of Gun
Control,” said that efforts to expand the right to carry a gun had evolved from a

11
Appeal Nos. C-020012, C-020013, C-020015, C-020021; Trial Nos. A-0004340, A-0107121.

15
 “steady libertarian antigovernment attitude” in the 1980’s and that they had been
bolstered by Attorney General John Ashcroft’s views that the Second Amendment
protects an individual’s right to gun ownership.
But Professor Spitzer wondered how many additional challenges might arise
now that Americans have grown more concerned about public safety.
Those Who Misuse Law Enforcement Computer System Won’t be Traceable 12

LANSING, Mich. (AP) – The names of those who abuse a confidential police computer
system will be deleted after each case is investigated because state officials voted to change the
current policy.
State officials Thursday made it harder for the public to learn who has abused the
confidential Law Enforcement Information Network, a computer database containing driving
records, criminal records and other personal information.
The Criminal Justice Information Systems Policy Council vote means the names of police
officers and others who abuse the system will remain private.
The council, made up of prosecutors, police and state officials, made the change after state
and local police officials expressed concerns that maintaining a database of abusers would violate
labor contracts, which limit the amount of time a transgression can remain on an employee’s record,
reported the Detroit Free Press in a Friday story.
The vote effectively makes it impossible to find out who has been misusing the system
without contacting the department in which the abuse occurred. In some cases, police chiefs have
refused to release such information.
The Free Press reported last year that more than 90 Michigan police officers, dispatchers,
federal agents and security guards have used the system during the past five years to harass women
or settle scores. The information is supposed to be used only for legitimate law enforcement
purposes. Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU in Michigan, said lists of lawyers and doctors
who are disciplined get published, so why not the system’s abusers?
“On the one hand we’re saying people who commit offense should be broadcast on the
Internet, and on the other hand we’re saying one group should not,” she said.
NEVADA13
CARSON CITY, Nev. – The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can hide
electronic monitoring devices on peoples’ cars without a warrant for as long as they want.
The 5-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Deborah Agosti, said attaching the device to the
bumper of a Las Vegas man’s car to track his movements did not constitute unreasonable search or
seizure under Nevada’s Constitution.
INDIANA14
HARTFORD CITY, Ind. – The Indiana Civil Liberties Union plans to take the case of a
Blackford High School student who was banned from the senior prom after testing positive for
nicotine in a random drug test.

12
Detroit Free Press, Freep/news/Michigan, Those who misuse law enforcement computer system won’t be
traceable. April 26, 2002. www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw54652_20020426.htm.
13
Riley, Brendan, Associated Press Writer, Nevada Police Can Hide Devices, April 25, 2002, 11:29 PM EDT.
14
www.theindychannel.com, Positive Nicotine Test To Keep Student From Prom: ICLU Plans To Take Case
Of Blackford High School Senior. April 25, 2002.

16
 Rob Mahon, 18, did not smoke on school property and is upset that he’s being punished for
an activity that is legal for someone his age.
But school officials said Mahon, who is the editor of the school newspaper, knew the rules
prohibiting drugs, alcohol and nicotine before he agreed to the testing that’s required for those in
extracurricular activities.
ICLU attorney Ken Falk believes that Mahon has a case.
“It (the policy) became a problem when you’re being punished for doing something off-
grounds which is legal,” Falk said. “This is as if the school said, ‘If you read a certain book at home,
you’ll be punished at school.’ It’s ridiculous.”
Community reaction to the school’s decision is mixed, but some teachers believe the
punishment is too harsh.
The prom is scheduled for May 4, but Falk is hopeful an agreement can be reached before
then.

PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT 15

On Dec. 6, 1906, President Roosevelt concluded his Sixth Annual Message to Congress with
a call for the government to help citizens develop firearms proficiency: “We should establish shooting
galleries in all the large public and military schools, should maintain national target ranges in
different parts of the country, and should in every way encourage the formation of rifle clubs
throughout all parts of the land. The little Republic of Switzerland offers us an excellent example in
all matters of connected with building up an efficient citizen soldiery.”
Roosevelt would repeat this call with greater urgency in his Seventh Annual Message, on
Dec. 3, 1907, demanding that the government do its utmost to encourage children to use guns:
“While teams representing the United States won the rifle and revolver championships of the
world against all comers in England this year, it is unfortunately true that the great body of our
citizens shoot less and less as time goes on. To meet this we should encourage rifle practice among
schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services, by every means in our
power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving the peace of the world. Fit to
hold our own against the strong nations of the earth, our voice for peace will carry to the ends of the
earth. Unprepared, and therefore unfit, we must sit dumb and helpless to defend ourselves, protect
others, or preserve peace. The first step --- in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible,
and to be fit for war if it should come --- is to teach our men to shoot.
ARMED PILOTS?
On September 16th, Reuters revealed that in the midst of the Sept. 11 hijackings, President
Bush had ordered U.S. fighter pilots to shoot down any airliner acting in a suspicious manner. Since
then, a fleet of 250 military planes, including AWACS surveillance aircraft and refueling tankers, has
flown nearly 20,000 missions over U.S. cities. To date [April 17], military aircraft have responded to
more than 350 “air events” --- instances when a plane flew off course or failed to maintain radio
contact.16

15
Kopel, Dave, Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, “Her Own Bodyguard: Gun-packing First Lady” January 24,
2002; www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel012402.shtml.
16
Kopel, Dave, Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, “No Choice” April 17, 2002
www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel041702.asp.

17
 The Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be
armed the same month it received a classified briefing that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network
may be planning hijackings of U.S. airliners.17
As WorldNetDaily reported Thursday, an FAA spokesman confirmed that its armed-pilot
rule, which was adopted in 1961 in response to the Cuban missile crisis, was repealed in July 2001
– just two months before the Sept. 11 attacks --- because in 40 years’ time, not a single U.S. airline
took advantage of it.18
But a congressional source told WND yesterday that officials with the FAA and a “variety of
other agencies” were briefed about a potential terrorist hijacking threat on July 5, 2001. “It’s my
understanding that the briefing that was done last year originally had representatives from the FAA,
the Coast Guard, the FBI,” and others, said the official, who asked not to be identified.19
On May 21, 2002, John Magaw, an undersecretary with the Department of Transportation
said in testimony before a Senate committee that the Bush Administration will not allow pilots to
have firearms in the cockpits. John Magaw is the former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms (BATF).20
According to ALPA (Airline Pilots Association), from 1961 to 2001, pilots were permitted to
carry firearms. Many did so – and safely – during the Cuban hijackings of the 1970s. Ironically, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revoked that regulation last July, shortly before the Sept. 11
attack.21
There is no guarantee, as Magaw claims, that a law enforcement officer will be on board a
hijacked commercial airliner, or that it will prevent a future hijacking. In fact, there was a federal law
enforcement officer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on United Airlines flight 93 that crashed
in Shanksville, PA on September 11, 2001. Why did this officer not prevent the hijacking? Did the
terrorists defeat him early on during the hijacking? The government is not talking! It is certain that if
the pilots were armed with lethal self-defense tools these terrorists would be “picked off” by the pilots
as they came through the narrow flight deck door.22
Instead, Maga is implementing a toll free 800 number for passengers to call the authorities in
the event of a hijacking. There were several passengers and crewmembers that made cell phone calls
on September 11, and not one of those calls prevented the horrific tragedy that followed. The only
logical reason for an 800 number for this purpose is to provide the government with an ‘early alert’
for the dispatch of the military fighters that will use missiles to shoot down the aircraft.23
Bob Taubert, a former FBI agent and now a security consultant for the Committee for the
Armed Defense of the Cockpit, said the federal government sees this as a gun or a Second
Amendment issue.24

17
Dougherty, Jon, Armed-pilot rule nixed after hijack briefing: Agency removed cockpit gun right despite July
al-Qaida warning. May 18, 2002. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27672.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Oregon Firearms Federation, BATF/Waco Magaw’s Refusal to Arm Pilots No Surprise,
www.KeepAndBearArms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3417. May 21, 2002.
21
Johnson, J.J., Feel Safer Yet? No Guns for Pilots: Report and Analysis,
www.sierratimes.com/02/05/22/arjj052202.htm May 21, 2002.
22
Jackson, Captain Dennis, John Magaw Supports Terrorism (Only law enforcement officers should carry
firearms), www.sierratimes.com/02/05/22/ardj052202.htm May 21, 2002.
23
Id.
24
Burns, Jim, DOT Says No Guns in the Cockpit, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer, May 21, 2002.

18
 “But this is no such thing,” Taubert said. “It’s merely a safety and security issue that we are
concerned with. But you have people in government that have this visceral gunphobic attitude, and
I also think some of the government agencies feel threatened,” Tauberft told CNSNews.com.25
For example, Taubert said arming pilots might infringe on the turf of the federal air marshal
program. “The federal air marshal program might actually feel threatened with armed pilots on
board because it would detract from their empire.” Said Taubert.26
The Gun Owners of America was angry at Magaw as well.27
“This decision comes right out of Al Gore’s playbook. This is not what the American people
elected George Bush to do. He had better take some officials to the political woodshed, or else
people are going to start wondering where he stands on the important right of self-defense,” said
GOA spokesman Erich Pratt.28

Search and Seizure

MASSACHUSETTS29
In one of the first decisions of its kind in the country, a judge has thrown out all evidence
against a suspected drunk driver stopped by [Massachusetts] State Police near a reservoir a month
after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, ruling that stops based on nonspecific government warnings of
terrorist acts violate constitution protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The ruling, which found that vague government warnings are not legal grounds for a search
under the Fourth Amendment, is not binding in other cases, but civil libertarians see it as a first step
toward reversing intrusions on individual freedom following the terrorist attacks.
Legal specialists say the ruling by Westfield District Judge David S. Ross addresses one of the
toughest legal questions in the post-Sept. 11 world: how to balance national security with individual
liberties.
In the early morning hours of Oct. 15, David Carkhuff, a 42-year-old mechanical engineer
from Westfield, was driving his gray 1994 Chevy Corsica along a narrow road that runs along the
banks of the Cobble Mountain Reservoir in Blandford, in Western Massachusetts.
He was stopped and charged with drunken driving by State Trooper Richard Gawron, who
was standing outside his cruiser on the same road. The reservoir supplies drinking water to the city
of Springfield.
At a court hearing last year, Gawron testified that he had been ordered to stop cars in a
search for potential terrorists, based on a fax from the federal Office of Homeland Security that
warned of a “credible” but nonspecific terrorist threat.
Last week, Ross suppressed all evidence in the case, rejecting arguments that the warning
from Washington outweighed Carkhuff’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches
and seizures.

25
Id.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Ranalli, Ralph, Judge’s ruling challenges terrorism roadblocks: Says vague warnings can’t be used to stop;
The Boston Globe, City & Region, March 14, 2002.
www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/073/metro/Judge_s_ruling_challenges_terrorism_roadblocks+.shtml.

19
 “Recognition of such a broad ‘homeland security’ exception would constitute a sea change
in constitutional law,” Ross wrote in his eight-page decision. “The evidentiary record is wholly
inadequate to justify such an enormous change.”
Lawyers said they believe Ross’s ruling is the first to touch on what will be a thorny issue in
the nation’s courts for the foreseeable future. That is especially true as the Bush administration
begins deploying its new tools in the war on terrorism, including last year’s USA Patriot Act – which
gives the government broad new powers to search and surveil suspected terrorists – and the
Homeland Security Advisory System unveiled this week, a color-coded set of public warnings about
how imminent and serious the government believes the threat of a terrorist attack to be.
Civil libertarians praised Ross’s ruling yesterday as the first tap on the brakes as they see the
country speeding toward wholesale dilutions of constitutional rights.
“If this were allowable, then the police could stop and interrogate any motorist, any
pedestrian, at virtually any time,” said William Newman, head of the ACLU’s Western Massachusetts
office. Newman argued the case with Carkhuff’s attorney, Ryan Alekmean of Springfield.

I have presented, by now, enough information to give the Coast Guard a clear
understanding of the “big picture” of the state of the nation in regards to the deprivation of rights
under color of law. And there will be a growing increase of incidences of civil disobedience in We,
the People when the loss of our rights and freedoms continue in the name of the War on Terrorism,
Drugs, Crime, or whatever war is popular with the government this week.
Yeah! The Emperor is not only naked, he is a lunatic!

Sincerely,

Don Hamrick

20
 DOCUMENT #11
Coast Guard Initiates Criminal Investigation Against
An Innocent Merchant Seaman
Exercising First Amendment Rights Pursuing Second Amendment Rights
By Don Hamrick, AB,
Written on July 4th, 2002, Independence Day!

AB Don Hamrick leaving Hotel Klaipeda, Battle Station Internet café in downtown Klaipeda,
Lithuania for the daily trek to an Internet café. Lithuania where the email fight was waged daily.

On Friday, June 7, 2002 the Coast Guard had me pulled off the S/S Maj. Stephen W. Pless, a
government contracted vessel for the pre-position fleet, while anchored off Klaipeda, Lithuania and
placed in Hotel Klaipeda to wait for two special agents from the Navy Criminal Investigative Service to
interview him in reference to an article (a letter) I wrote to Capt. J. P. Brusseau, Director of Field
Activities, Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, of Commandant (G-MO) branch of
the Coast Guard, in support of my application for an unprecedented endorsement on my Merchant
Mariner’s Document for “National Open Carry Handgun” through appropriate application of Coast
Guard regulations and laws from the U.S. Code.
This action was taken on the eve of the vessel’s departure for a 10-day exercise. Hence the
vessel would proceed to anchorage off Tallinn, Estonia causing me to miss the ship’s departure and
thereby stranding me at the hotel for twelve days while still on Waterman’s payroll. The Navy civilian
special agents held their criminal investigation interview at my hotel room on Sunday, June 11, 2002
for nearly two hours.
In preparation for the interview I had all the saved printed news items from the Internet, all my
saved and printed emails, samples of my previously written articles, my reference books all set out on
the counter in my hotel room as a display with labeled index cards on each stack. It was clearly seen
from examining the stacks that my activities were nothing more harmless that a merchant seaman’s First
Amendment right to analyze the news impacting constitutional rights and freedoms and writing about
the conclusions from such analyses. I believe I presented a convincing case of innocence to the special
agents. They advised me that I will have to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy
of their report to the Coast Guard. I have done this.
On April 19, 2002, (Patriot’s Day), Capt. Brusseau unwittingly validated me as an American
Patriot by issuing his 46 CFR 1.03-15(j) “Final Agency Action” denying my application on appeal.
On Tuesday, May 7, President Bush, through the Justice Department’s filing in the United States
v. Emerson at the U.S. Supreme Court reversed official government policy on the Second Amendment
stating that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right to keep and bear arms.
 I filed my appeal for reconsideration of Capt. Brusseau’s final agency action denial on grounds
of the Presidential event. On May 24, 2002 Capt. Brusseau, in a mailed letter and without emailing me
as the email system was my primary means of corresponding with him, again denied my appeal. He
stated in his letter, “Because the Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center, took initial action on
your request, the appeal was handled by this office. As a consequence of the foregoing, you have
exhausted all administrative remedies available to you by the Department of Transportation and the
Coast Guard.” Capt. Brusseau overstepped his authority in claiming that 46 CFR 1.03-15(j)’s final
agency action serves as a barrier to appeal a “final agency action” denial to the Department of
Transportation. It does not! The word “agency” (U.S. Coast Guard) is subordinate to a “department”
of the U.S. government (Department of Transportation). Capt. Brusseau does not have the authority
to bar an appeal to the Department of Transportation.
Anticipating Capt. Brusseau’s obstructionist’s views I hedged my bets when the ship was earlier
anchored off Gdynia, Poland by mailing to President Bush all my written articles I sent to the Coast
Guard on four diskettes with a copy of an email sent to the White House serving as advanced notice
of postal mailing from Gdynia, Poland. On June 13, 2002, Desiree Thompson, Special Assistant to the
President sent her letter to my home address acknowledging my situation with the Coast Guard (I
including the President email at the White House in my email correspondence with Capt. Brusseau) and
forwarding the diskettes and printed email to the Department of Transportation for proper review. This
review is still pending.
In anticipation of the Department of Transportation denying my application I have prepared an
“Order to Show Cause” why my application should not be approved, to be filed at the U.S. District
Court in Washington, DC. I am also preparing a civil rights lawsuit against the Coast Guard for
damages to my reputation and other charges. The Coast Guard cannot trample the Bill of Rights simply
because a merchant seaman uses metaphors, similes, and rhetoric when writing about gun rights for
U.S. merchant seamen ashore in the United States. What the Coast Guard did was tantamount to
telling me to shut up, don’t rock the boat! Never mind what the President did, or what the current legal
trend is on the Second Amendment. Just mind your own damn business!
Sorry, Coast Guard, but Noah Webster wrote, “In the formation of such a government, it is not
only the right, but the indispensable duty of every citizen to examine the principles of it, to compare
them with the principles of other governments, with a constant eye to our particular situation and
circumstances, and thuis endeavor to foresee the future operations of our own system, and its effects
upon human happiness.” (“An Examination Into The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution:
‘A Citizen of America’ Piladelphia, October 17, 1787)
I have actively been submitting substantial articles to the Coast Guard on the Second
Amendment since October 2001. Was the Coast Guard becoming irritated with me?
was created to be unique among all the nations of the world. As I examined America today I
see America losing its uniqueness, becoming indistinguishable with other nations of the socialist,
communist, or other totalitarian kind. I stood up twice in defense of Second Amendment rights for the
seafarer, and twice I get slapped down with denials. The Coast Guard shoved me into the role of the
American Patriot with their April 19 denial. The Coast Guard verified that validation with a criminal
investigation because I exercised my First Amendment rights pursuing Second Amendment rights. I will
stand up again in defiance of their attempt to shut me up by taking this fight to the U.S. District Court
in Washington, DC. I intend to bring attention to several constitutional questions the government and
the Coast Guard refuses to address.
My full story is published online at KeepAndBearArms.com:
 “Coast Guard Initiates Criminal Investigation Against An Innocent Merchant Seaman Exercising
First Amendment Rights Pursuing Second Amendment Rights”
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3460
“My Second Amendment Fight With the Coast Guard”
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3460
Don Hamrick Tuesday, December 30, 2003

5860 Wilburn Road, Wilburn, Arkansas 72179; ki5ss@yahoo.com

Exercising My Right of Appeal Under 46 C.F.R. § 12.02-25 and § 1.03

Concerning My Endorsement Application for “National Open Carry Small Arms & Light Weapons”
on my Merchant Mariner’s Document as a Second Amendment Right to Keep And Bear Arms

Rear Admiral John Crowley

Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard
Commandant (G-L)
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second St., SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001

Dear Rear Admiral Crowley,

I am appealing Capt. J. P. Brusseau’s, (Director, Field Activities, Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection, Commandant (G-MO)), denial of my application for the above contested
endorsement on my Merchant Mariner’s Document.
This contested endorsement is the focal point of a civil rights case of racketeering under the
RICO Act in Hamrick (Pro Se) v. President Bush, et al, U.S. District Court for DC, Docket No. 03-2160
filed October 21, 2003. However, that case resulted from the U.S. Supreme Court denying my Petition
for Writ of Certiorari (Docket No. 03-145) on October 6, 2003. This after the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the DC Circuit dismissed my appeal in affirming the U.S. District Court for DC’s dismissal with prejudice
of my Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Prohibition, Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.
The shear nature of my case for Second Amendment rights of American merchant seamen has
agitated Capt. Brusseau and the federal judicial system into treasonously resorting to the three-monkey
solution: hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil about such guaranteed freedoms under the Second
Amendment. So, to counter this three-handicapped monkey tactic I included in my civil rights case
under the RICO Act the following motions for estoppels:
Plaintiff motions the Court for an EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL , an ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE and
to enforce the PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL provisions of the U.S. Constitution UPON itself
(the U.S. District Court for DC, UPON Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather Graham-Oliver
& Any Other Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney, and the Attorney General that
might be assigned to Plaintiff’s case in the protection of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right
to petition the government for “substantial” redress of grievances and Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process; UPON Representative Frank LoBiondo,
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, UPON the U.S. Coast Guard and UPON the Maritime Administration
to address the Second Amendment rights of U.S. Merchant Seamen while ashore in the
United States in regard to employment aboard ship and not employed aboard ship and
to address the efficacy and validity of the Department of Transportation’s general
superintendence over the Merchant Marine under 49 U.S.C. § 2103 when President
Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on November 25, 2002 transferring the
U.S. Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the Department of
Homeland Security on March 1, 2003, and to address what role, if any, American
Merchant Seamen will have in homeland security in regard to their Second, Ninth,

1
 Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; UPON President George W. Bush
to address the matter of the People’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
as a promissory estoppel to its infringement upon the right to openly keep and bear
arms in intrastate and interstate travel in this era of homeland security and to the
separation and balance of power under the Tenth Amendment; UPON the U.S.
Congress as a whole through the Senate’s Office of Legislative Counsel under
2 U.S.C. § 275, and through the House of Representatives under 2 U.S.C. § 281a and
2 U.S.C. § 281b for the same subject matter above.
Capt. Brusseau earlier denied my application for National Open Carry Handgun with a
final agency action. Since I am appealing the denial of my application for National Open Carry Small
Arms and Light Weapons with the specific intent of exercising Second Amendment rights, while ashore
and not employed aboard any ship to counter the United Nations agenda on the same subject
I am, therefore, exercising my right of appeal under 46 C.F.R. § 12.02-25 and § 1.03 to send my
appeal to you as Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard to review both of my applications and to address
certain questions concerning this matter in relation to occupationally required small arms training under
federal law of 46 U.S.C. § 7306(b)(3) and OPNAVINST 3591.1C, Small Arms Training and
Qualification of Able Seamen of the Seafarers International Union reporting aboard U.S. government
contract vessels of the Military Sealift Command’s pre-position fleet.
I do not consider Capt. Brusseau’s denial of the above application to be a final agency action
because while my previous application for National Open Carry Handgun and my latest application for
National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weapons may facially appear to be, as Capt. Brusseau
alleges, “so similar as to have no meaningful difference,” he cannot arbitrarily apply the final agency
action status to the above application because it, nevertheless, is absolutely NOT identical to my
previous application and there are meaningful differences between the two requested endorsements.
STIPULATION TO RIGHT OF APPEAL
I request that you, as the Principal Legal Advisor to the Commandant of the Coast Guard,
review my application and Capt. Brusseau’s repeated denials, and that I be given an opportunity to
appear at a hearing to plead on my case for the approval of my application.
By repeatedly denying my applications Capt. Brusseau has habitually violated his Oath of
Office. In Chapter 1: What is an Officer?, on page 3 of The Coast Guard Officer Career Development
Guidebook (2nd Ed.)1 displays the Coast Guard officer’s Oath of Office:
“All Coast Guard commissioned officers take the same oath every other
military officer and the President of the United States has taken since
George Washington. They swear or affirm:
! they will uphold the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic,2 and

1
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-w/g-wt/g-wtl/ocgb/book.pdf

2
Emphasis is mine. Denying my application does not uphold the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. I construe the United Nations Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects
and their Programme of Action to be an enemy of the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment. My application
for National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weapons serves to defend the U.S. Constitution against the United Nations
as they are acting an a manner to be construed as an enemy to our Second Amendment.

2
 ! to bear true faith and allegiance to the same3 and to
discharge well and faithfully the duties of the office to
which appointed without any reservation or purpose of
evasion.4
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY
The officer is given a commission stating the President of the United
States, having reposed “special trust and confidence in [his or
her] patriotism,5 valor, fidelity and abilities,” has appointed the
officer. Under the commission, the officer is directed to “carefully and
diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed
by doing and performing all manner of things.”6
In Chapter 2: Leadership, on page 16, displays Ethics from the President’s Executive Order
12731 of October 17, 1990.
These general principles are derived from the Presidential Order exacting
standards of ethical conduct:
! Public service is a public trust, requiring members to place loyalty
to the Constitution,7 laws, and ethical principles above private
gain.
Excerpted from the President’s Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990:
“PRINCIPLES OFETHICAL CONDUCT FOR GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS AND EM PLOYEES ”
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish fair and exacting
standards of ethical conduct for all executive branch employess, it is hereby
ordered that Executive Order 12674 of April 12,1989, is henceforth modified
to read as follows:

3
Emphasis is mine. By your own admission affirming my observation that there are no Coast Guard regulations
advocating my requested endorsements nor any Coast Guard regulations prohibition my requested endorsements. It is also
my observation that where there is no statutory or regulatory guidance you are sworn by your Oath of Office to refer to the
U.S. Constitution before you are authorized to use your own discretion. Under the situation created by my application the
Second Amendment and the Common Defense clause of the Preamble to the Constitution has Promissory Estoppel to your
authority to exercise discretionary judgment when the Constitution is applicable to my application. And the does, in fact, have
applicable authority over my application.

4
Emphasis is mine. Denying my application for Second Amendment rights is construed as evidence of a reservation
or purpose of evasions.

5
Emphasis is mine. Denying my application is construed as my allegation that the President misplaced special trust
and confidence your patriotism.

6
Emphasis is mine. Denying my application is construed to be a failure to carefully and diligently discharge the duties
of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things.

7
Emphasis is mine. Regardless of whether you stand to privately gain by denying my application, your action is of
evidentiary value of disloyalty to the U.S. Constitution and its Second Amendment.

3
 EXECUTIVE ORDER
PRINCIPLES OFETHICAL CONDUCT FOR GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS AND EM PLOYEES
“By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish fair and exacting
standards of ethical conduct for all executive branch employees, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
“Part 1 -- PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT
“Section 101. Principles of Ethical Conduct. To ensure that every citizen can
have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each
Federal employee shall respect and adhere to the fundamental principles of
ethical service as implemented in regulations promulgated under sections 201
and 301 of this order:
“(a) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the
Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.
...
“(e) Employees shall put forth honest effort8 in the performance of their duties.
....
“(m) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal
opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin,9 age, or handicap.
“(n) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the
appearance that they are violating the law10 or the ethical standards
promulgated pursuant to this order.
George Bush
The White House,
October 17, 1990.
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (SIU) & OPNAVINST 3591.1C
It is my further allegation that under 46 C.F.R. 12.05-3(4) General Requirements for
Certification of Seamen and under 46 U.S.C. 7306(b)(3) General Requirements for Classifications for
Able Seamen (for Merchant Mariner’s Document) do not literally exclude training in small arms and
light weapons. The Military Sealift Command requires training in small arms for able seaman holding

8
Emphasis is mine. Denying my application is a dishonest effort in the executive of your official duties.

9
Emphasis is mine. I Southern family lineage dating back to the landing in Philadelphia in 1735 fulfills the national
origin, especially so for the Civil War origins for the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

10
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is part of the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the
Land. Denying my application for the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms presents the appearance that
you are violating the Supreme Law of the Land.

4
Merchant Mariner’s Document aboard government vessels of the pre-position fleet using OPNAVINST
3591.1C, Small Arms Training and Qualification.
Further, the OPNAVINST 3591.1C Small Arms Training and Qualification serves as a “rating
forming part of a navigational watch on a seagoing ship, in accordance with the provisions of the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978,
as amended (STCW), and to receive the certificate or endorsement required by STCW (incorporated
by reference in Sec. 12.01-3)” for the occasions when the vessel transits pirate waters and/or when the
Homeland Security Level requires such armed security measures of the vessel’s crew under the
discretion of the master of the vessel in accordance with 46 C.F.R. 12.01-1 Purpose of Regulations for
Certification of Seaman.
COAST GUARD ENDO RSEM ENT OF SIU TRAINING RECORD BOOK
Further, the Seafarers International Union’s Paul Hall Maritime Center Training Record
Book (TRB) is endorsed with “U.S. Coast Guard Accepted” on its cover. The TRB contains a section
for Miscellaneous Training on pages 25 through 28. My small arms training, as required by the Military
Sealift Command, is recorded on page 25 as Miscellaneous Training. This is a requirement of STCW.
AGGREG ATE EFFECT OF REGULATIONS
While there are no Coast Guard regulations for or against small arms training of able seamen
it is the combined effect of Coast Guard regulations, the OPNAVINST 3591.1C, and STCW
requirements that I construe to be inclusive for small arms training of able seaman to such an extent that
you cannot lawfully deny my application for National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weapons.
RACKETEERING UND ER THE RICO ACT
Issuing a final agency action denying my application for National Open Carry Small Arms and
Light Weapons will be submitted as evidence of racketeering an illegal and unconstitutional protection
scheme in violation of the Second Amendment in my ongoing case at the U.S. District Court for DC,
Docket No. 03-2160.
Capt. Brusseau has repeatedly advised “the Regional Examination Center in Baltimore of this
matter” stipulating that no endorsement is to be issued relating to firearms training and the above
endorsements. It is also my allegation that Capt. Brusseau is repeatingly depriving me of my civil rights
under color of law, therefore, violating 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Fraud & Obstruction of Justice Allegation Against the Coast Guard & the Courts:
I am alleging against Capt. Brusseau and the U.S. Coast Guard in general a Fraud in
Connection With Identification Documents, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1), and Obstruction of Justice by
influencing an officer, or in that whoever corruptly endeavors to influence, any officer in or of any court
of the United States, or corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct,
or impede, the due administration of justice, [the submission of false testimony and/or the submission
of inabmissible evidence as if it were admissible evidence in my case for damages] shall be punished
as provided in subsection (b) under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a).
Even if Capt. Brusseau’s administrative action in issuing the final agency action denying my
application was a legal act in the scope of his employment as a federal employee it became an illegal
act in culpability to racketeering allegations under the RICO Act when he gave false testimony and/or
false evidence to the U.S. District Court for DC in Docket No. 02-1434 and No. 02-1435. I cite the
following case law:

5
 Acts in themselves legal lose that character when they became part of an
unlawful scheme. Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. 344 U.S. 280, 287, (1952), citing
States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707, 720 (1944); United States v.
Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 254 (1942).
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally
true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature
may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We
cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties,
a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more
right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not
given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions
may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is
to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty.” Cohens v.
Virginia 19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821).
I am alleging Fraud in Connection With Identification Documents, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1),
against the U.S. Coast Guard in general because I had been corresponding with the Commandant of
the Coast Guard and various other offices of the Commandant of the Coast Guard long before the
Coast Guard issued their Notice of Policy on new Merchant Mariners’ Documents.
On Thursday, February 20, 2003 the Coast Guard published their Notice of Policy on Merchant
Mariners’ Documents: Forms and Procedures for Renewals and Issuances in the Federal Register, Vol.
68, No. 34, page 8326 [USCG–2003–14500]. That Notice of Policy listed as the Coast Guard’s
authority to publish the Notice of Policy: 46 U.S.C. §7301, 7302, 7303, 7304, 7305, M11, 7503, 7505,
and 49 CFR § 1.46.
M 46 U.S.C. § 7306 is a missing authority from that Notice of Policy. Section 7306(a)(3) states:
General requirements and classifications for able seamen - To qualify for an endorsement as able
seaman authorized by this section, an applicant must provide satisfactory proof that the applicant - is
qualified professionally as demonstrated by an applicable examination or educational requirements.
I received small arms training as an occupational requirement for reporting aboard a U.S.
Government ammo ship as an able seaman under OPNAVINST 3591.1C dated 13 May 1992, titled
Small Arms Training and Qualification. It is a training document of the U.S. Navy. I received that
training as a contractual obligation through the Military Sealift Command. This OPNAVINST is fully
covered by 46 U.S.C. § 7306 where the Coast Guard is required to acknowledge small arms training
of able seaman and be required to endorse Merchant Mariner’s Documents in recognition of that
training.
Dec. 17, 2001 - Commandant, Coast Guard Speech “Role of the Coast Guard”
Dec. 20, 2001 - Rebuttal emailed and mailed to Commandant, Coast Guard.
Feb. 14, 2002 - Mailed Application for National Open Carry Handgun Endorsement
Feb. 22, 2002 - EVENT - FIRST COAST GUARD DENIAL
Mar. 11, 2002 - Appealed Capt. Fink (NMC-4C) denial.
Mar. 16, 2002 - Appealed to DOT (DOT Refered appeal back to the Coast Guard)
Mar. 28, 2002 - Mailed Addendum to the Coast Guard
Mar. 29, 2002 - Mailed 2nd Addendum to the Coast Guard
Apr. 17, 2002 - Sent letter to House Subcommittee on Coast Guard/MarTrans

11
46 U.S.C. § 7306 is suspiciously missing from the Coast Guard Notice of Policy. The bullet marker is not in the
Notice of Policy but is used here to draw attention to the missing authority.

6
 Apr. 19, 2002 - EVENT - FINAL AGENCY ACTION DENIAL BY COAST GUARD
May. 10, 2002 - Requested Reconsideration of Final Agency Action - DENIED
Jun. 7, 2002 - Put ashore in Hotel Klaipeda, Lithuania from Vessel by Order of Capt. Brusseau
Jun 8, 2002 - Vessel Departs Sailing Short-handed One Able Seaman for a U.S. Naval Exercise
Jun. 9, 2002 - NCIS Criminal Investigative Interview in Hotel Klaipeda, Lithuania
Jun 19, 2002 - Rejoined Vessel in Tallinn, Estonia.
Jul. 18, 2002 - Civil Rights Case for Second Am endment & Case for Damages Filed.
Feb. 20, 2003 - Federal Register: USCG Policy on Merchant Mariners’ Documens

It is my allegation that the Coast Guard intentionally omitted 46 U.S.C. § 7306 as an authority
in the Notice of Policy on the new Merchant Mariners’ Document in order to subvert my pursuit for
Second Amendment rights and to hinder and obstruct justice in my court case for Second Amendment
rights of American merchant seamen arising from the April 19, 2002 final agency action denial of my
application and my damages case for $10 million arising from Capt. Brusseau’s wrongful criminal
investigation of me through the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) while I was aboard
a U.S. government pre-position vessel anchored off the coast of Lithuania causing me to be put off that
vessel and placed into the Hotel Klaipeda in Lithuania to await the two civilian special agents of the
NCIS. The resultant criminal investigative interview of 2 hours determined that I was innocent of Capt.
Brusseau’s allegations.
COM PLAINT OF TREASON , SEDITION , OR SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY AGAINST CAPT . BRUSSEAU
And since the vessel I was employed aboard was a vessel of the U.S. government in support of
the war on terrorism, and the United States was, in fact, in a time of war, and, in fact, the vessel had
departed short-handed one able seaman the following day for a 10-day naval exercise after I was put
ashore in violation of the Coast Guard regulations for manning levels for ship’s crewing I am alleging
that Capt. Brusseau committed treason, sedition, and subversive activities under 18 U.S. C. § 2387,
Activities Affecting Armed Forces Generally, and § 2388 Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War
as prosecutorial criminal offenses under the U.C.M.J.
The omission of 46 U.S.C. § 7306 as an authority of the USCG Notice of Policy on the new
Merchant Mariners’ Document too suspicious to be a simple error of coincidence given the above
chronology of my correspondence with the U.S. Coast Guard on the Merchant Mariners’ Document.12
Because these allegations have extreme consequences to the image of the Coast Guard I am
cynically presuming the extreme likelihood that my allegations will be ignored by you because of the
Tenth Amendment implications of the rights reserved to the People in regards to the Second
Amendment must never prevail over the power of the federal government and its military, lest the
People seize the opportunity to restore the balance of power under the Tenth Amendment and restore
the guaranteed Republican form of government under Article IV, Section 4 and finally regain the right
right to provide for and participate in the Common Defense as stipulated in the Preamble to the
Constitution. It is my further allegation that the three handicapped monkey defense will prevail against
my 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights and Capt. Brusseau will never face
charges under the U.C.M.J.
46 U.S.C. § 7305. Oaths for holders of merchant mariners' documents: An applicant
for a merchant mariner's document shall take, before issuance of the document, an oath that the
applicant will perform faithfully and honestly all the duties required by law, and will carry out the lawful
orders of superior officers.

12
Emphasis is mine.

7
 (Pub. L. 98-89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 542. The requirement for an oath, drawn from a clause
which had appeared in 46 U.S.C. 672(g), and administered by the Coast Guard to all applicants, was
repealed in a 1980 amendment by section 4 of Public Law 96-378 (94 Stat. 1516). Since no specific
comment was made regarding the elimination in 1980 and the agency has continued to administer an
oath to all applicants, this provision is being reinstated. The Committee believes the oath will contribute
to the discipline and order necessary in the merchant marine.)
46 CFR 12.02-15 General Requirements for Certification of Seamen: Applicants for
a merchant mariner's document for any rating shall take an oath before an Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection, or other official authorized to give such oath, or a commissioned officer of the Coast Guard
authorized to administer oaths under 10 U.S.C. 936 or 14 U.S.C. 636, that they will faithfully and
honestly perform all the duties required of them by law and carry out all lawful orders of
superior officers on shipboard. Such an oath remains binding for all subsequent merchant mariner's
documents issued to a person until the document is surrendered to the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection.
PEONAGE AND SLAVERY :
Because my case involves the distinction between Actual Freedom and the fraudulent Illusion
of Freedom where Actual Freedom as achieved only by the full exercise of rights guaranteed by the Bill
of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms, and the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment (as well as among the rest of the Amendments) I incorporated
Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the Supreme Court’s definition of a slave in Dred
Scott v. Sanford into my case because the Coast Guard’s action in denying my application for the
contested endorsement and the federal courts denying my case in affirmance of the Coast Guard’s
action has, under the Rule of Law, reduced my citizenship status to that of a slave, violating the RICO
Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1581 an § 1583.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885): “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in
its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way;
namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can
only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons
and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half
their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than
in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the
Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta
Principiis.”
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897): But we are also of opinion that, even if
the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the Thirteenth Amendment,
it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the
first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the ‘Bill of Rights,’ were not
intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain
guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had,
from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the
necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no
intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been
formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the
publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public
morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms
(article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

8
IsbrandtsenCo.v.Johnson, 343 U.S. 779(1952):“Theancientcharacterizationofseamenas‘wardsofadmiralty’isevenmoreaccuratenowthanitwas
formerly.” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 287 ; 5 Harden v. Gordon, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,047,
2 Mason (Cir. Ct. Rep.) 541, 556.
Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958): “...in our country
the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking
away their citizenship.”
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968): “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right
cannot be converted into a crime”... “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law”.
U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351, 355 (1971): “Seamen from the start were wards
of admiralty. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 287.”
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973): “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942 (1988): The Thirteenth Amendment declares
that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.” The Amendment is “self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far
as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances,” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S.
3, 20 (1883), and thus establishes a constitutional guarantee that is protected by 241. See Price,
supra, at 805. The primary purpose of the Amendment was to abolish the institution of African
slavery as it had existed in the United States at the time of the Civil War, but the Amendment
was not limited to that purpose; the phrase “involuntary servitude” was intended to extend “to
cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which in practical operation
would tend to produce like undesirable results.” Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916). See
also Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282 (1897); Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 69
(1873).
QUESTIONS
QUESTION (1) Is Capt. Brusseau prohibited from exercising discretion in his judgement to deny the
application when the applicant submitted an affidavit attesting to the fact that the applicant is not a
prohibited person from owning or possession firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922, et seq with an application
for a National Open Carry Handgun or for a National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weaons
endorsement on a Merchant Mariner’s Doument of an Able Seaman when such a requested
endorsement is not provided for in, nor prohibit by, Coast Guard regulations, and the application for
the endorsement directly relates to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of the Able
Seaman?
MY ANSW ER : Capt. Brusseau was not authorized to exercise discretion over my application for Second
Amendment rights. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right as well
as the benchmark of actual freedom. He was prohibited from taking action against my application in
pursuit of actual freedom by President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. The
Emancipation Proclamation is a promissary estoppel against military authorities from taking action
against anyone pursuing actual freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude. Capt. Brusseau’s act
of denying my application for actual freedom through the Second Amendment right to openly keep and
bear arms violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude, and
Lincoln’s Emanicpation Proclamation.

9
 “The Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval
authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do
no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for
their actual freedom.”
Abraham Lincoln, Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863, freeing the Southern slaves.
WHAT IS YOUR ANSW ER REAR ADM IRAL CROW LEY ?

QUESTION (2) Does the Oath of Office prohibit Capt. Brusseau from exercising any discretionary
judgment concerning an application for an endorsement on a Merchant Mariner’s Document relating
to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of an Able Seaman?
MY ANSW ER : Capt. Brusseau claimed that it was his judgment that possession of a firearm by an Able
Seaman does not have any benefits for marine safety or security. Capt. Brusseau’s logic is faulty
because possession of a firearm by an Able Seaman (ashore while not employed as an Able Seaman
aboard a ship) is not subjectable to a discretionary test of marine safety or security but is a guaranteed
right of the Second Amendment. Nor does Capt. Brusseau have any discretionary authority of the
Conflict of Law Doctrine.
Citing from1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), at page
462 Justice Story discusses the common defense clause of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
“But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more
restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is,
and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the
other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles
of interpretation, to be adopted?’’
WHAT IS YOUR ANSW ER REAR ADM IRAL CROW LEY ?

QUESTION (3) Does the Oath of Office compel Capt. Brusseau, as an act of upholding the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bearing true faith and allegiance to
the same, and discharging well and faithfully the duties of the office to which appointed without any
reservation or purpose of evasion to approve an application for an endorsement on a Merchant
Mariner’s Document relating to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of an Able
Seaman?
MY ANSW ER : Absolutely yes. But, since Capt. Brusseau has denied my Second Amendment application
I allege that Capt. Brusseau has violated his Oath of Office in failing to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, beared false faith and a non-allegiance to the Constituton, discharged poorly and without
faithful obedience to duties of the office to which he was appointed and has displayed reservations or
purposes of evasion from his duties which may be prosecutorial offense under the U.C.M.J.
WHAT IS YOUR ANSW ER REAR ADM IRAL CROW LEY ?

Sincerely,

Don Hamrick

10