The National Liberty Alliance is Attempting to Subvert the Committee of Safety Concept
Download this spoken discourse. (MP3)
Note: It would behoove me to first say that the identifier “sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, if you will. A “sovereign” is above all else; a “citizen” is “a legally recognized subject of a state,” thereby subordinate to a larger body. Although I will use that identifier throughout this article, simply due to its notoriety and for purposes of clarity, because the tactics pursued by folks with ‘different’ labels (i.e. American State National, Freemen-on-the-land, etc.) are almost identical. Also, make sure to check out Kyle Rearden’s Committee of Safety PowerPoint presentation, as well as my interview with Gary Hunt on the Committee of Safety concept.
By: Shane Radliff
May 16th, 2016
“A Committee of Safety can be briefly defined as a mutual self-defense association that also operates as a parallel government. Historically, they were known under a variety of names, yet, their function was exactly the same – to pool manpower for defense of the community and legitimize a self-organized populist government.” [Emphasis added]
– Kyle Rearden, The Origins of the Harney County Committee of Safety
I’ve been noticeably transparent about my previous involvement in a “sovereign citizen” group, especially so in the past week after Kyle and I produced an LUA Radio Special Edition titled, The “Sovereign Citizens” Are Douchebags. That involvement also consisted of interaction with the National Liberty Alliance (NLA), as well as a monthly donation for over a year to their organization. As with most “sovereign citizens”, I was duped into believing a bunch of mythology, most (if not all) of which is laughably unsubstantiated. To put it more simply, they have not been transparent about their “successes” (unless, you count the never-ending imprisonment of their practitioners), nor have they even provided sufficient documentation to verify their claims; on that same note, they have still failed to answer the list of questions Kyle asked over 2 years ago in his Only On Paper article, where he questioned their ideology.
On April 30th, I mirrored his article titled Fake Judges: How & Why Sovereign Citizens are Undermining Patriot Groups. It wasn’t long until the article went semi-viral drawing unconstructive criticism, ad hominem attacks, and all sorts of fallacious comments.
That said, I thought the refutation by Kyle and I of this gibberish was completed on May 7th, but it appears things are much worse than I expected—not only are these folks parading around as “fake judges”, or just convincing hapless saps to test out their already disproven theories, or muddying the waters for habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, but they are also attempting to subvert the Committee of Safety (CoS) concept.
A gander at their CoS page will alarm anyone that is even slightly knowledgeable in the idea. There are quite a few particularly atrocious documents (CoS Seal, Call to Sheriff for First or Second Visit, Example Resolution), and even an extremely inaccurate PowerPoint presentation.
To keep this short, I’ll just say the NLA has no understanding, whatsoever, of how a CoS is formed. They have no understanding of what it entails, and cannot “promote” the concept without incorporating the failed attempts at an allegedly common law “citizens’ grand jury,” as well as the inefficacious concept of the County Sheriff, who is an elected official within the existing government. By contrast, a CoS is a parallel government—the two are separate and by their nature remain as such.
That, and NLA even had the audacity to bring up “Chemtrails,” the “New World Order,” and “FEMA Camps” in their PowerPoint presentation. A CoS is a local government; as such, how can they begin to deal with these problems? Most disconcerting, the “habeas corpus” they “file” in courts is NOT ad subjiciendum. I can’t say I’m surprised, but credibility is important—there’s no reason to bring up unproven theories while promoting CoS— it just muddies the water.
Though, it gets worse…Much worse…
Further scouring that page and their website, I found their Committee of Safety Registry. In just three days, they had managed to triple the number of CoS formed in the past 20 years. That seemed suspicious to me, so I decided to register a fake CoS, just as a way of testing whether or not they were vetting the submitted applications. (Note: Click the images to enlarge.)
Within an hour, it was added to the registry—I wasn’t particularly surprised that it was, but I would have at least expected them to call the (fake) phone number I put in and realize it was bunk—hell, when I was in that “sovereign citizen” group and offered to volunteer for them, they called me once a week for 6 months. Besides, are they acting coy by asking for the first name only? A legitimate phone number would be easily traced to its source.
This arises some suspicion in my mind. Did this request even go to a human being, or was it just an automated approval? Keep in mind, this application was put in around 9pm CST on Sunday, May 15th.
There’s also another initial observation that warrants attention. The Harney County CoS is not listed in this registry at the time of publication. That is a confirmed CoS, and the NLA even republished my collaborative article with Kyle on The Origins of the Harney County Committee of Safety. And, of course they removed all of our embedded hyperlinks and highlighted certain portions instead!
Assuming the rest of those are “real” registrations, again, the process of forming a CoS arises. If I was able to put through a fake one, how many of those others actually held a publicly announced “town hall” meeting in order to form a CoS, and subsequently elect committeemen to serve the county? Are there any websites? A video? Anything?
I would posit that most, if not all, of those folks possess no understanding of the CoS concept, whatsoever; especially so, if their introduction to it, was by way of the NLA. It is also possible that some registrars simply thought this was comparable to a WhiteHouse.org petition, or even starting a III% chapter in their state (I did that too, but resigned within a week).
There are also a number of other issues.
NLA is a top/down organization—it is not grassroots, like CoS are. “Robert,” being the National “CoS Committee Chairman,” is representative of that fact—what they are doing is centrally planning the formation of CoS (in many ways, this is reminiscent of the anti-libertarian Libertarian Party). On the other hand, Committee.org, offers a couple of examples, but the by-laws and stipulations for joining are entirely up to the individuals in the specific county when they form their local CoS. That said, the NLA’s opposition to the “New World Order” (those at the “top” of the pyramid), should be reflected in their organization and actions, but that is surely not the case.
Since these folks are Constitutionalists, you would at least expect them to abide by copyright law—which is much more stringent than Creative Commons (never mind the BipCot NoGovernment license). Though, that is not the case—instead, they selectively chose those three documents Gary Hunt published on CoS, yet dispensed of those that conflict with their confirmation bias. Worse, they don’t even attribute them to him on their main CoS webpage. How hard would it possibly be to add (Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom) to the end of Committees of Safety Volume I and II and The Historical Documents? Apparently, it was too difficult for their webmaster.
Guilt by association also comes into play, which could be applied under any of the aforementioned “licenses.” Gary’s writing on the subject could connect him to the NLA, but that is inaccurate on its face—he and Kyle did an entire five-part series on Patriot Mythology, which debunks everything the NLA stands for. Gary is not, in any way, shape, or form connected to their nonsense.
In fact, when the “leadership” of the NLA invited Gary to one of their conference calls, he deferred direct involvement and stipulated that a CoS must be locally generated, and that he would wait and see how they proceeded before he could support what they were doing. He also suggested a knowledgeable person, who will be referred to as Mr. C.o.S, that has studied both his work and independently studied the true CoS concept, and who became quite knowledgeable on the subject. Apparently, NLA then made contact with Mr. C.o.S, implying that they could work together, but failed to contact him again—they obviously wanted someone to accommodate them and their agenda, not someone to promote and truly educate their members about CoS. Instead, they created a national position of the chairman, for an individual named Robert, which is absolutely contrary to the entire concept.
As an aside, Mr. C.o.S was barred from discussing CoS at one of the Stand By Me rallies in Oregon this past March.
Regardless of what the NLA claims to be, they are just another “sovereign citizen” group. Just because you “don’t entertain the fiction such as bills of exchange, redeeming and/or discharging through trust accounts; nor do [you] involve [y]ourselves with contracts, commercial liens and the exchanging of an oath of office for a value,” does not therefore mean that you are not a “sovereign citizen” group, especially when you are filing frivolous court documents and even the occasional UCC commercial lien. After all, UCC was simply a recommendation for adoption by the states, and for the most part, was adopted, though considerable changes have been made in most states from the original suggested model. Citing UCC is like citing the rules of Monopoly when you want a bank loan. There is No Legal Authority to do so, NLA! (Note: The image below shows the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury documents being rejected by the federal judiciary.)
That said, the semantic games that will be played are meaningless. The actions taken to achieve said freedom are what matters, and with this nonsense, it doesn’t help—for many, it gets them tossed into a rape cage. Freedom, much?
Conclusion
I highlighted the concerns I had briefly with the NLA’s vetting process, but it doesn’t just end there. One question I have is this: How genuine is their registry when they’re not even vetting the applicants? – No phone call, nothing. On the original CoS registry, they at least have a phone call or an exchange of emails—that is not the case with NLA.
This also makes the NLA’s CoS page extremely vulnerable to black hat hackers; whether it’s by way of government agents or the private sector. Who knows? Tomorrow there may be 5,000 CoS registered!
The CoS concept will now look like a joke with this lack of vetting. It’s no different than putting in your name, phone number, and email for an online petition. Though, unlike one of those petitions, members of a CoS will be out there, doing things. A petition is simply begging those who falsely imagine themselves to be “our” rulers to please be nicer to “us”.
If I had to posit a prediction, my fake CoS will be taken down within a week. Though, I would also not be surprised if it remains there ad infinitum.
The actions of the NLA, as well as the other “sovereign citizens”, need to be called out for the bullshit that they do. The CoS concept is pretty cut and dry and has nothing to do with county sheriffs, contrary to the beliefs of those within NLA; or, maybe, they are intentionally adding to/removing various elements to fit their agenda? Nonetheless, CoS have proven their efficacy historically, and the county sheriff concept has surely not—for example, consider the actions (or, inaction?) by Sheriff David Ward in Harney County, Oregon during The Statist Turf War (AKA, the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge), not to mention anything of Article 16 within the 1876 Texas Constitution. 1(a) states:
All elected and appointed officers, before they enter upon the duties of their offices, shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
“I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.” [Emphasis added]
A quick note on their UUSCLGJ. There is a long forgotten political prisoner named Larry Myers. The indictment filed on March 15th, 1996 states that:
“Defendant Myers signed ‘Militia…Arrest Warrants’ in his capacity as a ‘Militia Volunteer’ and ‘Constitutional Common Law Enforcement Officer.’ These ‘arrest warrants’ were based on the CLC ‘contempt order’ of the same date, and were directed at Judge Walker and the other ‘respondents…’ Myers…mailed and caused to be mailed, the CLC ‘contempt order’ of August 27, 1994, together with the ‘arrest warrant’ of that date, to Judge Walker and the other ‘respondents…” [Emphasis added]
Myers is still serving a seven year prison sentence, and is expected to be released sometime in 2019.
Much like the inclination for “sovereign citizens” to file commercial liens against government officials, completely ignoring the 1998 United States v. Marsh decision (“The filing of the lien is the crime.”), these folks will continue to attempt demonstrably failed tactics, until it gets them tossed in a rape cage; this is largely due to their inability to learn from history, therefore, they are doomed to repeat it.
Be wary of formal organizations, like NLA. Also be wary of silver bullet solutions to the problem of tyranny—especially if it consists of filing magical documents in court, or setting up common law “citizens’ grand juries”; you may just end up in a cage. I think Barry Reid put it best:
“Avoid membership in political groups or other civic organizations. As a rule, these groups are filled with super sneaky, nosey individuals more willing than not to stab someone in the back if it suits their selfish purposes. Total snakes.” [Emphasis added]
For more great content like this, please consider donating to Liberty Under Attack. Alternatively, sign up for a free trial through Audible, receive a free audiobook, and help support us in the process. Lastly, make sure to sign up for LUA email updates.
I find this assessment of a grassroots movement misinformed and gratuitous. If the NLA were vetting you would have criticized that claiming they are filtering for their own purpose. I believe in the Committees of Safety and appreciate those promoting it. I do not appreciate your attack posture and misinformed thought leadership.
You have lost me here and I am no longer going to follow you as you are omni-focused and a bit too Elmer Fudd in your hunting tactics.
Paul,
Are you saying that you think NLA is a grassroots movement? If so, I find that assessment particularly misguided and contrary to reality.
As far as your second sentence goes, that didn’t happen, and is therefore a moot point; but I am sure my reaction would not be as you described it. Also, I’m sure this article wouldn’t have been written if that was the case.
I’ve enjoyed exchanging emails with you Paul, but the NLA’s subversion and misunderstanding of the CoS concept needs to be stopped, or at the very least, called out; the two most important points of contention being the NATIONAL CoS Chairman and the county sheriff. I’m sad to hear that you will be unfollowing LUA, but this article needed to be written.
Laissez-faire,
Shane
The two most important contentions you say are NATIONAL CoS Chairman and the county sheriff. Why do the people need a CoS Chairman? What is this CoS National leader proposing and how much will it cost? How much influence is he proposing? So much for Grassroots with a National CoS leader telling us local yokels “people” what to do. I liked what I saw in http://www.committee.org and the CoS being local standalone operations. My examination of the CoS on the NLA page proposed no National leader.
I will no longer be following you because you jumped to open attack rather than open discussion. You are just another liberty shock jock trying to make a name, regardless of the damage you do to “We the People” in the process, and you cannot un-ring that bell. You could have demonstrated leadership and created a union, but you chose a division, and created confusion where it was not only unnecessary, but destructive, and demonstrates that you are simply looking out for just yourself.
Thank you for reading the article and I hope it was useful to you.
Laissez-faire,
Shane
Shane,
Not that it likely matters to you, but there are significant pieces of information you completely overlooked, or were entirely misled about, likely because it is not sensational for your apparent purposes. I took your position to a friend of mine in the NLA and asked a few questions, something you failed to do prior to posting this one sided fallacy in your original post, ensuring your biased journalistic modus operandi. Based on what I learned, and you should have, I would ask you:
1. Does Matthew Pamation confirm or deny that Gary Hunt referred Matthew Pamation to the National Liberty Alliance?
2. Does Matthew Pamation confirm or deny that National Liberty Alliance spoke to him?
3. Does Matthew Pamation confirm or deny that National Liberty Alliance invited him to take national leadership as it relates to Committees of Safety?
4. Does Matthew Pamation confirm or deny that National Liberty Alliance sought his advice as it relates to Committees of Safety and their training material?
5. Does Matthew Pamation confirm or deny that he failed to answer the National Liberty Alliance relating to leadership and consulting?
The answers to all these questions should be “Confirm”. If not, your journalistic talents are non-existent or your subject in this one sided posting is deceitful. I may not be a complete fan of NLA, at the same time I resent you schlock job, as you are more provocateur than legitimate journalist. The basis of my statement is your one sided posting. You did not even TRY to speak to NLA to get their stand.
Please post this immediately, then formulate your response, giving others opportunity to contribute prior to your biased responses. Waiting days for you to dissect and disseminate responses is proof of deception. For the record I am posting this on 05/21/2016 about 8:45 AM Eastern time. Any later date and time will be further evidence of your fraud against the people.
The situation with NLA is covered in-depth, in the second hour of this.
http://www.libertyunderattack.com/lua-radio-special-edition-5-20-16-fake-judges-refuse-nla-ignores/
Paul,
Since i have been brought up n this, let me address what I have knowledge of, both historical and current.
Committees if Safety are, as you said, autonomous local bodies. They are parallel governments,filing in where the other government fails to do what should be done. As such, there is no historical record of a sheriff being associated with a CoS, not can there be today. It appears that the NLA weren’t paying attention when I came on their conference call as a guest. There can e no relationship with the existing government, or there would be no reason for a CoS. From the historical perspective, Worcester County is an example, as explained in my article, The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence”, established a committee. Its role was as executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive role was the enforcement, aided by the militia (posse comitatus), where arrests were made by them, weapons taken, and other enforcement responsibilities. That doesn’t mean that a CoS cannot have a sheriff, if they chose to, however, it could not be a sheriff that was under the authority of the other government, “constitutional”, or not.
Now, on to your numbered questions:
1. I was asked to be a chairman of the committee of safety supporting portion of the NLA. I told them that it would have to be the chairman of the committee to assist organizing committees of safety, or something to that effect. It would be inappropriate to suggest, or imply, that the office was senior to that which it chose to help created. A lady on the conference call suggested that she knew someone. When she finally put his name out, I told the call that I knew him and he is well versed on CoS and would be ideal for the position. I did not recommend him, though iI did provide a good reference for him. It is not necessary to twist words to try to imply that which was not.
2. I know from speaking with him that the person that was commended by the lady did speak to the NLA. He was invited to one conference call, and I believe that he said that he had spoken with some embers prior to that conference call.
3. I understand that they did extend that offer during the above mentioned conference call.
4. I don’t know whether they sought his advice, or not. It appears that he was not communicated with after the conference call, so I doubt that advice was sought.
5. As with #4, in my conversations with him, he had not been communicated with, nor was he advised of, not invited, to any subsequent conference calls, or any direct communication with anyone from NLA.
Now, as far as Mr. Radliff’s “journalistic talents”, I can assure you that he looked into the circumstances, extensively, prior to writing his article. I don’t know, however, if he intends to bring out his effort to resolve the matter and publish, at least, a partial retraction. That was dependent on a resolution of some misunderstood aspects, as addressed above.
However, for the same reason that I chose not to fill the role that NLA requested of me, which is that I have other pressing matters, I had not desired to get involved ion this discussion. However, when what you suggest warrant confirmation, in fact, is only applicable to two of the 5 items, I suppose tat assuring that the record is correct does warrant my time.
It was still a one sided posting shock jock style. Do you deny that Gary? The fact that Shane offered, after the fact, a rebuttal opportunity is deplorable journalistic skills and indicative of an agent provocateur. One more fake Judge and jury is too many. I understand and appreciate, Gary, your back peddling on Matthew. He was offered leadership, he was asked for consultation, and he failed to engage. I KNOW this to be a fact as I trust my sources. Had you been there Gary it may have helped as Matthew’s youth may be his excuse. As it stands I, personally, would not deal with Shane or Matthew as the dishonesty has been rampant. Frankly, it appears to be deliberate as this much ineptitude cannot be accidental.
I may not be a fan of NLA, as I have already stated, but the torpedo aimed an any liberty group is inexcusable.
Paul,
I think the timeline of the events needs to be reiterated here.
1) NLA puts up their Committees of Safety page, which is (still) filled with misinformation and adding onto the CoS concept.
2) I find their CoS page and read EVERY document and file on there, along with the CoS Registry. The fact that they don’t vet that registry is a problem.
3) After many requests from members (and non-members) of NLA to REMOVE the article, I extend the olive branch and let them know how they can get a retraction. Over 7 NLA leaders were contacted, NONE responded. (See next comment).
I’m not sure how you can claim that this is a “one-sided article”, when I am writing about and sourcing the misinformation on that page. I investigated their CoS page and cited the portions that were incorrect, and added the correction afterwards, hence, the two-sidedness; I have also been overly transparent in my findings. Many people have claimed that there is incorrect information in this article, but NONE have been able to cite said incorrect information; rather, I have simply had ad hominems used against me, as an attempt to discredit me and my website. It’s also worth mentioning the fact that NLA damn near plagiarized documents Gary put together on CoS, AND they republished Kyle Rearden and I’s article, “The Origins of the Harney County Committee of Safety,” and REMOVED all our of embedded hyperlinks/source citations.
Paul,
In regards to number 3 in my previous comment: LUA reached out to over 7 members of the NLA leadership, in hopes of correcting the misinformation published on their Committee of Safety page.
Below, is what we submitted on May 17, 2016 at about 11:30pm CST, and have received no replies.
An Amicable Resolution
Good Faith
First, it is absolutely necessary that all occurrences of the existing (Power Point) NLA Committee of Safety presentation, of any video, audio, Power Point, .pdf, .doc (or other text format), and or .html, immediately. This has to be removed wherever NLA has access, in all forums, including YouTube, all NLA member pages, and any other known republication of that information. This sign of good faith must precede any action on our part to resolve this matter. NLA will notify Liberty Under Attack upon completion of the demonstration of their good faith.
In addition, the following shall be accomplished by May 25th, 2016:
1. All documents, or other objects, taken from the committee.org website, or other information gleaned from that source, shall be attributed to http://www.committee.org;
2. Change reference of existing “chairman” to:
Matthew Pamation – [email protected], Chairman for the Formation of Committees of Safety;
3. Matthew will provide a revised copy for the NLA/COS webpage. Once received, it must replace the existing page within 24 hours;
4. Any publication regarding Committees of Safety being disseminated by NLA will require the approval of the chairman, Matthew Pamation, before being presented to the public;
5. The chairman, Matthew Pamation, shall be notified, in advance, whenever his participation is necessary, or in instances where Committees of Safety will be discussed.
Retraction
Liberty Under Attack will publish a retraction at every location where the article in question, The National Liberty Alliance is Attempting to Subvert the Committee of Safety Concept, has been published, upon receipt of a notice of compliance from NLA that all of the above items have been properly addressed.
Paul,
Let me make something very clear. I have friends who played common law court. They spent 12 years in prison. One of them, Susan Mokdad, died while still in prison. Her farther got out in is eighties, and was a near broken man. I don’t wish that on any patriot.
Can NLA demonstrate (prove, not talk) that they have achieved anything productive? If not, I see them following the same path, and will, must likely,end up with the same results. See http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jtfclc00.htm
Now, I have spoken with Matthew. As I said, he was never invited back or notified of any conference calls. If we look at this with a profession, or business, perspective, the onus is on NLA, especially with some new to the group, to welcome him, communicate with him, and make him feel welcome and a part of the group. Instead, they made Committees of Safety what they wanted it to be, as if they failed to heed anything I had said in the conference call. I had also offered that they could contact me, if they had any questions — as a resource. However, it appears that the truth was not a part of their agenda.
I am not defending Shane or Matthew, I am providing my observation and knowledge of events. And, you need not doubt that Shane contacted me with regard to this situation, though NLA did not. After all, nobody else has studied Committees of Safety for over two decades. NLA knew that I was a resource, but the failed to communicate with me. They new Matthew was a resource, but they failed to communicate with him.
I have been a business owner and an office manager for others. My job, in both institutions is to make sure that those subordinate to me do their job, do it timely, and do it well. I would assume that an organization such as NLA would understand basic management, but, then, that requires effort. So, they want to blame their failure, inadequacy, or whatever you want to refer to letting their relationship with Matthew to slid, on Matthew, nt on their deficient practices.
Gary, I have only read your posting, as I would not believe anything from Shane’s mouth, and my responses will not reflect anything from him, but only you.
I never spoke about the Common Law Grand Jury thing. I am not NLA. I know little about it. I cannot sell you on something I know so little of.
I really believed this Committee of Safety concept when I first heard it during the Oregon events. I immediately saw it as a real movement for the people as “the People”. When I saw the website http://www.committee.org I felt that this could be “it”. The site was thin, but had potential, and maybe someone can do something with it.
When Shane did what he did, this one sided attack job in league with Matthew, I knew CoS was on the right track. The enemy attacks what it is afraid of, so in a way, Shane helped me make a differentiation and drew attention on himself as another provocateur into the light. Shane did the same thing to those fake judges by posting libelous one sided arguments, then he offers an “olive branch” (his words) and is stunned his victims don’t want to “step up” and legitimize him and make an attempt to exonerate themselves. Judge Bruce Doucette (IQ 168), however misguided, is smarter than Shane, and knew better than attempt to pull that hack job out of the mud. It is highly likely that NLA will take the high road too.
This’s nothing but sad. My best friend was on the call where “you” were offered leadership, “you” suggested Matthew, and he witnessed Matthew refuse to engage. I could actually name others, but you know who they are, and you know I am not making these conclusions in the dark. I know the truth. You need to go to NLA and tell them you are going to lead this and for them to back off. I believe they will. But if I were NLA I would ask why you are changing your mind? You are now tainted as far as I am concerned. Matthew is likely a lost cause if he turned to Shane and this tactic. Only a true Godly awakening and reconciliation, without any evidence of Shane, can you pull Matthew’s lack of leadership out of this morass. Take a shot Gary. Call Robert Bristow. I am certain you know enough people to get his contact information.
Paul,
Maybe you should considering reading my article, Disingenuous Activists! Why Leaderless Resistance is Preferable to Formal Organizations http://tiny.cc/leaderlessresistance before you post another comment. Your presumption that any “torpedo aimed an any liberty group is inexcusable” is rather quite laughable.
There is already an extensive history of these so-called activist organizations betraying their own membership, or otherwise unfairly demonizing others who have done nothing wrong. The unwarranted ostracism of both Chris Cantwell (2013) and Ian Bernard (2016) from the Free State Project; the absorption and dilution of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership by the Second Amendment Foundation in order to reach “compromises” with the gun grabbers; and the Bitcoin Foundation having behind closed doors secret meeting with federal regulators like the IRS, FinCEN, & the Federal Reserve about how to “regulate” the Bitcoin ecosystem are now just case studies. The fake judges controversy I found myself embroiled in with the so-called Continental uNited States of America (CuSA) with “judge” Doucettee, et. al. is the just the latest example of disingenuous activists.
Just because someone claims to be an “activist” does not therefore mean they are automatically a good person who wants to “change” the world for the better. More often than not, I have come across con artists and other assorted miscreants with their own special interest agendas who didn’t give a damn about either the truth or about liberty. This, more so than any other reason, is why I’ve bristled whenever I’ve been referred to as an “activist” by readers of mine who mean well, but didn’t understand the history I wrote about in the aforementioned article, which I would strongly suggest you read.
Paul, all that I will defend myself about, or apologize for, is that I didn’t produce a narrated powerpoint presentation quickly enough for them. This is no excuse for the NLA’s decision to cut me out of the picture completely without any effort on their part to re-establish communication.
Regardless of your trust in the source who provided you your information, NLA and myself did come to an agreement about my role in assisting with CoS on ONE conference call, I did participate in ONE other call, but it was not on the topic of committees of safey.
NLA has a secretary.. beleive it or not, and she successfully contacted me BEFORE the first call where I was asked to be the Chairmen of the Committee for the establishment of CoS.
Maby it’s my fault for expecting that they would use their secretary again to contact me concerning future developments.
Maby it’s their fault for expecting me to kiss their feet.
But one thing is forsure, is that I have always been willing to work, even now.. so at the time progress was being made on their CoS page, if I would have been notified of their intent to move on without the proper power point, than I could have and still am willing to atleast fill in as an advisor and a resource and help guide them on the right path.
And as ive said to others, it’s has been a learning experience to see what NLA has chosen to do on their own.
Oh Matthew. It’s not always somebody else fault.
Take ownership. You did a bad thing for apparently the wrong reason, or worse, no reason.
I have been provided evidence, via recorded call, and all I can say is shame on you and Gary. Leaders lead. Followers follow. Spectators watch from the sidelines. Critics berate. Provocateurs destroy (Shane). Regardless of your position, you did a bad, and how you move forward will determine how you handle mistakes in the future.
There are already other groups on your tails for this action by you and Shane. You will be contacted, if not already, to further chastise you for the lies told in the original post by you and Shane.
If you are sincere, and this is a big if, you need to reconcile with the NLA, and leave Shane out of it, as they may be in a position to help you as it is clear they have no intention on controlling it and you seem to have embraced yourself a spectator intent on destroying it.
Whatever you do here will be the tenor of the rest of your life,
Always, Paul, and good luck as you will need it!
Paul,
I am getting old, though I don’t believe that I am that old. As I recall the conversation (and if you have the audio, you can confirm this), a lady said that she knew someone, mentioning that he had spoken about CoS in Salem. I asked her for his name, she gave it, and at that point, I qualified him as someone knowledgeable on CoS. You implied that I recommended him, though your context seemed to be that the initial recommendation was from me, not from her.
I have been reluctant to recommend anyone, for anything, except on rare occasions. If I recommend, and they fail to perform, it reflects on me. I prefer that my reputation stand on my performance, not on the performance of others.
If my recollection is incorrect, I would appreciate you providing me a copy of that audio. If I a incorrect, then I will have to feel older than I am.
Why then did you not engage? Why does anyone have to be the bad guy? Why was Shane provided this fodder for the single sided attack? Why do you continue to condone this cowardly one sided attack? Why did you recommend Matthew if you intend to continue CoS? Why is it appearing that the NLA is picking up a dropped ball? Why is it you appear worse than Shane to me now?
Paul, did you read my article on disingenuous activists, or not? You know, for someone who claims to not be on NLA’s side, you seem to be more than happy to defend only their side of the story, not the truth, whatever that happens to be. If you don’t produce that recorded call you claim to have, then I call bullshit on your assertions. Put it up on YouTube (or some other website that will host MP3s) and link it back here so, everyone can listen to it. Should you fail to do so, then I think it is you who is the provocateur, not Shane, who simply demonstrated that the NLA’s fake Committee of Safety registry is automated. Time to put up, or shut up, Paulie.
Paul,
Do you have a comprehension problem? I did not want the active role, as I have more important things to do.
What should I engage in, or did I suggest that I would engage in. I offered to be a resource, if they had questions, or if I could help in an advisory capacity.
I have not taken any side, I have offered what I have personal knowledge of.
You are asking, I am answering. I have done the same in conversations with members of NLA, and I did for a lengthy conference call.
I will continue to make myself available to any who wish to understand Committees of Safety.
I don’t understand why you have tried to draw me in, and you have not addressed the correction that I offered — with regard to your statement that I recommended Matthew.
The ball that NLA has picked up has no noticeable relationship with an historical CoS. I explained what they were and what their relationship to any existing government was, at great length. If you have the audios pay attention to what I said.
As far as your final remark, let me qualify my offer to help. I wil help those that seek it, and would reasonably be willing to accept and appreciate my contribution. However, if you see me as “worse than Shane”, then I don’t believe that I can expect such respect from you.
Good day.
I sought permission to share the audio and I was denied. It is not mine to share so I will not. The audio was, frankly, for me as I needed to know the truth. I have another CoS group I am following, but will be keeping an eye on NLA, and will be going that direction as it appears more simple than NLA. It is not this complicated or convoluted as you two make out.
I, one of the People you seem to despise,
Paul
Well, then, I call BULLSHIT on your assertions, including, “Leaders lead. Followers follow. Spectators watch from the sidelines. Critics berate. Provocateurs destroy (Shane).” I don’t lead anybody, I don’t follow nobody, I don’t spectate, I have never provocateured, yet I do criticize as a form of punishment to those who deserve it. Whether I criticize the government as a way of expressing my grievances, or I criticize disingenuous activists, it is a form of carrying out the demands of justice when injustice is perpetuated. I’m not going to pretend to know what your vested special interests lie, Paul, but your reflexive defense of activist organizations like the NLA speaks volumes. Maybe if more people decided to “hurt the movement,” then perhaps “the movement” would quit its politicking bullcrap sooner rather than later. Leaderless resistance for the win!
Then you are absolutely right. This site is meant for Gary, Matthew, Shane and you. Liberty under attack and y’all are the attackers. The marines had another way of saying it Kyle: “Lead, follow, or get out of the way”. God said I want you either hot or cold, but lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth. Truth be told Kyle, you are actually none of the above. You are nothing at all.
This site helps no one at all and those that put their causes here will rot in mediocrity and this goes for ALL 4 of you.
If the odds are right, one of you will rise above, actually publicly do something positive, then at least take this entire worthless posting down or shut this site down.
Kyle, Matthew, Shane, and Gary
I would like to ask you all directly:
Are the four of you guys affiliated with Harney County CoS and / or http://www.committee.org and / or any other CoS group and / or other liberty oriented group(s) together in any combination?
I am not affiliated with any organization.
I am in contact with one member of the Harney County Committee of Safety.
committee.org is my webpage. It is not an organization, nor does it have any affiliations. It would established to provide historical and truthful information about Committees of Safety. It would best be described as a passive educational page.
Your point?
Who are you affiliated with?
Paul,
Read “The Origins of the Harney County Committee of Safety.” https://tinyurl.com/HarneyCoS
Feel free to start your own blog to compete with LUA, since you seem so dedicated towards proving that I will “rot in mediocrity” because I am “nothing at all.” I’m sure you can do a better job presenting your articles during interviews on Blog Talk Radio, can’t you?
Gary,
My point is that after listening to Shane and Kyle in a recording, and Shane’s hack job with Matthew, a light went on that you four may be in cahoots and perpetrating a fraud pretending to be objective in this “Blog”. I will accept your answer and believe it to be true as the converse is unthinkable.
I have no immediate direct affiliation with any particular group at this time. I am watching many of them to see where they are going. Truth be told, I had a short flirtation with Anna von Rietz, but she too had members get arrested in the acts of their purpose. She is too angry at NLA and spends a great deal of time and contradictory information attempting to debunk them with her numerous postings. Me thinks she dost protest too much. I too have witnessed arrests in groups that venture too far into fictional estates, redemption, and accessing their CQV Trusts and had a narrow escape myself with the dribble.
Live long and prosper Gary, but maintain a discreet distance from these three. Like your mother said, “you are judged by the company you keep”.
Gary Hunt, I hope you are seeing Shane and his relentless and pitiful continued attack against the NLA on Facebook. He appears to be under the same attack for his single sided hack jobs on this site, I now associate to you, as you failed to address one single time when I asked you specifically.
Admittedly you seem the real deal, but this site, and now facebook, gives me pause in your true intentions.
Paul,
I do not follow discussions by constantly revisiting the sites. For whatever reason, I have received no “follow up” notices from this site, though I have requested them.
That aside, If you contact me directly, I will, as I have with Shane, Matthew, and Kyle, answer as honestly as I can. Most often, we use Skype, as often the response requested is lengthy, so that what is said is clearly understood.
Now, as far as what Shane has written, you call it an attack. I see it as a presentation of facts, though when facts are presented, they must also be tied together. It is the tying together that tends to appear as an attack, however, nobody worth his salt can write (tie pieces together) without bias.
An example would be a recent article I wrote, “OathKeepers v. Militia – Part III” (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1529)
You may perceive the article as an attack (read Parts I & II), though I see it as fulfilling my responsibility to the community to lay out the facts when they are, or should be, of concern to the patriot community.
If you would like to discuss this in greater detail, you can provide me a phone number or Skype username, and I will be glad to share my time with you, as I do with anyone who is sincerely interested in what I have to say.
If you are concerned with putting such information in this forum, you can email me at hunt, followed by the domain outpost-of-freedom.com.
Enough has been said already. I see your position.