Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Schuyler Barbeau: Terrorists at the Ranch

Violation of Title 26 is for the Tax code, not the Criminal code.

Schuyler Barbeau: Terrorists at the Ranch
Door handle and window broken during the raid. (With Carrie Aenk’s Statement on the Raid)

Schuyler Barbeau: Terrorists at the Ranch

by Gary Hunt
December 14, 2015

On November 14, 2015, when Schuyler Barbeau and a friend dropped off a case containing a rifle receiver, an 18″ barrel, and a 10.5″ barrel, the government had all they needed to bring charges against him — for having three legal items in close proximity. Though not seen by the friend, the contents had been described on the way to Oliver Murphy’s house.

Later, according to the Criminal Complaint, the case and contents were turned over to the FBI. According to the Complaint, “the CHS contacted the FBI” to turn the “evidence” over to them, though it appears that the Complaint is in error — that the FBI was staking out the house, as that date had been set up for the drop off, and he was not “contacted” by the FBI, rather the FBI just showed up, got the evidence and then “secured” it.

The evidence is claimed to be an Short Barrel Rifle (SBR), however, it was a receiver, and two barrels, but, let’s not quibble over reality when the government has other objectives.

However, since that time, the FBI has gone on a local television station and let local news agencies know that they have a “domestic terrorist” in custody. So recently after the shootings by real terrorists in San Bernardino, California, it makes them look good if they can now capture a terrorist, even before he terrorizes anyone.

Now, as far as changing the nature of what they were doing, which was to punish Schuyler for not having registered and paid the $200 tax on a SBR, we can rest assured that the FBI will, undoubtedly, put together the chosen pieces of the “secured” hoard to resemble the SBR, long before it is introduced as evidence in court.

However, we must go one step further in the “integrity” of the FBI, or lack thereof. The Constitution affords us protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. Specifically, Article IV, Bill of Rights, states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, not only does the object of the search have to be “particularly described”, it must be “supported by Oath or affirmation”.

Now, the Criminal Complaint makes only two allegations in the single “Count 1”. Those allegations are about “violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5861(d) and 5845(a)(3)”. Title 26, by the way, is the Tax Code, not the Criminal Code.

However, on the Search warrant, that is supposed to be supported by Oath or Affirmation, we find those two sections of Title 26, but we also find “possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o)”. However, there is no “Oath or affirmation” to support these charges. Quite simply, they were probably inserted to demonize Schuyler Barbeau and make him look looked something that he surely is not — a terrorist.

So, let’s look at one of the many definitions of terrorism, as defined in the same United States Code that has already been referenced:

Title 18, United States Code, Section Sec. 2331.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

So, we have “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State.”. Title 26, the Tax laws, are not criminal, they are, well, “taxes”.

Now, in paragraph (B), it qualifies the act as one intended “to intimidate or coerceCommerce Clause

a civilian population”, or, “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”.

With the television show, the press coverage (the source had to be the government, as Schuyler hasn’t even been able to speak to family, let alone the press), there is no doubt that the efforts were to coerce the population and to influence the policy (jury) by coercion. I think that there can be little doubt as to that affect, as we have already seen the press, and can fully expect the jury, to follow suit.

So, let’s look at paragraph (A). “Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that would be criminal acts under our laws. So, absent lawful authority (as per the 4th Amendment), the acts, if they are violent and dangerous to human life, they surely qualify as terrorism. At best, Schuyler may have said some things, but he never acted anything out. That is Freedom of Speech, and is far less offensive that “Kill Whitey” or “Kill cops”, but only one person has been arrested, though the news has shown many dozens of protestors with words and signs to that effect.

But, I digress. Carrie Aenk was home, alone, on the Aenk ranch, some 280 miles from where Schuyler was arrested and Allen Aenk detained for hours. The government knew that she was home alone, and the warrant was daylight only, and no provision for “no-knock” entry. That is not how it played out

Carrie Aenk has written a statement about what occurred. I will leave the reader to judge whether they (the People) would consider these activities to be “domestic terrorism”, or not. Below are some excerpts from that statement:

I have been raped without them touching my genitalia. I no longer feel safe or secure within the walls of my home or boundaries of my property. They have taken from me what I can never get back.”

* * *

“The Agent sees a sweater just inside the door, grabs it from the hook and drapes it over my shoulders when I see one of my dogs that was supposed to be kenneled in my peripheral view, and then he’s gone. I run to the edge of the porch and down the steps to get my dogs back inside their kennels but I’m thrown to the ground before I can go any further, landing in the icy mud.”

* * *

“When I get back to the house, I walk straight over to the phone and turn my back to it so my fingers can call my attorney’s cell phone. The Agent sees what I’m doing and takes the phone out of the cradle so I can’t use the phone.”

The entire statement (pdf) is at “Carrie’s Statement“. When you are finished reading her account of this ordeal, you may want to consider, based upon the information above, just who the real terrorists are.