"...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

"For the good of the Air Force, for the good of the armed services and for the good of our country, I urge you to reject convention and careerism..."
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Maxwell AFB, April 21, 2008

"You will need to challenge conventional wisdom and call things like you see them to subordinates and superiors alike."
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, United States Air Force Academy, March 4, 2011

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Anticipation - Rynearson v United States of America, et al



"We have already noted that the permissible duration of the stop is limited to the time reasonably necessary to complete a brief investigation of the matter within the scope of the stop.  The scope of an immigration stop is limited to...determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint."

- Machuca-Barerra, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001

"In United States v. Machuca-Barerra, we addressed those limitations in detail and noted that 'The scope of an immigration stop is limited to...determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint...'  It bears repeating that the permissible duration of an immigration stop is the time reasonably necessary to determine the citizenship status of the persons stopped."

- Portillo-Aquirre, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2002

To be determined...

- Richard Rynearson, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2014


"4.3(C) - Federal Court Decisions: DHS is often involved in litigation that affects its operations. Although not as common, judicial decisions not directly involving CBP can also affect operations. You need to understand these decisions and the authority of the Federal courts in order to know if they affect your duties."

- Customs & Border Protection, Inspector's Field Manual (2008)

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Every American a Border Jumper Now?


It's the nature of government power, insatiable, never ceasing, never sleeping in its quest to dominate people.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are displaying that tendency yet again.

They recently made the argument that Border Patrol agents stopping innocent American-citizen motorists up to a hundred miles from any border without any border crossing whatsoever, may detain those motorists for at least twenty-four hours.  You read that right.  Twenty-four hours.  Without any suspicion for any crime whatsoever.  That is ridiculous on its face, of course, but it serves as a great reminder about the nature of government power to overstep, push and prod, budge and force itself further and further away from any limitations set upon it by our Constitution or judiciary.

I'm no Lewis Carroll, but imagine this to perhaps get a better idea of what we're talking about:

Imagine you are driving your family on a well earned vacation across the great United States of America.  You've previously taken your kids to see Washington, DC and the Jefferson Memorial on last year's vacation.  You remember the kids were mesmerized by the thick protective glass around the Constitution that you showed them at the National Archives.

This year, you've decided to drive the family to San Antonio, Texas to show them the Alamo and explain how courageous Americans took a stand and displayed that once-American trait of courage.  As you're driving on the highway and thinking about how your hard earned tax money has contributed to the nice new asphalt, you see a sign telling you to pull over for an immigration inspection.  You think, "I haven't crossed any borders, this is strange."

You pull over and the agent asks you where you work.  You reply.  Then he tells you to pull into the secondary area off to the side and sit tight.  He informs you that you and your family are going to be there for awhile.  For at least twenty-four hours.  You offer him a driver's license and a passport and ask if there is any way you can help speed the process up, but he tells you to just sit tight and he'll get back to you.

Obviously that is insane, but that is what the DOJ argued it has the power to do in my appeal at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the DOJ's letter to the court, and my response to it, here.

Now while you ponder how ridiculous this assertion by the government is in common sense terms, consider that it is just as ridiculous in legal terms.  And herein lies the lesson.  Our Supreme Court of the United States said that these suspicionless immigration checkpoints not on the border, are ordinarily a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Because they seize us Americans without any suspicion for any crime, and that is unreasonable.  While admitting this, still, the high court provided a "narrow exception" to allow these checkpoints not-on-the-border, to seize us without suspicion, but said that our rights would be protected because these checkpoint stops would be "brief," limited to inquiring into immigration status, and would therefore present a "minimal intrusion."

What I experienced was not brief, limited, or a minimal intrusion and I am still dealing with the impacts of that encounter.  I'm not the only American who understands these checkpoints are often anything but a minimal intrusion.

But now the government is doubling down, claiming it can keep you for twenty-four hours without any suspicion.  When you give government power an inch, it will take a mile.  The Supreme Court gave that inch, and the government took a mile.  Now it wants to take every single paved mile that exists, and it argues it has the right to do so.  Because, you know, that's limited, and narrow, and brief, and a minimal intrusion.

The government now claims the right to treat us as though we've all jumped the border and have illegally entered our own country.  Never mind that the Border Patrol is horribly ineffective at catching actual illegal aliens, and please disregard their apparent aversion to actually being on the border.

Pro tip:  those two facts above might be related.  We are through the looking glass.

Friday, September 19, 2014

ISIL Threatens Troops in USA - Bases Still Ban Second Amendment


Intelligence reports are now coming out saying that ISIS is asking lone terrorists in the United States to attack American troops in their homes.

God knows if the terrorists were to wait until service members were on their way to work, they'd be less able to defend themselves given the military's insane policy to disarm service members who travel onto base.

I'm never less safe than I am going to or from work, because the military does not respect my right to keep and bear arms, while I train and deploy to keep and bear and employ arms overseas.  So for an hour a day, I'm disarmed in my vehicle driving to a military base and away from a military base.  Like so many others.  Good thing the terrorists won't think to target vehicles going to or from military bases.

If only there were a CBT that discusses things you can do to protect yourself.  Wait a minute...

I don't mean to be cheeky.  This topic is far from funny. As demonstrated at Fort Hood, twice no less, this insane Alice in Wonderland policy puts service members in harms way.  At home.

At home.  That's bullshit.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Constitution Day Quiz


Took this quiz and only got ten of thirteen correct (I missed #6, #10, and #13).  I did get a chuckle at question #7 since it reminded me of our good friend, Tony Carr.

Take the quiz yourself to see how well you do.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

PYB an Executive Producer of Truth in Media


One of the best journalists out there, Ben Swann, has released the first episode of his second season of Truth in Media.  I'm proud to say that I'm listed as an executive producer, because I support the great work that he has done and I appreciate his words on the need for "confrontation" in the realm of ideas, as he discusses near the end of this video.  Ideas need to be challenged if positive change is to be made.  But before ideas can be challenged, people need to be well informed.

That's where Ben Swann comes in, and he's a breath of fresh air to those who wish to have their news reported objectively.

Ben Swann created the single most courageous and valuable piece of journalism I have seen in recent time, when he interviewed President Obama in this clip.  That interview was extremely relevant then, is relevant now, and touched on the most important issues facing America.  I  would argue, the most important issues in all of American history.  I am looking forward to supporting and watching more of Ben Swann's fearless and well researched media pieces.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Veteran Fights for Constitutional Rights


In the video above I share why this case is particularly important to me. Real freedom lies in the thin space that separates an American from an armed agent of their government. Once lost, it's very difficult to get back peacefully.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Is Cooperation Not Even Enough Anymore?


In the video above I discuss my thirty-four minute suspicionless checkpoint detention with journalist Ben Swann, and liberty champion Terry Bressi.  In this video I talk about the importance of my case, and discuss how out of control the checkpoints have become, to the point now where complying with the scope and purpose of the checkpoints isn't even enough to guarantee that our rights will not be violated.  Good discussion from all involved.

Monday, September 8, 2014

How Long is Reasonably Necessary for a Suspicionless Stop?


Oh, about that long.  Less than twenty seconds.  Add maybe thirty seconds for the agent to ask, "can I see a passport" assuming the driver didn't have it ready (which I did after the thirty-four minute detention from six weeks prior).  Which is why court precedence gives them a couple of minutes, which make sense.

Notice my window was rolled down much less than the stop several weeks prior that formed the basis for my lawsuit.  And there were two people in the vehicle this time.  Somehow this agent was able to do his job despite these "unusual facts."  I mean, how many people do they encounter who pull up with their passport at the ready?  Very unusual.  How did this agent know what to do?

These guys are not making Boeing 747s.  When a non-Border Patrol agent, non-lawyer, motorist driving through knows the law governing these checkpoints from the past several decades, shouldn't they?

They should know their job, and when a couple of them, to include a supervisor with a great deal of time in the business, get it wrong and violate our Constitution, given the clear laws set by the judiciary, they need to be held to account.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Clearly Established - Filming to Establish Truth of Events


"4.3(C) - Federal Court Decisions: DHS is often involved in litigation that affects its operations. Although not as common, judicial decisions not directly involving CBP can also affect operations. You need to understand these decisions and the authority of the Federal courts in order to know if they affect your duties."

- Customs & Border Protection, Inspector's Field Manual (2008)  


The video above is a very good look at the power of recording technology to protect oneself against public servants who are unconcerned with truth.  It also touches on the law concerning suspicionless Border Patrol checkpoints, like the one outside Laughlin AFB, and presents clearly established law which has been distilled into Border Patrol manual procedure, on what is appropriate during these seizures.

It should be noted that the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was edited in the making of this video, and therefore it is not a contextually accurate account.  Liberties were taken to highlight a particular viewpoint.  For the actual audio transcript of the oral argument, please see my previous blog post.

If you find yourself thinking this video is too long, consider that it's still shorter than the suspicionless checkpoint encounter I faced.  Imagine if every time you try to drive to work, this could happen to you, and your cooperation wouldn't be enough to make it stop.

"We have already noted that the permissible duration of the stop is limited to the time reasonably necessary to complete a brief investigation of the matter within the scope of the stop.  The scope of an immigration stop is limited to...determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint."

- Machuca-Barerra, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001

"In United States v. Machuca-Barerra, we addressed those limitations in detail and noted that 'The scope of an immigration stop is limited to...determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint...'  It bears repeating that the permissible duration of an immigration stop is the time reasonably necessary to determine the citizenship status of the persons stopped."

- Portillo-Aquirre, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2002

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

My Oral Argument Before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

"We have already noted that the permissible duration of the stop is limited to the time reasonably necessary to complete a brief investigation of the matter within the scope of the stop.  The scope of an immigration stop is limited to...determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint."
- Machuca-Barerra, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001

"In United States v. Machuca-Barerra, we addressed those limitations in detail and noted that 'The scope of an immigration stop is limited to...determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint...'  It bears repeating that the permissible duration of an immigration stop is the time reasonably necessary to determine the citizenship status of the persons stopped."
- Portillo-Aquirre, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2002


It was an outstanding argument this morning, and the judges demonstrated a mastery of the facts and grappled with an interesting legal question.  The oral argument above is well worth the watch.   The first twenty minutes is my lawyer before the three judge panel, followed by the lawyer from the Department of Justice arguing the government's side, with pointed questions and commentary from the judges throughout to both lawyers.

In Portillo-Aguirre, the ruling states that, "...the entire stop lasted about ten minutes."  The ruling further goes on to explain, "We have found that police violated the Fourth Amendment by extending a stop even three minutes beyond its permissible duration."  The Fifth Circuit found in that case, "Here, the stop unquestionably exceeded this permissible duration."

That ruling first traces the court precedence from the SCOTUS to Machucha-Barrera and then explains yet again, common sense principles that everybody should know, stating, "Here, the stop unquestionably exceeded this permissible duration."

My detention was thirty-four minutes long.  If the judges of the Fifth Circuit found in Portillo-Aguirre that the ten minute detention there was "unquestionably" impermissible in length, and it was, then there can be no question that mine was "super-duper-cherry-on-top" impermissible.  No question in this galaxy or any dimension.

In other words, clearly established.  Beyond doubt.  Fair warning.  Unquestionable.

Hopefully the judges here will find not only that our law "bears repeating yet again - no, really, we mean it this time," as they have done repeatedly in their circuit opinion for over a decade, but also that our law requires some teeth.  Enough is enough.  It's time to hold government accountable when it violates clearly established law.  Qualified immunity should not be allowed to shield government agents from their law breaking this time.

There is no way the agents did not know what they were doing was illegal.  They had more than fair warning.

For the full video of the unconstitutional thirty-four minute checkpoint encounter and to read all courts documents, including the amicus brief from the Texas Civil Rights Project, please click here. 

ETA: For those wishing to read the 28J letter requested by the court, and my response to it, please click here.

Monday, September 1, 2014

Doing What the Rest Won't Do


Just saw this rare positive message from a peer, about my fight at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as discussed on Fox News, over at the Digital Clown Show.

A pilot posted:
I say good for him, and I like to watch/DVR Stossel ('The Independents' on FBN is even better, and entertaining). I'm assuming it's cool with big blue, that or he just doesn't care anymore?

I didn't agree with everything he has said (on here and other places) but I give the guy a lot of credit for standing up and taking the heat that comes with it. Most of us (whether in the military or not, and myself included) rarely take a stand on issues we feel strongly about, but he has done it, whether you agree with him on the issue/how he took it on, or not. It's easy to demonize the people that put themselves out there, and again, that's because they're doing what the rest of us won't do.

The most important point in this post, is the acknowledgment that officers who take an oath to defend the constitution against domestic enemies, are not willing to make good on their oaths.

That is something that we need to fix.