Robert Handel [aka, Green Mountain Patriot] – Wall of Shame (CoS-CLC)

The following is the officially released document from the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court regarding Robert Handel (alias Green Mountain Patriot). He is dishonored for his failure to participate in the CLC as per his promise to fulfill his duties as a grand juror that he willingly volunteered for.



On August 28, 2012, the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court, having received a Complaint, sent an email to the Grand Jury pool. The Grand Jury (and all other Court personnel) are voluntary positions. The email was to ask for volunteers for Grand Jury 1203.

Subsequent emails were sent out until responses were received from most members of the Grand Jury Pool.

Robert Handel (aka, Green Mountain Patriot; replied on September 4, 2012, agreeing to serve on Grand Jury 1203.

Mr. Handel, having been completely absent as a grand juror, has dishonored himself by proving his unreliability to the Patriot Community after he willingly volunteered to participate in the Grand Jury’s investigation.

Therefore, it is hereby stated and on the record, that Robert Handel be placed on the Common Law Court’s Wall of Shame.


[Download PDF]

Intimidation “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “intimidation” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:”




The act of putting another in fear or a state of timidity by means of a threat or declaration of an intention or determination to inure such person by the commission of an unlawful act [Payne v. Wester & Atlantic Railroad Co. 81 Tenn. (13 Lea) 507]. Not necessarily implying an overt act of violence, or even a direct threat of violence [United Constr. Workers v. New Burnside Veneer Co. (Ky) 274 SW2d 787].


In English law, every person commits a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine or imprisonment, who wrongfully uses violence to or intimidates any other person, or his wife or children, with a view to compel him to abstain from doing, or to do, any act which he has a legal right to do, or abstain from doing [St. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86 § 7]. This enactment is chiefly directed against outrages by trades-unions. There are similar statutes in many of the United States [See Payne v. Wester & Atlantic Railroad Co., 13 Lea (Tenn.) 514, 49 Am. Rep. 666; Embry v. Com., 79 Ky. 441].

  • Intimidation of voters: This, by statute in several of the states, is made a criminal offense. Under an early Pennsylvania act, it was held that, to constitute the offense of intimidation of voters, there must be a preconceived intention for the purpose of intimidating the officers or interrupting the election [Respublica v. Gibbs, 3 Yeats (Pa.) 429].



The act of making fearful; the state of being abashed.

Brave New World Revisited

Every once and awhile, the Establishment intelligentsia will admit to the hapless citizenry about all sorts of chicanery that they are up to. Even then, they will continue to deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate their activities so as to blend them seamlessly in with legitimately good actions that any dissident should be engaging in. Such are the lengths that tyrants are willing to descend to, for their playbook is taken from the father of lies.



I find it humourous that in the attempt to compare and contrast Brave New World with 1984, the author asserts, quite out of the blue, that the planet Earth is somehow “overpopulated.” Despite the fact that overpopulation is a myth (which is promulgated by self-proclaimed intellectuals who act as apologists for your garden variety tyrants), Huxley correctly determines that the government of 1984 is more punitive than the World State of his own novel, which focuses instead on Pavlovian reinforcement. For instance, Huxley states:


“Overpopulation leads to economic insecurity and social unrest. Unrest and insecurity lead to more control by central governments and an increase of their power. In the absence of a constitutional tradition, this increased power will probably be exercised in a dictatorial fashion. Even if Communism had never been invented, this would be likely to happen.”


His main problem is that he thinks that overpopulation is a valid concept, and thus takes it as a given; therefore, he focuses only on applying the idea to other phenomenon (such as the rise of tyrannical dictatorships). This is fundamentally why his analysis is inherently screwy on its face, since the application of the idea is an exercise in futility for the very concept itself is empirically fallacious. Unfortunately, this is mixed in with the easily noticeable differences of enforcement between the Party that rules Oceania and the World State, for the former is comparatively more blunt about its slavery whereas the latter socially (and bio-chemically) engineers it literally before birth.

In many ways, it could be argued that the World State is fundamentally much more tyrannical than the Party could ever be, for the discrepancy between the liberties of the people and the deceptions of the Establishment are that much sharper. The Party limits itself to controlling the thoughts and actions of its citizens after they are born. Their indoctrination is less invasive since it is rooted more in con artist trickery than in anything else. Granted, while they do attempt to literally control reality by rewriting history, even O’Brien conceded that there are limits to what the Party can accomplish, why is part of the reason why the Thought Police really function more as whips for the Outer Party rather than as the secret police (in a manner of speaking). The World State, on the other hand, must not only control the thoughts and actions of its hapless citizenry, but also their very bio-chemical makeup (even prenatally, such as with the Bokanovsky process). Indoctrination is just as bad as the Party’s, but it is also enhanced with such techniques as hyponopedia and substances like soma. Their control of reality is a fait accompli, especially considering the various levels of biological neutering forcibly performed on the Gammas, Epsilons, Deltas, and even Betas.

Another fallacy that Huxley likes to promulgate is that so-called overpopulation would lead to what he calls “overorganization;” that is, the emergence of Big Government and Big Business (or Big Whatever, for that matter). Even if he was right that we suffer (or would suffer) from overpopulation, it is a non sequitur that therefore the corporatization of life must result from “too many people.” Part of the proof for this are the countries that don’t have that many people but who are characteristically bureaucratic and heavy-handed, like Communist Cuba, or non-communist (?) Canada. Consider the following from the Population Research Institute:

“According to the UN Population Database, the world’s population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq. mi. (7,494,271,488,000 sq. ft). So divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq. ft by 6,908,688,000, and you get 1084.76 sq. ft./person. That’s approximately a 33′ x 33′ plot of land for every person on the planet, [which is] enough space for a town house. Given the average four person family, every family would have a 66′ x 66′ plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard – and all of them [would] fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it’d basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth. Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There’s plenty of space for humanity.”


Amazing what a little math and deductive reasoning can do, huh? My point here is that you can have Huxley’s “overorganization” in sparsely populated regions and limited government in densely packed urban sprawls provided that the desire for tyrants to dominate, enslave, and control their fellow humans is present.

Most of what Huxley promotes for what he thinks people should do in order to avert (or at least mitigate) the approach of his fictional World State into real life lies in taking the most moderate of paths. Huxley said:

“Organization is indispensable; for liberty arises and has meaning only within a self-regulating community of freely cooperating individuals. But, though indispensable, organization can also be fatal. Too much organization transforms men and women into automata, suffocates the creative spirit, and abolishes the very possibility of freedom. As usual, the only safe course is in the middle, between the extremes of laissez-faire at one end of the scale and of total control on the other.”


In other words, the only way we can achieve greater amounts of liberty and freedom is to have limited slavery, tiny larceny, and mild rape. It sounds just as bad to me as a woman telling her flaky boyfriend that she is only a little pregnant with their child. Silly me, here I was thinking that laissez-faire was synonymous with Liberty; perhaps Huxley next will say that Thomas Jefferson was fundamentally wrong about human nature:

“We are far indeed from Jefferson’s ideal of a genuinely free society composed of a hierarchy of self-governing units…[w]e see, then, that there are certain historical, economic, demographic, and technological conditions which make it very hard for Jefferson’s rational animals, endowed by nature with inalienable rights and an innate sense of justice, to exercise their reason, claim their rights, and act justly within a democratically organized society.”


Oh, wait, he did, didn’t he? Well, I guess it’s safe to say that Huxley is no child of the Enlightenment.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited is a nauseating display of arrogant ignorance on the part of a man whose brother was the first Director-General of UNESCO. I don’t think it is too far off the mark to declare that the Huxley family was quite preoccupied with eugenics. In the final analysis, if you want an example of bad analysis regarding socio-political conditions, coupled with baseless assertions and even worse “solutions” to the “problems” being presented, then feel free to intellectually dissect Huxley’s grandiose predictions about the implementation of his novel in real life.

Extortion “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “extortion” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:”




Oppression under color or right; the criminal offense of obtaining money or other valuable thing by compulsion, actual force, or force of motives to the will; more technically defined as the unlawful taking by an officer of the law, by color of his office, of any money or thing of value that is not due to him, or the taking of more than is due, or the taking of money before it is due [Bush v. State, 19 Ariz 195, 168 P 508; 31 Am J2d Extort § 1]. A method of abuse of process [1 Am J2d Abuse P § 12].


In a large sense, it signifies any oppression, under color of right: but in a more strict sense it means the unlawful taking by any officer, by color of his office, of any money or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before it is due [4 Bl. Com. 141; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 68, s. 1; 1 Russ. Cr. *144]. To constitute extortion, there must be the receipt of money or something of value; the taking a promissory note, which is void, is not sufficient to make an extortion [2 Mass. R. 523; see Bac. Ab. h. t.; Co. Litt. 168]. It is extortion and oppression for an officer to take money for the performance of his duty, even though it be in the exercise of a discretionary power [2 Burr. 927]. It differs from exaction [(q. v.) See 6 Cowen, R. 661; 1 Caines, R. 130; 13 S. & R. 426 1 Yeates, 71; 1 South. 324; 3 Penna. R. 183; 7 Pick. 279; 1 Pick. 171].


Any oppression by color or pretense of right, and particularly the exaction by an officer of money, by color of his office, either when none at all is due, or not so much is due, or when it is not yet due [Preston v. Bacon, 4 Conn. 480].

Extortion consists in any public officer unlawfully taking, by color of his office, from any person any money or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than his due [Code Ga. 1882, § 4507].

Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right [Pen. Code Cal § 518; Pen code Dak. § 608; and see Cohen v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 38 S. W. 1005; U. S. v. Deaver (D. C.), 14 Fed. 597; People v. Hoffman, 126 Cal. 366, 58 Pac. 856; State v. Logan, 104 La. 760, 29 South. 336; People v. Barondess, 61 Hun. 571, 16 N. Y. Supp. 436].

  • Extortion is an abuse of public justice, which consists in any officer unlawfully taking, by color of his office, form any man, any money, or thing of value that is not due to him, or before it is due [4 Bl. Comm. 141].
  • Extortion is any oppression under color of right. In a stricter sense, the taking of money by any officer, by color of his office, when none, or not so much is due, or it is not yet due [1 Hawk. P. C. (Curw. Ed.) 418].
  • It is the corrupt demanding or receiving by a person in office of a free for services which should be performed gratuitously; or where compensation is permissible, of a larger fee than the law justifies, or a fee not due [2 Bish. Crim. Law § 390].
  • The distinction between “bribery” and “extortion” seems to be this: the former offense consists in the offering a present, or receiving one, if offered; the latter, in demanding a fee or present, by color of office.



The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting any thing from a person by force,duress, menaces, authority,or by any undue exercise of power; illegal exaction; illegal compulsion to pay money, or to do some other act. Extortion is an offense punishable at common law.

1. Force or illegal compulsion by which any thing is taken from a person.

EXCLUSIVE RAW STORY: SWAT Team Raids Home, Wheels Grandmother Into the Rain

The following story as provided to The Last Bastille Blog is from an eyewitness. Please keep in mind that this story is still developing and any updates to it will be posted here on the blog.



On Saturday, January 26th of 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff‘s SWAT Team raided a private home in Aguila, AZ (which is 85 miles northwest of Phoenix). They arrived at the suspect’s home, but he wasn’t there. What the sheriff’s office wanted him for is unconfirmed at this time.


Two armored SWAT vans with gun turrets aimed at the house (so as to provide cover for the entry team) were on the scene. Three SUV’s were on site as well. More than a dozen officers were all kitted up in body armor and also appear to be carrying semi-automatic rifles.


When the SWAT team knocked on the door and asked if anyone was home, the suspect’s elderly grandmother told the officers that she was home alone. The SWAT team then proceeded to enter, although they didn’t break down the front door.


Next, the SWAT team can be seen here taking the wheelchair bound grandmother (despite her yelling protests) out of her home into the drizzling rain, without any sort of jacket or rain protection whatsoever. Even though an ambulance was on site, SWAT officers instead took her to a SUV. After they removed her from her own home, the SWAT team cleared the house, yet no gunfire resulted.


The photographer was noticed by SWAT officers, who then ordered him to go back inside his own home.


Again, I will reiterate that any more information beyond what is mentioned here is, at this point, elusive and fairly sketchy, but an investigation is currently underway so as to determine what exactly occurred here.

Apparently, with this show of force, you have the choice to either submit (and be arrested) or die.

Entrapment “Legally” Defined

The following definition for “entrapment” is taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition):



The inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated by him, for the mere purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution against him [People v. Makovsky, 3 Cal 2d 366, 44 P2d 536; State v. Marquardt, 139 Conn 1, 89 A2d 219, 31 ALR2d 1206]. Measures used to entrap a person into crime in order, by making him a criminal, to aid the instigator in the accomplishment of some corrupt private purpose of his own [Woo Wai v. United States (CA9 Cal) 223 F 412].

Threat “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “threat” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:”




Words or conduct intended to intimidate. A means of duress [Allen v Plymouth, 313 Mass 356, 47 NE2d 284; Fox v Piercey, 119 Utah 367, 227 P2d 763].

In law, a threat is a declaration of an intention or determination to injure another person by the commission of some unlawful act. An intimidation is the act of making another person timid or fearful by such a declaration. If the act intended to be done is not unlawful, then the declaration is not a threat in law, and the effect is not intimidation in a legal sense [Payne v Western & Atlantic Railroad Co. 81 Tenn (13 Lea) 507].

As to the effect of a threat as a breach of the pace [see 12 Am J2d Breach P §12].


  1. A menace of destruction or injury to the lives or property of those against whom it is made.
  2. Sending threatening letters to persons for the purpose of extorting money, is said to, be a misdemeanor at common law [Hawk. B. 1, c. 53, s. 1; 2 Russ. On Cr. 575; 2 Chit. Cr. L. 841; 4 Bl. Com. I26]. To be indictable, the threat must be of a nature calculated to overcome a firm and prudent man. The party who makes a threat may be held to bail for his good behaviour [Vide Com. Dig. Battery, D; 13 Vin. Ab. 357].



In criminal law, a menace; a declaration of one’s purpose or intention to work injury to the person, property, or rights of another.

  • A threat has been defined to be any menace of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and to take away from his acts that free, voluntary action which alone constitutes consent [Abbot. See State v. Cushing, 17 Wash. 544, 50 Pac. 512; State v. Brownlee, 84 Iowa. 473, 51 N. W. 25; Cote v. Murphy, 159 Pa. 420, 28 Atl. 190; 23 L. R. A. 135, 39 Am. St. Rep. 686].



A menace; denunciation of ill; declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, loss or pain on another.

There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats.

Incitement “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “incitement” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:”




An arousing to action [see Incite].

To arouse to action, sometimes to violence, mob action or riot, even to revolution [State v. Diamon, 27 NM 477, 202 P 988, 20 ALR 1527, 1532]. To solicit the commission of a crime, such as larceny [32 Am J1st Larc § 91].


To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot. Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet.” [See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310].


That which incites the mind or moves to action; motive; incentive; impulse.

From the long records of a distant age,
Derive incitement to renew thy rage.