Sergeant of Marines Warren Bonesteel talking to Sergeant of Marines Timothy Joseph Harrington

Friday, 7 May 2010

Fox News poll: Should the American Flag be banned in America? (Take the poll – click here)

Link repaired: CLICK HERE



This man SOETORO, OBAMA, STEVE, whatever name he goes by just deployed and incited federal law enforcement officials to stage a fake riot.

Now the feds, panicked in attempts to make the “riot” look real, are being held to account for squarely placing the lives of innocent people in and around Madisonville Tennessee at avoidable and extreme risk from an over-armed, fidgety militarized police force of hundreds of men and women populating SWAT teams, helicopters, riot squads, and roof-top and window snipers!!


Tennessee Governor PHIL BREDESEN is OBAMA’s criminal assistant in what was purposefully intended to be an awful tragedy.

And for what? To take the heat of the OBAMA TREASON complaint and to get Tennesseans to look away from GARY PETTWAY!

OBAMA and BREDESEN are going to get us killed in their forced march to install a rival unconstitutional government!




EMAIL #1: Sergeant Bonesteel to Sergeant Harrington (Citizens’ Tsunami)

“Oh, I don’t believe the MSM!” you say…
“The government is full of liars and crooks,” you say.Like I’ve said, over the years, I’ve known, or known of, a dozen men just like Walt and Darren. Middle-class. Veterans. Family men. Well-dressed. Well-spoken. Well-educated, even. Nice guys.  Blah, blah, blah.Most of you believed what the MSM had to say about them…The government and the MSM did the same thing to The Hutarees and to the Guardians of the Free Republic…and has done the same thing to many others.

Most of you believed what the MSM had to say about them…

Just as most people – including many of your ideological soul mates – will believe what the MSM has to say about Walt and Darren

You hate the MSM, but believe what they tell you.

You don’t trust the government, but you believe what it tells you.

You think government spending is out of control, and it should stop, but you are in debt up to your eyeballs, and that’s OK.

You think it’s evil when others use government regulation to control your freedoms, but it’s perfectly alright when you do the same to others.

It’s even laudable, when you do it. On and on and on, example after example. It’s been like that in America for decades. Most of the things people do and say? It isn’t making any damned sense. Never has.

Speaking of things that don’t make sense, but should?

Tim thinks that there was there was more going on with that traffic stop Darren was involved in than any of us thought. I think Tim’s right….and now we know why the FBI was there in the black SUV’s.Here’s the way the facts add up:

Seems they ‘interviewed’ Darren the day before the stop and decided that he was a ‘threat,’ so they set surveillance on him. Why not arrest him? Why allow an individual threat to the safety of others to roam free? It doesn’t make sense, does it?

The FBI followed Darren into town, where local LEO’s stopped Darren.

The reason Darren was allowed to continue on his way wasn’t because he talked them out of it.

If Darren Huff was a known threat, why release him a second time, when he was already all but in custody? When he was surrounded by local, state and federal LEO’s?

When he was alone in an area where the threat to the safety of others was limited and under control? When state and federal law enforcement officers knew Darren had one weapon on his person, and possibly had another in the trunk of his car? It doesn’t make sense, does it?

Possible scenario: They released him because the  FBI wanted a “right-wing extremist’ “incident” to occur.

I understand that the small town in question had a couple of hundred cops and federal agents all over it, with snipers on the roofs, two helicopters, SWAT teams… So, why release a man (not once, but twice within a twelve hour period) they had deemed to be a threat? Why allow him to go anywhere near a cityscape with a loaded weapon? Let alone two  loaded weapons? It doesn’t make sense, does it?

Rumor has it that when Walt went to court yesterday, they had about 130 cops and snipers in town…Short version:They’re trying to provoke another Waco or Ruby Ridge so they’ll have a propaganda victory to use. As with Waco and Ruby Ridge, the “PTB” will provoke an incident, initiate the violence, and then blame it all on the ‘crazy, right-wing extremists.’ In both cases, they had numerous chances to arrest both parties under less stressful or dangerous conditions and under much more controlled conditions. They passed on those chances and chose another path, instead. Why? It doesn’t make sense, does it? In both cases, the government drew first blood…when all that either ‘guilty’ party wanted or desired was to be left the hell alone. Does that sound kinda-sorta familiar?

The problem is, this isn’t the 1990’s and the political, social, economic and cultural dynamics are substantially different. The “PTB” have made yet another strategic error. They may have made a tactical error, as well. What they’re going to provoke is that ‘John Brown’ or ‘Boston Massacre’ incident I keep yammering about, instead. So, in that regard, I may have been mistaken. Walt’s and Darren’s actions could provoke that “John Brown” or “Boston Massacre” incident I’ve been yammering about. …and, here, I thought they were just the precursors to those archetypes…

Well done, gentlemen. You may yet light the fuse that sets the nation on fire. Just make sure the other team pulls the trigger, first, alright? If that happens, we’re golden. (Fire and flames are inevitable. It’s just a matter of who gets to grab the moral high ground during the opening rounds.)

EMAIL #2: Sergeant Bonesteel to Sergeant Harrington

Remember the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) Report?

Remember my monograph, called, “Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America”?

People say they don’t trust the government or the MSM, but when the government and the MSM accused these men of criminal behavior…many of you believed the government and the MSM.

What’s wrong with that picture?
Warren “Bones” Bonesteel
Author and Researcher
SGT USMC 1976-1983Contact:

Sergeants Bonesteel’s and Harrington’s related links:

5 Responses to “Sergeant of Marines Warren Bonesteel talking to Sergeant of Marines Timothy Joseph Harrington”

  1. dan evans Says:

    The government is full of killers, thieves, and liars. The government is a bunch of men and women imposing their services at the barrel of a gun and their services are compulsory.

    If you don’t pay for our service then we will kill you. Yes a warrant for your arrest is authorization to use deadly force to get your body to a building where the cult members in the black robes will impose their opinion as to your fate.

    Law enforcement has absolutely no duty to do any thing. There is no duty to protect, none and here is a list of SCOTUS cases and state SC cases to prove it.

    South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989)
    Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
    Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981)
    Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975)
    Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982)
    Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985)
    Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965)

    A “nation” or a “state” is composed of “citizens,” and a “citizen” is a member of the body politic (“nation” or “state”). A citizen is one who owes a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. These two “duties” are reciprocal. It is not a one way street. If there is NO DUTY TO PROTECT then THERE IS NO CITIZENS.
    Do these alleged “duties” exist and if so, exactly how were they created?
    Is the “protection” offered by the “United States government” or “the state, county, or city government” offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis like other services? No! The term or word “Citizen” is not synonymous with the term or word customer. Customers, unlike “citizens,” have a choice to say no to a particular service or product without being threatened and killed. In this country you are forced to accept and pay for the services provided by men and women doing business as a “state or federal government” or you will be murdered/thrown in jail.

    At least there is technology now available to be a silent witness to the tyranny we all have to endure. mic yourself up and record your every movement with a video camera or two.

  2. bill Says:

    Excellent post this one.If Patriots can’t see the fiendish plans of our corrupt government,then I reckon they just don’t want to believe.To prove a point,please consider the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco where a group of Jesus freaks were torched,when this whole scenario could have been easily avoided by the Sheriff by simply calling in David Koresh at the Sheriffs leisure.The gift the Branch Davidians gave them was armed confrontation
    which allowed the FBI carte blanche to follow whatever course they wanted.I believe they are trying the same trick now.

  3. dan evans Says:

    I was just reading the complaint filed by the FBI on Mr. Huff. What a crock of sh*t!!!! Mr. Huff was not to my knowledge conducting or operating in a commercial activity. From what I can tell Mr. Huff was traveling in his own mode of travel minding his own business. What they will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is willfulness and intent. There is no evidence of a complaining party. There was no riot unless a peaceful 1st amendment right to form and assemble is illegal then the inciting a riot is a bald face lie and a transgression on the officers oath of office which is a treasonous act and seditious.

    Further more there is no corpus delecti.

    Whether an action is called “civil” or “criminal” is irrelevant; for a court to proceed against someone the opposing party, commonly called the “plaintiff”, must allege the violation of an individual right and the resulting damage or injury.

    There was no one persons legal right violated or damage or injury caused.

  4. dan evans Says:

    More on corpus delecti;

    “The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured by the challenged action of the defendant.

    The injury may be indirect, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 688, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), but the complaint must indicate that the injury is indeed fairly traceable to the defendant’s acts or omissions. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925-1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976); O’Shea v. Littelton, 414 U.S. 488, 498, 94 S.Ct. 669, 677, 38 L.Ed2d 674 (1974); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1148, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).” Vil. of Arlington Hts. v. Metro Housing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 262.

    “Component parts of every crime are the occurrence of a specific kind of injury or loss, somebody’s criminality as source of the loss, and the accused’s identity as the doer of the crime; the first two elements are what constitutes the concept of “corpus delecti.” U.S. v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917, 919 C.A. 10 (Utah).

    “Most American courts take the view that the phrase “corpus delecti” includes first, the fact of an injury or a loss and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality (in contrast e.g. to accident) as the cause of the injury or loss.” United States. v. Echeles, 222 F.2d 144, 155 (C.A. 10th Cir Ill.).

    “On the contrary, we share the view most American courts that the phrase “corpus delecti”includes but two elements: first, the fact of an injury or loss; and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality as the cause of the injury or loss.” French v. United States, 232 F.2d 736 738, (C.A. 5th Cir. La.).

    “To paraphrase one of the leading cases: ‘Most American courts take the view that the phrase “corpus delecti” includes first, the fact of an injury or a loss and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality (in contrast e.g. to accident) as the cause of the injury or loss…’ Manning v. United States, 10 Cir., 215 F.2d 945, at page 947; United States v. Echeles, 7 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 144; United States v. Di Orio, 3 Cir., 1940, 150 F.2d 938; George v. United States, 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 125 F.2d 559, 563; United States v. Markman, 2 Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 574, 576.” Sandez v. United States, 239 F.2d 239, 244 (C.A. 9th Cir. Calif.).

    “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

    Again whose legal right was violated? The complaint is fatal in its entirety due to lack of no ones legal right(s) being violated or personal injury. The “state” or “United States” can not show personal injury. They are an ens legis, a fiction that is a figment of the imagination. How can a figment of the imagination be harmed or damaged? It can’t!!!

  5. dan evans Says:

    Here is more ammo for Mr. Huff.

    Written by Marc Stevens
    Tuesday, 21 November 2006

    It doesn’t matter what “charge”, indictment or complaint is brought against someone by a prosecutor; bureaucrats never have a case; their very nature dictates they can’t. While many would cry out in protest, no doubt those invested economically and/or emotionally in statism, it is nonetheless an accurate statement.

    This is such a simple exercise; I only have to use statism against itself to prove it. By statism, I mean the belief “citizens” and “states” exist and the thought patterns supporting such beliefs.

    Statism is mind control; people surrender their property to men and women pretending to be “governors” and “presidents” etc., because they believe they are “citizens” of a so-called “state” and “must pay their fair share.” Talk about abstract concepts.

    Because of these beliefs, or programming, when a man pretending to be a “cop” or “state attorney” files a “complaint” against a statist, no attention is paid to the many absurdities present, even by the lawyer pretending he has a client, the so-called “state attorney.” The issue of standing is a great way of demonstrating these absurdities. One of these is despite the fact a “complaint” is filed, there is no “case” presented to the “court.” Statist programming equates “complaint” with “case.” People under the influence of such programming don’t challenge what a “cop” or “state” attorney files as both are perceived as “authority figures.” By that, I mean they do not challenge the assertion a “complaint” presents a “case” to a court.

    Standing is legally defined as “The position of a person in reference to his capacity to act in a particular instance…19 Am J2d Corp § 559.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1209. The nine lawyers commonly referred to as the “United States Supreme Court” have written: “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

    If a plaintiff lacks standing, then courts, all courts, are legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding because: “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.” United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430. Notice the litigants in the last case if you’re thinking “government” is somehow “exempt” from standing requirements. People under the influence of statist mind control automatically start trying to find “loopholes” and exemptions for their “authority figures”, the government. This psychological response is not unlike the Stockholm syndrome.

    And make no mistake, this is considered a very important issue by the “Supreme Court” and government attorneys, especially when they are the defendants as proven by the recent case the Bush administration lost in regards to the NSA spying program. Standing is usually a bureaucrat’s first line of defense. Pay attention to what the “Supreme Court” wrote about the elements of standing:

    “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

    This of course references Article III § 2 of the “United States” “constitution” which requires a plaintiff to present a case before a court may proceed: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases…”:

    “The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. The Art. III doctrine that requires a litigant to have “standing” to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines.” Allen page 750.

    More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Article II § 2 (emphasis mine).

    This means everything “governments” do must be to “protect and maintain individual rights.” The “Supreme Court” has held consistent with this principal: “the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405

    Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury. Now I’ll apply this standard to “cases” brought by pretended “state” and “United States” attorneys.

    First, we’ll look at a traffic case, such as failure to wear a seatbelt. Traffic cases represent a significant source of energy stolen from people every year. I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt; the “case” is called State of Arizona v. Marc Stevens.

    One of two requirements for standing is: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury…” Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I have caused a “personal injury” by not wearing a seatbelt? Of course not: that’s one essential element missing, I’ve already established the pretended plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Allegations or not, there is no injury to anyone if I don’t wear a seatbelt.

    The other requirement is the violation of a legal right. Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I violated the pretended “state’s” rights? Again, not a chance. According to the “Supreme Court,” there is no standing to complain against me regardless of the fact I may not have had a seatbelt on.

    Now we’ll look at a “tax” case; “willful failure” to file a “tax return.” I have read several of these so-called “indictments” and there is no standing, ever. Even if you’ve never read such “indictment”, common sense tells you there are no allegations of personal injury and the violation of a legal right. No, all they do is write the defendant “violated the law.”

    However, just being accused of “violating a law” does not mean my failure to file a “tax return” violated someone’s legal rights and caused an injury. Statists would argue the so-called “United States” has a legal right to receive a “tax return” from me every year and the injury is the loss of “tax revenue.” There are several problems with such a argument though.

    First, the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal. Second, it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those allegations must be based on facts; those facts must establish where, when, why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. And if facts are alleged, then they must be based on the testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence.

    No attempt is made to put such allegations in an “indictment” because it’s impossible to establish factually how an obligation to file a “tax return” was created. To prove an obligation or legal right was created, there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and the person who allegedly has this obligation. Statists immediately point out the “constitution.” And that is the point where they lose; and lose big time.

    No connection to the “constitution” can be made because the “constitution” is four pieces of paper no one bothered to sign. It binds no one and created nothing: same as any other pieces of paper from two hundred and thirty years ago. Unless you believe in magic, placing the words “constitution” on a piece of paper will not create an obligation on someone two hundred and thirty years later.

    The “constitution” is a very effective anchor that usually pacifies those critical of statism. Most people will not challenge opinions the “constitution” is applicable or relevant; it’s one of the most sacred of cows. All “revenue agents” I have had experience with, like most people, assume the “constitution” applies to everyone. No thought is given to any facts to prove where, when, why and how the “constitution” applies to anyone. It is very unsettling for a “revenue agent” to be challenged on the facts his opinion the “constitution” is applicable are based because he/she has not based it on any facts. Nobody enjoys having their map of reality ripped apart.

    A personal injury cannot be proven because it cannot be proven the “United States” had a right to the property in question or the “required” action. If you doubt this, then read cases such as Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). It’s tantamount to Al Capone filing a complaint against a shop owner for not paying his “protection” money. Think big Al would have standing?
    in the particular case before it.” (emphasis mine).

    Last, let’s look at a drug case. I’m indicted for growing marijuana on my property. The botanical police raid my home and heroically save the world from my plants. Surprisingly, the requirements for standing are not the raiding of my garden by troops armed with machine guns, they are: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.

    What legal right have I allegedly violated by growing plants? None. Has the growing of plants on my property caused any “personal injury” to the non-existent “State of Arizona”? Again, there’s no personal injury of any kind. No standing, no case.

    Consider that legally, or “constitutionally,” the botanical warriors may not even look at my property unless there is “probable cause” or “reasonable articulable suspicion” I am violating someone’s legal rights: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

    Notice in the cases cited above there are no “legal” or “constitutional” exceptions to the doctrine of standing for moral or religious objections. Just because someone thinks it’s “immoral” or against their religion to grow or possess marijuana, does not confer standing to complain. This is true even when the moral crusaders call themselves a “legislature.”

    Now some may protest by bringing up the murder argument, certainly there is the 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury. Not even in a murder case is there standing to complain. Why? Because it has to be a “personal injury” to the plaintiff: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

    The plaintiff is literally a spoken and written phrase, an abstraction called the “State of Arizona”, and is, at best, a fictional third party. The “Supreme Court” has repeatedly held: “we have explained that prudential standing encompasses “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights…” Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

    And there’s no merit to claim the murdered person is a part of, or a member of, the so-called “State of Arizona” because there is no such thing as the “State of Arizona.” As I’ve written in my book Adventures in Legal Land and said many times on my radio show The No State Project, there are no such things as “ citizens” and “states”.

    Ad hominem attacks such as “Marc doesn’t want people to wear seatbelts” are classic diversion tactics employed by those under the influence of statist mind control (remember the Stockholm syndrome). The fact bureaucrats never have a case has nothing to do with my opinion about seatbelts (I personally use them because it’s a safety issue), it’s because governments are gangs of killers, thieves and liars. There is no such thing as a legitimate government, so nothing they do is legitimate regardless of the endless red herrings statists throw up.

    Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis; pay or get shot. To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so, they cease to be a government. That’s quite the conundrum.

    Either you believe all human interaction should be voluntary or you don’t. Those who do not believe human interaction should be voluntary are, medically speaking, anti-social. Not un-social, but anti-social as in “sociopath” and “psychopath”. I believe all human interaction should be voluntary, so ad hominem attacks that I think people who commit murder should not be held accountable are ridiculous.

    Just using statism against itself proves bureaucrats never have a case regardless of what they “charge” someone with. That’s because statism and it’s supporting theology are not here to promote freedom or protect “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”; it’s mind control to divert our attention away from the actions of anti-social individuals who are so desperate to “protect” us they are willing to kill us and steal our property.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s