To the Honorable David M. Ward, Sheriff

----The Letter I sent to Sheriff Ward----

To the Honorable David M. Ward, Sheriff

485 No Court Avenue #6

Burns, Oregon 97720-1524

2016.01.28

Sheriff Ward,

I saw you on youtube today. You had released a statement that was played on CNN. In this statement, about the tragic death of LaVoy, You said a couple of interesting things.

First, that you believe such things shouldn’t happen in the United States. Although I don’t know you, apart from the fact you are a member of a governing agency that is epistemologically in opposition to individual rights, I have to assume that you and I understood that statement the same way, because I must believe that being we are both human beings, we share some basic love for humanity and individual lives. I have to assume that you didn’t mean simply the death of a human was a tragedy. For me the reason it cannot happen here is because that the nature of Liberty precludes such; only the individual own the authority to determine the value of their own life, liberty, and property. This is not a power that government owns. It is not a power the government can even achieve. I have to assume you believe it is a tragedy because government created the situation that required free men to need to argue with the government agencies¹. I have to assume you agree that when government refuses to listen to the Will of The People, the only method Governments use to get compliance at that point is by violence. The forced imposition of calling it legal to demand something from someone that has caused no violence against another, is immoral. The word legal does not make it such. I thought perhaps you were upset with the whole of it.

But then you said, “We have to work in the appropriate channels.” And I realized you don’t get it.

I’d like you to imagine that the Bundy’s are in their arraignment. The bailiff is reading off the charges. The judge asks the ridiculous question imposed by the theater of the court² about guilt or innocence and Ammon B says, “neither. I do not recognize this court's authority to hold me. Your only authority is force. Your only power is the immoral gun, held in the hands of those that would murder us for non-compliance, as the state has already shown it is capable of when it murdered our friend. I will not comply. I will not participate in this farce.” --- and then everyone in the place produced a firearm. 

Now, everyone in the place suddenly equalized: how different do you think the judge would behave? Would he not suddenly feel the threat of his own life? How is that no different than what is imposed on the defendant? Imposed on We The People, who are the rightful masters of the courts? Why is it moral for the theater of government to force, through fear of pain and suffering, compliance, but it is immoral for the people to stand up and demand, through the same use of force, equality? I can think only you a hypocrite, or worse, a Tyrant that actually agrees with the government's view on power. And that makes me sad, for I really want to believe in the equality of wise men, using intellect and voluntary exchange to agree, through non-aggression, to equal terms.

Government does not own a monopoly on force. That is a power we reserved for ourselves³ and we will use it when the system stops actually recognizing our Life, Liberty, and Estate. Especially if the methods the system defines for us is a trick that gives only the illusion that we can fight it, by defining narrow and expensive avenues which by the so-called guilty citizen might be able to scratch out a small portion of his original freedoms. Albeit, now poor and labeled as villain his chance of success is almost an impossibility. When that is coupled with immoral laws, what other choice is the free left with but dying on his feet? Better than living on the knees of the State’s authority.

I’ve enclosed a copy of my book to read. You won’t, but I have to at least try. If you will not read it, read Lysander Spooner at least. I beg you.

The only real crime, is the initiation of force. It matters not if that force is applied by a robber calling himself as such or by a government claiming the power to do so. For no individual can or would give another man the authority to murder him. Truly immoral crime begins the moment force is initiated against someone else. Therefore, a person on their way to a meeting who is ambushed by the use of force is morally safe to flee the situation and when unable, to stand their ground and fight for their lives. The absurd argument that the agents 'feared for their lives' is a comedy in mediocre philosophy, as if the now satiated lion says to the rest of the zebra herd about his recent meal, "You saw that he kicked me, I feared for my life." When in fact the Lion was the instigator of the violence and with an agenda: to eat. Do not for a second believe We The People so foolish to not see through the truth of whom initiated on whom.

Government is no longer trusted as the benefactor or Justice, only the initiator of force against its own people...

against its neighbors...

against its friends...

against the very people who trusted them to be on their sides.

Government is now the problem, not the solution. We the people have become slaves to the character of government; led to expect the slave to change the system from the inside, that is to approach the slave master and ask for his freedom. To build life as such is the whim of childish thinking. The slave must become a revolutionary. He must change the very definition of his own identity: become the freeman.

We need to change the way we think before the revolt, sir. To stop the motion of this history. We are not going to see Concord 1776 again. The coming revolt will not be a romantic battle against oppression. Instead with all the anger, the hatred, with the bigotry, the invented construct called race, ethnicity and the daily battle that the media reminds us we are supposed to be fighting; we will see another Kosovo 1998. We will see another Khmer Rouge, or the Sudan, and on goes a list so heart-breaking I do not want to even reflect on it. Whatever revolt comes here; it will be terrible; history will not forgive us. If that day does arrive, I am now left to wonder, who's side you'll be on? Will it be The People or whatever new system of power calling itself government? For, as you stated, "If you have a problem, work with in the channels..."? What if the new system demands you march The People to a field, strip them naked, and execute them, would you wait to work the official channel or disobey the order? What if instead the government simply wanted you to do nothing, to sit on your hands, and then allow it to ambush and murder people? But it appears that I'm too late with that last thought, as it just happened.

1 The Declaration of Independent, the single most important document ever composed, says, in one of its grievances against the King of England: He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. ---

2 It is not that I do not accept the notion of Liberty and Legality. It is that the courts have a very small, specific window of power: e.g. prosecuting true criminals. The modern Courts are no such thing, for they are the authoritative arm of the legislative body. Whatever insanity, cruelty, immorality, the legislators imposed, the courts simply enforce. I explain all of this in my book.

3 What do you think the Bill of Rights is really about? If one accepts that the Constitution is a contract that We The People require our governing bodies to follow and express it as the limit of their authority, then the Bill of Rights is a reminder of the individual authority of each person over the contract of the government. The moral responsibility of equal treatment is held by the individual. The Bill of Rights ensures and protects the individual has the power to stand toe-to-toe with his oppressors and does not have to come with his hat in hand and beg for leniency from the government.