The Battle of Athens, Tenn. 1946 is the Origin of U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Report on Rightwing Extremist Slamming U.S. Veterans and Second Amendment Advocates!
U.S. Department of Homeland Security “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. [page 2]
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool. [page 6]
Don Hamrick’s paper, The Battle of Athens, Tennesee, August 1-2, 1946.
The Battle of Athens is based on my own research at the library in Athens, Tennessee. World War II veterans returning home to Athens, Tennessee (McMinn County) returned to a despotic, tyrannical Democratic machine of a State and county government. Some of the veterans decided to run for local and county offices to vote the sheriff and other town and county officials out of office. The election escalated into an overnight gun battle between the sheriff and his deputies and the candidates and the town’s people.
It is my shear speculation that the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is terrified of civil unrest or rebellion resulting from continued operation of the United States Government outside the limits of the Constitution.
Another note from history:
U.S. Senator Claude Pepper from Florida entered into the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record Congressional Record, 79th Congress, 2nd Session; August 1, 1946; Pages A4750-A4753, “The Public Responsibilities of an Educated Citizen,” Thursday, August 1 (legislative day of Monday, July 29), 1946. I include excerpts from his entry:
Mr. PEPPER. “Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the RECORD a very able address entitled ‘The Public Responsibilities of an Educated Citizen,’ delivered by Angus McKenzie Laird, associate professor of political science at the University of Florida, to the graduating class of the summer session of the University of Florida on August 27, 1943, in which he paid high and deserved tribute to my predecessor in the United States Senate, the beloved late Senator Duncan U. Fletcher.
. . .
“Twenty-three centuries ago, the philosopher Plato, an unfriendly critic, held that in a democracy the people did not recognize that their duties were equal to their rights. By insistence upon their rights, and by neglecting their duties, they paved the way for the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of tyranny. One need not accept Plato’s views as to the inevitability of this process from democracy to tyranny, in order to agree that we must meet our duties and responsibilities as well as enjoy our rights and liberties if our democratic society is to survive. This great truth has been recognized in a number of constitutions of national states. The French Constitution of 1793 not only contained the famous “Declaration of the rights of Man,” but had a list of the duties of man as well. The most recent Constitution of the Soviet Union not only has a bill of rights but has a bill of duties as well. Our constitutional forefathers were fully cognizant of the truth that every right implied a duty. However, our Constitution was based upon somewhat different principles from those of the French Constitution of 1793 and the Russian Constitution of 1935. Our Bill of Rights was added, not in order that the people might know their rights, but that the Government might not infringe upon them. It was assumed that the people would know their duties as they knew their rights. Yet, I fear this has not always been realized, and unfortunately “duty” appears almost to have become an outworn term. One should not be surprised if in the next edition of Webster, he finds after the definition of the word “archaic.” In almost all the textbooks on civics and political science, and in all the texts in social science without exception, which you have used in high school and college, you will find at least one chapter on our rights, but never one on our duties. Consequently, I think it not improper that in your final college lecture, you should hear something of your public responsibilities as an educated citizen. “
. . .
Finally an educated citizen has the responsibility to obey and respect the law. I do not mean that you should take a “pollyanna” view of the law, that all laws are good and fair and just and [blindly?] should obey all of them at all times and under all circumstances. Some laws are unfair, some are unwise, some are impractical; others are in conflict, and still others, while considered fair and equitable at one time, have become archaic and inapplicable to modern conditions. But law is the basis of our social order and no great society in which the people enjoyed a good life has yet existed which did not have a legal foundation and a respect for law.
I recognize that there have been times in the past in which a man was morally and ethically justified in violating the law. If there had never been men who dared to violate the law for high principle and great ends, we might still have the divine right of kings, we might be subjects of the British Crown, and we would probably have slavery. The men who overthrew divine right monarchs and those who gained independence for America did so at the risk of their lives. There may be instances today and there will probably be instances in the future in which lawbreaking may be morally and ethically justified.
“But,” one is likely to say, “how can one obey all the laws, the rules and regulations, when it is not possible for one person to know them all?“ That is a reasonable question. There must be many cases where this is true. There are many respectable citizens in certain professions or lines of business who cannot possibly find the time to learn and understand all the laws that apply to them. Although ignorance of the law does not excuse them legally, one cannot hold such persons ethically and morally guilty. This is true if their ignorance of the law is not used as an excuse rather than as an explanation for failure to comply with the law. We have the responsibility to respect the law even though we may not always know what the law is and be able to comply with it.
There are some in high position who believe that the importance of their work justifies their disregard for a law which the common run of people ought to obey. The 35 miles per hour traffic law is a necessary one, they think, but their own time is so valuable and their mission so important to society that they have no hesitation in making 70.
I wonder how many small-time chiselers and antisocial or disloyal persons justify their actions not on moral or ethical grounds, but by the example furnished by some one in authority who believes himself to be above the law.
It is my opinion that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is intended to protect the U.S. Government’s future intention to act above the law by demonizing and villifying the American people who act in defense of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.” Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956).
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
If Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, and He Then is NOT Eligible to Be President Does That Mean He is Elligible for Murder Charges of Those 3 Somali Pirates?
“SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement”
In fact, when the USS Bainbridge dispatched a rigid-hull inflatable boat to bring supplies to the Maersk Alabama, it came under fire that could not be returned even though the SEAL team had the pirates in their sights.
Many hours before the fatal shots were fired, taking out the three young pirates, Phillips jumped into the Indian Ocean with the idea of giving the snipers a clear target. However, the SEAL team was still under orders not to shoot.
Hours later, frustrated by the missed opportunities to resolve the standoff, the commander of the Bainbridge and the captain of the Navy SEAL team determined they had operational authority to evaluate the risk to the hostage, and took out the pirates at the first opportunity – finally freeing Phillips.
If President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States he is NOT eligible to be the President of the United States. He is then holding that office illegally and without authority to exucute any orders or Rules of Engagement of any kind, especially for the killing of those three pirates. Under strict interpretation of the Rule of Law and the Law of the Sea or the Law of Nations, President Obama will have to be charged with three counts of murder.
This is a question that is stacked on top of Obama’s original birth certificate question further complicating his situation as President of the United States.
This is legal reasoning and NOT political hyperboli! Everyone who filed a case challenging Obama’s elligibility based on the natural born citizen requirement has been dismissed for lack of standing. To my knowledge no one but me has had a case in a federal court naming President George W. Bush as defendant when Obama took office.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 25(d) Substitution of Parties. Public Officers . . . Separation from Office. “An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party’s name, but any misnomer not affecting the parties’ substantial rights must be disregarded. The court may order substitution at any time, but the absence of such an order does not affect the substitution.“
I have a Second Amendment case for Seamen’s rights in the U.S. District Court for DC, No. 08-1698-EGS, which is now at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, No. 09-5012. I filed a Motion for a Court Order with the U.S. District Court for Hawaii to compel the Hawaii Department of Health is produce a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate. I am still waiting for the ruling on this Motion.
If I don’t have standing to challenge President Obama to prove his eligibility to be president and subsequently his eligibility to be a defendant in a lawsuit as President of the United States then anyone who ascends to the Office of President by any means necessary can and do act above the law as theorized by former President Nixon that a president can act above the law. Does that theory now hold true for murder of those three Somali pirates? (Even though in my opinion those pirates got what they deserved – but were they lawfully killed under the Law of the Sea (or the Law of Nations) for piracy, or were they killed unlawfully at the order of a President who is not eligible to hold that office thus making turning the otherwise lawfully killing of pirates into three counts of murder by Order of the President’s unlawful Rules of Engagement. Will this ultimately bring down Obama? Or insure his Prize to the Presidency?
MERPAC! I want someone to tell me the truth! I want someone in MERPAC to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and my Fourth Amendment right from unwarrant police search and siezure (and questioning) of my First Amendment rights to talk about my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, especially so when invited by a Notice in the Federal Register!
Who was it that called Mass Maritime Academy Police (MMAP) on me alleging I had a gun on campus? Were they prompted to call MMAP because of what I wrote in an email with a 50 page attachment? If so, what in particular was it in that email or the attachment that scared them? I have a right to know so that I can edit the offending passages to belay instigating fears in the timid amongst us.
My blog statistics show that Capt. Joe Murphy, who teaches maritime security management at Mass Maritime Academy and is the father of Capt. Shane Murphy, Chief Mate of the recently hijacked MAERSK ALABAMA, visited my blog on April 16, 2009 directly from his Mass. Maritime Academy email account:
No one else but Capt. Joe Murphy in MERPAC has a Mass Maritime email account. Capt. Murphy and perhaps another MMA official with a MMA Police Officer pulled me aside escorting me into an empty room to question me on whether I had a gun in my possession. So, am I to conclude that Capt. Murphy called MMAP on me? And why?
If no particular phrase, sentence, or paragraph is at fault then I may have been the subject of a senseless act of retaliation for exercising my First Amendment right to speak freely, to associate with MERPAC, and to peititon MERPAC to ask that they (you!) take into consideration the views of an Able Seamen that MERPAC’s activities are negatively affecting my constitutional rights and my future as a seaman, especially so when the police are called on me just for speaking and writing about my rights.
You must be aware that Secretary of Homeland Security is defending the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalizing and Recruitment” On page 6 of that report reads:
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.
Was Capt. Joe Murphy unduly influenced by DHS propaganda? Did Capt. Murphy really believe I was a “violent extremist?” simply because I talked about the “rights and duties of seamen under the Second Amendment” and what those rights and duties are under the general superintendence of the Secretary of Homeland Security, 46 U.S.C. § 2103. Capt. Murphy’s behavior is indicative of a general distrust of the American people who are not in governmental positions of authority and are actively defending their constitutional rights and the Constitution of the United States itself from a U.S. Government that ignores that Constitution.
Ten*K (Super Member) of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association (online discussion furom) December 9th, 2008 Re: Important FED lawsuit: The Perfect Second Amendment Case? (post Heller) wrote:
“Sounds like this gentleman is being swept under the rug because he is neither rich, famous, or powerful… even though that isn’t supposed to make a difference. When the government keeps telling you to shut up and go away, as a common citizen, it is near impossible to maintain the actual dollars cost of the fight. I think a big problem is that the “system” is self-aware, and cares only for its survival.”
QUESTION FOR MERPAC: Is the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms an intangible property of Admiralty and Maritime Law under Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? (My new lawsuit under Admiralty Law).
You must also be aware that the American people have reciprocated that distrust with a nationwide public demonstration in Tea Parties protesting out of control government tax and spend policy. I may be the only merchant seaman in the industry to public object to the relentless additions to federal laws and regulations targeting merchant seaman based on enhancing security. But not a single word on constitutional rights and duties of seaman, or even human rights in regard to hostile work environment were discussed. Just because these items were omitted or neglected for your agenda does not mean that they are non-issues. They are very real issues.
Also be fully aware that my views are taking a foot hold in the court of public opinion. On April 14, 2009 Michelle Malkin linked back to (Trackbacked) my blog posting:
THE SECOND AMENDMENT & THE MERCHANT MARINER’S CREDENTIAL « American Common Defence Review
The incident with Capt. Murphy and the MMA Police will become anecdotal evidence supporting my allegations of retaliation associated with the U.S. Coast Guard in my new lawsuit. Although I do not intend to include Capt. Murhpy or MMA Police as defendants in my lawsuit they should take this incident as a lesson learned not to base police action on lawful participation in a public meeting on sensitive policy questions.
AGAIN! I ASK WHO AMONG YOU IN MERPAC IS PATRIOTIC ENOUGH TO DEFEND MY RIGHTS AGAINST CAPT. MURPHY’S BASELESS ACTIONS VIOLATING MY RIGHTS TO FREELY ATTEND A MERPAC MEETING SUPPOSEDLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?
Will my questions to MERPAC be included in the minutes and the transcipt published online?
Will the police interogation be included in the minutes and the questioning included in the published transcript as a sidebar note?
And as a P.S. note:
I submit my formal objection to the Passport style red color of the Merchant Mariner Credential.
Symbolism of the color “Red” implies radicalism, socialism, communism, and aggression. Whereas “Blue“ implies seas, men, skies, peace, unity, harmony, tranquility, calmness, trust, coolness, confidence, conservatism, water, ice, loyalty, and dependability.
It is within MERPAC’s agenda to answer the question:
Is the Second Amendment an intangle property of seafarers under Admiralty and Maritime law?
When you find the answer to be YES you will then have to incorporate the Second Amendment rights of seamen into the Merchant Mariner’s Credential, i.e. an endorsement for National Open Carry Handgun (at least a handgun) as a person not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922, et seq.
THE FEAR OF GUNS = THE FEAR OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT = FEAR OF POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM
A funny thing happened at the MERPAC meeting friday at Mass Maritime Academy!
Yesterday I attached my impromptu written testimony on The Rights and Duties of Seamen under the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms to my email for every member of MERPAC.
It is strange that a U.S. citizen/merchant seaman speaking up and in writing about Second Amendment rights of U.S. merchant seamen will strike fear in the hearts and souls of those in Government, or in this instance the military since the U.S. Coast Guard is a military unit of the United States and the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee is a sub-unit of that military. It seems my email of yesterday frightened one or more members of MERPAC and someone called the Mass Maritime Academy Police on me. At the MERPAC meeting I get pulled aside and escorted by Capt. Joe Murphy, a Mass Maritime Police Officer, and someone else (probably another Mass Maritime official) to an empty room to get questioned on whether I had any firearms. WOW! Talk gun rights and you are immediately suspected of have guns ready to shoot! Ohhhh the inhumanity of free speech! Why can’t we just shut up and take what the Government gives us! We are already legislated and regulated down to the level of slaves. Why can’t we just started acting like slaves?
I have been harassed and investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard on more than one occasion:
2002 U.S. COAST GUARD INITIATED NCIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF DON HAMRICK FOR EMAILING AN INNOCENT SECOND AMENDMENT ARTICLE TO THE COAST GUARD! (HARASSMENT OF AND RETALIATION AGAINST DON HAMRICK FOR STANDING UP FOR SEAMEN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT)!
2004 DOT BAR NOTICE (AT U.S. COAST GUARD’S REQUEST)
2006 DOT BAR NOTICE (AT U.S. COAST GUARD’S REQUEST)
SEE THE LINKED BAR NOTICES ABOVE FOR U.S. COAST GUARD’S ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IN RETALIATION TO MY SUING THE U.S. COAST GUARD FOR SEAMEN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
Please note that the linked Bar Notices above do not describe the actual offense I am alleged to have committed because I DID NOT commit any offense. The notices are false charges! Nor do the two Bar Notices include information on my rights to appeal the notices in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 511-599, which violates my due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Now Capt. Joe Murphy knows why I first introduced myself at the start of the MERPAC meeting Thursday as, “My name is Don Hamrick. I’m just a nobody” because I am treated with a great deal of suspicion because I talk about Second Amendment rights and duties of American seamen.
It is as though I have no right to speak at all without first assuring everyone that I don’t have a gun! It is as though the U.S. GOVERNMENT (both Bush and Obama administrations) has succumbed to mass hysteria over Second Amendment rights of the American people. And when I talk about “National Open Carry Handgun” for American seamen with the U.S. Coast Guard I am escorted away from everyone for questioning!
Where is a seamen’s First Amendment right to speak about Second Amendment rights without getting harassed with questions, no matter how politely and apologetically that are presented. The harassment and intimidation over the exercising of rights is still committed.
This incidence coincides with the following disturbing events:
(April 15, 2009) Maryland National Guard issued their document titled: “Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004),” UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U/FOUO)
(April 14, 2009) Michelle Malkin’s blog is noted for this commentary: “Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real.” See also Lance Fairchok DHS, ‘Rightwing Extremism’ and Information Warfare.
(April 7, 2009) U.S. Department of Homeland Security titled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” was released to the public as an “Unclassified: For Official Use Only” document. It has created a big stink across the United States.
(Febraury 20, 2009) Missouri MIAC Strategic Report, “The Modern Militia Movement.”
(October 25, 2008) Terrorist ‘tweets’? US Army warns of Twitter dangers: A draft US Army intelligence report has identified the popular micro-blogging service Twitter, Global Positioning System maps and voice-changing software as potential terrorist tools.
Tea Party Movement (protesting excessive federal spending).
MOVEMENTS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS AFRAID OFF:
Second Amendment Open Carry Movement (just do a Google and Google News search)
Article V Convention Movement (to force Congress to call a Constitution Convention).
Tenth Amendment Movement (States rights in opposition to excessive federal power)
MY RECOMMENDATIONS TO MERPAC:
All the work MERPAC has done to “supposedly” streamline and consolidate the documentation may be all well and good. But when the Second Amendment rights of seafarers (United States) in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel are ignored, that omission places the lives of seafarers at risk when facing pirate attacks are ignored all the IMO, SOLAS, ISPS, STCW regulation don’t mean a hill of beans to a dead seafarer, killed by a pirate.
There is a “Right to Life” provision in human rights treaties. It is included in the International Bill of Human Rights. All the problems of national sovereignty, nationality of pirates, and legal conflicts between maritime law and the Law of Nations can be resolved with a ratified treaty on piracy making the act of self-defense against pirates and a resultant killing of a pirate in the act of piracy a justified homocide: a non-prosecutable event under the Law of Nations and especially in regard to the International Criminal Court.
Resurrecting privateers to do jobs the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard are unable to do is the right thing to do. See also GlobalSecurity.org on Privateers to consider whether resurrecting privateers is necessary.
My Written Testimony for U.S. Coast Guard MERPAC Meeting at Mass Maritime Academy, April 16-17, 2009
There is No Justification for Denying Seamen Their Second Amendment Right to Openly Keep and Bear Arms in Intrastate, Interstate, Nautical, or Maritime Travel
Written Testimony by Don Hamrick, Able Seaman
Presented to the
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC)
U.S. Coast Guard
Public Meeting held at:
Bay State Conference Center
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
101 Academy Drive
Buzzards Bay, MA. 02532
Thursday-Friday, April 16-17, 2009
This Written Testimony Presents The Following Data:
The Role of Seamen under the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
The Rights of Seamen as Civil Plaintiffs
in the Federal Courts
The Second Amendment rights of Seamen under
Federal Laws and Regulations & Admiralty – Maritime Law
Resurrecting Privateers and
Letters of Marque and Reprisals
Civil Rights and Human Rights of U.S. Seamen Aboard Ship: Protections From Bullying and Non-Sexual Harassment of Crew by Officers are Needed
April 8, 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opened the door to resurrecting privateers through Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, of the Constitution. That is the clause that states ”Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
Clinto said, “More generally, we think the world must come together to end the scourge of piracy.”
Noted from Simon Maloy of MediaMatters.com, April 9, 2009 posting:
El Rushbo kicked off today’s show by returning to the Somali pirate saga, playing a sound bite of Obama declining to comment on the ongoing situation. According to Rush: “This is President Obama voting present, declining to comment. This is President Obama not wanting to address anything that is hard. Addressing things that are hard bring your approval numbers down.” Rush went on to attack Secretary of State Clinton for saying during a press event with the Moroccan foreign minister yesterday that the “world must come together to end the scourge of piracy,” and laughing as she was recounting America’s cooperation with Morocco in combating piracy in the early 19th century. Rush said that Clinton “warned” us all about this “3 a.m. phone call,” but both she and Obama are “inept” in their handling of this. They “don’t know what to do.”
The U.S. Government can resurrect Privateers through the Letters of Marque and Reprisal to fight pirates!
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
Codified in the U.S. CODE:
10 U.S.C. § 351. During War or Threat to National Security
(a) The President, through any agency of the Department of Defense designated by him, may arm, have armed, or allow to be armed, any watercraft or aircraft that is capable of being used as a means of transportation on, over, or under water, and is documented, registered, or licensed under the laws of the United States.
(b) This section applies during a war and at any other time when the President determines that the security of the United States is threatened by the application, or the imminent danger of application, of physical force by any foreign government or agency against the United States, its citizens, the property of its citizens, or their commercial interests.
(c) Section 16 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (22 U.S.C. 463) does not apply to vessels armed under this section.
33 U.S.C. § 387. Duties of Officers of Customs and Marshals as to Seizure
The collectors of the several ports of entry, the surveyors of the several ports of delivery, and the marshals of the several judicial districts within the United States, shall seize any vessel or boat built, purchased, fitted out, or held as mentioned in section 385 of this title, which may be found within their respective ports or districts, and to cause the same to be proceeded against and disposed of as provided by that section.
33 U.S.C. § 381. Use of Public Vessels to Suppress Piracy
The President is authorized to employ so many of the public armed vessels as in his judgment the service may require, with suitable instructions to the commanders thereof, in protecting the merchant vessels of the United States and their crews from piratical aggressions and depredations.
33 U.S.C. § 382. Seizure of Piratical Vessels Generally
The President is authorized to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels of the United States to subdue, seize, take, and send into any port of the United States, any armed vessel or boat, or any vessel or boat, the crew whereof shall be armed, and which shall have attempted or committed any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, upon any vessel of the United States, or of the citizens thereof, or upon any other vessel; and also to retake any vessel of the United States, or its citizens, which may have been unlawfully captured upon the high seas.
33 U.S.C. § 383. Resistance of Pirates by Merchant Vessels
The commander and crew of any merchant vessel of the United States, owned wholly, or in part, by a citizen thereof, may oppose and defend against any aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, which shall be attempted upon such vessel, or upon any other vessel so owned, by the commander or crew of any armed vessel whatsoever, not being a public armed vessel of some nation in amity with the United States, and may subdue and capture the same; and may also retake any vessel so owned which may have been captured by the commander or crew of any such armed vessel, and send the same into any port of the United States.
33 U.S.C. § 384. Condemnation of Piratical Vessels
Whenever any vessel, which shall have been built, purchased, fitted out in whole or in part, or held for the purpose of being employed in the commission of any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, or in the commission of any other act of piracy as defined by the law of nations, or from which any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure shall have been first attempted or made, is captured and brought into or captured in any port of the United States, the same shall be adjudged and condemned to their use, and that of the captors after due process and trial in any court having admiralty jurisdiction, and which shall be holden for the district into which such captured vessel shall be brought; and the same court shall thereupon order a sale and distribution thereof accordingly, and at its discretion.
33 U.S.C. § 385. Seizure and Condemnation of Vessels Fitted Out for Piracy
Any vessel built, purchased, fitted out in whole or in part, or held for the purpose of being employed in the commission of any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, or in the commission of any other act of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, shall be liable to be captured and brought into any port of the United States if found upon the high seas, or to be seized if found in any port or place within the United States, whether the same shall have actually sailed upon any piratical expedition or not, and whether any act of piracy shall have been committed or attempted upon or from such vessel or not; and any such vessel may be adjudged and condemned, if captured by a vessel authorized as mentioned in section 386 of this title to the use of the United States, and to that of the captors, and if seized by a collector, surveyor, or marshal, then to the use of the United States.
33 U.S.C. § 386. Commissioning Private Vessels For Seizure of Piratical Vessels
The President is authorized to instruct the commanders of the public-armed vessels of the United States, and to authorize the commanders of any other armed vessels sailing under the authority of any letters of marque and reprisal granted by Congress, or the commanders of any other suitable vessels, to subdue, seize, take, and, if on the high seas, to send into any port of the United States, any vessel or boat built, purchased, fitted out, or held as mentioned in section 385 of this title.
MY QUESTION: Do American merchant seaman have Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms openly or concealed in intrastate, interstate, nautical, or maritime travel? I am preparing a new lawsuit to put that question to the U.S. District Court for DC. Does anyone want to tell the NRA about this? They won’t listen to me!
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) will meet in Buzzards Bay, MA, to discuss various issues relating to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. These meetings will be open to the public.
MERPAC will meet on Thursday, April 16, 2009, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., and Friday, April 17, 2009, from 8 a.m. until 3 p.m. These meetings may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before March 26, 2009. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before March 26, 2009.
The Committee will meet in the Bay State Conference Center at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, 101 Academy Drive, Buzzards Bay, MA. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Mark Gould, Assistant to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of MERPAC, at Commandant (CG-5221), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second St., SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice, as well as all task statements discussed in this notice, may be viewed in our online docket, USCG-2009-0117, at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Mark Gould
Assistant to the DFO of MERPAC, at 202-372-1409.
Agenda of Meeting
The agenda for the April 16, 2009, Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) The full committee will meet to discuss the objectives for the meeting.
(2) Working groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate–
(a) Task Statement 30, concerning Utilizing Military Sea Service for STCW Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, concerning Stakeholder Communications During MLD Program Restructuring and Centralization;
(c) Task Statement 64, concerning Recommendations on Areas in the STCW Convention and the STCW Code Identified for Comprehensive Review; [MY COMMENT: How about Second Amendment rights for seamen in intrastate and interstate travel? There is an Open Carry Movement going on right now! See OPNAVINST 3591.1E and see paragraphs 45 and 46 of the International Maritime Organization, Maritime Safety Committee MSC/Circ.623/Rev.3, "PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing and Suppressing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships:
45 The carrying and use of firearms for personal protection or protection of a ship is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.
46 Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms thereby escalating an already dangerous situation, and any firearms on board may themselves become an attractive target for an attacker. The use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. In some jurisdictions, killing a national may have unforeseen consequences even for a person who believes he has acted in self defence.
The fear of killing a national comes from the United Nations determination that you have no right to armed self-defense.
Then see 33 U.S.C. § 383. RESISTANCE OF PIRATES BY MERCHANT VESSELS and see 33 C.F.R. § 101.100 PURPOSE [OF MARITIME SECURITY] and 33 C.F.R. § 103.100 APPLICABILITY [OF MARITIME SECURITY AND AREA MARITIME SECURITY] and 33 C.F.R. § 104.220 COMPANY OR VESSEL PERSONNEL WITH SECURITY DUTIES and you will see why American merchant seamen need the Second Amendment rights protected from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard from ignoring the Second Amendment rights of Seamen! See 33 C.F.R. § 104.230 DRILL AND EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS and you will know that the training in firearms that American seamen get as a pre-requisite to employment aboard U.S. Government vessels far exceed that required for State concealed carry license. But American seasman have no federal license to carry openly or concealed based on firearms training under the OPNAVINST 3591.1E. WHERE IS THE NRA FOR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF SEAMEN? ] and
(d) Task Statement 70, concerning Apprentice Mate/Steersman training program.
(3) New working groups may be formed to address issues proposed by the Coast Guard, MERPAC members, or the public [MY COMMENT: Again! How about Second Amendment rights for seamen? Someone call the NRA! FAST!].
(4) At the end of the day, the working groups will make a report to the full committee on what has been accomplished in their meetings. No action will be taken on these reports on this date.
The agenda for the April 17, 2009, Committee meeting is as follows:
(2) Reports from the following working groups;
(a) Task Statement 30, concerning Utilizing Military Sea Service or STCW Certification;
(b) Task Statement 58, concerning Stakeholder Communications During MLD Program Restructuring and Centralization;
(c) Addendum to Task Statement 64, concerning Recommendations on Areas in the STCW Convention and the STCW Code Identified for Comprehensive Review [MY COMMENT: How about Second Amendment rights for seamen?]; and
(d) Task Statement 70, concerning Apprentice Mate/Steersman Training Program;
(3) Other items which may be discussed:
(a) Standing Committee–Prevention Through People.
(b) Briefings concerning on-going projects of interest to MERPAC.
(c) Other items brought up for discussion by the Committee or the public.
(4) At the end of the day, the working groups will make a report and, if applicable, recommendations for the full committee to consider for presentation to the Coast Guard. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee
Massachusetts Maritime Academy,
101 Academy Drive,
Buzzards Bay, MA.
Hamrick v. Obama Now at the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit, No. 09-5102, Docketed March 30, 2009
I invite the NRA, SAF, GOA, SAS, JPFO, and other advocacy groups to read the linked court documents below because I need their help and their amicus curiae briefs in support of National Open Carry Handgun!
Judge Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for DC dismissed my case because he did not like the way I used Rule 8(d)(2) Alternative Statements of [Claims] in addition to Rule 8(a)(2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Sullivan wanted me to eliminate my Alternative Statements and file an Amended Complaint. Click to download Judge Sullivan’s Memorandum Opinion dismissing my case.
In his Memorandum Opinion you will see how hostile he is to an unrepresented civil plaintiff with a Second Amendment case seeking to set a precedent for the “full scope” of Second Amendment rights. And by “full scope” I mean open carry in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel” from a merchant seaman’s point of view. There is an Open Carry Movement vindicating my lawsuit but no federal judge want’s to hear that! Judge Sullivan wrote:
“It is unreasonably long-winded and illogical, and PRESENTS THE TYPE OF FANTASTIC OR DELUSIONAL SCENARIOS found to justify immediate dismissal of a complaint as frivolous in the related context of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989) (explaining that “a litigant whose FILING FEES AND COURT COSTS ARE ASSUMED BY THE PUBLIC, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits”). Defendants should not be forced to spend time and energy in attempting to decipher plaintiff’s utterly confusing and lengthy pleading.“
“Plaintiff is warned however, that he “will have to pare the [c]omplaint significantly to satisfy Rule 8.” Resource N.E., 28 F. Supp. 2d at 796. If an amended complaint is filed that merely recycles the Complaint presently before the Court it will be dismissed with prejudice.”
My lawsuit is a Seaman’s Suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1916:
“In all courts of the United States, seamen may institute and prosecute suits and appeals in their own names and for their own benefit for wages or salvage or the enforcement of laws enacted for their health or safety without prepaying fees or costs or furnishing security therefor.”
I construe the the word “safety” to include the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Judge Sullivan denied my Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal claiming he was not biased. I filed my Protest in response alleging that he was, in fact, biased. I refused to file an amended complaint. Instead I filed my appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
I won’t know what the appeal number is for awhile because PACER Service Center (docket access) has closed my account. I cann’t access my Docket Report because the federal judges refuse to rule on my Motion for Court Order to compel PACER Service Center to obey the Seamen’s Suit law (exemption from fees and costs) even though seamen are wards of the Admiralty with special protections from the federal courts.
My lawsuit was named Hamrick v. President Bush. But the name of my case automatically switched to Hamrick v. President Obama. However I am filing my pleadings as “Hamrick v. President Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro: Eligibility as president is unproven!)“
Since there is a bar room brawl over whether President Obama is a natural born citizen (allegation is that he was born in Mumbasa, Kenya) I jumped into that fight by filing my own Miscellaneous Case Motion for a court order to compel Chiyome Fukino, M.D., Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health to comply with HAWAII REVISED STATUTES § 338-18(b)(9) because I have “a direct and tangible interest in the record” of President Obama’s original birth certificate as a civil plaintiff under RULE 25(d) SUBSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because I did not have the money to fly to Hawaii from Arkansas to attend the Scheduling Conference Hearing I filed my Emergency Motion waiving my attendance in accordance with Rule 16(c)(1), in that “[i]f appropriate, the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by other means to consider possible settlement” on the belief and understanding that a trial can be avoided.
I did not show up for the original Scheduling Conference Hearing. Magistrate Judge Chang, District Court in Hawaii, issued an Order to Show Cause, which was actually an Order to Appear (the way it was worded) at the rescheduled Schedling Conference or face sanctions. In that Order to Show Cause he wrote:
“Plaintiff is warned that pursuant to Local Rule 11.1, a party’s failure to comply with the Local Rules is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions may be imposed by the court sua sponte and include fines, dismissal, or other appropriate action.”
It was clear to me that Magistrate Judge Chang did not read my Emergency Motion. I fired back with my Response to his Order in like manner. That is where I now stand with the Obama Birth Certificate angle of my case.