The charges are punishable by a maximum sentence of life in prison.
A federal grand jury in Anchorage on Friday returned a new indictment with the added murder conspiracy charge against Cox, Coleman Barney of the North Pole area and Lonnie Vernon of Salcha, all members of Cox’s Peacemaker’s Militia. It’s the third federal indictment to be been handed up against the three, who have been in jail on weapons charges since March.
The three had been scheduled to go to trial next month but because of the new charges, on Monday the trial date was moved back to May 7.
This is not the first time this group has been charged with murder conspiracy. In March, state prosecutors charged these three along with Vernon’s wife, Karen Vernon, and Michael O. Anderson of the Fairbanks area. That case was thrown out last fall when a state judge ruled secret recordings made by two FBI informants without a search warrant were not admissible in state court. The judge indicated they likely will be usable in federal court.
In the state case, Cox and the others were accused of developing a plan called “241” to resist any attempt to arrest Cox on a pending arrest warrant, if necessary killing two troopers or court officials for every militia member killed in any ensuing struggle. Cox argued at the time that the state did not have jurisdiction to arrest him because he considers himself a “sovereign citizen” and not subject to state law.
The federal charges are broader. The new indictment mentions “241” but also accuses Cox of planning to kill other government agents as early as fall 2009, well before spring 2010 when FBI has said it began its formal investigation into Cox and sent informant Gerald “JR” Olson to infiltrate his group. In late 2009 and early 2010, Cox met with an “unindicted co-conspirator” and began collecting personal information of people associated with the government, including TSA agents, border patrol, Federal Marshals and Alaska State Troopers, according to the indictment, information that Cox, Vernon and Barney allegedly planed to use to kill these government agents. The same “unindicted co-conspirator” also drew a sketch of the Federal building in Anchorage, according to the indictment.
In another court document filed late last year, federal officials said they found a notebook with information about federal agents and sketch of the federal building in Fairbanks at the home of Anderson, the co-defendant of Cox who was released from jail this fall when the state charges were dismissed. The TSA agents on the list were the same agents who once would not let Cox wear body armor through security at Fairbanks International Airport, according to that document.
Anderson faces no criminal charges, but he was detained again for a week in December on a material witness warrant because prosecutors said he was not cooperating with a subpoena in the Cox case.
Contact staff writer Sam Friedman at 459-7545.
You stated. Just for his stupid trademark hat alone,Cox should serve more time.
It's folks like you that should never serve on a jury trial with that kind of mind set and judging someone by the clothes they wear.Its amazing how many of you seem to be jealous or worried about Schaeffer Cox hat.
Over the decades we’ve allowed things to go too far. Though at the time “we ”
Thought it was a good idea. It happens so often I bet the road to Hades, has a super highway
Two things about this “protection” costs, money, and liberty. It also affords us very little protection. We also have to remember people will not surrender power easily.
tpp_2, I'm sure the feds will take something that simple and muck it up to something else , so would have to agree with aktrucido with the destruction thing.
jackson_greene, yup, they're quite menacing to the point of ...invoking terror.
If you are arguing that Cox is wrong insofar that this is a case of the Ghost Dance Shirt failing to repel bullets as Wovoka's vision indicated they would, then I couldn't agree with you more.
It appears those who do practice this are scarcer than hen's teeth and undoubtedly devote their lives to it. Surely most of their lives will be consumed by it.
As far as the Cox/holograph statement goes ,I think that is the complaint in the first place ; that natural persons are held accountable to statutes contrary to common laws already constitutionally in place, for straw-men - without consent. I see that as a " might makes right " statement unless Cox thought a holograph would be the one in jail. I doubt that
I was heard and continue to hear, do this and you WILL NOT be arrested. I responded if the powers that be really want to destroy you they can destroy you. And “Common Law” can not save you.
With Cox in jail, I ask who is correct? Unless Cox is not in jail, thus the thing in jail must be a clone or a holograph
Some of the people who dissent, have other motives. Like the Tea Party, some of them could careless about the size of government or how oppressive it is. They were promoting the GOP. They will be silent if the GOP takes back power or use phrases like “the terrorist will win”, “you hate America ”, and etc to rebuke critics. I suppose about the same could be said about the occupy movement.
It will be a hard fight to regain liberty.
FBI Fathers,Brothers,and In-laws. Just like the Mafia.
It appears that Cox and Co. were realistic in it's happening , but weren't realistic in thinking they would prevail in this environment ( maybe they didn't think they would, I don't know ).
I get the feeling that this is going to be a long, interesting case.
First there needs to be correction : should have ready ,'... unknowingly, involuntarily or unintentionally...'
This consent of contract brings us to your ' renounce of citizenship ' question , which by the word itself suggests a division in political philosophy over the sovereignty issue - " renounce " vs " revoke " . Cox took the "renounce" route , while I would argue the " revoke " one, whereas all contract with the federal corporation would be revoked in order for me to revoke U.S. Citizenship , yet retain my sovereign state citizenship. This would entail revocation of social security, birth and marriage certification, drivers and other other license, etc. under common law that consent was under duress or involuntary without contractual consent. Do I think this would give any immunity from statutory law in any practical sense. Personally, no ( certainly not with my limited knowledge of law , which is the only reason I haven't participated in revocation although the right is there )and would think it take things like the repeal of the 14th amendment to insure that. Does Cox have a point about that amendment itself as a violation of the Constitution and common law. Absolutely. I see it as a fact. Does Cox have a point that the federal government has assigned itself a power without any authority by going beyond the consent for its existence - going from its purpose of determining constitutional fitness of legislation and states participation in order to preserve and protect rights and liberties TO going to creating its own laws , common and otherwise ? Absolutely! That is fact as well . The creation of " U.S. Citizenship " establishes that violation as fact ( subject to the jurisdiction thereof - as common law concerns jurisdiction as well, this being an example of creation of " common law " without authority ).
So , to answer your question about by whose authority will one be arrested, that would be by state with citizen consent. In the matter of challenge or determination of deprivation of rights and liberties by one state against another ( the commerce clause , which also illustrates unconstitutional power used by the federal government,is an example ) or state against citizen would be in the hand of the federal government's obligation as authorized by consent of the citizen.
Where would trials exist ? Local and state trial would hold court in commons centralized in metropolitan and rural areas - i.e. , where the courthouses are now. Where would federal courts be - where their jurisdictions are now. Where would the Supreme Court be located ? Where it is now.
If those who claim sovereignty have told you that those things they claim don't exist , then indeed they are trying to sell you snake-oil . I don't even see those claims as logical. If those people are indicating that any mob of people can hold court at any time or location, that smells of snake-oil as well.
I can only assume that the Denny's trial was for symbolic purposes and although it's true that the plaintiff ( injured party claimant ) not showing up and being part of what a common-law court has to consist of or that the location not being in the courthouse is of no fault of Cox , he would be in grave error to think those facts legitimizes that court . he is , however, quite correct in that a jury of one's peers include those who personally know him. He has the drafters and founders support on that and those like Patrick Henry explain the purpose for it.
If it is true about his militia setting armed roadblocks, demanding identification etc. as ColdinAK mentioned ( the indictment, top of page 8 ), then we can say unequivocally that Cox and Co. has committed a most egregious act of hypocrisy possible !
So in summary, statutory law does exist and can be found constitutionally-fit, depending what it is. Common law does exist and is practiced in those nations still considered common law nations ( U.S.A., Canada, Australia, etc. , as opposed to civil law nations like Mexico ). As I write this, surely common law is being used in most states and other states may be using primarily other forms ( New York with Dutch Roman civil law and Louisiana , Spanish civil law , for example ). As far as common law not having the solution goes, let me just say that the common law aspect of an offender resisting giving just compensation for his act resulting in his loss of his own legal protection is a greater deterrent to what we have lately. I don't know how familiar you are with pre-American and early American common law , but these's some pretty compelling reasons why one would not choose to be an outlaw.
CONT :
I have bought into nothing, I learned about this before Cox.
What I was lampooning was in essence what I have been told by people promoting the concept.
I believe the movement is snake oil, because of the people I have seen promoting.
I have asked I feel relevant questions, all have been blown off, or got a response of people talking in circles.
I have not gotten the question answered “under what authority ” is this law. Local, State or Federal who will come to arrest you, where will the trial be. BTW is the Supreme court at the Turtle Club?
How will renouncing your citizenship help anything? You don’t have to be a citizen of a country to be arrested under your host countries laws.
Our government has grown way too large and oppressive. But the “Common Law” crowd as I have seen it don’t have the solution.
How can we believe a word of what the indictment says?
I can congratulate whomever I'd like to and interpret the indictment how ever I choose. Are the suspects guilty, no. Am I happy they are out of my neighborhood, absolutely. I know you think this is a grand conspiracy, but in reality, a group of people plotted to kill elected officials because they thought being sovereign citizens made them excempt from laws that "we the people" voted into place thru voting and our representatives.
Are the suspects presumed innocent, yes. Exempt is spelled incorrectly. Thanks again LEOs!
Anyone else notice this little tidbit?
1 year and 2 months.... and counting.
BARNEY’s property and left it parked in the parking lot of the Ice Park, in Fairbanks,
Alaska. At that time, the trailer contained four live smoke grenade fuses, 17 grenade
bodies, black powder, chemical welding solution, a Sten 9mm fully automatic machine
gun, serial number FB2539, a Walther P-22 .22 caliber pistol, serial number N063641,
and .22 firearm silencer, two 37mm launchers, and four “Hornet’s Nest” anti-personnel
rounds.
Did the FBI use a GPS tracking device to track the trailer? Also, how did they know what was in the trailer?
If they did use a GPS tracker without a warrant then they are in conflict with the US Supreme Court decison handed down yesterday.
My guess is this case will be dismissed based on the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.