Dear Counsel:

The question presented to me is whether Mrs. Carney should be compelled to disclose the membership list of the unincorporated association known as the Republic of Texas. I hold that she should not.

Mrs. Carney urges that the information is privileged as a result of the members' rights of privacy and association protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Once the privilege has been raised, the state has the burden of establishing a constitutionally permissible basis justifying disclosure. Ex parte Lowe, 887 S.W.2nd 1 (Tex 1994). The state must show "so cogent an interest in obtaining and making public the membership lists as to justify the substantial abridgment of associational freedom which such disclosures will affect." Id. [citing Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524-25, 80 S.Ct. 412, 416-17 (1960)]. The "state must show convincingly a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interests." Id [citing Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 543-46, 83 S.Ct. 889, 891-93 (1963).]

I agree with the state that curtailing the illegal activity of some members of the Republic of Texas is a significant and legitimate state concern. The question, however, is whether disclosure of the whole membership is justified when there is no evidence that more than a small minority of the members have engaged in such activity. There may be a number of complex motivations which impel an individual to sign himself or herself with the Republic of Texas. The mere presence of an individual's name on the organization's membership rolls is insufficient to impute to that person the organization's illegal goals or the illegal actions of a few. See Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 400-401 (5th Cir. 1980). The requested discovery subjects members who may not have participated in or approved of the organization's illegal activities to public recrimination. With respect to these people, disclosure bears no relation to the state interests in deterring the illegal activity. It "sweeps too broadly, and therefore cannot stand. It fails to take stock of the individual members against whom it operates." Id.

The state urges that Mrs. Carney has waived any privilege or exemption from discovery by not timely seeking relief from the Court through responses, objections or a motion for protective order. I do not condone the manner in which Ms. Carney has responded to the discovery request; in most situations I would tend to agree with the state's position. However, the effect of finding waiver in this case would not be to punish Mrs. Carney, but the members themselves whose privacy will be invaded by the disclosure. I find that they should not be prejudiced by Mrs. Carney's actions and hold that the First Amendment privilege is not waived.

Mrs. Carney should not be detained further solely for the failure to produce the Republic of Texas membership list.

Thank you,

/s/ Joseph H. Hart, Judge, 126th District Court Travis County, Texas

Dear Sirs:

I am a single mother of a four-year-old. We left Texas to live in Tucson, in January of 1996. I was hoping it would be less populated and more peaceful here. It isn't.

I grew up in Texas. I studied Astronomy at McDonald Observatory and ran the telescopes there one Christmas. You are in the nicest part of Texas imaginable - the darkest skies, a full view of the Milky Way.

I know just a little about you and your cause. The TV doesn't give you much air time out here. The CNN web page does. I have mixed feelings about how you are doing what you are doing, but feel pretty certain I have a grasp of why you are doing it.

I am proud of you for having the guts to take a stand. A lot of people in America can't afford the courage anymore to say what they think.

But I would like you to consider something:

If you stay in a stand off we all fear it will end in violence.

I cried when I watched Waco on TV - I was 8 and 1/2 months pregnant. I was saddened when I watched PBS reviews of Ruby Ridge. You have become political criminals in your attempt to be political freedom advocates - at least in the eyes of the media and the media-homogenized American. The Government doesn't have a lot of patience for those of us who would like to change and improve things.

I don't want to powerlessly sit by and watch another disaster. I have a four year old daughter and so far all she sees is that people who fight for their rights on their land GET KILLED. I do not want this to be our final lesson to our children.

If I was in charge there, I'd probably bring out three or four big red oak picnic tables, dress them up nicely, serve really good food and invite you all out to talk this out over dinner. I am a woman, I know there is a compromise in here somewhere.

But people like me are not in charge. We listen, we care, we watch everything and we remember, but we are not in charge.

Don't let this situation go ballistic. For me, for my kid, for your kids, for our FUTURE. Go to COURT.! Dead people are too soon forgotten. Live people in court may suffer horrible disrespect and dishonor, but they are not forgotten, they are not buried and lied about. Please, I would never ask you to sacrifice your values, I need to know there are people like you who really give a damn these days - just to stay sane myself. I am asking you to compromise your freedom, for a day in court. A day on the record. The Public Record. For a chance at really changing America for the better.

I am asking you because I cannot directly help you, or I would. But I promise we will be there when the shit hits the fan, I promise that my daughter and I will care, and pay attention, and write our Congressmen and vote and yell and scream and march if we have to - just don't let this end like the other scenes we have witnessed.

We cannot stand to see one more event of destruction of the individual, of the loss of free speech, without losing our own esprit de corp.

Sincerely, T. L. T. and V. S. T.

PS: My father reminds me that the Declaration of Independence includes a section that says more or less 'once life under a government becomes intolerable, it is the duty of a citizen to remove that government' - work from there, I think and desperately believe, that we can work within our own system to change it.

Dear T. L. T. and V. S. T.,

Thank you for your sincere interest and concern for us in Texas. Believe me, I understand your horror and disbelief at the insanity of aggression and violence that we are living in today. I share it.

But you are seriously mistaken about our position regarding the events outside of Fort Davis these past five days. Mr. McLaren IS NOT OUR PARTNER in our struggle for freedom and justice. We strenuously condemn his criminal actions!! The President of our Provisional Government, David Johnson, has made it very clear to the media here in Texas that ANYONE who supports Mr. McLaren in this situation is GUILTY OF TREASON!! I concur.

We may differ as to how to go about seeking change in America ("within the system"), but we agree wholeheartedly that armed aggression on OUR part IS NOT the answer.

Just look around you with an analitical eye and you'll see that some of the very same abuses and injustices that the Americans of the 1700's were suffering under, we are experiencing now:

THEY tried to work for change "within the system." Did it work? They didn't want violence any more than we do. But eventually they had no choice but to go to war.

That, of course is NOT what is happening in Fort Davis. It is simply a case of a madman and a criminal, that must be brought to justice in a court, before a jury of his peers. Not shot summarily, nor burned out like the men, women and children of Waco.

We hope and pray that McLaren and company (including his new wife) finally realize that their only option, aside from certain death (for no good cause) is to give themselves up and face their future alive, if behind bars or, in McLaren's case, in a padded cell, with a straightjacket.

I know you are all praying for Texas in this crisis, especially for wisdom in the hearts and minds of the officers outside the trailer house that they call an "embassy." To those prayers, we all say "Amen, so be it!"

Sincerely,

Daniel Coheleth Lopez
Secretary of State
Republic of Texas
Provisional Government

---

OPEN LETTER TO ARCHIE LOWE 

---

Office of the President
of the
Provisional Government
of the
Republic of Texas
December 14, 1996

An Open Letter to Archie Lowe, former President of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas.

I feel compelled to respond to your "Open Letter" of December 3, 1996, written three days after your removal from office by a lawful process of Delegates in Convention.

Your letter says much about the constitution, and quotes Ray Wanjura, former Secretary of Judicial Affairs on this issue. I am afraid, as you stated in your letter, that not all of the advice you are getting is serving your best interest. There was a major thought that was not in your letter that we must all come to understand. A constitution is a document written by the People, to define and limit Government. It is not a document, nor can it be in a truly free society, that places restrictions on the behavior of the People. The Common Law, the Law of Nature, does that.

Also, on the issue of the constitution, you seem to be under the delusion that the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas is operating under the constitution. If this were true, the Provisional Government itself is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly spells out how the government is to be formed. The Provisional Government of 1835 was PRE-CONSTITUTION. It ceased to exist once the constitution was written and implemented. If we are to operate in the Provisional Government mode we must be PRE-CONSTITUTION also. The Plans and Powers are the controlling document until the people place the new constitution and elect a full body of government according to it. It is interesting for you to say that "a small group of malcontents" cannot amend the constitution. This statement must have been designed only to confuse the People and deflect their attention from your actions and the actions of others, as there has been no attempt whatsoever, that I know of, to amend the constitution, other than what was done in 1994.

One of the major principles that has been established for hundreds of years, and in fact permeates all our founding documents, is that "All political power is inherent in the People." From this principle it is also established that the People who create a government have the absolute right to alter or abolish it as they may deem proper and in their best interest. I know that this goes against all of our "de-facto mentality" training but it is the principle our great nation was founded upon.

The Convention of Delegates that occurred on November 30, 1996 in College Station was the same process that began and formed our provisional government. You have referred to this as an "unlawful citizens meeting." Can you define "unlawful citizens meeting?" Was the Convention of Delegates that took place on December 12 & 13, 1995 an "unlawful citizens meeting?" Not even de-facto Dan has tried to use that phrase. No matter how much of the constitution you care to quote, you cannot alter the principle that the PEOPLE are in control. You also try to confuse the issue with the idea that "18+ million Texians" have to be represented to have a "lawful" process. Were there 18+ million Texians at the December '95 convention? Were there 18+ million Texians involved in the decision to create the "Republic of Texas Trust?" Were there even twenty Texians involved in this unlawful creation? Surely you know that two or three council members cannot act on their own, without a majority vote of the council, to do an act that not only affects the entire council, but every Citizen of the Republic.

The truth is that regardless of the number, the PEOPLE have the right to alter their government. The people who claim and have declared their Citizenship in the Republic of Texas are quite a small percentage of the whole of the population of Texas, but are the only ones capable or interested in altering the Provisional Government as they are the only ones who even RECOGNIZE the Provisional Government.

For you to call the actions of the People "unlawful" while your group forms a new government completely on their own, without any delegated authority from the people to do so, and totally disregarding the other elected members of the Provisional Government is the same tactic used by the de-facto for so long. You accuse others of exactly what you are guilty of and thereby deflect the peoples' attention in the wrong direction.

The fact that you and others, formerly on the General Council, ignored the People in the first place, and refused to solve the problems on the General Council and correct the unlawful acts of a few, is the very reason the People had to act through the ONLY lawful process left to them.

Now, on the issue of the banks and charters by members of the General Council, I feel certain that you should be aware of the fact that the Treasurer, Darrell Franks, asked for and received a legal opinion from Richard McLaren (verbally) that it was perfectly proper for these men to charter banks in their capacity as private citizens. Your rhetoric that "every vote of the General Council has reflected the controlling interest of the Treasurer", once again is designed to mislead and deflect the attention of the People from the wrongful and truly unlawful acts that have occurred recently. Mr. Franks has NOT separated his office from General Council review. You are once again misleading the people by stating that you requested an audit of the Treasury because "government must be responsible to the people for how public funds are used." There have never been any PUBLIC FUNDS in the treasury of the Republic of Texas. All funds received by the treasurer to date have been private funds through donations or bank charters. Further, any funds received from the CDT will be PRIVATE funds and have nothing to do with the Provisional Government or the General Council as a governmental entity.

You have made the statement many times, and again in your letter, that you would "not condone unlawful behavior." Yet, when confronted with the actions of Richard McLaren, Steve Crear, and Tim Perkins creating a "trust" without the approval of the General Council, you have condoned and defended the action. This action, which was done in a secret meeting, without the knowledge of the people or the General Council, was clearly unlawful, and was done outside the delegated authority of those involved; but you continue to support this unlawful action. When asked about the actual "trust documents" in public in the Odessa meeting you stated emphatically that you "did not have a copy of the trust." Later in the same meeting Richard Kenninger stated that there were six copies of the trust and that you had one of them. You then admitted to possessing a copy. This kind of inconsistency in one's statements does not add to one's credibility or integrity.

In response to your statements about "several instances of unlawful procedures" that have occurred recently, I would like to point out the following:

1. You stated that a case was brought by a Citizen "in response" to your efforts to bring these issues before the court. This is absolutely incorrect. When the gentleman began these cases against members of the General Council, it was done on the merits of his claim only, as he had absolutely no knowledge of your attempt to bring your "case" before the court. His decision was made on November 3, 1996 to bring the suits. By the time his final paperwork was being done your "Executive Notice and Caveat" had become public knowledge and was included in the suit filed against you, as it was further evidence of wrongdoing and unlawful action on your part.

You are to be commended for finally recognizing your error and rescinding your signature on this document, but the people should also know that this was not done "immediately" upon your knowledge that this was an unlawful document as you have stated would be your response when you discovered something unlawful. Your action to correct your error was done only after your failed attempts to get the people to "postpone" the grand jury investigation and a full two weeks after you were notified of the unlawful nature of your actions. In light of all your actions, one can only conclude that you would not have made this correction had you not been under the pressure of the upcoming grand jury investigation.

As to the rescinding of a signature by a member of the jury, such action would indicate perjury of the oath of the juror and would not invalidate anything. In addition, after checking with the court, I am told that the court has received no such notice.

Once again, regarding your statement that ONLY the Council can take action against their members, you are receiving advice that does not serve your best interest and is clearly wrong. The procedure you referred to in Article XI, 1835 Plans and Powers states that WHEN charges are brought before the Provisional Government the General Council is to consider them. There were no charges filed with the Provisional Government for them to consider. A suit was lawfully filed in the peoples' common law court. You cannot abrogate the right of the People to enforce the law against wayward and unlawful actions of their government officials. You say in your letter that ONLY the government can police itself. Think about that. Your statement indicates that you believe that elected representatives of the people are IMMUNE from the responsibilities of their actions and are NOT ACCOUNTABLE to the people. Your actions in supporting and condoning the unlawful actions of others also indicate this belief. If this were true, we would most certainly be no better off than we have been for the last 150 years.

2. Point number two of your letter refers to an "alleged grand jury" that "was unlawfully convened." Once again, this shows your complete lack of understanding of the Common Law and once again there are vague references to "unlawful actions" with no specific examples except to a statement made by one of the jurors regarding an unrecorded "no vote." As witnessed by over 70 people and verified by video tape and the fact that there are 24 signatures on the documents, there WAS a unanimous decision on each case. Even if there were such an error made, it would not nullify anything as only a two thirds majority is necessary in grand jury decisions.

3. Regarding your point number three about an "attempt by a small group of malcontents" to overthrow the government I can only say that this is a true statement, when applied to the right individuals. When Richard McLaren, in concert with others, created the "Republic of Texas Trust", an artificial entity not compatible with the common law, he did in fact create his own government, cast out half of the General Council and operate his new government completely unlawfully with the aid of yourself and others in a blatant attempt to overthrow the LAWFULLY ELECTED Provisional Government.

You then again call the actions of the People unlawful and state that there was not proper notification for the Convention of Delegates. I am quite certain that MOST of the declared Citizens of the Republic were informed of this Convention. Anyone who chose NOT to participate or be represented did so by their own choice. I noticed that you were not there and it was obvious by various announcements and letters that your supporters were counseled not to participate. This was a serious error on your part as you could have most certainly been represented and/or been heard.

I can only hope and pray that the People of the Republic of Texas will come to their senses and realize what their freedom under the Republic truly means, and that the principle that "All political power is inherent in the people.." must never be abrogated as you and others are attempting to do.

Mr. Lowe, you have stated to the people in many meetings and on many occasions that "this is YOUR government" yet you have refused to listen to the people when they have concerns. When the people made their voice heard at the Odessa meeting, two of the people you support, Ralph Turner and Richard McLaren called the people "stupid" and "idiots" for the whole room to hear. You then showed your contempt for the people when you announced your resignation, for all to hear, and then came back and said "it will be a cold day in hell when I resign." Attorneys demand something in writing; in common law your word is your bond.

When the People exercise their authority through the common law court you say it is unlawful. When the People exercise their authority through a Citizens Grand Jury you say it is unlawful. When the People exercise their authority through a Convention of Delegates with a majority of the 30 land districts represented you say it is unlawful. To most of the Citizens this sounds exactly like the de facto STATE OF TEXAS and UNITED STATES when they do anything they want and tell the people that if they try to do anything about it they are "unlawful." THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT TELL THE PEOPLE THEY ARE UNLAWFUL, THE PEOPLE TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY ARE UNLAWFUL!

Until you, Richard McLaren, and Tim Perkins started calling the actions of the Citizens unlawful, the only ones to do so had in fact been the de facto governments. You had the opportunity, in all the actions of the People that you call "unlawful", to be present and have your side of the story be heard but you continually refused.

You must realize what you are doing. You must know the truth and yet you are using the fact that many people have respected and trusted you to spread half truths, false information and misleading information to support activities of yourself and others who so clearly have acted outside their delegated authority. If you are truly a man of integrity, it is time for you to admit that you have been misled. If you truly love freedom and the Republic above all else, as you say, you can cure the "breach" that has affected every aspect of the Republic by simply supporting the actions of the People instead of using the documents that limit government to imply that the People have no right and authority over their government. To return Texas to the highest possible point in self government is the mandate of the Plans and Powers and should be the goal of all of us.

I implore you, Mr. Lowe, to help us bring the Citizens of the Republic back together and let us continue on our way to freedom from government oppression and the establishment of our beloved Texas as a sovereign nation among the nations of the world. Please, do as you say and support the actions the people have taken through their rightful and lawful process.

Under God, who blesses us all,

/s/David Johnson
[FORMER]President of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas

The following fax was received by Secretery of Plans, Powers, Constitution & Convention, Donald J. Varnell on December 4, 1996. I'm posting it here in its entirety, with answers and comments at the end, refered to in brackets. Italics mine. 

Over the last few weeks, rumors concerning the Republic of Texas have been flying fast and furious. I have been most concerned at the apparent splintering of the Provisional Council and the accompanying rumors.^[1]

While I personally have had my disagreements with some of the decisions made by certain council members, I have tried to understand the reasons^[2] behind those decisions. However, the recent actions of some (so-called) council members in replacing other members^[3] through unconstitutional means^[4] is an act of cowardice driven by greed^[11]in my opinion.^[5] The unlawful convening of a citizen's convention^[6] with only a week's notice was a disgrace. The "convention" was advertised as a meeting of delegates to the Constitutional Convention,^[7] which my husband has signed up to be a delegate for. He and the others in the area who are also delegates, never received any direct notification about this meeting. The only persons who apparently^[8] were notified seemed to be those holding bank charters.^[9] There was not enough time ^[10] for everyone here to gather the funds to go to this meeting, which HAD been scheduled for sometime in January.^[12]

At that meeting, which was attended by only a tiny fraction^[13a] of the Citizens of the Republic, certainly was not enough to fairly represent the wishes of the people, existing Council members were "replaced" by new members.^[13b] The troubling aspect to this is that those who were replaced are the only members of the Provisional Council that I trust.^[14] It seems to me that the "new" Council members were handpicked by one person^[15] to further his own agenda.

Myself and those I know do not acknowledge^[16] this "new" council and still believe that the Provisional Council led by Archie Lowe and Steven Crear is the one and only LAWFUL government body in the Republic at the present time, and we will not accept any orders^[17] or plans from the Council that was unlawfully^[18] put into place at the meeting which took place in College Station on 30 November 1996.

President Lowe and the Provisional Council have our thoughts and prayers during this trying time, and all our hopes^[19] for the freedom and prosperity of the reborn Republic of Texas. Please keep up the good work that you have been doing, and don't lose sight of that for which we are all fighting: FREEDOM.

In the latest issue of the "Republic of Texas Magazine" there was an article by Warren Curry regarding the court session held on November 6, 1996 in Tarrant County. There were, unfortunately, several serious and incorrect perceptions and misstatements that may mislead some people and distract them from the more serious issues that were the subject of the court session. However, I will try to clear up some of the errors.

In the first paragraph, Mr. Curry implies that only 24 hours notice was given for the court session. This is a misleading perception as the notice was given beginning on the Sunday before the Nov. 6 date that there would be a court session on Wed. Nov. 6, 1996. It was in fact announced at the Tuesday night meeting as mentioned but this was not the only notice. It was merely an announcement at that meeting for those there who wished to attend and had not been notified by other means. This was a PUBLIC court session and was announced publicly.

In the second paragraph, there is reference to Jesse Enloe "presenting his prejudicial evidence to the potential jurors." In the common law there is no such thing as "prejudicing the jury" because the jury can hear any evidence they wish. There is no "judge" to slant the case by filtering the evidence.

In the third paragraph, the implication is made that Timothy Perkins couldn't be there to preside due to the "short notice." Again this is very misleading. Timothy Perkins was the Respondent in one of the suits and could not possibly have presided, even if he had accepted the invitation to be there, which he did not. On the contrary, Mr. Perkins tried to violate the will and the right of the people by trying to stop the court session.

The biggest misconception of this proceeding was that it was a trial. IT WAS NOT A TRIAL. It was simply a jury hearing evidence as to whether a TEMPORARY restraining order should be issued on several individuals. The Demandant could have simply asked the alternate judge, Alden Nellis to sign a temporary restraining order. Everyone involved with the Demandant felt that it would be better, under the circumstances, to have a jury decide rather than one man. This still did not make it a trial and even though no notice is required to file a suit and ask for a TRO, the Respondents were invited. Steven Crear PROMISED he would be there and then did not show.

Obviously, due to the nature of the situation and the people involved, emotions ran high among most of the people there. There was much discussion, questions from the jurors, and answers from people representing "both sides". The statements about the jurors being cajoled, threatened and coerced are simply not true. One juror stated simply and flatly "I like Archie Lowe and I'm not going to vote for this." She was reminded of the oath she took ".. to judge the facts and the law setting aside any personal prejudices.." and the entire jury was asked if they could find anything wrong with the evidence or the way it was presented. They all sat silent.

When the foreman called for another vote, the same juror made a similar statement and continued to vote no. This was accepted as a hung jury even though it was obvious to everyone in the room (who had eyes to see and ears to hear) that this juror had perjured her oath.

The article states that Mr. Enloe stated that it was the right of the accuser to replace three jurors. This is a false statement. Mr. Barnum was given a copy of the "court rules" which are the accepted guidelines for the court, by someone from the audience and it was pointed out to Mr. Barnum that he could, in fact, replace three jurors. HE HIMSELF DID NOT CHOOSE THE REPLACEMENTS. The names were drawn by the bailiff, as is always done in the common law court. The jury WAS NOT stacked in any way shape or form. On each subsequent case, there was much discussion and more that one vote taken before a unanimous decision was reached.

When Mr. Curry talks about motives and lists four points he is completely misguided and off target:
1) He said that "written notice was never issued to anyone." He ignores the fact that this was not a trial. There is no notice required in anybody's law to simply file a case and ask for a temporary restraining order. The notice comes when the suit is sent to the Respondent with a Citation and a copy of the restraining order, if one is issued, and the Respondent has 21 or more days to respond.
2) Mr. Curry said that "no injunction was written nor delivered to anyone or filed with the court." Again, very, very misleading. There was no INJUNCTION issued but there were TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS issued on 4 individuals. These were in writing, signed by the 12 jurors, and sent via certified mail by the clerk of the court to the Respondents. At least the clerk at the time, Crystal Archer, reported to the Counsel for the Demandant that this had been done. We have never known Crystal Archer to lie and have no reason to doubt her word on this. Since the records have been stolen by the very judge who was being sued, he alone has the proof of the certified mail service. There are certified copies of the Temporary Restraining orders, signed by the 12 jurors (obtained prior to Perkins confiscating the records). Over 300 copies of them were passed out at the Odessa meeting.
3) His statement that the "non-existent injunction was never signed.." was answered previously in number two.
4) The statement that "3 days written notice was never given to anyone" is false and misleading. The requirement for "notice" to file a suit has already been discussed.

The balance of Mr. Curry's article will be shown in the near future to be pure bunk. The purpose of this response was to clear the air about the LAWFUL process of the people through their court.

There is much learning needed by everyone about the common law and the operation of the courts of the people. Please do not be taken in by people who know nothing about the process, have never participated in the process, or simply want to call it unlawful because they disagree with the outcome.

For anyone who doubts the outcome and the evidence, records ARE available from the new clerk concerning the grand jury investigation. This evidence is far more complete than even that of the November 6, 1996 session. Anyone who wants copies of this information may obtain it by contacting us during business hours. I suggest that anyone who wants to know the TRUTH should obtain these records.

Respectfully submitted,
Jesse Enloe

Back to Main Page

---

This page updated with Netscape Communicator

1281