Thursday, December 23, 2010
Kenai Militia Leader Norm Olson Comes Out In Support Of Embattled Fairbanks Militia Leader Schaeffer Cox
The latest on embattled Fairbanks militia leader Schaeffer Cox: On December 23rd, 2010, Superior Court Judge Michael McConahy set a trial date of February 14th, 2011 for Cox to answer a charge of fifth-degree weapons misconduct, a misdemeanor. Specifically, Cox is accused of failing to notify a Fairbanks police officer he was carrying a concealed .38-caliber pistol in March 2010 while monitoring a police a search at an Eighth Avenue home.
Cox, who is associated with the Alaska Peacemakers Militia and the Second Amendment Task Force, intends to represent himself in court. In response to the prosecutor's objections, Judge McConahy said Cox appears capable of defending himself in a rational and coherent manner, but advised Cox to seek legal advice at some point along the way. Cox has also turned the case into a challenge of the Alaska Court System, calling himself a sovereign citizen and claiming the court is a for-profit corporation with no authority over him, and attempted to serve papers on Judge Patrick Hammers during his previous court appearance on December 15th.
-- Alaska Court System records on Schaeffer Cox available HERE.
But of equal interest is a report published by the Anchorage Press that other Alaska militia leaders are rallying to Cox’s defense. The only one specifically identified is Kenai militia leader Norm Olson. Olson, the leader of the Kenai Peninsula-based Alaska Citizens Militia, said “Allow me to state that I am behind Schaeffer Cox 100 percent. His [sovereign citizen] argument is valid. The court that is claiming jurisdiction is an ‘Admiralty Court’ constructed under statute laws of the corporation known as The State of Alaska. Schaeffer wants to be tried in a court of common law where he can face his accuser directly and try the law as well as the evidence before him. Mr. Cox is fully aware that a jury that is called to listen to the charges has the right and duty to try not only the evidence, but to judge the correctness of the law itself. Schaeffer is not unwilling to be tried, but he wants to plead his case before a common law court with a jury of his peers. Can he expect that in Alaska? Only time will tell.”
Olson would not talk more specifically about militia strength in Alaska for obvious security reasons, but believes the persecution of Schaeffer Cox could help recruiting.
This is where I must partially disagree. People will respond affirmatively to the survivalist and self-defense message of the militia, considering how the passage of Obamacare and other such measures show that government is becoming relentlessly more intrusive, invasive, and oppressive. The Federal government continues to invent more ways to incrementally curtail Americans' right to bear arms in a sufficiently slow fashion so that people are less likely to notice it. But if I interpret the comments posted to news stories about Cox correctly, most people are either dismissing or denigrating the sovereign citizens movement altogether. When they hear "sovereign citizens", they think "Montana Freemen". The militias would do well to scale back on the sovereign citizens message and focus more on survivalism and self-defense.
I've now figured out why the prosecutor seems to be so determined to press this relatively nitnoid case. Back in early March 2010, before this incident, Schaeffer Cox pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of reckless endangerment over an altercation he had with his wife. He was placed on probation for two years and received a one-month suspended sentence. So the prosecutor is probably trying to get him for a probation violation, without actually charging him with it by name.