THE BATTLE FOR ARMORY PARK ©

(Working Title)

Showdown with Raza “Dirty-Commie-Rat-Bastards” in

the Old Pueblo

A First Draft
By
Roy Warden

Roy Warden
roywarden@hotmail.com
520 551-3496

1
 PROLOGUE
The Sixties: An Era for National Change
“If You See Something Wrong, Say Something1”
In the sixties, at the University of California, Berkeley—long be-
fore Homeland Security appropriated it—Roy Warden’s genera-
tion used the phrase as a “call to action” for citizen rights and
social justice. People stood up, spoke out and, most importantly,
acted.
Berkeley was the epicenter of a budding nationwide, activist, cul-
tural awakening; a white cultural awakening populated by well-
fed, never-been-hungry middle class white kids who’d grown up
watching Steve Allen on tv, seen Glenn Ford & Sidney Portier in
Blackboard Jungle, Alan Freed & Bill Haley in Rock Around the
Clock, listened to Chuck Berry sing Johnny B. Goode, Elvis Pres-
ley sing Blue Suede Shoes, and Little Richard pound the ivories
standing up:
“Good Golly Ms. Molly, She sure liked to ball, She’s a rock-
ing and a rolling,’ ‘Till she heard her momma call…”
White kids who’d grown up listening to rock-and-roll and defying
the social conventions of their parent’s generation, who now
were just beginning to suspect that black people were cool.
Fifties rock-and-roll led to hard core sixties activism. You had to
be tone-deaf or “brain-dead” to miss it.
Whenever you walked up Telegraph to the southern entrance of
the campus, through Sproul Plaza and Sather Gate, you could feel
its’ excitement, and energy.

1
“Troublemaking” Civil Rights Activist Congressman John Lewis, Time
Magazine January 4, 2018

2
Street musicians playing guitars, blowing saxophones and har-
monicas, riffing, jamming—jazz, blues, country western, all
mixed together—students holding signs, gesturing, arguing, ex-
changing ideas, and dozens of tables stacked with photos of rad-
ical leaders, "sign up” sheets and political pamphlets.
Groups like SLATE, CORE, SNCC & FSM, were there, leaders
speaking passionately about racial equality, thrusting out litera-
ture showing photos of southern cops using dogs to savage black
activist-marchers, and firehoses to flush cool black people off
sidewalks like so much dirt, shouting at you:
“Now is the Time to Act!”
Who could listen to ‘Long Tall Sally’ and not feel like Arnold and
Carl did in Predator, on the chopper, hard dudes locking and
loading, jacked on speed who couldn’t wait to rock it up and bust
it up, get into some asshole’s face and “have some fun tonight?”
Fifties rock-and-roll added to emerging social movements made
something powerful happen in the sixties. If you went to college
then and didn’t feel something then, do something, then… you
weren’t really there.
The times were changing and people were changing them.
And important things were happening in Berkeley.
***************
On March 23, 1962 in Memorial Stadium President Kennedy
spoke to an enthusiastic crowd of 80,000, waving American
flags, telling them:
“This University of California will continue to grow as an
intellectual center because your presidents and your chan-
cellors and your professors have rigorously defended that
unhampered freedom of discussion and inquiry which is
the soul of the intellectual enterprise and the heart of a free

3
 university… The New Frontier owes as much to Berkeley
as it does to Harvard University.”

On May 17, 1967 in Sproul Plaza, Martin Luther King, addressed

thousands of cheering students, pled for unity, racial and ethnic
equality, equal justice and equal rights for all citizens, telling
Berkeley students:
“You, in a real sense, have been the conscience of the
academic community and our nation.”
On December 2, 1965 in Sproul Plaza Warden watched Mario
Savio jump atop a police car and give his “Put Your Bodies to the
Gears and Stop the Machine” speech. Warden donated a quarter
to pay for the damage, stayed around to hear Joan Baez sing “We
Shall Overcome,” and, then sensing a bad moon about to rise,
some primal instinct which usually had him going out the back
door just when cops were coming in the front, split the scene
just in time to avoid the arrests.
Berkeley was a center for intellectual inquiry, defiance, challeng-
ing the status quo, activism. If you were young and impression-
able, Berkeley was the place to be, a place where important things
had happened and were happening again.
So late one Friday afternoon it was not surprising when Warden
said “yes” to a Chicana who gave him a smile and a handbill titled
“Huelga!” and invited him to “venga con nosotros” and some
“amigos communistas” to Sacramento to “conoce a nuestro lider
Cesar Chavez” and walk the last stage of the Delano Grape Strike
march.
Warden later learned Chavez was neither a communist nor an
advocate for “all people with brown skin,” but an American na-
tionalist, in the mold of JFK and Bobby. Chavez hated corpora-
tions ripping off workers and Mexican illegals (whom Chavez

4
called “wetbacks”) for breaking strikes and eroding his efforts to
get a decent wage for members of his Farm Workers Union.
Chavez had even done time2 for kicking the shit out of a bunch of
“wets” whom the farmers bussed up from Mexico to break his
strike in the melon fields of Yuma, Arizona.
Warden had admired King and Chavez for defying the status-
quo, getting in their faces and more importantly kicking the ass
of those who needed it.
Both were “troublemakers” who used street tactics of demonstra-
tion, confrontation and face-to-face dialog—“singing songs and
carrying signs”—to challenge the establishment, face down op-
pression and change public opinion. Radical activist Saul Alinsky
later documented these techniques in “Rules for Radicals,” which
became a bible and playbook for the Left Wing
Both King and Chavez took to the streets to confront, defy and
stake their claims. King faced down the tyranny of a racist south-
ern system which employed water hoses and German shepherds
to punish dissent; Chavez kicked the ass of the California Grape
industry, when his strike caused thousands of tons of their grapes
to rot on the docks of San Francisco.
Troublemakers3 always challenged the way things are.
Now, that was real “Power to the People” Warden thought.
In the sixties, way back then.
***************

2 State v. Chavez

5
Now, forty years later, Warden again saw something wrong,
something he thought was very wrong, going on in Tucson, Ari-
zona and in cities all across America.
Large crowds were again marching in the streets, carrying post-
ers of Cesar Chavez stating “Si, se Puede,” only this time they
waved Mexican flags, carried signs that said “Viva la Raza,”
asked for “immigration reform,” which Warden knew was a
thinly veiled demand for amnesty and citizenship for the millions
of illegal aliens, so-called “immigrants” who didn’t “immigrate,”
but had busted in.
The media reported their plea for “a pathway to citizenship” so
“undocumented people” could “come out of the shadows,” and
live openly without fear…
Warden, a long-time observer of radical social movements, rec-
ognized the spin, the propaganda; the Mexican cartels which fa-
cilitated entry were not a reiteration of the underground railway
which spirited black slaves to freedom. They were, in fact, the
spearhead of a hideous and ongoing criminal enterprise, which
trafficked children as “sex-slaves” and raped women on blood
soaked ground under “rape trees,” hung their underwear from
the branches as signs of machismo and dominance.
Local raza leaders openly demanded amnesty, unconditional cit-
izenship and permanent open borders, or in the alternative, to
divide Arizona into two states, to reunify with Mexico, or create
a new, ethnically purified nation called “Aztlan,” where the man-
tra would be, as taught in the Tucson Unified School District’s
Mexican-American Studies program:
“Kill the Gringos!4” Drive them back to Plymouth Rock!”

4 All white skinned, non-indigenous people

6
Ethnic cleansing? What was this shit? The raza movement was
about more than “coming out of the shadows.”
He’d marched for citizen’s rights and economic justice for the
working man; raza marched for the entry of the very same Mex-
icans who plagued Chavez in California and the melon fields of
Yuma, Arizona; increasing labor supply always meant lower
wages for workers and higher profits for the corporations, the
lesson Steinbeck taught in the Grapes of Wrath.
So how could raza claim solidarity with Chavez when they de-
manded everything he’d opposed?
No matter how sympathetically the left wing media portrayed
them, raza was not the Civil Rights Movement, part two.
But, they were here now, and unopposed. And, unlike the sixties,
the media never asked the hard questions.
President Bush smiled when he said. “Family values don’t stop at
the border.”
***************

Raza was gathering momentum and support from all across the
country, gathering steam and a grudging acceptance from a be-
wildered public as inevitable because the media made it all sound
so praiseworthy, so noble, even though right wing media con-
demned it, shouting “the Mexicans are coming. They’re march-
ing in the streets, and taking our jobs” and Minutemen camped
on the border, protecting the country from what they called “an
invasion” of Mexicans.
But nobody spoke the obvious. The Mexicans weren’t “invading;”
for decades they had been solicited, welcomed in by corporate
America, and not just to “pick the lettuce.”

7
They no longer did “the jobs Americans didn’t want to do.” In fact
agriculture still had a labor shortage.
Now they occupied formerly decent paying jobs which paid them
less than minimum wage. For decades employers skirted the law,
paid them in cash, winked at phony social security cards, gave
them jobs in construction and landscaping (first firing legal
workers, many of whom were Hispanic Americans or legal Mex-
ican immigrants here on a green card,), building up infrastruc-
ture for Arizona’s recreation and retirement industry. Hotels
paid them in cash to make beds, clean toilets and wash linen.
Hospitals paid them in cash to mop floors, scrub blood from
walls, dispose severed limbs, pus riddled organs and other bio-
logical hazards. Restaurants paid them in cash to cook, serve ta-
bles and wash dishes.
Behind the scenes cheap labor fueled the booming Arizona econ-
omy. Underlying record breaking growth was an unholy alliance
of communists and capitalists, radicals and establishment, both
getting what they wanted; greedy dirt-bag employers driving
down labor costs, driving up profits and raza growing the ethnic
population they needed for Aztlan.
Radical theorist Saul Alinsky knew the power of greed, boasted
he could “use the strength of the enemy against itself”—a strategy
he called “mass jujitsu.”
He once quipped: “I feel confident that I could persuade a mil-
lionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of
which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he
was certain to be executed on Monday.5”
But who read Alinsky?

5 The Shadow Party (p. 58). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

8
Who knew how to fight fire with fire, to use sixties “in-your-face
street tactics to expose, challenge and defy the establishment,
raza and those behind them, to get right in their faces, to really
get in their ugly faces, like activists in his day had done, and say:
“Chignan tu madres, hombres! No se puede! Alto!”
No one. Not yet.
***************

QUOTES

“In 2006 Roy Warden emerged as one of the country's

most controversial, volatile, and, many believe, dangerous
characters of the anti-immigration movement.” Southern
Poverty Law Center

“In 2006, THE Arizona establishment was every bit as in-

vested in using the police, and the courts, to protect the ar-
chitects and the beneficiaries of open-border-pro-raza-
cheap-Mexican-labor policy as the southern establishment
was invested in protecting “white privilege” and second
class citizenship for black Americans in the fifties and six-
ties.” Roy Warden

“They looked at the gun in my left hand,” said Warden,

“they should have looked at the law book in my right.”

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s prof-

itable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illu-
sion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take
down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will
move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see
the brick wall at the back of the theater." F. Zappa

***************

9
 PREFACE
No, It Is Not “Trump’s Wall”

They6, the left wing media, and the rest of the open-borders-
cheap-Mexican-labor propagandists, continue to refer to it as
“Trump’s Wall,” as if putting up a wall to secure America’s south-
ern border, is somehow, President Trump’s own, unique, per-
sonal idea.

But it’s not “Trump’s Wall.” It is America’s Wall, no matter how

the media chooses to spin it. And ever since 911, long before
Trump announced his candidacy, a small group of independent
Arizonans have fought hard to erect it.

Presidential candidates don’t get elected by articulating their

personal viewpoint and convincing the electorate to follow; first
they must detect a growing change in the national mood. Then,
like a surfer maneuvering to catch a swell, they position them-
selves to catch the wave, articulate a message a dissatisfied public
is already waiting to hear, and if the stars align and their mes-
sage is clear, they may ride the crest of newly focused public
opinion to the presidency.

By 2016 America was clearly “fed up” with them; the political es-
tablishment, left and right wing media spin and the status quo,
so Trump’s 2016 election campaign primarily focused on one of

6 This author uses “they” and “them” to identify hidden behind the scenes
forces which orchestrate events. Such as “They” shot Bobby and JFK and
“They” killed Martin Luther King.

10
the major sources of public discontent: issues surrounding the
border.

It is my premise that the movement to elect Trump and secure

the border was inspired and driven by the multi-decade long ef-
fort of a small group of what J.F.K had called “citizen-activists”,
primarily Arizonans7 and many Hispanic8, living near our south-
ern border with Mexico. Since Reagan’s amnesty in the late eight-
ies, these Arizonans had seen millions of foreigners, illegal aliens,
pouring across the border, sometimes across their front yards,
each year.

Many of these citizen-activists remembered Kennedy’s “New

Frontier” speech and the challenge:

“Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are

not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard
the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their
daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sac-
rifice for that freedom9.”

Subsequent to 911 these citizens responded to a fiercely nation-

alistic mood, and “heard the call” to stand up and protect the na-
tion.

In 2006 one former Vietnam veteran army captain explained:

“Charlie’s under the wire Roy. We got to protect the perimeter”

In the sixties the call had been for social justice; post 911 the call
was for national survival, which at that time was deeply in doubt.

7 This group would include organizations like American Patrol, the Minute-
men, PAN, You Don’t Speak for Me, and Border Guardians.
8 Colonel Al Rodriquez of “You Don’t Speak For Me”.
9 JFK Speech January 29, 1961

11
These citizen-activists formed groups, some wearing guns, some
not, but all willing to commit themselves to stand on the border
or in the streets, or walk door-to-door to circulate petitions, all
willing to raise their voices in verbal and symbolic speech to con-
front what to what many believed was a direct threat to our na-
tional survival, and an “international conspiracy and globalist
desire for one world government.”

By 2016 Arizona’s commitment to protect the border and erect

the “Wall” was the highest in the nation. Trump’s campaign event
crowds were rabid on border issues, and overflowing, which is
why he focused so much time and attention there.

Arizona citizen-activists woke America up to the outrage on the

southern border, and inspired millions of frustrated citizens,
from coast to coast and north to south, who by 2016, were just
waiting to elect someone like Trump.

Since 2005 I’ve been one of those “citizen-activists”, speaking out

in the parks and streets of Tucson Arizona and, consequently, in
the courts, confronting, exposing, defying and defending myself
from them, the architects and the beneficiaries, of what I’ve
termed “open-border, pro-raza, cheap-Mexican-labor policy.” As
a consequence of my orchestration of lawful but aggressive first
amendment demonstration, I’ve been illegally evicted, my be-
longings stolen, my professional reputation as an Arizona Legal
Document Preparer destroyed and I’ve been made homeless.

“They’ve” arrested and prosecuted me fourteen times, for such

things as “making threats and intimidation,” “assault”, “reckless
burning” (an arson offense), “criminal harassment by communi-
cation”, etc.

12
I come from a liberal10, activist background. In 1964 I read Con-
science of a Conservative, and (like Hillary Clinton) worked in
the republican campaign to elect Barry Goldwater.

In 1964 I also ditched class to see Mario Savio’s stirring “put your
bodies upon the gears” speech on the steps of Sproul Hall at the
University of California, Berkeley. In the spring of 1966, as a
Berkeley student, I marched for civil rights and spent a weekend
with Cesar Chavez in support of the Delano Grape Strike, which,
amongst other things, resulted in my dismissal from U.C. Berke-
ley and a 10 month enlistment with the U.S. Army, (at the height
of the Viet-Nam war buildup, I volunteered to go “airborne”;
man you really got to dig paratroopers!) before discharge in the
summer of 1967 for my refusal to testify against fellow soldiers in
a drug case.

In 1968 I worked as an investigator for a small group of San Fran-

cisco attorneys specializing in music, drug, and first amendment
law, and was a member of what we insiders called “the scene”
described by Tom Wolfe in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. Years
later I worked for the famed Vincent Hallinan on the Patty Hearst
case. Vincent was the 1952 Progressive Party presidential candi-
date, and the defender of union organizer Harry Bridges subse-
quent to the Longshoreman Strike. Since 1964 I’ve practiced the
practical aspects of public demonstration, political activism and
first amendment law, primarily on left-wing causes.

I have excellent liberal bona fides, which is one reason why Tuc-
son “pro-raza” groups and the local media hate me so much.

10 Our Founding Fathers were liberals in the classic sense. True liberal
thinking people stand up to tyranny, vested interests and “them”, aka the
establishment. In the sixties, Both Charlton Heston and Marlon Brando
made profound commitments to the civil rights movement.

13
However; I am not a conservative, or a “patriot” as the terms are
currently defined. I am a student, but not a leader or a follower,
of political movements. I detest any party line. In fact In fact, I
detest partisan politics, with its “follow the sheep” mentality. At
an early age I read “Revolt of the Masses” by Ortega y Gasset, and
“The True Believer” written by longshoreman Eric Hoffer, “Rules
for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky so I’m more inclined to “question
authority” than to follow it, particularly the authority of the lead-
ers of mass political movements. I am a JFK- Bobby-Kennedy-
Martin-Luther-King-Cesar Chavez troublemaking kind of liberal
from the sixties, but I am not, (and none of the above were), a
communist or a proponent of “raza” race based ethnic division
and identity politics. In today’s political climate the media would
place both JFK and Bobby the right side of Attila the Hun.

Prior to the seminal event of this book—the April 10, 2006 “Riot
in Armory Park”— I researched first amendment law exten-
sively, particularly the law regarding flag burning and other
forms of symbolic speech; therefore after my very public burning
of the Mexican flag in Armory Park on April 10, 2006 I was some-
what prepared to defend myself from the legal consequences.

But I was not prepared for what they did and the overwhelming
consequences of public excoriation, joblessness, community and
family-shunning11, an official invitation from one community
newspaper to “get out of town,” homelessness, and six years of
abject poverty.

In Open Borders, Inc. Michelle Malkin reports what has happens

to many who stand up and speak out against the protagonists of
Open Borders:

11 My family members are liberal Californians; they “bought in” to the me-
dia-driven narrative that I am “dangerous” and “irrational.”

14
 “I fear for my country and I fear for our freedom to speak
up for it.

“After exercising my First Amendment rights for a living

over the past quarter-century, I never thought I’d have to
say such a thing out loud. I’m not merely worried. I’m ter-
rified. During the past year, as I worked furiously to com-
plete this manuscript (my seventh in seventeen years), I
have witnessed friends and allies stripped of their plat-
forms, reputations, and voices. Some can no longer com-
municate on social media. Others cannot gather peacefully
at hotel conferences to discuss their ideas. Still others are
now forbidden from doing business with their banks, pay-
ment processors, online retailers, and even ridesharing
services. Many have gone underground to protect them-
selves and their families. They are mocked, defamed, and
ostracized on airwaves and in public spaces. They face a
daily barrage of dehumanizing lies, violence, and death
threats—all in the name of eradicating ‘hate.’”

After burning the Mexican flag in Armory Park in 2006, I was

backed against the wall; my family and former friends shunned
me and they were determined to drive me out of town.

Having no work and place else to go, I spent my days12 in the

Pima County library and the Ninth Circuit Court library at the
John Roll13 U.S. District Court Tucson Arizona where I found a
clear path to vindication in both the court of public opinion and
a court of law.

12 At night I scrounged for food, slept on floors, and eventually learned how
to access public resources I was entitled to.
13 The court was renamed after the attempted assignation of Congresswoman

Gabby Giffords in 2013, during which U.S. District Court John Roll and
five others were murdered.

15
First Amendment Retaliation (aka FAR) is a cause of action in a
civil rights claim: When the government arrests and prosecutes
you for what is otherwise lawful conduct, you have the right to
take them to court and litigate your claim.

I concluded: If they were willing to break the law, arrest and

prosecute me for what the courts had already decided was lawful
conduct then, as a strategy, I would use the strength of the en-
emy against himself: I would employ what Alinsky called “mass
jujitsu.” l would “stand my ground”, get in their face, defy them
and use the “rule of law” to protect myself. The “trick” would be
to survive the immediate consequences of arrest, avoid jail time
and “beat the rap” on enough cases to file credible federal
claims14.

Seeking redress and damages in federal court for what I knew to

be clear violations of my civil rights, would also give me the op-
portunity to hold public officials accountable, and bring to public
view open-border-pro-raza-cheap-Mexican-labor policy, which
lies at the center of the border controversy we face today.

Instead of weakness, homelessness and joblessness became

strength. Having “nothing” I had nothing left to lose.

So I spent most days in the library, returned to my intellectual

roots as a Berkeley radical, renewed my interest as an activist-
practitioner of constitutional law, and decided to employ a vari-
ation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, to wit: to force the local
government, and the courts, fulfill their constitutional duty to
protect the rule of law

14 As a general rule, you will not prevail on a federal claim of civil rights vi-
olation if you fail to “beat the rap at trial” or overturn your conviction on
appeal.

16
Thereafter I engaged in aggressive but lawful street tactics de-
scribed by Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals and the ACLU in
The Right to Protest, stood on the public square, and used a bull-
horn to confront, expose, defy and defend myself against them;
the vested interests of the southern Arizona open-border, “pro-
raza”-cheap-Mexican-labor establishment which had reduced
me to poverty.

From 2006 to 2018 I conducted more than 50 lawful public

demonstrations, some including burning of the Mexican flag, in
many locations, including the Mexican Consulate, Tucson City
Hall, the Pima County Courthouse, the U.S. District Court, the
Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix, Tucson Library Square, etc.,
and, on many occasions I addressed the Tucson Mayor and City
Council and the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

They arrested and prosecuted me 14 times15 for what the U.S. Su-
preme Court had already ruled was lawful first amendment pro-
tected conduct. I argued my cases before judges in the local Tuc-
son and Pima County criminal misdemeanor courts, Pima
County Superior Court, U.S. District Court, Division II of the Ar-
izona Appellate Courts, the Arizona Supreme Court and the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, each case testing a specific rule of law
and what one Supreme Court justice has stated “the promise our
constitution makes to the people.”

15 I’ve been handcuffed, transported to jail, arraigned and / or prosecuted

14 times. However, on many other and uncounted occasions my demon-
strations have been unlawfully broken up by Tucson Police officers who
sustained “heckler’s vetoes” and refused to maintain public order. TPD
Sgt. Coleman testified with words to the effect: “We were afraid of what
the (“pro-raza”) counter demonstrators would do to us if we tried to stop
their attacks on Warden.”

17
CS Lewis wrote “Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is
watching.” For the most part, the judges I appeared before, failed
to keep the promise and the oath they took to protect and defend
the rule of law, the sole exceptions being (ironically, in light of
raza-politics and liberal opposition to my Mexican flag burnings)
Hispanic judges. The reluctance of Hispanic judges16 to “stick it
to me” eventually became so self-evident, when Charlene Pes-
quiera was randomly appointed to hear my last criminal case in
Pima county Justice Court, they violated the rules of procedure,
removed Pesquiera and substituted in the presiding Judge of the
Pima County justice Court, Vince Roberts.

The constitution and the rule of law didn’t fail me; offending
judges who failed to uphold the law, as it is clearly written, did.

In fact these judges failed all of us.

They caved to public pressure (or perhaps they responded to

their own, hidden agenda), ignored Bolingbroke17, and refused
to make decisions Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch said a judge
must make; to issue unpopular (but lawful) decisions which run
contrary to what the community wants them to do.

This book is not meant to be another rant about the unfairness of

life, a diatribe against judges or a regurgitation of ideas devel-
oped by other more skilled and well-known writers. It is in-
tended to describe what happened to me, a legally articulate po-
litical activist engaged in a multi-decade long exercise of funda-
mental law—in the streets and the courts—where I “stood my
ground” upon constitutionally sacred soil to confront, expose,
16 I believe Hispanic judges, more so than their white brethren, comprehend
the true evil of raza, race-based identity politics.
17 “The profession of the law, in its nature the noblest and most beneficial to
mankind, is in its abuse and abasement the most sordid and pernicious.”

18
defy and defend myself from them, the local southern Arizona
establishment which, in 2006, was every bit as invested in using
the police, and the courts, to protect the architects and benefi-
ciaries of “open-border-pro-raza-cheap-Mexican-labor” policy
as the southern establishment was invested in protecting “white
privilege” and second class citizenship for blacks in the face of
the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties.

***************

19
 INTRODUCTION
We Do Not See Things As They Are But As We Are
As a nation four years later Americans are still “at each other’s
throat” over the 2016 election, and the 2020 impeachment, of
Donald Trump. Grab anybody off the street and ask “What do
you think about Donald Trump” and watch the explosion of emo-
tion, either disparaging or supporting the president.
Ask the same question to visiting family members over Thanks-
giving dinner. If you dare.
Watch the morning news, the Sunday political talking heads of
all political stripe as they jabber back and forth making puerile
and lofty sounding comments, read the newspaper headlines, lis-
ten to the radio talk shows, scan the internet news feeds or your
Facebook page and you will know this: Unlike in 2006, today we
the American people are pissed-off.
We have been “woken up” and we have equally divided ourselves,
one against another—conservatives vs. liberals, democrats vs. re-
publicans, “patriots” vs “traitors and communists”—all enraged,
mad as hell and, no matter what side we are on, we are not going
to take it anymore.
Public anger and dissatisfaction with them, aka “the status quo”
is now at the boiling point.
You can’t separate the border issue, and the resultant public an-
ger, from Donald Trump. The border is part of Trump’s political
DNA, the primary reason for his 2016 election and the primary
reason his opponents hate him so much.
By the time this story is published we will know these answers:
“Will Trump be removed from office and who will is the 46th Pres-
ident of the United States?”
But the vast majority won’t know the answer to this question:

20
Behind the scenes, who benefits from continual acrimony and
national division caused by conflict on our southern border?
In the post 911 era, a diverse set of writers have documented the
public consequences of illegal immigration, each bringing a dif-
ferent perspective to the issue based upon their own unique life
experiences.
In the July 15, 2004 article Immigration Border Wars, journalist
and world traveler Frosty Wooldridge interviewed former Border
Patrol Agent and author of “Illegal Entries”, published in 2003
by John W. Slagle:

“Since September 11, 2001 to today, our nation's border is

a dangerous place. The armed encounters and exchanges
of gunfire between Mexican criminals and authorities are
all too frequent. Smugglers are also violent when stopped
by agents and if armed will attempt to kill…

“Armed encounters along our nation's borders occur daily.

The fact that thousands of "illegal aliens" marching
through our rural areas to 'load-up points" for interstate
transport should be a cause for alarm in Washington. Are
these unknown persons breaking the law to enter this na-
tion as foreign guest workers? Are they friendly and wel-
comed with open arms, or a terrorist or two? Not all people
who cross our borders are Mexican or Central American
Nationals seeking work in agriculture at "indentured servi-
tude" slave wages.”

Murderers, rapists, thieves exist in any large section of so-

ciety, from any nation in the world. With a million or more
people from many countries crossing our borders, undoc-
umented without inspection and with false names, most
enter to work and support families. Human traffickers are
the worst of humanity that prey upon these people. Extor-
tion, kidnapping, murder to collect smuggling fees is the
daily routine throughout the pipeline into the United

21
 States. The average smuggler makes over $5,000.00 tax
free money a week.”

"Cheap labor" is not cheap and the major beneficiaries are

criminal cadres, businesses, industries that exploit human-
ity for substandard wages. Without employer sanctions,
companies are free to do anything "greed" dictates--con-
doned by politicians and lobbyists.”

“Rapists, murderers and thieves” reported by a federal agent in

2003, more than a decade before Trump was excoriated by them,
the establishment media, in 2016 for making the same comment?

Journalist and author Michelle Malkin is the daughter of immi-

grant parents. I read her first book “Invasion” while preparing
for trial on six criminal counts filed two days after “The Riot in
Armory Park” on April 10, 2006 for which I faced 1.5 years in
prison.
On May 3, 2006, three weeks after the April 10, 2006 “Nation-
wide Day of Protest for Worker’s Rights and Immigration Re-
form”, Malkin reported:
“The Reconquista is Real ”
“On the Sean Hannity radio show Monday, I debated (or
rather listened to five minutes of screeching by) a young
member of the radical group MEChA18. A student at the
University of San Francisco, she denied that her group still
subscribed to 1960s identity politics, then promptly deliv-
ered a full-throated rant about Mexico's right to reclaim
American territory: "We believe that we have the right to
be in this land…Aztlan is California! Aztlan is this country!
This country was ours…We didn't cross the borders. The
borders crossed us…This country is based on exploitation!"
Malkin has thoroughly researched border issues. She has re-
ported the facts as she views them. As a first generation legal

18 As commonly spelled.

22
immigrant she has expertise and professional gravitas. And she
is entirely correct when she states “they (pro-raza activists) aim
to mainstream the "stolen land" mantra and pervert history.
They aim to obliterate America's borders by sheer demographic
and political force.”
Malkin and Wooldridge are observers and investigative journal-
ists. Both have exercised their first amendment right to observe
and report, but as far as I know, neither has engaged in the first
amendment process of confrontation, exposure and defiance.
Both Malkin and Wooldridge are part of the establishment. And
neither has defied them.
Most of the books written on the issue of the border are written
by observers, and politicians, each speaking to a specific target
audience, reporting “facts” that support their subjective opin-
ions, or the viewpoint of their employers, each seeking to benefit
themselves financially, professionally, or politically from the
next election cycle. Few books have been written by “non-parti-
sans” or those who have, or have had, actual “boots on the
ground”, and come face to face with their opponents, with the
sole exception being former marine Jim Gilchrist who co-au-
thored Minutemen.
This book does not express the viewpoint of an “observer” but the
viewpoint of a non-partisan, non-politically aligned, legally-
savvy “citizen-activist” who, awakened by Malkin and
Wooldridge and inspired by fellow Arizonans19 who were already
active in protecting the border, stood on the public square in Tuc-
son Arizona to expose and defy the raza movement and the rest
of them; the vested open border political and economic interests
of the Southern Arizona establishment.

19 Including but not limited to: Glen Spencer of

American Border Patrol, Jim
Gilchrist, Al Garza and others of The Minutemen, Col. Al Rodriquez of
“You don’t Speak for Me”, Kathy McKee of PAN, etc.

23
My story as a “protect the border” activist begins on Monday
April 10, 2006 with what the media reported to be a “Nationwide
Day of Protest for Worker’s Rights and Immigration Reform”,
but that’s not what it was.
In reality the event was yet another step in furtherance of a 40
year old revolutionary goal—the “Plan Espiritual de Aztlan”—a
demand for Arizona’s reunification with Mexico or the creation
of a new raza nation, permanent “open borders”, and an end to
American sovereignty.
This is not my opinion: it’s what the local raza organizers said in
the days leading up to the protest, and said again on April 10,
2006, in Armory Park Tucson Arizona.
The April 10, 2006 Nationwide Day of Protest has been well-doc-
umented by television and print news, including Tucson media,
and by various Left Wing political organizations such as the
A.C.L.U. and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
We know what the media has presented as “facts” but the public
remains ignorant of the “rest of the facts” and the who, what,
where, why, and how of the aftermath.
It is undeniable that on April 10, 2006, when more than 15,000
marched to Armory Park, Tucson Arizona, the power of raza and
the rest of the “open-border-pro-raza-cheap-Mexican-labor”
movement was at its zenith; thereafter it was in decline.
Fewer marched in 2007 and far fewer in 2008.
In 2009 less than 500 marched.
In 2010, raza attendance continued to fall, even in the face of
Arizona SB 1070, so forth and so on, each year diminishing to a
mere 200 marchers in 2013.
Media propagandists and local politicians continued to support
raza and raza leader Isabel Garcia continued to run her office as

24
Pima County Legal Defender20 as her own, personal, fiefdom, in
spite of the Hatch Act which forbids government employees from
using the resources of their public office to further their personal
political agendas.
So what caused the Tucson raza movement to lose steam?
I know because I was there in Armory Park on April 10, 2006 and
every year thereafter.
Each year I witnessed the raza supporting crowds dwindle in
size, as leadership’s rhetoric became increasingly strident.
Raza no longer waved Mexican flags and shouted “Viva La
Raza”; instead they waived American flags, holding up large pho-
tographs of sad Hispanic children with the caption:
“Mommy, why is my skin color a crime?”
What kind of a person would put such a hideous thought into the
mind of a child and then use their photo in such a despicable
fashion? It was blatant race-based propaganda worthy of Leni
Riefenstahl21.
I know the vast majority of the pro-raza marchers “singing songs
and a carrying signs22” waving Mexican flags in Tucson Arizona
on April 10, 2006 and every year thereafter were not “immi-
grants.”
So, who were they and what was their real purpose?
Did those who prosecuted me, and the courts who rendered de-
cisions, follow the law and act in good faith?

20 Isabel Garcia resigned her office in 2015 and for the most part has disap-
peared from public view.
21 Leni Riefenstahl was a famous Hitler propagandist of the thirties and for-
ties.
B Buffalo Springfield, “For What its Worth”

25
Did the local establishment, including politicians, businessmen,
and the legal profession, really support an end to American sov-
ereignty and reunification with Mexico, or were they simply act-
ing as Alinsky said they did, interested in the profit they could
make off of an illegal’s misery and willingness to work twice as
hard, twice as long, for half as much money?
This book makes numerous references to the rule of law, as it is
written, and to U.S. Supreme Court decisions, some of which are
repeated verbatim in the appendix. But the non-legally educated
need not despair; if you have an average education and average
intelligence this book is written for you.
In Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926), using classic
appellate language the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law is un-
constitutional when people “of common intelligence must neces-
sarily guess at its meaning.”
Fortunately for legal professionals and the average objective
reader “of common intelligence”, what I disclose is not merely
my personal and (you are welcome to argue), self-serving opin-
ion.
This book names prominent Arizonans, presents relevant facts
set forth and well documented in Tucson Police Department Af-
ter Action and Incident Reports, Pima County Sherriff Reports,
unpublished trial transcripts of police testimony consequent to
my criminal prosecutions in Tucson City Court and Pima County
Justice Court, depositions, legal pleadings, U.S. District Court
rulings, videotaped street demonstrations and meetings of the
Tucson Mayor and Council, etc.
The facts and the law are chiseled in stone. They are part of the
official record and, with the publication of this book, now belong
to history.
The facts and the law support my conclusion that “they”, the local
Pima County establishment, including the judicial branch of our

26
government (supposedly non-partisan, objective, and nonpoliti-
cal) now have, and have always had, a hidden political agenda
and a vested financial interest in the continuation—not the reso-
lution but the continuation—of the border issues which divide
this country and someday may bring us to civil war.

**************

27