Who Killed Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz? An Analysis of “One If by Land”

     A friend gave me the book and wanted to know my opinion.   Reading the term “illegal immigrant” repeatedly –sometimes four or times within a page- became an aggravating distraction.  Federal law states anyone present within the borders of the United States who is not a U.S. citizen is an alien.  The two types of legal entrants into the United States are Immigrants (with visas issued from American embassies allowing them to legally enter and live in the U.S.), and Non-Immigrants (whose visas allow temporary entry for business or pleasure).  Anyone else entering the United States – anywhere– or stays past the expiration date on their visa is an illegal alien.  It’s more than a semantic argument.  He who controls the vocabulary controls the debate.  And he who controls the debate wins.

     My most visceral reaction to the book was seeing the photos on the back cover.  Obama’s and Gabrielle Giffords’ photos on both sides of Brian Terry’s photo approaches the sacriligous.  Brian Terry’s photo should have stood alone.

The book is a must read by anyone who doesn’t live on the U.S./Mexico border.  The author does an excellent job conveying the pervasive problems of border security.  Americans should ask themselves how they would feel and act if they and their families lived in fear and intimidation from threatening criminals invading their property on a daily basis.   A fear facilitated by our own government.

I read Mr. Daniel’s book backward to count how many times he incorrectly used the term “illegal immigrant” (222).  I began noticing some interesting things.  When conducting statement analysis every word is important in context and location.  Reading the book backward provided a macro-to-micro mosaic revealing unreported factors in the border war and indications of who may have murdered Arizona rancher, husband and father Robert Krentz.

Page 114:  “The border is never the way it seems.  The weirder it is the closer to the truth it is.”  Zack Taylor, supervisory Border Patrol agent (retired).

Most Americans probably envision the U.S./Mexico border as a land besot by Mexican criminals and aliens.  Few, if any, consider the possible collusion of those living on the U.S. side of the border.  Taylor’s statement gives subliminal credence to even those accused of alleged “tin hat” conspiracies.  It has the ring of Lewis Carroll’s disappearing Cheshire Cat in “Alice in Wonderland:  ‘Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.”

 Page 311: “John Ladd [whose own ranch runs ten and a half miles along the border] lays out the fundamental reason the border is not closed: “Drug smuggling is such a huge business, and people that are involved in ”it” [drug smuggling] even locally have such a big economic and political stake in it, they turn a blind eye.”

1. In other words, the fundamental reason (drug smuggling is such a huge business) is local people have a big economic and political stake in it.

i.      Who are the local people involved in the drug smuggling business?

1. U.S. citizens?
   1. Many local citizens have close family, social, and economic ties across the border.
   2. A majority of Americans (53%) feel drugs should be legalized.
   3. The risk vs. profit makes smuggling a lucrative source of income in any economy.
   4. Ranchers?
      1. I almost ran over a “rancher” as I drove home from the midnight shift as state highway 80 curves northward from Douglas toward Bisbee at the lime quarry.  The horse he was mounted on was dancing nervously over the rancher’s lariat lying on the road.   I mentioned this to a Border Patrol agent the next day and he said the man wasn’t looking for lost cattle at 12:30a.m. The rancher lived in a nearby ranch house that had a yellow porch light for signaling the smugglers where their safe house is.
      2. A rancher who had complained loudly about the drug smugglers was arrested for his involvement in smuggling drugs (article in Sierra Vista Herald circa late 1990s).
      3. A couple moved from Oregon to Cochise County to “buy a ranch”.  From verdant green to desert?  From a state where marijuana is legal to the most drug trafficked section of the U.S. border.
      4. How lucrative is the “local” cattle business?

i.  “500 million dollars goes south to Mexico purchasing cartel cattle to launder money.  This has been ignored by the government”  (DEA, Customs, FBI, etc.)

1. Elected officials?
   1. Page 289-290:                                                                                                                                            “The border is open and unsecured because the government and some politicians want it that way.”

ii. “Politicians sometime profit from failure

iii.       “The above items are related to corruption of one form or another.”

1. Member of County Board of Supervisors found with marijuana in his car.
2. Douglas City Judge “Cocaine” Borane indicted for involving himself in an FBI sting operation.
3. There are over 50 sanctuary cities in the United States
4. Page 148:  “…why is the government so apparently uncommitted to border security as compared to airport security?  It is one of many disconnects that surround the government’s policy regarding the border” – an anomaly.
5. The Republican National Committee refused to provide campaign funds to a local candidate for Congress (Tim Bee) a few years ago because he was too anti-immigration.
6. Business owners?
   1. A local business owner was arrested by INS in the late ‘90s for “persistently” hiring illegal aliens.  Not because he was the only one but because it had become so blatant.
   2. Wells Fargo bank currently advertises in Spanish “send money home to your families”.  Most U.S. citizens who don’t speak or read Spanish realize this is blatant solicitation to illegal aliens and facilitation of alien smuggling by Wells Fargo.  The company capitalizes on the illegal alien presence.  Not coincidentally Wells Fargo parking lots are renowned transfer points by alien smugglers.  I’ve personally seen this in Sierra Vista and Tucson –both located in low-income neighborhoods where safe houses are near and common.
   3. c.       Page 122-23: “The amount of money being laundered is staggering.  It is in the realm of hundreds of billions of dollars.  And some very big financial institutions have been and are involved in cleaning some of these billions.  One of these was Wachovia Bank, which was later bought by Wells Fargo.  Wachovia was put on a year’s probation and had to forfeit $110 million and was fine $50 million for not monitoring funds that were used to transport twenty-two tons of cocaine.”  A punitive total of $160 million for laundering $378 billion dollars.  A 4% cost of doing business.   Such a minimal punishment looks more like Justice Department taking it’s “cut” than imposing a meaningful, punitive financial message.
   4. Churches?  Many churches are politically active against the American culture.  Whether actually acting as sanctuaries or misled by the myth of the “poor immigrant” churches are exacerbating the illegal alien problem in the U.S.   Some use tithing funds to enable illegal aliens to “adjust” to “American society.” – which, by doing so, only hastens the demise of the unique American identity.  There is no difference between aiding and abetting illegal aliens’ entry into this country and using drugs that finance the cartels.  They are both destroying the moral fabric of this nation.

What kind of “involvement” are these local people engaged in?     For one to have an economic or political “stake” means one usually has something to gain from the investment.  This would explain “turning a blind eye”.    “Big economic stake” in drug smuggling easily translates into making sizeable campaign contributions to elected officials.  Ranching and business are significant lobbies within the beltway.  It may explain why law enforcement has not investigated the drug cartels’ apparently well-known money laundering through the cattle business.

Page 123:  “While most high rollers in the world of drug smuggling like to bury their money in hundreds of accounts around the world, others prefer simple property investments.  They give the seller cash for the property and the seller says it’s a gift to avoid taxes.  In Mexico, buying ranches is a common way to clean drug money.”

Drug cartels, alien smugglers, or involved locals have no motive for killing a local rancher unless he is a significant obstacle to their criminal activity –their profit.   There is no evidence Rob Krentz was.  There are many accounts of smugglers intimidating locals.  Other than those indicated on the ranchers’ map there are no incidents of physical contact reported in the book.   It is not in their interest to bring the murder of a well-respected rancher to national attention.  Even during the border bandit problem a few years ago no one was murdered.

Page 155:  “In fact, one of his (Sheriff Dever’s) old contacts has helped him with the Krentz investigation.

1. Information provided by Mexican sources is infamously unreliable.  If Krentz’ murderer was a Mexican citizen working for a cartel one can safely assume any information provided to a U.S. law enforcement officer would be misleading.  Suspects identified and surrendered by Mexican authorities to U.S. law enforcement are rarely the actual perpetrators if connected to powerful cartels with political ties.  “Offering up a sacrificial lamb” is intended to reduce heat from public outrage.  However, smugglers are a dime a dozen in Mexico.  If he broke the rules and brought unwanted attention to the cartel he may be surrendered – or murdered to prevent him from making a deal with the law.

Page 153-154:  “Rancher George Monzingo said the new FBI man showed up at a periodic “stakeholders” meeting.  …….The rancher’s [Monzingo] interest was piqued because of the questions the agent was asking.  “I didn’t know what he was after or what he was doing there.  It made me suspicious.”

a. Becoming “suspicious” for not knowing the purpose of an FBI’s questions is not a normal emotional response of an innocent person. Without explaining why he is suspicious, he  indicates a level of fear, nervousness, apprehension or paranoia.

Page 152-153: “….We are very certain that it involves a smuggler who is a “frequent flyer” back and forth across the border.  ……The murderer of Rob Krentz was very familiar with the area and had probably taken the same smuggling route many times.  Dever believes it was a circumstantial meeting that went bad.  The guy had a gun and he killed Rob.  Rob had two guns and never got to use them.”…..It’s the sheriff’s opinion that the dog was on Rob’s Polaris four-wheeler and may have even bitten the shooter before it was shot. “  …..Rob Krentz suffered from multiple gunshot wounds, and his dog shot once.  Dever theorizes that after the killer shot the dog, Rob probably yelled, went for his gun and then was shot.  After being shot, Rob accelerated away from the killer.”…..Dever thinks Rob Krentz’ killer might have been associated with smugglers arrested the day before, but he wasn’t with them.  In this case the killer would have been acting as a scout farther north on the smuggling route. “  ….unfortunately for the murder investigation, the results coming back from the lab were not helpful.  Despite the setback, the investigation has gained new momentum from unexpected sources.  The new leads may well explain why Burke and Morton wanted to meet with the Krentz family.”

Let’s look at the above paragraph in reverse order.

1. The new leads may well explain why Burke and Morton wanted to meet with the Krentz family.”
   1. Burke and Morton’s credibility is highly questionable due to their agency’s  prior misrepresentation of the facts surrounding Brian Terry’s murder and a possible “Fast and Furious” connection to Rob Krentz’ murder.   Unsubstantiated conjecture.
   2. “new momentum from unexpected sources”
      1. With the potential for anyone’s involvement on either side of the border and government agencies’ culpability in arms smuggling the potential for providing misleading information (called “rabbit holes”) from “unexpected  sources” to sidetrack the investigation away from the real killer is enormous.  Since the publication of the book a year ago no arrests have been made nor have any suspects been publicly identified.
2. “lab results were not helpful”
   1. Either no DNA was recovered from the dog’s mouth or, if any was, it wasn’t attributed to an anonymous killer.  If no human DNA was found, Dever’s theory of the dog initiating the shooting by biting the killer is unsupported.  Were acquaintances of Krentz checked for dog bites?  Were medical facilities and doctors’ offices checked?  Perhaps there was no DNA because the person was familiar to him and the dog – ergo wasn’t bitten.  Could the lab result “be helpful” if the DNA is compared to known associates of Krentz?  Dever phrased the DNA results in an interesting way: “not helpful” (rather “negative” or “positive” for…..):   as in the results don’t support a preordained scenario?
3. “killer might have been associated with smugglers arrested the day before, but wasn’t with them.”
   1. Was it actually smugglers arrested the day before or just a group of illegal aliens  Nothing supports the killer’s association with yesterday’s group.  Why would a scout murder just to be discovered scouting?  It is worth noting neither drugs nor illegal aliens are mentioned in Dever’s theory.  No commitment by the speaker in the first part of the statement but definite commitment to the last part.  What knowledge supports the last part?
4. “After being shot Rob accelerated away from the killer.”
   1. Rob had two guns which he failed to use.  Why? Why did he turn his back to a man who had just shot him and his dog and fail to use one of his guns in self- defense?   Dever’s use of ‘accelerated’ is unsupported.  If there is evidence that he accelerated away it would indicate him quickly leaving the scene of an incident that did not require –or he was unwilling to – use his weapon in self-defense.   The shooting appears to have come as a surprise to Rob Krentz.  Leaving quickly without defending himself may have meant he saw someone doing something inordinately illegal or he recognized someone doing something illegal who didn’t want his identity known.  Stakes are higher for a U.S. citizen committing a crime than for a Mexican smuggler/scout.
   2. From the facts presented Krentz may have known his murderer, had a discussion with him, the acquaintance realized Krentz was on to his purpose for being in the area and shot Krentz and the dog.
   3. “Dever theorizes that after the killer shot the dog, Rob probably yelled, went for his gun and then was shot.”
      1. Dever’s use of “probably yelled” is unnecessary information. Without a surviving witness Dever has no way of knowing if Krentz yelled.  Creating this information with the disassociative term ‘probably’ creates doubt as to whether it actually happened.  One has to ask why this was included.
      2. Dever’s sequence rests on location of any dog and human blood splatter and  “unhelpful” lab results regarding human DNA in the dog’s mouth.  The suspect was near enough to Krentz and the dog on the four-wheeler to have been bitten by the dog.  Allowing a person suspected of being a scout or smuggler to approach that close by a border-experienced rancher was either a gross tactical error or he knew the killer.
      3. “and then was shot.”  Use of “and then” creates a question as to the true sequence of events.

Pages 133-134:  “In response ranchers Louis Pope (Rob Krentz’s  brother-in-law), Phil Krentz (Rob’s brother), Roger Barnett, Fred Eddington, Scott Arena, and Don Kimball met with Ed Ashurst.  We made a map of the area which covered from the southeastern corner of Arizona going west about twenty miles to the Silver Creek area, and going north about thirty miles to the area around the towns of Portal, Arizona and Rodeo, New Mexico.  On this map we made marks recording violations to United States law by illegal aliens for the last two years.  We did not use government statistics, but recorded incidents that we knew happened first hand, many of which we witnessed.”

1. An analysis of the rancher’s map reveals there is a very distinct line angling northwest to southeast from the intersection of Price Canyon road and Arizona highway 80 to just south of Saube (sp?) Ranch near the New Mexico border in which almost all the “dangerous encounters” (assaults, burglaries, forced entries, etc.) symbols are located north of this line and almost all of the drug loads found are located south of this line.
   1. There are 123 “found drug loads” south of the Price Canyon-Saube Ranch line with 3 of the largest clusters straddling the Silver Creek/Barnett Ranch section of Highway 80.
   2. There are 7 “found drug loads” north of the Price Canyon line.

i.  “Found drug loads” are 17 times more likely to be reported south of the Price Canyon line.

1. There are 111 reported “dangerous encounters” north of the line with the majority clustered around the town of Portal.
2. There are 4 “dangerous encounters” south of the line.

i. “Dangerous encounters” are almost 32 times more likely north of the Price Canyon line.  That percentage increases even more dramatically immediately proximate to Portal.

1. There are 2 reported incidents of smugglers being spotted with guns south of the line (one of which is questionable) – both very near the Mexican border.
2. There are 7 reported incidents of smugglers being spotted with guns north of the Price Canyon line.

i. It is over 2 times as likely one will spot a smuggler with a weapon north of the Price Canyon line than south of the line – with a cluster of incidents surrounding Rodeo, N.M. – just across the AZ/N.M. state line.

1. b.  It has been reported some members of the group that murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry may live in Portal, act as scouts and smugglers, and provide safe houses/cache sites/transshipment. This would explain how the group came up from behind agent Terry and his team.  From the statistics above, the armed men from the north were moving south to pick up the cached drugs.  The map’s statistics indicate they are U.S. citizens, Resident Aliens or residing illegally in the United States where possession of weapons does not expose them to the same risks as in Mexico. (page 115:  “A lot of the banditos work out of Arizona because they would be killed in Mexico.”)
2. Is a cartel intimidating locals into evacuating or surrendering Portal for a base of operations controlling the Highway 80 smuggling corridor (as is common in Mexico)?
3. d.  It is a common tactic within insurgencies to exploit natural barriers and legal boundaries in order to complicate counterinsurgency/law enforcement efforts.

Page 123:  “While most high rollers in the world of drug smuggling like to bury their money in hundreds of accounts around the world, others prefer simple property investments.  They give the seller cash for the property and the seller says it’s a gift to avoid taxes.  In Mexico, buying ranches is a common way to clean drug money.”

a. If it occurs in Mexico why not in the U.S.?  The answer is:   it does.

Page 116:  “….Most of the times [sic] the drugs go to ranches with the owners already tied to the cartels and they get paid well so the burros land [layup] there.”

Although the author’s source says “a lot of the ranchers are Native Americans” (an estimated 75% of the drugs come across the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation) nothing precludes cartels from using the same tactic in all of their border routes.

Page 117: “After the drugs are dropped at a ranch, the owner of the ranch or some other people will take them the rest of the way to Tucson as soon as he thinks it is clear.  Normally the drugs are pushed north in less than a day.  The rancher will usually get about $10 per pound for letting the mules lay-up.  If the rancher moves the load to town, he’ll get $35 per pound.”

a. Who/Where are the tenant ranchers/ renters? Background?  Income?  On Welfare?

b. Who are actual ranchers versus outsiders who have moved to the area “just to take up residence”?

c. A modest financial forensic effort would uncover “locals with a big economic and political stake” in drug and alien smuggling.  It is worth wondering if anyone in the many federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in the area considered this …..and been told to “stand down.”

Page 88-89:  “…..without equivocation we can say that the murderer of Rob Krentz was a Mexican citizen and a drug smuggler.  He did cross into Mexico the same day of the murder and he is still alive.  In order to not jeopardize the investigation no additional information is presented here. …..the murder of Rob Krentz was destined to become a catalyst for a tectonic shift in American politics.”

Analysis of the information that is provided casts doubt on both the sources mentioned and the identity of the murderer.  One would think such a “tectonic shift” would be reflected in a noticeable increase in securing the border.  Neither the “new” (or any of the old) immigration bill nor anything subsequent in the author’s book support this.

Page 85:  “Around 4pm some Border Patrol agents declare they’ve found the track where the suspect went into Mexico.  A skeptical Warner Glenn doesn’t think it’s time to quit.  They will wait until everyone leaves and find the real tracks of the killer, ……”

Page 84:  “According to Warner, ‘He (the murderer) was no dummy.  He was not just an illegal.  He knew what he was doing.  He had a long stride but at no time was he running.  Judging by his stride he was probably at least six feet two.  He also knew the territory.  At one point he left the Draw went to a water trough for water, and then reentered the Draw.  He was obviously well acquainted with the area.”

Page 83:  “He explains the pattern of the man’s boots and stride length. ‘It was a big size twelve or fourteen waffle footprint- like a work boot,’ notes Ashurst.”

“A large man”, “at least six feet two”, size 12-14 foot size” is very uncommon among Mexican males.  Not impossible but uncommon. If investigators use Occam’s Razor theory (the most logical explanation is usually the correct one) then – based on the physique – the man was an Anglo-American.

Warner seems to be practically screaming that the murderer is not a Mexican from across the border.  Why didn’t he come out and say it?

Tracks indicated “at no time was he running.”  Even after he committed murder?  That would take some herculean restraint from the average human being with a bit of distance to go for the border.  Was the murderer hardened by experience, satisfying a vendetta – making him more than a surprised smuggler?  Was he assured of an easy and timely escape in a vehicle?  Everyone quoted was habitually looking for footprints leading to the border – past a dirt road.  In an area heavily traveled by smugglers and near the line of demarcation between armed men and drug caches (according to the map), could the murderer have had a vehicle nearby?  Was the murderer a familiar face living in Portal waiting to pick up and transport a load?  Vehicle tracks would be easily lost –and discounted- among the “eight or ten cars parked on the turnoff to Rucker Canyon with a “dozen people present, and more gathering.”

Page 85:  “When we got to Geronimo Trail there was so much law enforcement activity the tracks disappeared.”

Page 83 (cont.):  “He (Ed Ashurst) pauses and adds, ‘Everyone had dismissed the idea that a smuggler or an illegal had injured Rob.  I kept saying Rob is too smart to let someone get the jump on him – but that’s what happened.”  Maybe too smart to let a stranger but not someone familiar to him to whom he would let his guard down.

Page 80:  “Rob Krentz heads out on his ATV with his dog.  Around 10 or 10:15am neighbor Wendy Glenn hears Rob on the community radio.  Wendy hears Rob call Phil and say, “There’s an illegal down here.  It looks like he might need some help. I’m going to check him out.  Call the Border Patrol.” …………”What happens next is not known for sure.  Someone who sees the crime scene [sic] reports that it appeared a large man was lying on his stomach when Rob approached on his ATV.  Apparently Rob drives [sic] in for a closer look and starts to circle around the man.  The man rolls over and sits up with a pistol.  Rob roars away on his ATV as the man fires four times.  As the murderer departs he drops some items he stole from Everett Ashurst’s house.”

1.  The most important reason for secure, encrypted communications equipment is to conceal one’s position.  It is called COMSEC or communications security.  It is expensive and a little more complicated to encode and operate but it is a life saver.  A “community radio” simply enables the bad guys to know where you are and what you are doing in advance.  An understandable necessity in open range land but gives an advantage to the bad guys and creates greater risk.

3. Why would a simple scout/smuggler sit up “with a pistol” in hand?  Something much more than simple smuggling had to be at stake.

4. “….he drops some items he stole from Everett Ashurst’s house.”  No description of the items follow.   Are they things hard-pressed illegals or smugglers normally steal?  Entering an unoccupied dwelling to commit a felony (theft) is burglary – not robbery as many confuse it with.  There is a big difference between a burglar and a murderer.  Krentz’ arrival must have triggered a perception in the “large man”’s mind that the risk to him had escalated sharply – more than being in the country illegally and more than just scouting for drug smugglers.  What caused that?  Perhaps recognition?

Page 42:  “The rumor has silenced many voices along the border.  “…..rumor or not, one of their neighbors whispered over the phone, “The cartel is here.  I can’t talk.”  This is a contradictory statement.  The neighbor is on the phone….but can’t talk?

What “rumor” would silence the outrage of a fellow rancher being murdered?  That it wasn’t a smuggler or an illegal alien?  It would be a wonder indeed if “The cartel” –meaning some echelon of Mexican drug smuggling leadership – would actually be at a neighbor’s house uninvited and the neighbor still getting on the phone to say he/she can’t talk?  This statement appears to have been created for dramatic effect -or an American citizen working for the cartel was in their living room.

“……A tall, white-bearded George Monzingo mutes the television and settles into his chair.  He and Kit are not afraid to talk.  ‘I think they (the cartel) know where everybody lives.  But they know what they can get away with and what they can’t get away with.  These guys (ranchers) better wake up to the fact that they (the cartel) are here and sooner or later they are going to be in the way.”

a. Honest, law-abiding citizens are living in fear and afraid to talk.  Why isn’t Monzingo?  Why is it he can laugh –and talk to a journalist when others are afraid to?  Just because he is “big” doesn’t justify his confidence in the face of “plata o plomba” (silver or lead).

b. “they know what they can get away with…….” Monzingo reinforces the concept it wasn’t a smuggler who murdered Krentz.

c. “These guys … better wake up.”  Monzingo referring to other ranchers – people with whom he and his wife presumable share the same risks – as “these guys” indicates a distinct psychological distance between him and other ranchers.  This is strengthened by his unusual criticism “better wake up.”  Wake up to what?  Accommodation with the cartels?  “Wake up” ……the terminology indicates other ranchers must come to the same kind of accommodation he has.

d. “I think ‘they’ (cartel) know where everybody lives”  The author provides the definition of “they” – but he could be wrong by a degree.  Monzingo’s statement alone could be perceived as a reminder …..and a threat. (refer to page 153-154 on page 5 of this report citing Monzingo’s “suspicion” of the FBI’s purpose)

e. What local ranchers are “about six feet tall”?

f. What local ranchers have size twelve to fourteen shoe?

g. Who files the least number of complaints to the Border Patrol in that area?

h. What local ranchers use yellow light bulbs on their front porches – and keep them on all night?  At least one family reports turning their porch light off to hamper smugglers finding their home.

i. What local ranchers keep abandoned vehicles (potential shelter for aliens/cache sites for drugs) in their front yard?

Page 226, Chapter Sixteen: “Dying with Honor.’  In my opinion neither Brian Terry, nor any other American who is murdered, dies with honor.  Victims of terrorism don’t “die with honor” – they are murdered.  Brian was murdered operating under ludicrous DHS Rules of Engagement preventing him from enforcing the law and securing the United States just as much as the shooter who killed him.  There is a difference between being murdered due to depraved indifference of one’s own government and dying on a leveled field of combat voluntarily facing a known foe.  Brian Terry was an honorable man and a great American – one of the few who still believed Americans’ freedom cost something.    But there is nothing either honorable in the way he died or in the absence of justice after he died.  His death is a tragedy.  And our government continues to dishonor him by their cover-up.

Page 131:  “I, (Ashurst), told Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, (Dem. AZ) and then Border Patrol sector chief, Robert Gilbert, that “I have had no less than a dozen Border Patrol agents tell me their superiors purposefully do things to make them unsuccessful. I thought they were going to have me arrested.”

Try working for the government and enforcing the law…..you will be arrested, read your rights and harassed into insanity.