THIS IS JACKSONVILLE DAILY PROGRESS REPORTER BEN TINSLEY'S MAY 6, 2013 INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD MCLAREN, THE SELF-STYLED AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS. MCLAREN IS CURRENTLY SERVING HIS 16TH YEAR OF A 99-YEAR SENTENCE AT THE CLEMENTS UNIT IN AMARILLO.
UNLIKE ROBERT FOX — WHOSE STATE JAIL FACILITY INTERVIEW WITH TINSLEY WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE PRISONER ENCLOSED IN A BOOTH WITH A THICK GLASS WINDOW SEPARATING INTERVIEWER AND INTERVIEWEE — MCLAREN AND TINSLEY WERE SEATED FACE TO FACE, NO BARRIERS BETWEEN THEM, AT A TABLE WITH A GUARD ON IMMEDIATE STANDBY.
BECAUSE MCLAREN WAS EXTREMELY REPETITIOUS, THE TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN CONDENSED. EACH OF THE “JUMPS” IN CONTENT ARE MARKED WITH EXPIRED TIME SIGNATURES.
Q: We are talking to Richard McLaren. Sir, I was just wondering for our sake if you could just identify yourself as if you were talking to an audience.
A: I am ambassador Richard Lance McLaren.
Q: And how old are you now?
A: I am 59.
Q: And how long have you been in jail?
A: Be 16 years actually on Friday.
Q: On a 99 year sentence?
Q: Basically, what I wanted to do first is kind of have you bring us up to date. I know that when you were incarcerated in '97, that was a long time ago so basically you're still ambassador of the Republic of Texas and all your belief systems that were in effect then are in effect now?
A: Yeah. Um, so you want me to start what's current? Basically what's going on?
Q: That's fine. As long as you don't. ..
Q: … violate what they asked.
A: Back in 1996 then Dan Morales-Attorney general of Texas sued the people of Texas as a national group called the Republic of Texas. You can find that definition of the people under Texas called the Republic of Texas.
You can find that definition of the people under Texas Number 1810935. Having been created as a national group, as an independent nation, on march 2 1836. I was involved in an initiative in order to resolve certain issues of ultimate sovereignty involving the peoples rights, regaining their lost rights and liberty. We started out Jeff Davis County in 1994.
We went through the procedures that are dictated both under Texas law and international law, reestablished a provisional government out of what we can now prove is a military occupation of texas that evolved out of the reconstruction acts of the north of the 1860s which are still in effect and were applied and used against us at the military siege.
Q: The one in …?
A: Fort Davis. Fort Davis, yes. Which was military armed conflict. There was U.S. Armed Forces involved. And remember, a lot of the members guarding the embassy were Texas armed forces. I'm a civilian under military law but they treat me like I'm a military commander because I'm the civil commander of the embassy over the military guard just like a us embassy would be.
Q: I heard you refer to yourself as prisoner number something …
A: Yes, yes,. Since I was scattered on a battlefield involved in an armed conflict by law I'm a prisoner of war. Unfortunately for 16 years I've been trying to get the courts, we filed from the very beginning our demand for a hearing on our status. Which now the supreme court has ruled on three occasions they have to give us the hearing.
They've refused to give us a hearing. the federal courts have denied us right to habeas corpus relief. They have issued an administrative order 1998 denying anyone who claims to be a Texas any rights in the untied sates courts and a loft people don't know this has been going on and oh and on..The case that morals brought against us in 1996 is still going on also.
People need to get down there and check the current filings on that case because the attorney general doesn't want it known that case has never been resolved. None of the cases have been resolved because we have been politically prosecuted.
In other words, once you commit a belligerent act of war, you'r sunder the laws of war. That means they have to have a hearing on our status and once they determine our status if we committed a violation of the laws of war armed conflict, then they try us for war crime.
This is what the Supreme Court ruled, this is what the law of war ruled and yet they refuse to give us a hearing goon our status. We have gone to the state legislature, taken the whole issue, thats a current filing march 7, 2013 in that case and the state legislature deices they want to be really quiet about what's going on here.
This goes back to all the stuff that happens in 1861 . It still is in effect, it hasn't been resolved, and takes the whole case, the Alamo resolution which we presented to them back two years ago which they don't want to resolve, and the people need to find out what allis going on involving all this. We've also perfected a a revote of the 1861 Referendum, the process that's been filed and brought forward. They know they can cure it but they don't want to cure it.
Q: I'll be honest. I haven't talked to you since 1997 and it's like you're the same guy I met back in 1997. You're on the same, same wavelength.
A: Nothing has changed. Everything we said back in 1996 and 97 is the same thing we're saying today.
Q: What I wanted to ask you about was, I'm sure as you know since you've been in here, there have been a lot of splinter groups that have identified themselves as the Republic of Texas and I was wondering what your take on them was.
A: As a matter of fact, I have the most current article, I keep track of everything. (Mentions the name of a San Antonio Newspaper). One of the splinter groups. Unfortunately, they couldn't defend themselves in a court of law if they had to. Some of these people have been around since the very beginning, picked up some of it, unfortunately. But they still haven't figured it out. Everything is filed in that case in austin. The 97 counter pleadings that are in that case explain everything: The whole historical record, the United States and Texas then all the international law then is still in effect. Everything is still there.. But they don't understand they have go back and vote that referendum. This is what's the problem with the (unintelligible) maps. The referendum still stands by law.
They still in 1861 recovered the 1836 constitution when they threw out the illegal annexation. But the problem was the convention then took and put texas in the confederacy and they didn't have authority. This is where Houston was right. They had to revoke another referendum to put Texas in the confederacy. They never did that. So you have the convention exceeding its authority and we've laid in dormancy under these military occupational rules of lincoln which are still in effect. What brought the military in was the acts of Lincoln.
Q: I'm going to commend you for staying on message. I can tell you're still as focused as you were back then.
A: It's in simple terms, THIS IS THE LARGEST SECOND AMENDMENT CASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Nobody wants anybody to know that. Because that's where we're at. We're half in and we're half out. We have to revoke that referendum in modern language. We didn't vote to be in the UN, the people of Texas have never voted, yet the people of Switzerland are allowed to vote on it. People of Scotland after 300 years are saying, 'Hey, we get the right to vote' and England says, 'You're right.' So they're fixing to possibly do away with the 300 year union that was legal. Our union was never legal.
Q: In some of those Splinter groups, one in particular, the president has gone on to leap up the media scale as it were and he gets on FOX shows. I'm just wondering from your perspective right now, it was a much different organization in terms of structure when you went in but now with all the splintering or alleged splintering. What is the current status? Not from the legal standpoint but from the existing standpoint.
A: Well, you have to understand, when we formed the provisional government, it's only an extension of what was left after the 1861 convention. What our laws provide for under the 1835 laws were in effect in 1997. You'll find that under article 16 section 18 of the current Texas constitution, which kept all the republic laws in force. What the problem is these people don't understand because of the time lapse, we have to go back. And that determination, the people of Texas are the republic. Not any government ,wearer its a state of Texas government, whether its our provisional thing t he law requires there has to be a revote, Because the territory was never ceded to the united states either in the agreement or by international law.
This is still republic territory sot he sovereignty vests in the people. its not the responsibility of the U.S. or the state of Texas sovereign or the U.S.. It's up to the people of texas to revote that referendum. and say yes we sustain it. The slavery clause, that stuff expires by common law, so it's up to the people. This is what we fought for to send it back tot he revote, From the very beginning, These people int eh splinter groups, they don't understand. They don't have the capacity to represent anyone anymore than Perry and the rest of them and until that revote is held and the people decided what they want. They can clean the annexation up with the vote.
Q: There are a LOT of people who identify themselves as being members of the Republic of Texas. One of them, I'll give you an example: Elizabeth Rohr, a doctor out of the Dallas Fort Worth area who are convicted of abusing horses under her care.
When she went in to court and they asked her to plead, she basically started talking like Dr. Seuss, and telling them she was a member of the Republic of Texas, using nonsensical defenses. When talking to her in person, she came across as a very, highly intelligent doctor. So my question is, is that becoming a tactic of people who might not actually be members of the Republic of Texas?
A: Here's the problem. You have the separation of law by common law. The Republic law adopted that there would be a criminal code of procedures. They threw out the common law, the state legislature did, (unintelligible ) of the Penal Code which is totally constitutional from the base law. That way, they are illegally holding me. Once I went into the process as a combatant under the laws of war, I'm no longer, I can't even be brought into a civil court.
I have to be brought into a military court. My status has to be determined. Then, if I've committed a crime and there's civil law like the war crimes code (unintelligible) then they can bring me into a civil court. I have that right given to me as a combatant, which the supreme court says they have to give me. What these people are doing and this is a problem, is they don't make the delineation between common law, that charge that she (Rohr) got? Would it stand in common law? If it would stand in common law, even if it's codified, she's still guilty guilty.
It's like a lot of the people in here. there's a lot of people that could or may or may not. I don't know. But the common law; When the legislature did away with it, they provided the avenue for engaging the jury. It determines whether you commute the crime, not the jury. That was the purpose of common law int the first place. She should have asked for a common law jury and made a threshold issue of it ten it would have forced the higher court to deal with it That's where she screwed up.
Q: She and some others cited something called “natural law?”
A: Thats common law basically. Thats your right where you go before your peers as a jury and you say 'Okay, I am going before the grand jury want them to indict me under common law.' In other words, did I violate the precepts of the common law.
Q: Are there people who are misidentifying themselves as members? ..
A: No. Everybody that is a inhabitant; see, you look up 181093 you'll find out that everybody in texas who is a inhabitant is a Texan. AKA Texian? You're a member of the national group. The national group was incorporated onto the declaration of Independence which states that the people shall constitute a ffee and independent nation and makes everyone a member of the national group. Abbot came out and stated in a letter he doesn't represent the people of Texas in a national group.
Then , excuse me, who does he represent? Because thats where the ultimate sovereignty of the right of the people to decide what they want to do is vested.
Q: The group you were specifically ambassador of before the splinter groups started manifesting, that unified Republic of texas, does that group still exist? or is changed? Morphed into something else?
A: Yeah I'm glad toy asked that question. its very simple to explain it this way. The law of self determination in Texas law provides a really interesting path. When we wrote the powers and updated them we put a clause in there updating coalition.
JUMP. RESUME TRANSCRIPT AT 18:34:
Q: Their leader was a gentleman by the name Robert Fox.
A: I've heard of the name. It sounds like somebody who was involved with us. When we got started we had everything. From you know,, we had a black vice president, Hispanics involved, Tejanos involved, Asians involved, our movement had members of many race or religions. Everybody wants their liberty thing back. They don't want to be slayed by massive government.. Thats the problem. Everything is out of control.
Q: But you've heard of Robert Fox.
A: The name sounds really familiar.
Q: he has a lot of follows through that house of israel group. and actually is in a state jail right now serving what is a forgery of a document charge but he used to have a large beard.
A. (Thinks about it.) Yep. Yeah I remember him. he used to come to a lot of meetings. Like I said, a lot of the problem is people don;t seem to have any concept of what the concept of (unintelligible) between the two and they get mixed toy know. Yet these people what to start restoring their (unintelligible) They have to push this vote. That's what its all about.
JUMP: RESUME AT 28:56
Q: … Talking to you, you have specific answers. You have a specific plan in your head.
A: That's because I've spent, I've spent thousands and thousands of hours. I'v been through all the international courts with this stuff, I have UN filings sitting there the UN security council is sitting on it right now and don;t know what to do.
Q: A lot of the people who, you know, say 'I'm a member of the republic of texas and I embrace natural law'
A: They don't know what the republic is. Its not a bunch of old white men siting there with guns. It's all the inhabitants. Its all right there in law. …
JUMP. RESUME AT 29:40
Q: Some of them when they're in court being tried they give non sequitur answers. They talk in circles. They answer questions with a question. It's nothing like you do. It's basically just gibberish. And they portray it as what you're doing but it's not what you're doing because you generally have a point, The antics they use in court to clog courts up — its just confusing.
A: We got enough problems with our court, the corruption the stupidity.
JUMP: RESUME AT 32.54
Q: So you really think what's going on with the second amendment right now is going to generate ..?
A: That's what our case is about. The right of a free state and the militia to back it up. The militia being the people of Texas. it says right in our constitution all the people of texas have the rivet to bear arms and protect themselves in in the republic or state. Excuse me? We're all military conservators. We're all members of an unorganized militia. It's our obligation to protect our rights …