Standing: Behold a Pale Horse pp. 145-149

If you are keeping score, we are still in what Cooper is claiming is a document sent to him by a Dr. Pabst. Let me remind you that I am not sure if Pabst is real or if this is another attempt by Cooper to pass off his own work as someone else's. Unlike chapter 1, this has been more consistent in tone. 

"Pabst" titles this section "The People vs. the Conspirators" which is going to be the follow-up to the lawsuit he claimed he filed a few weeks ago. To remind you, this is lawsuit number 76-h-667 filed in the Southern District of Texas in 1976. I tried to find it, but the online records do not go back that far, and every attempt to find it via Google either directed me to Cooper's book or forums discussing Cooper's book. What was the lawsuit about? Well, that was unclear. He tells us that it was filed on behalf of American patriots against the federal government for reasons related to things...I don't know. It's clearly an anti-New World Order lawsuit and I would love to read what he filed because I'm absolutely sure it is delightfully proto-sovereign citizen (freeman on the land for you UK readers). The movement in the US started gaining ground in the late 1970s this may be an avenue worth pursuing as it could be the first sovereign-citizen lawsuit filed in the US. 

Honestly, I had figured nothing more than just Pabst claiming he sued, but not having done anything. Remember, the book is being written in the late 80s and early 90s; Pabst filed his suit in the late 70s. Cooper is in Arizona writing this book when he receives the letter from Pabst claiming that this is an update of his 1979 report. We, the readers of this book and especially the listeners of Cooper's show it's all over the place in both time and location. It's both oddly precise, but also oddly vague. Who did Pabst sue? He claimed that he sued the government, but what part? The whole thing? Let's put that on the shelf for right now and follow Pabst's claims. 

In June of '76, Pabst claims the government answered the suit denying everything that he claimed. Again, I wish I had this suit, but now I'm curious why Pabst didn't send it to Cooper. There's no reason to keep it secret. Assuming Pabst isn't lying, it's interesting that the government answered it at all. This tells us that it was a real suit because those cannot just be ignored. So let's make an assumption, without further evidence, that this is a real case. 

A conversation with an Assistant US Attorney (e.g. the lowest guy on the pole working that day) led Pabst to believe that there was a cover-up. The Attorney did no investigations, did not look at Pabst's list of evidence or witnesses, and seemed dismissive--but still filed a denial of Pabst's claims. Pabst, undeterred, filed a motion to take a deposition with the person he feels has written the training manual for the concentration camp guards--Mr. Richard Burrage. This person, who is actually Colonel Burrage, needs to be deposed because, "in light of all the recent activity of government agents, one of the agencies involved might attempt to murder this key witness, the author of the training camp program." 

The claim is weird because it is so vague and also quite pointless. Pabst should discuss what activity it is that causes him to fear for Burrage's life. Secondly, if Pabst has the training manual for the concentration camp guards, he should produce that. The most frustrating aspect of conspiracy theorists' claims is when they claim that they have all of this evidence and never produce it. The document would get you the deposition. However, the judge denied him because "I had not quoted enough cases to him justifying my request."

"Quoted" is out of place here. He means cited, the judge was asking him for case law to justify imposing a deposition order on Col. Burrage. Pabst claims that he made an arrangement to get the deposition but the attorney would not go along. The claim is odd but I think that the attorney told Pabst, "if the Colonel wants to talk to you, that's fine, but I'm not coming with you." 

I think that this lawsuit is going to break into Sovereign Citizen territory because of the next paragraph. Pabst makes some strange claims about his view that the law is practiced on the "buddy system" and the common man cannot get justice. One may justifiably claim that the justice system is broken but you would then have to explain why you think that. 

Pabst's problem isn't that he doesn't speak the language, isn't on the inside of the "buddy system;" it's that he is filing an imaginary claim. The concentration camps in Texas do not exist. You will not get a federal magistrate to move a suit forward about bigfoot either, but they have to hear you out. When Pabst claims he was within his Constitutional rights, he isn't wrong, but he doesn't have a right to win his suit. The US Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the suit. A motion that is entirely predictable. If these camps exist, show a picture of the camp, and bring some evidence. 

Pabst complains about a press blackout over the "trial" though I'm sure that the local press had no interest in some crank filing a crackpot case over camps that do not exist. It's a press blackout in the same manner that the press does not cover the weekly release of this blog: it's not of wide public interest (though my blog should be). There is no collusion between the Texas press in 1976, it's just that they have agreed independently that this story--if they are even aware of it--isn't worth the ink. 

Then we move to the Geneva Convention because when a conspiracy theorist misunderstands local law, we can be sure that they will understand international treaties. Referencing the Geneva Convention is interesting because conspiracy theorists generally have a unique distrust and hatred of international laws. They detest the UN, and think that no American citizen should ever be subject to the Hague, but then they'll claim that someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci is violating some provision of the UN Charter. A fun game to play with them is to remind them how much they hate international courts when they go on one of their rants. They get madder. 

Pabst claims that the US is in violation of the Geneva Convention because these camps violate some portion of it. He relays the claim to us via a letter he received in response to one he sent to the Ford Administration. Pabst neglects to give us a copy of his letter. The Ford letter states that the US military is prepared to detain prisoners of war under the terms of the Geneva Convention of 1949. Then Pabst gets real boring. 

What happens is that Pabst starts getting into pedantic definitions of terms. The Geneva Convention governs wars between sovereign territories. So POW treatment must meet certain qualifications but in a civil war or insurrection, this requirement does not apply. Ignoring aspects of international law, let's assume this is true--so what? 

This "discrepancy" as he calls it, means nothing. The pedantry continues as he attempts to find the specific definition of "country or area" in Army Field Manual FM 41-10. As luck would have it I found this manual. Luckily for us, I guess, Pabst has no comprehension of what is in it. His claim is that it explains how the government will operate the camps, how it will detain citizens for any reason, and where the camps are located. I've searched through this document and even deciphered his description of the page numbers. HE claims that on page J-24 is a list of Penal institutions 1-B. There is no page J-24, he means appendix J line item 24. None of this exists. Appendix J discusses Civil Defense, Area Damage Control, and Rear Area Security (It's page 159). 

Either Pabst has the wrong manual (possible) or he's read it wrong (also possible). Our problem, and ultimately his problem, is that he thinks a manual that describes a guerilla war in the United States means that martial law is inevitable. Again, we have to consider the time that this manual was written and that the fear of a Soviet invasion was real. The manual was written in 1967, the Cuban Missile Crisis was still fresh in everyone's mind and I wouldn't if it were commissioned in direct response to the Crisis. 

Much earlier I said we need to put the question of who Pabst is suing on the shelf. It's time to take it down. This entire suit is dismissed because Pabst has no standing. He can claim no injury by anyone. Pabst's response is that the threat of concentration camps is an injury. First, who is this an injury from? The government? Which part? You can sue the US, but you have to address specific harms by specific individuals or agencies. What agency is running this operation? The suit is too general to sustain itself. 

Even if he could identify a person, say, President Ford, there are no camps. There are not even plans for camps. All Pabst has, and just like every other conspiracy theorist that will follow him, are some discrepancies in language. Yes, the Geneva Convention does not address enemies from non-sovereign territories; that however is not an injury to anyone because there is no follow-through. The Geneva Convention of 1949 also does not address the rights of people who are harmed by shrapnel bombs launched from AI drones; however, that doesn't matter until some military puts a shrapnel bomb on an AI drone--they don't have to launch it, they just have to possess it. With no evidence of these camps, there is no harm to Pabst. Pabst agrees no camps exist, but there has been training, preparation, and planning for them--but two things: a) he hasn't made that case and b) he has claimed that the camps exist.