Faith Bussey Gets it Wrong: Munford is a Gun Grabber

UPDATE: The Munford Machine Fix is in!
I was just blocked from the Tarrant County Republicans
Facebook Group by Chris Dillard, for no other reason 
than posting this response to Faith Bussey.  Her post attacking
my blogs and memes was allowed, but my documented
defense was blocked!  The Munford Camp is now
trying to silence the truth!
(See proof of this at bottom of this blog)

Faith Bussey Gets it Wrong: Munford is a Gun Grabber

By

James Scott Trimm

Faith Bussey has recently written a post on Facebook in which she claims that my blogs and memes about the Munford Gun Grabbing case are false.  Bussey responds by presenting a great deal of information from her "research" that is just plain factually incorrect.  Here are the documents to prove it:

Faith wrote:

Some folks in Tarrant County may have noticed an inundation of memes regarding a "Gun Grabbing Judge of Tarrant County"- James Munford, who is running for a judgeship, and a "2A Champion"- Jennifer Moore, who is running for the same position. These memes are written by the guy working for/being paid by Gerald Haddock of Tarrant Families Matter, and despite the fact that I recognize where this writer and I agree on issues and hope to continue working together where we can agree...I wanted to do more research into this issue so that I could understand what it was all about. And now that I've done that, I feel the need to set some things straight.

If the implication is that I have been paid to write my blogs or to create my memes that is false.  I have a completely unrelated business relationship with Gerald Haddock.  Gerald and I are developing a cryptocurrency related business together.  Faith has let her irrational hatred for my personal friend and business associate Gerald Haddock, blind her to the facts.

Faith continues:

First, this lawyer lady may be nice, but she is no 2A Champion.  The couple getting divorced both signed temporary injunction papers in July. Both attorneys asked for the same basic things, including a provision that would invoke a federal statute preventing *both* parties from owning or possessing firearms and  ammunition. *Both* parties signed off on this with their attorneys.

This is false.  Both parties agreed to an injunction that was very vague.  The injunction that they both agreed to on July 9th was nothing more than a box checked next to the words "Mutual Temporary Injunction as to Persons." This said nothing about guns.  It also did NOT include the language that would have been required to trigger the Federal Law being talked about.  For an injunction to invoke USC 18 922 (g) it must be an injunction that "explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury."  

A box checked next to the words "Mutual Temporary Injunction as to Persons" does not come near meeting that standard which must be met "explicitly" a triggering injunction.

 Faith continues:

Second, when Judge Munford signed off on their temporary orders, he made a NOTE that there was a mutual injunction *already in place* (because they both agreed to it and signed for it in July) and explained that because this injunction existed, it meant the father could not be in possession of a firearm until the injunction was dissolved because it fell under this federal statute.

This is also false.  Here is the page from the Temporary Orders which Munford issued.  Item 6(c) is not a "note" it is an organic part of the orders Munford issued.  As noted above, there was no injunction in effect at the time Munford issued this order on August 14th, that  "explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury." There is nothing in this order that "explains" that "the injunction was dissolved because it fell under this federal statute" because that is false!  This is not a note or an explanation, it is a court order.  I will add that had the Federal Law applied (and it did not) then by writing this language into the order, Munford would have fumbled the ball anyway.  The Federal Law applies only to guns that have become subjects of interstate commerce, but Munford's order applies to all guns, even those made and sold in Texas.  Also states are not required to enforce federal laws, but they are obligated to enforce state court orders. 

Ives was upset and posted on the Highroad Forum just two days later:

Faith continues:

Now, my first question was why did this only affect the father. The answer was that he was the one who owned the guns. That made sense.



That makes no sense, because: 1) The Federal Law also prohibits buying a gun, which the wife could have done at any time, and 2) if Faith had really looked at the court record, the wife was asking for some of the guns in the property dispute.

Faith also writes:

The final divorce decree and the amended version both have stipulations on guns- that firearms must be secure away from children, that they are not to have any firearms on their person while the children are in their possession, and that they are not to have the children around any other person with firearms. This is certainly unusual for a divorce decree, but since their trial lasted for three days, I guess Judge Berger saw fit to keep something about that in there.



Faith gets it wrong again.  She clearly does not know how to review a court record.  In fact the initial draft for a Final Divorce Decree did contain language requiring both parties to secure arms and not have firearms on their person on in the vicinity of the children (which in Texas, I guess means don't take them out in public, as we had concealed carry at that time in Texas).

However on 11/24/2010 Mike Ives filed a Motion for new trial claiming his second amendment rights were violated by the Divorce Decree:

Then on 12/15/10 Mike Ives' attorney Jennifer Moore filed a motion to Clarify again claiming his second amendment rights were being violated:

And then on 1/12/10 Mike Ives's attorney Jennifer Moore filed a motion to Reform the Decree, again claiming his rights were violated:

This is a process called "perfecting the order" that one follows before filing an appeal.  However when Judge Berger realized that the NRA was backing Mike Ives suit, she issued a Clarified Final Decree of Divorce.  On February 28th 2010 Judge Nancy Berger issued a Clarified Final Decree of Divorce which eliminated the gun grabbing language entirely and said only that the parties should act responsibly and not drink alcohol when having the children around firearms:

Faith gets it wrong on almost every point!



The fact is that Munford issued a Court Order stripping Mike Ives, a man who had not even been accused of making threats, or of any wrong doing, of his Second Amendment rights.  Munford's gun grabbing provision was later taken out entirely, after the NRA got involved.  Second Amendment Hero Jennifer Moore was Ives Attorney, who got the NRA involved and saved Mike Ives' guns from Munford's Gun Grabbing Order!

This is so simple even a Caveman can understand it!


-----

UPDATE: The Munford Machine Fix is in! I was just blocked from the Tarrant County Republicans
Facebook Group by Chris Dillard, for no other reason than posting this response to Faith Bussey.  Her post attacking my blogs and memes was allowed, but my documented defense was blocked!  The Munford Camp is now trying to silence the truth! (See proof of this below)