Karl Koenigs

[mimi]

This was posted in the general SovCits forcibly occupy Malheur Wildlife Refuge topic back on May 26, 2016:

Thanks.

I saw he just tweeted 5 days ago, so I figured it was recent.

puzzle solved. Court date today!

A little more on Karl P. Koenigs.

One more case shows.

2016GF000522 05-26-2016 Dodge Filed Only Koenigs, Karl P. 01-1957 Group File of Karl P. Koenigs - Blood Draw Search Warrant

Which leads me to believe he got pulled over DWI and refused a breath test.

Today's hearing:

(3:32) Defendant Karl P. Koenigs in court, in custody via video w/o counsel. Kurt Frederich Klomberg appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Defendant has received copy of Criminal Complaint and advised of rights, charges and penalties. Court finds probable cause. Court enters Not Guilty plea. RD & JT set. Court sets $500 PA bond with conditions: Defendant shall not have any violent or abusive contact with anyone. Defendant shall not possess any weapons or firearms. Defendant shall not consume alcohol or other intoxicants. Defendant must maintain absolute sobriety. Defendant shall not operate a motor vehicle unless he has a valid Wisconsin driver's license. Return date scheduled for June 20, 2016 at 02:30 pm. Jury trial scheduled for July 26, 2016 at 08:15 am.

Would it be better to move this to a different thread?

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=8454&p=774542#p774658


There are other posts, but I'm not going to bring them over right now.

Anyhoo... Karl posted on facebook:

Karl P. Koenigs
8 hrs ·

LET IT BE KNOWN, that the NEW Wisconsin Gun law, which I HELPED TO DRAFT, says that a person DOES NOT NEED A Concealed Carry Permit, to have a sidearm in your vehicle for personal protection.

Let it be known also that our Criminally Constitutionally contemptuous Courts in Wisconsin are claiming that the old 1988 Gun law that did not allow a person to carry a sidearm in the vehicle, takes precedence over the NEW 2011 Gun law that SPECIFICALLY allows people to carry a loaded sidearm in your vehicle, without a permit. The Wisconsin Courts and therefore the Bluecoats (Cops) and the Sheriff's Department are saying, LITERALLY, that you have to have the loaded sidearm on the dash in compliance with the old 1988 law, EVEN THOUGH the NEW 2011 GUN law states, specifically, that you DO NOT NEED a permit to carry in a vehicle. The Courts are in COMPLETE CONTEMPT for the rule of law and order in Wisconsin.

So the Bluecoats of Beaver Dam Wisconsin and the Dodge County Sheriff's Department stole both of my side arms, because they were not "on the dash" and they also stole all of my long guns that were FULLY ENCASED and they will not let me have them back.

1.) An AR-10
2.) A 10-22
3.) A customized Wasser (like an AK-47)
4.) And a Tactical 930 Mossberg Shotgun.

They stole all of these firearms from me and refuse, along with the Courts, to give them back. In addition to my H&K VP-40 that was under my drivers seat but slid forward a few inches. And, my Smith and Wesson 44 Magnum that was way far under the passenger's seat.

These Beaver Dam Wisconsin and Dodge County Wisconsin Sheriff's Department Bluecoat enemies of our Second Amendment and the rest of our Bill of Rights laws which WE THE PEOPLE "ordained and established" UPON THEM to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, are "Only doing their job" to steal the firearms of all Americans they can, cased or uncased, in accord with the rule of law or not... They know that our Constitutionally contemptuous Wisconsin Court system will always disobey the rule of law and steal our firearms and our wages and salaries to increase the size, power and scope of our Municipal, County, State and U.S. Governments.

IMAGINE THAT!

Cops (Bluecoats) and most Sheriff's Departments always refuse to honor their Oath to Support and Defend The Constitution against all enemies, both Courts and Municipal, County, State and U.S. Governments, like all good Nazis.

Are the Bluecoats going to steal your guns next, for obeying the NEW Gun laws rather than to old ones they replaced

- Capt. Karl
9 Comments44 Shares
4343

And for fun, a pic of Karl's activities yesterday.

Karl P. Koenigs
15 hrs ·

Capt. Karl, under the Liberty Tree, in the public square, just before Fireworks, passing out pocket Constitutions.

And, providing a bit of public edification at every opportunity.


.

A bunch of other stuff in his facebook, including a video I didn't watch where a guy is complaining about getting thrown out of Wells Fargo Bank for just talking about Independence Day. Sure.

[Northland10]

I would assume that Karl is wrong about the law, as he probably forgets this tidbit:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Persons who do not have a CCW license may still not carry weapons concealed. In a vehicle this means that the firearm cannot be hidden or concealed and within reach.

https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/defau ... cw-faq.pdf

From his quote, it sounds like he thought he could carry it concealed. Nope. If he does not have a CCW permit, it has to be open.

If he was smart, yeah, I know, he would not push it as they could turn around an charge him:

However, it is a class A misdemeanor (punishable by 9 months jail and/or $10,000 fine) for anyone to go armed with a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant.
Wis. Stat. § 941.20(1)(b).

[Azastan]

All these people need to stop just passing out their little constitution booklets and get on the ball. There's a White House to storm, democracy to restore, etc.

[Fortinbras]

The second law cited (about a misdemeanor to carry while drunk) seems to suggest a situation that's very intimidating to anyone trying to enforce it.

[GreatGrey]

image.jpeg

He needs to define busy intersection.

And then STFU.

[Whatever4]

Is he making up his own US Code?

[Notorial Dissent]

Is he making up his own US Code?

Yes, along with the constitution, and just about everything else. Reality does not seem to be his forté.

[Family Liberty Patriot]

He votes we hang him?
It's so cute that he thinks he gets to vote on it.

[Burn'em Down]

He votes we hang him?
It's so cute that he thinks he gets to vote on it.

In Sov Cit land everyone gets a vote,as long as they vote the same as whoever is yelling the loudest at the time and Kapt Karl has been yelling loudly since the occupation. Problem is no one gives a shit about his delusions, which makes him go more and more extreme to get a reaction. Typical 6 year old attention deficit behavior.

[Karen Walker]

Kinda sorta a non-rhetorical question.

At what point do Faceplace commandos with a penchant for bloviating threats cross the line into "true threats"?

Does law enforcement just continually dismiss it as, "this whacko says shit like this all the time without ever following through?"

Is it not a "true threat" because he'd never actually get within 50 yards of his target or because he says stuff like this all the time?

Seriously though- what is the thought process here? Law enforcement doesn't seem to wait for other whackos to follow through.

[Maybenaut]

Kinda sorta a non-rhetorical question.

At what point do Faceplace commandos with a penchant for bloviating threats cross the line into "true threats"?

Does law enforcement just continually dismiss it as, "this whacko says shit like this all the time without ever following through?"

Is it not a "true threat" because he'd never actually get within 50 yards of his target or because he says stuff like this all the time?

Seriously though- what is the thought process here? Law enforcement doesn't seem to wait for other whackos to follow through.

Given the First Amendment implications in criminalizing speech, I think there has to be an actual threat of imminent bodily harm. It's been a while since I've researched this for the job, but from what I can recall, all the case law dealing with criminalizing threatening behavior requires more than just something like, "Man, I sure would like to see someone blow that guy's head off." It has to be more than that (as in, "I'm going to go blow that guy's head off."). And it can't be contingent on some future event, as in, "If that guy gets elected, I'm going to blow his head off." And there has to be a certain amount of imminence -- it can't be, "Two years from now I'm going to blow that guy's head off." There's something else in the back of my head having to do with the means of carrying out the threat. I can't remember what the case law says about that, but it's something like the threat has to be the kind that the person making it could pull off, but I'm super fuzzy on that bit of it.

I think the police have to walk a fine line. They know that there is a great deal of bloviating on the Internet, but they know when the guy has crossed the line. We've followed a few people on TFB who have made what reasonable people might view as threats and who have later been visited by law enforcement. They haven't all ended up in prison, but I think law enforcement pays attention.

[RoadScholar]

You might want to rewrite the penultimate sentence above, Maybenaut!

[mimi]

Karl is getting his guns back. Sorta.

Karl P. Koenigs
7 hrs ·

GOOD NEWS> I will be getting all of my long guns back on Monday... Actually one of my adult sons will be in possession of them, which is fine for now.

Hopefully, by the rule of Constitutional Law and Order upon our elected and appointed enemies of The Constitution, I will be able to get all of my firearms back, including my side arms. The New 2011 law states that we can have a loaded sidearm in the vehicle "without a permit"...

I called the Wisconsin Department of Justice, Wisconsin Attorney General's office and they agreed with me that that is what the new law states... But, unbeknown to me the WI court system has been violating the very law that I helped to produce. So one of the Cops, who violated my Due Process right to travel without vehicle registration, who I will sue his bonding company like I told him for "Color Of Law" violation, saw my sidearm down by my feet because it must have slide a few inches out from under my driver's seat.

So they wrote me up for Criminal Conceal Carry in a vehicle, in violation of the very law I helped to draft!

These Constitutional criminals have absolutely no respect for their Oath... NONE!

But now, at least, I am getting my 4 long guns back that were entirely encased, that they stole from my vehicle. Well actually my son will be getting them. But it is better than letting our appointed Constitutional enemy criminals have them.

When will we ever have respect for the Rule of Law by our Cops? Who constantly enforce Color Of Law in violation of our supreme laws of the land? And, in the process, "as long as they have us (UNLAWFULLY) pulled over anyway", they go ahead and violate our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment laws, just like any Nazi criminal "just doing their job", which is to violate their Oath to support and defend The Constitution against ALL ENEMIES both Republican and Democrat...

Hmmm, I wonder why the public hates Cops? I just cannot figure it out...

And he came up with a new idea.

Somebody under fire from IRS should be protected by the constitutional shurffs and the milita.

gee... IIRC, karl has some tax problems. But I think he wants somebody else to be the guinea pig.

Karl P. Koenigs shared Blaine Cooper's video.
10 hrs ·

WHY DO WE STAND HERE IDLE when 48 of our honorable and noble Constitutional Patriots have been made Political Prisoners?

I PROPOSE A MISSION ---> that the Constitutional American Militia Freedom Forces, The Constitutional Sheriffs, and American Constitutional families from all over the Union, muster and STAND to protect the next American who STANDS up to the IRS. Especially if they have the grounds to provide for a Militia forward camp.

According to the RULE OF Constitutional LAW the U.S. Government is ONLY supposed to pay for the eighteen "delegated" powers enumerated under Article I Section 8 of The Constitution. According to the TENTH Amendment all other powers, meaning spending, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.

more of that rant:


And didja know patriots sometimes have to kill. Historically speaking.

Karl P. Koenigs
13 hrs ·

Keep in mind that during the Revolutionary period WELL OVER 70% of our American population wanted to remain British and under the control of our Government.

The WELL over 70% of our American population HATED the Patriots, General Washington, The Sons of Liberty and The Continental Army.
Many of the Tories (BIG GOVERNMENT loyalists and lovers) fought along side our Government's Cops and Troops in Redcoats to kill the Patriots and The Continentals. Some Tories even burnt down whole towns where they knew there were mostly Patriot families. It was not uncommon for Tories to sneak out of their homes, in the middle of the night to break into Patriot homes and slit the throats of every man, woman and child in a Patriot's home to protect our Cops and Troops in Redcoats and Government officials from being shot or killed.

The Revolutionary War, where by divine Providence, we won our Freedom from our Cops and Troops in Redcoats and from our World superpower Government, was hardly a DEMOCRATIC process, was it? You might want to ponder over this, if you desire to restore our ARTICLE IV Section 4, of The Constitution "Republican form of Government" as "guaranteed" to each one of our home Countries, which form "a more perfect Union" of fifty free, independent and sovereign States. (Preamble of The Constitution)

The Patriots and the Continentals had to kill nearly as many Tories as they did our Government's Cops and Troops in Redcoats, to win our FREEDOM and so we could "ordain and establish" our supreme law of the land upon our Cops, elected and appointed Public Servants so that We The People could "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" from the IRS, DOJ, DHS, FBI, EPA, DOE, BLM, ATF, HHS, etc, etc, etc.

more of that:


I had no idea the patriots killed people to protect us from all those alphabet agencies.

He's still putting this in his posts:

Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381 Capital Felony Treason

Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381:

When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.

I can't remember what his court schedule is. I guess Monday?

[phaseolus]

Hearing on Monday, jury trial on Tuesday.

Also too, he's not charged with "having" a weapon in his car without a permit. There are two counts of Carrying a Concealed Weapon (statute 941.23(2) ) and two counts of Operating a firearm while intoxicated (941.20(1)(b) ). Dodge County Case Number 2016CM000181.

And CCAP shows that as of two weeks ago there's another open case related to the same traffic stop, this one's Operating w/ PAC >=0.08, <0.15 (1st). Pre-trial conference and court trial in August. Dodge County Case Number 2016TR004858.

[phaseolus]

...and I just messaged him on fb with this link to the actual text of U.S. Code § 2381. Let's see if he responds.

[Whip]

Hearing on Monday, jury trial on Tuesday.

Also too,he's not charged with "having" a weapon in his car without a permit. There are two counts of Carrying a Concealed Weapon (statute 941.23(2) ) and two counts of Operating a firearm while intoxicated (941.20(1)(b) ). Dodge County Case Number 2016CM000181.

And CCAP shows that as of two weeks ago there's another open case related to the same traffic stop, this one's Operating w/ PAC >=0.08, <0.15 (1st). Pre-trial conference and court trial in August. Dodge County Case Number 2016TR004858.

um yeah. my question was why he had to hide it under his seat if he is allowed to carry it due to a law that HE HELPED PRODUCE!!!11!!!!1!!!! and THE VERY LAW HE HELPED DRAFT!!111!!1!!1!1! allegedly

or am I reading it wrong?

[Foggy]

'operating a firearm'?

[MojoSapien]

Includes "fondling"..
Doesn't have to be loaded

[Northland10]

Hearing on Monday, jury trial on Tuesday.

Also too,he's not charged with "having" a weapon in his car without a permit. There are two counts of Carrying a Concealed Weapon (statute 941.23(2) ) and two counts of Operating a firearm while intoxicated (941.20(1)(b) ). Dodge County Case Number 2016CM000181.

And CCAP shows that as of two weeks ago there's another open case related to the same traffic stop, this one's Operating w/ PAC >=0.08, <0.15 (1st). Pre-trial conference and court trial in August. Dodge County Case Number 2016TR004858.

um yeah. my question was why he had to hide it under his seat if he is allowed to carry it due to a law that HE HELPED PRODUCE!!!11!!!!1!!!! and THE VERY LAW HE HELPED DRAFT!!111!!1!!1!1! allegedly

or am I reading it wrong?

No, sounds like you're reading correctly. Logic is not Karl's strong suit. The only explanation I can come up with that could almost be reasonable is that he was keeping the gun(s) hidden because he does no want to get busted for drinking and having them guns. That explanation sort of falls apart once you consider that he hid the guns but still drove.

I think Karl's motivation will forever escape me. I cannot comprehend his, for lack of a better term, thinking.

[phaseolus]

'operating a firearm'?

That's just how they abbreviated it on the Circuit Court website. Looking up the Wisconsin Statute, it says

941.20  Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.
(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon.
(b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant.
etc.

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/20/1/b

[Notorial Dissent]

I think logic and think are to foreign concepts to poor old Carl. I like how in all his whining about being busted for carrying "concealed" weapons, he kinda sorta neglected to mention that he actually got busted for DUI, must've slipped his steel(long rusted) trap like mind. It might have been legal for him to have the weapons otherwise, but not while drunk, I think that voids that in all states. Amazing the little details people like Carl leave out of their claims. Now I wonder if he has a habit of driving DUI?

[mimi]

I guess Karl's trial is today.

No doubt he'll post the result on his facebook later. If he can.

[phaseolus]

Today's hearing changed the schedule a bit

17 07-25-2016 Hearing Bauer, Steven G. Streblow, Doreen

Additional Text: Defendant, Karl P. Koenigs in court, James T. Sempf appeared for the State of Wisconsin. State's motion to amend complaint. DEF heard. Court grants amendment regarding complaint. Def heard and requests atty. State does not object. Remove jury trial and reset.


18 07-25-2016 Notice of hearing

Additional Text: Review hearing on August 17, 2016 at 08:15 am.


19 07-25-2016 Notice of hearing

Additional Text: Jury trial on September 14, 2016 at 08:15 am

[mimi]

Does that mean the charges have changed?

Does Karl want the state to pay for his attorney?

[phaseolus]

Does that mean the charges have changed?

Those fields haven't changed on the WI Circuit Court page o' Case Details for Dodge County Case Number 2016CM000181

Does Karl want the state to pay for his attorney?

I don't know. Maybe the court record events will make that clear in the next few days. As of right now, the Defense Attorney field is blank.