-Caveat Lector- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD WILSON McCASLIN, Defendant and Appellant.
A099042 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 611 January 17, 2003, Filed NOTICE: [*1] NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 977(a), PROHIBITS COURTS AND PARTIES FROM CITING OR RELYING ON OPINIONS NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BY RULE 977(B). THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF RULE 977. PRIOR HISTORY: Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR31916. DISPOSITION: Judgment and sentence affirmed. JUDGES: Marchiano, P.J. We concur: Stein, J., Swager, J. OPINIONBY: Marchiano OPINION: Appellant Richard Wilson McCaslin was convicted of arson of property (Pen. Code, ?451, subd. (d)); n1 burglary ( ?459); arson of a structure ( ?451, subd. (c)); brandishing a firearm at a police officer ( ?417, subd. (c)); and possession of a billy club ( ?12020, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to 11 years 8 months in state prison. He appeals from the judgment and sentence. His counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court to independently review the record. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071; see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396.) We have done so. [*2] We find no meritorious or arguable issues. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - This case arises from a rather bizarre incident on the grounds of the Bohemian Grove, a well-known private forest retreat in Sonoma County which is open only to members and their guests for camping and the appreciation of the arts and music. Appellant entered the grounds of the Bohemian Grove on the morning of January 20, 2002. He was wearing a SWAT uniform, combat boots, a red, white and blue bandana, and a skull mask. He was armed with a military-style "long reach" rifle, described as an "over/under" with a 12-guage shotgun on top and a .223 caliber rifle, with a banana clip, on the bottom. He wore a .45 pistol in a holster at his hip, had a sword slung over his shoulder, and carried a backpack containing explosive devices and a home-made mortar-style hand-held launcher, capable of launching projectile fireworks. He had two knives, two extra banana clips, and two extra clips for the .45. He also had some 70mm [*3] shotgun rounds designed to expand on impact. Appellant was wearing a bulletproof vest under his SWAT uniform. A Bohemian Grove (Grove) staff member saw appellant point his assault rifle at the home of the Grove caretaker. Appellant also pointed his rifle at the gate guard. Police were summoned, and after a tense face-off with several officers appellant was arrested. Police searched his nearby pickup truck and found a collapsible police baton classified as a billy club, two crossbows, and arrows. Grove employees discovered that someone had broke into the kitchen and set three separate fires. Several stickers bearing a "Phantom Patriot" logo were scattered about the kitchen. Someone had also broken into a cabin on the property. "Phantom Patriot" logos were found elsewhere on the Grove grounds, including on a stone stage in front of a 30-foot statue of an owl. Appellant was advised of his Miranda rights and agreed to an interview with a sheriff's detective following his arrest. He admitted going to the Grove armed with the "over/under" assault rifle, with both components fully loaded; a Glock semiautomatic pistol, also fully loaded; several magazines of extra ammunition; a samurai [*4] sword; a launching tube; a pocket knife; and a crossbow. He also admitted to wearing the garb described by witnesses and a bulletproof vest. He admitted starting the fires to "leave his mark." When he encountered the officers he was prepared for a gun fight, to return fire if fired upon. Appellant told the detective he had been planning the attack for about a year, and had moved from Texas to Carson City, Nevada, to use the Silver State's capital as a "staging area." He exercised, practiced shooting and martial arts, and abstained from relationships with women. He drove from Carson City to California on January 19. He did not want to take a plane because he feared his weapons would be detected by the post-9/11 security measures. Appellant told the detective he learned of the Grove from a video documentary made by a purported journalist, Alex Jones. Appellant believed the documentary showed rituals at the Grove including a "cremation of care," involving Satanic human sacrifices. He believed persons high in our government met for the cremation of care ceremony, and the Grove needed to be "shut down and every member [put] in jail at least." Appellant believed children were being killed [*5] at the Grove and he had to bring this to the public's attention. He also believed the owl statue was an idol and the site of the rituals described by the Jones documentary. A video entitled Dark Secrets Inside the Bohemian Grove (Dark Secrets) was found in appellant's Carson City apartment. He also believed the Grove members had paid off police to preserve their secrets. Appellant testified similarly to his statement to the detective. He added that he believed the owl statue was a representation of the pagan god "Mollock," mentioned in the Bible as Satanic. He thought the Grove operated under a "veil of secrecy," and he wanted the public to know what was going on. He styled himself the "Phantom Patriot." He did not go to the police about what he thought was going on at the Grove, because he did not feel the police would be helpful. Appellant was represented by competent counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The trial court properly admitted evidence of the various weapons and military accoutrements possessed by appellant, and properly admitted evidence of appellant's meticulous planning of the attack on the Grove. The trial court properly refused to admit the Dark Secrets videotape [*6] to support appellant's defense of necessity, because a necessity defense is not available under these facts--in no small part because there was no showing appellant acted to prevent a significant and imminent evil. (CALJIC No. 4.43 ((6th ed. 1996).) In any case, appellant was allowed to testify about his motivations for attacking the Grove. Appellant was given a fair trial. The jury was properly instructed. There was no error in the proceedings. There are no issues requiring further briefing. The judgment and sentence are affirmed. Marchiano, P.J. We concur: Stein, J. Swager, J. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
