I met james.wieck.1 through facebook. He sent me a friend request. I replied with
"Hi James! Thanks for the friend request. Please do introduce yourself. I see you are from Lancaster. I am in Bakersfield right now. I have been invited to a event next week, so I'll be around for a bit before heading back north. ~JC"
That day he also invited me to an event being hosted in Bakersfield. I attended.
I met with james.wieck.1 at a protest. He repeatedly apologized for having forest service equipment. He said he got it at a good deal. The equipment was an old truck. No real redflag.
We shared a lengthy conversation at the protest. He seemed a decent guy. No redflags recalled.
He gave me his card
I had taken some pictures while at the protest to add to my blogs and timelines. An exceptional one of james.wieck.1. I polished it up and noted his information from his card. He was very pleased with the picture. However, he asked me to delete the term "NRA rep" from the photo because it could get him in trouble with his "leadership."
I removed the NRA reference from the photo.
I thought it strange he would want to hide such information. Being "president" of an NRA chapters at the very least, he should have been used to public relations and being called an "NRA rep". Moreover, you would think he would be proud to be president of a chapter, it seems like that would be an accomplishment.
The keeping secrets is a redflag.
When I mentioned my disappointment of not having pictures of myself he posted a emoji with a frown and a tensed up forehead.
That struck me as odd. I was hoping he would say that he had some. I am pretty certain we had taken a picture together.
Our next exchange was when I purposely misposted This message:
"you know Sally, I have to apologize. I am a bit ill of spirit. I think I am experiencing a bit of shell shock.
I feel such deep remorse. More than 2 score (20+) people are facing felony charged with a life time in prison and one was assassinated. All for a forensic accounting of remote and rural county."
He only asked who Sally was. I responded and he did not engage.
The next exchange was his telling me to not add him to groups. I had added him to a group I am admin of that is 5000+. Again, you would think that public relations would be part and parcel to being President of a NRA chapter.
Four weeks later I am again adding new people from my friend's list to the group and add him again, not noting or recalling his request.
He responds hostility and in a passive aggressive manner.
Adjust your settings. That is what they are there for. You should not expect people to micro-manage like that between the two of us we have over a 1000 friends. That sort of micromanaging is cumbersome, and perhaps designed to be cumbersome, I would hope not. However, if you really did want preferential treatment, you should have raised my interest enough to garnered it. You had already asked me to keep secrets according to your note card.
He then responded with cuss words.
I decided then that he had enough redflags for a review.
The following workweek, I research his affiliations.
I pull his card and review it. It has a gmail address instead of an NRA affiliate address. I find this to be odd, if he is a "President" of an NRA chapter.
I call the NRA to see if this is within their bylines for a president. I do not mention his name.
The NRA give me a number to call to verify his standing.
The person that answered that number answered it in a very unprofessional manner.
I was not certain if I had even called the proper number because he did not answer the phone as the NRA council. He also did not "straighten up" after being told this was a call to the council. He was very impolite. At this point he did not know if I was a donor or press. He gruffly demanded to know who I was. I explain I had opened a file and needed information and that I had gotten his number from the NRA proper. When I asked him "Whom am I speaking with" He answered the question with a question. Which is a redflag of buying time, I asked him if he would like for me to call him back. He declined. I had noted that it sounded like he was driving, so I mentioned that I hoped he was not driving, he said he was and to continue. I announce and introduce myself and explain the file that was opened concerning fraud. He replied with a question stating he did not understand and to be more specific. I had been very specific. At that point I took him as a hostile person not interested in the best presentation of the NRA. He gave the feel of someone looking to hide information. That he had no interest in providing information in clearing the name of the council.
I continue for a bit longer repeatedly reminding him that I had come from the NRA proper. There was confusion about his name. He was intent on finding out the names I held. When I told him I would not be providing him with names, but the NRA proper, he became aggressive stating that I needed to deal with him and that if I was not going to deal with him that I, in essence, could bugger off.
I stated that I was suspicious of the series of events. He stated he did not care. That I was going to deal with him. I stated it did not matter if he cared or not that my report would be going forward. And that I would include not caring in that report. He again demanded to know names and then claimed it was "alleged". At this point, it is an uncooperative conversation. He announced that he is an employee of a "not-for-profit" corporation out of Virginia and then corrected himself and said it was out of New York. . It was then that he finally said that if I had questions he was the person to talk to. B this point I had decided to call back to the NRA to reaffirm that this was indeed the correct number and person.
Though this original file was to research james.wieck.1, the front faceing presentation of the NRA council in California left me to question the intent of the whole NRA council in the state of California.
Website from the Twitter account:
This disclaimer wrote on a jpg to a tactic to avoid being crawled by the google bot
was most notable and I feel sums up the research. It is in its original size.