The webmasters do not support or associate with Kevin Walsh


In a letter from Maricopa County Deputy County Attorney Heather Kirka she states that "While he was in custody for this offense, his associates maintained a Free Kevin Walsh website that also listed how the defendant was wronged by the government" And implies that the webmasters are associates and supporters of Kevin Walsh.

First the webmasters are not supporters of Kevin Walsh. Kevin Walsh is a racist who hates Jews. None of the web masters hates Jews. None of the web masters are racists nor do any of the webmasters hate anyone because of their race.

Kevin Walsh is a Holocaust Denier and claims that the Holocaust did not happen. The webmasters disagree with Kevin Walsh on this issue and think it was almost certain that the Holocaust did happen, and that the Nazis killed millions of Jews around the time of World War II.

But even if Kevin Walsh is wrong on this issue the webmasters feel he is entitled to his opinion on the issue and should not be persecuted by the government for his odd beliefs.

Kevin Walsh is a communist. None of the webmasters are communists, nor do the webmasters agree with the ideology of the communist party.

The webmasters consider the Communist Party to be just as bad as the Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Green and other political parties that currently rule the world.

[I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist, but I have not been a member of the Communist Party USA since 1989. --Kevin Walsh]

Kevin Walsh denies being a Nazi or Fascist, but he seems to think Hitler was a great guy. The webmasters all think Hitler was an evil tyrant, murder and dictator. In our opinion Hitler is just an evil criminal like the communist other leaders Kevin also likes such as who Stalin, Lenin, Mao. And like George W. Bush who is currently murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens in his effort to force democracy on them.

But even if Kevin Walsh is wrong on this issue that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao are great guys the webmasters feel he is entitled to his opinion on the issue and should not be persecuted by the government for his odd beliefs.

The webmasters do think that while Kevin's ideas are different then the normal American mainstream ideas he has every right to those ideas which we disagree with.

Nor do the webmasters associate with Kevin Walsh. We only know Kevin Walsh from atheist and anti-war groups which we both belong to. The webmasters have never actively associated with Kevin Walsh other then seeing him at atheist meetings or anti-war meetings.

Last and finally since Kevin Walsh was released from prison the webmasters are no longer updating this web site. Any new changes to the web site will be made by Kevin Walsh, not the people who originally created the web site. So don't blame us if Kevin Walsh starts adding stuff to the web site about how he hates Jews or how Kevin claims the Holocaust did not happen. It's Kevin Walsh's web page and he will control it.

The webmasters do believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. And we feel the U.S Secret Service, the Phoenix Police, and the Maricopa County Prosecutors Office have flushed those rights down the toilet in dealing with Kevin Walsh. And that is the reason that this web site was created. Not because we love and worship Kevin Walsh, but because we believe a tyrannical government has flushed his constitutional rights down the toilet.

If Kevin Walsh had committed any crimes against George W. Bush he should have been arrested and jailed like any other criminal. But the Secret Service did not have any "probable cause" to arrest Kevin Walsh for a crime. So the Secret Service used the lame excuse of calling him "insane" and jailing him in a mental institution to get him off the street. That was wrong and unconstitutional. That's something that happens all the time in the third world communist governments which Kevin Walsh loves. But it's wrong and unconstitutional when it happens in the United States.

The Webmasters.

A letter from Heather Kirka, Deputy County Attorney

Andrew P. Thomas
Maricopa County Attorney

Heather Kirka
Deputy County Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff


THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff vs. KEVIN WALSH, Defendant

NO CR 2004-022034-001-DT


(Assigned to the Honorable J. Richard Gama)

The State of Arizona, through counsel undersigned, hereby responds to the defendant's above-entitled motion, and respectfully asks that this Court deny it in full. The attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities supports this Response.


On August 8, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to Aggravated Assault, a class 3 felony and Disorderly Conduct, a class six dangerous felony. He was sentenced to a mitigated term of 1.5 years for the Disorderly Conduct with five years supervised probation to follow on the Aggravated Assault charge. The defendant was released from prison earlier this year.

The facts regarding the underlying offenses are as follows. The defendant came to the attention of the United States Secret Service after he made comments about killing the President to a phone solicitor who had called regarding contributing financially to the Republican party. Upon investigation, the Secret Service agent learned that the defendant had a disturbing background mentally and with prior employers. A letter from the defendant to a previous employer is attached for the Court's review. The defendant was also active on the internet and appeared to be a "strongman"-type militant. While he was in custody for this offense, his associates maintained a "Free Kevin Walsh" website that also listed how the defendant was wronged by the government. The secret service agent also learned that the defendant possessed several guns and ammunition and had a concealed weapons permit. The agent wanted to have the defendant psychologically evaluated so he could move on with the case but the defendant refused to cooperate. The agent eventually got an order to have the defendant involuntarily committed for a mental evaluation. The agent enlisted Phoenix Police Department's SAU unit for help in taking the defendant into custody.

On June 21, 2004, SAU officers went to the defendant's employment to locate him and take him into custody. Three officers located him almost immediately. When they contacted him, the defendant immediately held his hands up and repeatedly told them, "shoot me, kill me." He would not comply with their commands to put his hands behind his back. Officers approached and a struggle ensured between the four men. It took the three officers several moments to gain control of the defendant, who is a large man. The defendant had a loaded pistol in a shoulder holster which he went for during the struggle. He also had three magazines fully loaded with ammunition. One of the officers struggled with the defendant over the gun. The defendant was able to get the gun out of the holster. The officer believed he was going to lose his grip on the gun and get shot. The defendant was tazered at least three times and one of the officers had a rifle in his gut. Eventually, however, the officer was finally able to get the gun from the defendant. Afterwards, the defendant told the officers, "You should have shot me dead there, you could have claimed I resisted. It would have been of service to me." Regarding the tazer, the defendant stated, "I was trying to use the other arm to get the gun so I could shoot myself, you got me in the wrong arm."

The defendant was then transported to Desert Vista Behavioral where he remained until these charges were brought. A letter from the defendant's treating psychiatrist is also attached for the Court's review. It provides the Court of a glimpse of the defendant as a mental patient. The officer who struggled with the defendant over his gun also suffered extensive injuries to his knee and was out of work for several months.

Although the defendant claimed he was only trying to kill himself, he was obviously in possession of too much ammunition to accomplish that goal. The amount of ammunition in the defendant's possession at the time of the offense indicate that he was not going into custody without a fight. Additionally, based upon the two attached letters, it is obvious this is not an isolated incident. The defendant clearly has mental health issues and disburbingly violent inclinations. He is in need of close monitoring.

Now the defendant is on probation. His probation officer only reviewed the deffendant's term and conditions of probation with him last month and he is already disputing several of them. Additionally, he has already had at least two police contacts since being placed on probation. Significantly and unfortunately, the defendant is no longer on any mental health medication. His probation officer is apparently in the process of getting the defendant back on medication.

There are more letters attached for the Court's review which support the State's position that the defendant's probation terms should not be modified. In one of them, the defendant writes his probation officer to explain why he wants to have contact with other convicts. Specifically, he wants to communicate with convicted Holocaust Denier, David Irving. The defendant states that both men share the same belief that the Holocaust was a myth. Notably, he fails to mention this reason in his written request to the Court. The defendant obviously had no intention of revealing his true intentions to this Court. He only tells this Court that the term is unduly burdensome because he acted alone in the underlying offense.

That letter also discloses that the defendant has already had police contact. As a term of probation, the defendant is required to inform his probation officer of any police contact. The final letter attached, dated March 18, 2006, also reveals another police contact in the short amount of time that the defendant has been on probation. The details of that contact are explained in the defendant's letter.

Regarding the police contact mentioned in the February, 23, 2006 letter, the defendant ate lunch at the cafeteria in the Industrial Commission Building. He claims that he wen there because he apparently was working nearby. The defendant had been previously banned from that building for an incident that occurred there several years ago. Undersigned is not privy to the details of that incident. However, it is significant that the defendant is still on the Capitol Police's radar even several years after this incident. Regarding this contact, he was escorted from the premises.

Finally, the defendant requests that the terms prohibiting drinking and requiring drug testing be stricken. The State believes that, given the defendant's mental health issues, these terms are essential to his mental health. For his mental health medications to be successful, the defendant needs to be clean and sober. Further, given his claims that he does not drink or do drugs, he should not have a problem complying with these terms.

For the foregoing reasons, teh State respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant's Motion in all parts.

Respectfully submitted March 24, 2006.

Andrew P. Thomas
Maricopa County Attorney

By Heather Kirka
Deputy County Attorney


Kevin Walsh was a political prisoner who was jailed in a mental hospital by the Secret Service for his anti-Bush statements. Kevin Walsh had committed no crimes and the Secret Service had no evidence to charge Kevin Walsh with any crimes.


Free Kevin Walsh