Freedom of the Press #5
“Tilting at Windmills”
Outpost of Freedom
January 31, 2017
Well, it has been almost three weeks since the government’s most recent effort to suppress Freedom of the Press. Not really surprising, since they have nothing to go on; they just think that they do. However, Billy J. Williams (aka Don Quixote) and Pamala R. Holsinger (aka Sancho Panza) have spent a bunch of taxpayer’s money on “Tilting at Windmills”. They just do not seem to believe that the Constitution is the very document that created them, and the government that they represent. Well, it didn’t really create them, but it did create the positions that they hold.
Back on January 10, 2017, the government filed the “Government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1689)“. This was discussed in Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, published on January 11. That same day, just hours before #3 was published, the Court filed an “Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1691)“. This, of course, led to my response, on January 12, with Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order. Rather a hectic pace, for three days.
Apparently, the government had some heavy homework, for it wasn’t until January 30 that they made their next move. They filed “Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1788)“, and, not to be out done, they filed an “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1789)“. The Motion (1788) is only 6 pages, but the Affidavit (1789) is 14 pages, 8 of which are actually entering my Article #4 into the record. I sure like it when they expand my readership. Thank you, Don and Sancho.
So, let’s look at the Affidavit (1789), first. The first three paragraphs are explanations of Ronnie Walker’s qualifications. In that third paragraph, we find this rather curious limitation of her authority:
I am an “investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States” within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510(7), authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.
Now, it says that she is “authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.” It does not say that Walker cannot investigate other allegations, but if Walker could, would not Walker have made the point clear. It kinda makes you wonder, since nobody has found the time to provide a statute that I am in violation of. This was first discussed when I received the “Letter- Demand to Cease and Desist“, which I reported on in Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI, when “I asked the agent what statute bound me to the Cease and Desist portion of the letter?” I received no reply. Since they have not provided me a statute (federal law), I am just wondering if maybe SA Walker is moonlighting for the US Attorney.
Now, here is the kicker. In the next paragraph in the affidavit, Walker states:
4. This affidavit is intended to show only facts pertinent for the requested motion and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter.
So, let’s see some facts. In paragraph 15, Walker states that I received:
a Supplement to the original Protective Order, court record #1692, which prohibits any individual or entity from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.
Well, that is a fact. Any individual or entity that disseminates those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity[,] by any means. Now, that would make almost any person who has read and shared certain of my articles, and presumably, even if you did not read them and only shared them, you have been brought into the “long arm of the Protective Order”, and are subject to the very same punishment that they want to try to hang on me. And, as Walker said, that’s a fact.
Do not let that scare you, because we still have to see if the Court can find some way to reach out of their jurisdiction and grab me, or you, unless, of course, you live in Oregon. But, even if you do live in Oregon, unless you are party to Ammon Bundy, et al, the trial, which will start, again, with Group 2, on February 14, it would not apply to you, either. The reason I say that it can’t reach you is that you have to have aided and abetted a party in the action. That condition exists when two parties work together. We’ll touch on that, a little later.