The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair -Is Anybody in Charge Here?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 23, 2014

There are events currently unfolding in Bunkerville, Nevada, that aren’t apparent to most, and especially not of interest to Mainstream media, however, they are extremely important to the Patriot Community, as you will see.

Let’s revisit this past Saturday, April 12, 2012. The Bundy family, friends, and supporters, numbering in the hundreds, massed in a wash, not far distant from the cattle that had been “arrested”, in conformity with a Court Order, for those cattle trespassing on government land.

Then comes Jerry DeLemus, US Marine Corp veteran (circa 1973), and leader of a Glenn Beck 9/12 Project group, but no known membership or contribution to the militia. Quite interesting that Beck has ridiculed the plight of Cliven Bundy, though Jerry seems to hold Beck in high esteem. According to reports that I have received, he arrived, after a nearly 3,000 mile drive, with 2 vehicles, one driven by his son, Josh, in an exhausted state, and has remained in that state (of exhaustion) since. His hyperactive state (an indication of exhaustion and lots of coffee) can be seen in this rather emotional interview by Stewart Rhodes – Bundy Ranch: We Came Risking Never Coming Home Jerry DeLemus.

Though he was absent from the event that might be deemed the Bundy Cattle Unrustling, which was attended by protestors, some militia members and, of course, the Cowboys. A reserve militia unit was standing by at the Ranch, ready to respond if the call that things were getting bad came from one of the Bundys who was a principle in the events then unfolding at the BLM camp 3 or 4 miles north of the Bunkerville exit on I-15.

While others were calling for additional assistance form volunteers around the country, DeLemus had other ideas. In the Nashua Telegraph, his hometown newspaper published the following from their April 18 edition (an excerpt – http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/1034411-469/nh-man-takes-prominent-role-with-armed.html):

Thursday afternoon, DeLemus was warning others not to come to Bunkerville because “we don’t want an escalation.”
DeLemus said, if a confrontation was to unfold, they would likely be obliterated by federal firepower. DeLemus said he is concerned that more people would enter harm’s way if the number of activists keeps swelling at the Bundy Ranch.
“We’d be able to bloody their noses a little … but we wouldn’t stand a chance,” DeLemus said.

A rather interesting lack of confidence for someone who has just taken charge, and assumed control, over all personnel except the Bundy family.

DeLemus didn’t arrive until well after that event, though upon reporting to the Militia Liaison, and he was delegated to assist Bill Keebler in maintaining organization within the militia camp. DeLemus then “relieved Keebler of “command”, asserting his authority over the entire militia contingent. In subsequent efforts for the Militia Liaison to work with, and pass direction on, from the Bundys, he was responded to with, “These are my guys, you must go through me if you’d like access to them”; “This is my camp and this is my command”; and “Just stay away from here.” Clearly, this late comer, who arrived after the Saturday event, has no known militia ties, had wrested control of the militia operation, even to the point of ignoring the Militia Liaison, which had been the means of communication and of the Bundys means of seeking assistance or requesting any activity of the militia contingent. Rather scary that what had functioned so well, all the way up to and beyond the Saturday event, was now being taken over by someone that had no dog in the fight, and was unwilling to relinquish any “power” that he had assumed, if to the extent of the previously fluid communication between the Bundys and the militia.

Now, to understand the role of the Militia Liaison, first established and approved by the Bundys. The Militia Liaison arrived at the ranch on April 8. He met with Cliven Bundy and explained that Operation Mutual Aid (OMA) had sent requests for militia to come to the ranch, and he had come to coordinate their activity. It was agreed that he would be the interface (liaison) between the family and the militia, and he agreed that a force of volunteers would could serve in the capacity of a Security Team (Personal Security Detail – PSD), to provide immediate protection for the family. These, however, would be detached for the militia contingent, while serving in that capacity.

As members of the PSD returned to their homes and replacements became necessary, efforts to secure replacements were met with the belligerent assertions of control quoted above, leaving securing additional person for the PSD difficult, and based upon DeLemus’ selection rather than that of the Militia Liaison, so rather than easily dealt with, now sometime requiring off-site visits to interview potential replacements.

To demonstrate the problem, let me provide a quote from a report concerning such difficulty, from an occurrence on April 19:

“I requested 3 men from Jerry’s [DeLemus] contingent for temporary ranch security while I vetted and approved a new PSD leader and personnel. I personally vetted and briefed the personnel that Jerry sent to me before I left to vet new PSD staff, which has remained a decentralized element from militia contingent, While I was gone from the ranch vetting a possible volunteer, Jerry came down to the ranch and found his men on the PSD at the house and proceeded to chew their asses, then he left the house and returned to the ranch entry checkpoint just before I arrived. When I arrived Jerry started yelling at me in front of 5 other men while I was still in my jeep. I exited the jeep and told Jerry we should have the conversation elsewhere in an attempt to not reveal a dissension in the ranks to the men. He followed for about 30 yards and then re-engaged the yelling. His complaint was that I had not informed him of what duty the 3 men I had requested were to perform (which is untrue, he was informed they were for temporary PSD), and that PSD at the house was so important that he had to personally vet all PSD personnel, to which I replied that I had vetted and briefed the men as they reported to me, I felt comfortable with all 3 as I had contact with one for the last 2 years and the other two made no triggers in my interrogation style vetting process. He continued yelling and making aggressive gestures, accusing me of a condescending tone, trying to own the entire situation and he was going to beat my little punk ass.”

So, from chaos brought to order by the Militia Liaison, we then come to a pompous “Napoleon” who must have absolute and complete control over all, though he has no demonstrable ability or prior relationship with militia, and a now disgruntled command.

Though there may have been others, I have received a report that a contingent of six militia members who arrived from the Phoenix, Arizona area, who, upon meeting the new Napoleon, determined that they would not “put up with his shit”, and began their 370 mile return trip, shortly after their arrival.

So, from what began, and succeeded, with a degree of controlled chaos, which should have evolved into a highly organized and cooperative effort has become the ‘command’ of a pompous, self-aggrandizing, untrained (since 1973, and no idea of what rank he held), Glenn Beck advocate (Do you wonder what Beck would say to them having guns, let along supporting Bundy), who is belligerent, abusive, uncooperative, hyperactive, exhausted, unable to demonstrate any leadership qualities, pusillanimous, and otherwise, a totally unqualified individual, who has assumed command, leaving the Militia Liaison in the ticklish position of having to be manly, polite, courteous, and to maintain his distance as not a part of the militia, deal with an insubordinate SOB, and try to reestablish a coherent defensive force in order to continue the operation begun by OMA to provide protection for the Bundys.

As a final thought; as resistance to government intrusions into our rights escalates, perhaps it is time to look back into our history at the militia of both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, where men who were volunteers fought better when they elected their own leaders, rather than having someone, not of their choosing, either by assuming or being appointed to command.

 

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

23 Comments

  1. Elias Alias says:

    Wow. Do you feel that the best thing to do is to stick this BS before the public? What in the name of Hell made you think you should post this to the Internet instead of talking with leadership at the Bundy Ranch to resolve your issues? Damn, Bro – this is a very tacky thing to publish. Please consider taking it down. Thank you,
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor, Oath Keepers dot org

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      Do you think that a resolution of the problem can be had by passing it around in secret circles?
      You seem to think that us airing our problems in public will bring discredit. Based upon the responses I have received, it appears that we will more likely be applauded for doing so.
      I have never taken any article down, nor do I intend to.
      I will point out that one of the people that works with me felt, as you do, so I agreed to send it to a well respected iii%er. He felt as I did, that it should go out — because things are getting serious and all of us, not a select few, need to begin looking closely at who we associate with.

      • Elias Alias says:

        Mr. Hunt,
        Your last sentence above stated –

        “…because things are getting serious and all of us, not a select few, need to begin looking closely at who we associate with.”

        Well, I’ll be glad to say that you said that first.

        Always remember, the truth is what remains when all illusion has been stripped away. A positive position in a positive perspective is the only guidance any self-aware objective-minded soul needs to know about with whom one might associate.

        There is some accounting for taste, and you’ve just proved it. You win.

        See how easy that was?

        Apologies for being late with this reply. As I seldom tarry long I probably won’t be back. Time, in my perception, is the rarest of all known elements and should be harvested at each encounter. Fare thee well in all ways always, but I’ve got work to do.
        Salute!
        Elias Alias

        • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

          Elias,
          If I understand you correctly, thank you.
          The illusion, as I see it, is in the theoretically expressions, actions, training, discussions, etc., that ensued prior to April 12. Those illusions must be stripped away and reality come into play, as the “game” has now entered the realm of “deadly serious”.

    • Kyle Rearden says:

      Mr. Alias,

      Are you saying that the facts presented in the abovementioned article are false? If so, are you willing to put forth any facts you have to demonstrate your claim that this article is false?

      Also, why should Gary only talk privately “with the leadership at the Bundy Ranch” when the whole point of this article is the fact that a particular individual is usurping that very leadership?!

      Frankly, this article piques my curiosity as to his background, and I it poses questions I would like answered, if they ever become available.

      Pray tell, Mr. ALIAS, what exactly is your interest in this story?

  2. 11thCav says:

    “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)

  3. Cowboy says:

    It’s a damn good article and speaks to the heart of the problem plaguing the patriot community.

    It is not just limited to Nevada as California has it own share of Napoleon’s and Walking Dead “Governor’s”.

  4. Cope Reynolds says:

    I vehemently disagree with this article for a number of reasons.
    The biggest reason is, as Elias said above, this kind of stuff shouldn’t be put out for all to see. This was none of your business or anyone else’s other than the people that it directly involved. This kind of back-biting does no one any good.
    For your information, in spite of what was printed here, the 2 individuals that were the main subject of this “article” have since worked out their disagreements and are working well together.
    I like the Militia Liason but in the case in point here, he was wrong. I believe that he has since seen the error of his initial decision, corrected it and moved on. He’s a good guy and I respect him but he made a mistake. Jerry didn’t “sabotage” anything. He recognized a security risk and took the appropriate action although it could have been handled a little more professionally at the onset. Both men have a tough job but I they are both doing it pretty well.

    I would urge you as well to take this story down before it does anymore damage. It is unprofessional and lacks the all the facts.

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      The facts presented in the story were the facts that existed at the time that the article was written.
      I stand by what I write and have never taken an article down. I don’t intend to, now.
      A problem existed. It is clear that someone who admits having no militia contact and had military service in the early seventies, no rank given, though me may be qualified for something, by his attitude and inability to work with others, has demonstrated a problem. If it has been solved, I will rely upon one person to explain that it was solved, and write an explanation of such, as a follow up.
      If that is the case, the lesson has two parts — problem and solution.
      I sought verification and allowed over a day for any clarification. Receiving none, I published the article. I didn’t do so lightly, however, my concern for potential problems, now that the game is on, is great.

  5. Cope Reynolds says:

    [[I sought verification and allowed over a day for any clarification. Receiving none, I published the article.]] LOL! A whole day huh? Published without clarification. Hmmm.

    Gary, I don’t give a shit whether it’s true or not. That’s not the point and I’m not going to sit and argue with a self-aggrandizing, wanna-be news reporter. You’re stirring up shit that doesn’t need to be stirred. The issue is whether it should be aired to everyone. You are simply trying to bring attention to yourself and that’s the bottom line. If you were as patriotic as you profess to be, you would take this down and use a little discretion in how you disseminate your information.
    I am done with this. I will leave it to you to do the right thing

  6. 11thCav says:

    This is the perfect training aid, for any future deployments such as this. Lets hope that Mack learned something as well. Looking at some of the comments above it appears this would be better kept a secret and totally missing the training value I see. But then it appears that pride maybe getting In the way and this would be endangering the good folks that have been there from the very start.

    I also find this statement Interesting and I quote ” This was none of your business or anyone else’s other than the people that it directly involved.” I’m just wondering how Cope came to this conclusion. I think Gary is better connected than Cope or Elias is and doing a much needed job. Anyways whats Cope’s qualifications to make that statement?Is Cope boots on the ground as he said in his comment as a qualifier? If he is, how does he have time to comment on this thread,instead of making sure things are working there as they should and making sure problems like this never have to be written about.The interview between Rhodes and Jerry should have never been published and should have been left on the editing floor. So If you want to be critical lets start there.

  7. ghunt Gary Hunt says:

    I understand, from the militia liaison, that the problem has been resolved, and the Jerry DeLemus has become cooperative and agreed to a shared command — working well with others.

    I am pleased that this turned out the way that it did, and I Applaud Jerry for his change of tactic and realizing that the responsibility, and command, must be shared by those able to demonstrate their abilities to participate, together, to achieve the objective.

    As difficult as this troublesome as this subject has become, it was a discussion that had to take place. We may not have time to address this at the next event, so with this now openly on the table, we have an example of cooperation that will serve to avoid the same, in the future.

    So, again, my applause to Jerry and to all of the others who participated in finding a solution to a problem, that could have, in the future, been very destructive.

    Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom

  8. Jester says:

    The scenario at the Bundy Ranch was seminal and represented uncharted waters. But certain principles can be applied under all conditions. In anticipation of spontaneous need, no unified command structure had been established between disparate irregular militia or patriot cell type groups across state lines not to mention groups like the Oathkeepers who as a whole do not train together, though there may be some subsets who do on their own.

    So whoever was the first group who Mr Bundy took into confidence was on point and their leader the de facto commander on scene. As each new individual or group arrived they were to report to Mr Bundy and the commander from the first group.

    Considering the unique circumstance and likelihood of not knowing one another, each incoming group leader had the responsibility to present his credentials as well as the prerogative to ask the credentials of the current commander. Upon discovery of a significant difference in capability and capacity to command, if the current commander did not offer to step down, that newcomer might be moved to suggest that he relieve the current commander. If the current commander refused, at least the attempt was made, and the one who made the attempt could keep a mental checklist of the performance of the current commander. Upon noting serious incompetence, he could request a meeting with the current commander, Mr. Bundy, and perhaps another group leader, in order to air the perceived problem and seek a solution. There is no need for overbearing exertion of control or underhandedness if the common goal is service to the cause of liberty and justice.

    Judging from the reports of conflict serious enough to be mentioned, including the climate where passionate volunteers felt put off enough to turn away and return home, and other dubious decisions, all occurring as a result of the change of command structure after the incredible successful early actions, indicate that a common sense approach was not taken to minimize such conflicts. Though it is heartening to hear that things are now smoothed over, perhaps whoever finds themselves on point in a similar action in the future and proves to be successful in the early stages will not be so quick to give up command to new arrivals until thoroughly vetted. After all, if success is already there, where is the urgency to cede command? And if the newcomer is indeed significantly more suitable, they would have the patience and ability to prove it convincingly without haste or coercive pressure.

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      Jester,
      A very good analysis.
      I must, however, correct one assumption, that being participation by Mr. Bundy in any decisions regarding the militia. Under what is know as the “law of agency”, the principal would be Mr. Bundy. He, then, would be responsible for those who acted under the presumption of being agents of the principal.
      So, c criminal action by a militia member, whether stupidity, unintentional, or, perhaps, intentional., would place the principal as a responsible party.
      That is why the Militia Liaison is an interface to the two (Bundy and militia), and leaves the responsibility, absent any agency, on the individual in the militia who might commit such act.

      • Jester says:

        Gary,

        I assume the official liaison would be either the commander of the point unit, or someone he delegates from his unit or an assisting unit. Regarding a change of overall command to someone different than the Land/Homeowner originally vested with that authority, a simple notification from the Liaison would suffice if the decision was made deliberately and voluntarily by the original commander. Yet if the occasion is a challenge to that command, it seems that the landowner might reserve the right to be more than informed after the fact but notified prior to the final decision and be present to hear the reasons as to why the person he vested his trust into might be relieved of that office. The other option is he could waive that right and remain aloof from implication in agency, in which case he would lose all input into the decision making process regarding change of command and be satisfied with being cordially informed of such changes by the liaison, regardless of how they come about.

        The degree the landowner wishes to be involved and a candid discussion of the implications should be the first order of business before a verbal agreement is contracted when militias arrive like the calvary to assist the oppressed.

        I witnessed Mr Bundy directing the actions of what amounted to a local unorganized irregular militia on April 12 when the BLM was challenged. While the handful of non-local militia contingents and non-local independent operators spontaneously responded to his direction in the role of overseeing the overall security of that local militia as best they could. In the days leading to that event, it may be that Mr Bundy and the non-local leaders created strategies around the various possible outcomes of the coming days, including the Sheriff standing with them. Mr Bundy did seem to have thought through his demands, as he did not recognize the Sheriff’s announcement and concessions as adequate and something to work with, but immediately made demands that no reasonable person would expect could be made, with the Sheriff making no indication that he would seriously move to the BLM with those demands. An hour later, Mr Bundy followed up with decisive action as if he expected those demands to be refused and directed his militia forward.

        After the successful cooperation between all groups that day to achieve the stated goal of reclaiming the cattle including Bundy’s son’s demand via the Sheriff’s deputy that the BLM vacate the land, the scenario changed to a purely defensive operation at Bundy’s ranch, and had the potential of developing into a standing base to organize local militia, and more, in the near future.

        I think those with brand names saw this. I think the militia men with no ulterior motives want to prevent such a potential asset offered by a new ally in Mr Bundy from being exploited by those they see as potentially compromised by purposes not germane to the current priority of securing the safety of the Bundy’s and their property and establishing the command structure and logistics to achieve that simple end, while relegating any consideration for other uses of Bundy property to a time when the Bundy’s are free of stress and duress in order to secure their considered input and blessings.

        Thank you for hosting this blog and the opportunity to discuss this with you.

        • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

          jester,
          It is a shared command, modeled after the Council of War utilized by Washington and in the Civil War. There is no point unit. Officers of each unit are members of the “Coalition” (as they chose to call it), each having a vote and the militia liaison also having a vote. Here is today’s meeting , filmed and demonstrative of an aspect of how they are working. There are other meetings that may not be considered “public” in nature. An “officer” can be removed by vote of the Coalition, just as you will see the baring of Oath Keeper leadership and those others who vacated their post In the video).
          The landowner (host) is will communicate through the Militia Liaison. There are legitimate legal reasons for this (Law of Agency).The Liaison can be trusted to carry the intentions of the host, or he will be removed, unless, of course, those intentions create unnecessary risk or are tactically impractical.
          Saturday was not a militia effort. Most of the militia were standing guard while a reserve company, ready to respond, was held back at the ranch area — about 4 miles away. The Unrustling was about 3-4 miles north on I-15, which warranted continued ranch security. Mr. Bundy and the supporters were not going on the land prohibited by the injunction contained in the Court Order. It was not militia, as most of those who went to the gate were either unarmed or had side arms.
          You said
          “I think those with brand names saw this. I think the militia men with no ulterior motives want to prevent such a potential asset offered by a new ally in Mr Bundy from being exploited by those they see as potentially compromised by purposes not germane to the current priority of securing the safety of the Bundy’s and their property and establishing the command structure and logistics to achieve that simple end, Thank you for hosting this blog and the opportunity to discuss this with you.”
          In this, you are absolutely correct.

          • Jester says:

            Gary,
            You tube deleted the video at the link you provided. I believe I watched a 10 minute vid of the referenced meeting on Blaine Cooper’s newest channel that he created today.

            My observation of 4/12 was that while not considering themselves militia, the largely local gathering of friends and well wishers (many armed) who responded to Mr. Bundy’s call to move from the protest site to the BLM compound strongly resembled an unorganized irregular militia spurred into action by what they considered a lawful order given by a Citizen who was acting against a threat not addressed satisfactorily by their elected Sheriff. Meanwhile I saw the organized militia supported the effort as you described.

            As far as my use of the phrase “point unit”, this was in reference to the unique situation where some organized militia was the first to respond to a citizen under threat, followed by other unrelated militia units, which I believe to be a first in our modern time. It may even have been that an isolated individual was the very first to present himself to Mr. Bundy as a willing defender who was immediately entrusted with some form of responsibility to oversee and organize any subsequent individuals or groups who aimed to assist in defense.

            In either case, the individual first serving as de facto commander of the defensive forces either instituted the council of war shared command style, or ceded command to another who called for the council style.

            I agree it best in such a situation that the landowner assent to allow the militia leader OR council to approach him through a liaison when they believe his input is needed. As far as war councils go, command by consensus is not always possible, which is why war councils are more or less advisory and morale building. A commander is rightly reluctant to move on an idea without gaining input from officers and majority support, but in case of urgency and non-consensus, officers MUST trust ONE man to weigh in the balance.

            So back to my original thesis regarding this modern day unique situation of various militias with no settled interagency command structure coming to the rescue of some landowner under attack, the first commander on scene to be recognized by the landowner is on point. And of course his command style will be the arbiter as to whether subsequent arrivals stay or leave. If I were the landowner I would insist to briefly meet each group leader who arrived. If the point commander was doing an adequate job, and even went so far as to institute war council for leadership decisions, I would assent wholeheartedly on one condition. If a council meeting were proposed to discuss relieving the point commander of his final decision making (veto) power, I would insist I sit in to hear all that is discussed, in order to form an opinion of who is being nominated for that power and why. After all, the landowner might decide that the decision is not in his best interest and ultimately has veto power inherent in his land ownership. If I did not trust those who were suggesting (or resisting) command change, I might just thank them for their services and ask them to leave, retaining those I trusted.

            J.

          • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

            jester,
            I am working on a paper titled “Organizational Plane for Militia Response”, which, when completed, will answer your questions. I will post it here, as a blog, to open it up for discussion.

  9. Jester says:

    Look forward to it Gary

  10. CP says:

    There is a saying, “We don’t have to like each other to get the job done, but we do have to be professional.”

  11. […] alliances. All you have to do is peruse the examples of miscreants like Jim Stach, Rick Light, Jerry DeLemus, and Brandon Curtiss in order to understand that not adhering to the biblical golden rule of […]

Leave a Reply