Stealing Valor

Stealing Valor

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 9, 2014

There have been efforts to discredit a man who has served, honorably, in the United States Army, active duty from June 2001 through January 2006.

The question arises out of whether he was an Airborne Ranger, or, an Airborne ranger. Hardly a violation of the Stolen Valor Act. Instead, well, let’s look at what he did do.

Prior to his separation from service, he received The Army Commendation Medal. The citation reads:

The Army Commendation Medal
Sergeant Ryan W. Payne
F Co, 51st Infantry, 519th Military Intelligence Battalion
For exceptionally meritorious service as a long range surveillance senior scout observer and assistance team leader. Sergeant Payne brought to every mission outstanding initiative, professionalism, and dedication to duty. His selfless service has been in the finest military tradition and reflects great credit upon himself, the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade, and the United States Army.
From 1 March 2002 to 1 January 2006

ACM SGT LR

Note that he served “as a long range surveillance senior scout observer and assistance team leader.”Not only were their Rangers doing “long range surveillance”, there were Airborne qualified personnel doing “long range surveillance” They did the same duties as a Ranger, though they were only rangers. They did not earn the tab “Ranger”, and Payne has never claimed that he had earned the tab.

I hope that we haven’t come to the point that when his sons asks, “what did you do in the War, Daddy?”, he would have to say that he was a long range “hiker”, since ranger has become politically incorrect.

Ryan received another Army Commendation Medal, as well. That citation reads:

The Army Commendation Medal
Spc. Ryan W. Payne
Exemplary Service during combat operations with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) from 19 March 2003 to 05 June 2003 in Iraq. His selfless service and duty performance during Operation Iraqi Freedom contributed significantly to the Division’s success in liberating three key cities and to the establishment of a Free Iraq. His professionalism and commitment to excellence reflect great credit on him, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), and the United States Army.

However, the nit pickers, in their efforts to demean Ryan Payne, have chosen to attack his successful (read the citations, again) “meritorious service” at Bunkerville, holding the chaotic mass of militia and molding them into a cohesive force, by attacking his likewise successful service to his country as the tool to accomplish their nefarious objective.

No, the is not a case of “Stolen Valor”, it is simply a case of “Stealing Valor”.

36 Comments

  1. Matt Mccleary says:

    Thank you for your service and for being a TRUE AMERICAN. We all forget what its takes to be a free (sorta) people and its true MEN like you that remind us to hold our morals and values closely…THANK YOU. Matt

  2. Kyle Rearden says:

    I suspected a smear job was being conducted by the Oathbreakers, but I haven’t seen any solid evidence they were lying until these Army Commendation Medals were made public. This is yet another reason why no lover of liberty can afford to hand-hold government agents, because they will sooner or later find a convenient excuse to stab you in the back all the while blaming you for it, just as bullies blame their victims for what they themselves do.

    Speaking of government agents, I am pleased Payne no longer serves the despotic interests of the military-industrial complex. The more veterans who are willing to teach Americans how to engage in self-defense, then the better as far as I am concerned.

  3. Mr. Adrian DeLoche says:

    I am a Christian, Veteran, Patriot, and ready to fight against tyranny at the age of 60. I wish I had such awards. Is he running for office? Why is he being attacked this way? One thing about the spineless liberals, when the time comes, that fighting begins, either hand to hand, or gunfire, they will run away to hide and shit in their basements,and hope they come out without a scratch. They will not win, because they only talk bullshit.

  4. Tom S. says:

    I’m curious about a couple of things in this story.

    Did you take those pictures of the Commendations, Mr. Hunt? If not, have you seen them yourself?

    I was active duty many years prior to Mr. Payne’s Iraq-era service, and everything from my Boarding Pass to fly to Basic Training to my DD-214 had my middle initial printed on them, and every single piece of paper addressed or referencing me in between those two dates did too. Only one of these Commendations has a middle initial listed on it, but admittedly, that is a minor point and evidence of nothing more significant than a factoid question really.

    However, the Commendations are clearly evidence of a major issue too, and one which you apparently slough off as immaterial in the title of this blog post – that being, was Mr. Payne ever an Army Ranger? There’s no such thing as a “ranger” with a lower-case “r.” Was he or was he not, a Ranger, and if he wasn’t, why on Earth does that not matter to you?

    I have remained very reticent to involve myself in discussions about the rift between OK’ers and militia because I don’t think it helps anybody, least of all, the Bundy family. I am also predisposed to support the militia side of any dispute over that of the OK’ers because I’m not particularly impressed with OK’er’s track record in preventing the unconstitutional actions of law enforcement. Witness the hundreds of thousands of illegal searches in just the Dorner and the Boston bomber manhunts combined. But I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears as Ryan Payne said that OK’ers should be shot in the back in that circle-jerk video where he led a vote to determine how the militia would conduct itself after OK’ers left the area. The video is very scarce now and I’m not going to go find it, but you know what I’m talking about. What military man designated as a leader would hold a vote about policy and procedures within a militia encampment? And worse still, what kind of leader spreads treason charges and “shot in the back” rhetoric around the entire world via a video that he acknowledged while it was being shot, that he had to know was destined for YouTube and elsewhere on the web?

    Your defense of this man without him having answered to the allegations coming out of multiple organizations and websites seems premature at best, and outright sycophancy at worst.

    I guess your readers are to assume that the “Outpost of Freedom” blog’s position is that it is in the furtherance of freedom that Ryan Payne lied about being a Ranger, proven by the very evidence you put on display here to excuse the lie.

    We have very divergent ideas about what furthers freedom, Sir.

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      Tom S.,
      No, I did not take the pictures of the Commendations, though I doubt that they are photo shopped, considering the oblique angle. If they were to be falsified, it would be logical to simply create a forged document instead of a photographic copy.
      My time in service predates Iraq, too. I received a Commendation, and though I no longer have a copy, as I recall, it only had my first and last names. Of course, there is no central point for such, as mine was printed at the facility that gave the Commendation, in Oberammergau, Germany. Unlike orders and discharges, I don’t really know if there is a standard for such commendations. So, we may both speculate on that point, however, the one side has provided something to substantiate his position, while the other has not.
      So, let’s look at the other side. Oath Keepers have made a point of including CSPOA, Mike Vanderboegh, and iii%ers in their attack on Ryan Payne. It seems that all other attacks are parroting of those that have emanated room two of those sources. So, do we take that as multiple sources, or parroting from those two sources?
      More importantly, where is their evidence? They say that he said something, though in this day and age of cell phones and video cameras, where is the evidence that he said what they say he said. Where is the substance to their accusation? It it in the words of someone that said that he said that he was a Ranger? If the former, there might be substance to what they say, unless he didn’t quite say what they say he said. If the latter, why give credence to something that has not any substance, and may simply be manufactured to discredit both his valor in military service and his work at Bunkerville.
      On your final point, if he alluded to being on a long range surveillance team, as does the Commendation, was that reconstructed to demonize him as having said something that he didn’t say? Shouldn’t we all require evidence when the allegations are as severe as these are?
      Surely, you remember the advertising phrase, “Where’s the beef?” So, I ask you, where is the beef? Or, more precisely, absent proof to the contrary, are they trying to Steal Ryan Payne’s Valor?

  5. Tom S. says:

    Gary Hunt said: “On your final point, if he alluded to being on a long range surveillance team, as does the Commendation, was that reconstructed to demonize him as having said something that he didn’t say? Shouldn’t we all require evidence when the allegations are as severe as these are?”

    Sir, are you saying that you haven’t seen the video of the voting that Mr. Payne led shortly after the OK’ers left the area? Are you saying that you didn’t hear the indisputable evidence of Payne calling the OK’ers deserters, treasonous and traitors, and saying something about that kind of behavior would get people shot in the back (or “fragged” in our semi-elderly nomenclature) with the people he served with? Is the existence of such a video news to you?

    In the video, there was no misconstruing of anything he said. He was specifically talking about the OK’ers. I’ll do my best to find it for you if you say you haven’t seen it, but really, if you haven’t even seen it and are accusing everyone else who was there of maligning Payne’s name for no valid reason, you are missing most of the information that made a response from people who were there, like Vanderboegh and OK’ers, necessary in the first place.

    I would’ve been fine with leaving it at point – counter-point between Payne in the voting video and OK’ers and Vanderboegh making their respective responses, and I said that I think the back-and-forth is hurting more than helping not only the liberty movement, but the Bundy family. I actually came here looking for the voting video only because I knew you were blogging on the subject, and found this post with you continuing the back-and-forth instead, so I replied to it. But now it seems you haven’t even seen the voting video, so you’re furthering more misinformation than anyone! I’ll try to find the video, but damn man, I can’t fathom how you could’ve missed it. BBL.

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      Tom S.,
      Since you insist, I will address your point. What he said might be deemed rhetoric, but you don’t take it that way.
      So, let’s put it in a different perspective. Why were all of those armed people in Bunkerville? There is no doubt that the majority were there to protect the Bundy family and property. Anyone there for other purpose should not have been in the militia area, encamped with the militia.
      So, they militia, acting in the intended capacity as first line of defense meets to provide that first line of defense in protecting the Bundys.
      Now, I know that the militia, historically, would be the first to turn and run, and many of them were executed during the Revolutionary and Civil wars. The last execution for “desertion under fire” occurred during World War II. However, the UCMJ still has provision for execution for desertion under fire. Under fire is when you are in a combat zone, in an offensive or defensive operation. The bullets need not be firing, since the whole concept is to hold your position.
      So, a “threat” occurs. For the safety of “their guys” Oath Keepers “advance to the rear” and the Virgin River Casino, leaving the volunteers militia alone to carry out the mission, with a possible drone strike and death as their reward. Now, these are volunteers who have at their own expense, traveled from their homes to put their lives on the line to fulfill their mission. They didn’t run, though they could have, quite easily.
      Then, we have these “brave heroes” members of Oath Keepers, affirming their oath in defense of the Constitution and sworn to not obey an unconstitutional order. By their assembly at the ranch, they have, by those actions, entered the Constitutional role of the militia. Then, they flee. Payne didn’t flee. Others didn’t flee, including a mother, Mrs. Shark, and her children — who held their ground, regardless of the potential risk of life. Those who have come under the auspices of Oath Keepers, fled.
      Washington had deserters shot — as an example that you don’t desert, period — let along, under fire. That was what they deserved when they left the support they were obliged to to others, increasing the risk on those who remained.
      Payne’s words were a far less severe warning than Washington’s choice, but, still, a warning that deserters have no role in what is going on in terms of protection of our rights under the Constitution.
      So, they only question remaining is whether the deserters:
      a) Should have been shot, or,
      b) An expression of their cowardice and a suggestion of their just deserts would be more appropriate, under the circumstance.
      What is your answer?

  6. Tom S. says:

    How about you post the video and let your readers decide for themselves if it was just a passing reference to what would happen to soldiers under the UCMJ. I found it. I hate that the only place it’s available now is at a far-left, progressive, nearly-the-depth-of-depravity website called “Hate Watch,” but maybe that’s because whoever owns the copyright to it had it removed because it made the militia look just like the redneck idiots that left-wingers make out everybody who’s even slightly right of center out to be – just sitting ’round with our assault weapons lookin’ fer a fight wit da gubmint. Let your readers decide, Gary. They weren’t passing references, they were damn near terroristic threats.

  7. Peter Osmar says:

    I have heard it.. and it was not a threat. It was the suggested and rightful consequence for desertion. I remember being given the same warning by a Combat Veteran Sgt long ago when I served. You don’t run.. If you do you will be shot..

    To twist this statement into a threat is just as dishonest as twisting Mr. Bundys words into racism.

    As far as only being able to find it on “Hate watch”,, How about getting it from the source.. It is still on the mans site,,and he has been documenting from the beginning,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcqp3n9mXZE

    There are a lot more videos there as well.

    • Tom S. says:

      Gary has seen fit to disallow my response to his and your allegations of “desertion.” I saved the post and will re-post it if he says he’ll allow it, which I doubt he will because I call that allegation exactly what it is: Idiocy.

      “Outpost of Freedom” just so long as you agree with the votes taken in a kangaroo court while suggesting that you have the authority to “shoot people in the back.” Utterly disgusting that so-called Patriots to The Constitution could post such drivel.

      • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

        Tom S.,
        You are correct that I did not approve your post, however, you are absolutely incorrect as to why. Let me give you a quote from the Anti-Federalists Papers:
        “The FREEDOM OF THE PRESS hath, in consequence thereof, been esteemed one of its safeguards. That freedom gives the right, at all times, to every citizen to lay his sentiments, in a decent manner, before the people, If he will take that trouble upon himself, whether they are on point or not, his countrymen are obliged to him for so doing; for, at least, they lead to an examination of the subject upon which he writes.”
        “John DeWitt,” Essay III, Nov. 5, 1787
        Read carefully that part where it says “in a decent manner”. Understand that attacks on individuals (ad hominem) do nothing to support your argument, though it does reflect upon your character.
        I have allowed some posts that imply the character of someone, most often the one being attacked is myself. However, when the attack is strong and the argument weak, you can expect it to go where it belongs (ever hear of “trash” mouth?).
        So, no, I won’t approve what you wrote, though I will approve one that is decent in its presentation.

      • Peter Osmar says:

        There was no threat,, listen again to the conversation.. they are discussing a anticipated apology (which I have never heard).

        “You can say your sorry and you are lucky you are not getting shot in the back, because that is what happens to deserters on the battlefield.”

        That is not a threat,, that is the consequence of desertion,, for the purpose of addressing the gravity of the situation.

        And I don’t know if an apology was ever given.. The OKs video did not sound like an apology to me.

        And yes,, it was a desertion. One which Stewart Rhoades was certainly free to do on his own,, but usurping any command authority was not.

        I followed this whole event from the 9th,,and was following live the day of the confrontation,, and the arrival of Rhodes and others. And I was initially pleased to see him there.. But this,, seriously disgusts.. and the smear tactics behind it stink even worse.

        • Michael Butler says:

          I agree with your assessment Peter. The bottom line for me is the Bundy’s have chosen their militia/security representatives and haven’t seen fit to make any changes, so that should tell you right there who they have confidence in and who they don’t. If you don’t like who they’ve chosen, well that’s your problem and you’ll need to get over it and focus on the bigger picture, or move on.

  8. Anonymous says:

    While it is true that the F Co, 51st Infantry of the Vietnam War era did get reflagged as G Co, 75th Infantry (Ranger), and for a brief period of time, LRS and Ranger units were effectively the same thing, that hasn’t been true for over 40 years. Since then, the only way to be a Ranger is to either be a graduate of the Ranger School, serve in a unit of the 75th Ranger Regiment, or both. Payne’s military service, while certainly admirable and “high speed”, doesn’t fit that criteria. It might have been a true claim in 1969, but it’s disingenuous (if not outright false) now. End of discussion.

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      It is not the end of the discussion. Actually, it is the beginning of the discussion.
      There are allegations that Ryan Payne claimed to be a “Ranger”. Those are allegations. If he said that, in this age of cell phones and video cameras, where is the proof that he said that he was a Ranger?

      • CzarChasmIII says:

        “If he said that, in this age of cell phones and video cameras, where is the proof that he said that he was a Ranger?”

        So lack of audio recordings is proof that Ryan Payne didn’t say what has been alleged now? Anybody can get away with saying anything that isn’t true under such a standard as long as they observe that no one is video recording them. It proves nothing to me either way, for or against his veracity.

        For those of us who weren’t there, we have to consider the source of anything being tossed around. I’m a regular reader of Sipsey Street Irregulars, and have followed the drama from there for the most part. I noticed in one of your replies to another Comment that you say, “Oath Keepers have made a point of including CSPOA, Mike Vanderboegh, and iii%ers in their attack on Ryan Payne.” You seem to be alleging some collusion between Oath Keepers, Mike and CSPOA, and I think you’d be hard pressed to substantiate that, especially with Mike. He is not an Oath Keeper, and says so in the piece devoted to the Payne controversy. Oh, and by the way, have you heard any video or audio recordings between the parties you mention that would prove that Oath Keepers have “made a point of including” Mike or Mack’s group in their “attack” on Ryan Payne? Seems if it’s good enough to require such umm….bulletproof proof of what Payne said about being a Ranger, that you should be required to provide a similar standard of proof for your (at least) implied allegations. Anyway, Mike’s piece was clearly divided between what he was told Ryan said, and what he observed through his own eyes and ears, and the bulk of his piece is devoted to the latter. Considering a source I’ve read for years, and know personally on a casual basis, whether or not the Ranger thing is accurate seems rather a minor issue compared to what Mike said he observed over several days.

        Whatever. You have chosen to believe Ryan’s version of events, and there are multiple other on-scene accounts to consider that some will take as at least as credible. That is the reader’s/listener’s prerogative. Either way, not having an audio/video recording of what all’s been said between at least tens of parties, if not a hundred or more, is proof of nothing. Whoever first said to someone else, “That guy over there told me he was an Army Ranger” is no more or less credible than you saying that Ryan said to you that he never said it to anyone. And Mike stating his own personal observations of the man is not proof that he’s in league with Oath Keepers.

        • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

          Czar,
          If someone makes an allegation that someone said something, and he can’t prove it, is it true because the allegation was made? If no camera, at least meet the standard of a witness testifying and provide a source who heard it and what he said. Otherwise, as you choose to do, you simply believe what you want to believe. Boy, that speaks poorly of those who will believe anything that they want to believe, and choose to challenge a call for proof.

          The Oath Keepers, in their effort to slam Payne chose to include those names as standing on the some ground. So, you criticize me for pointing out what they said. Nice world we live in. Not guilt by association, rather, guilt by pointing out a provable (you know what that is, don’t you) apparent association. However, I can, prove what I said. See http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/29/bundy-ranch-advisory-for-april-29-2014/ ), unlike those who have chosen to cast the first stone.

          You have yet to provide a single person who said that Ryan said what you say he said. Now, I would suggest that if you have some close friends with no high moral standards, you might be able to find one that, whether there, or not, can make the claim that Ryan said what he didn’t say, even, probably, providing and exact quote. However, at this late date — after all of the unsubstantiated allegations — I think that I would find that very hard to swallow, as would those who don’t have a dog in that fight.

          • CzarChasmIII says:

            “The Oath Keepers, in their effort to slam Payne chose to include those names as standing on the some ground. So, you criticize me for pointing out what they said. Nice world we live in. Not guilt by association, rather, guilt by pointing out a provable (you know what that is, don’t you) apparent association. However, I can, prove what I said. See http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/29/bundy-ranch-advisory-for-april-29-2014/ ), unlike those who have chosen to cast the first stone.”

            Seems to me rather an oxymoron to rely on what you describe as a “provable *apparent* association,” but whatever.

            Otherwise, I don’t know….I took that “Thank you” from Oath Keepers to Mike as being in reference to what they perceived as objective reporting, as opposed to taking sides, because his write-up on his whole time there was just as critical towards the Keepers as it was towards the militia. He slammed them for believing the drone strike intel, and likewise slammed their poor decision to leave the area. He was likewise critical of Stewart Rhodes directly on more than one issue in the write-up. The link at the OK site went to a short piece dated April 28th saying “…expect more later, but there’s a tornado bearing down on me, so I gotta git” (paraphrased, obviously). His full analysis was published on May 1st, but it’s probably safe to assume that what he would say in the following couple of days was discussed during their phone call. The piece is here in case you haven’t seen it:

            http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/05/there-is-no-teacher-but-enemy-bundy.html

            As to your question, “If someone makes an allegation that someone said something, and he can’t prove it, is it true because the allegation was made?” – Of course not, but neither Mike nor OK are the only ones throwing accusations around, all of which I personally find distasteful. Mike addresses some of the militia accusations towards OK in the link above, and vice-versa. He talked to Rhodes – you talked to Payne – He helped to get Rhodes’ and OK’s side of the story out – you are helping to get Payne’s out. In his own observations of Payne, he has made what he considers to be “obvious” conclusions about him being a government plant – You have decided to take what you must perceive as believable that Ryan has told you as being “obvious” too, or at least believable to your satisfaction. What’s the problem? What is Mike, or OK for that matter, doing that you and Ryan haven’t done in nearly identical ways?

            As for CSPOA, I never even heard of the .org before the Bundy issue blew, and don’t pay much attention to any LE-centric people or .orgs to begin with, even though I have heard of Richard Mack individually. I do note though, that Mike never even mentions Mack or CSPOA in his full analysis piece, so if you’re wondering why I’m not addressing that part of your “provable apparent association” allegation, there ya go.

            I contend that Mike’s communications with Rhodes and the rest was for no other reason than to get at the truth of ALL of the controversies, missteps, infighting and inefficiencies, and the Ranger thing was one of the least important issues needing to be resolved, if at all, nor was it needed to distill important lessons from for the next confrontation with the federal beast. He ended his analysis with a list of lessons and not once did he mention Ryan Payne by name in that list. After that list, he said this:

            “There are many other lessons. The enemy has taught them to us at a great price at the Bundy Siege. The only question is can we be smart enough, self-critical enough, honest enough, to grasp them and to refuse to make such mistakes in the future. This is a long war, an eternal war really. The domestic enemies of the Constitution and the Founders’ Republic will be there until we defeat them — or we are ourselves defeated by our own failures to learn the lessons that they teach us.”

            Mike has hardly “stolen the valor” of Ryan Payne. Payne either has it and owns it, or he doesn’t, but whichever the case may be in that regard, Mike simply used the controversy to teach his readers some important lessons, rather than just form up in the circular firing squad of recriminations that slander EVERYBODY in close proximity to any of the principles when nothing but unsubstantiated accusations are the focus of discussion.

            I submit to you that there are more important issues than whether or not proof of what Payne is alleged to have said exists. That is all.

  9. Kilkee says:

    These two commendations establish two things. He was never a Ranger, and he was never Airborne. If he ever claimed to be an “Airborne Ranger” he was lying through his teeth and knew it.

  10. CzarChasmIII says:

    Gary Hunt: “If no camera, at least meet the standard of a witness testifying and provide a source who heard it and what he said.”

    An absolutely fair request, Gary. Two eye/ear witnesses right here, with another named witness mentioned, but not present. 17:40:

    http://youtu.be/4HkSAewoESg?t=17m40s

    I found a reference to that quite by accident. I’ve seen the video, but haven’t listened to the whole thing. Still haven’t in fact. As I’ve maintained, it isn’t the most important issue to me. Anyway, someone on a forum asked basically the same question you did, “Who heard him say he was a Ranger?” Another poster’s answer was that video with a link to 17:40. Rather an unequivocal testimony the man on the right gives. You and your readers can decide for yourselves, but there’s exactly what you said would meet at least a minimum standard of credible evidence, and it represents not just one person who heard Ryan say he was an “Army Ranger,” but three.

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      I doubt that any person would accept the word of an accuser as valid testimony, so I stand by what I said — regardless of the claims, absent evidence, to the contrary.
      I heard what they said at the at meeting, weeks ago. By the way, that guy in the black shirt introduced himself as MARSOC, psychological warfare. So, why do you say it is “unequivocal”?
      Now, I do have an audio of Mrs. Shark. It disputes, unequivocally, that what they said is, to be simple and accurate, bullshit. But, you want me to believe them?
      Thanks, but, No Thanks.

      • CzarChasmIII says:

        Gary Hunt: “I doubt that any person would accept the word of an accuser as valid testimony…”

        That’s an amazing statement coming from someone who has never posted a single challenge to the accusations from Mr. Payne about the Oath Keepers being thieves, traitors and cowards.

        This just doesn’t seem to be a search for truth with you. You’re snarky and accusatory towards anyone who doesn’t just jump on the Ryan Payne bandwagon. Why is that? How did you become so thoroughly invested in Payne’s side of this juvenile squabble?

        Gary Hunt: “But, you want me to believe them?
        Thanks, but, No Thanks.”

        You will not find a single sentence that states I “believe” anyone from OK’s or the militia’s side. As regards the part of the OK video that I attempted to draw your attention to, I simply provided what you asked for; someone who says they themselves personally heard Ryan Payne say he was an Army Ranger. Anyone who says that is, by definition, an “accuser” to you because you are so heavily invested in countering the notion that he ever said it for some reason.

        Gary Hunt: “By the way, that guy in the black shirt introduced himself as MARSOC, psychological warfare. So, why do you say it is “unequivocal”?”

        Wow Gary. Might this be an accusation that the man is lying? Are you now “stealing the valor” of a combat veteran Marine just because he served a certain vital role in military operations in theater? I mean, it almost sounds like you’re accusing Mr. Casillas of having no personal integrity, of shilling for an agenda that is not made apparent through his words and actions, and of posing as a true Patriot whose intentions were never pure when he showed up in Bunkerville. Any of those kinds of accusations sound familiar, Gary? Is throwing them back and forth at each other doing anything good for the Bundys, the militia, OK’ers or the wider Patriot Movement?

        I said it was “unequivocal” because his testimony was exactly that. He said that he and the guy sitting to the right of Stewart Rhodes personally heard Ryan Payne say he was an “Army Ranger.” He was unequivocal about relaying what he said they heard, and the guy on the other side of the table nodded his head in agreement. I didn’t say “I unequivocally believe them,” I said the testimony was unequivocal in what they were trying to convey, and it most certainly was.

        Gary Hunt: “Czar,
        I think that it is a very accurate representation of what was said. It varies very little little from what William White and others have said (not sure of the original source). Now, read it carefully — does he say that he is a Ranger? Or does he say “a Ranger unit developed during Vietnam as Long Range Patrol”?
        So, really, what did he say? Any others here that want to put their 2¢ in? Or, have cognitive processes been lost?”

        And the snark continues. Cognitive processes aside, Gary, you need some work on reading comprehension before we even get to the more complicated memes like cognitive dissonance etc. I only asked you one question about that short bio – “…can you confirm or refute that the following came from his FaceBook Profile?”

        Can you?

        • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

          You suggest that I jumped in on the Payne side of the squabble. I won’t disagree with that. I jumped in on the side that I thought was correct. Now, you state that a rather ambiguous statement is unequivocal. It is ambiguous. He didn’t tell us what words were used, however, you posted a statement attributed to Payne. I agreed with what was said, though I have not research that specific source. I consider it unequivocal in that Payne told me the same thing, though in different words. So, we have specific words and concurrence of the specifics of the statement, yet you want to give greater merit to a very general statement, without any specificity.
          So, let’s try it this way:
          Witness #1: I heard Ryan Payne say that he was an Army Ranger.
          Witness #2: I heard Ryan Payne say, “I enlisted in the US Army at the age of 17, and served in F-Co, 51st Infantry, the 18th Airborne Corps Long Range Surveillance Company, a Ranger unit developed during Vietnam as Long Range Patrol, used for missions deep inside enemy controlled territory. I was discharged as a Sergeant/E5, Assistant Team Leader of a LRS Team in 2006. I was involved in the initial invasion of Iraq, OIF I, and returned at the end of 2004 for OIF III. My team planned and executed numerous combat missions in theater, usually at great distance from friendly support. I am not highly decorated nor was I an exceptional member of the unit, but I did the best job I could, and have attempted to hold myself to the Ranger Creed, in service to my country, my community, my family, and employers.” I also heard him say, “I am a member of the West Mountain Rangers, a militia unit in Montana“.
          Note that I can’t put “he was an Army Ranger” in quotes, as those would not be the words of Payne, rather, those of the witness.
          Now, as far as “thieves, traitors and cowards”, let’s try to be objective. “Thieves” are those who steal. Equipment was donated to the purpose of protecting the Bundys. This included some night vision equipment and other military style equipment. The Virgin River Casino has electricity, and I’m sure that the night vision goggles were not necessary there, though they would have been quite useful if there had been a drone attack — for those who remained to do what they came to do — protect the Bundys.
          “Traitors”, well, I don’t quite agree with this, though they did act in a very disloyal manner to those who came to protect the Bundys and had 30 – 40 men lost from that effort, ignoring the command structure that was in place.
          “Cowards”? Who us to say. Maybe they were late for a date with a prostitute. But, cowards abandon their post and professed responsibility when fear comes into the picture.
          So, that’s two out of three that seem to be well established as to their correctness.
          As far as Robert Casillas (black shirt in OK video), his training is in psychological warfare. Think about that. Lying is his profession — to create an image that does not, by itself, exist. I give you a higher rating in credibility, as it was you that posted what Payne really said, though your objective is the same as Casillas. So, you see the difference in your training and his? So, you ask if I am accusing him of lying. Well, that is his job. I would suppose that what he heard is nearly identical to what you posted (the quotation), though he twisted it to make it appear other than what it was. After all, the video was a feeble effort to distract attention from what Oath Keepers did and redirect attention to Payne — PsyOps.
          If Casillas did go “posing as a true Patriot whose intentions were never pure when he showed up in Bunkerville“, then he is a coward and abandoned his post and the purpose that he went to Bunkerville. Why can you not see that?
          To your final point, I see no reason to refute what you have posted, though I need not take the time to verify. I agree with what was said in what you quoted and that it was quite consistent with what Payne told me. To refute it would be to support Casillas’ content, without specificity. I always have preferred direct quotes to innuendo.

          • Tom S. says:

            Good grief. I didn’t ask you to confirm or refute the veracity of what I copied and pasted, I asked if you could confirm or refute where it came from, specifically, Ryan Payne’s FaceBook Profile. I don’t do FB or else I would check for myself if his Profile reads as I posted it, or check for myself through Google cache searches if his Profile contained that exact text verbatim anytime between early to mid April and about a week ago. I didn’t challenge a single word, letter or punctuation mark of the text, I just wanted to know where it came from. I’m trying to validate the authenticity of it before bringing up what I see as an inconsistency, not in the text I copied and pasted, but in something else in the purported Profile of Ryan Payne. In other words, I’m vetting my source, and not relying on unsubstantiated accusations before either going with it, or dismissing it. You ought to try that some time.

          • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

            Then you find someone to do your work for you. I am not that person. I simply confirmed that it is very consistent with what I was told.
            I could care less what his Facebook page says, as I have sufficient confirmation of his background and what he is known to have said (or written), not what words someone else has put in his mouth.
            Do your own homework. I do mine.

  11. CzarChasmIII says:

    Gary, I’m curious about something else. You seem to know a lot about Ryan Payne and what he’s said at any given moment, so can you confirm or refute that the following came from his FaceBook Profile?

    “”I enlisted in the US Army at the age of 17, and served in F-Co, 51st Infantry, the 18th Airborne Corps Long Range Surveillance Company, a Ranger unit developed during Vietnam as Long Range Patrol, used for missions deep inside enemy controlled territory. I was discharged as a Sergeant/E5, Assistant Team Leader of a LRS Team in 2006. I was involved in the initial invasion of Iraq, OIF I, and returned at the end of 2004 for OIF III. My team planned and executed numerous combat missions in theater, usually at great distance from friendly support. I am not highly decorated nor was I an exceptional member of the unit, but I did the best job I could, and have attempted to hold myself to the Ranger Creed, in service to my country, my community, my family, and employers.”

    Thanks in advance for helping to fill in any blanks you can.

    • ghunt Gary Hunt says:

      Czar,
      I think that it is a very accurate representation of what was said. It varies very little little from what William White and others have said (not sure of the original source). Now, read it carefully — does he say that he is a Ranger? Or does he say “a Ranger unit developed during Vietnam as Long Range Patrol”?
      So, really, what did he say? Any others here that want to put their 2¢ in? Or, have cognitive processes been lost?

      • og says:

        What follows has been posted on http://operationmutualaid1.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/8900683-militia-commanders-patriots-please-read for over a year. Nowhere does it say he claims to be a Ranger. It just humbly states his experience very simply with truth. The Commendations back that up.

        Besides the fact that Rangers argue over what constitutes being a Ranger anyways, including whether being tabbed is even a “Ranger” (the 75th don’t believe tabbed makes you a ranger, but what you do after school and whether you are in regiment does), which lineage is acceptable, if you can recite the Creed (the Ranger atmosphere in LRS is so high Ryan probably had to cite it just to eat chow), or even if Quantrill of the Confederate was a Ranger. LRS is an elite group with no real home of acceptance really. A bastard group with extremely strong Ranger presence. “Stealing Valor” in this case really does come to mind.

        As posted by Ryan Payne:

        “I am Ryan Payne, democratically elected leader of a small militia unit representing members from Granite, Deer Lodge, and Powell counties in southwest Montana. By this position I am assigned the rank of Lieutenant. I enlisted in the US Army at the age of 17, and served in F-Co, 51st Infantry, the 18th Airborne Corps Long Range Surveillance Company, a Ranger unit developed during Vietnam as Long Range Patrol, used for missions deep inside enemy controlled territory. I was discharged as a Sergeant/E5, Assistant Team Leader of a LRS Team in 2006. I was involved in the initial invasion of Iraq, OIF I, and returned at the end of 2004 for OIF III. My team planned and executed numerous combat missions in theater, usually at great distance from friendly support. I am not highly decorated nor was I an exceptional member of the unit, but I did the best job I could, and have attempted to hold myself to the Ranger Creed, in service to my country, my community, my family, and employers.”

  12. Lewis Arthur says:

    I was on the ground at Bundy Ranch. As was my brother and several others who would testify to Ryan Payne’s claim that he was a Ranger, wore a Ranger patch occassionally, and cited the “Ranger Creed” he learned in Ranger School. I myself believed Ryan was a Ranger. However, Ryan DID Serve this Nation where I did not. Credit given and deserved. As an individual labelled a “Fed” by Ryan who blames a supposed female “journalist” and witness to several other lies told by Ryan; I will say that even though he Served… he failed to live up to the standards of so many others who are by far greater than myself. I am no fan of the OathKeeper Leadership after witnessing their flight the night of the “Drone strike.” Nor am I a fan of Ryan who lied repeatedly and set forth the atmosphere where my own Patriot brothers and sisters sought to “place a bullet in my head.” Ryan was given recordings which outlined the attempt to mobilize our Militias in an offensive capacity… then he labelled me a “Fed” and Patriots stole over $10,000 of my brother’s and my own personal gear. Ryan may be no Patriot. He may be no villain as well. Many of us repeated lies we believed to be true. I have thought long and hard on this issue. As a person who once believed Ryan was a Federal plant… I question my own belief. Our Nation is in dire need of ANY who would step up to defend it. I pray for my daughter’s sake that Ryan was misguided as I was… that he faltered like many others… that he loves our Nation like I do. We can argue “Ranger” all day… but if Ryan was merely misguided – then I forgive him and aknowledge his sacrifice for the Bundy’s where so many others remained idle and did nothing. If you were not there – what right have you to judge? Since returning home to North Carolina I have found far more lies I once believed to be true, than truths I once believed to be lies. Gary Hunt himself was victim to lies I believed… in order for me to learn the lessons I desperately need to learn, I must accept my own failures. My advice to everyone is this – QUESTION EVERYTHING – be not hasty to judge… egg on the face is a humbling experience I wish no one else would have to face. We must find the truth… but never harm others in the persuit of it. I pray these words I have written will not divide those of us who share the same Cause. God Bless you all.

  13. Kate says:

    I don’t give a crap about his medal’s show the damn copy of the dd214 or shut the hell up. and make sure it wasn’t made by him, you can request a blank copy of a dd214, because I just did it with a copy of my son’s death certificate. so that part is easy. Your back and forth crap makes it hard to stay on track in the first place. Remove your lips from Payne’s ass and produce a copy of the ORIGINAL dd214 that shows that he was at BENNING for Ranger school or shut up, because you are irrelevant and helping to cover for his lies.

    • ghunt ghunt says:

      Kate,
      Your accusations are not called for. I assume that you can write civilly, you have simply failed to demonstrate that capability.
      However, perhaps you need to understand some things. First, there is a difference between awards and medals. The certificates are awards.
      Second, there is no proof that he ever said he went to Ranger School, at Fort Benning, or anywhere else. He said he was in a Ranger Unit.
      Third, My lips have nothing to do with what or how I approach a story. There were claims made that the said he was a Ranger. In this day and age, everybody has a phone that could easily record what he said. So, I contacted six people that made that claim. Their claim is based upon their recollection, but they failed to record him saying that he was a Ranger. I do have copies of recordings of him saying that he was in a Ranger unit, so they is evidence that he did say that he was in a unit, but none that he was a Ranger.
      So, I contacted him with a request for proof, and if he forged those awards, he did so rather quickly. He scanned and sent them to me in less than an hour, and it is in color, with texture, and has different fonts, making forging very difficult.. A DD 214 is black and white, and, yes, if you could get a blank DD 214, you could forge it. But, I believe that to do so would be a bit more difficult than getting a blank death certificate. Death certificates are issued by every county in the country, and often doctor’s have their own. That only leave a few hundred-thousand possible sources, none of which would have the security that the Army would have, with regard to blanks.
      So, if we use emotion to decide the matter, as you obviously have, then fuck the facts. However, if we require facts and evidence, then we must judge based upon the facts/evidence that is available. So, please, provide you evidence, and I don’t mean you son’s death certificate.
      Until evidence is provided to the contrary, I will stick to the preponderance, and only, evidence.

  14. […] he had been in “a Ranger unit”. This information was published in an article, “Stealing Valor“, in May 2014. As the title suggests, it was not stolen valor, instead, it was an effort to […]

  15. […] had neglected to mention that he was a veteran back in 2013, so it is entirely possible that he had stolen valor when he claimed to be a former Army Ranger. Marsh’s integrity is also brought into question by […]

  16. […] had neglected to mention that he was a veteran back in 2013, so it is entirely possible that he had stolen valor when he claimed to be a former Army Ranger. Marsh’s integrity is also brought into question […]

Leave a Reply