OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #3 (151025)

OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #3 (151025)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 5 2018

These audios are being released because the government misrepresented, by cookie-cutting phrases, and presenting out of context statements in their documentation. The documents are “Governments Sentencing Memorandum” (docket 2519) and “Review of OMD Advisory Board Meeting Recordings” (docket 2519-1), which are for the sentencing hearing on Ryan Payne, who plead in the Malheur Refuge case.

It must be understood that what OMD AB was doing was gathering information to present an accurate account of circumstances surrounding an event of possible interest to the patriot community.  We have all seen people asking for help from patriots. Some have merit, some don’t. However, most often, you have only the explanation given by the person asking for help. As we progress through these audios, you will see that people have requested help, but an investigation resulted in finding misrepresentation of certain facts.

As with any brainstorming session, all possibilities, even to the extreme, should be considered, as they aid the thought process in finding the most viable solution. Often the discussion tend toward the hypothetical, as an exercise in the evaluation process.

Audio #2
The audio can be found at 151025-OMD-AB_meeting.mp3

October 25, 2015

(RP) Response Matrix is not completed

Area 51 – Sheehan property has been taken. Valuation is pending. Impractical project.

OMD Sign Off – Discussion of a closing for any correspondence. tabled.

Discussion of Tim Foley’s flag rally. Other miscellaneous discussion, including Lewis Arthur (VOP); Unity in the patriot community.

Previous discussion on “Raven” yielded no results. Finished.

Brief discussion of McVeigh and government war tactics.

(GH) Webpage – information provided, though page not up.

Discussion of use of names in public presentation of officers of OMD-AB, what effect? Initial consideration of Jon Ritzheimer in fifth seat of five seats. Voted in favor of use of names with titles, however when to publish names carried to next meeting. Dennis Dickinson (informant) will just be shown as “Dennis”.

Agreed that Degree of Involvement will be published on website, only 1 through 4.

All members will do background checks, including existing members. The failure of this system is that Dennis Dickinson (informant) was approved based upon background check.

Any fundraising will be held off until BTFA (Bear True Faith and Allegiance) is operational and in a capacity to raise and distribute funds to OMD. OMD will not raise funds under OMD.

Reports on various in progress preparation, by function.

Note how Dennis Dickinson (informant) was the audio put up ASAP. Apparently, FBI wants immediate access to information.

Pages 12-14 of 91 pages

OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #2 (151018)

OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #2 (151018)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 3, 2018

These audios are being released because the government misrepresented, by cookie-cutting phrases, and presenting out of context statements in their documentation. The documents are “Governments Sentencing Memorandum” (docket 2519) and “Review of OMD Advisory Board Meeting Recordings” (docket 2519-1), which are for the sentencing hearing on Ryan Payne, who plead in the Malheur Refuge case.

It must be understood that what OMD AB was doing was gathering information to present an accurate account of circumstances surrounding an event of possible interest to the patriot community.  We have all seen people asking for help from patriots. Some have merit, some don’t. However, most often, you have only the explanation given by the person asking for help. As we progress through these audios, you will see that people have requested help, but an investigation resulted in finding misrepresentation of certain facts.

As with any brainstorming session, all possibilities, even to the extreme, should be considered, as they aid the thought process in finding the most viable solution. Often the discussion tend toward the hypothetical, as an exercise in the evaluation process.

Audio #2
The audio can be found at 151018-OMD-AB_meeting.mp3

Note: This audio is a good representation of how we operated, how much detail, based upon through research, that is involved in the decision process.

First conversation was about Patricia Aiken to assist with PR and to handle fundraising. Ryan mentions BTFA (Bear True Faith and Allegiance) which would be a separate organization that was more public and was a civil authority — like Committees of Safety.

Ryan mentions his delayed road trip. LaVoy Finicum was on the itinerary, and the only one specifically mentioned.

Then a briefing  on the Hammonds, very early reference as the discussions on the Hammonds progressed. He thought Dwight and Steven were brothers. I had done my research and had the correct dates and Terrorism Act reference. Other background on Hammonds.

Patricia jumped in with her comment.

Then we discussed Patricia’s presentation on crowd funding. As she continues her presentation, the downside; this is one of the reasons for BTFA.

Then some background discussion on the entire Hammond story about the fire, the trial and the appeal. Then we discuss, very briefly, if the Hammonds want to resist arrest. Ryan goes back to his discussion with Dwight. I do offer a solution. Dennis Dickinson (FBI informant) participated in the discussion. He is the one that asked about other members of the family. Tin Foley was the one with the IRS obligation.

. Continue reading ‘OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #2 (151018)’ »

John Lamb’s Theft of Another Person’s Video

John Lamb’s Theft of Another Person’s Video

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1, 2018

John Lamb filed in a Montana Court seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief (all documents will be referred in this document, by pdf page number), pgs.  1-3. It appears that he is doing his own legal work since he really, in his filing, “screwed the pooch”.

On pg. 4, he lists “Redoubt News, aka Shari Dovale” and “Guerilla media [sic] Networks [sic], SBN News, aka Pete Santilli”:

1)  In seeking Injunctive relief, “including, but not limited to, from uploading, editing, distorting or monetizing plaintiffs copyrighted exclusive interview on or about 2/10/2018″

2)  In his brief in support of application, “took without rights, videos that Plaintiff holds copyright to, uploaded Plaintiffs exclusive interview to their own YouTube, and Facebook channels, with edited, and distorted version of Plaintiffs copyrighted video as their own”.

3)  Then he requests the Court to order restrain them, “from using or attempting to use my videos on YouTube or Facebook until further order of this court”.

So, we can see that the Plaintiff (John Lamb) has assume ownership of something that he never owned, he simply gave consent to Redoubt News to video the interview, and expressed no limitations at the time of the interview when that consent a given.  There has never been such a claim, nor is such a statement made in the filing.

Also, in his complaint, in the Brief in Support of Application, he states:

a.  Defendant’s on-going continued violations of my copyrighted infringement, will cause irreparable harm and damage to the Plaintiff.

b.  Plaintiff believes that unless immediately enjoined, Defendants will continue to attempt to upload Plaintiffs copyrighted video as their own on YouTube and Facebook.

So, he does not indicate what “irreparable harm and damage” he will suffer.  However, in “1”, above, he has stated that he was concerned that the Defendants would be “monetizing”.  That is the only suggestive statement as to “harm or damage“.  However, his public statements suggest that Randy Weaver did not want the interview monetized.  That element is absent from the Complaint, but is, apparently, an exclusive right of the Plaintiff, absent any statement to the contrary.

And, finally, he requests, “[t]hat a hearing be scheduled on Plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction”.  Absent proper Service to the defendants, that would imply an “ex parte” hearing.  The Court would have no means of notifying the Defendants.

I suppose, however, that he wants the hearing to be held without the Defendants present or represented, or he expects the Court to find addresses for them as he has provided nothing more than names, without even a state in which the could be found

You can tell that he has put as much thought into this as he has, through third parties on the Internet, a gross deficiency and a plethora of contradictory statements.

To top that off, he didn’t need the restraining order, right away, as he also attached proof (pgs 5-6) that had granted, under DMCA (see page 10) a 14 business day prohibition against Dovale, Santilli, et al, from posting the controversial video that he claims to be his own.

However, another exhibit (pg 7), from “YouTube Copyright”, it refers to (fair warning) “Section512(f) of the DMCA (see page 10).  This Section:

“Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under [17 U.S.C. § 512] that material or activity is infringing … shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer…who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing….”

Well, it subjects John to penalties, should he not be able to prove that he owns Redoubt’s video, or, that conditions of use were imposed upon Redoubt’s video.  This may cost Lamb a few buck more than his filing fees.

Two days after Lamb filed that above with the Court, the Judge ruled, in his Order Denying Temporary Restraining Order” (pgs 8-9).

The Judge cites Montana Code Annotated, 27-19-315.

When restraining order may be granted without notice.  A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or the party’s attorney only if:

(1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that a delay would cause immediate and irreparable injury to the applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attorney could be heard in opposition; and

(2) the applicant or the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, that have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the applicant’s claim that notice should not be required.

Well since Lamb had already demonstrated that Facebook and YouTube had removed the “copyrighted video”, one was obviously not an urgent matter, which discounts
“(1)”.  And, since he had not proved service, “(2)” was not satisfied.  So, the Judge concluded:

[T]he allegations included in the Application do not provide sufficiently specific facts to support a determination that a delay in granting the relief requested would cause immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiff before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.  Therefore, the Court will require Plaintiff to serve Defendants with the Application for Injunctive Relief Including Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Rule 4, M.R.Civ.P and allow Defendants an opportunity to respond prior to setting a hearing on the request for preliminary injunction.

Since Lamb presumed that he could satisfy the requirements of Facebook and YouTube by simply filing, he has nothing to show for it.  In fact, in an effort to circumvent justice (fairness), he has delayed his injunctive relief and set the stage for a hearing.  That hearing will be quite interesting, since he does not own what he has tried to claim copyright to.

John then filed Two Certificates of Service, one to Dovale and one to Santilli (Pgs 11-14), using the address of Lambs Construction, 1627 W. Main Street Suite 101, Bozeman.  They were executed on February 21, 2018 and filed with the Court at 4:04 PM; however, the first Post Office recognition of them was on February 22 at 11:32 PM.  This makes one wonder if John lied on the Certificates of Service or the Post Office took over a day to register Certified Mail.

However, there is greater significance to this whole thing that John, perhaps overlooked.  And, it may cost him dearly.  That is the Digital Media Copyright Act (DMCA), codified at 17 US Code § 512(f), as explained above, which provides that:

“Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under [17 U.S.C. § 512] that material or activity is infringingshall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer…who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing….”

So, that is where we stand, at this writing.  As the next steps occur, the will reported in a subsequent article.

OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #1 (151011)

OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #1 (151011)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 27, 2018

These audios being released because the government misrepresented, by cookie-cutting phrases, presenting out of context statements in their documentation. The documents are “Governments Sentencing Memorandum” (docket 2519) and “Review of OMD Advisory Board Meeting Recordings” (docket 2519-1), which are for the sentencing hearing on Ryan Payne, who plead in the Malheur Refuge case.

It must be understood that what OMD AB was doing was gathering information to present an accurate account of circumstances surrounding an event of possible interest to the patriot community.  We have all seen people asking for help from patriots. Some have merit, some don’t. However, most often, you have only the explanation given by the person asking for help. As we progress through these audios, you will see that people have requested help, but an investigation resulted in finding misrepresentation of certain facts.
As with any brainstorming session, all possibilities, even to the extreme, should be considered, as they aid the thought process in finding the most viable solution. Often the discussion tend toward the hypothetical, as an exercise in the evaluation process.

Audio #1

I have not yet receive permission to release the audios. However, if am preparing to release then, one at a time. The audio can be found at OMD AB Audio #1

The first audio referenced in the 91 page document has a length of 1:23:47, however, the official OMD recording has a length 1:22:46. This indicates the possibility that Dennis Dickenson was recording independent of the official OMD recordings that were placed in Dropbox for the five-member Advisory Board.

This raises a question that I have brought up, before. If a person is on the payroll of the government, is he exempt from providing Miranda warnings?

The voice that is the expert on Word is Dennis Dickenson (DD). Keep in mind that he is the paid informant.. That is me talking with him and giving the report on Jon Ritzheimer (GH). Ryan Payne (RP) was the opening voice. Tim Foley (TF) is the other occasional voice.

The conversation discussing refugees is based upon an earlier conversation between Ryan and I. I will not publically address that discussion, only that what you heard on this audio is the l least offensive of the proposals of interrogation of the refugees. By law, what is considered to be profiling does not allow the government to do what we were discussing. The plan was never carried out, only discussed.

DD wants to know where RP is and what he is doing. He also wants to know who is participating with RP. Jon Ritzheimer is not on the AB, at this time.

You can tell that we have become concerned with security by requesting applications. We are discussing Tier 2, which is specific purpose subordinate positions. They would not have access to AB discussion, though they would be webmaster, research, public relations, etc. Any other participation would only be voluntary, based upon a call out.

RP is doing a road trip. It was not sanctioned as an OMD activity. Only any recruiting is sanctioned. There was no intention to limit the activities of members in unsanctioned activities. This is exactly why the OMD did not know of the Refuge takeover, it was never discussed and as never sanction. It was RP’s choice to proceed, totally independent of OMD.

As is apparent, RP’s participation was very limited, as he was traveling and in and out with cell reception.

. Continue reading ‘OMD Audio Recording Series – Audio #1 (151011)’ »

We the People v. the FBI #1

We the People v. the FBI #1

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 21, 2018

Introduction: Shawna is a good friend. Ryan was a source of information for me during the Bundy Affair, back in 2014. I have also had experience with Common Law Courts, back in the nineties, one in Florida and other in Ohio. However, there will be evidence, I am told, that will be of interest. So, this series will be following the proceedings in the Common Law Grand Jury so that all may see what argument will be presented on behalf of We the People. Let me be clear, that I do not support all that will be said in this series.

Today We: Shawna Cox and ryan-c: family of Bundy have made the decision to withdraw our complaint against those individuals who are responsible for the death of our friend LaVoy Finicum, for our attempted murder of ourselves, Victoria Sharp, Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne (an honorable veteran).

We have no doubt that with all the evidence we have that we would be more than likely to prevail in a court of law with an honest jury. But due to our experiences in the past two years we believe that the Federal Government will try to get us to settle to some substantial amount of money to keep the truth away from the public.

We asked ourselves: how does that further our message of the need to restore the Constitution for the united States of America?

Due to our experiences we also have NO Faith in the Federal Justice System.  Yes, a jury did properly find that we were not guilty of the crimes that the government wrongfully accused us of in the Harney County case, even though there were hundreds of witnesses who were not allowed to testify in our behalf.  The Constitution was not allowed to be mentioned or even brought into the courtroom.  God was not allowed to be talked about or our religious beliefs expressed (explaining our intent).  The Truth was never allowed to be brought forth, it was all a game of smoke and mirrors with a bunch of lying Attorneys making deals in the back rooms daily.

The Courts were not open to the public denying of our Constitutional right to a Public Trial, as no one, including the media, was allowed to record or video tape the trials.  We wanted an open public trial.  We wanted the Truth to come out.  We want the world to know what really happened.

. Continue reading ‘We the People v. the FBI #1’ »

Flags and Flowers

Flags and Flowers
Honor Veterans Every Day, Not just on a Holiday

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 18, 2018

When I called Preston Sharp, he answered the phone. I heard the voice of a very young person. However, as the conversation ensued, I heard words of commitment, well beyond the age of the person on the other end of the line.

When I met Duane Ehmer in Red Bluff, California, he handed me the business card of Preston C. Sharp. He had gotten the card when he visited Preston at a cemetery where Sharp was busy planting flags and artificial flowers (Red Carnations) on the graves of military veterans.

Duane, a veteran himself, knew that I was a Vietnam Veteran, and felt that I would be interested in this story. That has become an understatement, as I interviewed with Sharp.
When Preston, now 12 years old, started setting Flags and Flowers on graves back in 2015, he made a commitment that he has held to since then. But, more about that, later.

On Veterans Day, 2015, he went to his grandfather’s grave. His grandfather had been in the Navy. He thought that there would be flags on the graves, but there weren’t. He was frustrated that they were not being properly honored on such a day. So, he decided that he wanted to get funding so that they would be honored for their service.

When he returned home, he set up a GoFundMe account in which he raised $100.00 on the first day. With that and subsequent funding, he placed over 40,000 flags and flowers on Veteran’s graves.

To place flags and flowers, he can spend two or more hours in a cemetery. If the headstone is dirty, he cleans it. He then says aloud the veteran’s name and a “Thank you for your service”.
He was conducting visits every Sunday, from Redding, California, where he lives, to Sacramento. However, he has now branched out into other states; his goal is to eventually get to every state in the union. To his credit, he has placed flags and flowers in California, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and Florida. A commendable start with 10% of the states. This includes 30 to 35 cemeteries. Often, local people in his target location assist him with his work. This work includes replacing torn flags or replacing flowers.

He told me, when asked how long he would continue doing “flags and flowers”, his answer, without hesitation, was, ” ’til I can’t bend down anymore.”

However, his commitment to veterans does not stop with flags and flowers. Preston had occasion to visit with Tim Whiting, 71, a Vietnam Veteran from Oregon who because of deteriorating health, moved to a Redding facility. Tim had to leave his friend, a dog named Rusty, with friends in Oregon. However, the four-hour trip could only rarely be made.

Preston, instead of asking for a laptop for Christmas, chose to adopt Rusty and bring him to Redding, thus allowing Tim to spend time with Rusty, whenever he wanted to. When asked why he did that to help Tim, he answered, “I would do anything to make a veteran happy.”

As I told Preston, and the end of the interview, HE is what we were fighting for when we joined the service of our country. He is what America used to be about, and, hopefully, will return to being what it is about.

At present, because of the distances he must travel, he can only travel when funds are available. His webpage,, has a link to donate to this very worthy cause.
If you believe in America, as it should be, and you want to help this wonderful example of patriotism, please help by donating to help him reach the other 45 states, and, with such help, perhaps all of the veteran’s cemeteries in the country.

So, with tears in my eyes, I say, “Preston Sharp Thank You for Your Service.”

The Bundy Affair #25 – Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court

The Bundy Affair #25
Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 2, 2018

Recent events in Las Vegas have led to a completely new perspective on the misdeeds of government.  Failure to provide timely Discovery, especially that of an exculpatory evidence (proving innocence or to impeach witness testimony).

As Judge Gloria Navarro pointed out in the seven known violations, six of them were deemed “willful”, where the seventh could possibly be inadvertent.  However, in the closed session that followed the declaration of a Mistrial, there may have been as many as 20 more violations of either Brady or Giglio.  Those cases establish precedence with regard to the timely disclosure of evidence to the Defense.

Before we proceed, perhaps reviews of the timeline of primary events in this case are necessary:

  1. The events that are addressed in the Indictment occurred in the first half of April 2014.
  2. The initial Indictment was February 3, 2016.
  3. The Superseding Indictment was issued March 2, 2016.
  4. The current trial, now on hold pending a decision with regard to Mistrial or Dismissal, began in late November 2017.

The Government’s Response to recent motions by Ryan Payne, suggesting Dismissal, and Ryan Bundy, demanding Dismissal, begins as follows:

“As with any large case, this multi-agency, multi-defendant, multi-trial case has presented significant discovery challenges: hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings, and thousands of emails, to name a few, balanced against factors such as witness security and disclosure procedures acceptable to the Court.  This complexity notwithstanding, and ever mindful of its Constitutional, statutory, Department, and Court-ordered discovery obligations, the government has always strived to meet these challenges with diligence, fairness, and efficiency.

First, let’s put a little perspective on timing.  It was 23 months from the event (1) that led to the Superseding Indictment (3).  It was another 14 months to the commencement of the trial (4).  That is 37 months, or, 3 years and 1 month.  However, they had the initial Indictment (2) and then modified it to the Superseding Indictment (3), in a month.  You would think that in those 23 months, they would have reviewed the records that they had to assure that they were truthful in what the presented to the Grand Jury, for both the initial Indictment and the Superseding Indictment.

And, most assuredly, they would not have accused the Bundy supporters of lying to the public about calling people to come to the Ranch because the government had snipers and posed a threat to the Bundys, knowing full well that they did have snipers and an FBI SWAT team in place, three days before Ryan Payne arrived at the Ranch.

The continued to lie, through the first two trial and into the current trial, claiming that there were no snipers however, the conspired to “wash” some documents of record by having a more senior FBI Special Agent, who is also the FBI agent that is assisting the US Attorney in the current trial.  See The Bundy Affair #24 – FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence.

Next, let’s consider the government’s explanation that no harm was done by not providing the information required by both law and the Rules of the Court.  From the last paragraph, page 7/55

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #25 – Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court’ »

Burns Chronicles No 62 – Jon Ritzheimer, Facebook, and Justice

Burns Chronicles No 62

Jon Ritzheimer, Facebook, and Justice

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 1, 2018

Jon Ritzheimer was scheduled to report to prison on February 16, 2018 to serve his year and a day, less time served and good time off.  That would probably amount to about 8 months.  He had time to prepare things for his family, to make their life easier while he was in prison.  He also had work to do to make sure that he got on the ballot in his run to replace the retiring representative, Trent Franks.  Jon’s goal was to be fully prepared to go to prison in February

However, a single event and a Facebook post have undermined his planned preparations.  Though he had been abiding by all of the rules imposed on him, a simple trip within the same county of where he was approved to go has undermined all of his efforts and goodness.

Once again, Facebook was the downfall of a good man.  There is no doubt that his Facebook page is monitored, and once the monitors saw the picture (above), they probably gleefully contacted Judge Anna Brown and reported that Jon was, finally, in violation of his release conditions.

Judge Brown then sent the following chastisement and order to the respective attorneys.  I have not spoken to Payne about this, though you will see that he has lost a major part of his freedom, as well.  Considering the restrictions imposed on their freedoms, it would seem that they should get credit for time served, or at worst, half credit for time served, as a consequence of this absolute denial of freedom of movement and communication, and consequences for violation thereof.

I have received and reviewed the messages from Ms. Hay and Ms. Wood.  Thank you for your prompt responses.

Although I do not intend to issue warrants based on the information discussed in our correspondence today, I am concerned that Defendants have taken advantage of this Court’s release accommodations in their favor.  So that this Court’s release conditions are perfectly clear going forward, I intend to take the action outlined below.  If any of you wish to be heard as to these decisions, please notify Mr. Rifer, and a hearing will be scheduled early next week.  In the meantime, please notify your clients that, in addition to all existing conditions, they are now subject to the following:

With respect to Mr. Payne, I agreed that he could be released from custody on the Oregon hold only in order to be able to confer meaningfully with his co-defendants and their counsel in the ongoing preparation of their mutual defense in Nevada.  I certainly did not intend to authorize his travel more than 80 miles from the Las Vegas Courthouse to the Bundy Ranch for social purposes.  Please inform Mr. Payne that, effective immediately and for purposes of his temporary release from custody on the Oregon case, the following specific conditions apply:

1. When his approved travel to Montana concludes, he is to return directly to the approved residence in Las Vegas where he will be on   “home detention” — meaning, he is to remain at that residence unless he   is going directly to or from court (including any pretrial office); the   offices of any defense counsel; or church, medical, or treatment   services.  He is not to return to the Bundy Ranch or to engage in social   activities with his co-defendants.

2. If it is determined by Chief Judge Navarro that the Nevada case against Mr. Payne will be dismissed with prejudice, Mr. Payne is to   surrender immediately to the U.S. Marshal in Nevada so that a hearing   can be conducted within 48 hours of that decision to determine whether   he will be detained or released pending his sentencing in Oregon.

3. If it is determined by Chief Judge Navarro that the Nevada proceedings against Mr. Payne will continue, he may remain on release   from the Oregon hold subject to all previous conditions and the “home   detention” described in Paragraph 1, above.

With respect to Mr. Ritzheimer, I have seen some of his email and text correspondence to his Arizona release officer regarding the request to travel to an “Airbnb” in Las Vegas for his wedding anniversary.  In a text, Mr. Ritzheimer wrote:  “I will not be going to the Trial or Federal Courthouse to see the Bundy’s [sic] if that’s what you’re thinking.  Just wanna to [sic] make that clear.  This is a trip for me and my wife’s anniversary.”  It’s clear to me Mr. Ritzheimer was not authorized to travel to the Bundy Ranch.  Nor was he authorized to make Facebook posts about the Bundy Ranch visit.  Rather than deal with his equivocating explanation in the context of a warrant and hearing to determine whether he violated release conditions, however, I’ve concluded the more reasonable course is to advance his surrender date for his prison sentence to next Friday, 1/5/18.  To implement that decision, I’ll enter an order early next week modifying the surrender date and directing him to surrender to the U.S. Marshal in Phoenix by Noon on 1/5/18.  Even if a BOP facility has not been designated by then, he will get credit for voluntarily surrendering to the U.S. Marshal as ordered.

Ms. Hay and Ms. Wood, please do the necessary to ensure your clients are aware of the particulars of this message.  Appropriate orders will enter early next week.  In the meantime, it will be a violation of the Oregon release conditions for your clients if they again travel to the Bundy Ranch.

This led to the consequences addressed above, and, ultimately, to Jon having to make major changes to his well-laid plans to be prepared to turn himself in on February 16, 2018.

In Jon’s own words:          Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 62 – Jon Ritzheimer, Facebook, and Justice’ »

The Bundy Affair #24 – FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence

The Bundy Affair #24
FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 21, 2017

In identifying the Misdeeds of Government, it requires a diligent search of available information.  However, often that research produces some interesting results.  That is the situation with this article, since it begins with events surrounding the arrest of Dave Bundy (The Bundy Affair – #12 – Dave Bundy’s Two Citations), on April 6, 2014, and ends with the declaration of Mistrial on Decembers 20, 2017.  However, in that span of time, over three and a half years, the following events played out.

Dave Bundy was pulled over on Nevada State Highway 170, a road that goes from Interstate 15, near the road to the Bundy Ranch, to Bunkerville.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had attempted to close the highway.

Dave got into a dispute with the BLM and was arrested and charged with two citations (explained in the linked article above).  It is this arrest that begins this series of events.  First, we have, from the National Park Service “DIRECTOR’S ORDER #9: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM”, which, on page 2, explains when and where arrests may be made.

Wait, he was on a state road, not on federal land, and was fleeing from nothing.  Oh, well, let’s move on — but not very far.

Just above this event, there were other BLM agents.  They were photographed on a ridge overlooking the arrest of Dave Bundy.

On the next day, April 7, 2014, both David Russell and Mark Brunk submitted emails to record their participation at the arrest of Dave Bundy.  Interestingly, Larry Wooten (The Bundy Affair #23 – Larry Wooten – Ethical Government Employee, and Rare) received this information.  Wooten, who had been investigating the records was dismissed when he point out irregularities in BLM procedures.

The emails of both Brunk and Russell:















Note that Brunk makes a point of never pointing his shotgun at anybody.  He knows the rules, which we will get into.  Both stated Ryan Bundy, however it was, as I understand, when Dave Bundy was arrested.  However, Russell is a different story.  Russell had Brunk’s AR15, “in case the situation escalated.”  Then, and here is where it gets interesting, he “used optics”, not binoculars like Brunk, to aid him in “seeing what was happening in the van.”

Now, that word, “optics”, is explained in another document.  In the BLM and NPS (National Park Service) Operational Component Plan, dated March 26, 2014, for the Operation “Gold Butte Cattle Impound”, we find, on page 9, the following:

Now, Dave (or Ryan) was not armed and posed no threat.  There was no reason to even consider the use of deadly force.  He admits that he was using the optics to see what was happening in the van.  Clearly a violation of the Operational Component Plan.

But, wait, we are not through, yet.  On April 14, 2014, in an FD 302 (an FBI form used to report contact or interview information), filed by Michael D. Pratt based upon an in person interview, we find that Brunk explained what had occurred on April 6:

Well, Brunk was acting as spotter/observer for a BLM sniper (David Russell).  But, wait, that does not sound so good, so the Prosecution said, that will not work.  Could you revise that so that it does not make us look like we broke the rules and did something illegal?  However, the “Clarifying information” was reported on January 30, 2015.

Yes, they wanted “clarifying information from Brunk” as to what he said to Pratt, in the previous FD 302.  This, on an FD 302 eight months after the fact, and prior to the Indictment.  Interestingly, this second FD 302 wasn’t by Pratt, it was by Joel P. Willis, who was Special Agent in Charge during the Gold Butte Impound event and was also Lead Case Agent for the FBI during the trial.

Note that now, by a different hand, Brunk never acted as a spotter/observer, as he had stated in the previous FD 302 and consistent with what the “sniper”, David Russell said in his email of April 7, 2014.

Now, look, again, who was present when the change in “facts” occurred?  First, we have Myhre, then Dan Schiess and Nadia Ahmed.  This is the prosecution team that had been hiding exculpatory information from the defendants.  And, from these exhibits, it appears that they may have encouraged Brunk to perjure himself to make their case even stronger.  Or, should I say, make the case against the government weaker?

With recent revelations coming out of the Courtroom of Judge Navarro, we find that the government was withholding exculpatory evidence.  What has not come out, until now, is that there was an effort to falsify evidence, as well.  A crime that would get you or me thrown into prison, but will probably be no more than a slap on the wrist of US Attorney for the District of Nevada, Steven Myhre, and his two underlings, Dan Schiess and Nadia Ahmed.

Now, you have a true picture of inquisitorial justice, in America, today.  Conviction, no matter what it takes.


The Bundy Affair #23 – Larry Wooten – Ethical Government Employee, and Rare

[Note: This article had been posted and was available on the main page. Then, it disappeared. I don’t know if it was a glitch in WordPress, or not. However, it is being posed, again, so that it shows on the main page. opf]

The Bundy Affair #23
Larry Wooten – Ethical Government Employee, and Rare
His expose on BLM

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 15, 2017

Now, I have to start with a disclaimer. I do so since the last time I received unsolicited information, I ended up spending 7 days in jail and the Court (Judge Anna Brown) didn’t believe me in my sworn testimony, but she did believe a conversation I had with Schuyler Barbeau, in an effort to cheer him up, while he was still in jail.

I received in the mail, with no return address, an 18 page email that I had heard about. However, the details in what I had heard were minimal, at best. But, having the whole 18 pages, I find that the initial, or original email was only 17 pages.

In an undated email from Larry Wooten to Andrew D. Goldsmith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, National Criminal Discovery Coordinator, Wooten writes of many misdeeds in the entire Gold Butte Impound Operation, that being the operation that unfolded near Bunkerville, Nevada, back in early April 2014.

In a cover email, the eighteenth page, to Steven Myhre, United States Attorney for the Nevada District, in a forwarded email, the 17 page emails is included for a total of 18 pages. Wooten explains in the cover email that his superiors, his chain of command, would not deal with what he had presented to them. I’m not quite sure why he sent it to Myhre, since Myhre is implicated in the information, along with any others.

As I read the email, I realized that this was going to be a rather lengthy article. There were, Wooten’s own words, “Law Enforcement Supervisory Misconduct and Associated Cover-ups as well as Potential Unethical Actions, Malfeasance and Misfeasance by United States Attorney’s Office”, that I decided that I could only cover the more significant ones, and then provide the entire email for those that wanted to know more.

That being said, let’s get on with the truth of the matter, and, yes, I assume that the information provided is probably quite truthful, based upon other available information and practices.

On page 2, we find this rather concise statement by Wooten:

In February of 2017, it became clear to me that keeping quite became an unofficial condition of my future employment with the BLM, future awards, promotions, and a good future job reference.

This is followed by the first real indication of impropriety o the part of the BLM:

The longer the investigation went on, the more extremely unprofessional, familiar, racy, vulgar and bias filled actions, open comments, and inappropriate electronic communications I was made aware of, or I personally witnessed. In my opinion, these issues would likely undermine the investigation, cast considerable doubt on the professionalism of our agency and be possibly used to claim investigator bias/unprofessionalism and to impeach and undermine key witness credibility.

On page 4, we can see the arrogance of the BLM “public servants”, their display of ridiculing those on the other side of the fence. that Wooten refuses to use the word without replacing letters to, perhaps, make them pass some government filter.


Many times  these open unprofessional and disrespectful comments and name calling (often by law enforcement supervisors who are potential witnesses and investigative team supervisors) reminded me of middle school. At any given time, you could hear subjects of this investigation openly referred to as “ret*rds,” “r*d-necks,” “Overweight woman with the big jowls,” “d*uche bags,” “tractor-face,” “idiots,” “in-br*d,” etc., etc., etc.’ Also, it was common to receive or have electronic communications reported to me during the course of the investigation in which senior investigators and law enforcement supervisors (some are potential witnesses and investigative team members) specifically made fun of suspects and referenced “Cliven Bundy felony. . . .just kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?.” di1dos,” western themed g@y bars, odors of sweat, playing chess with menstru*ting women. Cliven Bundy sh1tting on cold stainless steel, personal lubricant and Ryan Bundy holding a giant penls (on April 12 2014). Extremely bias and degrading fliers were-also openly displayed and passed around the office, a booking photo of Cliven Bundy was (and is) inappropriately, openly, prominently and proudly displayed in the office of a potential trial witnesses and my supervisor and an altered and degrading suspect photos were put in an office presentation by my supervisor’ Additionally, this investigation also indicated that former BLM SAC Dan Love sent photographs of his own feces and his girl-fiend’s vagina to coworkers and supervisors. It was also reported by another BLM SAC that former BLM SAC Dan Love told him that there is no way he gets more pu$$y than him. Furthermore, I became aware of potentially captured comments in which our own law enforcement officers allegedly bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground, and Dave Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face (from April 6, 2014). On two occasions, I also overheard a BLM SAC tell a BLM ASAC that another/other BLM employee(s) and potential trial witnesses didn’t properly turn in the required discovery material (likely exculpatory evidence). My supervisor even instigated the unprofessional monitoring of jail calls between defendants and their wives, without prosecutor or.FBI consent, for the apparent purpose of making fun of post arrest telephone calls…

Yes, that is your taxpayer dollars hard at work.

Then, on page 5, we get this rather interesting tidbit:

Additional Note: In this timeframe, a key witness deactivated his body camera. Further Note: It became clear to me a serious public and professional image problem had developed within the BLM Office of Law Enforcement and-Security. I felt I needed to work to correct this and mitigate the damage it no doubt had already done.

Further down, on the same page, we find an indication of the desire of SAC Dan Love for his place in history.

The investigation also indicated that on multiple occasions, former BLM Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) Love specifically and purposely ignored U.S. Attorney’s office and BLM civilian management direction and intent as well as Nevada State Official recommendations in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale, and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible. Additionally, this investigation also indicated excessive use of force, civil rights and policy violations. The investigation indicated that there was little doubt there was an improper cover-up in virtually every matter that a particular BLM SAC participated in, or oversaw and that the BLM SAC was immune from discipline and the consequences of his actions

On page 6, we start to see some of the effort to cover-up some of the doings of SAC Love’s abusive nature being covered by his superiors including the FBI and the US Attorney’s office.

I personally informed Acting United States Attorney Steven Myhre and Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Nadia Ahmed, as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Joel Willis by telephone of these issues. When I did, my supervisor in my opinion deceptively acted ignorant and surprised. As the case continued, it became clear to me that once again, my supervisor failed to inform the U.S. Attorney’s Office Prosecution Team about exculpatory  key witness statements. Note: During this investigation, my supervisor would also deceptively indicate to the Prosecution Team that no one else was in the room when he was on speakerphone. Thereby, allowing potential trial witnesses and his friends to inappropriately hear the contents of the discussion.

My supervisor even took photographs in the secure command post area of the Las Vegas FBI Headquarters and even after he was told that no photographs were allowed, he recklessly emailed out photographs of the “Arrest Tracking fall” in which Eric Parker and Cliven Bundy had “X’s” through their face and body (indicating prejudice and bias). Thereby, making this electronic communication subject to Federal Records Protections, the Litigation Hold, Discovery, and the FOIA.

Next, on pages 7 and 8, we have Myhre becoming upset because Wooten has disclosed some of what he has run across that is unethical, as well as some interesting disclosures regarding Dan Love and his contempt for life of people..

I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct, failure to correct and report, and cover-ups by BLM OLES supervision. My supervisor told me that AUSA Steven Myhre “furiously demanded”, that I be removed from the case and mentioned something about us (the BLM, specifically my supervisor) not turning over (or disclosing) discovery related material issues I had with the BLM not following its own enabling statute, and a personal issue they thought I had with former BLM SAC Dan Love. Note: Prior to taking the assignment as Bundy/Gold Butte Investigation Case Agent/Lead investigator for the BLM/DOI, I didn’t know and had never spoken to former BLM SAC Dan Love. I was new to the agency and I was also specifically directed to lead an unbiased, professional , and independent investigation, which I tried to do, despite supervisory misconduct. Time after time, I was told of former BLM SAC Love’s misconduct. I was told by BLM Law Enforcement Supervisors that he had a “Kill Book’, as a trophy and in essence bragged about getting three individuals in Utah to commit  suicide (see Operation Cerberus Action out of Blanding, Utah and the death of Dr. Redd), the “Failure Rock,” Directing Subordinates to Erase Official Government files in  order to impede the efforts of rival civilian BLM employees in preparation for the “Burning Man” Special Event, unlawfully removing evidence, bragging about the number of OIG and internal investigations on him and indicating that he is untouchable, encouraging subordinates not to cooperate with internal and OIG investigations, his harassment of female Native American subordinate employee where Mr. Love allegedly had a doll that he referred to by the employees name and called her his drunk little Indian, etc., etc., etc.

Myhre is already implicated, but it gets worse, as we see on pages 8 and 9:

Additionally, AUSA Steven Myhre adopted a few troubling policies in reference to this case. When we became aware that Dave Bundy’s seized iPad likely contained remarks from BLM Law Enforcement Officers that is potentially evidence of civil rights violations and excessive use of force, Mr. Myhre and my supervisor not only apparently failed [to] initiate the appropriate follow-on actions, Mr. Myhre apparently failed to notify the Defense Counsel and also decided not to return the iPad back to Dave Bundy, even though the iPad wasn’t going to be searched pursuant to a search warrant or used as evidence in trial and Dave Bundy claimed he needed the iPad for his business. Mr. Myhre also adopted a policy of not giving a jury the option or ability to convict on lesser offenses and instead relied on a hard to prove, complicated prosecution theory in order to achieve maximum punishments (which has generally failed to this point). Also, the government relied on factually incorrect talking points and on (or about) February 15, 2017, misrepresented the case facts about government snipers during trial. Note: The investigation indicated that there was at least one school trained Federal Sniper equipped with a scoped/magnified optic bolt action precision rifle, another Federal Officers equipped with a scoped/magnified optic large frame(308 caliber) AR style rifle, and many officers that used magnified optics with long range graduated reticles (out to 1,000 meters-approximately 500 meters on issued rifles depending on environmental conditions) on standard law enforcement issued AR (223 caliber/5.56 mm) and that often officers were in “over watch” positions. Additionally, the investigation also indicated the possibility that the FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had law enforcement snipers/designated-marksmen on hand for possible deployment.

Then, on pages 9 and 10, he plead for the various government participants to act in an ethical manner.

I ask that your office ensure that Acting United States Attorney Steven Myhre and the rest of the Cliven Bundy/Gold Butte Nevada Prosecution and investigative Team is conducting the prosecution in an ethical, appropriate, and professional matter. I also specifically ask that your office provide oversight to Mr. Myhre and his team regarding the affirmative responsibility to seek out evidence favorable to the accused, not to discourage the reporting of case issues and suspected misconduct, to report/act on suspected civil rights violations and not to retaliate against an agent that does his required duty. I also ask that your office ensure that the Prosecution Team is free of bias and-has ethically and correctly turned over exculpatory evidence to the Defense. I ask that as appropriate, prosecution team bias (by Mr. Myhre and possibly by AUSA Daniel Schiess) and factually incorrect talking points (by AUSA Nadia Ahmed and Mr. Myhre) be disclosed and corrected. Note: Mr. Myhre previously referred to the defendants as a cult and Mr. Schiess said let’s get these “shall we say Deplorables.”

Next, on page 10, we find Steven Myhre deeply involved in misconduct and trying desperately to rid himself of Wooten and the potential for disclosure of the misdeeds of the prosecution team.

I believe this case closely mirrors the circumstances of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens trial. As you may notice from the trials and several defense cross-examinations, very little of the impeachment and exculpatory issues were brought up by the defense. I believe this is most likely because the defense counsel was unethically not made aware of them and the severe issues were covered up. Additionally, I believe I can easily show that both my supervision and possibly Mr. Myhre entered into an unethical agreement to remove me from being the lead investigator and case agent for the BLM/DOI due to my objection to and disclosure of outrageous misconduct, the belief that my testimony under oath would embarrass supervisory law enforcement officials in our agency and negatively  affect the prosecution, my insistence that my supervisor stop his individual misconduct, correct the misconduct of other employees and report the misconduct as appropriate (for counseling, correction, discipline and the possible required internal investigations) and my belief’ that my agency is violating the letter and intent of the law.

In regard to Prosecution team misconduct, I believe some of it may be attributable to simple mistakes and simple poor judgment. However, I believe it is unlikely (if my supervisor’s statements to me are true) that Mr. Myhre wasn’t himself acting unethically and inappropriately. Prior to the last few weeks of the investigation, I held Mr. Myhre in the highest of regards. He is an extremely hard worker and very intelligent. However I feel that his judgment is likely clouded by extreme personal and religious bias and a desire to win the case at all costs. I feel he is likely willing to ignore and fail to report exculpatory material. extreme bias and act unethically and possibly deceptively to win.

On page 12, we gain some insight into the effect of standing up for the right things, and how others reacted to their role in the game.

Additionally, it should be noted that I was also personally subjected to Whistle blowing Discouragement, Retaliation, and Intimidation. Threatening and questionable behaviors included the following: Invasion of Privacy, Search and Seizure, Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying, Blacklisting, Religious “tests,” and Rude and Condescending Language. Simply put, I believe I was expected to keep quiet as a condition of my continued employment, any future promotions, future awards, or a favorable recommendation to another employer.

During the course of the investigation, I determined that any disagreement with the BLM SAC, or any reporting of his many likely embarrassing. unethical/unprofessional actions and misconduct was thought to be career destroying. Time and time again, I came to believe that the BLM SAC’s subordinates and peers were afraid to correct him or properly report his misconduct (despite a duty to act) out of fear for their own jobs and reputation.

Sometimes, I felt these issues were reported to me by senior BLM OLES management and line Rangers/Agents/employees because they personally didn’t like a particular BLM SAC (although, some of these same people seemed to flatter, buddy up to, openly like, and protect the BLM SAC

On page 15, Wooten explains what  he had to rely upon to write this report, with a Note:

Note: This entire document was constructed without the aid of my original notes due to their seizure by a BLM Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge outside of my presence and without my knowledge or permission, Additionally, I was aggressively questioned regarding the belief that I may have audio recorded BLM OLES management regarding their answers concerning this and other issues. All dates, times, and quotes are approximate and made to the best of my ability and memory. I’m sure there are more noteworthy items that I can’t recall at the time I constructed this document. Also Note: The other likely report worthy items were seized from me on February 18, 2017, and are believed to be in the possession of a BLM ASAC. I recommend these items be safeguarded and reviewed.

Now, I have only reported on some of the highlights of the expose’ provided by Larry Wooten. This, of itself, is not conclusive, as there is a process that has to be put into play.  However,  there can be little doubt that if only some of these allegations are true, then some lives, those of some government employees, are going to be negatively affected, while those Defendants that have been denied justice as a consequence of these unlawful activities, are going to finally be vindicated for their actions back in April, 2014.

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #23 – Larry Wooten – Ethical Government Employee, and Rare’ »